Newest Heroes of the Left.

 

The Antigovernment/Anti-Establishment crowd has a new group of people to look up to. To idolize. To put up on a pedestal and worship. To follow as a student in training. The crowd from the far Left is presenting these people like they are more substantial individuals than anyone else in American History. Here are a few of the people that they worship.

EUGENE VICTOR DEBS 1855-1926.
Debs is from Terre Haute, Indiana. Elected state representative to the Indiana General Assembly as a Democrat representing Terre Haute and Vigo County. Served in 1885. Then he was instrumental in formation of the American Railway Union in Chicago. A very great achievement.

However, in 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, and 1920 he ran as candidate of Socialist Party for President of the United States Made his greatest showing in campaign of 1908 which featured the RED SPECIAL train which went to every section of the country. Then on June 16, 1918 Debs made his famous anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio, protesting World War I that was raging in Europe. We should also note that the President in 1918 was President Wilson. Because of the war-time espionage law and the way his speech was worded, he was arrested and convicted in federal court in Cleveland, Ohio. He was sentenced to serve 10 years in prison and disenfranchised for life, losing his citizenship.

Lucy Parsons 1853-1942.
Parsons is from Texas, but spent most of her life in Chicago, Ill. She had an African American, Native American, and Mexican ancestry. She changed her name before marriage many times to hide her heritage. After marriage, Lucy and her husband helped form the International Working People's Association (IWPA) in 1883. Lucy herself began to write for many radical publications, including The Socialist and The Alarm, an anarchist weekly published by the IWPA. She also advocated "propaganda by the deed," a philosophy that held that only violent direct action or the threat of such action will ultimately win the demands of the workers. Her husband was convicted with several others from the Anarchist group in the 1880s. They were planning violence to the police after some workers were shot by police in a walk-off strike. When police showed up to break up the meeting someone threw a bomb which killed a policeman. 4 men including her husband were executed.

In the 1890s, the Anarchists and Socialists parted ways and many went over the the Democratic party. She remained with the Anarchists at that time. But in 1925 Lucy began working with the newly formed Communist Party. She once gave a lecture called The Principles of Anarchism listed at this link. She died in a fire in 1942.

Big Bill Haywood 1869-1928.
Haywood is from Utah. He worked around the American West. Then in 1896, while working a silver mine in Idaho, signed up as a Western Federation of Miners (WFM) member and by 1900 became a member of the organization's executive board. From 1902 the WFM and the mine operators and government of Colorado were locked in the Colorado Labor Wars, "the closest the United States has ever approached outright class warfare." The war took 33 lives, including both union and non-union workers. In one single, bloody incident at an Independence, Colorado train depot on June 4, 1904, 13 non-union miners were killed by a powerful explosion as they waited for a train. Haywood was suspected of being behind the explosion, and a virtual open season on unionists ensued.

Haywood was a Socialist and an atheist, but hardly a great thinker. He said "Socialism is so plain, so clear, so simple that when a person becomes an intellectual he doesn't understand socialism." Christianity, he said, "was all nonsense, based on that profane compilation of fables called the Bible."

In 1918, Haywood was convicted of violating a federal espionage and sedition act by calling a strike during wartime. He served a year in Leavenworth, then jumped bond in 1921 while out on appeal. Haywood fled to Moscow where he became a trusted advisor to the new Bolshevik government. Haywood died in Moscow in 1928.

Michael Walzer. March 1935 -
Taught at Princeton from 1962-66, and Harvard from 1966-80. A few of the courses he taught:
· History of Modem Political Thought
· Problems in Contemporary Political Philosophy Obligations
· Means and Ends Just War
· Politics and Literature in the Seventeenth Century
· Problems in Socialist Thought
· The Political Theory of Nationalism
He is also the editor of Dissent magazine and the Contributing Editor for The New Republic. Supports "Communitarianism". That would be the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations or institutions which form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force backed structures of a state (regardless of that state's political system). However "compassionate conservatism" looks very similar to "Communitarianism". And that was the key slogan used President Bush during his 2000 presidential campaign. Ouchies. Only mention Dissent when speaking about Walzer. That's safer.

Antonio Gramsci. 1891- 1937
Gramsci was an Italian writer, politician, leader and theorist of Socialism, Communism and Anti-Fascism. Gramsci's continued theories are behind the many attacks on America's popular culture is strategy for achieving the total state. He has influenced many by his thought and direction.

A good article outlining Gramsci and his follower's actions and beliefs here.

In Huxley's model of the total state, the population was controlled through the use of sex, drugs, vapid entertainment, government-generated slogans, and manufactured social fads. The battle cry of Gramsci's disciples is: "Capture the culture!" In his study The Two Revolutions: Gramsci and the Dilemmas of Western Marxism, Marxist theoretician Carl Boggs emphasizes that "the transition to socialism must occur on two distinct but interwoven terrains -- the state and the economy." Those seeking the triumph of socialist revolution will not prevail by simply overthrowing "the existing state machinery, or [destroying] the old institutions, or even [bringing] into power leaders calling themselves 'communists.' Beneath the level of insurrection and statecraft there must be a gradual conquest of social power, initiated by popular subversive forces emerging from within the very heart of capitalist society."

Beneath the level of insurrection and statecraft there must be a gradual conquest of social power, initiated by popular subversive forces emerging from within the very heart of capitalist society." Or "the Marxist conquest of universities, schools, the news media, entertainment, churches and other religious bodies, tax-exempt foundations, and other key institutions".

Michael Walzer, in the Winter 1996 issue of Dissent has some interesting insight into the underlying currents. As evidence that the revolutionary left is winning the "Gramscian 'war of position,' " Walzer approvingly cited, among other developments: "The visible impact of feminism." "The effects of affirmative action." "The emergence of gay rights politics, and ... the attention paid to it in the media." "The acceptance of cultural pluralism." "The transformation of family life," including "rising divorce rates, changing sexual mores, new household arrangements -- and, again, the portrayal of all this in the media." "The progress of secularization; the fading of religion in general and Christianity in particular from the public sphere -- classrooms, textbooks, legal codes, holidays, and so on." "The virtual abolition of capital punishment." "The legalization of abortion." "The first successes in the effort to regulate and limit the private ownership of guns."
All of these developments, Walzer admitted, were imposed upon our society by "liberal elites," rather than being driven "by the pressure of a mass movement or a majoritarian party." These changes, Walzer observed, "reflect the leftism or liberalism of lawyers, judges, federal bureaucrats, professors, school teachers, social workers, journalists, television and screen writers -- not the population at large."

Great care has been taken by the architects of the cultural war to make it appear that the onslaught is a spontaneous revolution arising from the masses. New Left radical James Kunen, author of The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary states that one objective of the Establishment was to help the New Left "make a lot of radical commotion so they [the corporate elitists] can look more in the center as they move to the left."

Gramsci follower Gerry Kirk stated, "Young people have no conception of the conspiracy's strategy of pressure from above and pressure from below. ... They have no idea that they are playing into the hands of the Establishment they claim to hate. The radicals think they're fighting the forces of the super rich, like Rockefeller and Ford, and they don't realize that it is precisely such forces which are behind their own revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes."

In the 1960s, Planned Parenthood, circulated a memo in an effort to form a eugenicist social revolution. The memo grouped possible "fertility control" options into four categories: "Social Constraints," "Economic Deterrents/Incentives," "Social Controls," and "Housing Policies." The category of "Social Constraints" included the "Compulsory education of children," the encouragement of "increased homosexuality," the restructuring of the family by altering the "image of the ideal family" and encouraging women to work outside the home, and -- if all else failed -- the placement of "fertility control agents in [the] water supply."

Karl Marx called for the "abolition of the family" in the Communist Manifesto. "Feminism is not just an issue or a group of issues," wrote feminist revolutionary Ellen Willis in the November 14, 1981 issue of The Nation. "It is the cutting edge of a revolution in cultural and moral values. ... The objective of every feminist reform, from legal abortion ... to child-care programs, is to undermine traditional family values. ..."

But the work of restoration cannot be effective unless a sufficient number of [people who care] come to understand the conspiratorial origins of our culture war.

Linda Hirshman is another leader in the Feminism movement. However, she is not happy with current trends. Her Feb. 2006 interview on ABC's "Good Morning America" was a one sided attack on family values. Far be it for ABC to present both sides of the argument. "I am saying an educated, competent adult's place is in the office," Hirshman told "Good Morning America." In other words, moms who stay at home with their children have given themselves to a calling that no educated or competent adult should desire or accept. She was infuriated by a myriad of media reports saying that large numbers of highly educated young women on elite college and university campuses indicated that they did not intend to pursue a career outside the home, but to give themselves to being wives and mothers. in the pages of The American Prospect, Hirshman argued that "feminism has largely failed in its goals." As she explained,

"There are few women in the corridors of power, and marriage is essentially unchanged. The number of women at universities exceeds the number of men. But, more than a generation after feminism, the number of women in elite jobs just doesn't come close.
"The belief that women are responsible for child-rearing and homemaking was largely untouched by decades of workplace feminism. Add to this the good evidence that the upper-class workplace has become more demanding and then mix in the successful conservative cultural campaign to reinforce traditional gender roles and you've got a perfect recipe for feminism’s stall."

Hirshman asserts that women who give themselves to mothering undermine the status of all women and threaten the emergence of an egalitarian civilization. She notes in the article that the census numbers for all working mothers have fallen modestly since 1998, after having leveled off around 1990. She explains:

"In interviews, women with enough money to quit work say they are “choosing” to opt out. Their words conceal a crucial reality: the belief that women are responsible for child-rearing and homemaking was largely untouched by decades of workplace feminism. Add to this the good evidence that the upper-class workplace has become more demanding and then mix in the successful conservative cultural campaign to reinforce traditional gender roles and you’ve got a perfect recipe for feminism’s stall."

So the college-grads with high paying jobs were all Republicans? Or lemmings to the "conservative cultural campaign to reinforce traditional gender roles." That's quite an accusation. Or female college alumni just can't hack it in the upper-class workplace. I'd like to see the interview questions for that. "So what is the problem? You couldn't hack it in the business world? Or are you a simple-minded lemming to the Religious Right?"

She interviewed about 80 percent of the 41 women who announced their weddings over three Sundays in 1996 in The NYT. She reports in disbelief, "Half my Times brides quit before the first baby came. In interviews, at least half of them expressed a hope never to work again. None had realistic plans to work. More importantly, when they quit, they were already alienated from their work or at least not committed to a life of work." The very fact that these women turned their back on promising careers seems virtually inconceivable to Linda Hirshman. She clearly believes that housekeeping and child-rearing are not interesting and should not be socially validated.

She doesn't buy into the arguments of many homemakers who say taking care of the family is the most fulfilling thing they could imagine. Hirshman responds with a demonstration of breathtaking arrogance. "I would like to see a description of their daily lives that substantiates that position," she said. "One of the things I've done working on my book is to read a lot of the diaries online, and their description of their lives does not sound particularly interesting or fulfilling for a complicated person, for a complicated, educated person."
Get that? Hirshman is telling America's moms that their work is fundamentally unimportant, uninteresting, and fundamentally unworthy of any "complicated" and "educated" person. So I assume the graduates she interviewed are uneducated graduates. Even with MA or PhD? Nice.

What do at home mothers think? A nice article here. About Hirshman's comments she retorts:

And here we are again, at the point where we have to ask: who is this subclass of people willing to embrace the distasteful task of tending to the children? Are we importing people from Third World countries to do this meaningless work? If daddy's time is worth $100,000 a year and mommy's time is worth $50,000 a year, it doesn't take a math genius to figure out that the child's time is worth practically nothing. Mommy and daddy (in Ms. Hirshman's idealized version of reality) are too good for childcare and in fact, they are probably not very interested in mingling with old, feeble, incontinent people, either, or those with impaired mental abilities or lower-than-desirable IQs or those who are ugly. Hire someone else to do that work. It's beneath the well-educated.

I personally don't believe that there is some underlying force swaying America the way Marx or Gramsci predicted it would and has eventually ended up. If it were, one would think there would be a quicker change coming from the far Left. Like the children's game where a phrase is whispered from person to person. It gently and gradually ends up different than the first phrase. Comparing the first to the last is quite a difference. And like a tree slowly bent by natural forces, one can try to theorize how the entire change came about. But it is assumed it was a quick and noticeable change.

Being supportive and sensitive to those around you is a beneficial and profitable thing to do over time. Now it has been bent too far. Going the PC route is imprudent and inordinate. Now it actually is destroying the roots of the Constitution. This by allowing those not in the majority to go behind the back of the law making system and make their own rules. If one supports and follows those from the Anarchy/anti-Government/Socialist set, you end up in a dead end minority or an Authoritarian/Socialist government like Stalin, Khrushchev, Hitler Mussolini, Mao, etc. The citizens under these regimes must certainly have been more joyous and exuberant than the American Anarchist group is now.