Liberal and Left

Discover TheNetwork ^ | David Horowitz

[rightwinggoth]

During the French Revolution the Left created the socialist and communist movements

?

I hope for the sake of his own credibility he means the one that happened in 1848.

[SMARTY]

"...in Europe there is a standing socialist tradition that goes back more than a hundred years."



In Europe, and even in Great Britain, the opposition to conservative traditions/values/policies IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN the institutionalized and the accepted form of 'opposition'.

In America, Liberals took up this mantle and have BECOME THE second party in the United States and are rivals to the rule of law, the constitution, the military, the church, education and are favored in the media, the courts and among the uneducated, under-educated, ill informed and disaffected of this country.

Ortga y Gaset knew:

"Communism, now there is a piece of moral extravagnce...the concession we make to the Slavic sense of morality."

[CGVet58]

bttt

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Even more politicians who identify themselves as liberal, despite the demise of the socialist bloc, seem to think it unjust that some people earn more than others, a presumption that is the core of  leftist belief.

None of these politicians would take a cut in salary and benefits to make themselves equal to the mean U.S. wage. More socialists lies.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I hope for the sake of his own credibility he means the one that happened in 1848.

Why certainly he is. That is also the year that Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto" was first published.

[Rummyfan]

Bump!

[ijcr]

Whoa Dude, read the writings of Louis Saint-Just, from 1793.

"I challenge you to establish liberty so long as it remains possible to arouse the unfortunate classes against the new order of things, and I defy you to do away with poverty altogether unless each one has his own land. . . . Where you find large landowners you find many poor people. Nothing can be done in a country where agriculture is carried on on a large scale. Man was not made for the workshop, the hospital, or the poorhouse. All that is horrible. Men must live in independence, each with his own wife and his robust and healthy children. We must have neither rich nor poor.

The poor man is superior to government and the powers of the world; he should address them as a master. We must have a system which puts all these principles in practice and assures comfort to the entire people.

Opulence is a crime : it consists in supporting fewer children, whether one’s own or adopted, than one has thousands of francs of income. . . Children shall belong to their mother, provided she has suckled them herself, until they are five years old ; after that they shall belong to the republic until death.


The mother who does not suckle her children ceases to be a mother in the eyes of the country. Child and citizen belong to the country, and a common instruction is essential. Children shall be brought up in the love of silence and scorn for fine talkers. They shall be trained in laconic speech. Games shall be prohibited in which they declaim, and they shall be habituated to simple truth.


The boys shall be educated, from the age of five to sixteen, by the country; from five to ten they shall learn to read, write, and swim. No one shall strike or caress a child. They shall be taught what is good and left to nature. He who strikes a child shall be banished.


The children shall eat together and shall live on roots, fruit, vegetables, milk, cheese, bread, and water. The teachers of children from [Page 453] five to ten years old shall not be less than sixty years of age. . . . The education of children from ten to sixteen shall be military and agricultural."

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/stjust.html

You can see the ideas that Marx espoused arising from similar writings from the French Revolution.

[NutCrackerBoy]

During the French Revolution the Left created the socialist and communist movements... -David Horowitz

I hope for the sake of his own credibility he means the one that happened in 1848. -rightwinggoth

Why certainly he is. That is also the year that Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto" was first published.

Unless otherwise clarified, I think French Revolution denotes what happened in 1792-1794 - the latter event is named Revolution of 1848. Because of this, and his specific mention of Robespierre and the Jacobins, I believe Horowitz meant the original one. But I am not quite sure, because it seems he would have been more clear that he was speaking of the genealogy of the socialist and communist movements.

Great piece, though. Horowitz is really hitting his stride.

[hosepipe]

[ I hope for the sake of his own credibility he means the one that happened in 1848. ]

Obviously, You must not know who David Horowitz is...
Finding that out is a good read beyond this particular subject.. i.e. the book Radical Son..

[hosepipe]

Quite a piece by the guy that knows where the bodies are buried.. David Horowitz and Peter Collier are jewels laser'ing the academy.. separating bone from marrow.. in the United States today.. American Universitys have become leftist re-education camps..

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I think you are correct about the time of the original revolution. Marx's philosophy may have evolved from that. I thought 1848 sounded late but I was to ignorant to know and too lazy to research it. Thanks.

[Sam Cree]

read later

[Sam Cree]

Still haven't had time to read the article, but it is accepted by many political philosophers, F.A. Hayek among them, that socialism and communism are both outgrowths of the rationalism of the French Revolution of the 18th century. IMO, it is no coincidence that the French Revolution included such things as a Reign of Terror.

[NutCrackerBoy]

While not actually supporting Communism, liberals ... were convinced that "one was morally compromised, turned toward evil and away from good, if one was against it." In the conviction that radical goals are noble, however problematic the radical means, lie the seeds of liberalism’s historic alliance with -- and protection of -- the anti-liberal Left. -David Horowitz (quote is from Lionel Trilling's novel The Middle of the Journey)

Probably not a new observation, but I hadn't thought about it in that way. It strikes me as dead on, having tried to understand the thought processes of dedicated liberals in my own family. For example, the thinking that all that killing of clergy and aristocrats in the French Revolution might have been bad but "necessary" to establish an order based on equality. I say no: it was just bad.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

IMO, it is no coincidence that the French Revolution included such things as a Reign of Terror.

Followed by the Russian revolution about a hundred years later with a repeat of a reign of terror. Excellent point. Thanks for highlighting it. I suppose that is the derivation of a continuing Communist strategy.

Another thing that is not well known among us great unwashed, is that even today the Left Bank (of the Seine) in Paris is still a hot bed of Communism. Many Communist leaders, including Ho Chi Mihn and Pol Pot (perhaps even Mao), were schooled there in their youths. There they are taught the value of terror to cement control and of the mass killings, torture, and starvation necessary to eliminate anyone smart enough to resist them.

[wizardoz]

bookmark

[Sam Cree]

"For example, the thinking that all that killing of clergy and aristocrats in the French Revolution might have been bad but "necessary" to establish an order based on equality. I say no: it was just bad."

The cornerstone of socialism is that everyone is supposed to be working toward the "common good." Anyone working towards some other good is then clearly hurting the common effort. I believe that is the reason why socialists are so ready to "eliminate" citizens that are out of the loop. Also, as a corollary, it probably explains why Democrats are so ready to use the "politics of personal destruction," so much more likely than Republicans, for instance.

[Sam Cree]

"In similar fashion, we casually speak of the “haves” and “have nots,” terms which presume the “social injustice” the Left proposes to redress, while at the same time inflaming the passions of social resentment. Yet, as Friedrich Hayek and others have long pointed out, there is no social entity that divides up society’s wealth or can be said to distribute it unjustly. The very term “social justice” describes a prejudice and incitement of the Left, but only this.[10] In a society of liberal politics and economic markets, it would be more appropriate to speak of the “do’s” and the “do nots,” the “cans” and the “can nots,” the “wills” and the “will nots” -- terms that reflect the undeniable fact of American social mobility -- that individuals can and do make their own destinies, even in circumstances they may not control. Yet, no matter how conservative we may be, we could hardly use these accurate descriptive terms without being simultaneously assaulted by the suspicion that the very usage reflects a mean-spirited attitude on our part which “blames the victim.”

Horowitz puts it into words almost better than anyone else. Every Freeper should read this article. Thanks for posting it.

[Sam Cree]

Hadn't known that about the Left Bank. I remember drinking beer there with my brother, many years ago, when we were still young.