Skip to content

Basics: anyone who will sell you out is not on “your side”

2011 June 26
by Ian Welsh

Look, if a special interest that is nominally on the left is willing to sell out other parts of the left in order to get its little item, they are not on your side.  Period.  End of sentence.  An alliance, coalition or ideological movement’s first and most important rule is solidarity:

NEVER SELL OUT YOUR ALLIES

NEVER MAKE A SEPARATE PEACE

Anyone who is willing to do so is not your friend, is not on your side, is not an ally and is no longer due support, and should be run out of town, absolutely destroyed.  The only thing worse than an enemy is a traitor.

Any member of the left who is willing to make a separate peace is a traitor.

I’m too used to this sort of strategic and moral stupidity to cry, but the fact that people don’t understand this most basic of facts would make me weep if I had tears left.  It is beyond pathetic that so-called members of the left don’t understand this.

To be specific, it’s nice that Cuomo signed gay marriage legislation, but that doesn’t mean he’s not still an evil fuck who’s breaking unions, who are a core part of the left, and whose destruction will mean a significant decline in standards of living in the middle and working class because they are what pins wages at a higher level.

Cuomo is still putting the cost for the financial meltdown on ordinary people, rather than the bankers who caused it.  He is impoverishing people as a result, people will die as a result. People will lose their homes as a result.

The correct response to him signing the gay marriage bill is “good first step, but you still don’t have our support as long as you are attacking key parts of the coalition and protecting our enemies.”

(And if you don’t have the stomach to call bankers your enemies, you are a coward or a fool or your revenue stream comes from the oligarchy).

13 Responses
  1. June 26, 2011

    Wow, I looked over the reporting on Cuomo’s budget. You are right, and I am wrong. I wonder what swung Cuomo? As I said, he used to have a good rep.

    What has happened to New York’s politics?

  2. anon2525 permalink
    June 26, 2011

    from -> Uncategorized

    Suggested tags: Electoral Politics or Democratic Party, such as I Trust It Is Now Clear Democrats Hate the Left

    I wonder what the Cuomo/obama thinking is?

    1. Democrats don’t need money from unions (because there won’t be any unions to ask)
    2. Democrats don’t need unions’ get-out-the-vote support. Voters will have to vote for democrats out of fear.

    The republs are doing it because they think it will destroy the democratic party’s chances of getting elected. Why are the democrats doing it?

  3. PurpleGirl permalink
    June 26, 2011

    The Raven: I believe that Cuomo’s support of marriage equality at this time was a cynical exercise of “If I do this, people will think I’m progressive and good guy” and that the shiny will distract them from the other things he’s doing and advocating.

    As I said in the previous thread, Cuomo and Bloomberg are actively refusing to consider raising taxes on the rich. They both prefer to cut services to balance their budgets.

  4. Ian Welsh permalink*
    June 26, 2011

    Capping property taxes is probably the worst thing they’re doing in the longer run. The unions, for all I support them, having mostly signed on with him, pretty much deserve what they’re getting.

    Beyond depressing.

    The first job is a purge of “progressive leadership”, starting with union leadership and quickly moving to the women’s movement (who sell out for nothing, repeatedly.)

  5. atcooper permalink
    June 26, 2011

    Anon,

    It’s all about the funding. Time and again, I am seeing Democratic partisans with leftist inclinations justify bad behavior of their politicians because O and crowd are cowards, but not evil.

    Cold gruel, lol.

  6. anon2525 permalink
    June 26, 2011

    It’s all about the funding.

    Assuming that is true, then why would the democrats want to cooperate with dismantling unions, which supply the democrats with funding.

    Also, is it true that it is “all about the funding?” Unions provided a lot of help with get-out-the-vote operations on election day.

    So, I don’t see what their logic is, other than my speculation that they’ve decided that voters must support them out of fear of the evil and crazy and stupid republ candidates. They definitely do not fear a new left labor party arising, or they wouldn’t be giving people who would support such a party so many good reasons to vote for it.

  7. anon2525 permalink
    June 26, 2011

    Time and again, I am seeing Democratic partisans with leftist inclinations justify bad behavior of their politicians because O and crowd are cowards, but not evil.

    Back before he was a v.p. or even a v.p. candidate, Biden was asked by someone (not a reporter, not on t.v.) about why the democrats would not do something (I think it was impeachment, but I’ve forgotten), and he replied with something like “because democrats are too nice.” You see, their flaw is that they are too virtuous.

  8. atcooper permalink
    June 27, 2011

    The unions are dead, and a political liability. That, in no way, shape, or form makes me happy, but that seems to be the American reality. I suspect WI would have played out differently had they any real power.

    At best, their structures were co-opted. At worst, our masters hold all the cards on their viability.

    Labor must go global. That is the only way out.

  9. June 27, 2011

    I wonder what the Cuomo/obama thinking is?

    Answer: “We can take a shit on you, as often as we want and as big as we want, and you’ll still vote for us.”

    And they’re right. Those who vote based only on who has a “D” after his name are complicit.

  10. Ugsome permalink
    June 27, 2011

    Who said anything about unions being allies? My son’s father and other precious scions of the bourgeoisie like Kos are Exhibit A to Michael Lind’s observation that “[the] upscale elite has changed the party from a populist liberal alliance of unionized workers and populists into a socially liberal, economically conservative version of the old country-club Republicanism of the pre-Reagan era.”

  11. jcapan permalink
    June 30, 2011

    Answer: “We can take a shit on you, as often as we want and as big as we want, and you’ll still vote for us.”

    Bingo. Not only that but those being shat upon will claim it’s actually ice cream.

  12. anon2525 permalink
    June 30, 2011

    Answer: “We can take a shit on you, as often as we want and as big as we want, and you’ll still vote for us.”

    OK then. I guess the elections in Nov. 2009 (in VA and NJ), the Scott Brown election, and the 2010 results were all aberrations that can be safely ignored. In fact, if union money and get-out-the-vote operations are not needed, it’s a wonder that they even bother with the corporate donors. After all, if we have no choice and are too stupid to know otherwise, then campaigning or polling aren’t even necessary. “Dewey Wins!”

  13. July 4, 2011

    Now, wouldn’t it be nice if wages could reach a level promoting more income equality without the need for unions!

    One reason there is no common consensus for a need for more income equality at present is that the US already consumes a huge quantity of resources, especially petroleum products despite the fact that energy is essential to economic growth in developing countries.

    Linking again how to fix this: http://pastebin.com/Q86Zhgs9

Comments are closed.