Savant's Words

I agree. Lupita is a fine sista.

-Savant

______________________


What exactly is the "Marxist Agenda"? And in what way does it translate into fascism? Fascism is a right wing form of totalitarianism which Big business tends to support as a counter to Communism, socialism, trade unionism and even liberalism (which both Hitler and Mussolini saw as a stepping stone toward Communism. Marxists emphasize class--sometimes to the point of class reductionism. Fascists emphasize nation as primary and are RIGHT WING nationalists; often racism is an essential part of their ideology as well. Marxists tend to emphasize "proletarian internationalism, " sometimes to the point of disregarding popular nationalist sentiments (which are then exploited by reactionaries and fascists) How would the "Marxist agenda" of a democratic socialist like Rosa Luxemburg coincide with agenda of a Lenin whose authoritarianism Rosa severely attacked? How does the agenda of "Marxist humanists" coincide with the agenda of orthodox Marxist Leninists? I get the impression that this poster and many others don't have even a rudimentary knowledge of Marx or Marxism of any sort. And this ignorance is BLATANTLY obvious in those idiotic posters who think that Martin Luther King was a Communist,  

-Savant

____________

No evidence has ever been produced that I know of which shows any money or connections King had with any Communist organizations. And the claim that King was a Communist is as silly as the claim that he was a conservative Republican. Read Thomas F. Jackson's FROM CIVIL RIGHTS TO HUMAN RIGHTS. King was a socialist, but not a Communist. Indeed, his own writings reveal that he was anti-Communist. The problem for the Establishment is that King was also anti-capitalist. Stanley Levinson, was an ex-Communist by the time he started working with King. And the FBI knew this. But the FBI was determined to CRUSH the Black Freedom movement; and labeling the Movement Communist was part of their strategy for doing so. Levinson decided to part company with King rather than jeopardize the Movement. By the way, search out information on COINTELPRO if you want to know about FBI efforts to suppress the Black movement and other liberatory movements. By the way, I would probably commend the Communists if they did support the Movement. At last they would have gotten something right. Most things they not gotten right.

-Savant


_____________________________

Savant wrote: King & Socialism Now getting back to my original claim that Dr. King was a leftist, let's listen to King himself---the AUTOBIOGRAPHY when Abdurratin mentions but hasn't read. It is in connection with his visit to Scandinavia to receive the Nobel Prize: "This was, for most of us, our first trip to Scandinavia...We felt we had much to learn from Scandinavia's DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST tradition and from the manner in which they had overcome many of the social and economic problems that still plagued the more powerful and affluent nations. In both Norway and Sweden, whose economies are literally dwarfed by the size of our affluence and the extent of our technology, they have no unemployment and no slums. Their men, women and children have long enjoyed FREE MEDICAL CARE and quality education. This contrast to the limited, halting steps taken by our rich nation deeply troubled me." (AUTOBIOGRAPHY, p. 259) These comments were not published in King's life time. He did talk about how much more advanced Scandinavia was than the USA. He cautiously avoided mentioning democratic Malcolm X pointed out explicitly and PUBLICLY what King wrote privately: That these countries were SOCIALIST, and that this was an essential difference between Sweden and the USA...The reason why our country has sprawling slums while Sweden does not.(You can find Malcolm's comments in MALCOLM X SPEAKS. Don't have it at hand, but will supply the specific references as soon as I can. Yes, Malcolm and Martin were both LEFT radicals....not liberals, but revolutionaries).

__________________



Yes, the fascists are out in force... and that is what these scum are... fascists. It is FASCISTS who scream "communism" every time you want to give a food stamp to a hungry child or make college affordable to a poor student. That's really all they've got... because in dealing with facts and reality they cannot win an argument. What policies do they have? Trickle-down? LOL... They are fascists, therefore enemies of democracy, and traitors.

-Ish Tov

__________________

The Occupy Movement was clearly NOT marxist even though there were Marxists around. And with their General Assemblies, they were experimenting and discovering direct democracy. NOI is ANTI=-MARXIST. So was ron Karenga and his reactionary US organization. One might even make a case that these are black fascist grups, but not Marxist grops. Hence the question posed to a previous poster remains unaddressed: What is the "Marxist agenda" he speaks of, and how does it turn into Fascism. Also, if Adburratin has never heard of a marxist humanist that simply reveals the limitatons of his knowledge. Interestingly enough, I've heard conversations by members of the AAPRP during the 1980s in which they were discussing (though not in depth) thw notion of "Marxist Humanism" and its unpopularity in the USSR. Not much depth,but they at least HEARD of it. Was Abdurratin REALLY a member of the All African Peoples Revolutionary Party? But why are we even discussing this in a thread concerne dwith the legacy of Martin Luther King?--A democratic and Christian socialist, but clearly no Marxist or Communist as some simpletons in this thread have asserted

-Savant

 ______________________

 Savant wrote:

The government mainly does the laundry and all the dirty work for the rich. And is has always been a matter of robbing the poor to further enrich the wealthy--who engage not only in useless activity, but destructive activity. Sorry. I'm more worried about the 12 million American children who go to bed hungry at night in the world richest nation. I'm worry about the prisoners of our slums and ghettoes, our barrios and shantytowns. I'm worried millions of famliles living on the streets. I'm worried about the scumbag capitalists, through the political reprsentatives in government, slashing my elderly mother;s social security or her Medicare. I'm worried about working class people losing your jobs, their benefits and even the civic rights. I worried about my next door neigbor about to lose her home, not about some rich guy who doesn't want to pay more taxes. I'm sorried about the millions of my black sisters and brothers still trapped in prisons of urban poverty from which I only narrowly escaped and--who knows?--might one day return if theings continue as they are. I am worried about the trumping of justice by class privilege. I could go on and on. But I happen to take DEMOCRACY seriously, and that makes me a foe of plutocracy. Either get rid of capitalism or institute social democratic reforms. As for rich: Either Tax or expropriate them. 

 __________________ 


 attai1 wrote: Sir, i see you're entrapped in the "American dream" that is selling a cheap ticket to any US citizen in the Billionaire Lottery of American Life. Except that like in any Lottery, you have 1 or 10 winning tickets for 100 millions or more ... losers. In the E.U. we think first to the 100 millions of losers instead of saving the azz of the 10 winners at any cost for society. That's one big philosophical discrepancy between the Old and the New world. Moreover the lottery winners - providing the lottery is not as it is completely biased at your very birth - generally forget how they were given the chance to win : society (so the 99% ordinary taxes) funded schools, social services, hospitals, roads, police etc. None of the millionaires of today started from a real zero level. So is it so unfair that the 1% give something back to the Community, a Community that supported them from day 1 ? Is it so unfair that this "something" should be much bigger for the 1% than for the 99%? Incidentally it should be interesting to scan those among the millionaires and billionaires who are not simply ... heirs i.e. like in the old aristocratic world when the hardest pain you had was to be born.(think about "genius" G. W. Bush among many others) 

-a whiteboi 


______________________



That's not as crazy as you may think it sounds. If society were more justly organized, people would all have enough, and those motivated to be leaders could gain in prestige rather than exhorbitant wealth at the expense of the majority, which is the case now. Should we have ultra-rich corporate managers who manipulate the entire society to their profit? Doctors driving 30' Mercedes when millions have inadequate access to healthcare? At some point it has to be decided that people will benefit by living in a better society, rather than being allowed to themselves pursue so much money and power that they're negatively impacting their fellow humans. Wow, didn't Dr. King say something similar to that? 

Yeah right. Most are born in that class, or take the right courses and are cutthroat enough in business to achieve mega-salaries, but it's not about working, it's about manipulating. When corporations are actively manipulating the thinking of the public through the media they own as a cartel, it's beyond some nice guys who worked hard and succeeded... it's about a clique of ultra-elite rulers who don't give a F about us and control society far beyond what anyone should be able to do in a democracy.

Why? The rich scream about that (or rather their Fox News stooges do the screaming for them), but they'll also scream bloody murder if we demand that they obey USA environmental and worker regs in all their foreign operations... which just shows, they have a large component of EVIL in their thinking, in their motives, and they'd rather dump toxins in a Mexican river and cause acephalic babies than obey the rules... all for "A Few Dollars More". Nice Western fantasy film that was, but we don't need our society run by folks who will act that way in order to acquire wealth.


-Barros Serrano


___________

Now short of the abolition of capitalism, the option for a more just economic order would be progressive taxation. If an American form of Scandinavian social democracy were possible, that would be another thing. I guess that's what used to be called a "mixed economy." But Right howls in horror as if we were faced with Stalinism. But unless we're prepared to accept unmitigated corporate capitalist rapaciousness (which will increasingly require fascistic political repression), then we've two main options compatible with democracy and social justice: Full scale democratic, libertarian socialism, or at least a moderate Yankee equivalent of Swedish social democracy. I'd prefer the FIRST option, but will settle for NOTHING LESS than the second option of social democracy. This is also the point I try to make at Occupy gatherings in Bmore.

-Savant

______________

Dr. King on DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM:

 "This was, for most of us, our first trip to Scandinavia...We felt we had much to learn from Scandinavia's democratic socialist tradition and from the manner in which they had overcome many of the social and economic problems that still plagued more powerful and affluent nations. In both Norway and Sweden, whose economies are literally dwarfed by the size of our affluence and the extent of our technology, they have no unemployment and no slums. Their men, women and children have long enjoyed FREE MEDICAL CARE and QUALITY EDUCATION.. This contrast to the limited, halting steps taken by our rich nation deeply troubled me." (p. 259 of THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR).

 Dr. King is describing what he observed, and offering his reflections on what he observed in Scandinavia while there in 1964 to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Unlike most recipients of the prize (Obama included) Dr. King actually EARNED it. Notice his admiration for Swedish social democracy. Notice his contrast between the well being of people in less wealth nations like Sweden where social justice was taken more seriously, compared to the poor quality of life and poverty of millions in this corrupt plutocracy which runs America. EVERY AMERICAN ought to be ashamed that his/her country has less well being, lesser quality of health care and education than a tiny country like Sweden or Denmark or Norway.

-Savant

____________________


If you were not within Dr. King's closest circle of advisors and stategists, you might not have heard him talk about his democratic socialist convictions. But....there was enough in public speeches and writings at the time for anyone to know that Dr. King was at least a PROGRESSIVE if not a socialist. And there would have been SOME things that might make you at least WONDER if Dr. King was a socialist.

For examples, his open critiques of imperialism, economic exploitation and militarism in his famous speech against the Vitetnam War. He is EXPLICIT in his criticism of capitalism. And surely anyoone who was aware of the planned Poor Peoples Campaign had to know Kign wasn't trying to lead a conservative movement. There a radio talk show host in Bmore named Marc Steiner who works with WEAA. He was with the SDS at the time. He would later being in Chicago facing Mayor Daley uniformed hordes at Democratic Convention of 1968. He was actively involved in prepareing for the Poor Peoples Campaign. Whe i spoke to him of what I'd learned with the uncovering of King's previously unpublished papers, memos at conferences, private letters, Steiner said that though he didn't know at THAT TIME that Dr. King was a committed democratic socialist, he would not have been surprised had he learned of it even in the 1960s. Another activist in town who was down with the Poor Peoples Campagin tells me "Well, King was about a radical as you could be without being a Marxist. Aside from Malcolm or the Panthers, no one was more revolutionary than King.

 Some famous Black reovlutionaries whom I've MET--Angela Davis, Stokely Carmichael, or Marshall Eddy Conway (still imprisoned former BP leader in Bmore)---all semed to agrre that King was certainly at least progressive, and probably revolutionary. In a phone conversation Marshall Eddy Conway, former Bmore Panther, says "If king was still around he'd definitely be with you at the Occupy activities." (He also said that he'd also be with us if he ever gets out of stir.) Now given the sanitized image of King fed to us in schools and by the corporate media, I can understand someone thinking King was just a moderate liberal. But there NO EXCUSE for thinking that King was a conservative. Brian should have his mouth washed out with soap for telling lies about King.

 -Savant