other libertarian socialists:

howard zinn, george orwell, bertrand russell and emma goodman. im sure there are many others. but these are popular folks whose writings can be accessed online

Zinn believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories, and the People’s History’s contention that 99% of Americans have exactly the same interests is embarrassing. And what I’ve read of Russell and Goldman wasn’t very impressive… Russell, for instance, repeatedly falls into an elitist trap in which he dismisses ordinary people, i.e. everyone but himself and his clique, as hopelessly benighted.

Orwell is a must-read, but that’s because he rises above ideological predictability. Even he has blind spots, but most of his observations about politics (not so much economics, or language except for its relationship with politics) are priceless, exactly because he attacks every fanatic.

On another note, what radical activists routinely fail to get is that regardless of what they say they’ll do when they’re out of power, they’ll be dictators when in power. Early libertarians promised that capitalism would bring freedom to all, and created the Gilded Age. Communists promised the withering away of the state and delivered Leninism and Maoism. Nazis and fascists out of power sounded something like socialists. Pre-independence Zionists proclaimed that the state of the oppressed Jews would never oppress anyone else. Islamists everywhere promise freedom from tyranny, and deliver only more tyranny in every country they gain power in. More recently, Hugo Chávez promised democratization, and delivered rule by decree and crackdown on opposition media.

In countries with democratic systems, pretty much the only way to achieve real change is to work to reform the system; the only communist government in the world that has been successful, Kerala’s, both was democratically elected and governs at the state level, where the federal government can prevent it from abusing power. In countries that aren’t democratic, you have to start by having a democracy in place, and then follow the rule for non-democracies.

doesnt that comment belong under “On ‘Ad Hominem”‘and argument quality”? because none of that was a critique on libertarian socialism, which im certainly open to.

anyway, whats the evidence for the Zinn comments? I have never heard or read him say that 9/11 was a governmental conspiracy. I have A Peoples History and he never said that 99% of the Americans have the same interests.

ok, lets say that russell falls occassionally fell into an “elitist trap.” I wont even bother examining the details of whatever your basing that on, but what does that have to do with his political views?

all i have said is that our problem is structural, not due to its size; and the best way to go about altering that structure is through popular movements where the population has more of a democratic control of not just their government, but their economy too.

also, i absolutely agree with you on how movements can be/have been subverted by leaders intoxicated with power. thats precisely why libertarian socialism seeks to broaden those who are empowered. go back to the chomsky quote.  the essence of that was there when he said: “not exercised by some elite force acting in the name of the proletariat.”

Alon - 08 August 2007 12:07 PM

More recently, Hugo Chávez promised democratization, and delivered rule by decree and crackdown on opposition media.

A) his rule by decree was approved by the public.

b) his decrees have to adhere to the limitations of the constitution (a new one that gave more democratic rights_

c) the courts, parliament and the public can overturn the decrees

d) chavez has not cracked down on opposition media. in fact, most of the media is anti-chavez. he has not renewed the license of one tv station. a station that actively participated in an illegal coup de tat.

also, media licenses are much longer in Venezuela than the US, and our government, too, has the right to deny licenses on certain grounds. the TV station in question remained on the air for 5 years after the failed coup. for a thought experiment, ask yourself what the US government would have done if CNN actively participated in a failed coup. Would Bush, Clinton, JFK or George Washington wait 5 years till its license expired or would it close them down and jail them for treason?

Chavez has promised more democracy and in many ways the people have gotten it. That is precisely why he has such massive support, survived a coup and referendum. Many communities through out the country are setting up community councils so the locals can have a say in managing their own affairs. Thousands of people are getting access to free healthcare and education that simply did not exist before.

These dictator cries are nonsense.

Venezuela’s Enabling Law Could Also Enable the Opposition
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-02/06wilpert.cfm

Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=12962

RCTV and Freedom of Speech in Venezuela
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=12986

As an update on Constitutional Convention matters(the subject of this thread), the South Carolina legislature in late January passed a bill calling for a National Constitutional Convention to deal with the illegal immigration issue. See links below for more info:

http://www.americanamendment.com
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/6984

I believe that if the Constitution is rewritten a great many freedoms we have or could have would be gone.  It is a can of worms that should not be opened.  I foresee written in to it a provision that would serious limit the rights of a free press and freedom of religious [removed]not allowing gays to marry).  The biggest issue is that most voters don’t vote in elections that affect them the most.  That being local elections.

Just for clarification, the SC legislature is calling for a convention to draft an amendment to the Constitution, not re-write the entire document.  Whatever they are planning on doing, the focus will undubtedly be pretty narrow in scope relating to immigrants, legal and illegal.  They will never succeed, the Constitution requires a 2/3s majority to even call a convention and a 3/4s majority to pass said amendment.  Good luck getting 75% of the states to agree on anything significant regarding immigration.