When I was hanging out with the youth element of the Revolutionary Unions (RU) back in the early to mid-1970s, there was a fellow member who attended American University and was part of our branch. While returning from a meeting in Washington, DC one afternoon, our conversation turned to what brought us to leftist politics. During the course of the conversation, she related that she was originally interested in libertarianism until Alex—an RU organizer and member of our branch—explained via the use of history that even if capitalism could exist as the libertarians envisioned, it could not remain within that vision because capitalism requires profit to survive. Since profit requires a continual expansion of markets and the accrual of profit by some capitalists, that means that other capitalists would not be able to make a profit since the amount of capital is finite. This creates intensified competition among the capitalists, which in turn causes the less predatory businesses to fail, thereby creating monopolies and inequality in their wake. In other words, a fair capitalism that depended completely on the fairness of the market could not exist for any amount of time because the market can not remain fair. That’s the only verifiable outcome of the capitalist economic experience.
But this piece isn’t about libertarianism in the general sense of the word. In fact, it is about the current campaign run by Ron Paul and his supporters for nomination to be the GOP’s standard bearer for the 2008 presidential election. More specifically, it is about a growing trend on the left side of the spectrum to support that campaign. Naturally, I am in total support of Mr. Paul’s call to end the war and occupation of Iraq immediately and I applaud his ability to make that call something that other politicians must respond to. I also support the standard libertarian call for legalization of marijuana. In addition, there are other elements of Paul's campaign that are quite appealing. However, the Libertarian hatred of labor unions and public education, opposition to universal health care and their generally objectivist (as in Ayn Rand) approach to human societal relations leaves me cold.
When one reads most left/progressive calls to support Mr. Paul, they tend to dismiss these and other libertarian aspects of Paul’s program by stating that these extremist views will never succeed because the moderate and progressive voices in Congress won’t allow them to. This argument is politically naïve and potentially dangerous. After all, who would have ever thought that the moderate and progressive voices in Congress would have passed the PATRIOT Act, given the White House blanket permission to wage war whenever and wherever it wishes, and steal billions of dollars from working Americans to hand to their wealthiest countrymen? In essence, what I’m saying here is that Congress can be convinced to do almost anything contrary to the majority of its constituents’ interests.
The solution Ron Paul appears to provide is inviting if for no other reason than its sheer simplicity. Vote for Paul in the GOP primaries and get him into the presidential race. Then elect him president. Then he will end the war. That alone is reason enough for many fervent (and not-so-fervent) anti-warriors. Hell, a half-dozen of my old leftie friends are seriously considering the idea and I have to admit there are times it even appeals to me. After all, not too many other candidates have consistently opposed allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant or continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. Even fewer said of the 2001 attack on Afghanistan while connecting it to Unocal's desire to build a gas pipeline through the country: “The terrorist enemy is no more an entity than the "mob"or some international criminal gang. It certainly is not a country, nor is it the Afghan people.... The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war.”
However, I can’t give my vote to Mr. Paul. I can’t ignore the repercussions of the libertarian capitalism Mr. Paul espouses, especially in a world where corporate monopolies have been ruling the market for over a hundred years and, by doing so, have made any possibility of a free, much less fair, market absolutely impossible. I can’t ignore his musings about preventing people from so-called terrorist countries from visiting the United States. I can’t ignore his yes votes on building a fence along the Mexican border, or his vote against tipping off immigrants about the Minuteman Project, or on reporting undocumented residents who receive hospital treatment. Furthermore, his calls to find and deport every person living in the United States with an invalid (or no) visa and to end the constitutionally guaranteed citizenship of every person born in the United States are just plain wrong and would increase the police state he claims to oppose. I can't ignore his votes against restricting employer interference in union organizing or his opposition to increasing the minimum wage. I couldn’t ignore Ronald Reagan or George Bush’s fundamentally anti-labor positions and I won’t ignore Mr. Paul’s. Nor can I ignore Mr. Paul's position against women's reproductive choice. His vote to ban gay adoptions in DC ticks me off as does his vote against continuing the moratorium on drilling for oil offshore, his vote for continuing military recruitment on college campuses, and his support for the Star Wars weaponry plan (SDI).
What the support for Ron Paul among potentially progressive voters signifies to me is the failure of today’s left to enunciate an anti-imperialist position better than that put forth by the libertarian right. This is not a new phenomenon in US history. Indeed, some of the members of the Anti-Imperialist League of the late nineteenth century were much closer to the Ron Paul philosophy than anything Marx, Lenin, or Luxembourg ever wrote. This is not necessarily because that philosophy is a better one, but it is certainly better received in a capitalist nation like the US. The most positive thing I can pull out of the Ron Paul phenomenon is that the people of the United States want something radically different. In a capitalist society, radical capitalism is as far as many folks will go--and that's essentially what libertarianism is.
But, say the supporters of Paul who consider themselves progressive or left, he has promised to end the war. My immediate response is, so have Kucinich and Mike Gravel, so why not lend them your support? At least on the slight chance they got elected they wouldn’t want to turn the country into a greater paradise for predatory capitalism than it already is. My more thoughtful response is that nothing—especially nothing as important as ending the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan—can be solved simply by voting another face into the White House. Getting rid of the current one and replacing him with someone who has at least expressed a desire to end those adventures is certainly a step in the right direction, but only a widespread and mobilized movement willing to use a multitude of tactics is going to accomplish that. On the other hand, do I think it’s the end of the world if Ron Paul gets your vote (or gets elected)? Of course not. In fact, a vote for Ron Paul is certainly a better use of the franchise than a vote for almost any of the other candidates currently running. For better or worse.
http://stillhomeron.blogspot.com/
Ron Jacobs is a writer, library worker and anti-imperialist. He is the author of The Way the Wind Blew:A History of the Weather Underground (Verso 1997) His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is now available at Amazon, and many other stores.
H.R.1789 Title: To restore the inherent benefits of the market economy by repealing the Federal body of statutory law commonly referred to as "antitrust law", and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron
He is in favor, in other words, of one big oil company, among other things.
When Libertarians become part of government the pro-business aspect of their agenda takes center stage. Please note Greenspan calls himself a Libertarian. Most Republican business conservatives call themselves Libertarians.
Joining a movement, for instance, to gut Social Security would have have practical consequences for millions of elderly today. It would as much an act of war as the attack on Iraq. We aren't dealing with theory.
Experience teaches - what people want to do "in the long run" is what they really want to do.
The one-issue argument one hears from Stan Goff is the mirror opposite of the one-issue argument one heard from Chris Hitchens. Progressives certainly weight the various issues differently. But we rarely give all issues except one a weight of zero.
by
dc2412 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 5:14:50 PM
I AM SO SICK OF THIS ATTACK ON RON PAUL THAT IT'S SERIOUSLY PISSING ME OFF TO NO END.
DON'T YOU PEOPLE GET IT?!?! CORPORATIONS WILL NOT FLOURISH AND GAIN STRENGTH WITH PAUL'S POLICIES!!!!!!!!
if Ron Paul would give new power and profit to these corporations as you claim WHY WOULD FOX EXCLUDE HIM FROM THE DEBATE??
WHY ARE THE CORPORATIONS NOT GIVING HIM MONEY?? WHY ARE THEY FUNDING HIS OPPONENTS? WHY IS FOX FIGHTING TOOTH AND NAIL TO SILENCE HIM??
WHY HAS NOT A DIME OF HIS CAMPAIGN COME FROM WALL STREET IF THEY STAND TO GAIN NEW LEVELS OF POWER AND PROFIT??
IF PAUL WAS GOING TO GRANT THEM THIS POWER THEY WOULD BE SENDING HIM MONEY LEFT AND RIGHT AND PUTTING PAUL PROPAGHANDA ALL OVER THE AIRWAVES, TV AND INTERNET!
Why has not one corporate PAC run ads favoring him or sent him money??
GET A CLUE!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!! AND STOP POSTING THIS BULLSHIT!!!
by
Jeremy Frombach (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 31 comments)
on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 11:58:57 AM
Address some of the issues I have brought up instead of whining and snivelling about the unfair treatment Dr. Paul suffers at the hands of propagandaists, please. You've a lot of comfort amongst your misdirected animosity to be slinging insults in your new hangout. I've given Ron Paul fair treatment, I have come to his defense, and I can agree with some of his positions, however, I won't buy into his followers' herd mentality that I should support him based on just a handful of issues that even other candidates have similar positions on. You, like many of the other Rontrons, mistakenly believe that what to you is the sole most pressing and important issue should be the same qualifier for everyone across the board or trump all the other issues. That's some of the most irresponsible reasoning behind selecting a candidate that I have ever heard of! I will never bend to the bullying and mockery of your crowd or anyone else's to give support to someone who's stances on nearly every issue I do not agree with. I have more than enough strength of character and self-respect to resist the band-wagon BS of a so-called rEVOLution who's members' drumbeatings remind me of the current administration's take on every dissenting voice of opposition...
In addition to the excuse making and whining that many of the Paulites have been doing, folks like yourself are continually reinforcing the extremely honest and unflattering critique I wrote on this site about the majority of RP's supporters who've recently shown up on OEN.
I have to wonder why so many of you flocked to this site? And again, why do so many of you have this chip on your shoulder? What's all the anger and hostility about?
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 678 comments)
on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 10:55:36 PM
the notion that he will somehow empower corporations is so ridiculous. you try to sell me this garbage that somehow the corporations just don't realize how much more power they will gain with Paul, so they are sending all of their money to the democrats and republicans opposing him who will regulate and control them?? are you kidding me?? that's why your whole argument is asinine. it is your uneducated rookie guess of your impression of what "free market" economics means, and then spew this garbage in an editorial when you don't even really know what you're talking about. if you want to know which candidates will empower the corporations just look at opensecrets.org and see who wall street is funding, it is literally that simple.
by
Jeremy Frombach (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 31 comments)
on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 1:35:25 AM
2)I didn't make the claims you're attributing to me.
3)I pretty much DID make an uncalled for dismissal of your comment on the basis of its appearance alone but went on to further answer you with the comment that perhaps it was his opposition to the Military Industrial Complex that was causing much of his grief and the opposition of the MSM.
4)If you've read my comments, you'd have noticed that NOWHERE have I argued that the Ron Paul supporters are wrong in their understanding or assesment of the economics!!! However, I did bring up a question concerning 'corporate personhood' that another supporter (one who's interested in two-way communication and has steadfastly rejected the 'chip on the shoulder' attitude of many from your camp in favor of an interest in discussing his candidate and thoughtfully addressing other commentors) has even wondered about his candidate's stance on rather than the single issue approach.
5)Furthermore, I made no 'rookie assumptions' about a damn thing. In fact, I've only raised some questions myself about the selling points of his supporters by pushing what they believe is the single most important issue to themselves as the universal pivot point of whether or not a person should support a certain candidate... which I will say, again, is an irresponsible reasoning behind choosing who you will stand behind.
Curiously, not a single one of you (well, one guy near the bottom did -Thank you!) has answered the question posed by the article...
IS ONE ISSUE (THE ANTI-WAR POSITION) ENOUGH TO MAKE YOU VOTE FOR RON PAUL???
A few of his opposition HAVE answered that.
WHY WON'T ANY OF HIS SUPPORTERS ADDRESS THE REAL ISSUE HERE???
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 678 comments)
on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 9:04:03 AM
the reason i pitch a fit is because of the incredible misinformation "progressives" throw out there about ron paul, like the whole basis of this article. i used to be part of the liberal crowd, and i helped hand control back over to this "progressive" democratic do nothing congress last year, and i voted for john kerry in 2004. i'm no stranger to the left side of politics, and i left that pathetic party for a reason. the reason gravel and the like don't deserve my support is, to answer this article's question, no, being anti-war is not enough. Ron Paul has addressed the single most important issue in our country that none of these ridiculous democratic candidates have addressed and that the even more clueless republican candidates have tried to deny- inflation and monetary policy are what is destroying our country. what has any one democratic candidate said they would do about the destruction of our dollar? have they openly said 'the federal reserve needs to go.' ? no they haven't. we should not have a fiat monetary system, and your party continues to support it so they don't have stay within a budget, then they say they want to help the poor with social programs. oh yes, help the poor by allowing the government to devalue what little wages they make and transfer the value their money just lost to the newly created money that will boost the stocks on wall street and allow congress to fund their bs pet projects and subsidies.
i despise the hypocrisy of the democratic party and none of them deserve my vote or yours.
by
Jeremy Frombach (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 31 comments)
on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 2:59:58 PM
But, like yourself I'm no longer a Democrat either. And you raise a good point. Very good point. But, I just cannot support him on a handful of agreements. However, that's not to say that any of the others deserve my support either. But, I probably will throw myself behind someone before it's over with... Do you have a second choice -supposing that Dr. Paul drops out? I think he might pull the third party thing and I'd almost encourage that because I never really understood why he was running under the Republican party. I would look forward to seeing how his bid as a third party candidate would effect the race and perhaps help to legitimize third party opposition to be widely more accepted in the current two-party fiasco! We aren't so far as separate in our views as either of us perhaps thought at first -and I apologize for ad hominem attack on my part.
Cheers,
Bid
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 678 comments)
on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 5:38:21 PM
thanks for your apology, i apologize for flipping out myself.. this whole election cycle has just been very frustrating as far as the huge misunderstanding people have had about Ron Paul's platform and what his policies would truly mean for our country. it's been nothing but amateur-ish interpretations and smears like this article. i will say this though, if michael bloomberg throws his hat into the ring and paul turns out to not be a viable candidate i will support him. the best part is i have no idea what any of his views are on anything. but to break up the 2 party system would be the best possible alternative to the corporate puppets on the 2 sides of the aisle right now. the reason Paul ran as a republican is because he has been a republican for 10 terms in congress and aside from that 1 year period running for president as a libertarian he has been a republican his entire political career. i just wish there was SOMEONE talking about the looting of our monetary policy other than him, and no one is. No other issues matter in the face of the dollar crisis. be it the war or foreign policy or terrorism or abortion or civil liberties, if gasoline is going to be $9 a gallon and taxes consume 70% of our income none of it will matter, we will have no freedom left because the wealthy will have taken all of our ability to fund our lives.as far as his third party bid i really don't think he'll do it, especially if michael bloomberg enters the race. but paul has said as president he would work very hard to remove all of the obstacles third parties face in getting into the general elections and break the 2 party system, which is another reason he is the only candidate i support. sadly it will never happen from the outside, we need the crack to start on the inside like his strategy implies.
by
Jeremy Frombach (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 31 comments)
on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 4:28:41 PM
although not as flamboyant as some. no i do not find his no-war policies to be the only reason for my support. i dont agree with some of his personal beliefs, but according to his platform, and his public record, he is all about personal beliefs being personal, and political policies are supposed to protect the right for one to hold personal beliefs without reprisal from anyone else. he is a strong supporter of a hands-off foreign policy that dictates "US policy is for US sovreign territory, and not to be forced on anyone else" and vice versa. there are many more reasons for me, but i dont want to waste ink on fiddling details ;).
by
jason (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 6:03:34 AM
I just wonder, though, how many support him on one cause only? Seems to be a lot... and that's fine if it's the only thing that matters to them. It's just not enough for me, personally -even though I respect more than just one of his policies.
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 678 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 9:34:05 AM
Are you in favor of ending the Sherman antitrust act? Are you in favor of one oil company? Are you in favor of ending all restrictions on where this company can drill?
by
dc2412 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 5:12:35 PM
Sorry. I meant the 2nd commentor -Jeremy Frombach who through his furor came off sounding like a 6 year old's temper tantrum... which is really kinda unfair of me to give him a hard time about, but hey -a guy needs to think about what they post from time to time. I've sure sounded stupid as hell before.
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 678 comments)
on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 6:21:25 PM
The Anti-Paul Propaganda Over Simplifies to Confuse Issues
The problem today is the US military and CIA forces are being used as body guards to protect thuggish leaders who betray their people and sell US corporations their people's slave labor, and looted resources.
Then when those people become angry at America because we pay to repress them, we pay the price.
We also pay the price because corporate welfare pays massive federal dollars to bolster oil and nuclear . . . thereby making solar and wind seem artificially costly compared to oil and nuclear.
We are being played by the corporate militarist system.
ONLY Ron Paul has stood directly against that. Kuchinich and Gravel came the closest and the corporate democratic party axed them.
WHY? Because they know that Obama and Hillary will pay lip service to taking on corporate money . . . but Obama and Hillary BOTH GET CORPORATE MONEY.
Look at Ron Paul's campaign funding. From ordinary people. His average donation is $52.
Ask yourself with clear eyes, not being played by the corporate "left" and "right" media spin . . . who will be able to take on the corporatist government?
If you are honest you'll have to answer RON PAUL !!
by
Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments)
on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 2:54:09 AM
The first paragraph of your article reveals a profound error about the nature of capitalism.
Capitalism can only function with freedom. That means all transactions are done voluntarily, and only if they are to the benefit of all parties to the transaction. It also means that if any one party tries to raise prices to a level that is unreasonable, other people will have the incentive and freedom go into competition with them.
Basically, what you are saying is that allowing individuals the freedom to deal with each other without force is unfair. On the contrary, introduction of the gun between peoples' dealings with each other is unfair. You cannot manage other peoples' affairs for them without destroying their rights and any fairness that might exist. You cannot have enough information to make these decisions without introducing injustice, even by mistake. But it's never a mistake. The power to rule over others, expropriate their property, and pick winners and losers in the economic realm always devolves into corruption -- whether by extortion, bribery, or 'lobbying'. That is why we have ended up with a nation of 'the politics of pull', with lobbyists and special interests swarming Washington like a flock of seagulls circling for a tidbit.
You are also mistaken on your premises that profit requires continually expanding markets to survive, and that the amount of capital is finite (which in the context you used, means fixed, or static).
Two people who decide to specialize, each in something different, produce their products more efficiently than if they didn't specialize. When they trade with each other, each can sell his product for less than it would otherwise cost, and obtain a higher profit margin for it at the same time. Both of these fictional people would profit, and continue to profit indefinitely as long as they dealt with each other, with no need for an expanding market. The scenario which makes your statement have some validity is the scenario in which we have a central bank printing money the same way a counterfeiter would. Under these conditions, everyone loses permanently a portion of their wealth and their wealth-producing capacity every time a new dollar is printed and spent into the economy. Under these conditions, and as now when printing and money creation greatly exceeds the expansion of the productive part of the economy, then yes, everyone loses, and it is happening now. It's happening on a scale where it appears we have passed the tipping point, beyond which a general economic failure is all but inevitable. To sum up, it is fiat currency creation that requires a continually expanding economy, not capitalism itself. For a clear explanation of this, see "Money As Debt", freely available on Google Video.
Lastly, your assertion that capital is finite is only partially true. It is not infinite of course, because not all possible capital that can be created has been created yet. But it is not fixed, either. Capital is wealth. Wealth is created by the application of human thought and effort to something dug up out of the ground or grown, that makes it valuable to human beings. So, wealth is not only created, but consumed. Not to be confused with money, which is portable wealth used for convenience, or paper dollars, which are only a symbol of wealth, not even being a receipt for real wealth as they once were. So you can see that in our present economy, we have a central bank that creates dollars like a counterfeiter would, loans them to the government, and collects the dollars back (after we have to earn them by creating real wealth and selling it for dollars), and charges interest on the dollars too. Thus you have a mass transfer of wealth from the people who create it to an elite bunch of power brokers on a scale unimagined throughout history.
The system itself allows the central bank, the government, government contractors and all recipients of government money to consume and destroy wealth. It has been destroying and consuming wealth faster than it can be created for so long now that our manufacturing base has been gutted, and we are in debt to the tune of 9 trillion dollars, a figure that cannot possibly be paid back now that the productive sectors of our economy are broken.
If we had stable currency that carries real value, then increases in wealth would simply lead to lower prices for everything and everybody. Then, if you saved a gold coin under your bed, the productivity of the economy would make its value appreciate, without interest, without taxes.
Probably the most important thing about Dr. Paul's candidacy is the education of the American people about the pernicious evil of our monetary system that puts government interests at the mercy of a private, secretive, unaccountable central bank. We are headed towards a financial meltdown, caused by inflation of the currency in the face of a declining dollar. When the next depression hits, possibly accompanied by outright currency failure, we will be faced with the spectre of police-state dictatorial controls, maybe even famine, riots, and other Bad Things.
Where's the fairness in that?
It may be impolite of Ron Paul to mention these things, but the people need to be aware of what is happening, and to be aware of the contingency plans laid by government in case of a currency collapse. Does this concern you? Do you really think denying people the right to own property will result in an increase in peoples' standard of living? Are you willing to report to a work camp or a collective farm in order to eat?
by
John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 93 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 5:53:59 PM
Capitalism gives some people the power to rule over others every day the laborer goes to work for the boss. Also, there is only so much money(capital) to go around, otherwise the money that existed would have no value. So, even when new capital is crested via labor and resources, the profit made is taken from someone else (in addtion to the laborer) , thereby diminishing their capital.
by
Ron Jacobs (59 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 16 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 8:43:17 PM
You don't sound like you have ever owned a business and hired an employee to work for you. It doesn't sound like you are aware of what it takes to be the kind of man who someone would trust his mortgage and his future on. An employee needs to be confident that you won't stiff him on his paycheck, run the business into the ground, or treat him like dirt before he will come to work for you. That means you have to have the integrity to be worthy of that trust, resourceful enough to keep business flowing in, and worthy also of the trust of your customers. As an employer, you are dependent on the ability of your employees to do their jobs. You need to earn their trust and you need them to want you to succeed. If you try to 'exercise power' over them, you wo
