Latest posts on [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> topichttps://rhizzone.net/forum/topic/328/2011-09-13T13:39:01+00:00Discussion :: Laissez's Faire :: [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> (by discipline)
2011-09-13T13:39:01+00:003029<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-oOm7mSka0A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="None"></iframe>
Discussion :: Laissez's Faire :: [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> (by tapespeed)
2011-09-13T06:45:24+00:003017</p><blockquote><em>Crow posted:</em><br/>oh im sorry can you read something on your own terms or does Everything have to be Babied *coos at you*</blockquote><p>
<br/>
<br/>What are you talking about? The article used some terminology, and I explained why I thought it was silly. I'm not trying to quote some college class or something I read somewhere with esoteric classifications, I'm directly discussing the OP.
Discussion :: Laissez's Faire :: [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> (by Tsargon)
2011-09-13T06:44:03+00:003016</p><blockquote><em>Crow posted:</em><br/>O u wanna get owned too?? Liberals make the broad section of American majority, as Kline points out, and there is little distinction between them and the progressives, they are more of a liberal sect.
<br/></blockquote><p>
<br/>
<br/>if we're using the word liberal to mean old-type liberal, then there is definitely a tremendous difference between liberals and 'progressives' as kline is using it. just because the one is a subset of the other doesnt mean "there is little distinction between them" - communists are a subset of socialists but theres a share more than "little" distinction between bernstein and lenin.
<br/>
<br/></p><blockquote>The wars aren't simply about winning, they are <strong>speaking the symbolic language</strong> of liberalism, they have been 'humanitarian interventions' since almost the foundation of America, sometimes on the side of just property law, always publicly liberal.
<br/></blockquote><p>
<br/>
<br/>yes, alright - all of the wars are 'liberal' wars. but ww2, which was fought to SAVE THE WORLD FROM FASCISM, and vietnam, which was fought to SAVE THE WORLD FROM COMMUNISM, although similar in purpose ('humanitarian intervention') have <em>distinctly different cultural legacies</em> in American history. one has been continually invoked to condone every war since (the likeness of every American 'Enemy Number 1' to Hitler flutters across every weekly page during the lead-up to war), and the other has been continually invoked to condemn every war since (and the likeness of every American battlefield to vietnam is dredged up as soon as the war turns sour). it is only because America is losing two wars initiated by an R that progressives can now lay claim to 'opposing war', were it clinton invading serbia or roosevelt posing for pictures with stalin then every center-left coward in the country would be convulsing on the ground in pleasure.
<br/>
<br/>and remember that while kline says that it is specifically progressives who favor "the curtailment of foreign wars", he also said "It is difficult to think of a major progressive policy which commands less than a plurality", conflating pacifism with no "less than a plurality" of the whole goddamn country. This Is Shoddy History.
<br/>
<br/></p><blockquote>So wat are the progressives? Do we apply a dialectical understanding?? Yes!! They are a moving instance of liberalism, and as a mediating mechanism for the preservation of liberalism, we can reasonably argue that their murky goals align with popular opinion, since that is the nature of their trade, moral, petty bourgeois authority. Omg
<br/>
<br/>Conservatism is a position here in reaction to liberalism. It is also its instance</blockquote><p>
<br/>
<br/>i am not interested in the dialectical relationship between progressives and liberals and so on and so on, i am interested in smashing the ridiculous left-type notion that, save for a small, wretched minority (the "rural whites" whose rogue politics simply cannot be accounted for in kline's essay), the American people earnestly desire every plank of the progressive agenda and are simply frustrated in their ability to articulate those desires.
<br/>
<br/>which is simply not true.
Discussion :: Laissez's Faire :: [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> (by Crow)
2011-09-13T06:34:24+00:003015</p><blockquote><em>tapespeed posted:</em><br/>Crow posted:
<br/>what kind of HORseshit moronic theory are you using 'grievance bound' and 'values bound'. did you learn that in MotherFatherin civic ethics class in Liberal U? U Fuk?
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Hmm I dunno maybe... the article this thread is about?</blockquote><p>
<br/>oh im sorry can you read something on your own terms or does Everything have to be Babied *coos at you*
Discussion :: Laissez's Faire :: [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> (by tapespeed)
2011-09-13T06:31:35+00:003014</p><blockquote><em>Crow posted:</em><br/>what kind of HORseshit moronic theory are you using 'grievance bound' and 'values bound'. did you learn that in MotherFatherin civic ethics class in Liberal U? U Fuk?
<br/></blockquote><p>
<br/>
<br/>Hmm I dunno maybe... the article this thread is about?
Discussion :: Laissez's Faire :: [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> (by Crow)
2011-09-13T06:08:11+00:003010</p><blockquote><em>tapespeed posted:</em><br/>Theres also the fact that many liberal associated things were fought for simultaneously with one side being "grievance bound" and the other being "values bound." Like gun control was equally a huge problem with gun violence for a lot of people and a terrible tragedy and reminder of a cowboy age for the soccer moms and legislators that moved on it.
<br/>
<br/>Also what even counts as "values" or a "grievance" anyway? The whole Who will carry the can part of that piece is p. bad</blockquote><p>
<br/>what kind of HORseshit moronic theory are you using 'grievance bound' and 'values bound'. did you learn that in MotherFatherin civic ethics class in Liberal U? U Fuk?
<br/>
<br/>Black Panther Minister of Information, Eldridge Cleaver noted in 1968: "Some very interesting laws are being passed. They don't name me; they don't say, take the guns away from the niggers. They say that people will no longer be allowed to have (guns). They don't pass these rules and these regulations specifically for black people, they have to pass them in a way that will take in everybody."
<br/></p><blockquote><em>Tsargon posted:</em><br/>germanjoey posted:
<br/>well, that part of the article primarily focuses on the foundations of American ideology by tracing its roots through Anglo-Americans. honestly I'm curious to what Mitchell Heisman, (the suicidenote.info guy) has to say about this, as IIRC he focuses several chapters of his note on this very topic.
<br/>
<br/>second, I'm not sure where you're getting the "broadly conservative political history of the united states" from. he repeatedly sez the opposite in the article, and I have to agree with him for the most part. first of all, the country was undeniably founded on liberal/progressive/radical sentiments (as the conservative position would have been obviously loyalist?) now, you might argue that the south, and its more heavily rural population, in the end remained a bedrock of conservativism, but it would be ludicrous to argue that the north, whose army sang "John Brown's Body" as it marched off to war, or the settlers of the West, who worshiped the oath of manifest destiny, were decidedly conservative. i honestly can't see a historical conservative movement moving nationally to the fore until the baby boomers came into their own.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>uh yeah, i should have been more precise. i just meant very recently, the last forty years, wherein all political expression has become either liberal-conservative or wishy washy progressive type handwringing.
<br/>
<br/>kline says that "It is difficult to think of a major progressive policy which commands less than a plurality." which is what i am taking issue with: the 'progressive policies' he is discussing being "Inexpensive health care, progressive taxation, educational scholarship funding, curtailment of foreign wars, (and) environmental protection" all of whose popularity is taken as material evidence that the American people (again, except for rural whites) *should be* progressives, or at least wish to be. I Take Issue.
<br/>
<br/>for example, let us think back over the last 60 years of war: ww2, korea (draw, not included), vietnam, somalia, iraq 2, serbia, afghanistan, iraq 2, it becomes quickly apparent that while all were foreign wars, the American people gladly supported roughly half. and the difference between the half they liked and the half they disliked is obvious: America won 'the good wars' (ww2, serbia, iraq 1, the first half of afghanistan) and lost 'the bad wars" (vietnam, somalia, iraq 2, the second half of afghanistan). the American people do not support 'curtailment of foreign wars', to paraphrase patton, they just hate a loser.
<br/>
<br/>the other items in klines list are phrased in a special way (not "universal healthcare, but "inexpensive healthcare", for example) so as to avoid points of contention and focuses primarily on plain-jane material benefits to the people.
<br/>and then he throws in the "and others" at the end of the list and i think its important to consider what "and others" might be. racial equality, actual, not just nominal? surely a progressive issue, but drastically unpopular with the American people. religious equality, which is to say equitable treatment of muslims? surely a progressive issue, but again, clearly drastically unpopular with the American people. opening up of the borders? surely a progressive issue, drastically unpopular with the American people.
<br/>
<br/>kline correctly argues that the oligarchs are not as powerful as theyre made out to be - that they can only tweak public opinion so far, and every time they try and make a run at one of the programs that benefits the American people at large, they end up getting smashed. but the fact that the American people like when they are prosperous and dislike when their country loses a war does not make them 'progressives'.
<br/>
<br/>i also can't understand how you could think that the united states does not have a "liberal"-based government, in the classical sense of the word "liberal" -- as kline uses it. how the fuck could wall street come to a position of dominance in the first place were the government already one that enshrines private property above all else?
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>im sorry, yes, i was imprecise. i agree, theres no nation more bourgeois than America, i suppose for my purposes i should use words like 'progressive' instead of liberal, as that presents a narrow cross-section. essentially everyone in America is a classical liberal, agreed.</blockquote><p>
<br/>O u wanna get owned too?? Liberals make the broad section of American majority, as Kline points out, and there is little distinction between them and the progressives, they are more of a liberal sect.
<br/>
<br/>The wars aren't simply about winning, they are <strong>speaking the symbolic language</strong> of liberalism, they have been 'humanitarian interventions' since almost the foundation of America, sometimes on the side of just property law, always publicly liberal.
<br/>
<br/>So wat are the progressives? Do we apply a dialectical understanding?? Yes!! They are a moving instance of liberalism, and as a mediating mechanism for the preservation of liberalism, we can reasonably argue that their murky goals align with popular opinion, since that is the nature of their trade, moral, petty bourgeois authority. Omg
<br/>
<br/>Conservatism is a position here in reaction to liberalism. It is also its instance
Discussion :: Laissez's Faire :: [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> (by tapespeed)
2011-09-13T03:21:38+00:002993Theres also the fact that many liberal associated things were fought for simultaneously with one side being "grievance bound" and the other being "values bound." Like gun control was equally a huge problem with gun violence for a lot of people and a terrible tragedy and reminder of a cowboy age for the soccer moms and legislators that moved on it.
<br/>
<br/>Also what even counts as "values" or a "grievance" anyway? The whole Who will carry the can part of that piece is p. bad
Discussion :: Laissez's Faire :: [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> (by aerdil)
2011-09-13T03:15:52+00:002990</p><blockquote><em>getfiscal posted:</em><br/></p><blockquote><em>aerdil posted:</em><br/>hey getfiscal, can u elaborate more on the trotsky connotation w/ an "united front" since most trot groups i've interacted with seem somewhat dismissive of the idea (and im not going to read any trotsky anytime soon)</blockquote><p>Some of this is obvious but I'll try to be clear. There is a lot of overlap because of issues of emphasis (both say the same thing and think they are opposed) and also because a lot of Trotskyist points have been accepted by American leftists. In the mid-1930s, the Comintern switched its policy on social-democrats (before they were seen as the left-wing of fascism) to one where participation in social-democratic-led bourgeois governments was endorsed as a last-ditch measure against fascism. This strategy was called "popular front" - unite the leaders of the left against fascism in places like France and Spain.
<br/>
<br/>Trotsky said that this was essentially endorsing bourgeois government and wouldn't stop fascism. He said that instead of uniting leaders against fascism that they should unite people from below by talking past the right-wing social-democratic leadership and just focusing on uniting people around policies that they support. So people ought to "strike together, march separately." This policy of focusing on the rank-and-file is called the "united front."
<br/>
<br/>So, for example, Trotskyists will have their own organization, but they might join or start fronts like "United Against War" or "$10 Minimum Now" or whatever. They then work within these fronts to push "general" demands, meaning communist ones. So they join "United Against War" and talk to people about how they think war is connected to imperialism. The critique of this position is that you end up inevitably sliding towards either reformism (demanding a $10 minimum wage, or opposing a particular war) or you remain a microsect because no moderates want to join your "abolish poverty now" campaign.</blockquote><p>
<br/>
<br/>yeah, that makes more sense... i was trying to make sense of the apparent conflict with the trotskyist formulation of the "united front" with the common trot criticism of (especially stalin's) soviet union for supposedly lending support to "moderate" socdem groups in other countries to the detriment of the "real" rank-and-file worker groups.
Discussion :: Laissez's Faire :: [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> (by babyfinland)
2011-09-13T03:11:49+00:002987</p><blockquote><em>Tsargon posted:</em><br/>and then he throws in the "and others" at the end of the list and i think its important to consider what "and others" might be. racial equality, actual, not just nominal? surely a progressive issue, but drastically unpopular with the American people. religious equality, which is to say equitable treatment of muslims? surely a progressive issue, but again, clearly drastically unpopular with the American people. opening up of the borders? surely a progressive issue, drastically unpopular with the American people. </blockquote><p>
<br/>
<br/>or maybe things you dont disagree with
Discussion :: Laissez's Faire :: [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> (by Tsargon)
2011-09-13T02:42:08+00:002984</p><blockquote><em>germanjoey posted:</em><br/>well, that part of the article primarily focuses on the foundations of American ideology by tracing its roots through Anglo-Americans. honestly I'm curious to what Mitchell Heisman, (the suicidenote.info guy) has to say about this, as IIRC he focuses several chapters of his note on this very topic.
<br/>
<br/>second, I'm not sure where you're getting the "broadly conservative political history of the united states" from. he repeatedly sez the opposite in the article, and I have to agree with him for the most part. first of all, the country was undeniably <em>founded</em> on liberal/progressive/radical sentiments (as the conservative position would have been obviously loyalist?) now, you might argue that the south, and its more heavily rural population, in the end remained a bedrock of conservativism, but it would be ludicrous to argue that the north, whose army sang "John Brown's Body" as it marched off to war, or the settlers of the West, who worshiped the oath of manifest destiny, were decidedly conservative. i honestly can't see a historical conservative movement moving nationally to the fore until the baby boomers came into their own.
<br/></blockquote><p>
<br/>
<br/>uh yeah, i should have been more precise. i just meant very recently, the last forty years, wherein all political expression has become either liberal-conservative or wishy washy progressive type handwringing.
<br/>
<br/>kline says that "It is difficult to think of a major progressive policy which commands less than a plurality." which is what i am taking issue with: the 'progressive policies' he is discussing being "Inexpensive health care, progressive taxation, educational scholarship funding, curtailment of foreign wars, (and) environmental protection" all of whose popularity is taken as material evidence that the American people (again, except for rural whites) *should be* progressives, or at least wish to be. I Take Issue.
<br/>
<br/>for example, let us think back over the last 60 years of war: ww2, korea (draw, not included), vietnam, somalia, iraq 2, serbia, afghanistan, iraq 2, it becomes quickly apparent that while all were foreign wars, the American people gladly supported roughly half. and the difference between the half they liked and the half they disliked is obvious: America won 'the good wars' (ww2, serbia, iraq 1, the first half of afghanistan) and lost 'the bad wars" (vietnam, somalia, iraq 2, the second half of afghanistan). the American people do not support 'curtailment of foreign wars', to paraphrase patton, they just hate a loser.
<br/>
<br/>the other items in klines list are phrased in a special way (not "universal healthcare, but "inexpensive healthcare", for example) so as to avoid points of contention and focuses primarily on plain-jane material benefits to the people.
<br/>and then he throws in the "and others" at the end of the list and i think its important to consider what "and others" might be. racial equality, actual, not just nominal? surely a progressive issue, but drastically unpopular with the American people. religious equality, which is to say equitable treatment of muslims? surely a progressive issue, but again, clearly drastically unpopular with the American people. opening up of the borders? surely a progressive issue, <em>drastically unpopular with the American people</em>.
<br/>
<br/>kline correctly argues that the oligarchs are not as powerful as theyre made out to be - that they can only tweak public opinion so far, and every time they try and make a run at one of the programs that benefits the American people at large, they end up getting smashed. but the fact that the American people like when they are prosperous and dislike when their country loses a war does not make them 'progressives'.
<br/>
<br/></p><blockquote>i also can't understand how you could think that the united states does not have a "liberal"-based government, in the classical sense of the word "liberal" -- as kline uses it. how the fuck could wall street come to a position of dominance in the first place were the government already one that enshrines private property above all else?</blockquote><p>
<br/>
<br/>im sorry, yes, i was imprecise. i agree, theres no nation more bourgeois than America, i suppose for my purposes i should use words like 'progressive' instead of liberal, as that presents a narrow cross-section. essentially everyone in America is a classical liberal, agreed.
Discussion :: Laissez's Faire :: [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> (by getfiscal)
2011-09-13T02:08:53+00:002983lol like i'm going to watch a youtube you post. it's probably racist. like you are. because you are racist.
Discussion :: Laissez's Faire :: [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> (by babyfinland)
2011-09-13T02:07:02+00:002982</p><blockquote><em>getfiscal posted:</em><br/><p class="postbody_text">lenin today is leading light communism, the fourth stage of revolutionary science.</p></blockquote><p class="postbody_text">
<br/>
<br/><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YgYEuJ5u1K0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="None"></iframe>
Discussion :: Laissez's Faire :: [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> (by getfiscal)
2011-09-13T01:55:00+00:002978lenin today is leading light communism, the fourth stage of revolutionary science.
Discussion :: Laissez's Faire :: [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> (by discipline)
2011-09-13T01:53:22+00:002976<img src="http://www.rhizzone.net/media/forum/img/smilies/blaugh.gif" />
Discussion :: Laissez's Faire :: [Richard Kline] Progressively Losing: <<Radicals Among the Settlers>> (by babyfinland)
2011-09-13T01:52:34+00:002973</p><blockquote><em>getfiscal posted:</em><br/></p><blockquote><em>babyfinland posted:</em><br/>so translate that into modern terms</blockquote><p>i'm not sure what you want here. like do you want me to explain why a modest increase in the minimum wage is not something lenin would center his campaign on.</blockquote><p>
<br/>
<br/>translate lenin's program into modern terms and do it in the next post or ur baned for lyfe.