The Progressive Movement

[Hobodeluxe]

This is your thread, you set up the paradigm.

And for someone who doesn't care, you seemed eager to argue with me that Nazism was a left wing ideology.

closet republican.

 

[Paradoxium]

This is your thread, you set up the paradigm.

And for someone who doesn't care, you seemed eager to argue with me that Nazism was a left wing ideology.

What the hell does this have anything to do with my not caring to identify with a political association?

 

[StorminNorman]

Except you did: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=16909950&postcount=45

Really now the site has a search engine. Again I ask, if you feel conformable claiming Obama is a Marxist, how much do you know about Marxism?

If you had typed Marxism when searching my posts, you would find no posts. As I said, I have never said Obama is a Marxist.

Do I fee comfortable in stating that I think Obama would like a classless society with no rich and no poor, that he wants state control over industries and that he attacks people that don't agree with him? Absolutely I do.

 

[StorminNorman]

What the hell does this have anything to do with my not caring to identify with a political association?

Don't you know that you can't identify the leftist qualities of the Nazi doctrine without being a Sean Hannity loving, Reagan worshiping, Republican?

 

[The Overlord]

First you are sarcastic, then its "I think he doesn't believe historical materialism". All this without even my posting anything substantive yet. Then on the topic of Zeyala, to which you exclaim you did not read it, then suddenly go on about Keynesianism, wtf? Then you repackage what you cited before about Nietzsche and the Nazi, and do not address the slippery slope fallacy. Nevermind what I had to say on this topic already in a earlier thread.

Your Nietzsche slippery slope response was one sentence and very vague, if you want a better response post a detailed argument regarding the Nazis, Nietzsche and a slippery slop.

Then you expect to have read another thread to have understood your post I explained I didn't read that thread and asked what your argument was from that thread, don't refer me to other the other thread, give me the argument here, I have neither the time nor desire to look through threads to find obscure points, you unless you plan paying for that. Make your point here or drop it.

You seem pretty defensive here and now you are accusing me of being defense. You seem pretty Hell bent on proving the Nazis were left wing.

I don't care about any of that stuff really:

I just disagree with your set up post, that's all, I think it set up a bad tone and now we are seeing the results of that.

The best part, you are (already) pulling the: "Let's quote every sentence or two and debunk it with a paragraph, which is prone to creating context problem" schtick.

How else I'm supposed to deal with giant posts?

I think you are incredibly invested idealogically with one of socialism, progressives, communism otherwise you would not be defensive as you are. I have already made it a point I don't believe all progressives to be like this, and here we are. I don't buy the whole, it invites heated response, when I haven't even posted the intended material for you to try to debunk me with.

If throwing around words like communist isn't generating heat, then why are people on this taking offense to it? Clearly it does.

Oh so I'm communist now? I'm being "defensive" because I didn't like the way you set up the tone of discussion and think its silly to just toss around words like communist, willy, nilly. That doesn't make me a communist and if you knew anything about communism or anything I have posted in the past, you would see that I'm not a communist, not that i care if you think I am or not, but you look silly accusing people who disagree with you of being communists or socialist or what ever you don't like.

Suggesting I'm communist makes you look silly, for the record I''m too cynical to be a communist. You undermined everything you do by doing stuff like this, I'm not insult, I think its hilarious.

 

[Paradoxium]

Ok I am going to start posting up materials by Alinsky (quotations and summaries):

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer

What I have to say in this book is not the arrogance of unsolicited advice. It is the experience and counsel that so many young people have questioned me about through all-night sessions on hundreds of campuses in America. It is for those young radicals who are committed to the fight, committed to life." In the first chapter, opening paragraph Alinsky writes, "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away

There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default.

The RULES by Alinsky
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

2. Never go outside the experience of your people. It may result in confusion, fear and retreat.

3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.

4. Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules.

5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

8. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

 

[The Overlord]

If you had typed Marxism when searching my posts, you would find no posts. As I said, I have never said Obama is a Marxist.

Do I fee comfortable in stating that I think Obama would like a classless society with no rich and no poor, that he wants state control over industries and that he attacks people that don't agree with him? Absolutely I do.

So he's not a Marxist, he just believes in everything a Marxist believes in?

Don't you know that you can't identify the leftist qualities of the Nazi doctrine without being a Sean Hannity loving, Reagan worshiping, Republican?

Yeah and you can't point out right wing aspects of Nazism without being some commie liberal right?

The problem is, it seems like some right wingers seem think everything dictatorship in history was left wing, when that's not the case. There are left wing dictatorship and right dictatorships, but at least most liberals can admit there are such things as left wing dictatorships.

 

[StorminNorman]

So he's not a Marxist, he just believes in everything a Marxist believes in?

There are similarities in the two men's ideologies.

Yeah and you can't point out right wing aspects of Nazism without being some commie liberal right?

I don't think anyone accused anyone of being a commie liberal for doing so. People were telling Dox that he is a closet Republican for pointing out the opposite, though. So your statement is unwarranted.

 

[Paradoxium]

Alinsky on Ethics of Means and Ends (care of wiki)

He suggests that the perennial question, "Does the end justify the means?" is meaningless as it stands: the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"

• The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
• In war the end justifies almost any means.
• Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
• Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
• The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
• Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
• The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
• Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
• You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
• Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

More to come, I have started a table contents on the second post of this thread.

 

[Paradoxium]

These are mostly primers, I will also post a few controversial op-eds on the topic. Then I will try to somehow tie a bunch of things together, how it relates to the Progressive Movement.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

Alinsky on Ethics of Means and Ends (care of wiki)

• The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
• In war the end justifies almost any means.
• Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
• Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
• The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
• Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
• The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
• Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
• You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
• Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

More to come, I have started a table contents on the second post of this thread.

most of the points sound a lot like the GOP/Bush doctrine to me.
except the last point would also include freedom and democracy.
For Iraq of course not for here.

 

[bored]

Paradoxium, do you base your entire definition of modern liberalism/progressivism on the writings of one person, or have I missed something?

 

[Paradoxium]

most of the points sound a lot like the GOP/Bush doctrine to me.
except the last point would also include freedom and democracy.
For Iraq of course not for here.

Your point is?

 

[Paradoxium]

Paradoxium, do you base your entire definition of modern liberalism/progressivism on the writings of one person, or have I missed something?

I sorta expected this response, I am focusing on him because of his importance and influence in modern politics. I admit it is a fine line I am straddling, I will try to make an effort after this Alinsky priming to go a bit further beyond that. Not after a few op eds and after I post up Hilary's Thesis on Alinsky of course.

 

[bored]

Why does the man matter so much? I understand that "Hillary" (Clinton?) wrote her thesis on him, but what does that pertain to liberalism in general?

 

[Hobodeluxe]

Your point is?

what part of "sounds like the GOP/Bush doctrine to me" didn't you understand?

 

[Hobodeluxe]

Paradoxium did you ever read Hillary's thesis?
Was it favorable or not towards this man? Did she subscribe to his ideology or was she just doing a thesis on it?
If she did did she subscribe to all of his points or just a few?
If she did which points did she agree with and which did she not?



In her paper, she accepted Alinsky's view that the problem of the poor isn't so much a lack of money as a lack of power, as well as his view of federal anti-poverty programs as ineffective. (To Alinsky, the War on Poverty was a “prize piece of political pornography,” even though some of its funds flowed through his organizations.) “A cycle of dependency has been created,” she wrote, “which ensnares its victims into resignation and apathy.”

 

[The Overlord]

There are similarities in the two men's ideologies.

That's total BS, both Al-Qaeda and some members of the GOP share social conservative views, does that make them similar? Both Bush and Hitler used a crisis to increase the size of government, does that make them similar? Of course not.

How much do you actually know about Marxism? Marxist say Obama is not a Marxist, you know more about marxism then them.

I don't think anyone accused anyone of being a commie liberal for doing so. People were telling Dox that he is a closet Republican for pointing out the opposite, though. So your statement is unwarranted.

Except Dox suggested that I was a commie liberal. Liberal sure, but how am I a commie? Isn't he making assumptions here. So the statement isn't unwarranted.

 

[Paradoxium]

Yes, re-reading it in fact - that's why I didn't post it up yet. It is close to 90 pages. That quote from MSNBC is from the end of the first chapter. What is your point again? She agrees with Alinsky on regards with welfare program. You presume everything must fit in neat little boxes of your own categories. Somehow this one little piece somehow debunks everything.

It is possible to be rooted from something, yet simultaneously be different. Hilary actually critiqued and disagreed with a number of Alinsky's approaches. She was sympathetic to his ideals, but opted for a more stronger gradual exercise of change through the government and public policy. Instead of outside the government grass root work. Exercise of principles or tactics are still there, just under a different context. Obama probably came to the same conclusions after the lack of results during his earlier days.

Gramsci - one of the intellectual antecedents of Alinsky is also sympathetic to Marxism did not accept all of it fully. He was the leader of the communist party even. Does it mean he is not communist because he did not accept everything by Marx. How would one reconcile how Gramsci divorces so much from say Lenin or Stalin?

You simply want to simplify things as "this is how all communist are".

 

[Paradoxium]

Required reading

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=a74fca23-f6ac-4736-9c78-f4163d4f25c7

Clips

Alinsky's contribution to community organizing was to create a set of rules, a clear-eyed and systemic approach that ordinary citizens can use to gain public power. The first and most fundamental lesson Obama learned was to reassess his understanding of power. Horwitt says that, when Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: "You want to organize for power!"

Galluzzo shared with me the manual he uses to train new organizers, which is little different from the version he used to train Obama in the '80s. It is filled with workshops and chapter headings on understanding power: "power analysis," "elements of a power organization," "the path to power." Galluzzo told me that many new trainees have an aversion to Alinsky's gritty approach because they come to organizing as idealists rather than realists. But Galluzzo's manual instructs them to get over these hang-ups. "We are not virtuous by not wanting power," it says. "We are really cowards for not wanting power," because "power is good" and "powerlessness is evil."

The other fundamental lesson Obama was taught is Alinsky's maxim that self-interest is the only principle around which to organize people. (Galluzzo's manual goes so far as to advise trainees in block letters: "get rid of do-gooders in your church and your organization.") Obama was a fan of Alinsky's realistic streak. "The key to creating successful organizations was making sure people's self-interest was met," he told me, "and not just basing it on pie-in-the-sky idealism. So there were some basic principles that remained powerful then, and in fact I still believe in."

Obama so mastered the workshops on power that he later taught them himself. On his campaign website, one can find a photo of Obama in a classroom teaching students Alinskian methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written, "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest," an idea illustrated by a diagram of the flow of money from corporations to the mayor.

 

[Paradoxium]

I think in part the problem is this:

National Socialism (I.e. Hitler, Mussolini), more likened in Europe to "Right Wing Socialism". Has a nationalist flavor and capitalism in name only.

International Socialism (I.e. Most Marxists, Gramaci), more likened in Europe to "Left Wing Socialism". This is why Mussolini opposed Gramaci btw.

The point is, socialism is not the only choice.

A real right wing anti-individual liberty state would actually be Singapore. High economic freedom, bat**** insane individual liberty. Try getting executed for having pot to boot! That is bat**** insane.

More linky and info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_deal_fallacy

 

[Kelly]

OK, guys and gals.....

I'm sorry that problems in other parts of the board took us away from the problems that arose in this thread.

We all need to remember that we have people that run the spectrum of ideology posting on this forum. And that is AWESOME, that is how it is supposed to be....

IF....AND THAT IS A BIG IF...we can have intelligent discussion of all areas of the spectrum of political ideology...this place will thrive.

When the motive is to slam one ideology and spit venom towards its followers, that will be shut down immediately.

When the motive is to bring intelligent debate to a very controversial subject, it is welcomed....

The Overlord, thank you for your intelligent debate with dox on this subject. You are an example of how this discussion should be held.

I've changed the title a bit, simply to keep some from looking at it as a slam against Democrats.....I know that it is not, but without having a full knowledge of all of the above ideologies, I know how some may take that as a slam.


SO, with all of this said.....lets discuss this with intelligence, passion, and as seekers of knowledge in this realm of ideology.

Motives are easily seen on this forum...we are not here to push one ideology over another, but to simply enjoy good, solid, intelligent, and respectful debate. If you can do that......WELCOME......if you can't........adios.


LAST AND ONLY WARNING ON THIS THREAD.

 

[Paradoxium]

It was admittedly polemic (the title). I think it should renamed, The Progressive Movement, for something more simplified.

 

[Kelly]

It was admittedly polemic (the title). I think it should renamed, The Progressive Movement, for something more simplified.

I can certainly do that....thanks dox.

 

[Marx]

*subscribes*