Pat Boone Calls The President A Marxist

[bourbon]

Slap,

If you think there is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, then you are not getting the joke.

[slapout9]

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.

[slapout9]

Here is a link to the actual Pat Boone interview.


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

[jmm99]

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.

[carl]

Mike:

How do the superzips fit into that? They are obviously haves.

[jmm99]

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

[davidbfpo]

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".

[slapout9]

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.

[J Wolfsberger]

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.

[TheCurmudgeon]

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.

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.

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.

[slapout9]

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.

[Fuchs]

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.

[J Wolfsberger]

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.