Why do I dislike the Greens? Why did I say they stink?
Well, they do stink, in my opinion.
It’s all there in the posts, but let me review the hightlights.
Funny that you allude to ancient history in your own work, but wonder about this bit of the recent past.
Why is the history of the Soviet Union important? Please recall, my political activity started formally around 1980, and “the Russian Question” loomed large. It was an active political question, not just hoary old bit of history. When we would do paper sales, you inevitably heard “Go back to Russia!”
The October Revolution marked the first attempt at building socialism. But it was done in an state that lacked the industrial base that is a precondition for building socialism and communism. The isolated workers state made herculean efforts to build that economy, and with it, won the Great Patriotic War.
The proletariat made gains, but they have been lost since the “collapse of Communism.” None of this is well-understood, even now.
A related issue is the failure of the German Revolution, for which the Social Democrats must be blamed. To defeat the nascent KPD, they accepted the army’s offer of the Freikorps to suppress the rebellious workers.
But at least our social-democrats do have some sort of understanding of the nature of finance capital. They may not necessarily be drawing what I would think to be the correct conclusions, but they’re almost on the same page.
Petty-bourgeois moralists, our Greens do not have class-conscious politics. They are the epitome of well-meaning “pwogwessives” who have drunk the kool-aid of identity politics. After splitting you into ID-based “affinity groups,” whose members of course have a monopoly on speaking for or even about their sub-group, they will bog you down in “consensus” and “process.”
My wife is active in the local Sandersista partkom, I’ll tag along to the events occasionally. The chair of the group, a former 15 year member, described the Greens as the biggest, most useless talking shop in the United States. They are apparently badly divided between pro- and anti-electoralists and have poisonous relations amongst the various chapters.
But good forbid trying to start a labor or workers’ group. They’re backwards sell-out, you know. Just ‘cuz they need to feed their kids….
“Consensus” is particularly pernicious. In a democratically centralized revolutionary party, you take a clear vote, depending upon the rules for the type of question and forum, and the resolution is clear. With “consensus,” you get the least common denominator, the default position after endless posturing. It takes too long and produces poor decisions, IMHO.
I was mixing it with these types back in the 80’s & 90’s, so my attitude towards them is born of long experience. So what do these attacks accomplish? I hope that it weakens a movement that I think will only re-arrange the deck chairs, not produce real social revolution.
I number of those authors are on my shelves. I read Camus and Sartre in my teens and twenties, met my first collage girlfriend in a class on Vonnegut as a philosopher, saw several good Chekhov productions. “The Cherry Orchard” is I think my favorite. I read Nietzsche and Ortega y Gassett to get the conservative side direct. I love Nietzsche, not so much his views as his attitude, the Dionysian exuberance.
I think “Breakfast of Champions” was Vonnegut’s best. I can see why he wanted to abandon his characters, but his subsequent work was not up to his earlier novels.
I never liked Dostoevsky, I always had the sense of being beaten about with the knout. “Socialism bad!” Whack, whack! “Christianity good!” Whack, whack, whack! Though his bit on the Grand Inquisitor is brilliant.
Turgenev was always my favorite of the Russian classics. Then Tolstoy, “Anna Karenina” and the short stories, especially.
I never read Melville, but I did see “Moby Dick” with Baseheart and Peck as a child, it blew me away. From my personal life, I know the allure of retribution and the dangers of being caught up in the hunt.
But apart from “The Communist Manifesto” (which I read at 17 out of curiosity and found myself convinced by, but wondering, “Well then, what about the Soviets?”) the most formative work on my youth was “Aqualung” by Jethro Tull. It fixed me in my atheism and my alienation from polite, respectable society, which I found shallow, false and hypocritical.
When it comes to ideas, I have trouble with humility; my four favorite words are “I told you so.” I think any number of commentators here might have that same weakness.
But I have no shortage of compassion, I think. While I doubt his divinity, I do think the carpenter from Nazareth had it on the ball ethically. “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.” Compassion to your group, no biggie. Compassion for “the other” (I hate those pomo buzzwords, but…), like the Good Samaritan had, is another matter.
When I encounter the homeless, for example, I never judge them, I part willingly my change. Is it for your fix, or for food? Doesn’t matter. “You need it more than I do,” I’ll say, and think, “Ere but for….”
I hold my views firmly and fight hard for them. But hopefully not without nuance and flexibility. We’re all at risk for going over to the “Dark Side,” it’s the human condition.
I hope this addresses the question you raised, but not is not “TMI.” That’s another failing; no one’s perfect.

Posted by: rufus magister | Jul 17 2016 13:41 utc | 203

Donbass: July 2016 is like the worst days of the summer of 2014; Kiev blitzkrieg expected

Every day, the representatives of the Republics of Donbass record heavy artillery being brought up to the border from Ukraine, which is forbidden by the Minsk Accords.
At the NATO summit in Warsaw violations of the ceasefire by both sides were noted, but NATO had to admit the Ukrainian responsibility.
On July 6, Grigory Karasin, deputy Russian Foreign Minister, met with the ambassadors of France and Germany in Russia, and expressed concern about the situation in the Donbass because of Ukraine’s dangerous actions.
Ukraine has concentrated almost all the available units of its military equipment at the demarcation line with the Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in addition to the troops, even “Grad” rocket launchers, which were originally near Chernobyl. It is a radioactive mechanism, and therefore dangerous to health of the crew.
According to representatives of the DNR, all this would be done in order to implement a “blitzkrieg:” the defeat of the Donbass Republics in a quick battle.
Therefore, Russia would be forced to protect the people of Donbass by any means, including military means. But so far diplomatic means are still going on. On 13 July, President Putin held telephone talks with Angela Merkel and François Hollande, and once again expressed deep concern about Ukraine’s heavy bombing on the Donbass.

Russia continues to warn NATO of what’s in store if they do not rein in their neo-NAZI troupe in Kiev. NATO continues to ignore the warning.
Will NATO be able to sell Russian ‘aggression’ after Russia crushes the Ukrainian Wehrmacht’s Blitzkrieg? Apparently they think so. And then what … exactly? Or will the people who live in Europe and North America finally stand up on their hind legs – as they did in the Brexit referendum – and just say no.

Posted by: jfl | Jul 18 2016 1:52 utc | 205

in re 205-206
See my 171 & 177 above. If Kiev restarts the war, they will likely lose it. I think the deployments are more to get the militias out of the new government’s hair. The ongoing hostilities allow Kiev to blame Novorossiya for its own willful refusal to implement Minsk.
Perhaps I’m wrong. But I don’t see Kiev as being quite that foolish. “Glory to the heroes….”

Posted by: rufus magister | Jul 18 2016 11:46 utc | 207

Once again propagandaattack against Russia/Putin, once again the sports boss accuse and say russian ministry is behind the doping and therefore the Russian team is banned from the olympics,
https://www.rt.com/sport/351861-wada-report-sochi-olympics/

Posted by: Golan | Jul 18 2016 13:55 utc | 209

The author of The Art of the Deal now regrets it all. ‘I Put Lipstick On A Pig’ says Tony Schwartz. This short account at Crooks & Liars provides a few highlights.

“I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.” He went on, “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”

The complete article at The New Yorker provides substantial detail on The Donald’s assorted weaknesses and limitations. They’re huuuuge!

For research, he planned to interview Trump on a series of Saturday mornings…. But the discussion was soon hobbled by what Schwartz regards as one of Trump’s most essential characteristics: “He has no attention span.”
….He regards Trump’s inability to concentrate as alarming in a Presidential candidate. “If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it’s impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time,” he said….
“One of the most deep and basic needs he has is to prove that ‘I’m richer than you'” As for the idea that making deals is a form of poetry, Schwartz says, “He was incapable of saying something like that — it wouldn’t even be in his vocabulary.” He saw Trump as driven not by a pure love of dealmaking but by an insatiable hunger for “money, praise, and celebrity.”

The most poignant angle to me was Schwartz’s awareness that he was selling out. He was an up-and-coming magazine writer, but with a wife, child, another on the way, and a large mortgage. As contracted, he created an appealing, almost poetic figure, from a tawdry collection of failed casinos, unacknowledged inheritance, compulsive lying, and a purely instrumental view of other human beings.

“Lying is second nature to him,” Schwartz said. “More than anyone else I have ever met, Trump has the ability to convince himself that whatever he is saying at any given moment is true, or sort of true, or at least ought to be true.”

Trouble with ghostwriters continues for Team Trump. It’s the wife’s scribes causing problems mow. Seems some of the things Mrs. Trump III had to say were a little close to a well-known speech in 2008. You’ll find some other, more typical bits of denial and misdirection by Manafort and other surrogates.
But I am quite taken with the Garden State’s own Gov. Chris “Krispy Kreme” Christy. Hey, only seven percent was plagiarized! What’s the problem?
Was that your standard as US Attorney, then? Oh, only seven percen perjured, he’s good.
It’s a little unclear how much Mrs. D**khead wrote herself, vs. how much the heavy lifting the help did. Early reports suggested she had written it, but later accounts shifted the blame to poor notekeeping by the help. See this from ABC News.

Trump told NBC News’ Matt Lauer before the speech that she wrote it with as “little help as possible.” But after allegations of plagiarism emerged, Donald Trump’s campaign released a statement that painted a somewhat different picture, and unlike Manafort, it did not categorically deny the possibility that she had borrowed some ideas.
“In writing her beautiful speech, Melania’s team of writers took notes on her life’s inspirations and in some instances included fragments that reflected her own thinking,” the statement said.

NBC highlighted the difficulty the matter posed.

The Trump campaign, already on shaky ground headed into this week’s convention, struggled to find a response Tuesday to charges that Melania Trump’s prime-time speech lifted passages from Michelle Obama’s 2008 convention speech.

She coulda writ it herself. She’s smart, ‘cuz she did a semester or two of college back in Slovenia, and was not just some bimbo The Donald picked up for her looks. Which is why her bio credits her with completing her degree.
WaPo says his reliance on — how shall we put it? – an improvisational approach to politics has now caught up with him. WP styles it “Say stuff and figure it out.” Cf. to “blow stuff up and figure it out.”
I can see why The D**khead is so popular with our “anti-zionist” contingent. The Disturbing Reality Of Being A Jewish Reporter Covering Donald Trump includes anti-semitic cartoons.

It’s not just ugly images. HuffPosters have also received a barrage of hateful written attacks ― many threatening or suggesting violence. After writing about the Star of David backlash, one self-proclaimed Trump supporter told me it was “definitely time for you to pray for your sins.”
….In May, HuffPost Senior Editor Sam Stein was told, “I hope someone throws you in a wood-chipper feet first. You lying propaganda spreading liberal jewish sack of shit.”

Is The Donald a racist, or is he just playing one on TV? Does it matter, the end result is the same. The Donald has David Duke’s endorsement, and has the white nationalist vote sewn up. That may not be quite a potent as some folks here like to think.

Posted by: rufus magister | Jul 20 2016 11:22 utc | 211

From the man that gave us “santorum,” HuffPost reports that Dan Savage Has Had Enough Of ‘Pasty White’ Jill Stein Supporters.

On the one hand, these voters argue that there is no difference between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, and on the other hand, they suggest that allowing the more conservative of the two to be elected would lead to such extreme conditions that it would spark a “revolution,” Savage said….
“They’re exactly the same, exactly as awful, but one would bring the revolution and one wouldn’t,” he said. “Which means they weren’t exactly the same and they weren’t equally awful.”

He was also critical of the Green’s inability to field candidates for state and local office, arguing that running and electing is a necessary precondition for building a truly progressive party long-term. And he again reminds us that those who will pay the price for electing The Huckster D**khead Donald, not the well-heeled, petty bourgeois pro-abstention moralists.

Posted by: rufus magister | Jul 21 2016 11:23 utc | 213

A friend sent me an email on the state of Mother Earth and I wrote back …

Thanks for the link, Charlie. It’s as though everyone has just accepted the idea that we’ve turned the earth into hell. Nothing can be done. The ‘reality’ is the scramble for more oil and gas pipelines from the soon to be utterly uninhabitable MENA to glorious Europa, entrained with North America, the authors of all this evil. And Russia/Iran in the same position with respect to China and India. The scramble for the choicest of the deckchairs on the Titanic is definitely on, devil catch the hindmost, and those who come after us be damned.
I think I’ll vote for Stein. Don’t know that she’s anything but talk, but I feel as though I must cast a no-to-Clinton/no-to-Trump ballot, and her stream seems the fullest, at least potentially, at this point. They say Hillary Kiloton has a negative rating of 53% and that the Donald is at 60%. That is, that 53% and 60% of ‘the voters’ don’t like them, respectively. Which translates to 37-40% to work with. How about 31-2% elephant, 31-2% jackass, and 37% neither? Sounds good to me. Having ‘someone else, anyone else!, please’ garner more votes ought to take the wind out of their sails. It won’t of course. Just help fund the police.
But what it will do is give us all a look in the mirror, as in “Hey, I coulda’ had a V8!” And if we realize that ahead of time, we might be sippin’ a chilled V8 in the shade with Jill Stein and the Greens on 8 November. Either way it’s an alternative to Clinton/Trump – a guaranteed lose-lose choice. Even getting close, or even not so close but closer than ever before is worth it, in my book. The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

… I don’t hear enough talk about alternatives. So I make up my own.

Posted by: jfl | Jul 21 2016 20:59 utc | 215

FYI:
Colonial trading stations instead of factories in Ukraine | OffGuardian
Hague Tribunal Exonerates Slobodan Milosevic for Bosnia War Crimes

Posted by: ProPeace | Jul 22 2016 2:41 utc | 217

Interesting run down of the US-Philippine-Japanese ‘arbitation’ of the Chinese-Philippine dispute in the South China Sea …
Why China Risks War over Those Wet Rocks

Skillfully hidden amid the somber judicious-sounding language of the tribunal is the fact that their entire process is illegal. Arbitration requires that both parties seeking a resolution to conflicting claims agree to turn to a neutral arbitrator to resolve their mutual conflicting claims. In this case… President Benigno Aquino III, unilaterally … pressed arbitration claims in The Hague despite the fact that the second party, China, refused that arbitration in favor of continuing diplomatic bilateral talks.
The case never should have come to a hearing.
Once the pro-US Aquino regime agreed to unilaterally go ahead, knowing China would reject arbitration, the trap could be set. Instead of adhering to the legal procedures in the UNCLOS treaty for mutual naming of a five-person arbitration panel in the islands dispute, the Philippines named one judge and, extraordinarily, the then-President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), Shunji Yanai, himself, named the other four members. None were China friendly.
Yanai, a former Japan Ambassador to Washington, is an adviser to right-wing Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
Typically, the US State Department is demanding now that China respect the PCA ruling in terms of the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas regarding the islands and abandon them, though the US itself never ratified the Law of the Seas Convention.

… more interesting will be to see the way that Rodrigo Duterte handles the Chinese … and the US. He’s been billed as ‘the SEAsian Trump’, but his approach to the ‘troubles’ in Mindinao has been straightforward. He might turn out be the Erdogan (that we like to imagine) of Southeast Asia instead.

Posted by: jfl | Jul 22 2016 4:13 utc | 219

Polling shows that 10-15% of voters would vote for the Libertarian or Green Party. That’s a substantial number.
Voting third party is voting FOR something instead of against a propaganda-induced ‘greater evil’. Its NOT a wasted vote.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 22 2016 14:43 utc | 221

@ 220, 221
Silly wrabbit, voting as you suggest only lowers the effective numbers needed to win an election – or purloin an election as the case may be.
The only way to control the top of a party ticket is to exercise control from the bottom of the ticket upwards, and the control of local politics is where the process starts. Screening and vetting each candidate for ‘ideological purity’ in democratic theology is easiest at this level where the candidate is most likely to be personally known. At State level the politician’s colours become apparent as well as their political associations; their record of public service is a known, their degree of separation from the general public is small providing the voter with a high degree of information for the voting booth.
Once you get to the national level, the degree of separation becomes an unbridgeable gulf for the voter, the degree to which propaganda is employed to misinform becomes a major campaign expense for the candidate. At the national level only species has a higher ranking than the one thing that unites all U.S. politicians in Congress. What’s that you ask. Consider some 95+ percent of Congress are incumbents and most of those not incumbent are from some form of non-federal political position at state or local levels. If the Congress is not working, the administration is not working, the judiciary is not working, it seems the voter is failing to control the machinery of government at its most basic level.
<>Therefore, keeping incumbents from continuing their malfeasance of office by refusing to return them to those public offices would seem the most advantageous way to regain control of the political establishment. And ones a politician shows their ‘true colours’ it is a simple thing to give exception to the rule of never voting for incumbents for only those who demonstrate through their records their integrity and trustworthiness to do the public’s business. Control the bottom of the ticket first, the top will soon follow.
Other than your political opinions, enjoy your commentary here JR.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jul 22 2016 18:08 utc | 223

@220 jr, ”Write in’ is misleading, it is (generally) a throw-away ‘protest vote’. Far better, IMO, to vote third party.’
Well a write-in is clearly characterized by the corrupt party system as a throw-away vote, often, if not most often, classified as a ‘spoiled’ ballot, which it is from the party-oriented point of view. But so is third-party vote. And I agree with your assessment of the relative strengths of the Greens and the Libertarians – 10-15%. We need the help of the people who hate the Greens and/or the Libertarians as well.
And the larger question is the entire system as presently constructed. I linked to Russel Mokhiber’s article somewhere … it’s really Mokhiber showcasing Ralph Nader’s argument. Yet the so-called ‘first-past the post’ system militates against any third party. Maurice Duverger makes a strong argument for that, and everything I’ve seen in my lifetime as a voter confirms it, as does Mokhiber’s snapshot.
There was an article by someone named William John Cox at consortiumnews the other day, pointing to the lack of explicit mention/specification of the right to vote in our constitution which I agree with strongly. He proposes an amendment – which I think is too long and rambling, actually more than one amendment – and I do too, to fix that egregious shortcoming. And that’s what I am arguing for, a politics independent of political parties all together. Polls administered and run at the precinct level, with no pre-selection – no filtering – of possible candidates. Multiple polls – poll till majority – will combine the so-called ‘primary’ and ‘general’ election cycles, with ordinary people in charge of and responsible for all voting.
I see the immediate goal to be out-polling the elephant/donkey collective … if the total of all the so-called third-party votes plus the write-ins as tallied – whether as written or as spoiled – exceeds the total of either of the elephant/donkey candidates the epiphany will have arrived. The phantom candidate of the people themselves will have been denied. Recognition of the bankruptcy of our present system might arrive before then, as it has for me and many others, but it will surely have arrived in that case for all.
So since I see little effective difference between a vote for a Green candidate, a vote for a Libertarian candidate, or a write-in, I embrace them all as equally effective. What needs to change is not the face on TV speaking from the oval office, what needs to change is the un-democratic system of polling and governance in the USofA. And I think it can be changed. Why not? If we’d begun in 2004 we’d be home by now.

Posted by: jfl | Jul 22 2016 23:20 utc | 225