Russia having a moment of Schadenfreude over the US collapse into Marxism...

[ThaBigP]

They do like to point out that they, of all people, know Marxism when they see it. Interesting read, even if it's from Pravda. They do manage to get quite a bit right...

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

[MetalHead]

They do like to point out that they, of all people, know Marxism when they see it. Interesting read, even if it's from Pravda. They do manage to get quite a bit right...

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

How funny is that those who live and have lived abroad can see clearly what is being done,yet many americans just sit back and cannot see the obvious.
Heed the warnings of those who have lived elsewhere America.
We know what time it is.

[Yoshimitsu]

How funny is that those who live and have lived abroad can see clearly what is being done,yet many americans just sit back and cannot see the obvious.
Heed the warnings of those who have lived elsewhere America.
We know what time it is.

The decline of the U.S. has been going on for the last 15 or so years. You are just now figuring this out because a democrat got elected??? At least you woke up.

[MetalHead]

The decline of the U.S. has been going on for the last 15 or so years. You are just now figuring this out because a democrat got elected??? At least you woke up.


I woke up long ago...My dad saw it coming.
When he saw the school schedule,he moved us to Dominican Republic.
I grew up there and went to a good school.
My dad busted his behind so I could attend a private catholic school,where I learned history,philosophy,algebra,trigonometry,chemistry, biochemistry,french,english...you name it.
The dumb down of America is a project older than we think,it is just manifesting itself now.
We need ZERO money to repair the education problem.
Change the damn curriculum...
Teach the kids the right things,so more can become successful,not peons.
Read my sig...

[Yoshimitsu]

I woke up long ago...My dad saw it coming.
When he saw the school schedule,he moved us to Dominican Republic.
I grew up there and went to a good school.
My dad busted his behind so I could attend a private catholic school,where I learned history,philosophy,algebra,trigonometry,chemistry, biochemistry,french,english...you name it.
The dumb down of America is a project older than we think,it is just manifesting itself now.
We need ZERO money to repair the education problem.
Change the damn curriculum...
Teach the kids the right things,so more can become successful,not peons.
Read my sig...

Its good to see you are truly enlightened about the situation. Hyper-inflation will be on the dawn of hitting this country. That is why i am trying to take the proper steps to move my *** to Canada.

[MetalHead]

Its good to see you are truly enlightened about the situation. Hyper-inflation will be on the dawn of hitting this country. That is why i am trying to take the proper steps to move my *** to Canada.

The sooner the better.I'm staying.

[masomenos]

Interesting read, even if it's from Pravda.

Insta-fail. You may as well have said, "Interesting read, even if it's from Weekly World News".

Really, let's consider the source by judging the other links and stories that popped up when I clicked in.

-Aliens downed Tunkuska meteorite to save Earth
-Invisible poisonous skyfish fly at 300 k/mh all around us
-USAF designed flying disk to bomb Soviet Union
-Giant crystal hidden in Earth's center
-Russian scientists contact the nether world
-Russian fisherman catch squeaking alien
-About 20 werewolves wander around the world nowadays
-The world's most evil fish invades Britain
-Vampires are proved to exist

And just to prove that I'm not making this stuff up, here are links to the vampire and flying disk stories.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/30-04-2008/105036-vampires-0

http://english.pravda.ru/photo/report/usaf-3118

Now, a quote from the article you posted.

Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

Forgive me if it's difficult to take what you posted seriously.

[burmafrd]

Old Barney *** would like to be a senator...


The part about homosexuality being a virtue is dead on as regards the far left...

[masomenos]

Old Barney *** would like to be a senator...


The part about homosexuality being a virtue is dead on as regards the far left...

I honestly can't think of one time that I have ever heard someone claim that being gay was a virtue.

[ThaBigP]

Insta-fail. You may as well have said, "Interesting read, even if it's from Weekly World News".

Really, let's consider the source by judging the other links and stories that popped up when I clicked in.

-Aliens downed Tunkuska meteorite to save Earth
-Invisible poisonous skyfish fly at 300 k/mh all around us
-USAF designed flying disk to bomb Soviet Union
-Giant crystal hidden in Earth's center
-Russian scientists contact the nether world
-Russian fisherman catch squeaking alien
-About 20 werewolves wander around the world nowadays
-The world's most evil fish invades Britain
-Vampires are proved to exist

And just to prove that I'm not making this stuff up, here are links to the vampire and flying disk stories.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/30-04-2008/105036-vampires-0

http://english.pravda.ru/photo/report/usaf-3118

Now, a quote from the article you posted.



Forgive me if it's difficult to take what you posted seriously.

I'm well aware of Pravda's less than stellar journalistic record... What about the phrase "interesting read, even if it's the Enquirer"...especially if it happens to be regarding the John Edwards affair...a legit story they actually broke...even though it was probably nestled between a story on the alien possom peoples' coming invasion of earth on one side, and a tin-foil hat ad on the other.

In fact...how about that Weekly World News....they're one step away from the Onion. But even broken watches manage to be right twice a day....OK, the analog ones. Back in the 80s I read a WWN article about a guy who claimed *he* was the real voice of Millie Vanilli even as the duo was accepting their Grammy. Damned if that story didn't turn out to be true.

The point is this...if Pravda, the Enquirer, or even WWN printed an article saying the sky is blue, would it shatter your sense of reality? You seem to be on the trip that if it's from Pravda, the opposite of the story must necessarily be true, regardless of the assertion made in the article. Instead of trying to deflate the core assertion of the story, that our government is on a break-neck decent into Marxism by gobbling up the means of production for the purposes of redistribution (a fact that can't seriously be disputed at this point), you point to *other* articles in a vain attempt to shoot this one down. Doesn't work on me.

Besides, there's plenty that can legitimately be shot down, if one were so inclined to actually argue against their assertions and conclusions in this article...such as the idea that the only reason the Russians had to endure Communism was because the West installed and supported them. Nice try on their part...we actually raided the piggy bank to fund our military to stand against theirs on the world stage, as well as funding the resistance movements in places such as Poland. Radio Free Europe also comes to mind...

[zrinkill]

Hyper-inflation will be on the dawn of hitting this country. That is why i am trying to take the proper steps to move my *** to Canada.

Wow

I think the saying is "don't let the door knob hit ya"

[masomenos]

I'm well aware of Pravda's less than stellar journalistic record... What about the phrase "interesting read, even if it's the Enquirer"...especially if it happens to be regarding the John Edwards affair...a legit story they actually broke...even though it was probably nestled between a story on the alien possom peoples' coming invasion of earth on one side, and a tin-foil hat ad on the other.

In fact...how about that Weekly World News....they're one step away from the Onion. But even broken watches manage to be right twice a day....OK, the analog ones. Back in the 80s I read a WWN article about a guy who claimed *he* was the real voice of Millie Vanilli even as the duo was accepting their Grammy. Damned if that story didn't turn out to be true.

The point is this...if Pravda, the Enquirer, or even WWN printed an article saying the sky is blue, would it shatter your sense of reality? You seem to be on the trip that if it's from Pravda, the opposite of the story must necessarily be true, regardless of the assertion made in the article. Instead of trying to deflate the core assertion of the story, that our government is on a break-neck decent into Marxism by gobbling up the means of production for the purposes of redistribution (a fact that can't seriously be disputed at this point), you point to *other* articles in a vain attempt to shoot this one down. Doesn't work on me.

Besides, there's plenty that can legitimately be shot down, if one were so inclined to actually argue against their assertions and conclusions in this article...such as the idea that the only reason the Russians had to endure Communism was because the West installed and supported them. Nice try on their part...we actually raided the piggy bank to fund our military to stand against theirs on the world stage, as well as funding the resistance movements in places such as Poland. Radio Free Europe also comes to mind...

Let me get this right. In your post, you criticize me for not addressing the points raised in the article and instead focusing on destroying the credibility of the source. Then, in that same post, you don't defend any of the issues but instead you focus on the rare instances when tabloids are credible. How does that make sense?

In fact, all you did was further destroy the credibility of the story by pointing out inaccuracies (as Burm did as well). The only support you give is saying that the core of the article "can't seriously be disputed at this point". So, what, you give no defense because none is needed? The only "proof" of Marxism that the article offers is in regards to what has occurred in the auto industry, something that you refer to as "a gobbling up of the means of production for the purposes of redistribution".

However, the government doesn't own the means of production for the auto-industry. Instead, they hold a majority stake in one auto manufacturer, GM. For the governments role in the auto-industry to be Marxist, they would have to control all means of production, which would include imported goods. Do you see the U.S. government placing trade bans on foreign auto makers? No, of course you don't. The governments "take over" of certain auto manufacturers is temporary, a move meant to help erase crippling debt.

The cries of the U.S. slipping into Marxism are short sighted and are simply knee jerk responses. The governments involvement in the auto-industry actually improves long-term free market stability, because it ensures diversity. Market diversity is critical to a free market system because it creates the one thing that drives the market, competition. Without intervention, GM faced two prospects, folding or being bought out. Do you think that either of those prospects would have encouraged diversity?

I didn't address the issue the first time for two reasons:

1. The source wasn't credible, the article was heavily editorialized and it contained factual errors.

2. The idea that the U.S. is spiraling down into a Marxist decay is ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as the claim 4 years ago, that the U.S. was lost on the slippery slope to fascism.

[DIAF]

Insta-fail. You may as well have said, "Interesting read, even if it's from Weekly World News".

Really, let's consider the source by judging the other links and stories that popped up when I clicked in.

-Aliens downed Tunkuska meteorite to save Earth
-Invisible poisonous skyfish fly at 300 k/mh all around us
-USAF designed flying disk to bomb Soviet Union
-Giant crystal hidden in Earth's center
-Russian scientists contact the nether world
-Russian fisherman catch squeaking alien
-About 20 werewolves wander around the world nowadays
-The world's most evil fish invades Britain
-Vampires are proved to exist

And just to prove that I'm not making this stuff up, here are links to the vampire and flying disk stories.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/30-04-2008/105036-vampires-0

http://english.pravda.ru/photo/report/usaf-3118

Now, a quote from the article you posted.



Forgive me if it's difficult to take what you posted seriously.

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[ThaBigP]

Let me get this right. In your post, you criticize me for not addressing the points raised in the article and instead focusing on destroying the credibility of the source. Then, in that same post, you don't defend any of the issues but instead you focus on the rare instances when tabloids are credible. How does that make sense?

In fact, all you did was further destroy the credibility of the story by pointing out inaccuracies (as Burm did as well). The only support you give is saying that the core of the article "can't seriously be disputed at this point". So, what, you give no defense because none is needed? The only "proof" of Marxism that the article offers is in regards to what has occurred in the auto industry, something that you refer to as "a gobbling up of the means of production for the purposes of redistribution".

However, the government doesn't own the means of production for the auto-industry. Instead, they hold a majority stake in one auto manufacturer, GM. For the governments role in the auto-industry to be Marxist, they would have to control all means of production, which would include imported goods. Do you see the U.S. government placing trade bans on foreign auto makers? No, of course you don't. The governments "take over" of certain auto manufacturers is temporary, a move meant to help erase crippling debt.

The cries of the U.S. slipping into Marxism are short sighted and are simply knee jerk responses. The governments involvement in the auto-industry actually improves long-term free market stability, because it ensures diversity. Market diversity is critical to a free market system because it creates the one thing that drives the market, competition. Without intervention, GM faced two prospects, folding or being bought out. Do you think that either of those prospects would have encouraged diversity?

I didn't address the issue the first time for two reasons:

1. The source wasn't credible, the article was heavily editorialized and it contained factual errors.

2. The idea that the U.S. is spiraling down into a Marxist decay is ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as the claim 4 years ago, that the U.S. was lost on the slippery slope to fascism.

My issue is only that you attack Pravda's credibility...and BTW I can't help but agree with you there...without addressing anything the article mentioned specifically. Yeah...they print/post articles about fisherman reeling in the latest water-crash-landed alien... I get that. So do quite a few other rags that are borderline satire (such as WWN). . I posted the artilce since it was rather ironic to be lectured to by the Russians over the dangers of Marxism....

You consider the idea laugable. I certainly don't see how you can say that with a straight face, as headline after headline is one story after another about us nationalizing this-and-that while the printing presses run day and night to fund government-run-and-promised health insurance...retirement plans...welfare...and risky loan guarantees. Now we're even in the car business. The means of production are being gobbled up by the Federal Government. Do you actually think this is *not* happening? And are you aware that the fundamental core of Marx's philosophy was that the means of production are taken out of private hands and given to the government for "proper" disribution?

BTW, we've been on this road for over 100 years...it's called Progressivism here in the states, and both parties have taken the bite from that philosophy. And you speak as if fascism and marxism/communism are opposites, as historically-lazy pop culture would have you believe... The fact is, all of those philosophies are varying flavors of total state control over not only the economy, but even the culture - the only real debate between them is who is in control. In Communism, you have true ownership of all means of production - all for the good of the "collective" and the "worker", of course. In Fascism, you have the government with a majority stake and full power over the means of production - all for the good of the "collective" and the "worker", of course. Sure, in fascism a small pittance is allowed in private hands for the pretense of a free market - and those few crumbs redistributed to political supporters and croneys. But don't worry...Furher/Il Duce/etc will tell you what to make, where, and how, as well as what your work is worth.

[arglebargle]

My issue is only that you attack Pravda's credibility...

BTW, we've been on this road for over 100 years...it's called Progressivism here in the states, and both parties have taken the bite from that philosophy. And you speak as if fascism and marxism/communism are opposites, as historically-lazy pop culture would have you believe... The fact is, all of those philosophies are varying flavors of total state control over not only the economy, but even the culture - the only real debate between them is who is in control. In Communism, you have true ownership of all means of production - all for the good of the "collective" and the "worker", of course. In Fascism, you have the government with a majority stake and full power over the means of production - all for the good of the "collective" and the "worker", of course. Sure, in fascism a small pittance is allowed in private hands for the pretense of a free market - and those few crumbs redistributed to political supporters and croneys. But don't worry...Furher/Il Duce/etc will tell you what to make, where, and how, as well as what your work is worth.

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
– Benito Mussolini


The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in Democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. Our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
– Edward Bernays (1891-1995) "Father" of modern public
relations (PR) and director of the U.S. Committee on Public
Information during World War I, on government propaganda


Ran across an interesting exchange from a Russian to an American acquaintance. It went thusly; 'We don't read Pravda to find out the truth; we read Pravda to find out what the lies are.'

[WarC]

Pravda?

Pravda?!

LOL

Pravda is more biased and more politically motivated than the DPRK news is. It's laughably ridiculous, most of the crap they spew about the US and the west in general.

[MetalHead]

Let me get this right. In your post, you criticize me for not addressing the points raised in the article and instead focusing on destroying the credibility of the source. Then, in that same post, you don't defend any of the issues but instead you focus on the rare instances when tabloids are credible. How does that make sense?

In fact, all you did was further destroy the credibility of the story by pointing out inaccuracies (as Burm did as well). The only support you give is saying that the core of the article "can't seriously be disputed at this point". So, what, you give no defense because none is needed? The only "proof" of Marxism that the article offers is in regards to what has occurred in the auto industry, something that you refer to as "a gobbling up of the means of production for the purposes of redistribution".

However, the government doesn't own the means of production for the auto-industry. Instead, they hold a majority stake in one auto manufacturer, GM. For the governments role in the auto-industry to be Marxist, they would have to control all means of production, which would include imported goods. Do you see the U.S. government placing trade bans on foreign auto makers? No, of course you don't. The governments "take over" of certain auto manufacturers is temporary, a move meant to help erase crippling debt.

The cries of the U.S. slipping into Marxism are short sighted and are simply knee jerk responses. The governments involvement in the auto-industry actually improves long-term free market stability, because it ensures diversity. Market diversity is critical to a free market system because it creates the one thing that drives the market, competition. Without intervention, GM faced two prospects, folding or being bought out. Do you think that either of those prospects would have encouraged diversity?

I didn't address the issue the first time for two reasons:

1. The source wasn't credible, the article was heavily editorialized and it contained factual errors.

2. The idea that the U.S. is spiraling down into a Marxist decay is ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as the claim 4 years ago, that the U.S. was lost on the slippery slope to fascism.

Really?
I guess you have not been paying attention,Maso.

[masomenos]

My issue is only that you attack Pravda's credibility...and BTW I can't help but agree with you there...without addressing anything the article mentioned specifically. Yeah...they print/post articles about fisherman reeling in the latest water-crash-landed alien... I get that. So do quite a few other rags that are borderline satire (such as WWN). . I posted the artilce since it was rather ironic to be lectured to by the Russians over the dangers of Marxism....

You consider the idea laugable. I certainly don't see how you can say that with a straight face, as headline after headline is one story after another about us nationalizing this-and-that while the printing presses run day and night to fund government-run-and-promised health insurance...retirement plans...welfare...and risky loan guarantees. Now we're even in the car business. The means of production are being gobbled up by the Federal Government. Do you actually think this is *not* happening? And are you aware that the fundamental core of Marx's philosophy was that the means of production are taken out of private hands and given to the government for "proper" disribution?

BTW, we've been on this road for over 100 years...it's called Progressivism here in the states, and both parties have taken the bite from that philosophy. And you speak as if fascism and marxism/communism are opposites, as historically-lazy pop culture would have you believe... The fact is, all of those philosophies are varying flavors of total state control over not only the economy, but even the culture - the only real debate between them is who is in control. In Communism, you have true ownership of all means of production - all for the good of the "collective" and the "worker", of course. In Fascism, you have the government with a majority stake and full power over the means of production - all for the good of the "collective" and the "worker", of course. Sure, in fascism a small pittance is allowed in private hands for the pretense of a free market - and those few crumbs redistributed to political supporters and croneys. But don't worry...Furher/Il Duce/etc will tell you what to make, where, and how, as well as what your work is worth.

I don't speak of fascism and socialism out of a misunderstand given to me from pop-culture, but rather from schooling in political philosophy.

To quote academic text...

"Although fascism did not emerge as a political ideology until the 1920's, it's roots reach back two centuries to the reaction against the intellectual and cultural movement that dominated European thought in the eighteenth century - the Enlightenment...The two great political currents that flow from the Enlightenment are liberalism and socialism.

[The Premises of the Enlightenment are as follows]

1. Humanism...
2. Rationalism...
3. Secularism...
4. Progressivism - the idea that human history is the story of progress, or improvement - perhaps even inevitable improvement - in the human condition. Once the shackles of ignorance and superstition have been broken, human reason will be free to order society in a rational way, and life will steadily and rapidly become better for all.
5. Universalism...

These Enlightenment views are often linked to liberalism, but the provided much of the inspiration for socialism as well. Indeed, modern socialism aros in part from the complaint that liberalism was not going far enough in its attempts to remake society in the image of Enlightenment ideals...Fascism, however, grows out of the very different conviction that the ideals of the Enlightenment are not worth pursuing" (Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal 178,179).

The differences between socialism and fascism aren't just in who's in control, the ideologies stem from counter-points in political thought.

At to Progressivism, you're right that America has been pushing down that line for the past 100+ years. In fact, all of Western scoiety (including the modernized East) has been operating on the assumptions put forth by Progressivism. It would be hard to argue aginst Progressivism's success, but feel free to explain why Progressivism is bad for America. I challenge you to explain why the continual improvement of the human condition is something that should be looked down upon.

You talk about the government backing loans and providing health insurance (eventually), etc but there are two issues with that. First, there's nothing actually in production when you back a loan or a pension plan. The government can't own means of production if nothing is being produced. Second, and I addressed this in my last post, the government isn't coming close to owning all of the means of production in any industry. Not one. Do they have their hand in auto and finance industries now? Yes, and rightfully so. Do they control all of the production forces in either industry? Absolutely not and they aren't headed in that direction at this point.

[ThaBigP]

I don't speak of fascism and socialism out of a misunderstand given to me from pop-culture, but rather from schooling in political philosophy.

To quote academic text...

"Although fascism did not emerge as a political ideology until the 1920's, it's roots reach back two centuries to the reaction against the intellectual and cultural movement that dominated European thought in the eighteenth century - the Enlightenment...The two great political currents that flow from the Enlightenment are liberalism and socialism.

[The Premises of the Enlightenment are as follows]

1. Humanism...
2. Rationalism...
3. Secularism...
4. Progressivism - the idea that human history is the story of progress, or improvement - perhaps even inevitable improvement - in the human condition. Once the shackles of ignorance and superstition have been broken, human reason will be free to order society in a rational way, and life will steadily and rapidly become better for all.
5. Universalism...

These Enlightenment views are often linked to liberalism, but the provided much of the inspiration for socialism as well. Indeed, modern socialism aros in part from the complaint that liberalism was not going far enough in its attempts to remake society in the image of Enlightenment ideals...Fascism, however, grows out of the very different conviction that the ideals of the Enlightenment are not worth pursuing" (Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal 178,179).

The differences between socialism and fascism aren't just in who's in control, the ideologies stem from counter-points in political thought.

At to Progressivism, you're right that America has been pushing down that line for the past 100+ years. In fact, all of Western scoiety (including the modernized East) has been operating on the assumptions put forth by Progressivism. It would be hard to argue aginst Progressivism's success, but feel free to explain why Progressivism is bad for America. I challenge you to explain why the continual improvement of the human condition is something that should be looked down upon.

You talk about the government backing loans and providing health insurance (eventually), etc but there are two issues with that. First, there's nothing actually in production when you back a loan or a pension plan. The government can't own means of production if nothing is being produced. Second, and I addressed this in my last post, the government isn't coming close to owning all of the means of production in any industry. Not one. Do they have their hand in auto and finance industries now? Yes, and rightfully so. Do they control all of the production forces in either industry? Absolutely not and they aren't headed in that direction at this point.

Quite a good forensic definition of Progressivism if I do say so myself...you see that and see good things. I see that definition and see a nightmare. Why? It's the same essential defninition and reasoning that Hitler...Mussolini...and even Lenin used to describe what *they* were doing. It's for your own good, don't you know. All of them (and all of their underlying philosopies) call on the full force of centralized government to do "good works" for the people..."good works" being defined, of course, by those who happen to be in charge. That if we couild only break with the "old ways", we could "perfect" society - whatever that really meant being left deliberately ill-defined other than that the "old ways" are what "got us in trouble"...doesn't matter if it's 1920s Germany in hyperinflation, Italy in political turmoil as Mussolinis' croneys marched on Rome, etc. For the likes of HItler, that meant controlling the economy to get it out of the hands of the Jews, and in fact eliminating European Jewry from Europe. But not all fascism goes the concentration camp route....Franco in Spain was decidedly fascist, as was Mussolini's Italy...but they weren't exterminating Jews left-and-right. They were content with simply having the "good works". But it was fascism nonetheless.

Now, to contrast, how was our system set up to work? Local control rather than centralized Federal control. Our federal government was supposed to have jurisdiction over a few enumerated powers. Therefore, our federal government was meant to have so little power it would not be worth any faction's time to engage in a political tug-of-war over that power. But we gave in on that idea...now the Federal government is "supposed" to do "good works" for the "masses". So...we turn our heads and look the other way when the Federal government, over the last 100 years, has slowly but steadily grown in power, seeking and seizing power never meant for it. What we see before us now is an all-powerful Federal government where, in effect, it's word is law. We now have an institution opeating as an English King pre-Magna Carta. We didn't mind this so much when the words and laws it uttered were what we happened to want. Or at least most of us. But what of the rest? And what happens when that power switches partisan hands? The pendulum gets flipped in the other direction.

No, this wasn't meant to be here in the US. We were supposed to have state and local control. That way, if California wants to be a Socialist Utopia, they are well within their rights to do so. At the same time, perhaps Texas says they want nothing to do with Socialism and go the free market route. They're within their rights to do the same. And both states can live peacefully and happily in the same Republic and call themselves Americans with a proud and straight face. This of course requires that those who fail must be allowed to fail. If Socialist CA goes bankrupt, the Federal Government cannot seize the property and assets of Texans to float them. To do so is to force them to participate financially in California's socialist dream but not have any say in the laws that are passed. This, by the way, is taxation without representation. We find ourselves right back at 1776 again. "Progress" indeed.

No, the problem with "progressivism" is they reserve unto themselves the right and power to define "progress" for all. That never works unless you use force. If a progressive conservative wants to pass laws *requiring* prayer in school, it is *their* definition of "progress" that rankles the feathers of those who may be athiest, agnostic, religious but don't believe school is the place for it, or any religion not considered "proper". On the other hand, a progressive liberal might fight to have kids expelled from public school if caught praying on their own in school (perhaps during a test), ruffling feathers in the opposite direction.

Progressivism gave us such gems as eugenics...phrenology....prohibition...etc etc. By the way, the eugenics and propaganda that Progressives mused about was inspiration for the Nazi regime a little later on, believe it or not. Hitler even wrote about it in Mein Kampf. Again, "progress" indeed. "Progressiveism" boils down to total state control. You really want that? Even...if it's "for your own good"? And, knowing you won't always be in control of the definition of "good"?

[DIAF]

Pravda?

Pravda?!

LOL

Pravda is more biased and more politically motivated than the DPRK news is. It's laughably ridiculous, most of the crap they spew about the US and the west in general.

I wonder if Bat Boy agrees that the US is turning into Russia?

http://thegspot.typepad.com/blog/images/2008/04/08/batboy_1_2.jpg

[ThaBigP]

You talk about the government backing loans and providing health insurance (eventually), etc but there are two issues with that. First, there's nothing actually in production when you back a loan or a pension plan. The government can't own means of production if nothing is being produced. Second, and I addressed this in my last post, the government isn't coming close to owning all of the means of production in any industry. Not one. Do they have their hand in auto and finance industries now? Yes, and rightfully so. Do they control all of the production forces in either industry? Absolutely not and they aren't headed in that direction at this point.


As for this part, I will just say that no, it's not the outright confiscation of today's means of production. It is, however, the the pledge to seize future means of production (assets and capital) to fund these promises in the event they must make good on those promises. When you consider the US government currently has pledged about $100 Trillion dollars in such promises in various forms and fashions, you can see how logic insists that will result in the eventual confiscation of everything, even if through the hidden tax of inflation - the necessary result of running printing presses to pay cash for the pedges...

[masomenos]

Quite a good forensic definition of Progressivism if I do say so myself...you see that and see good things. I see that definition and see a nightmare. Why? It's the same essential defninition and reasoning that Hitler...Mussolini...and even Lenin used to describe what *they* were doing. It's for your own good, don't you know. All of them (and all of their underlying philosopies) call on the full force of centralized government to do "good works" for the people..."good works" being defined, of course, by those who happen to be in charge. That if we couild only break with the "old ways", we could "perfect" society - whatever that really meant being left deliberately ill-defined other than that the "old ways" are what "got us in trouble"...doesn't matter if it's 1920s Germany in hyperinflation, Italy in political turmoil as Mussolinis' croneys marched on Rome, etc. For the likes of HItler, that meant controlling the economy to get it out of the hands of the Jews, and in fact eliminating European Jewry from Europe. But not all fascism goes the concentration camp route....Franco in Spain was decidedly fascist, as was Mussolini's Italy...but they weren't exterminating Jews left-and-right. They were content with simply having the "good works". But it was fascism nonetheless.

Now, to contrast, how was our system set up to work? Local control rather than centralized Federal control. Our federal government was supposed to have jurisdiction over a few enumerated powers. Therefore, our federal government was meant to have so little power it would not be worth any faction's time to engage in a political tug-of-war over that power. But we gave in on that idea...now the Federal government is "supposed" to do "good works" for the "masses". So...we turn our heads and look the other way when the Federal government, over the last 100 years, has slowly but steadily grown in power, seeking and seizing power never meant for it. What we see before us now is an all-powerful Federal government where, in effect, it's word is law. We now have an institution opeating as an English King pre-Magna Carta. We didn't mind this so much when the words and laws it uttered were what we happened to want. Or at least most of us. But what of the rest? And what happens when that power switches partisan hands? The pendulum gets flipped in the other direction.

No, this wasn't meant to be here in the US. We were supposed to have state and local control. That way, if California wants to be a Socialist Utopia, they are well within their rights to do so. At the same time, perhaps Texas says they want nothing to do with Socialism and go the free market route. They're within their rights to do the same. And both states can live peacefully and happily in the same Republic and call themselves Americans with a proud and straight face. This of course requires that those who fail must be allowed to fail. If Socialist CA goes bankrupt, the Federal Government cannot seize the property and assets of Texans to float them. To do so is to force them to participate financially in California's socialist dream but not have any say in the laws that are passed. This, by the way, is taxation without representation. We find ourselves right back at 1776 again. "Progress" indeed.

No, the problem with "progressivism" is they reserve unto themselves the right and power to define "progress" for all. That never works unless you use force. If a progressive conservative wants to pass laws *requiring* prayer in school, it is *their* definition of "progress" that rankles the feathers of those who may be athiest, agnostic, religious but don't believe school is the place for it, or any religion not considered "proper". On the other hand, a progressive liberal might fight to have kids expelled from public school if caught praying on their own in school (perhaps during a test), ruffling feathers in the opposite direction.

Progressivism gave us such gems as eugenics...phrenology....prohibition...etc etc. By the way, the eugenics and propaganda that Progressives mused about was inspiration for the Nazi regime a little later on, believe it or not. Hitler even wrote about it in Mein Kampf. Again, "progress" indeed. "Progressiveism" boils down to total state control. You really want that? Even...if it's "for your own good"? And, knowing you won't always be in control of the definition of "good"?

I'm sorry, but you have a misunderstanding of the driving forces behind socialism (Marxist) and fascism/totalitarianism. Fascism was born in opposition to democratic ideals, it is an ideology that arose as a reaction against democratic liberalism and socialism. To quote the same text,
"Democracy requires equality of some sort, whether it be in the liberal's insistence on equal opportunity or the socialists' insistence on equal power for all in a classless society. Mussolini and his followers regarded these ideals with contempt, as did Hitler and the Nazis. They did appeal to the masses for support, to be sure, but in their view the masses were to exercise power not by thinking, speaking or voting for themselves, but by blindly following their leaders to glory. As one of Mussolini's many slogans put it, creder, obbedire, combattere - believe, obey, fight. Nothing more was asked, nothing more was desired of the people. By embracing totalitarianism, then, fascists also rejected democracy."


Progressivism is not the root of fascism, it is a deeply democratic ideal. Progressivism was, in no way, the driving force for Stalin, Mussolini or Franco. It's an idea that Marx adhered to, but not Lenin, and it was also the principal cause for the emergence of capitalism. When you say that progressivism shares an "essential definition and reasoning with what Hitler and Mussolini...used to describe what they were doing" you are incorrect.

Progressivism does not mean state control, as you claim, instead it essentially means an increase in equality. As I said, capitalism was a system that was born out of progressivism. Even Marx, a critic of capitalism and a supporter of progressivism, agreed with that. You seem to have created your own definition of what progressivism mean and it's incorrect.

As to your assertion that our government is currently operating as if it were a "pre-Magna Carta king", that's simply ridiculous. Equally absurd is the claim that our system is guilty of "taxation without representation". But those are topics for another thread. However, I will agree that the federal government has more power than the founding fathers intended. Whether or not that increase in federal power has been beneficial or harmful is debatable.

[ThaBigP]

I'm sorry, but you have a misunderstanding of the driving forces behind socialism (Marxist) and fascism/totalitarianism. Fascism was born in opposition to democratic ideals, it is an ideology that arose as a reaction against democratic liberalism and socialism. To quote the same text, "Democracy requires equality of some sort, whether it be in the liberal's insistence on equal opportunity or the socialists' insistence on equal power for all in a classless society. Mussolini and his followers regarded these ideals with contempt, as did Hitler and the Nazis. They did appeal to the masses for support, to be sure, but in their view the masses were to exercise power not by thinking, speaking or voting for themselves, but by blindly following their leaders to glory. As one of Mussolini's many slogans put it, creder, obbedire, combattere - believe, obey, fight. Nothing more was asked, nothing more was desired of the people. By embracing totalitarianism, then, fascists also rejected democracy."



Progressivism is not the root of fascism, it is a deeply democratic ideal. Progressivism was, in no way, the driving force for Stalin, Mussolini or Franco. It's an idea that Marx adhered to, but not Lenin, and it was also the principal cause for the emergence of capitalism. When you say that progressivism shares an "essential definition and reasoning with what Hitler and Mussolini...used to describe what they were doing" you are incorrect.

Progressivism does not mean state control, as you claim, instead it essentially means an increase in equality. As I said, capitalism was a system that was born out of progressivism. Even Marx, a critic of capitalism and a supporter of progressivism, agreed with that. You seem to have created your own definition of what progressivism mean and it's incorrect.

As to your assertion that our government is currently operating as if it were a "pre-Magna Carta king", that's simply ridiculous. Equally absurd is the claim that our system is guilty of "taxation without representation". But those are topics for another thread. However, I will agree that the federal government has more power than the founding fathers intended. Whether or not that increase in federal power has been beneficial or harmful is debatable.



A rather good post, but believe it or not you made my point for me. All of these "isms" arise because everybody in charge in these respective examples had their own definition of "good". As a result, various flavors of total state control emerge. And all of them always start with the proposition that these movements are "peoples'" movements with wide support. Because they were - at first. Tell enough people what they want to hear in a moment of crisis, and you'd be amazed at what you can acomplish before people wise up. And by that time, you have the elaborate machinery of a police state to enforce compliance.

And please don't tell me that American Progressivism did not influece the fascist movements in Europe...you're saying that because you cannot believe that - but that doesn't alter a fact. They, including Hitler, said that very thing themselves. Our progressive leaders over here at the time reciprocated. The Progressive movement was, and is, nowhere near as "shiney happy people" as you seem to want to believe.

[masomenos]

A rather good post, but believe it or not you made my point for me. All of these "isms" arise because everybody in charge in these respective examples had their own definition of "good". As a result, various flavors of total state control emerge. And all of them always start with the proposition that these movements are "peoples'" movements with wide support. Because they were - at first. Tell enough people what they want to hear in a moment of crisis, and you'd be amazed at what you can acomplish before people wise up. And by that time, you have the elaborate machinery of a police state to enforce compliance.

And please don't tell me that American Progressivism did not influece the fascist movements in Europe...you're saying that because you cannot believe that - but that doesn't alter a fact. They, including Hitler, said that very thing themselves. Our progressive leaders over here at the time reciprocated. The Progressive movement was, and is, nowhere near as "shiney happy people" as you seem to want to believe.

You're still missing the point of progressivism and giving it your own interpretation. It's not about what one leader thinks is "good" it's about increased equality. Did Hitler, Mussolini, Franco or Stalin increase equality in their countries? Of course they didn't, the exterminated those who they felt were bad for the state. They had far reaching spy networks in order to dig out political dissent and they jailed or killed those who help opposing views; they eliminated equality. The political uprisings that occured priot to WWII were not movements of the people as a whole, they were movements of a portion of the people.

You can say that Hitler was inspired by progressivism but he wasn't. Any claim in that line of thinking is based on a misunderstanding of what the progressive ideology stood (and stands) for. Go back and read my post that talks about fascism rising up as counter to the principles of the Enlightenment.

Men like Teddy Roosevelt were progressives, not men like Adolf Hitler. There's a sharp distinction between the what progressivism really means and your understanding of the term.

[ThaBigP]

You're still missing the point of progressivism and giving it your own interpretation. It's not about what one leader thinks is "good" it's about increased equality. Did Hitler, Mussolini, Franco or Stalin increase equality in their countries? Of course they didn't, the exterminated those who they felt were bad for the state. They had far reaching spy networks in order to dig out political dissent and they jailed or killed those who help opposing views; they eliminated equality. The political uprisings that occured priot to WWII were not movements of the people as a whole, they were movements of a portion of the people.

You can say that Hitler was inspired by progressivism but he wasn't. Any claim in that line of thinking is based on a misunderstanding of what the progressive ideology stood (and stands) for. Go back and read my post that talks about fascism rising up as counter to the principles of the Enlightenment.

Men like Teddy Roosevelt were progressives, not men like Adolf Hitler. There's a sharp distinction between the what progressivism really means and your understanding of the term.

I think it's you who are missing the point - they all declared and claimed that they were for equality...but you can never acheive equality as history shows. That was the entire point behind Communism, for goodness sake...a classless society. But what emerged were two classes...the ruling elite and the "masses". The ruling elite lived high on the hog while the "masses" slaved away on collective farms. There was also the deliberate starvation of the farmers and peasants in the Ukrane under Stalin....for the collctive, and to "make the system work"...as all good statists are apt to say.

But this is all acedemic anyway, since you're defining "Progressive" by what it means to you personally....again, you have a different opinion than the next guy who also calls themselves a "Progressive" as to what that really means. And that is the entire point... Others who called themselves Progressive, and whom other Progressives widely read and listened to, had ideas of creating a master race by eliminating "defective" individuals...hence, eugenics. That idea was borrowed by the Nazis...look it up. But the overall point is, those who dreamed up what lead to the Holocaust also called themselves "Progressive". And they believed what they did because they sincerely believed it was for the betterment of mankind...again, as they themselves defined that.

HG Wells, a prominent Progressive and member of the Fabian Society believed in everybody having a right to a job in a Progressive society. Sounds good right? A right to a job. Read the fine print on that "right", however, and you see what HG Wells and other Progressives promoted was the government assigning you a job. No free choice in the matter. If you did not want to do that job, or did it poorly, the government had the right to humanely execute you to make room for a more able individual to take your place. I'm certain you recoil in horror at the notion, or think I must be making it up. If either of those are your response, then you should seriously back away from calling yourself "Progressive" and casting your lot in with that crowd until you've done some serious homework on what "Progressive" has really meant to quite a few prominent "Progressives" in history.

And beyond even that, is the issue of what anybody considers "Progressive" for society and our Federalist form of government... With carefully guarded enumerated powers restricting our Federal government, such a nightmare scenario could never unfold. The Federal government would have no say in how people should live their lives, since those decisions are left at the local and state level. Therefore, a group of folks wanting such a life could do so if they choose, and leave their neighbors in peace to pursue life as they see fit. To force all into a once-size-fits-all definition of "being good" or "progressing" as a society is only an invitation to heated faction as political lines get drawn, pooling everybody into an "us vs. them" mentality as the warring factions forever fight over who gets to pull the levers of power. Sorry...don't want to play in that game.

[trickblue]

Men like Teddy Roosevelt were progressives, not men like Adolf Hitler. There's a sharp distinction between the what progressivism really means and your understanding of the term.

While I understand what you are saying, this is merely your opinion, not fact...

I don't disagree with you, but one man's progressiveness is another man's heresy...

[masomenos]

While I understand what you are saying, this is merely your opinion, not fact...

I don't disagree with you, but one man's progressiveness is another man's heresy...

Well, just because someone believes that they are working towards progress, that doesn't make them a progressive. The most obvious example, and one that's already been brought up, is Hitler. Did Hitler believe that he was working in the interest of Germany and the German people? Of course he did. What is defined as progress is subject to individual beliefs, it is subjective. However, the progressive ideology requires steps that lead to increased equality. That's why the progressives of the early 1900's were seen fighting for women's suffrage and the progressives of the 1950's were advocating racial equality.

Of course, progressivism is more nuanced than just being concerned with equality, but that is its main tenet. Do people call themselves "progressives" when the aren't? Of course they do. It's like how some Republicans claim to hold to conservative values when they don't and they end up getting branded as RINOs. All ideologies are defined by certain beliefs, progressivism is no different.

It's not that one man's progressivness is another man's heresy, it's that one man's progress is another man's heresy. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but the two ideas have different meanings.

[masomenos]

I think it's you who are missing the point - they all declared and claimed that they were for equality...but you can never acheive equality as history shows. That was the entire point behind Communism, for goodness sake...a classless society. But what emerged were two classes...the ruling elite and the "masses". The ruling elite lived high on the hog while the "masses" slaved away on collective farms. There was also the deliberate starvation of the farmers and peasants in the Ukrane under Stalin....for the collctive, and to "make the system work"...as all good statists are apt to say.

But this is all acedemic anyway, since you're defining "Progressive" by what it means to you personally....again, you have a different opinion than the next guy who also calls themselves a "Progressive" as to what that really means. And that is the entire point... Others who called themselves Progressive, and whom other Progressives widely read and listened to, had ideas of creating a master race by eliminating "defective" individuals...hence, eugenics. That idea was borrowed by the Nazis...look it up. But the overall point is, those who dreamed up what lead to the Holocaust also called themselves "Progressive". And they believed what they did because they sincerely believed it was for the betterment of mankind...again, as they themselves defined that.

HG Wells, a prominent Progressive and member of the Fabian Society believed in everybody having a right to a job in a Progressive society. Sounds good right? A right to a job. Read the fine print on that "right", however, and you see what HG Wells and other Progressives promoted was the government assigning you a job. No free choice in the matter. If you did not want to do that job, or did it poorly, the government had the right to humanely execute you to make room for a more able individual to take your place. I'm certain you recoil in horror at the notion, or think I must be making it up. If either of those are your response, then you should seriously back away from calling yourself "Progressive" and casting your lot in with that crowd until you've done some serious homework on what "Progressive" has really meant to quite a few prominent "Progressives" in history.

And beyond even that, is the issue of what anybody considers "Progressive" for society and our Federalist form of government... With carefully guarded enumerated powers restricting our Federal government, such a nightmare scenario could never unfold. The Federal government would have no say in how people should live their lives, since those decisions are left at the local and state level. Therefore, a group of folks wanting such a life could do so if they choose, and leave their neighbors in peace to pursue life as they see fit. To force all into a once-size-fits-all definition of "being good" or "progressing" as a society is only an invitation to heated faction as political lines get drawn, pooling everybody into an "us vs. them" mentality as the warring factions forever fight over who gets to pull the levers of power. Sorry...don't want to play in that game.

What are you talking about? Even if Hitler (or Stalin, etc) had claimed to be for equality, their actions proved otherwise. Genocide serves as a pretty strong litmus test when you're questioning whether or not someone is advocating equality. You say that we can never achieve equality and that history serves as your proof, but you're ignoring important facts. Do you really think that no progress towards equality has been made since the 1750's? Would you not say that we live in a more equal society than we did in the 1840's or the 1920's?

Also, I've never claimed to be a progressive, I'm simply defending the point from an academic standpoint. Read my response to Trick, it can serve as my response to your points about the subjectivity of defining progressivism.

That said, I'll be backing out of the thread now.

[ThaBigP]

What are you talking about? Even if Hitler (or Stalin, etc) had claimed to be for equality, their actions proved otherwise. Genocide serves as a pretty strong litmus test when you're questioning whether or not someone is advocating equality. You say that we can never achieve equality and that history serves as your proof, but you're ignoring important facts. Do you really think that no progress towards equality has been made since the 1750's? Would you not say that we live in a more equal society than we did in the 1840's or the 1920's?

Also, I've never claimed to be a progressive, I'm simply defending the point from an academic standpoint. Read my response to Trick, it can serve as my response to your points about the subjectivity of defining progressivism.

That said, I'll be backing out of the thread now.

That...is PRECISELY....my point. Everyone believes society can "progress", but we all have different definitions of how that looks. To create an apparatus of an all-powerful centralized government...when "your" guy/gal (whomever that happens to be) is in power...only invites the opportunity for the "other side" to weild that mighty sword when they get control. And those who praise the idea of "Progressivism" often do so ignorant of what that movement has suggested represented "progress".

And sorry for presuming you were in that lot, but you did seem to have high praise for the movement.