La Riva talks South Ossetia on Russia Today

Party for Socialism and Liberation presidential nominee Gloria La Riva has been interviewed by Russia Today, in a piece that contrasts the socialist’s analysis of the South Ossetian War with that of McCain, Obama, and the White House:

Another statement by La Riva, possibly from the same interview but not included in the final cut, can be found in a PSL News and Analysis piece entitled “Russia, Georgia, and independence in the age of imperialism“:

“The U.S. is not satisfied to see any other country especially Russia be an economic or political power in the world,” La Riva said. “Russia has a right to defend itself and a right to be concerned about encroachment by the United States in the former Soviet republics. To be a member of NATO is to be a part of the U.S. imperialist alliance and a threat to world peace.”

30 thoughts on “La Riva talks South Ossetia on Russia Today

  1. G.E.

    And you can always count on the cons — neo and paleo — to rile up xenophobic, nationalist hatred against those emerging capitalist nations.

  2. Mike Gillis

    If you make excuses for Russia and China because they’re going capitalist, GE, you’re just as guilty of kneejerk tribalism that La Riva has shown in defending them for their perceived socialist tendencies.

    We shouldn’t just mindlessly defend the actions of any nation, because freedom isn’t synonymous with either socialism OR capitalism.

    I certainly wouldn’t consider China or Russia to afford their citizens nearly enough freedom, personal or otherwise. A totalitarian capitalist society is no better than a totalitarian socialist one.

    We shouldn’t just label people as good guys and bad guys by the “ism” they choose to wear on their sleeve.

    La Riva has shown on multiple occasions that she’ll turn a blind eye to real oppression if it’s done in the name of socialism, where she should direct her ire equally to all who oppress.

    Don’t make the same mistake that she does.

  3. Mike Gillis

    for an especially egregious example, La Riva has in the past made statements in support of the North Korean government, which purports itself to be socialist.

  4. G.E.

    I certainly wouldn’t consider China or Russia to afford their citizens nearly enough freedom, personal or otherwise.

    Both are better than the U.S.

    I’m not saying Russia or China are “good” — all governments are evil. But Russia is a favorite bogeyman of the neocons and China the favorite of the so-called “paleocons” (or maybe a close second to that ever-dangerous Mexico).

    I didn’t watch La Riva’s video or read her entire statement. My comments are in regard to what Fred has quoted:

    1. “The U.S. is not satisfied to see any other country especially Russia be an economic or political power in the world” = Absolutely true, and this is something that neither Baldwin or Barr have the courage to say.

    2. “Russia has a right to defend itself and a right to be concerned about encroachment by the United States in the former Soviet republics.” = If we presume that states have “rights” — as the neos and paleos do — then certainly Russia’s rights are equal to those of the U.S.

    3. “To be a member of NATO is to be a part of the U.S. imperialist alliance and a threat to world peace.” = 100% true.

    One doesn’t have to love Russia or China to cheer these statements.

  5. Trent Hill

    Yea GE, my question is—why would you consider supporting McKinney or LaRiva?

    As for saying the US is worst than totalitarian China or Russia—rediculous.

    The US does all the same things that China and Russia does–including oppressing its people via horrible economic systems, spying on them, etc etc.
    But all to a lesser degree.

    This is a common thread amongst Paleolibertarians. Supposedly, the United States is the worst country in the world–and even Communist, Totalitarian, and Socialist countries are better, all the time.

  6. G.E.

    U.S. is the worst in regards to foreign policy. Also, it is shackling its citizens and future citizens with debt that will make the U.S. far less free, domestically, than even North Korea.

  7. G.E.

    Why would I consider voting for McKinney? Because Barr is a tool and Baldwin irritates me, and I’m an impossible-to-please a-hole. I thought you knew.

  8. G.E.

    I’m reading Don Quixote. He goes off into the woods and decides to dash his head against rocks, tear his clothes off and scatter his armor, etc. This is what I feel like doing given my choices. If Baldwin could have not come out pro-T.R. (like Robert Milnes), I would have felt much better about voting for him. So now, I feel like making a reverse protest vote and voting major party in protest of how bad the minor-party candidates are. Maybe I’ll do the ultimate unthinkable and vote for McCain as a protest against the U.S. nation-state, which will surely never see another presidential election if the neocons win.

  9. Mike Gillis

    To be fair, whatever my differences with Chuck Baldwin, the only way I think he could be comparable to Milnes would be if he actually DID “dash his head against rocks”

  10. Hugh Jass

    G.E., why not be a good anarchist and not vote at all, if none of the candidates please you. Or, how about you drink a dangerous amount of alcohol before you go into the voting booth, and let your drunkenness decide for you? Or, how about you let each number on a roulette wheel represent a candidate/option, and whatever number comes up, exercise that option. The choices could be like this:

    1=McCain
    2=Obama
    3-6=Barr
    7-9=Nader
    10-14=Baldwin
    15-17=McKinney
    18-23=Write-In: Ron Paul
    24-29=Write-In: Charles Jay
    30-36=Write-In: Fuck You
    0 and 00=Don’t Vote

  11. G.E.

    Hugh – I’m showing up to vote for Scotty Boman and other real libertarians. It seems lame to not bother voting for president. Mike Gillis has suggested that I write in “FUCK YOU!” which is narrowly leading Baldwin in my internal primary.

  12. Deran

    The real problem with La Riva and co. (including the Workers World Party they split from), is that as supposed “real existing socialist” (ie, Stalinist) states have fallen apart, this element of the US Left has had to grasp further and further into fantasy land to find excuses for supporting Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.

    It is part of the internal logic of these sorts of Marxist-Leninist vangaurdist parties to need affiliation with some alleged socialist homeland, or at least the appearance of such, or the fond memory of such; as in the case of the USSR.

    Completely turning a blind eye to the atrocities and authoritarianism of these regimes. Criticizing these regimes in no way compromises a persons ethical ability to criticize the USA.

  13. G.E.

    By the way, the great Darcy Richardson supported Harry Browne in ’96, Ralph Nader in 2000, Walt Brown in ’04, and is supporting Charles Jay in ’08. Murray Rothbard went from Strom Thurmond to Adlai Stevenson to the Peace and Freedom Party to Pat Buchanan.

  14. darolew

    “…rediculous…”

    This is getting old, Trent. It’s “ridiculous”. With an “i”.

    “Also, it is shackling its citizens and future citizens with debt that will make the U.S. far less free, domestically, than even North Korea.”

    That’s pretty implausible. Do you have any idea exactly how unfree North Korea is? It’s rather impossible to be worse than that.

  15. G.E.

    I think the whole “North Korea is a bad place to live” junk is just neocon propaganda. Last I hear, every citizen got a free iPod and the reason N.K. is really shut out is because, in violation of the IMF, they have a gold-backed currency.

  16. G.E.

    Trent – You should use Mozilla Firefox, which will underline your rediculously mispelet werdz! 🙂

    Or, you can get EnsoWords, which is a great program.

  17. Trent Hill

    GE,

    I had firefox on my old laptop–whose motherboard recently took a nosedive–just havent re-downloaded it yet.

  18. G.E.

    You people are being naive in your reactionary defense of the Evil U.S. Empire. Sure, states like North Korea and maybe even China and Russia are more repressive against their own people. But who perpetrates the most evil in the world? The U.S. can afford to allow its citizens “freedom” for the time being, but if you think they would not turn the same force they use against the brown people of the world against you and yours, if need be, you’re wrong.

  19. Hugh Jass

    Why do I get the impression that G.E. is the reincarnation of Murray Rothbard circa 1968?

  20. DesiArnez6

    “That’s pretty implausible. Do you have any idea exactly how unfree North Korea is? It’s rather impossible to be worse than that.”

    I can think of a few examples… Equatorial Guinea, Turkmenistan, Libya, Myanmar

    North Korea may not be “Great” or “Free”, but there are many places that I would LESS want to live. I mean really, would you rather be a poor person in “free, capitalist Haiti” or a poor person in “restricted, communist North Korea”? How about being poor in “free, capitalist, Guatemala?” sound appealing?

    La Riva was right on with Russia Georgia situation. I hope that anyone who is not in a swing state votes for her so that her party reaches 5% and is eligible for federal matching funds as an official “minor party”.

    As long as my state isn’t close between 2 major candidates, swing state, I will ALWAYS vote my conscience, after all its the Electoral College that decides this thing in a winner take all, Which means pretty much that a vote for La Riva in a non swing state is about = to a vote for McCain in D.C and a vote for Obama in Utah which = no effect on the election, in fact the only states that “matter” are the swing states.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *