liberation for all

White Liberals actually need black people to remain as the underclass, so when they pass their policies that promise to liberate all of us… please check who it is actually liberating. Malcolm X told us that white liberals are just as bad as the white conservative and even worse because they will pretend to be black people’s friend. 

anonymous asked:

So I take it you're not very libertarian. But how would you qualify your communism? Are you like hardcore authoritarian or a moderate on the social scale? Also how would you imagine a realistic transition from capitalism to communism? Do you have a more reformist or revolutionary vision? Personally I would prefer that pie-in-the-sky Sandersnista shtick of "political revolution" (Bernie was def my choice in the US election) but at this point I fear we may be in for something a bit more bloody..

“Libertarian” as in right libertarian? No.

I believe in personal liberty, freedom from state suppression, and liberation of all oppressed peoples. The difference between right libertarians and me is that I acknowledge capitalism actively fights against these values in order to maintain control.

I’m a revolutionary socialist, so I do believe in revolution rather than change through reform under capitalism. Socialism cannot peacefully be achieved when the ruling class is in power. The question important to all socialists is how to achieve a successful revolution, where we have most disagreements. Some socialists believe the state must be seized from the ruling class and used in a transitional phase from capitalism to socialism, some believe revolution should be achieved through industrial unionism, some are against the state being involved in any way. I personally believe, looking at the power the state has over revolutionaries (such as the military), the state must be seized in order to successfully transition without outside interference, like so many socialist revolutions have been crushed by.

In my opinion, approach to revolution depends entirely on the situation at hand, but it should ALWAYS take into account how it affects other countries. One reason I don’t believe in ‘fully automated luxury communism’ in the first world, that 'luxury’ exists at the expense of those exploited by corporations. Also, expecting everyone in the world to have the same strategies available for revolution is ignorant. So I’m not for revolution if it doesn’t continue to suppress the lives of others because they’re in different circumstances.

Hope that clears things up.

  • working class people: we're angry that police murder our neighbors with impunity, we're angry that we exist in an economic system that forces us to live paycheck-to-paycheck, and we're angry that our voices are always ignored or suppressed. as long as this system remains intact, people will continue to feel alienated and stressed and depressed. things like this are worth getting angry about.
  • some white liberal: *wearing an indigenous american warbonnet over dreadlocked hair* you receive back only that which you radiate =) no one can oppress you without your consent =) anger is unhealthy and only upsets the natural balance of the universe =) namaste =) all lives matter =)
  • The right wing: We want less taxation! We want more privatization!
  • The govt: Say no more, i got you
  • Society: *More trash on the streets bc no more waste disposal funding, schools and hospitals shut down bc no more funding, massive traffic bc public transport has no more funding, poverty soars bc social welfare and security has no more funding, etc*
  • The right wing: What the fuck is the govt doing? Where is all of our tax money going to? This is why the govt is bad, and why stateless capitalism is totally the way to go.
  • The right wing, again: You know what'll solve our issues? Privatizing more things and less taxes.
  • The govt: Say no more, i got you.
  • Society: *fuckin dies*

This is Dλke March Chicago’s statement on what happened and I need to break this down, because my rage over this anti-Semitic dumpster fire of an event cannot be contained:

  1. “Sadly, our celebration of dyke, queer, and trans solidarity was partially overshadowed by our decision to ask three individuals carrying Israeli flags superimposed on rainbow flags to leave the rally.” The flags in question were not “Israeli flags super-imposed on rainbow flags.” They were Rainbow flags with Magen David on them. That is not the same. At all. Either these people are incredibly uneducated about basic symbology, and therefore have no business running an event like this, or they knew these were not Israeli flags per se, but felt uncomfortable with public Jewishness. 
  2. This decision was made after they repeatedly expressed support for Zionism during conversations with Chicago Dyke March Collective members.” Given that the flags were not Israeli flags, this second sentence can only imply that the organisers saw participants who were being openly, visibly Jewish and then immediately took it upon themselves to go up and quiz them about their beliefs on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to make sure that they were “the right kind of Jews,” before determining whether or not they could stay. Because they were not carrying Israeli flags, and were not commenting about the conflict, the only way they could “express repeated support for Zionism during [their] conversations” was if they were confronted about their politics on the grounds of merely being Jewish and asked to pass a loyalty test. Moreover, in the account from Ellie, the Persian Jewish woman whose statement I posted earlier, there was absolutely no discussion where she “proclaimed Zionist leanings.” In fact, she maintained that she was not in the least attempting to make a statement on Israel and was only there as a proud Queer Jew of Colour—yet they ejected her anyway because her Jewishness was “triggering.”
  3. We have since learned that at least one of these individuals is a regional director for A Wider Bridge, an organization with connections to the Israeli state.” So, again, they were totally unaware of her affiliation at the time of questioning. There was no indication that she worked with this organisation at the time. They are openly admitting this. They didn’t know this particular woman’s politics until they saw her Magen David and grilled her on her beliefs.
  4. “A Wider Bridge has been protested for provocative actions at other LGBTQ events and has been condemned by numerous organizations.” The labelling of this incident as a “provocation” is staggeringly insidious, as Jews have been accused of being evil provocateurs with ulterior motives for literally centuries. The implication is that Jews are evil puppet masters attempting to infiltrate and derail gentile communities, and the accusation has frequently been weaponised to either incite or excuse anti-Jewish violence. This has been true throughout the world over, from Germany to Iraq to Ethiopia, and now Chicago. It is a coded message branding Jews as perfidious and untrustworthy. “You can’t believe anything they say about what happened because they are known liars who will deceive you for their own gain in every way possible. Do not trust any Jew who has not submitted to you and proven themselves beyond any reasonable doubt.” 
  5. “The Chicago Dyke March Collective is explicitly not anti-Semitic.” Did you read your own statement, or…?
  6. “The Chicago Dyke March Collective supports the liberation of Palestine and all oppressed peoples everywhere.” *Except the Jews.
What Is Liberalism?

Oftentimes in leftist circles you can hear folks decrying liberals and liberalism. If you ask them why they hate liberalism, most of them will point you in the direction of Mao’s Combat Liberalism to better understand them, but this is a mistake. Combat Liberalism is effectively an internal memo, warning other communists of the need to avoid liberalism lest it be detrimental to their work. It details results of that ideology, but not causes. To that end, I’ve compiled a brief description of what liberalism is and why it’s bad.

The ideology of liberalism is denoted by three tenets:

  1. Free-market capitalism. Liberals believe that capitalism is good, or at least “the best we have”. While liberals may argue over how much intervention in the market is necessary, they all agree on the fundamental goodness of capitalism, and that it should be tweaked rather than replaced.
  2. The state and representative “democracy”. Liberals believe that the state is good, and that representative democracy is an effective means of creating social change and an acceptable level of participation. They reject any aims outside of the state, and try to co-opt movements towards state action (e.g. electing Democrats).
    1. Nonviolence: The liberal insistence on “nonviolent” protest (usually invoking a whitewashed history of Dr. King) is largely derived from state-worship. They see the state as the only legitimate user of force, and all others as violent looters and rioters; because of that, they refuse to even consider violence as a method of protest or direct action (e.g. antifascism).
    2. Indirect action and representative problem-solving: Linked to the lionization of representative democracy, liberals care little for direct action, even as indirect as blocking a street for a few hours. They believe that the power to change things is vested solely in those representatives, and that the common person shouldn’t bother; direct action, to them, is illegitimate for the same reason as violence.
  3. A focus on individual rather than class politics. Liberals see all social issues as issues primarily affecting individuals, rather than groups. In other words, they lack a class analysis; they see racism, for example, as the result of individual prejudices and “meanness” and something to be fixed at that level, rather than a system of structural violence against non-white peoples aimed at dividing the working class.

 Liberalism, as an ideology, is dangerous. These three tenets combine to form an analysis that is insufficient to encompass the whole of the enemy, and more importantly a praxis that is ineffective at combating it. It infects activists and ordinary workers alike, and railroads them into believing that they cannot change a society that benefits only those at the top. It railroads them into believing that the burdens they bear cannot be thrown off, and stands in the way of our collective liberation. It must be combated, for it is at the root of the struggle.

Not fake news. Just the facts.
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN AMERICAN


Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.


He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.


Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.


Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union.


If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.


It’s noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.


Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.


Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.


Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”

anonymous asked:

What part of the US constitution allows Bernie Sander's programs? Why should we have a single payer system when the VA is a single payer system and lets down our veterans?

This is the age-old argument about the limits of the Constitution.Does the Constitution grant power to government or grant rights to people? 

In this case, I would argue that it does not matter, In the preamble of the constitution it reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (x)

We establish this Constitution to promote the general Welfare, it is explicit in the text. People may argue what general Welfare means. to better understand the framing of those words at the time, let’s look at Dictionary of the English language by Samuel Johnson (1768). To place some context of timing, The constitution was written in 1787 and would be ratified by 1788 and would be put into effect by 1789, making this the dictionary closest in time-period to the Constitution.

General: the whole, in totality

Welfare: happiness, prosperity

At the time the Constitution was written, those words would have been perceived to mean to promote happiness and prosperity of the whole of the People of the United States of America. 

Do those two things not promote the prosperity of the whole, if they are given to all equally?


On the VA, Republicans have consistently cut funding to Veterans programs, including the VA.

So it seems disingenuous to call into question why the VA is failing while there is a history of lack of support. It is also interesting how you do not bring up the largest single payer healthcare system in the US, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services(CMS).

This is likely because it is difficult to find a compelling argument for your side here:

It seems to me that a single payer system is still superior, especially since the Kaiser Family foundation concluded:
  • In most local markets, providers have monopoly power. Consequently, private insurers lack the bargaining power to contain prices.
  • In most areas, two or three dominant insurers dominate the regional market, limit competition and make it extremely difficult if not impossible for new insurers to enter the marketplace and stimulate price competition.
  • Medicare Advantage, which enrolls seniors in private health plans, has failed to deliver care more efficiently than traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Both the CBO and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), the commission which advises congress on Medicare’s finances, have calculated that Medicare Advantage plans covering the same care as traditional Medicare cost 12 percent more
  • Karen Ignagni, who heads America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the insurance industry’s trade association, has admitted that private plans cannot bargain down provider costs and has asked Washington to intervene.

Even private insurers are looking for the government to step in and help them on their pricing, why not just cut the profit centers out of the deal and save that money?

- @theliberaltony

The new Young American Tracking Poll (YATP) is a first-of-its-kind quarterly survey and report that focuses on the opinions and behaviors of Americans between the ages 13 and 25 on topics in politics, policy, and civic engagement.

From its annual surveying of young Americans conducted since 2013, DoSomething.org and TMI Strategy launched the YATP in order to elevate the voices of young people in discussions of national policies and priorities. The poll brings attention to the distinct ways young millennials and Gen Z participate in their civic communities, which often contrast from beliefs and actions found in the general adult population in America.

Most often, young people are defined as 18–29 and so thinly sampled that additional segmentation within the group is impossible. And for the voices of those under 18? Nothing.

Specifically, the YATP provides an alternative to the standard approaches taken by traditional polling towards young people. Most often, young people are defined as 18–29 and so thinly sampled that additional segmentation within the group is impossible. This approach mutes the nuances of youth experience and opinions. The circumstances of someone in her late teens are very different than someone in her late twenties. And even with more narrow age-bracketing, there are major differences between urban and rural youth, male and female, and so on.

And for the voices of those under 18? Nothing. Most national polls omit 13- to 18-year-olds entirely from sampling, thereby silencing millions of young people who disproportionately rely on and are impacted by policy decisions.

Summary of Key Findings

The YATP finds that young Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of Donald Trump and his policies. For all areas where a direct comparison is possible, youth disapproval of Trump exceeds that of the general population. Specifically, American youth disproportionately disagree with Trump’s actions regarding immigration and border security.

In the months since the election, young people significantly increased their participation in organized protests, their use of technology to take and promote positions on social issues, and their use of social networks to organize others to take action.

This strong disapproval of Trump corresponds with a perceptible increase in civic participation from young Americans. In the months since the election, young people significantly increased their participation in organized protests, their use of technology to take and promote positions on social issues, and their use of social networks to organize others to take action.

Self-identified young “liberals” — one third of all young people — are driving the increase in civic participation almost entirely. This group has been two to three times more likely to take action than self-identified “moderate” or “conservative” peers since the November election.

Additionally, across a broad set of issues and policy areas, America’s young people are increasingly taking sides. On nearly every issue/policy asked about in the YATP, the percent of young people with no opinion decreased following the election.

The biggest gains in agreement went almost exclusively towards traditionally liberal positions. On topics ranging from climate change, to immigration reform, to the legalization of marijuana, a new consensus is forming among young Americans.

On topics ranging from climate change, to immigration reform, to the legalization of marijuana, a new consensus is forming among young Americans.

On several issues and policy areas, young liberals diverge from young moderates and young conservatives. The Women’s March in Washington, D.C. and identification with feminism are resoundingly unpopular with young moderates and young conservatives but are popular with young liberals. On issues of religion and security, young moderates and young conservatives are noticeably more skeptical of refugees and concerned by terrorism than are their young liberal peers.

In this report, we’ll take a deep dive into:

Keep reading