the Individual or the Collective??

[Human_Action]

@Human Action

So, in brief, I agree that Americans (everyone, really) should be on guard against a return of totalitarianism dressed up as effective, necessary government, it seems to me that the ideas you warn against are at a particularly low ebb in America at present. If you made this argument in the '30s, '60s, or '70s, I think you’d be able to present a decent amount of evidence. But today there simply isn’t any support to speak of for abolishing private property, wage and price controls, or any of the economic policies of collectivism regimes.

Just to flesh out my point here, in 1919 the Socialist Party of America had over 100,000 members. It ran Eugene Debs for president twice, in 1912 and 1920, each time Debs received over 900,000 votes nationwide. Per this article “the party also elected two United States Representatives (Victor L. Berger and Meyer London), dozens of state legislators, more than a hundred mayors, and countless lesser officials.”

The Socialist Party of America dissolved in 1972. Its spiritual successor, the Socialist Party USA, boasted, in 2008, 3,000 members.

The Farmer-Labor Party received 265,000 votes for its presidential candidate, Parley Christensen, in 1920. It dissolved in 1936.

The Progressive Party’s Robert LaFollette received 17% of the vote for president in 1924. It dissolved in 1946.

The key change that you may be unaware of is theNew Left movement of the 1960s, in which American leftists largely abandoned Marxism and labor struggle to focus on civil rights and protest against the Vietnam War.

I reiterate: the Marxism you warn against is extremely weak in the United States, and has been for a long time.

@Larry Borgia

Also, human action, **Brain Glutton **and dissonance, your debate is actually interesting and substantive, and not at all a hijack, IMO, so this lurker asks you to please continue, if you want.

I’m game, so long as we all agree what we’re disagreeing about.

[BrainGlutton]

@Human_Action

Just to flesh out my point here, in 1919 the Socialist Party of America had over 100,000 members. It ran Eugene Debs for president twice, in 1912 and 1920, each time Debs received over 900,000 votes nationwide. Per this article “the party also elected two United States Representatives (Victor L. Berger and Meyer London), dozens of state legislators, more than a hundred mayors, and countless lesser officials.”

The Socialist Party of America dissolved in 1972. Its spiritual successor, the Socialist Party USA, boasted, in 2008, 3,000 members.

Nitpick: Two organizations now claim to be the successor of the Socialist Party of America: The Socialist Party USA, and the Democratic Socialists of America.

The Socialist Party USA (fucking splitters! :mad:) to which you were referring, is the only one that even has any Marxist faction, any more. It is also the only one running any candidates for public office.

The Democratic Socialists of America (fucking splitters! :mad:) are the nice socialists, as it were, including many big-name progressive pundits and commentators whose articles you sometimes can read in The Nation and such. The DSA is not a political party at all, really – that is, it is DSA policy never to run candidates for office, i.e., never to compete with the Democrats; more of a movement or educational organization. Its strategy once was to form an influential faction within the Dems (like a LW Tea Party), but I haven’t heard anything about that in a long time. It is the American affiliate of the Socialist International, at any rate; the SPUSA is not.

There was a third, the Social Democrats USA (fucking splitters! :mad:). The right wing of American socialism, really. They descended from the faction of the Socialist Party of America’s 1972 breakup which supported continued U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War – that was the point over which the party broke up, in fact; the SPA had long been distinguished from the Communist Party USA by being anti-Communist, anti-Stalinist and anti-Soviet, and zealously supporting the Cold War, but Vietnam just got to be too much for most of them. The history is a bit complicated, but, in fact, the SDUSA was the organization with the best claim to be the Socialist Party USA under a new name. At any rate, the SDUSA more or less folded in 2005. Since then, there have been a couple of attempts to revive it, but not much has come of that but more splitting.

They should just all merge, IMO.

But, your point stands: Even on the marginal socialist left, Marxism as such is pretty much a dead letter in American politics today.

[Human_Action]

Corrections well taken, BG. I was aware of the DSoA, but it’s debatable whether they are a political party or not. I hadn’t heard of the SDUSA, thanks for the info.

@BrainGlutton

But, your point stands: Even on the marginal socialist left, Marxism as such is pretty much a dead letter in American politics today.

wildorchid might be interested in It Didn’t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed In The United Statesby Seymour Lipset and Gary Marks. It’s a good read, and explains why a lot of the thinking he’s (justifiably) afraid of died out in the United States.

[BrainGlutton]

@Human_Action

The key change that you may be unaware of is theNew Left movement of the 1960s, in which American leftists largely abandoned Marxism and labor struggle to focus on civil rights and protest against the Vietnam War.

To repeat what I said in the “Cultural Marxism” thread:

Since this “Cultural Marxism” is supposed to have something-or-other to do with the New Left of the 1960s, let’s take a closer look at that:

The New Left[1] was a collection of leftist groups in the US and UK that sprang up in the early 1960s as a reaction to the timidity of liberalism on racial equality and the opposition to the War in Vietnam and against the thoroughly discredited and powerless “Old Left” of the Communist Party USA and its various Trotskyist enemies. Rather than focus on just the material aspects of capitalism, and attempting to work through labor unions to achieve revolution by the masses, the “New Left” focused on the young (particularly college students) in order to cause a full system change all around. The New Left also focused more heavily on the problems of imperialism than did the Old Left.

Influences

Generational change marked by the predisposition of youth to challenge authority on moral terms was exacerbated by the large numbers of youth entering institutions of higher education.[2] (The rebellion even began to spread to high schools.)[3] There they encountered both older conservative and more recent liberal accounts of history and social science that failed to adequately explain national and world events. The timidity of the liberal response to racial oppression and imperialist violence motivated a search for explanation in the heady post-war fusion of Marxism and Freudianism favored by leftist intellectuals in the West. It also led to a preference for action over reflection. Consider the following rant by Yippie leader Abbie Hoffman:

“Once one has experienced LSD, existential revolution, fought the intellectual game-playing of the individual in society, of one’s identity, one realizes that action is the only reality; not only reality but morality as well. It exists in the head. I am the Revolution.”[4].

Orthodox Soviet style Marxism-Leninism held no attraction for Western radicals. The Soviet Union had lost its moral legitimacy in the advanced industrial countries, even among leftists, after the crimes of Stalin had been published, some in the New Left went looking for a more “pure” form of Communism. The 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia that put an end to the “Prague Spring” reinforced the alienation from Moscow.

Inspiration, or at least the imagery of mass rebellion, was found in the work of the new, non-Western Communists, like Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, and Ho Chi Minh.[5]. As great leaders who had thrown off the shackles of Western colonialism, their images would become icons for those who opposed capitalism and Western imperialism in general.[6]

On a more philosophical level, the works of Herbert Marcuse, especially One Dimensional Man, were particularly important. Marcuse criticized the socially alienating effects of modern capitalism incorporating Marxism with Freud and critical theory in a way which the Old Left had not done. He extended this critique also to identifying the same social alienation under Soviet communism, and in the place of the stodgy “industrial proletariat” he championed an oppositional culture led by youth, minorities and the intelligentsia. Another important influence was Growing Up Absurd by Paul Goodman, a 1960 book about the alienation of growing up in a society geared mainly toward consumerism and preparing people for a life of meaningless and unfulfilling jobs. Goodman attributed the rise of both juvenile delinquency and the Beat Generation to a youthful rebellion against this. Also influential were Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus; both had been part of the anti-Nazi resistance in France, Camus as an anarchist, while Sartre was considered a “fellow traveler” with the French Communist Party but did not join. Both continued to support leftist causes but turned toward developing the philosophy which would come to be labeled existentialism.

Now, by Og! Whatever all of that might have portended, LSD-inspired “existential revolution” never could have portended the totalitarian collectivist dictatorship that wildorchid so fears!

And so it proved in the event:

Impact of the New Left

The New Left contributed its own imagery of popular revolt. What else did it leave? Rather than bringing the Vietnam War to an end sooner the reaction mobilized against it by the powerful conservative and liberal enemies it made helped to divert public attention from the tragedy of the war. However the war dragged on because it never emerged as the primary issue in a U.S. presidential election campaign. Most of the major civil rights victories are attributable to mainstream civil rights groups like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. SNCC provides the exception to the rule. Unfortunately thereafter the mainstream civil rights groups stagnated.

Capitalism itself was never clearly in jeopardy from the critiques of the New Left.

Probably the biggest impact came out of a movement that formed due to the mistakes of the New Left. The second wave of feminism, or “Women’s Liberation”, was spawned in large part because of the sexism within SDS and SNCC.[19] Despite a great deal of rhetoric concerning “equality”, women in these groups found themselves repeatedly denigrated, and forced into domestic roles. This was especially galling in SDS, because many of the most successful ventures (particularly in the community organizing arms) were led and run by women. As women became fed up with being second class even in the revolution, they left and founded their own far more successful movement, which really helped to change the face of American society.

However, many conservatives act as if the New Left somehow managed to take control of the whole country. For instance, this book tries to make the case that US cities are failing because the New Left managed to take control of the public services and unions, and that these things are bankrupting the country today.[20] Another example of this is the “documentary” Generation Zero which purports that old members of the “New Left” secretly engineered the financial crisis to create global socialism. That none of this makes sense doesn’t stop people holding the New Left up as current dangers.

So, the New Left on sum and balance was not at all a bad thing for American society and culture; it did no real damage, and at least we got feminism out of it, however indirectly. And now it’s as much a thing of the past as Woodstock, and no threat to anybody or anything anywhere.

[wildorchid]

@Larry_Borgia

And I imagine once the Fabian society seizes power and implements their brutal regime, they will probably use helicopters to subjugate the masses, some of which may very well be black.

you are putting words in my mouth.
please quote where i suggested this.
you seem to be the one with an over active imagination…

i referenced the fabian society, and their high praise of Obama, and the fact that he’s a dog in their ‘progressive’ fight because it indicates something. it’s a sign on the road saying ‘we are headed this direction’.
if you dont see the relevance of that and the fabian journal i posted, then w/e… i dont care.

[BrainGlutton]

@wildorchid

i referenced the fabian society, and their high praise of Obama, and the fact that he’s a dog in their ‘progressive’ fight because it indicates something. it’s a sign on the road saying ‘we are headed this direction’..

So? If you look on the website of the Communist Party USA you will find they praised/endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012 (given, you know, the alternatives), which is not any sign we are headed in their direction.

[Human_Action]

@wildorchid

i referenced the fabian society, and their high praise of Obama, and the fact that he’s a dog in their ‘progressive’ fight because it indicates something. it’s a sign on the road saying ‘we are headed this direction’.
if you dont see the relevance of that and the fabian journal i posted, then w/e… i dont care.

It seems to me that there’s three ways to interpret the Fabian Society’s general (though not unreserved, based on their website) advocacy for Obama:

1. Obama shares their ideology.

2. The Fabians’ ideology is so far from the mainstream, they have no candidates that actually embody it that they can support, and must settle for a centrist like Obama.

3. The Fabians’ ideology has drifted centrist-leftist since World War Two.

Note the "What We Stand For"entry on the site:

We aim to promote:
•greater equality of power, wealth and opportunity
•the value of collective action and public service
•an accountable, tolerant and active democracy
•citizenship, liberty and human rights
•sustainable development
•multilateral international cooperation

Based on that platform, their close historical association with the mainstream Liberal Party, I vote #3, with #2 as another possibility.

[wildorchid]

argument from ignorance:

• if a propostion has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true, and therefore must be considered false.

you all are chasing your tails in this thread by saying ‘don’t worry, X isnt happening because orchid says it is, and she’s wrong, therefore it isn’t.’

good luck explaining your way around this colossal fail.

[BrainGlutton]

@Human_Action

Based on that platform, their close historical association with the mainstream Liberal Party, I vote #3, with #2 as another possibility.

Of course, the Liberal Party no longer exists, it long ago merged with the Social Democrats to form the Liberal Democrats – and I can’t work out exactly what their politics are nowadays – I’ve seen them characterized as to the left of Labour, and as to the right of Labour.

[Human_Action]

@wildorchid

argument from ignorance:

• if a propostion has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true, and therefore must be considered false.

you all are chasing your tails in this thread by saying ‘don’t worry, X isnt happening because orchid says it is, and she’s wrong, therefore it isn’t.’

good luck explaining your way around this colossal fail.

But actual evidence has been offered to dispute your claims:

1. Socialist organizations in the United States have paltry membership numbers.

2. The left in the U.S. largely abandoned the type of collectivism you warn against in the 1960s; the peak of such thinking was in the '20s and '30s.

3. Neither major political party advocates anything like Marxism.

4. Agenda 21 is a non-binding plan, is not as hostile to American values as you make it out to be, and has not been implemented.

5. What socialism is extant today is democratic socialism, which differs greatly from the totalitarian socialism (be it Soviet, Nazi, or other) that was so destructive in the 20th century.

[Human_Action]

@BrainGlutton

Of course, the Liberal Party no longer exists, it long ago merged with the Social Democrats to form the Liberal Democrats – and I can’t work out exactly what their politics are nowadays – I’ve seen them characterized as to the left of Labour, and as to the right of Labour.

Labour is what I meant, the Fabians are affiliated with them. Typo, my mistake.

[wildorchid]

This thread isnt about the fabian society, or UN agenda 2, or John Holdren…

these are mere symptoms, and are not central to the point i’m making…

which is that the values of Americans have been, and are being deliberately changed, through public education, popular culture, the media, ect… away from the values Robin Williams found in the 60’s towards a set of values that are compatible with collectivism, and planetary-regime world governance.

that its becoming increasingly hard for the individual to not go along with the ‘party line’ in the face of collective pressure in America, when our tradition is open debate in an atmosphere where you can damn well take any position you choose to without being goaded about it.
many ITT have only prove this point for me with their own display of collectivist attitude, and willingness to apologize for it.
It’s like pulling teeth to get anyone to even decry the crimes of Mao anymore;[ as though they are secretly big fans…?]

[Marley23]

@wildorchid

when questioned about that, they maintain that it’s not the same socialism of the National Socialists (nazis), or of Soviet or Chinese Communism.
obv, distancing yourself from the political philosophy of Hitler, Mao, and Stalin is a no-brainer, since they were the most evil criminals of the last century…

@wildorchid

It’s like pulling teeth to get anyone to even decry the crimes of Mao anymore;[ as though they are secretly big fans…?]

I have no idea what non-Mao-denouncers you are thinking of, but please make up your mind.

[Human_Action]

@wildorchid

This thread isnt about the fabian society, or UN agenda 2, or John Holdren…

these are mere symptoms, and are not central to the point i’m making…

That’s as may be, but since you introduced those elements to the discussion, you should be prepared to, well, discuss them.

@wildorchid

which is that the values of Americans have been, and are being deliberately changed, through public education, popular culture, the media, ect… away from the values Robin Williams found in the 60’s towards a set of values that are compatible with collectivism, and planetary-regime world governance.

Let’s deal with this central point, then. Here are Williams’ American value, and my remarks:

1. Achievement and Success are the major goals of individuals

This is absolutely still in effect.

2. Activity and Work are favored above leisure and laziness.

As is this.

3. Moral Orientation, that is, absolute judgments of good/bad right/wrong/

As is this.

4. Humanitarian Motives as demonstrated in philanthropy and crisis aid.

Absolutely.

5. Efficiency and Practicality expresses a preference for the quickest and shortest way to achieve a goal at the least cost.

Yes, sometime to a fault.

6. Process and Progress: represent a belief that technology can solve all problems, and that the future will be an improvement over the past.

Strong as it’s ever been.

7. Material Comfort as the American Dream.

Yes.

8. Equality as an abstract ideal.

Stronger than ever before.

9. Freedom as a individual right against the state.

Stronger than ever before.

10. External Conformity refers to the ideal of going along, joining, and not rocking the boat.

Weaker, but this isn’t necessarily a change for the worse.

11. Science and Rationality as the means of mastering the environment and secure a better life in terms of material comforts.

Stronger than ever before.

12. Nationalism the belief that American values and institutions represent the very best on Earth.

Yes.

13. Democracy based on equality and freedom of individuals.

Exceptionally so.

14. Individualism means that emphasis is placed on personal rights and responsibilities.

Yes.

15. Racism and Group-superiority Themes that periodically lead to prejudice and discrimination against those who are racially, religiously, and culturally different from the white, Northern European stock that first settled the continent.

Weakening; a good thing.

So, you view those 15 values as being eroded? How so?

@wildorchid

that its becoming increasingly hard for the individual to not go along with the ‘party line’ in the face of collective pressure in America, when our tradition is open debate in an atmosphere where you can damn well take any position you choose without being goaded about it.

I would argue the opposite, it’s never been easier to voice contrary opinions, and the consequences for doing so have never been less substantial. Social shaming is about it, murder seems to be out of favor.

@wildorchid

many ITT inly prove this point for me with their own display of collectivist attitude, and willingness to apologize for it.
It’s like pulling teeth to get anyone to even decry the crimes of Mao anymore;[ as though they are secretly big fans…?]

How, exactly, has a collectivist attitude been displayed here?

The worst you’ll get is the idea that brutal totalitarianism isn’t inherent to socialism, which, with the stability of democratic socialism in Europe, seems to be true (though it likely is inherent to communism). I’d argue that socialism is dangerous to liberty and prosperity in many applications; luckily, my home, the United States, is hardly rushing to embrace socialism.

[wildorchid]

ever hear of FDRs new deal??

ever hear about Obamacare?

[BrainGlutton]

@Human_Action

Labour is what I meant, the Fabians are affiliated with them. Typo, my mistake.

Yeah, well, whatever Labour’s politics are these days, socialists they are not.

[BrainGlutton]

@wildorchid

ever hear of FDRs new deal??

Yes. It was not socialism, it was a set of somewhat social-democratic (not the same thing at all) measures that saved American capitalism. It was “collectivist” only in the sense that any government program, service or utility is collectivist. You don’t really want to give up police departments and public libraries, do you?

@wildorchid

ever hear about Obamacare?

Yes. It might or might not be sufficient to save American capitalism, at this point. Single-payer would serve that purpose better.

[Larry_Borgia]

@wildorchid

ever hear of FDRs new deal??

ever hear about Obamacare?

Yes.

[Human_Action]

@wildorchid

ever hear of FDRs new deal??

Sure have. It was implemented in 1933-36. Many of its provisions were either declared unconstitutional (National Recovery Act, the first Agricultural Adjustment Act) or later amended to make them far less radical (Wagner Act, Glass-Steagall Act).

It’s really hard to argue that the peak of the radical left’s ability to make policy in this country wasn’t 1933-36. It certainly isn’t today.

@wildorchid

ever hear about Obamacare?

It’s quite a stretch to call it Marxist or collectivist. What aspects of it do you find Marxist or collectivist?

[BrainGlutton]

@wildorchid

This thread isnt about the fabian society, or UN agenda 2, or John Holdren…

these are mere symptoms, and are not central to the point i’m making…

which is that the values of Americans have been, and are being deliberately changed, through public education, popular culture, the media, ect… away from the values Robin Williams found in the 60’s towards a set of values that are compatible with collectivism, and planetary-regime world governance.

If only! No, orchid, I fear Americans today are no less nationalistic than ever they were. More so ever since 9/11, it appears. We’re not about to sign on with any world government or even an EU-style world confederation this decade or next, more’s the pity. In fact, many even get insanely exercised over encroachments on American sovereignty that are imaginary, have never been seriously proposed, and, if they existed, would be harmless or beneficial to us – the North American Union (which, if it existed, would amount to a U.S. Empire over Mexico and Canada), the Amero, the NAFTA Superhighway. As for “collectivism,” why, in the current political climate, Congress won’t even pass such a sorry half-assed stopgap measure as a health-reform package with a “public option” in it, and the package they did pass sparked the rise of the global-embarrassment Tea Party!

You, orchid, are like a man trapped in a burning building and screaming at the rest of us, "We’re doomed! THE FIREFIGHTERS ARE COMING!" :eek:, when, in fact, they are not, and we have no reason to hope that they are, and if they did show up, you would be the one to start shooting at them through the window.

@wildorchid

that its becoming increasingly hard for the individual to not go along with the ‘party line’ . . .

:rolleyes: What “party line”? The GOP does not even have one any more, it is divided between the business Pubs and the Tea Party Pubs – or, perhaps even, the John-Bircher Pubs. And then on the left side we have the spirit represented by Occupy Wall Street, which has not yet challenged the mainstream Dems in any way, but the possibility can’t be ruled out. If you see any unchallenged consensus in America politics or political culture today, you are hallucinating it. Are you even posting from a planet with a blue sky, orchid? :dubious: