Towards an anarchist perspective of the 2016 primaries

Bernie Sanders addresses a crowd in Portland, Oregon

While the Republicans undergo an identity crisis, Bernie Sanders has revealed that a shockingly large number of Americans think another world is possible.

The 2016 election has highlighted deep ideological divides across the country and presented some very encouraging signs for communists. The media script for the 2016 primaries featured Hillary Clinton as a lock for the Democrats while Republican voters chose between party hacks with identical positions on policy. While the Republicans have unmasked themselves as unashamed xenophobic hate mongers, what is occurring overall in the election cycle is not only surprising, but is in many ways encouraging. In this article I will try to look at the state of US politics right now and what it means for us as libertarian communists.

First off, let me start with the Republicans. The Republican base has revolted against the Party elite over what they see as an unwillingness by establishment politicians to stand firm to Republican values. Additionally, Republican voters harbor an increasingly volatile resentment of both the government and society itself. To this end the base has aligned themselves with the campaigns of Texas senator Ted Cruz and businessman and reality TV star Donald Trump.

Both candidates are despised by the Party elite who regard them as unelectable, insulting, and damaging to the Republican party brand. In 2013, the government shut down for weeks after Cruz spearheaded a refusal by the Republican congress to ratify President Obama’s budget. The shutdown was a national embarrassment to the Republican party establishment, and Cruz was held responsible. At a time when Republican politicians are voting with uniformity, Cruz also became an unlikely opponent of free trade agreements and subsidies for ethanol production. While a senator, Cruz further angered Republican politicians through unprofessional conduct in Congress, reportedly embarrassing his colleagues with long rants about their unwillingness to push for more right wing policies.

Cruz has run afoul of the Republican Party establishment for other reasons as well. Cruz has surrounded himself with conspiracy theorists such as Frank Gaffney who Cruz recently appointed as one of his top national security advisers. Gaffney recently warned in an interview about, "a coming together of... Islamists — Islamic supremacists if you will, the Muslim Brotherhood — and Black Lives Matter and Occupy movements and sort of anarchists and other assorted radicals on the left" who are "joining forces" to create a "very violent prospect, in fact a revolutionary one." Following the Brussels attacks Cruz stated that he thinks police should "patrol and secure" "Muslim neighborhoods" across the country. Cruz has racked up an impressive array of extreme right wing elements who most mainstream Republicans try to distance themselves from. For instance Cruz has been enjoying the support of pundit Glenn Beck who famously accused Barack Obama of being a "racist" with a “deep-seated hatred of white people.” Beck, a Mormon, has recently spoken at several Cruz rallies passionately telling the audience that God wants them to vote for Cruz in order to fulfill a prophecy that is written in the Book of Mormon. Cruz has also received the support of right wing pastor Kevin Swanson, who recently said the leaders of the Girl Scouts should be executed for their support of LGBT rights.

Despite his support from the radical religious right Cruz will certainly lose to the obvious Republican front runner, Donald Trump. Trump began his campaign by doing what he always does, drawing attention to himself with crude jokes and political incorrectness. By doing so, he appealed to Republicans and Independents who hate the political establishment and politicians in general. His crass remarks during the debates were like a breath of fresh air to voters whose lives are not reflected by the wholesome charms of traditional Republican candidates such as Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. By transporting his crude witticisms from reality TV to the comparatively restrained tone of the presidential race, Trump was able to sell himself as a genuine political outsider who would refuse to cow to the pressures of the liberal interest groups that control Washington.

The popularity of Trump and Cruz can be traced to the most serious issues affecting the Republican Party voter base today. The Republican base is made up mostly of middle aged whites. As a recent groundbreaking study has shown, “The mortality rate for whites 45 to 54 years old with no more than a high school education increased by 134 deaths per 100,000 people from 1999 to 2014.” The decline in life expectancy seems to be due to an increase in suicides, alcoholism, and substance abuse. This group of voters sees their lives getting worse each year, and they feel, correctly, as though the media and the political establishment are not addressing the issues that are important to them. In desperation they are seeking out candidates to “make America great again,” or, in other words, start making their life expectancy go up again, instead of down. It should be no wonder then, that one-time Republican front runner Ben Carson opened up the February 25th Republican debates by proclaiming, “our nation is heading off the abyss of destruction.” Noam Chomsky presciently commented that Trump’s rise represented the, “breakdown of society.” Indeed, the Party elite is aghast at how well their efforts at politicizing religion and racism have succeeded. Much of the blame for this current situation may not lie with the Party elite itself, but rather with the Koch brothers who have tried for decades to foment insurgency within the Party in an effort to create a militant grassroots movement. The current situation bears many similarities to the sudden rise of the Tea Party 7 years ago.

Whatever the case, it has now gotten to a point where the elite can no longer control the base and the veneer of respectability that the Republican Party tries to command can longer be maintained. This election cycle almost certainly signals a major turning point for the party. The Party will have to decide whether or not to embrace its new identity as an openly racist populist party, or to try, by means of a figurative coup at the convention, to sabotage the campaigns of Trump and Cruz in favor of the more respectable John Kasich.

Against all odds, Sanders makes it far into the primary

Perhaps of more interest to communists is the revolt taking place on the other end of the political spectrum amongst the Democratic Party base. The Democratic Party primary was supposed to be an easy win for centrist Hillary Clinton. Her politics of quietly pushing the Democratic Party to the right has been key in shaping the current identity of the party as a representative of fiscally conservative and socially liberal Wall Street. As I’ve written about before, Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA, she supported the escalation of the war on drugs, she supported the dismantling of the welfare system, she voted for the Iraq war and was the leading US figure in the 2011 Libyan intervention. Her entire professional career, from her time as a lawyer representing Tysons Foods and Wal-Mart, to her support of the military coup in Honduras has been characterized by a series of right wing policies that have pushed back against all forms of government protection for the world’s poor.

Sanders, for his part, is about as far as you can get to the left while still being an American politician. He describes himself as a democratic socialist. He openly supports expanding Medicare to not only all US citizens, but undocumented citizens as well. He supports raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour. He wants to kick start the economy with massive investments into renewable energy. He is opposed to the war on drugs and wants to curb the powers of the police. He opposed NAFTA, he opposed the Iraq war, and he has supported treatment and prevention rather than policing as a more appropriate reaction to drug abuse.

Given the fact that Sanders regularly points out that the media is owned by large corporations and/or billionaires such as Jeff Bezos (Washington Post) and Rupert Murdoch (NewsCorp), the corporate media’s reaction to his campaign has been predictably over the top negative. At first the goal was to try and simply ignore his candidacy. However, after tying Clinton in Iowa and receiving increasingly high poll numbers, the media went into attack mode. Two well-known incidents in particular highlighted the media’s frenzied panic over Sanders’ continued success. One well-known incident came in a single 16-hour period between March 6th and March 7th, when the Jeff Bezos owned Washington Post ran 16 negative Bernie Sanders articles while publishing 0 positive ones. Another well-known incident of the media trying to sabotage Sanders came from the New York Times in a March 15th article about Sanders’ record of pushing for progressive policies in the Senate. The article originally was somewhat favorable to Sanders, and although it described him as the “liberal mirror image of the Tea-Party”, it also made note of how as a senator he, “secured money for dairy farmers and community health centers, blocked banks from hiring foreign workers and reined in the Federal Reserve.” The Sanders campaign even linked to the article on their website. However, after the Sanders campaign linked to the article, a number of mysterious edits to the article were made. First of all, the title had been changed from Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Through Legislative Side Doors to Via Legislative Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories. Next, a quote from a Sanders adviser saying, “it has been a very successful strategy” was deleted and replaced with the following two paragraphs

Quote:
But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach to suggest that he could succeed.
Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes to a huge increase in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical.

As Matt Taibbi wrote in Rolling Stone,

Quote:
There were other changes...The salutary line about Sanders being an ‘effective, albeit modest legislator’ – a key passage that in the original article directly contradicted the Clinton-camp contention that Sanders can't ‘get things done’ – is now followed by a sort of disclaimer:
‘He has enacted his agenda piece by piece, in politically digestible chunks with few sweeping legislative achievements in a quarter-century in Congress’…Worse, the line about ‘tacking on amendments to larger bills that scratch his particular policy itches’ has now, absurdly, been rewritten to read:‘…tacking on amendments to larger bills to succeed at the margins.’

The list of media efforts to sabotage the Sanders campaign are legion, and too numerous to document here, but these are the two most well-known incidents.
Despite all of the odds stacked against him, Sanders is surviving in the race far longer than anyone expected. A recent Bloomberg poll of democrats show that he Clinton are tied for support nationally. It is still conceivable for him to win a majority of the delegates in the nomination process, but he will have to rack up major upsets in upcoming states in order to do this. His victory in the race is not inconceivable, however it is unlikely.

What does the Sanders phenomenon mean for communists?

The Democratic Party nomination process has highlighted the fact that a very substantial portion of the population has views about how society should be run that are far to the left of both political parties. The question is what does this mean for libertarian communists and how do we relate to this progressive movement? Our major talking point on the Sanders election campaign should be; why do we need politics? For example, why should someone who is working two full time jobs in order to survive wait for the majority of Americans to vote for a politician who will address this issue? Direct action outside of the political parties solves this issue without needing to enter into the corporate media dominated circus of the election process. We do not need to wait for the government to protect us or give us rights, we should take them through organizing and direct action.

It should also be pointed out that Sanders simply does not go far enough. I agree that Sanders’ policies would improve the world. However, were we put on this earth to spend each day working in a cubicle, at a checkout counter, in a warehouse, just so various companies can out compete each other on the marketplace? What kind of life is that? Can’t we envision something better?

For now, the Sanders campaign has shown that people are open to the idea of another world. Let’s organize and take it.

Posted By

Soapy
Mar 25 2016 21:03

Share


  • “Our nation is heading off the abyss of destruction”

    Ben Carson

Attached files

Comments

klas batalo
Mar 30 2016 22:17
Juan Conatz wrote:
Pennoid wrote:
Juan, any ideas on how the radicals and reformists are linked? I'm sympathetic to kingzog's point that you don't get left communism, etc. without social democracy. They failed and that helped shed light on better methods (but now basically dead ends).

I don't have any real thought out opinions on this. It just seems hard to imagine a radical or revolutionary left emerging in a time and place where the reformist left is marginalized or nonexistent. If the latter doesn't exist, it seems the radical right is more likely to grow than anything. I think you see this in the U.S. with the white working class and the 'Patriot' movement. But where radical or revolutionary left has emerged and grown, it was alongside a reformist left. I don't think this is an argument to grow the reformist left, but instead maybe realize it as indicator of opportunities and shifts in the class.

honestly i think with how far things got pulled to the left post-crisis and with Occupy/BLM made way for more broad shitty socdem politics to be possible or conceivable... these things made socialism not a dirty word anymore... not Bernie

klas batalo (sorry forgot i was in i & a account)

Pennoid
Mar 30 2016 23:47

Good point Klas.

I should say, I think frank, honest, programmatic politics is what we can take from (a period) of Socdem history. They obviously betrayed that/ made serious errors, I'd like to look into more.

But I see no problem with a Socialist Party full stop. I will say I'm not convinced by trotskyist transitional programs, or Stalinist entryism, or going to bat for Dems. There are serious flaws to the U.S. political system that keep it insulated from working class parties.

That said, I'd be interested in a discussion about Party strategy, perhaps on another thread. But I'm wondering, if anarchists are cool with a political org, my understanding of the opposition to electoralism (even to city council, state legislature, national legislature) is that

1) It can't deliver *at all*
2) That is, it's gains made by "anti-anarchist" means (not direct action; action by the state) or
3) That it fosters a "someone else will do it on my behalf" attitude.

1) strikes me as false, patently, 2) has some merit, but I think could be argued against, with a properly elaborated electoral strategy and party structure, and the fact that a member-funded party *requires* the same kind of organizing of unions etc. to turn out voters, canvass and win and 3) seems to have an anti-technical division of labor argument lurking behind it.

Sorry if derail.

Noah Fence
Mar 31 2016 03:35

Pennoid - could you explain your comment on point 3 please? I really don't know what that means. Thanks.

Chilli Sauce
Mar 31 2016 13:21

Penn, aren't the main objections....?

a) the state is an inherently oppressive, hierarchical institution

b) the role of the state is to ensure the continued functioning of capitalism/the protection of national capital

c) if any individual or party enters government, they take on a position of authority, become managers of capital, and therefore become part of the ruling class.

Pennoid
Mar 31 2016 15:16

Noah- by technical division I mean a division of labor socially along lines that produce productive results; increases in output per human working hour. This is only possible if some people spend their working time on one task. It's not an inherently bad thing.

Chilli- thanks for raising more objections.

I think a) is vague. How? Why? What is the capitalist state? Further I think it's similar to my argument 2 but only with more buzzwords. Like is it oppressive to violently coerce slaveholders? Of course not.

B) is sort of begging the question; I don't really disagree with this being the long trend especially post WWII but I don't actually think it's a given that people who get into a city council or legislature will necessarily be forced to capitulate. On the other hand, if by managing national capital, you mean managing the production process in an area and social life generally then that's exactly what the working class should aspire to do; of course if you mean manage the social relationships, I can understand the apprehension.

C) Again, they don't become managers of capital directly. They become managers of the state, depending on their position. And I guess I'm interested in breaking down the legal imperatives etc. That force people to act in one way or the other. This touches on electoral strategy; is it for propaganda? Is it for reforms that clear the way for class unionism? Are the elected accountable to party members? What laws make that difficult to implement in the U.S.? What election rules? Etc.

The Pigeon
Mar 31 2016 19:04
Pennoid wrote:
Why? What is the capitalist state? Like is it oppressive to violently coerce slaveholders? Of course not.

Well, the modern state was developed alongside the development of capitalism, wasn't it? I think coercion can sometimes be used to protect freedom, but centralized political bodies tend to concentrate power in opposition to individuals. Then again, a communist state is what I've been lusting after in the depths of my heart.

mikail firtinaci
Mar 31 2016 22:34

I think it is easy to forget that every American election (especially since 1991) is about the future of world imperialism. So, what is actually being put before American proletarians, in terms of campaign promises, demagogy etc. is a good American style show concealing the invariable direction about militarism. Senders in that respect is no critic of militarism. This article from WSWS is pretty good on Sander's telling silence about American foreign policy:

As for Bernie Sanders, he has said virtually nothing about war or foreign policy, aside from criticizing Clinton for supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. On his campaign web site, “war and peace” is relegated to the 25th of 28 issues in the election. He calls the 2003 invasion “the worst foreign policy blunder in modern US history.” The invasion of Iraq was, according to Sanders, not a crime, but a strategic mistake from the standpoint of the interests of the American ruling class.

He proclaims that “as President and Commander-in-Chief, I will defend this nation, its people, and America’s vital strategic interests, but I will do it responsibly.” He boasts of having voted for war in the Balkans in 1999 and in Afghanistan in 2001. He has supported the Obama administration’s drone strikes, denounced Russia, and insisted that the US maintain the largest military in the world.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/03/31/pers-m31.html

All reformisms Sanders pretend to stand for are null and void as long as he doesn't challenge militarism, which is the main enemy of the American proletarians.

Beyond that it is actually really a hopeful sign that socialism is no more a boogeyman for the American working youth. It is up to us to figure out what can be done with this positive sign.

However, I think the real rebellion is surfacing in the republican party. . Nauseating rise of Trump (to the leadership ? that is yet to be seen) seems to me to be something beyond an election show. If it is, it is like a joke that is over-repeated and exaggerated to the point of absurdity after it reverberated an embarrassing silence when it is first told. That is not really a decent performance. Instead, I think Trump is the expression of a real collapse of the RP, a disintegration of the American right, a surfacing of its repressed extremes. The wild marginalized American rightist is literally crushing the polite party. Why the American ruling class is retreating to the DP as the only party standing while leaving the RP to the crazies? Maybe, it is losing its ideological self-confidence, especially after post-2008 crisis and post-Occupy political context that crushed the remainders of american style liberalism. And maybe some American capitalists are losing their patience with the post-WWII elite consensus on the superficial ideological unity, when it comes to questions like race, democracy etc. I don't know, but it seems to be like a mixture of both.

Chilli Sauce
Apr 1 2016 01:28
Quote:
I think a) is vague. How? Why? What is the capitalist state? Further I think it's similar to my argument 2 but only with more buzzwords. Like is it oppressive to violently coerce slaveholders? Of course not.

This has already been touched on a by a subsequent poster, but the issue isn't just the capitalist state, but the state, an institution which came about a result of class society.

This is why I mentioned functioning of capitalism which, as you point out, can mean coercing both the exploiters and the exploited. I mean, isn't this the critique of social democracy? I mean, sure, it places limits (and, indeed, sometimes coercive limits) on capital. In part it does this in response to class struggles; in part it does this to absorb some of the conflict inherent to capitalist society.

Quote:
, if by managing national capital, you mean managing the production process in an area and social life generally then that's exactly what the working class should aspire to do;

The thing is, though, it won't be managed by the class. It will be managed by (or in the very, very best scenario, through) elected politicians/state functionaries.

Quote:
of course if you mean manage the social relationships, I can understand the apprehension.

Yeah, the social relationship.

Quote:
C) Again, they don't become managers of capital directly. They become managers of the state, depending on their position.

I mean, yes and no. I mean, far more than making laws, the role of local, state, and federal politicians is to budget money. And while it might not be classic M-C-M', the reality is that that money is used, in large part, to pay state workers.

And even if we decide it's still an indirect relationship, capitalism is fundamentally a class relationship and those state managers are just as important to the management of capitalism as the owners of capital and workplace managers.

Juan Conatz
Apr 1 2016 03:42

One thing I was thinking about with the Sanders campaign came from something I saw someone say on Facebook: "We live in Minnesota, we already live under Sanders".

For sure some truth to that. In MN, the Republican Party has long been in the minority if not irrelevant. The Democratic Farmer-Labor Party, while long ago having pushed out its far left, is still to the left of most state Democratic Parties. We've long had a state-run health care system (Minnesota Care), that provides cheap to free insurance, based on income. The governor, a 'tax the rich' billionaire basically told the GOP to go fuck themselves in 2011 in a showdown over the budget that led to a 2-week government shutdown. He put the majority of the state's revenue surplus into education. The union rate here is higher than the national rate. I could go on and on. If there's anywhere in the U.S. that could be compared to a modern social democracy, it is Minnesota.

However, Minnesota has massive racial disparities. There has been protests and occupations on and off for months over the police killing of an unarmed black man. There is vicious anti-Somali racism in the suburbs and more rural areas. Gentrification is happening at a rapid pace in Minneapolis.

Is my life here in Minnesota better and easier here than in Iowa? Sure. Is there more of an opening for radical politics here than other places in the Midwest? Possibly. Is it significant? I don't think so.

kingzog
Apr 1 2016 19:17

Juan, same thing in Sweden. Massive welfare state. Lots of refugees, especially now. They take on average 10 years to get jobs, and are basically so marginalized in Swedish society, they are hostile to it and the areas they live in, public housing, are "no-go zones" for police. So social democracy isnt really cutting it.

Here in Seattle, the East African refugees(be interesting to compare it to Minneapolis' situation) have a slightly easier time finding jobs, as the US has more low wage jobs than sweden, but currently they have a huge gang and crime problem and are just not integrated into society, even tho many are 2nd generation now.

gram negative
Apr 1 2016 21:18
kingzog wrote:
they are hostile to it and the areas they live in, public housing, are "no-go zones" for police.

that's a great april fool's post

kingzog
Apr 2 2016 02:41

Haha! I knew someone would get it!

Pennoid
Apr 2 2016 16:39

Chili, I'm still not seeing how this is an argument to *not* run in elections full stop.

Quote:
This is why I mentioned functioning of capitalism which, as you point out, can mean coercing both the exploiters and the exploited. I mean, isn't this the critique of social democracy? I mean, sure, it places limits (and, indeed, sometimes coercive limits) on capital. In part it does this in response to class struggles; in part it does this to absorb some of the conflict inherent to capitalist society.

I got to emphasize, I'm not here trying to take the pages straight from the contemporary Socdem playbook, I'm trying to take a step back and look at institutional and social imperatives that deaden the electoral process to use for communists, and how they could be fought and reversed.

Communists have to run society. We have to deal with "taking social power" what I think Syndicalistcat sometimes poses as "constituting a polity" or establishing a social or political order. Clearly the Bernstein strategy (by definition) has nothing to do with revolution. So I'm not advocating that.

Is it conceivable that a member-funded political party could have a legislative/parliamentary fraction that is kept accountable via a programmatic politics, recall-ability etc. ?

I'm thinking here, partly, of this piece by Kautsky http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1081/origins-of-democratic-centralism/ and the general strategy of the second international to use parliament and elections to prepare and organize the working class to take power, alongside unions, street actions etc.

Cooked
Apr 3 2016 08:33
gram negative wrote:
kingzog wrote:
they are hostile to it and the areas they live in, public housing, are "no-go zones" for police.

that's a great april fool's post

Kingzog description fits the prevailing media narrative in sweden. The police claim certain areas to be no go zones for them as they occasionally get attacked by the kids as they go there. They are also claiming some areas lost to organised crime.

The swedish labour market is hugely discriminatory against immigrants and the big cities are amongst the most geographically/racially segregated in europe.

Of course the police is the police and they have their own agenda with the information they put out. Using terms like no go areas is hugely exaggerated and rubbish. People without first hand experience actually believe the media garbage. Despite an incredible retreat of services and support from the Stockholm "suburbs" they are generally quite good places to live for families.

I hope everyone on libcom agrees that "social democracy isnt really cutting it." but read some residue of scandi-nostalgia above. That stuff has to end.

fingers malone
Apr 3 2016 09:16

Yeah I read that and thought "what crap".

I live in what is supposed to be one of those police no go area public housing hell holes in England. I am the only all-white household on my landing (oh, the horror). All the neighbours talk to me and help me with minor neighbourly things, like charging up my phone when I exploded all the sockets trying to do a repair. The Algerian lady on the block opposite makes me fantastic food, homemade bread, pastries, everything, and forgives me for taking ages to bring the tupperwares back.

"Not integrated into society" who says what's integrated? Who says what's society?

Spikymike
Apr 3 2016 10:20

Pennoid's post April 2n'd needs a separate thread really though they could look up some of the old spgb materials from yester-year where they mulled over the unlikely prospect of a genuine 'revolutionary' political party getting a handful of their 'mandated' members elected to Parliaments, given their early Kautsky influences. Not convinced by their arguments personally.

Chilli Sauce
Apr 4 2016 21:49
Quote:
Is it conceivable that a member-funded political party could have a legislative/parliamentary fraction that is kept accountable via a programmatic politics, recall-ability etc. ?

Penn, sorry I never responded to your last post.

I think there's a few things going on in what we've discussed on this thread. One is a critique of social democracy, which I think we share. One is a critique of the party form as expressed by capitalist parties and Leninist parties, which again I think we share. Another is the ability for legitimate working class organizations to participate in the state. I think we agree that the working class does/will need to learn to wield societal power, however I just don't see any amount of well-intentioned accountability measure overcoming problems that inevitably occur from achieving state power.

kingzog
Apr 7 2016 05:21

Cooked, I don't think youre being honest, or you are, frankly, deluded. There are numerous stories and videos of migrants riotting, throwing stones, so on. I expect there will be more. Regardless of the motive or reason, or perhaps even a justification it is happening.

What's more, violent crime, and sexual crime has skyrocketed; there was a case of a 10 year old boy being raped even, the police had to reseque him from a mob. In some jurisdictions, they segregate buses so that children are not put in harm's way- evidence of this is freely available on the net.

Point is, these are facts we simply cannot dismiss. The migrants come from very patriarchical societies which never experienced a feminist movement, or really any liberal movent at all- again, this is the reality we must face.. And if we don't respond, then the working class will turn hard right. That's the simply truth.

Cooked
Apr 7 2016 08:20
kingzog wrote:
Cooked, I don't think youre being honest, or you are, frankly, deluded. There are numerous stories and videos of migrants riotting, throwing stones, so on. I expect there will be more. Regardless of the motive or reason, or perhaps even a justification it is happening.

What's more, violent crime, and sexual crime has skyrocketed; there was a case of a 10 year old boy being raped even, the police had to reseque him from a mob. In some jurisdictions, they segregate buses so that children are not put in harm's way- evidence of this is freely available on the net.

Point is, these are facts we simply cannot dismiss. The migrants come from very patriarchical societies which never experienced a feminist movement, or really any liberal movent at all- again, this is the reality we must face.. And if we don't respond, then the working class will turn hard right. That's the simply truth.

Whats the fuck are you on about!?! You need to get your info from other sources. Secondly you missed my point which was to show the complete failure of social democracy whilst still disagreeing with the sensationalist media narrative. You however turned out to be so far off the rails I'm lost for words.

Sleeper
Apr 9 2016 20:20

Don't vote!

How's that for an anarchist perspective?

Khawaga
Apr 9 2016 20:42

Agree with Cooked. From reading Kingzog's posts lately, I get the impression he'll be doing that classic old Trotskyite to neo-conservative move...

kingzog
Apr 14 2016 04:22

I'm not a troskyite.

I'm not going to get indignant, but, can we truly deny the evidence of an ongoing sexual assault crisis in Europe perpetrated by the migrants? Can we deny it all together? Is any level tolerable? Do they get a pass because they aren't white? Do the lives and well being of the women assaulted matter at all? Is it off limits to discuss the political implications or do we simply stick out heads in the sandM

kingzog
Apr 14 2016 04:26

....obviously social democracy has failed. But do we blame social democracy for rape? It's insane to me how the left goes on and on about western rape culture but then in the face of this.....we go silent. That's a capitualtion and a very dangerous one indeed.

Juan Conatz
Apr 14 2016 04:52

I think the alarmist stuff about migrants and sexual assualt is more or less racist scapegoating. I haven't seen any evidence from non-far right sources that migrants committ sexual assualt at a greater rate than the general population. Reminds me of Trump's remarks about Mexicans or the historical KKK scare tactic of saying that free black men would go wild on the street and attack white women.

jef costello
Apr 14 2016 06:10

I am wondering if Kingzog is an ironic name.
There is a huge amount of hyperbole of the rapes supposedly committed by immigrants, it turns out when you have the right perpetrators and the right victims the police will believe rape reports.

kingzog
Apr 19 2016 04:43

Alarmist? Over 500 women reported sexual assaults in Germany from Migrants. Is the right wing media playing this up? Well yeah. But local news sources and police reports are the primary sources. Look it up guys. But most importantly, believe women!

Do they "only" commit rape at the same rate as others? Idk, do you know how common rape was in Sweden before mass immigration? Did you know it's now up there with South Africa? Dare to look at Germany? You best believe this really is happening. Just because it doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean it's not true. 75 percent of the migrants are young men, not families or children for women. Most arent even from Syria Look it up.

Also, they are bringing sectarian strife with them. Recently Kurds and Turks attacked each other in the streets- in Sweden I believe. These are not isolated incidents. And just because only the right wing media are reporting them doesn't mean the victims aren't real.

kingzog
Apr 19 2016 04:37

Seriously, I really don't understand why the left is unable to grapple with this- everyone in Europe knows about it. People all over the US, regular ppl I talk to even, are learning about it too. If the left denies it, then we really look like pieces of you-know-what. Especially considering how the left is supposedly against rape culture. I'm sorry, but grow a backbone ppl.

Left wing pundits in Germany and Sweden have regressed into victim blaming. I kid you not. Please, dong stoop to that level, that'll be the collapse of the left and the capitualtion to the right. Mark my words.

Juan Conatz
Apr 19 2016 04:42

You kinda post like Donald Trump speaks. Even the content is borderline similar.

Are you going to provide some evidence of what I asked before? If it is so well known, it should be easy to find.

kingzog
Apr 19 2016 04:44

You have hands. Use Google.

Juan Conatz
Apr 19 2016 04:48

Nah, you're the one coming to a libertarian communist board with far-right narratives. Provide the evidence or shut up.