Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Pat Boone Calls The President A Marxist

  1. #21
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bourbon View Post
    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 I do think that the Democrats are better at identifying, motivating, mobilizing and monetizing the various voting groups as compared to the Republicans.

  2. #22
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default The Actual Pat Boone Interview

    Here is a link to the actual Pat Boone interview.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tKf9a1pV-E

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,020

    Default Slap,

    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:

    Wealth Inequality.jpg

    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.
    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).

    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.
    Last edited by jmm99; 03-19-2013 at 07:50 PM.

  4. #24
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Mike:

    How do the superzips fit into that? They are obviously haves.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  5. #25
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,020

    Default Clarify the "that" in "fit into that"

    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):

    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.
    That takes us down to #890: 48167 (Northville, MI; 47.67% w/BAs, $128,597.20 med. fam. inc.).

    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

  6. #26
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    12,388

    Default What is wrong with being a Marxist?

    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".
    davidbfpo

  7. #27
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    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".
    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.

  8. #28
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    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).
    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)
    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.
    yes he does say that but his recomended actions dipute that...such as a rent strike again that is straight up Marxism
    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.
    Yes and that is almost straight out of Alinsky's book
    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).
    Again that is almost Alinskyism (just invented that) 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.

    Glad to hear that.... wouldn't want to be accused of having anything to do kitty napping or strange disappearances.

  9. #29
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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.

  10. #30
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    Marx's contribution was to describe a socio-economic model that would be better than what he saw.
    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.

    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.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  11. #31
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.
    It is projection on your part. Not very well informed projection, either.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  12. #32
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default Not quite ...

    Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
    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.
    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 View Post
    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."
    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 View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 03-20-2013 at 01:38 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  13. #33
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default I'll agree with a little bit ...

    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.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  14. #34
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    12,388

    Default America is Marxist, just doesn't admit it?

    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.
    davidbfpo

  15. #35
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    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

    J. W. - I can agree that we can agree to disagree
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 03-20-2013 at 04:39 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  16. #36
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    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:

    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.
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Firn; 03-21-2013 at 11:00 AM.
    ... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"

    General Ludwig Beck (1880-1944);
    Speech at the Kriegsakademie, 1935

  17. #37
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    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.
    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.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  18. #38
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Talking Free PDF Copy Of The Book

    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

  19. #39
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,020

    Default Means and Ends - Hardball Political Action

    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:

    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
    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.

    I like (better than Alinsky's choice) this nugget from Whitehead's Adventures of Ideas (1933):

    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 always preferred persuasion, but recognize the value of force in exigent situations.

    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 ?

    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?"
    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.

    So, in that sense, I'd have to plead guilty to being an "Alinskyite".

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 03-22-2013 at 02:44 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •