Link to NBC report of 1950's heart throb Pat Boone saying President Obama is a Marxist. In the SCW opinion is he or isn't he......a Marxist?
http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=796288
Printable View
Link to NBC report of 1950's heart throb Pat Boone saying President Obama is a Marxist. In the SCW opinion is he or isn't he......a Marxist?
http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=796288
Slap:
Labels don't matter as much as result. The aim of the man and his ilk is that the few rule the many. Me and you are among the many.
According to Boone, Obama is using "Rules for Radicals" as his playbook. Actually, it looks a lot like Fox News' playbook. Rule #2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
This is all sillyness.
Why would anyone care what Pat Boone thinks? Has he any particular expertise or competence in matters political?
I can't see why anyone would care what he thinks, unless they just liked him, or his views, or thought he was dreamy back in the day.
As to the original question, I bet he has some Marxist leanings, but I think he would be restricted in what he can and cannot do, as the POTUS.
If actions speak louder than words, then I hope I never know if he is a true believer in the political, economic, and social theory's of Karl Marx.
I don't believe in the inevitability of socialism or communism.
Pat Boone, Hahaha
He speaks.
Life goes on.
Hey Slap:
In the responses so far, Alinsky's rules 5 and 13 are covered. Interesting.
I am just a few rules away from a position as a community organizer.;)
Next step, Oval Office.
In all fairness to Mr. Boone, no one cares what I say either. I wonder. If the President publicly declared himself an avowed Marxist, what would change?
Yes, and I wonder how many people now that the American Communist party was started in 1919 in................Chicago.:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
I don't understand why anyone even pays attention to CPAC. They are like the Moral Majority - a bunch of elitists who think they know better than everyone else who are looking to create a caste society with their membership being the oligarchical leadership. They are the Moral Majority in expensive suits.
For The Communist Labor Party of America (CLP), "Founding Convention" -- Chicago, IL -- Aug. 31 - Sept. 5, 1919;
http://www.marxisthistory.org/subjec...-CLPLOGO19.gif
And for The (old) Communist Party of America (CPA), "Founding Convention" -- Chicago, IL -- Sept. 1 - 7, 1919;
http://www.marxisthistory.org/subjec...-CPALOGO19.gif
But, alas, Chicago was abandoned by the Comintern for the eastern shore of Lake Michigan to create The United Communist Party of America (UCP), "Joint Unity Convention" -- Bridgman, MI -- May 26 - 31, 1920;
http://www.marxisthistory.org/subjec...-UCPLOGO20.gif
But wait, the story goes on and on, including even Woodstock ("Joint Unity Convention" -- near Woodstock, NY -- May 15 - 28, 1921), where a very young Pat Boone was warmup for Pete Seeger.
And so it went - ref. The Communist Party of America (1919-1946) - Downloadable Documents.
Regards
Mike
Excellent Mike! and yes it gets even better. A couple of months ago I was watching a documentary about Pete Seeger who actually had a short lived popular TV show called Hoot-Anny (can't spell) it was originally believed that he was a Conservative Republican type:wry: When his true views became known the show was canceled and I imagine Pat Boone was way down the road from him by that time. Two points: this it is very illustrative of how true Marxism works..... They mystify and surprise. Pat Boone is very well versed in how it works, he has also been very Political since the 1950's and 1960's even had a popular song about Vietnam draft dodgers called "Wish You Were Here" in the 60's, So I would not sell the guy short, he is still very influential inside conservative fund raising groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmm99
IMO Chicago is and always has been the key to the President's true views. A lot of Radical Political Infrstructure is still there. The 68 Presidential Convention Riots were no accident and they had tremendous support in order to pull that off. They stopped that for awhile and now just do elections:wry:
Link to the 63 TV show trailer a lot of young recognizable faces on here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf1JUwc3tnc
On a roll here. Didn't know Youtube had this one and now from the good old days when music was music and America was America.
Pat Boone "Wish You Were Here,Buddy"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r343YRkQdss
My post was meant as an example of "effective" agitprop - seven factoids (the meetings and the logos, through Woodstock 1921), followed by a non-factual zinger.
In 1921, Pete Seeger was 2; and Pat Boone was a dozen years away from being conceived.
In 1936, when Boone was 2, Seeger was 17 and a member of the Young Communist League. Boone was a good ole Nashville boy from age 2; at 17, a member of the Church of Christ.
Seeger and Boone did have one thing in common; they both "covered" songs by African-American artists.
Since you are genuinely serious about this topic, you deserve today's bloodhound award:
http://www.thegoddessblogs.com/wp-co...odhound-14.jpg
Regards
Mike
A Bloodhound next to tidy cat?Quote:
Originally Posted by jmm99
"Reville for Radicals" and "Rules for Radicals" by Alinsky are great books. He wrote of shareholder activism years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
Mike, I am serious from the standpoint that Pat Boone is serious and I don't think it is without some factual basis on Pat's part. Whether the President is a Marxist or not I don't know, only he really knows and his close advisor's. Does/did he and or his advisor's use Marxist techniques for political manipulation.....I have no doubt about that. Marx understood how to motivate and manipulate Social Groups and use that to win/manipulate elections. The Conservative movement/Republican party had better learn to respect the man (Marx) and his methods or they are likely to face extinction in the near future:eek: He (Marx) is easy to beat which is why I am continually amazed at some of the right wing rhetoric that is put out, it is almost as if the left paid the right to screw things up.
Short video which appears to be a preacher in some church on Saul Alinsky.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBaQ7LIEiNM
Listen to the man himself. Link to a StudsTerkel Interview of Saul Alinsky.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQtwo8lp_E8
Slap,
If you think there is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, then you are not getting the joke.
It wouldn't be the first time I missed something:wry: I do think that the Democrats are better at identifying, motivating, mobilizing and monetizing the various voting groups as compared to the Republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by bourbon
Here is a link to the actual Pat Boone interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tKf9a1pV-E
Alinsky suggests in Rules that we have three basic groups: Haves, Have Nots and Have Some & Want Mores. While his tactics are not inherently left or right, they are inherently useful only to an "outsider" group - to Have Nots vs Haves and/or Have Some & Want Mores (e.g., his community activism in Chicago); or to Have Some & Want Mores vs Haves (e.g., his later advocacy of stockholder activism).
Should Alinsky's personal political ideology (as opposed to his tactics, which are not so classifiable) be classified as "markist", "socialist", "populist"; or as an individualistic blend belonging to no group ? He claimed the last.
As to President Obama, my belief is that he tends to be more "socialist-populist" on domestic issues than any thing else. He has certainly tied into the Haves and Have Nots dichotomy; and has used that issue very effectively against the Republicans in general, and against Mitt Romney in particular.
Using the Haves and Have Nots dichotomy may be as much pragmatism as ideology on the President's part. It ties into what a substantial segment of Americans perceive (and therefore, believe). That is: Let’s Make a Deal; Meals and Unequal Wealth Distribution (by Joyce Arnold on March 7, 2013), which includes a 6+ min video on Wealth Inequality in America.
The report which underlies the video can be read here: Norton, Building a Better America--One Wealth Quintile at a Time (2011). The bottom line of the report:
Attachment 1708
This material could as well be used by conservative populists (e.g., William J. Bryan and Tom Watson) as by leftist "marxists-socialists" (e.g, Gene Debs and Bill Foster).Quote:
Fig. 2. The actual United States wealth distribution plotted against the estimated and ideal distributions across all respondents. Because of their small percentage share of total wealth, both the ‘‘4th 20%’’ value (0.2%) and the ‘‘Bottom 20%’’ value (0.1%) are not visible in the ‘‘Actual’’ distribution.
Regards
Mike
PS: the infiltration of canines into the feline Tidy Cat world began innocently enough:
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...1&d=1236398640
but allowed the bloodhound to get his nose into the tent. After that, the rest was "his story". Really, a classic in infiltration and subversion. ;)
Mike:
How do the superzips fit into that? They are obviously haves.
The "superzips" (I infer from your prior links to Murray) refer to SuperZips and the rest of America's zip codes (by Charles Murray, American Enterprise Institute, February 13, 2012), with a large Excel file ranking 31720 zips (subtract 8 from the # in col. A to get the ranking).
Of which, 49931 (Houghton) is #4263 (41.70% w/BAs, $62,416.98 med. inc.); 49855 (Marquette) is #5633 (31.33% w/BAs, $66,834.05 med. fam. inc.); 49866 (Negaunee) is #9789 (21.40% w/BAs, $59,800.47 med. fam. inc.); 49825 (Eben Junction) is #10241 (20.45% w/BAs, $59.659.25 med. fam. inc.); my 49930 (Hancock) is #10674 (25.69% w/BAs, $49,035.00 med. fam. inc.). Those are the UP's "superzips". You know the towns. So, you also know I'm kidding about the "superzip" part.
Actually, I learned this factoid from a review of Murray's book (link):
That takes us down to #890: 48167 (Northville, MI; 47.67% w/BAs, $128,597.20 med. fam. inc.).Quote:
To define such neighborhoods objectively, Murray created a scoring system that combined average income with percentage of college graduates. Then he ranked zip code areas nationwide. Those with scores in the top five centiles he designated “SuperZips.” There are 882 of them in America.
All of this interests me; but you are going to have to lead me to what you want for an answer - cuz I don't get the question. :)
Regards
Mike
I always thought the problem was with those who combined Marx's writings with Leninism, hence the label Marxist-Leninist.
Marx's contribution was to describe a socio-economic model that would be better than what he saw. Lenin's part was to prescribe a revolutionary vanguard, who knew the 'right' way in everything and would achieve socialism.
You can be a socialist without being a Marxist, a Marxist-Leninist or a Leninist.
Somehow I have m' doubts President Obama has any of those labels, but then I'm a pesky "limey".:wry:
Your took the words right out of my mouth!!! That is outstanding!!! Lenin is the Violent Revolutionary not Marx. Marx was more into a kind of Labor Union Economic Warfare. Lenin was the lets march on the summer palace with guns kind of guy. And Stalin beat them all...... that is why all 3 fly togather on the flags in the old Soviet Union, if you cant get them one way then get them another way.Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo
Alinsky suggests in Rules that we have three basic groups: Haves, Have Nots and Have Some & Want Mores. While his tactics are not inherently left or right, they are inherently useful only to an "outsider" group - to Have Nots vs Haves and/or Have Some & Want Mores (e.g., his community activism in Chicago); or to Have Some & Want Mores vs Haves (e.g., his later advocacy of stockholder activism).Should Alinsky's personal political ideology (as opposed to his tactics, which are not so classifiable) be classified as "markist", "socialist", "populist"; or as an individualistic blend belonging to no group ? He claimed the last.Quote:
That is straight up Marxism. Marx called the proletariat (have nots) the Bourgeoisie (the haves) and the petite(Sometimes called petty) bourgeoisie(have some and want some more/middle class/small businesses)
As to President Obama, my belief is that he tends to be more "socialist-populist" on domestic issues than any thing else. He has certainly tied into the Haves and Have Nots dichotomy; and has used that issue very effectively against the Republicans in general, and against Mitt Romney in particular.Quote:
yes he does say that but his recomended actions dipute that...such as a rent strike again that is straight up Marxism
Using the Haves and Have Nots dichotomy may be as much pragmatism as ideology on the President's part. It ties into what a substantial segment of Americans perceive (and therefore, believe).Quote:
Yes and that is almost straight out of Alinsky's book
Quote:
Again that is almost Alinskyism (just invented that:wry:) word for word.
Regards
Mike
PS: the infiltration of canines into the feline Tidy Cat world began innocently enough:
but allowed the bloodhound to get his nose into the tent. After that, the rest was "his story". Really, a classic in infiltration and subversion. ;)
Quote:
Glad to hear that.... wouldn't want to be accused of having anything to do kitty napping or strange disappearances.:wry:
As an outsider who's not driven by partisan views I tell you that you are projecting.
The Haves and have-nots thing here mirrors the 47% discussion from the last presidential election and you guys demonstrate that it's now a if not THE framework for your thinking.
I cannot spot any confirmation for your suspicions from my informed outsider perspective.
Instead, the high profile Democratic policies look to me basically like the policies of a party that thinks the government is meant to work for the people, while Republican policies look to me a lot like they think the U.S. is a military with a government for Pentagon financing and enforcement of morals.
Whatever you seemed to imply here in regard to haves and have-nots and stuff can easily fit into the framework I just gave you. That may be projection on my part, but it should still show your view isn't the only possible one.
P.S.: Whoever says Obama is a Marxist only displays that he's either not serious or is clueless about Marxism, period.
The problem is that his socio-economic model doesn't do a very good job of describing reality. (Some, such as myself, would go so far as to refer to it as "economic illiteracy.") As evidence, I offer all the successful, prosperous countries operating along Marxist lines. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo
At best, the attempts to implement Marxism as the organizing principle for any country has resulted in cronyism (commonly referred to by the oxymoron "crony capitalism"), massive bureaucracy, debt as a huge percentage of GDP (sometimes greater than GDP), and bizarre notions such as a tax cut is government "spending."
At worst, Marxism (and its close cousin, Socialism) leads to the Ukrainian Famine, the Holocaust, the Great Leap Forward, the Killing Fields, etc. with mortality rates that make the term "megadeaths" appropriate.
It is projection on your part. Not very well informed projection, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
I think that you are showing your own lack of understanding. First, Marx was a brilliant economist FOR HIS TIME. He recognized a number of "truths" that others were having a hard time grasping. He was a horrible anthropologist. His classifications of societies based on their economic conditions was ahead of its time but he lacked the depth of knowledge needed to really apply them. "Ancient Societies", the first real book on what later would be classified as Hunter-Gather and Horticulturist societies was only published a few years before his death and he never finished his work attempting to apply his thoughts on economics to it. Therefore, his teleological thoughts on where society came from and where it was ultimately going were poorly informed at best, at worse they reflect his own personal "dislike" for the class system that had developed that he rightly saw as a drag on the potential for economic growth since it fostered the cronyism you accuse communist systems of. Certain things are part of human nature and can be found in almost any economic system, capitalist or communist.Quote:
Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger
Right now all those capitalist countries, including the US, are crumbling under their own debt. And just to be clear, lending and borrowing are fundamental components of capitalist systems as well. One must separate the economics from the political system.Quote:
Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger
Marxism and Socialism are not closely related, although it is a fair argument that socialism, as a governmental system, is a hybrid of communism and capitalism, designed to implement the best of both worlds.Quote:
Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger
The truth that many people in the US don't want to believe is that America needs to become a socialist country. The "Virtue of Selfishness" attitude that has become the founding ideologies of groups like the TEA party leave no room for civic duties - it is all about me and leaving me to do what I want because that produces the best possible world (for me). The "war of all against all" as Hobbes would describe it. The major problem with the US is that it has no historical commonality - no common ethnic or religious group to maintain a semblance of social cohesion. We are not all French or Swedish or Kurd or Christians or Jews. In fact it prides itself on the individualist mentality. But if everyone is an individual, how do you work together for a common goal? You can't. All that remains is the slow decay as everyone tries to keep for themselves without any thought for the greater good.
If you don't believe that then look at the gun control debate. It is not enough that we have armed police to protect us. We cannot depend on the system. We don't trust it. So we must be able to defend ourselves from everyone else in the country. There is no cohesion in this train of thought. It is based on the idea that there is no unifying bond - nothing that we have in common. In the US, the only thing we have is the history of our common government. Remember that Hobbes was describing the world before the Social Contract. If we are going to have a social contract then the only entity we can do that with is the government. If it does not become the focal point of our unity - if it instead becomes the the center of our fears, then we have nothing else. We will slowly splinter. The US will go out with a whiny whimper.
I didn't intend to imply that nothing Marx ever did was accurate or useful. But I would say that before you can get anything out of, say, the Labor Theory of Value, you have to do a lot of translating into real world conditions of economic behavior.
Yes, he did do some useful research. He then did a terrible job of applying the results.
As for the rest, we're in considerable disagreement. Exploring it would take us well outside the boundaries of this site. We can agree to disagree.
Last night there was a discussion on the BBC's Newsnight programme on the Cyprus banking raid and an economist pointed out to one discussant that the US government is a very, very active participant in the economy. Reference was made to the US$31 billion annual investment in drug / medical research, by an agency I didn't catch the name of. Needless to say in the UK and suspect other places in the EU, there is no equivalent, let alone such an amount.
Sometimes one hears Americans, inside and outside government, refer to the USA being a capitalist economy, free market etc. Really?
The sad (my) truth is that both the advocates and participants in public policy making in the developed 'West', whether capitalist or socialist and those in-between - just love spending other people's money.
Perhaps the USA should acknowledge it is not the current President who is a 'Marxist', but a rather large part of your establishment, elite, public and private sector.
We practice Corporate Marxism :DQuote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo
J. W. - I can agree that we can agree to disagree
Marx did a brilliant job at looking and exposing some very nasty business practices of his day.
He very aptly described the vast economic development, the booming globalisation and the shifts of economic and political power:
He sadly draw idiotic conclusions, was stupidly deterministic and pretty much deadly wrong on the macro side of economics. Of course he had not the advantage of our knowledge, and we have seen many getting it terrible wrong today despite that wealth of wisdom. Everybody who has studied the results of too much purity of cultic groupthink wielding the power of the state should be very aware. Maos great leap is just a horrific example of it.Quote:
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.
The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.
Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.
Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
Moderates were able to blunt the impact of naked capitalism, laying the foundations of sustained strong economic growth which rests on shoulders of many share- and stakeholders and did overall greatly lessen the chances of radicals left and right. Obama is arguably not moderate enough on some issues like government spending and financial reforms, doing too little but of course while facing strong headwinds.
I agree whole heartedly with both, and get quite depressed about the second. (Incidentally, your latter point is what I was pointing out when I wrote that "crony capitalism" is an oxymoron.Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo
Link to a free PDF copy of the book. It is an easy read and a pretty well written book so read and decide for yourself if President Obama is an Alinsky-ite. Especially read the chapter with the rules for "Means and Ends" not usually quoted when the book is discussed. I thought those rules were more insightful than the actual rules for the radicals. Enjoy
http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com...r_Radicals.pdf
Slap,
Thank you for finding an online version. I've been a fan of Rules since it came out in the early 1970s (and its predecessor, Reveille, since undergrad days in the 1960s).
Alinksy starts his chapter "Of Means and Ends" with this quote:
rather than one from a leftist oracle such as Bertrand Russell. Whitehead was Russell's mentor and co-author of the first edition of Principia Mathematica. They went separate ways when Whitehead (whose son, an RFC flyer, was killed in WWI) became a theist and non-pacifist.Quote:
We cannot think first and act afterwards. From the moment of birth we are immersed in action and can only fitfully guide it by taking thought. -- Alfred North Whitehead
I like (better than Alinsky's choice) this nugget from Whitehead's Adventures of Ideas (1933):
I've always preferred persuasion, but recognize the value of force in exigent situations.Quote:
Now the intercourse between individuals and between social groups takes one of two forms, force or persuasion. Commerce is the great example of intercourse by way of persuasion. War, slavery, and governmental compulsion exemplify the reign of force.
I've collected the "means and ends" rules into one quote. Alinsky explains them in detail (left those out). I could add to them, but won't. :)
My suggestion is to consider them in various contexts of Haves and Have Nots. For example, in present politics, the Dems are the Haves; the Reps are the Have Nots. Are these rules useful to the Rep Have Nots in the current cycle ?
Those or similar rules (as interpreted and applied by me, not necessarily as Alinsky says) guided me in political action (long since a thing of the past) and legal action (a more recent thing of the past). In brief, both political practice and legal practice require hardball.Quote:
I present here a series of rules pertaining to the ethics of means and ends:
[F]irst, that one's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue. ... Accompanying this rule is the parallel one that one's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's distance from the scene of conflict.
...
The second rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
...
The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.
...
The fourth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
...
The fifth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
...
The sixth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
The seventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. ... There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father.
The eighth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
...
The ninth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
...
The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments. ... All effective actions require the passport of morality.
...
The eleventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness" or "Bread and Peace."
...
Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, "Does the End justify the Means?" but always has been "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"
So, in that sense, I'd have to plead guilty to being an "Alinskyite".
Regards
Mike