 |
Re: All about trains -- Ha!
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 05-30-2012 - 21:13
> Progressives are communists? How?
Good question.
>Granted, the use of the word "Communist" here may not have been an exactly correct use, but it is close enough for government work, as we used to say.
The only problem here is that the term "Communist" is so emotive and carries so much baggage that you have to be very careful how and when you use it.
>Note that the Soviet Union's actual technical name was "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" - USSR.
"Soviet" is the Russian word for "Congress".
>They were Socialists!
In name only, actually, they were State Capitalism run amok.
>And did make every attempt to institute the writings of Karl Marx and others of his ilk; and make them work; but ultimately failed!
The experiment with Karl Marx ended in the early 1920s with the institution of Lenin's New Economic Policy. Stalin, in turn, threw out the NEP after 1929 when he instituted the state capitalism (with himself in charge, of course).
>But the term "Communism" refers more to the way political power was organized in the USSR,
Completely in the hands of The Party. "Bolsheviki" means "member of the majority party", an oxymoron because the Bosheviks were never more than about 30% of the population.
>at the commune level (local community in American vernacular); than it was a description of their economic system, which was socialist and statist.
There has never been an equivalent to "a commune" in the US. the closest thing have been co-operatives, and they haven't been very successful either.
>The fact was, that early in the twentieth century, American socialists at first got little traction with the public at large, until they stopped trying to foist socialism on us, all at once.
Socialism is inherently paternalistic, which fits well with the European heritage of paternalistic monarchs. The US has never had this sort of heritage nor attitude.
When I first had politics in high school, there were Reactionaries, who want to turn back the clock to "the good old days"; Conservatives, who want to keep things just as they are; Moderates, who are OK with change so long as it isn't too rapid; Progressives, who want change faster and change for the sake of change; and Radicals, who pursue change like they're are hell-bent for election.. The conservatives sat on the right side of the President's chair in the pre-revolutionary French parlement, the Progressives and Radicals sat on the left. The Moderates sat in the middle. "Right [wing]" and "left [wing]" didn't enter English until the 20th century.
Today, Reactionaries are called "the Radical Right" (the necons), which sort of destroys the original meaning of Radical. The usage of all the other terms has become muddled too.
And last but not least, "ignornace is bliss", that is until you wake up in the kolyma, freezing to death.
Good question.
>Granted, the use of the word "Communist" here may not have been an exactly correct use, but it is close enough for government work, as we used to say.
The only problem here is that the term "Communist" is so emotive and carries so much baggage that you have to be very careful how and when you use it.
>Note that the Soviet Union's actual technical name was "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" - USSR.
"Soviet" is the Russian word for "Congress".
>They were Socialists!
In name only, actually, they were State Capitalism run amok.
>And did make every attempt to institute the writings of Karl Marx and others of his ilk; and make them work; but ultimately failed!
The experiment with Karl Marx ended in the early 1920s with the institution of Lenin's New Economic Policy. Stalin, in turn, threw out the NEP after 1929 when he instituted the state capitalism (with himself in charge, of course).
>But the term "Communism" refers more to the way political power was organized in the USSR,
Completely in the hands of The Party. "Bolsheviki" means "member of the majority party", an oxymoron because the Bosheviks were never more than about 30% of the population.
>at the commune level (local community in American vernacular); than it was a description of their economic system, which was socialist and statist.
There has never been an equivalent to "a commune" in the US. the closest thing have been co-operatives, and they haven't been very successful either.
>The fact was, that early in the twentieth century, American socialists at first got little traction with the public at large, until they stopped trying to foist socialism on us, all at once.
Socialism is inherently paternalistic, which fits well with the European heritage of paternalistic monarchs. The US has never had this sort of heritage nor attitude.
When I first had politics in high school, there were Reactionaries, who want to turn back the clock to "the good old days"; Conservatives, who want to keep things just as they are; Moderates, who are OK with change so long as it isn't too rapid; Progressives, who want change faster and change for the sake of change; and Radicals, who pursue change like they're are hell-bent for election.. The conservatives sat on the right side of the President's chair in the pre-revolutionary French parlement, the Progressives and Radicals sat on the left. The Moderates sat in the middle. "Right [wing]" and "left [wing]" didn't enter English until the 20th century.
Today, Reactionaries are called "the Radical Right" (the necons), which sort of destroys the original meaning of Radical. The usage of all the other terms has become muddled too.
And last but not least, "ignornace is bliss", that is until you wake up in the kolyma, freezing to death.
