This is why I spend so much time on progressivism, and I really wish more bloggers would take progressivism seriously. Or, at least, be willing to dig into the progressives own history. Because many of you who automatically think 'communist' when the topic is progressivism, well, there's really no soft way to say this: You're wrong. Not all progressives are communists. Yes, you can cite Van Jones(and many others) as an example(s) of a communist; I cite Van Jones as a communist. He has admitted it. But they are largely not following the playbook of the communist manifesto with it's ten point list. This is what they're following - From Stuart Chase's book "The road we are traveling, 1914-1942: guide lines to America's future":
1. A strong, centralized government.
2. An Executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and jucicial arms. In some countries, power is consolidated in a dictator, issuing decrees.
3. The control of banking, credit, and security exchanges by the government.
4. The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works.
5. The underwriting of social security by the government - old-age pensions, mothers' pensions, unemployment insurance, and the like.
6. The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care, by the government. The United States is already experimenting with providing these essentials. Other nations are far along the road.
7. The use of the deficit spending technique to finance these underwritings. The annually balanced budget has lost its old-time sanctity.
8. The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.
9. The control of foreign trade by the government, with increasing emphasis on bilateral agreements and barter deals.
10. The control of natural resources, with increasing emphasis on self-sufficiency
11. The control of energy sources - hydroelectric power, coal, petroleum, natural gas.
12. The control of transportation - railway, highway, airway, waterway.
13. The control of agricultural production.
14. The control of labor organizations, often to the point of prohibiting strikes.
15. The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities. The CCC camps have just inaugurated military drill.
16. Heavy taxation, with especial emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.
17. not much "taking over" of property or industries in the old socialistic sense. The formula appears to be control without ownership. it is interesting to recall that the same formula is used by the management of great corporations in depriving stockholders of power.
18. State control of communications and propaganda.
Those of you who don't realize that Progressivism is it's own stand-alone "ism", will realize how closely this does look like the points in the communist manifesto. That doesn't make it communist. What it means is that there's only so many ways that you can be a dictator, there's only so many ways you can centrally plan society. There's bound to be some overlap. This is a great example of why I focus somewhat heavily upon Fabianism, because Fabians were always different than Marxists, yet so closely resemble progressives. And Stuart Chase was a Fabian. This is not just some unimportant historical figure. Stuart Chase coined the term "New Deal" and was a part of FDR's brainstrust. This is a heavy hitter in the history of progressivism.
Note how I bolded (17) and linked to a different blog posting. When I originally started feeling that I had enough information about progressivism to do this blog, I knew that it wasn't socialistic in the old sense, and Hise's book is exactly right in it's admission that it's not socialism, it's regulation. Now the end result looks virtually identical, absent the state ownership part, however. Ronald Reagan was right in his "A Time for Choosing" speech, 1964:
Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property?
Socialism without state ownership; by the excessive use of regulation, is called progressivism. In their own words. We should call them by their name. It's changed, and has gone under changes in the past. The Marxian communists could hardly be called Owenites. Owenism had largely become outdated by that time. Now, it's regulation. Not socialism. They've progressed past state ownership. Yeah, they'll still do state ownership directly, but they've come to realize that they don't need it anymore. And this is what makes Cass Sunstein the most dangerous man in America. Because he does it all via regulation, instead of direct state ownership, you'll never see him coming. Why is Obamacare 2800+ pages? It's all social regulation, for the purpose of changing society. Fundamental transformation, to use Obama's words.
http://tinyurl.com/cpqx6sp
No comments:
Post a Comment