The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTed Rall Archive
'Far Left'? There's No Such Thing in This Democratic Party
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

America has lots of leftists. Forty percent of voters say that they would prefer to live in a socialist country than a capitalist one.

Yet America has zero leftists running for president.

Think about that the next time someone tells you we live in the greatest country on Earth — or, for that matter, that this is a democracy. If the United States were democratic or, more precisely, had a truly representative form of government, 40% of the electorate would have someone to vote for.

According to the mainstream media, the Democratic Party is left and the current crop of contenders for president has never been more left.

Beto O’Rourke, Fox News says, had a “far-left presidential platform.” He likes pro-corporate, job-exporting free trade agreements, backs a blank check to Israel’s right-wing government and wants to send teenagers to prison for 15 years for sexting. If that’s far-left, I have a Palace of the Soviets I’d love to sell you.

“If Democrats select a nominee who is unelectable because of a far-left or socialist agenda, then their beds will be made,” frets The Hill.

“As a left-wing San Francisco liberal, I can say to these people (progressive candidates): What are you thinking?” asks Nancy Pelosi. How can you be “a left-wing San Francisco liberal” and vote to invade Afghanistan?

It’s BS, but over time, even the most strong-minded among us succumb to the never-ending tsunami of propaganda. Like Winston Smith in “1984,” we doubt ourselves and believe the lies. No wonder 47% of Americans say the Democratic Party has moved too far left.

Now more than ever, we need a reality check. Electoral politics has no space whatsoever for the real, actual left: communism, socialism, left anarchism, left libertarianism, etc. Corporate journalistic outlets employ no actual leftists. There is no organized left in the United States.

Under a socialist economy, workers own the means of production, which means they are no longer exploited. As Karl Marx wrote: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.” So, those who aren’t able to work due to physical or mental infirmities, for example, have equal access to the good things in life.

Though the “Green New Deal” espoused by Bernie Sanders would theoretically employ millions of Americans as government workers, those employees wouldn’t own their workplaces. Similarly, “Medicare for All” would abolish private insurance, but it wouldn’t put health care workers on the government payroll, as is the case in other countries. Those two ideas, if implemented, would resemble New Deal-era programs like the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. Contrary to the dogma of the conservatives who currently control the national political dialogue, if it’s socialist for the government to hire somebody, then any place with a single cop is a socialist country.

None of the 2020 candidates for president in the Democratic primaries favors the nationalization of currently private businesses that would be required to achieve a socialist economy. You can’t have a far left without nationalization or socialism.

None of the Democratic candidates opposes war in the manner of pacifists, much less adapts to the analysis of the left that there should be no war but class war.

“The main enemy is at home,” noted the German Spartacist Karl Liebknecht, referring to the ruling classes.

ORDER IT NOW

“We differ from the pacifists,” Vladimir Lenin wrote during World War I, “in that we understand the inevitable connection between wars and the class struggle within a country; we understand that wars cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and socialism is created; we also differ in that we regard civil wars, i.e., wars waged by an oppressed class against the oppressor class, by slaves against slaveholders, by serfs against landowners and by wage workers against the bourgeoisie, as fully legitimate, progressive and necessary.”

A left — certainly a “far-left” — candidate for president of United States would categorically oppose all wars of aggression, imperialism and neocolonialism. Contrast that leftist ideal to the most anti-militaristic Democrats in the current race.

Tulsi Gabbard, arguably the most stridently anti-war candidate in the cycle, nevertheless touts her military service, even as she declaims “regime change wars.” She praised President Donald Trump’s order to assassinate ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. She took $100,000 in campaign contributions from arms dealers. “When it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk,” she said. “When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”

Bernie Sanders, also on the left flank of the Democrats, told me that he would continue the drone assassinations that have killed thousands of innocent people.

We will never get the chance to live in that better world embodied by the ideal of socialism and communism unless we understand that we have an awful lot of work to do before we can get there. Allowing commentators and the Democrats themselves to describe anything that’s going on in mainstream electoral politics as “far-left” is self-destructive and an endorsement of the worst kind of lie: the fiction that the most important ideals are represented by anyone in American political life.

 
Hide 30 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. You are correct. There is nothing “left” about the woketards. Americans don’t know left from right. In America left means Democrat. The Democratic candidates are not too far left. They are too far indoctrinated. They are too ugly and hateful to compete in a presidential election against Donald Trump. So they conspire to destroy him. According to the Democrats Trump is Hitler. They are so spiteful and self-righteous that they cannot win an election against Hitler.

    I voted for McGovern. And Nader. Given an opportunity I would have voted for Kucinich. Now I vote with the Deplorables in self defense. The Democrats have become totalitarians.

  2. Svevlad says:

    There’s a problem: the left has been coopted into the extreme corporate shittery. The 40% say that because their favorite candidate says they are socialist.

  3. Right wing, left wing is so outmoded?

    “The IPCC report that the Paris agreement based its projections on considered over 1,000 possible scenarios. Of those, only 116 (about 10%) limited warming below 2C. Of those, only 6 kept global warming below 2C without using negative emissions. So roughly 1% of the IPCC’s projected scenarios kept warming below 2C without using negative emissions technology like BECCS. And Kevin Anderson, former head of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, has pointed out that those 6 lone scenarios showed global carbon emissions peaking in 2010. Which obviously hasn’t happened.
    So from the IPCC’s own report in 2014, we basically have a 1% chance of staying below 2C global warming if we now invent time travel and go back to 2010 to peak our global emissions. And again, you have to stop all growth and go into decline to do that. And long term feedbacks the IPCC largely blows off were ongoing back then too.”

    This article was written in December 2017, but it cannot be shared enough. This is the reason I say climate change is…

    Posted by Meteorologist Nick Humphrey on Saturday, 27 April 2019

    Will there be change?
    “Today’s global consumption of fossil fuels now stands at roughly five times what it was in the 1950s, and one-and-half times that of the 1980s when the science of global warming had already been confirmed and accepted by governments with the implication that there was an urgent need to act. Tomes of scientific studies have been logged in the last several decades documenting the deteriorating biospheric health, yet nothing substantive has been done to curtail it. More CO2 has been emitted since the inception of the UN Climate Change Convention in 1992 than in all of human history. CO2 emissions are 55% higher today than in 1990. Despite 20 international conferences on fossil fuel use reduction and an international treaty that entered into force in 1994, manmade greenhouse gases have risen inexorably.”
    https://medium.com/@xraymike79/the-inconvenient-truth-of-modern-civilizations-inevitable-collapse-8e83df6f3a57

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  4. The ‘left’ is allowed to win when it deconstructs family and culture.

    The ‘right’ is allowed to win when it deconstructs industrial solidarity and public property.

    It could not have been any other way. Ideology simply cannot do the work of faith.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
  5. Right wing, left wing is so redundant?
    “The IPCC report that the Paris agreement based its projections on considered over 1,000 possible scenarios. Of those, only 116 (about 10%) limited warming below 2C. Of those, only 6 kept global warming below 2C without using negative emissions. So roughly 1% of the IPCC’s projected scenarios kept warming below 2C without using negative emissions technology like BECCS. And Kevin Anderson, former head of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, has pointed out that those 6 lone scenarios showed global carbon emissions peaking in 2010. Which obviously hasn’t happened.
    So from the IPCC’s own report in 2014, we basically have a 1% chance of staying below 2C global warming if we now invent time travel and go back to 2010 to peak our global emissions. And again, you have to stop all growth and go into decline to do that. And long term feedbacks the IPCC largely blows off were ongoing back then too.”

    This article was written in December 2017, but it cannot be shared enough. This is the reason I say climate change is…

    Posted by Meteorologist Nick Humphrey on Saturday, 27 April 2019

    Will there be change?
    “Today’s global consumption of fossil fuels now stands at roughly five times what it was in the 1950s, and one-and-half times that of the 1980s when the science of global warming had already been confirmed and accepted by governments with the implication that there was an urgent need to act. Tomes of scientific studies have been logged in the last several decades documenting the deteriorating biospheric health, yet nothing substantive has been done to curtail it. More CO2 has been emitted since the inception of the UN Climate Change Convention in 1992 than in all of human history. CO2 emissions are 55% higher today than in 1990. Despite 20 international conferences on fossil fuel use reduction and an international treaty that entered into force in 1994, manmade greenhouse gases have risen inexorably.”
    https://medium.com/@xraymike79/the-inconvenient-truth-of-modern-civilizations-inevitable-collapse-8e83df6f3a57

  6. Elizabeth Warren is proposing a wealth tax that would effectively bankrupt Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett within 10 years. Bernie Sanders more or less wants to tax everything. Ted Rall is bitching because “nobody” in the Democratic field is proposing that we go full Stalin. THANK GOD.

    The minute that a candidate that satisfies a full-blown commie faggot like Ted Rall has any currency in this country, I’m moving somewhere more reasonable… like Venezuela or Sweden.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    , @Giovanni
  7. Ah bah … why should the “far right” have all the fun? 😀

    Marx, Lenin, Liebknecht and their ilk (as the late great Joe Sobran observed if you have an ilk you are in trouble 😛 ) had interest in the “working class” only insofar as fulfilling the Talmudic precept that THEY should NOT work.
    The only way to redignify the worker is to get at those who DO NOT (=”Arbeitsfreies Einkommen”) i.e. BOTH rentiers and deadbeats or, in American terms, the YKW and the Community.
    (You may have noticed this is the diametral opposite of both the American Way and every single “left” talking point – the basic premise of both is to squeeze ever more from those who actually work IOW taxation without representation).
    The share especially is an instrument of exploitation, replacing the entrepreneur with the CEO who is responsible neither to the enterprise nor to the workers, only the shareholders.

    It follows effortlessly those who do not pay taxes should not vote (again the opposite of the current state of affairs) and there can be no such thing as “public sector unions”.

    None of this is terribly original – Solon´s Laws included the death penalty for unemployment (i.e. not having discernible income), a provision that was renewed four times (!) “because it was very good”. And the Athenians paid their officeholders the equivalent of a Big Mac per day (“diet”, heh).

    The late great Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi´s take on this was interesting …
    there are, he wrote (“The Green Book”), three “life essentials” that must not under any circumstances be monopolized by whomever (= what you would call Sibbyl Rites):
    – housing, read HOUSING,
    – food, read LAND,
    – participatory democracy, read GUNS,
    otherwise it doesn´t matter what you call your political system. Sound familiar?

    Choose your flavour 😀

    (getting the Manichaeism out of the American is a syphilis job I´m afraid –
    to paraphrase Moltke the Elder eternal peace is a dream … and not a pretty one)

  8. Puffdaddy says:

    But the most amazing thing about this article is that the writer thinks we can get communism “right”

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  9. Rall up
    P. Cockburn down

  10. @Seymour_Buhtz

    I remember in about ’99, telling Mike “In Tokyo” Rogers that Rall was a leftard. Mike wouldn’t believe it, and kept being a fanboy for Rall. Turns out that Mike was doing a lot of speed in those days and wasn’t seeing things clearly.

  11. Cowboy says:

    I agree Ted. All the Democrat candidates are corporate puppets. Lasch was probably the last true Democrat. Congratulations on calling for a communist civil war. That was honest.

  12. Sounds like a call for the return of Jew Bolshevists.

    • Replies: @Buck Ransom
    , @nokangaroos
  13. @Change that Matters

    Every fuckwit in the Democratic Party could be far to the left of Trotsky and Mao’s demonic lovechild and the pundit class would still be hand-wringing that they were nothing but well-meaning, bourgeois, sensible moderates.

  14. @Puffdaddy

    The debate over ideology is just not meaningful–in all social and economic systems the key principal is the same on the ground–some pigs are more equal than others.

  15. Let me get this right: there are no leftists among today’s Democrat candidates, but the America First committee, which opposed America’s entry into WW2 and were against wars of aggression, imperialism and neocolonialism, was therefore leftist? With logic like that, no wonder the writer confuses the likes of the Khmer Rouge and Stalinist corpse-strewn labor camps with Pete Seeger guitar-pickin union rallies. Will Walter Duranty never die?

  16. El Dato says:

    I thought I had left the communist chestnuts of 1917 behind me when I left high school?

    Under a socialist economy, workers own the means of production, which means they are no longer exploited.

    Yeah, you think? I dunno, do you open a fscking history book sometimes?

    “I have a job, I’m being so exploited” – The cry of every 18 year old.

    “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work” – The statement of the socilaist worker.

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.”

    This is not how reality works. Unless everyone has a go-pro that is scanned by bureaucrats of MiniEcon all day long, whereby the “contribution” is duly noted in Dear Leader’s Excel sheet, to be tallied at the end of the month. Central Management for the Good of All. Who wants to live in a society that is a hosiptal, run by disgruntled and entitled state employees who wear bizarre boy scout badges on their work uniforms?

    So, those who aren’t able to work due to physical or mental infirmities, for example, have equal access to the good things in life.

    Unfortunately this doesn’t follow. They don’t “contribute”, so they are in trouble. Getting shunted to a disused warehouse at best.

    “The main enemy is at home,” noted the German Spartacist Karl Liebknecht, referring to the ruling classes.

    He was wrong. The main enemy was the Red Army, rampaging through Belarus and the newly created Poland, with direction Berlin for some “socialist liberation”, getting on stopped in extremis at Warshaw in 1920.

    Carry on.

  17. El Dato says:

    What irks me is the old and completely meaningless dichotomy of left/right, based on the seating order of the french parliament. It hamstrings the mind, and is actually actively used that way.

    Far better to distinguish between:

    – an AUTHORITARIAN attitude, where there is an attempt to concentrate power into an UNIPARTY by all means necessary, even if this demands replacing/disarming/controlling and “cancelling” the populace by hook or by crook. The dogmatic approach seems to be that if a policy makes you “feel good” then “one is right” it thus the policy is metaphysically “TRUE”. One starts to ignore one’s limitations. One pretends that economic and cognitive rules do not apply. The “feel good” dogma is a hard drug: Foreign countries are burnt, cities a entropized, institutions of learning are destroyed, redshirts are sent out, speech and thoughts are patrolled, the history of last week is retconned on need.

    – an FATBELLY attitude, where there is an attempt to pretend that one is in the 19th century, things behave linearly and are more or less like yesterday and some slight exploitation at home or abroad is no big deal, because resources are vast and the natives under control. The good part is that one at least acknowledges that people are supposed to think for themselves and have agency. Foreign countries are still burnt down though. The FATBELLY attitude will end in this before long:

  18. @Change that Matters

    What you do not seem to realize is that no piece of paper fits between Bolsheviks, banksters and media.

  19. – You know you fucked up monumentally when even Rosa Luxemburg derides your take as “Partisanenkrieg des Lumpenproletariats”.
    The Immigration Act was the final nail in the Unions´coffin, and they still don´t grok it.

    A controlled opposition that does not think but can be pointed at everything in the way of our Divinely Chosen Rulers ™ is nice to have.
    (by way of logical extension, brace for something on the order of the Cultural Revolution)

  20. The Democrats are not anti-capitalist. They are just anti-white.

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.”

    The version I am familiar with was: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

    Tulsi Gabbard, arguably the most stridently anti-war candidate in the cycle, nevertheless touts her military service, even as she declaims “regime change wars.”

    Tulsi Gabbard is probably the Plan B of the Zionists, just in case a Clintonoid fails to win the Dem nomination. I am no longer fooled be her act.

  21. @james charles

    Does your clown whingeing about “Fossil Fuels” have an explanation as to how Titan ended up with the same petro-chemicals?

    Did the evil oil companies have a secret program to rocket dinosaur carcasses to Saturn’s Orbit?

    Meanwhile, for those of us who live in the real world, here’s what the global warming scam is all about:

    http://www.investors.com/po…

    “At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

    Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    and

    http://www.cfact.org/2017/0…

    “Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.””

    • Replies: @A123
  22. “For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources.

    If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition. 

    So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.”
    https://thedakepage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-to-assess-climate-change.html

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  23. @james charles

    If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science.

    Almost all large organizations are ruled by sociopaths. These “leaders” and “experts” excel at internal politics, public relations/propaganda and rising to the top of bureaucracies. They specialize at increasing the size and funding of their organizations–by any means necessary.

    As a result any “findings” of such large organizations are suspect. This would be true whether they were studying “climate”, sending missions to the Moon and Mars that never seem to make it the Moon or Mars, “curing” disease X that never seems to get cured, or carrying out a hundred year “study” of the mating habits of chimpanzees in Burundi.

    To deny _that_ is to deny human nature.

    • Replies: @james charles
  24. A123 says:
    @Bill Jones

    You are of course correct. The Democrat party hates science. Leftist wealth distribution schemes require faith-based adherence to ‘far-left’ belief systems.

    James “Science Denier” Charles is pushing DNC/Globalist climate change mythology. For example:

    For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources.

    A surprisingly limited number of science denying funders in government corrupted the system over decades. The alphabet soup only received funding for anti-science non-studies that supported the favored outcome of Globalist science deniers:

    — In the 70’s government science deniers, like Al Gore (a.k.a. ManBearPig [1]), advocated ‘global cooling’ and controlled the funding. That was then debunked. You can find a great deal on the 1970’s deception here:

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

    — In the 90’s-00’s science deniers advocating ‘global warming’ controlled funding. That was then debunked.

    — The DNC/Globalist science deniers in government have now moved on to ‘climate change’ and they are careful to avoid any precise definition to delay the inevitable debunking.

    Fortunately, just like The boy who cried Wolf!, science deniers advocating faith-based climate change mythology are now ignored.
    _______

    PEACE 😇

    (1) https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/ManBearPig_(character)

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  25. @A123

    The “climate change” folks are rubbing our noses in it.

    They are the “experts”.

    They say “hot”, it is “hot”, or you are a science denier.

    They say “cool”, it is “cool”, or you are a science denier.

    They say “change”, it is “change”, or you are a science denier.

    They say “it is time for you to kill yourself”, you are to kill yourself, or you are a science denier.

    The Kool-Aid cups are right over here.

    The purpose of power is power. George Orwell, 1984

  26. Giovanni says:

    This article was a breath of fresh air and is something I have been spouting for years. The labels of “left,” “liberal,” and “socialist” emanates from far right fascists who perceive anyone who is a millimeter to their left as almost being a stinko pinko. We cannot let these marauding dinosaurs set the standard. And, as usual, the non-thinking controlled complicit media goes along with these false agenda driven memes. This is why this article was necessay and long overdue.

  27. Giovanni says:
    @Seymour_Buhtz

    Let us hope that your move comes sooner, rather than later.

  28. Dutch Boy says:

    The actual “owners” in socialist/communist countries are not workers but the Party-controlled bureaucrats who run the economy.

  29. Dutch Boy says:

    Since the Democrats want to bureaucratize everything, they are in the mainstream of Leftist praxis (rather than rhetoric) worldwide. The economic oligarchs know full well that this sort of “socialism” is right up their alley, with government funds channeled to the client population partially making up for the shortfall in wages caused by immigration, job outsourcing and the consequent demise of private sector unions.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ted Rall Comments via RSS