The 1950s are coming back

I think he's suggesting that being morbidly obese and dying your hair bright orange is the culprit. In which case, he's right.

 

Kneeling on the ground during the anthem or standing on a flag means America, in the protestor's opinion, is not living up to what it should be.

 

Yes, this. But they're not liberals, they're Progressives.

 

If you need to feel you “win” on a forum then by all means congrats and enjoy that big “win”...here’s your trophy...

 

Yes, it's a useful distinction. Or rather, there is a distinction to be made on the Left, although there does not seem to be universal agreement about the terminolgy.
Interestingly, on the issue of race, there can be people to the Left of progressives -- old-fashioned Marxists -- who can think about race objectively, but they're an endangered species now.

 

That's the interpretation you would like to put on it, of course. The liberal/progressive version of 'make America great again'.

I know about some of these people and I assure you it is not true.

The flag-stander is the loathesome Bill Ayers, former head of the Weathermen. If his comrades had not been technical inepts, and blown themselves up in the Townhouse explosion, they would have set off a shrapnel bomb among GI's and their dates at Fort Dix. Ayers believes "we did not do enough" then.

The most famous flag-burner, who actually got the Supreme Court to support his right to do so, is a follower of Bob Avakian, the cult-leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party, ardent devotees of Mao Tse Tung. Their slogan is, literally, "America was never great!"

These people are as much liberals as the neo-Nazis are conservatives. Don't be fooled by them.

 

Thanks!

 

Waves at Doug

Though I was never a Marxist. He was just another privileged white guy who thought socialism was totalitarianism.

 

What i expect from righties - bananas.

So women take no responsibility. You see them as slaves or children?

 

Two words: Dream on.

 

No idea what you’re going on about.

 

If it's his fault, then you don't think women can take responsibility for themselves. So they must be slaves or children. Which one?

 

What in gods name are you talking about? Clearly you missed the painfully obvious sarcasm. Hell, the person I posted it to clearly got it as he “liked” my post.

 

Ah! I've been hit with similar comments here when I talk about how my ex screwed me. The general attitude is that the man is always the one at fault.

In my view, women's lib went too far and ruined many from two generations of women. They were made into perpetual victims. Unfortunately I married one. And she made my life a living hell.

 

By 'he' do you mean Marx? If so, I don't think Marx was a totalitarian ... that concept really had no meaning in his day.

He was definitely politically incorrect -- wouldn't last a minute on today's campuses ... his favorite quality in women was "weakness", and he called his son-in-law (who indeed was a scondrel) a "Jewish n****r".

But I admire him for his understanding of the progressive nature of capitalism.

 

Every economics student should be exposed to Marx, yes.

 

They should certainly be exposed to present-day Marxist economists, for sure.

I believe any student of the humanities or social sciences -- really, any educated person -- should be familiar with the ideas of Marx and Engels, namely, historical materialism. They don't have to try to wade through Capital, but rather can just read half a dozen of Marx-Engels' historical/political essays. They're all online for free at Marxists.org. Furthermore, there are several websites where serious Marxists discuss and debate among themselves which are well worth following, for people trying to make sense of the world. Some of the best debates on what was happening in Syria, or that I saw anyway, were on a Marxist website.

 

You must have me confused for some other banana. I ain't no "rightie".

 

Yes, Marx. By totalitarianism I mean his brand of socialism (which wasn't anything of the sort, of course) required force of law to enact.

 

Nearing would be a better choice.

 

Deleted

 

The tax rate does not indicate taxes paid..

A high tax rate is irrelevant and not the cause of the prosperity or the country's ability to build infrastructure.

 

You can believe that, of course, Robert.

You have added nothing to support your assertions.

 

If you mean Scott Nearing, he was a naive admirer of Soviet and Chinese socialism, as I recall, as well as being a kind of vegetarian-hippie before his time. A thoroughly American character in his New England eccentricity and an admirable person. Believe it or not, he gave a talk at my girlfriend's house in Houston in the late 50s, early 60s -- I can still picture his books and pamphlets spread out on their piano. I believe he was associated with the journal Monthly Review, which was at that time 'pro-Soviet' -- although they later, under the pressure of radical public opinion, decided that, far from being socialist, the Soviet Union was fascist, and that China, in the grip of the insane Cultural Revolution, was the new Mecca. I don't know if Nearing, who was a consistent pacifist, went along with these mental somersaults.

I don't know of anyone now who has made a consistent defense of what I would call genuine old-fashioned socialism, i.e. state ownership and central planning, although there are various interesting attempts to elaborate some form of market socialism and get around the 'Socialist Calculation Question'. What Marxists are good at is going into all the economic problems of existing capitalism, not a difficult task.

 

I beg to differ, the era for fundamental change in America was without doubt the 60s, Martin Luther King, I Have a Dream leading the fight against segregation in the deep south, Woodstock, Joan Bias, Dillon, Flower power and ‘Times They are a’ Changing, the freedom march on Washington and We Shall Overcome.
If it had only succeeded but the corporate elite would have never allowed that to happen and so the Gravy Train rolls on and there’s no room aboard for you.