reply to post by dalloway
Thank you for your response. This is the kind of discourse I am looking for, and it is the kind of response that lends itself to exploring the role
violence plays in political and cultural change.
Mark Levin wrote one of the best books I've read about this topic. It's called Liberty vs. Tyranny
. The most important thing I learned from
Levin's book is that, if you distill all of the political "-isms" bandied about these days...liberalism, republicanism, communism, fascism,
progressivism etc.,...the single common denominator that qualifies them is the concept of statism
- the belief that a centralized government,
or central planners, ore a core elite, should be responsible for the welfare of the populace they govern.
Levin contrasts the statist idea with that of an "ordered liberty"
, which involves minimal intrusion of an elected group into the lives of
the citizenry as well as the understanding that the elected group exists as subservient to the citizenry that elected it.
There are, of course, different types of statism - liberal statism, eco-statism, financial statists, etc. Each different type believes to a greater
or lesser degree of the needed power of the elite planner core. Also, each one is different in how the populace should be controlled or engineered in
order to achieve the larger ends or the central planners.
For our purposes these days, here within the two-party system we have inherited, I believe that both parties here in the U. S. are statist; however,
the "democrat" statists appear to be much more draconian in the degree to which they wish to control the populace.
This is not to say that the "republican" statists do not wish to exercise control. The question to me is, what is the difference in degree of these
statist factions and the amount of power they want to wrest from the populace.
Levin on liberalism in the United States:
"The liberal vision is, to be even more precise, that the individual needs to be controlled, that his aspirations need to be limited, that he has
to learn to get along and go along. And that if that means dispiriting the individual, if that means economic or other forms or repression, then so be
it for the good of the general society. And that a handful of individuals, self-appointed, who assume power one way or another, they will make the
decisions for all the rest of us. In one form or another, that’s what the statist believes."
In Levin's categorization, a socialist society is malignantly statist, as is a communist and a fascist society. Each is invested in taking something
- money, resources, time, freedom of ideas, etc. - from the populace in order to develop and sustain a larger political ideal. These things are taken
usually by force or the threat of force and, in Levin's taxonomy, the REAL differences between political models only involves the degree to which the
state exercises its will over populace. There is no material difference between fascists and communists, because both involve massive encroachment of
the "central planners" into the lives of the citizens.
My belief is that a political ideology which openly admits that it should have a centralized elite that takes from the populace in order to
redistribute more "fairly" in the betterment of society is a very dangerous ideology. That's why I believe that "socialism" in any form could
conceivably result in what happened with the Nazis and the holocaust. It is also what happened with the communists/stalinists, and with the Maoists,
In this model, the logical end result of a statist society is outright enslavement of its enemies and detractors, and eventual mass murder of those
that do not fall lock step into allowing the "elite" to do what they will.
Now, with barack obama in office, we have potentially one of the most hard-core statist executive administrations in U. S. history. He has done what
the italian and german fascists did in nationalizing key industries and markets to a degree previously unheard of, and he has perpetuated and further
empowered the patriot act, started by republican statists under G. W. Bush.
I look forward to debating and discussing these things, and I hope that no one else will become narcissistically wounded by the frank discussion and
"take his ball and run home whining to mommy."