by Adam Graham Posted on 05/18/2010 2:52:01 PM PDT by unspun
by Adam Graham
Before discussing the left and how social liberalism serves its ends, we need to clarify terms. It is popular, and perhaps politically advantageous to define opponents as “liberal.” It is politically advantageous to do so because the term has been loaded with negative connotations. (Don’t believe me, ask a “progressive blogger.”)
However, a more precise term would be helpful. For some, Communist is deemed as popular. Yet, the plain definition of Communism doesn’t fit the leftist agenda, “A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.” Clearly, the left doesn’t ascribe that far-reaching of a belief.
The Communists often insisted that Communism was never really tried, and to an extent, they were right. Communism, like pure libertarianism is a Utopian idea that doesn’t work on Planet Earth. The type of men who rise to the top of any nation are not the type of folks who would hold rigidly to an inflexible philosophy that only works on paper. Pragmatic neo-Marxism is the order of the day.
The left doesn’t abolish the right to poverty or inheritance as Marx called for, it just drastically regulates what people can do with their own land and lays heavy taxes on inheritances that force people to liquidate what they inherit.
One part that the left has left intact from the Communist manifesto is that we do pass a heavy progressive tax on income, and the left wishes it was heavier.
The left doesn’t call for the centralization of credit or of government ownership of means of production, rather the left tries to control these means through regulation.
The left doesn’t call for an elimination of the distinction between town and country, however the leftist planning establishments across the country believe more Americans need to be pushed into high density housing with limited parking so that public transit schemes make sense.
And of course, the left believes in union-controlled public schools and distrusts any private school or homeschooled family.
The American left in every way aims to achieve the ends of Communism, however they offer more politically palatable means to achieve their ends.
Leftists will dispute with me on this. But look at the 10 point program of the Communist Manifesto and tell me other than Marx’s belief in the confiscation of property from emigrants, what would be objectionable to the political left?:
The platform of the American left is Marxism 2.0. It believes in solving our problems through the power of an almighty state that they hope will replace Almighty God.
The difference between Marxism 1.0 and 2.0 is that Marxism 2.0 is a candy coated, slow acting poison that patiently makes its way through the body politic. More to the point, the population has been systematically programmed through the public schools, the news media, and the entertainment media to believe that the principles of Marxism 2.0 are good, though the end there of is death, and to believe that anyone who talks about marxism, socialism, or communism is only a reactionary nut, and that real marxists and socialists don’t exist. They don’t go by the name, but their program is just as pernicious.
In our next series of articles, we’ll take a look at how social decline has served the needs of Pragmatic Neo-Marxists.
All of the supposed opposites have run together into an interesting amalgam. Marxist investment bankers, fascists spouting marxist slogans, and mafiosis all rolled into one.
don’t you know this is the land of confusion.
...not to mention Mother Theresa Maoists.
postmodern Pragmatic neo-Marxism which wants to destroy the free society and just government of the America the Founding Fathers gave us, in order to promote social justice and economic democracy for every freakin group such as women, homos, Hispanics, and the poor, in addition to the proletarian class.
I was jolted at first - took me a second. :)
I re-read 1984 recently. What the donks are setting up looks an awful lot like Orwell’s oligarchical collectivism.
I’m starting to think that some on the left didn’t see 1984 as a cautionary tale.
They saw it as a blueprint...
It also occurred in Germany, in the 1930's. The black and red colors, so uniformly worn by the entire Obama family on election night are black for the anarchist movement (which pushes for union control of corporations) and the communists. That was the fascist coalition built by Mussolini and especially Hitler. It's called anarcho-syndicalism, or anarcho-communism. (BTW, Monty Python joked about it in their Holy Grail movie, the "anarcho-syndicalist collective" that objected to King Arthur, in principle.)
Good reminder. Some of us like to show the totalitarians at one end of a spectrum, and the anarchists at the other. Which in theory makes sense since in theory the anarchists believe in "no government".
In actual practice, though, so-called anarchists, self-described anarchists are almost always marxists and fascists. The only government they don't believe in is the government they don't control.
So, on that scale, proceeding from total government toward limited government toward "no" government, its useful to distinguish between theoretical utopian anarchy and the actual thugs who like to call themselves anarchists but really just want to break out your windows and make it impossible for you to govern yourself without their permission.
Yes, and as with many motley coalitions, they can work amazingly well together, on the upswing -- as long as the money and means are there for them and power in sight.
Yup. If our schools actually cared about education as opposed to indoctrination, more people would know this...
THX THX.
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.