(09-01-2018 07:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 06:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m not sure where you got that I suggested Owl#’s (or anyone here) has ever voted Dem. As many have said, the parties have diverged from center (especially on a national level) - which is why I spoke in the present tense, and not the past tense. Perhaps I spoke too broadly and there are some local candidates out there, but generally when we talk about Dems, it feels as if their platforms are more often compared to Marx than anything else, which is definitely hyperbole (I haven’t seen any Dem actually argue for State control of businesses across the board quite yet).
But it’s good to hear that there were some recent Dem candidates that made y’all happy. I’m honestly surprised by that.

I think you meant "never voted" in your first sentence.

You have seen democrats arguing for massive redistribution of income and wealth, right? Bernie has done so on many occasions. That's clearly collectivist/redistributionist, although what flavor may not be clear. Are you aware of any socialist or communist regime that has not done that? "European social democrats" haven't, by the way. That's where I distinguish them from Bernie. They want to care for the poor (with which I agree) but they don't want to do it by stealing from the rich. Their economic model is more fascist (private ownership with government direction) than socialist (government ownership).

You've heard democrats arguing for extremely invasive controls over the private sector, right? Elizabeth Warren has done so on many occasions. As noted above, that's really more fascist than socialist or communist.

As you note, both sides have become more extreme. I don't care for the collectivist/redistributionist democrats or the theocratic republicans. The difference is that I can live pretty well in a theocracy, as long as it is Christianity-based, but nobody has ever lived well in a collectivist/redistributionist society (see USSR, Venezuela). So the theocratic enemy of my collectivist/redistributionist enemy becomes my friend. I just wish he would do a better job of fighting the battle.

If democrats get away from the collectivist/redistributionist philosophy, then I would very likely prefer them to theocrats. But as long as their political base is derived from the, "keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you keep 'em voting democrat," welfare plantation, I don't see how they can break away. Democrats didn't used to be that way. JFK wasn't, Truman wasn't, FDR wasn't, and pretty much none of their predecessors were. The change came with LBJ and the Great Society and War on Poverty. We've spent trillions, and all that we've bought is a democrat voting bloc.

Note that I used "collectivist/redistributionist" rather than "socialist/communist" to refer to democrats in the above. I have decided to shift to that terminology because I think it is more accurate than "socialist/communist." I don't know that democrats are truly Marxists (don't know that they are not, either, and there are compelling reasons to believe that they are at least somewhat guided by his ideas). But invoking that terminology introduces a bunch of issues that don't really need to be there. I'm quite certain that the collectivist/redistributionist terminology fits, at least among all national party leaders, and I think that makes for cleaner discussion.

Lad, are you aware of any leading democrats who reject the collectivist/redistributionist approach? Joe Manchin, probably, which is why I named him, and Jim Webb, probably, which is why I agreed with him. Any others? Not Bernie, not Fauxcohontas, not Schumer, not Pelosi.

I think the 'redistributionist' hits it on the head.

The other issue, which #s alludes to, is the rather deep and explicit kinship between the fascist economic/social policy and the role of the state and the common base that modern liberalism/progressivism share.

Cant really state that that is 'redistributionist', nor really wholly collectivist. It touches on collectivism because of the belief that the role of the state *is* to shape, through no 'light touch' mind you, both the economic function and the social mores of the nation as whole, through the unexpurgated use of governmental regulation.

Warren's proposals for corporate governance are quite disturbing when you look at them in this perspective, as the root of her proposals is deeply set into the ideal that the role of the corporation, any corporation, is fundamentally tied to the values and goals of the state. And the proposal is literally calling for state control via to ensure that the corporations are subject to the goals de jure of the governing body. Whether those goals are environmental, gender, political, or whatnot, the corporation *must* be subject to those governmental social and economic goals. Whatever they may be at that point in time. They are almost literally a textbook implementation of a fascist-based philosophy relating to the role and scope of governance.

It is interesting, because that entire philosophy of governance is wholly at odds with the neo-liberalism that characterized the Founding fathers' points of view, and of the structure that the embodied their view of the new nation -- the Constitution.

It is truly amazing that they took the ideas and ideals of Locke et al, and further advanced them to a functioning society. And the ideals of modern progressivism, especially as embodied almost to a person within the powers that be of the present day Democratic party, wholly turn their back on that neo-liberal genesis and supplant it with a governance philosophy wholly at odds with that genesis, imo.

And to note, when I state 'fascism' I mean that philosophy as it came about in the early 1900's to the early 1930's. Not 'national socialism', nor naziism, albeit both those schools incorporate a huge amount of fascist philosophy within them. There are significant differences between the root fascism and the branches there. And, I am being quite precise when I refer to fascism when I state these ideas.

Getting back to a question I asked: have you, Lad, ever voted for a Republican?