Skip to main content

View Diary: Will M..E. Peace => internal values crisis in Am. Jewish community? (299 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So easy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Arken, thebluecrayon, volleyboy1

    The present situation in Israel seems to be very similar to that in the US (before Obama) in terms of an extreme right wing reactionary conservative fundamentalist regime asserting an irrational, absolutist, totally uncompromising position over any given issue.

    Yes, understanding the Israeli/Palestinian confict is so-o-o easy. All you have to do is call one of the sides "extreme," "right wing," "reactionary," "conservative," "fundamentalist," "irrational," "absolutist," "totally uncompromising," -- and then wipe the flecks of foam off your chin.

    harps and angels! harps and angels!

    by zemblan on Wed May 13, 2009 at 12:37:58 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  LOL! Who's foaming?? Psycho reversal, much? n/t (0+ / 0-)


      "...a printing press is worth 10,000 rifles..." Ho Chi Minh

      by Radical def on Wed May 13, 2009 at 01:05:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And so ends the "Radical Def" episode (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thebluecrayon, volleyboy1

        of "I Know You Are But What Am I."

        Tune in tomorrow, when Captain False Dichotomy will declare:

        It seems clear that the more progressive left elements in both of those societies have been very substantially suppressed, leaving only the most intransigent conservative right wing fundamentalist hard-liners butting heads with the "other side".

        Because there's really only "the more progressive left elements" and "the most intransigent conservative right wing fundamentalist hard-liners" in Israel.

        harps and angels! harps and angels!

        by zemblan on Wed May 13, 2009 at 01:26:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well Zembian, you do yourself discredit (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Terra Mystica

          Instead of explaining why I'm wrong, on any of the many given points of my post, you descend into hyperbole and adhominem dismissal.

          Everything is relative, including terms like "liberal' and "conservative".

          The only absolute in politics is that there are no absolutes.

          But there are discernible tendencies, more or less, and I would hardly call the present regime in Israel, or Hamas, either, "progressive" or "liberal".

          While the US cannot control everything, absolutely, in the world, "we" have done our damnedest to manipulate as much as "we" can, wherever "we" can, to considerable effect.

          Perhaps the most interesting, and annoying thing about politics is when people like the "Libertarian" Republicans, for example, assert "oh, I'm VERY liberal, on many issues, but..."  LOL!

          It's OK for them to be gay pot heads, for example, but they will still defend to the death their "right" to be a social darwinist swine, and to rabidly oppose any conceivable form of "collectivism" in the public interest.

          Anyone who choses (or disingenuously tries) to ignore the implications of US anti-communism in foreign (and domestic) policy is a complete fool, or a lying, posturing trickster.

          If this wasn't an issue, the Republicans would not be trying to brand the Democrats as "socialists", lol.

          And we would not have Blue Dogs constantly, viciously even, red-baiting anyone they think is "too" liberal.


          "...a printing press is worth 10,000 rifles..." Ho Chi Minh

          by Radical def on Wed May 13, 2009 at 01:40:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So do you mean by "collectivism" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            As "Forced cooperation" a la Cuba, China or other such progressive paradises. And when you say "Blue Dog" do you mean what I mean when I say it as "Conservative Dems. that are really moderate Republicans" or do mean those of us who support the Rahm, Schumer, Boxer wing of the party?

            •  Hmmm (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Terra Mystica, Radical def

              I believe the quotes are supposed to indicate that the term is both a misnomer and misapplied when used by "libertarians".

              •  I could have read it wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                but then my question is what does Radical mean here? The term "collectivism" is still floating out there. What specifically does he mean?

                •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                  That's a question that only radical can supply the answer to.

                  •  oops...I posted to volleyboy's initial question (0+ / 0-)

                    rather than further down the thread here, thus putting my response out of context...sorry about that.

                    Anyway, one thing I forgot to include...

                    If you look at "Libertarian" propaganda, they use the term "collectivism" a lot.

                    It's basically interchangeable with what most conservatives call "socialism", pretty much.

                    The notion of actual real democracy, in other words, where the resources are allocated according to the public interest, rather than by the chaos of unbridled criminal, anti-social, capitalist greed.

                    "...a printing press is worth 10,000 rifles..." Ho Chi Minh

                    by Radical def on Wed May 13, 2009 at 03:12:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sorry at work so it is hard to respond (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Terra Mystica, Radical def

                      although I read your response to me before. Thanks for that. I agree with some of your ideas but, would like to discuss further at a time when I can think coherently (as I cannot do a work - although somehow I am good at my job - go figure). The question and determinant is - Who defines the Public good? Anyway - thanks for taking the time to go through this - I look forward to discussing it with you soon (hopefully later tonight).

                    •  Yes (3+ / 0-)

                      I think your discription of the misuse of the term collectivism by so-called libertarians is spot on. Essentially they classify anything beyond the police functions of government as collectivism/socialism/communism. It would be pathetic if it were'nt so destructive.

                      •  Yeah...pretty "radical", heh (0+ / 0-)

                        An insidious tendency, really, because much of their rationale is kinda easy to fall for...they do often have some seemingly fairly "liberal" (ie: permissive, actually) social perspectives, on the surface, and some valid critique of the problems with beaurocracy, overly centralized government, etc...

                        But then they go completely off the deep end, extrapolating that insanely...and the deeper you get into their perspective, the crazier it gets.  

                        And they do get a lot of traction with their constant rabid assertions of anti-communism/anti-socialism, which does tend to appeal to a lot of people who don't have a clue.

                        Most offensive of all, though, is the very prevalent, very strong social darwinist perspective, that anyone who can't "compete" successfully should eat shit and die, because they are just a drag on society.  Their whole criteria for "success" is personal individual profit, over and above anything else, and totally against any notion of a broader "collective" public interest.  

                        Ultra-individualism, and elitism, as a supposed root American value.  

                        It's very annoying to have them calling themselves "anarchists", to an old school anarcho-communist like myself, heh, and to see naive, or disingenuous elements accept that definition of anarchy, which is, after all, a communist tendency, which actually calls for democracy, now, instead of elite rule of Any stripe, even for an "interim" period of "Socialism".


                        "...a printing press is worth 10,000 rifles..." Ho Chi Minh

                        by Radical def on Wed May 13, 2009 at 05:01:24 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  A deep subject, heh... (0+ / 0-)

              "Libertarians" in particular, use the term "collectivism" to refer to virtually any kind of social policy that might restrict their "freedom" to be a social darwinist pig.  They like to extrapolate anything to the left of right, in terms of economic policy, especially, as "Communist".

              Just for clarification, I am communist, with a small c, in that I believe in democracy, and that the public interest should take precedence over private profit..NOT the capital c "Communism" of a centralized elite party.

              That said, I think the "forced cooperation" of the "socialist" nations that is really objected to the most, and is really at the root of the rabid fear and hatred for them by US industrialists and their bourgeois commercial mass media propaganda machine, is that they seek to rebuff the imperialist, colonialist designs of US capitalism.

              They demand that their own national resources, and any "profit" from their development, should go toward schools, hospitals, housing, roads, and other infrastructure to benefit their entire nation, rather than be creamed off the top and taken away by foreign corporations, for the mere price of a few well placed bribes to a few local right wing reactionary conservative warlord gangsters, to keep the population thoroughly under control, and to murder anyone who stands up to demand democracy, labor rights, civil rights, human rights, environmental protection, etc, etc., as "damn commies".

              When a nation does successfully stand up and assert control over the worst excesses of capitalism, both foreign and domestic, they find themselves encircled, embargoed, and attacked from all sides, including from those within their own nation who can expect to lose their own positions of unjust profit and privilege under the new regime.

              Just like here, and now, with the Republicans calling the Democrats "socialists" (even as they themselves ruthlessly loot the treasury and cripple the economy), calling for personal and institutional violence against their political opponents, and "revolutionary" (counter-revolutionary) civil war.

              But in nations like Russia, China, or Cuba, the conditions were much more severe, in many regards, and the threats and difficulties they faced were much more dangerous.

              Without seeking to apologize for or dismiss what do appear to be some egregious errors and excesses in those countries, I don't think we get an accurate picture of what life has really been like there, from the commercial mass media, either, heh.  How much do You trust their accounts, of anything?

              I think their fatal error was in taking the route of elitism, and a vanguard party, and not trusting the masses to be "ready, yet" for democracy.  I think that elitism only naturally leads to corruption, abuse, and injustice.

              But, that said, I also think those who scream the loudest about "injustice" in those countries most often are the former pig elites, lol, who indeed, lost everything, and will never forgive that, along with those in the US who are so deathly afraid that such a change of priorities, to put the public interest over and above private profit, might actually take hold and prevail here.

              I would just say that with what little modern infrastructure any of those nations had being pretty much destroyed by years of war and civil war, and being forced by military encirclement and threats of invasion into a defensive military posture, for their very survival, including domestic martial law, to fend off 5th column traitors in their own society, which tended to be well funded and armed by the CIA, while their nation was cut off and strangled economically by international embargo and boycott, they certainly did not have the best conditions for optimal social and economic development in those countries, including democracy.

              To point to the negative results of such externally imposed conditions, and say "see, their system does not work!" is pretty self-serving and disingenuous, to say the least, I think.

              And yes, I would be inclined to say that conservative "Democrats" are an oxymoron, or just morons, lol, and that they should, indeed, go back to the Republicans, where they belong.

              We'll see what the people of this great nation think, in 2010 and 2012.

              "...a printing press is worth 10,000 rifles..." Ho Chi Minh

              by Radical def on Wed May 13, 2009 at 02:37:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, folks (0+ / 0-)

            It really is the same guy who said both

            Instead of explaining why I'm wrong, on any of the many given points of my post, you descend into hyperbole and adhominem dismissal.


            LOL! Who's foaming?? Psycho reversal, much? n/t

            Pardon me for failing to be much impressed.

            harps and angels! harps and angels!

            by zemblan on Thu May 14, 2009 at 08:08:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site