If you loved your country you wouldn't be trying to change it so dramatically.
I Have a Confession to Make
- Thread starter mAlice
- Start date
If you loved your country you wouldn't be trying to change it so dramatically.
You've overcorrected. I presume you'll get all this fight the power disappointed rage out of your system at some point, then you'll balance out.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Thank you. Finally one willing to admit it.
PsyOps
Pixelated
For once, we're not arguing Bush.
The only thing I've come around to with Trump is that the alternative is gravely unacceptable. And that all the people that are actually saying Trump is actually going to do what he says he's going to do, I want to be proved wrong that he will actually do it. I'm not believing it at this point; but will to take the chance.
But the caveat always has to be thrown in there that it makes not one damn bit of difference in MD.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
For once, we're not arguing Bush.
The only thing I've come around to with Trump is that the alternative is gravely unacceptable. And that all the people that are actually saying Trump is actually going to do what he says he's going to do, I want to be proved wrong that he will actually do it. I'm not believing it at this point; but will to take the chance.
But the caveat always has to be thrown in there that it makes not one damn bit of difference in MD.
Ok, so, basically, you don't know much about Alinsky or Marx, yes? Most, especially around here, associate Marx with communism, which he was not, and Alinsky with progressive, leftist ideology, which he was not. These are right wing dog whistle words that are supposed to be ready cudgels against anyone left of Reagan. Pretty much like the left using 'Nazi' or 'racist' against the right and I know you readily recognize how wrong those short hand terms are. Or, at least how thoroughly inadequate they are.
Alisnky is the simple one so, let's take care of him first. ALL Saul was was for helping people fight the establishment. ALL he was was an organizer. That's it. It takes 10 minutes to learn that Saul wanted nothing to do with controlling what YOU were fighting for. He wanted, demanded, that whomever he was helping, as a precondition, that THEY defined the goal and the intent. ALL he did from there was help line them up to do it. He's no more some sort of ideologue than Carville or Atwater. In fact, Newt has credited Alinsky with many of the tactics he used over the years. That's all he was; a tactician. Trump uses a lot of Saul's ideas although Donald has all the sophistication of a bowling ball when it comes to anything further in terms of ideas. He does how the demonize and attack part down.
Marx is really not any tougher. Marx, properly understood, is for the little guy in the same manner as any real limited gummint conservative. He saw the same enemies you and I do; large corporations, and for the same reasons; their control of the government. Where the difference comes is that he held no illusions that, sooner or later, the big entities gobble everything up and small gummint conservatives cling to the ideas of 1850's America where you could have your own shop and do your own thing all while being on the same team as the enormous elephants in the room who spend ALL their time trying to figure out if you've grown too big and need to be eaten. So, Marx was a socialist, wanting the individuals to control the means of production. That would equate, roughly, to small gummint conservatives wanting lots and lots of small parts of the big things government does. Point being, Marx would see the same enemies in today's society as a real conservative does; the big banks, the big health care conglomerates, the military/industrial complex members, the forces who wanted NAFTA and who are pushing for TPP.
So, Marx can be understood as a traditional conservative minus the romanticism of having your own little shop. As far as that goes, one of the first thing Lenin did when he made his bastardized version of Marxism was to allow for small capitalistic business's to exist and that is the one thing that is universal that many of us miss; all the little shops around the world share the same ideas and values as limited gummint American conservatives; less gummint interference, family, ability to do YOUR thing for a few bucks you can call your own and have something to pass on.
– a socioeconomic system based on social ownership of the means of production, distribution based on one's contribution, and production organized directly for use.
yep, YOU do not own your flower business the Gov. does and YOU work for the Gov.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
The identity of a social class derives from its relationship to the means of production; Marx describes the social classes in capitalist societies:
Class consciousness denotes the awareness – of itself and the social world – that a social class possesses, and its capacity to rationally act in their best interests; hence, class consciousness is required before they can effect a successful revolution.
yep, YOU do not own your flower business the Gov. does and YOU work for the Gov.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
The identity of a social class derives from its relationship to the means of production; Marx describes the social classes in capitalist societies:
Proletariat: "the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live".[20] As Andrei Platonov expressed "The working class is my home country and my future is linked with the proletariat."[21] The capitalist mode of production establishes the conditions enabling the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat because the workers' labour generates a surplus value greater than the workers' wages.
Bourgeoisie: those who "own the means of production" and buy labour power from the proletariat, thus exploiting the proletariat; they subdivide as bourgeoisie and the petit bourgeoisie.
Petit bourgeoisie are those who work and can afford to buy little labour power i.e. small business owners, peasant landlords, trade workers et al. Marxism predicts that the continual reinvention of the means of production eventually would destroy the petit bourgeoisie, degrading them from the middle class to the proletariat.
Lumpenproletariat: The outcasts of society such as criminals, vagabonds, beggars, prostitutes, et al., who have no stake in the economy and no mind of their own and so are decoyed by every bidder.
Landlords: a historically important social class who retain some wealth and power.
Peasantry and farmers: a scattered class incapable of organizing and effecting socio-economic change, most of whom would enter the proletariat while some became landlords.
Bourgeoisie: those who "own the means of production" and buy labour power from the proletariat, thus exploiting the proletariat; they subdivide as bourgeoisie and the petit bourgeoisie.
Petit bourgeoisie are those who work and can afford to buy little labour power i.e. small business owners, peasant landlords, trade workers et al. Marxism predicts that the continual reinvention of the means of production eventually would destroy the petit bourgeoisie, degrading them from the middle class to the proletariat.
Lumpenproletariat: The outcasts of society such as criminals, vagabonds, beggars, prostitutes, et al., who have no stake in the economy and no mind of their own and so are decoyed by every bidder.
Landlords: a historically important social class who retain some wealth and power.
Peasantry and farmers: a scattered class incapable of organizing and effecting socio-economic change, most of whom would enter the proletariat while some became landlords.
Class consciousness denotes the awareness – of itself and the social world – that a social class possesses, and its capacity to rationally act in their best interests; hence, class consciousness is required before they can effect a successful revolution.
Last edited:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
that or any Utopia will NEVER Exist ....
PsyOps
Pixelated
Then perhaps you could explain why the left loves him so much? Alinsky is one of Clinton's mentors. The left follows his 12 Rules for Radicals to the T. It's all premised in defining your enemy and creating chaos within your enemy, relentlessly and without remorse. You can make whatever assumption you want about what I know and don't know. Clinton has taken the Alinsky philosophy to the next extreme level of establishing webs and webs of lies in order to cover her intentions up so deep that 'the enemy' can no longer follow what her real truth is.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
The matter is what it is: Alinsky is about method, not ideology. To ascribe ideology to him is to ascribe ideology to a 12 step self help program and that's not right. The steps are non denominational, agnostic.
This_person
Well-Known Member
But the method specifically embraces the idea that the ends justify the means; the methods say principles don't matter.
This is not a conservative concept.
mAlice
professional daydreamer
Last night he said he's voting for Trump.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Larry Gude
Strung Out
If Alinskey can be said to have a core principle it was that power will not give up anything. It has to be forced. I think you, like most, think he was some sort of ideologue, a man of ideas, a Marx or Martin Luther or even a Irving Krystol.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I think his methodology is corrupt, and I think the left embraces the corruptness of the methodology. I think he was a bomb-thrower for the sake of throwing bombs, not an ideologue. But, I think he is more attractive to people with moral relativism, which is not a right ideal but a left ideal
Larry Gude
Strung Out
How so" Name one, or more or all, that fits even a loose association with being corrupt and explain, please, how you view it so.
This_person
Well-Known Member
How so" Name one, or more or all, that fits even a loose association with being corrupt and explain, please, how you view it so.
Tactic 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
That is to say, if you repeat a lie often enough it will become viewed as the truth. That's grossly dishonest.
"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...." p.29
"The seventh rule... is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics...." p.34
"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments...." p.36
The ends do not justify the means. Yes, we allow police to speed in order to catch speeders, but we also expect them to use radio. "You can't outrun Motorola" and all that. We do not do essentially anything in order to get the ends we desire. That is grossly immoral and beyond socio-pathologically narcissistic. These are liberal traits, not conservative ones.
Can we agree that if we lie, cheat, and steal to get our person into office, that is wrong? Assuming so, his methodology is to do just that, because the "good" his type of person would do would justify those means.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That is not his interpretation and you know it. Why would you try and claim something so easily disproved??? Isn't that a direct example of you justifying your means to achieve your ends?
This_person
Well-Known Member
What do you believe was meant?
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
LMAO I don't know what Alynski meant , but I do know what the Democrats think it meant and they are using it. Lying their asses off.