Posted on 08/12/2016 8:14:02 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
In 2008 Daniel J. Flynn published A Conservative History of the American Left, which he ends chapter 8 this way:
Despite his loyal namesake's best efforts, Henry George is not imagined as a Christ-like figure by contemporary leftists. This is because, overwhelmed by Marxism, few contemporary leftists remember their non-marxist forebears. But George's contemporaries certainly did. He flashed, burned white hot, and was gone. In a fit of overly generous praise, which ages poorly, philosopher John Dewey held: "It would require less than the fingers of the two hand to enumerate those who, from Plato down, rank with Henry George among the world's social philosophers." Though very few leftists today concur with Dewey's assessment, its worth noting that quite a few leftists yesterday heartily agreed.
After blogging about the history of progressivism for going on 6 years now, I am starting to believe that this is a huge weakness among conservatives, perhaps the biggest of all. Far too many people believe that all leftism falls within the socialist/marxian sphere, and because people (some of whom, I believe, are in flat-out refusal) don't look beyond that sphere, it leaves us wide open to attacks from people who would be relatively easy to defeat otherwise.
This goes back to what I believe is my mission statement, and has been my mission statement since November 2010:
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle - Sun Tzu (Art of War, Chapter 3)
That quote is on the right hand side of my blog, and it will never ever change. It perfectly encompasses the reason for the existence of this.
If you are a conservative and you are in refusal to even consider the non-marxist left, you will succumb in every battle. And you have been. I see it all the time, I hear it all the time - in other blogs, on TV, radio, and elsewhere. There is a definite feeling no matter where you turn that conservatives take two, if not three steps backward for every one step forward. Then people scratch their heads "how did we get here?"
You gotta know your enemy. All of them. Not just the socialists and the communists. And just so it is said, this isn't me practicing a little finger wagging. I put myself into this. I have been reading the works of the non-socialist progressives for years now, and I still, STILL do not believe I know enough about progressives like Wilson or Theodore Roosevelt and all the rest. But at least I am trying to know them and their statist beliefs. All houses worth living in are built on strong, rock solid foundations. Progressivism has a weak foundation(if it were ever attacked; the foundation of progressivism is strong enough to resist basic erosion), but because nobody dares look progressivism in the face and challenge it, that foundation stands the test of time - at least the last 100 years - it's stood so far. It will likely keep standing until we attack it.
We have a long way to go to eliminating progressivism, and in just about every instance, we haven't even begun to fight. That fight begins, and can only begin, with an understanding of the non-marxist left. The old left. A lot of people will talk about the new left, the 60's generation and beyond, but what about the old left? I mean before FDR's time.
Why do so many let them off the hook, when they don't deserve to be let off the hook? They are guilty.
There is, indeed, a non-maarxist Left but in its goals how is it distinguishable from theoretic Socialism and Marxism? Its answers are the same. Its premises are the same. The only real difference is in Lenin’s seminal query, “Who?, Whom?” or who is to rule whom?
Focus. The old ways are gone.
Progressivism vs conservatism is extinct.
It’s the ruling class against regular people.
Flynn’s book has a whole chapter on Single Taxers. I could have saved a lot of time had I known his book existed.
Who do you think the ruling class are? You don’t think they’re progressives?
More, more . . .
Those on the left who do not embrace it, enable it.
I understand that Kerensky was a well meaning non-Marxist progressive. It didn’t matter much once the Marixists took over. Today the Marxists call themselves Greens, Social Justice Warriors, Black Lives Matter Activists, the Occupy Movement, and Community Organizers. They run the Left.
You’ve got to understand the game, otherwise you’re nothing but an animal in a cage.
The game of the elites is to divide the population and pit the two divisions against each other.
Of course there are real philosophical differences among regular people.
But it’s these differences the elites manipulate to keep their own thing going.
The original non-Marxists, i.e. the Fabians, merged with their old rivals many years ago. The only non-Marxist lefties that remain are the fascists, national socialists and Islamic socialists, and even those have Marxist tendencies especially relating to violent revolution.
Not to mention, the Fabians named themselves after Fabius Maximus and his deliberately slow strategy against Carthage. It’s essentially Marxism in slow motion. The USSR even adopted Fabianism when Khrushchev proclaimed the doctrine of “many roads to socialism” back in 1955.
Woodrow Wilson wrote a book back in 1887 titled “Socialism and Democracy”. As one of the primary figures of the progressive movement, he clearly takes a pro-socialist bent, rejecting the individualism of the Founding Fathers and seeking to replace checks and balances in the federal government with “cooperation” between the branches, and citing “corporations” as his Goldstein.
So it’s not a political philosophy that’s killing our country.
It’s the rigged system doing it.
Amen!
Today’s progressive’s march to slogans like “the rich must pay their fair share,” “common sense gun laws,” “stronger together,” “it takes a village,” “living wage,” and so on. These are simply watered down, focus group tested versions of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
It’s definitely rigged according to a certain political philosophy. The ends it attains show which philosophy.
Agreed. But our political passions are used against us.
The front line of the battle is always between truth and deception.
It is a terrible and awesome thing when a man sets out to create all other men in his own image. Such became the goal and all consuming ambition of Karl Marx. Not that he would have made each man equal to himself; in fact, it was quite the contrary. The image he hoped to construct was a great human colossus with Karl Marx as the brain and builder and all other men serving him as the ears and eyes, feet and hands, mouth and gullet. […]If the numbers of such people were so high back in 1958 to be a threat to world peace, imagine what we are up against today. General MacArthur was quite lucid in pointing out that “(i)t must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh”—if anyone was wondering what the antediluvian days of Noah were like, we need not wonder any longer.
… (Marx) visualized a regimented breed of Pavlovian men whose minds could be triggered into immediate action by signals from their masters. He wanted a race of men who would no longer depend upon free will, ethics, morals or conscience for guidance. Perhaps, without quite realizing it, Marx was setting out to create a race of human beings conditioned to think like criminals. Producing such a race had been the dream of power-hungry men for more than 4,000 years. Nimrod had projected the design, Plato polished it, Saint-Simon sublimated it — now Marx materialized it. Today this breed of criminally-conditioned man walks the earth in sufficient numbers to conquer countries or continents, to change laws and boundaries, to decree war or peace. …
— The Naked Communist, Introduction
While I completely understand your point, I see it this way:
A boot is a boot. Whether a “left” boot, a “centrist” boot, or a “right” boot, when it’s on your neck, you make the bastard remove it.
By any means necessary.
The ironic success of the Progressive Movement I believe is based on a seductive appeal to base human nature, in that it’s easier to sell something for free than something you have to work very hard for. That and the sharp wedge of racial inequity. Like a magician fooling the audience with clever misdirection, the Progressive uses these two tools to blind the unwitting to completely overlook the shackles that are wrapping around his legs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.