It's true that the transational progressives (referred to as tranzis in some of the blogs) have their roots in socialism. But they have refined some of the axioms. In particular, they preach that the essence of who you are is determined by the group you were born into. They use these tribal and racial groupings to stir up trouble, which of course only they (the self-appointed brilliant elites) believe themselves capable of resolving.
This philosophy does a lot a of things that they like. It dismisses the very idea of individualism (except for those self-same elites), and gives tools like political correctness to intimidate opponents into silence. But you're right, their goals are essentially the same as the socialists - complete domination of society "for the good of everyone", and that can only be done with powerful central government, run by themselves of course.
Not only is this gutless; it is plain stupid.
The governance of the UN is far less democratic than is that of the U.S. Congress, Senate and all. That's why the Democratic Party loves it so . . .
Under a Republic, freedom as well as goods flow....
Marxist Antonio Gramsci and Hillary Clinton and The Third Way
Under the Third Way, nothing flows but slave labor, taxes and poverty.
”DT is a psychosocial manipulative mechanism used on groups of individuals to create a "consensus." However, it is always a consensus at the expense of the individual, freedom and the nation-state.”....DT is Jessie Jackson’s favorite way to conduct business, it has another name, EXTORTION. Many have been returned to the serfdoms that were deemed untenable by our brave ancestors who opened the New World for us. However the King’s ever-growing army known as the Bureaucratic Army and his warlords who make up the various positions like the EPA, The United Nations, the USFA, FEMA, to start with, now go here to see just one part of the Bureaucratic Army that has taken over the Republic as we once knew it
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/alpha
...and here for another peek at this monster we call government:
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/tree
The robber Baron’s of old are some of the same families of today with a few new ones still trying to do what won’t work. We aren’t different races and colors for nothing; what a boring world it would be with only one animal, one race, one color, one bird, one tree, one flower, one fish etc. all the same. Yet these meddlesome nuts with money are attempting to take away my freedoms and my Republic to assuage some tortured belief “life will be better”. They, through greed, will never learn. But I on the other hand, have learned that the Democratic and Al Gore view of “No Controlling Legal Authority” will stand me in good stead with the coming "globalism" of the progressive left...I will pay it no mind, no mind at all. With luck and hard work, I will be able to keep my freedom and my Republic!
Some people call them "progressives". Other's call them "compassionate conservatives". I just call them "Corporate Commies".
Well Joe??
I see *Torie* finally got around to you, huh?
Look; if you want to know more about this one, just ask me in private.
I can refer you to a place where this hag's well known by a variety of people -- most journalists in one capacity or another -- & they'll not only give you the full & complete *skinny* on this one.
But also several excellent reasons why she's to be completely & totally ignored; at, all times.
OK?
HINT: can you *feel* the English Liberal-Socialist tack with her superiority complex, hmmmmm??
...btw; an excellent read, too.
What a very weird comment to pop up like a sore thumb in the middle of a wonderfully consistent Marxian analysis! I think the rest of the essay contradicts this - it is, in fact, about class warfare in the very sense in which Marx (and later Gramsci, and Foucault) were writing, certainly insofar as feudalism is concerned. If the author is accurate in characterizing the neo-robber-baron types as feudalists, then everything about this is precisely as Marx described the feudal system in Capital. Good grief, that's what the rest of the essay takes such detailed trouble to describe!
It certainly isn't the direction Marx suggested history would run vis a vis economic classes, but if I've understood the essay that's the author's point - this constitutes a regression to pre-industrialist days before the conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat overwhelmed the control on capital possessed by the feudal classes. New entries to the latter class are comprised of the owners of what might be described as intellectual and informational capital: the intelligentsia and the owners of broadcast media. These are not, strictly speaking, Marxist, but their activities certainly do correspond to those of the neo-feudal classes in which the author describes the collectivist wealthy. And the mechanisms are very definitely Marxian.
I may, of course, have misunderstood the intention of the author but I rather think the "not class warfare" comment to be inaccurate with regard to the rest of the essay. Great read, BTW...gotta chew on it for awhile...