| Strict Fundamentalism Conservatives Moderates Liberals Free Thinking Orthodox Literalists Traditionalists Interpretavists Unitarians |
So, we have discussed the concepts of the paradigm and the one in which we are
living, and how it fits into a larger change a-coming. Then on to the workings of
socialism -- its way of explaining things, the attempts to somehow go between the
two forces of capitalism and socialism. Then reordering the political spectrum,
looking at politics, culture, and religion in this new view; the view of human
existence. The need for work, and valuation and economics in its basic nature laid
out, all presented within the context of both the old and new spectrums. And on to
how the thousands of years of history are much akin to the current socialist theory
and paradigm, and how it is opposed to individualism, or libertarianism. And the
basic principle, or simple and complex rights. All of this has gone on the level or
theory, with little mention of facts or history. Even historical analysis.
I have tried to avoid the labels and usual words. And perhaps have been a little
wordier than needed. But this was to make it clearer for those not versed in this sort
of discussion. All of this preceding commentary details the basic shift.: The
socialistic way of looking at the political, culture and religion spectrums was wrong,
and prevented individualism to flourish. The US in the beginning was individualistic.
Then Europe started to follow us. But the Marxist thoughts surfaced. Because they
defined the existing system, the past systems and the new system all with different
words Europe was ready to accept this change. For it did not require a major
change in life or governance -- socialist theory was a call to a new frontier with
great sloganeering -- and a concise supporting book (the Communist Manifesto)
but it hardly changed the status quo in practical effects. And so was easily adopted.
It was with the huge migrations towards the end of the 1800's and early 1900's that
brought the socialist ideas to the United States in enough quantity to make a
difference.
The very confusing picture this all presented worked to help socialistic thinking,
because it allowed the simple sloganeering to succeed. By defining itself by what it
is not, socialism avoids careful scrutiny. Thereby allowing all sorts of difficulties, in
effect, to disappear.
The individualistic view of social organization i.e., the Right, allows for no simple
slogans, and offers no easy answers to refuge in platitudes.
Now that we have come to the end of the philosophic underpinning, it seems rather
simple after all: people have a right to work and be left alone. Their labor is theirs.
And, thus, there is a need to change the perception of the political spectrum. All
these areas covered now allow us to get out the policy areas.
I deal here exclusively with the United State, though these ideas are applicable to
all countries, and all peoples. I will show the perspectives and how the new
spectrum works.
Remember that I have only defined the new paradigm in broad swipes, and more
by defining what it is not and it is not socialistic.
This "new" theory can rest on the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution, for they are the best practical examples. It is probably impossible to
put forth a better written concept and plan of organization. When applying all the
theoretical precepts above to current policy in America, and towards the world, we
can see that something is wrong. That is the general problem with America, and the
people know it. Clinton was elected on the idea of change, but he is really for the
"middle way" -- supposedly going to change and save capitalism -- use the
government to get it better. His program is doomed to failure, especially in the
public's mind. Since he followed the old paradigm and does not like or know the
new one. He sees the old political divisions. And because he does, he can not
solve the problems.
George W. Bush was probably not going to be a great president, becuase not only
was he partially a middle of the road guy, but the forces of soicalistic thinking are
still too strong. Only September 11th changed that. It presented him with an
opportunity to get individualism and libertarianism launched on a world wide scale
the likes of which he and those who agree with him never imagined could be
possible. The liberation of Iraq will have more to do with the betterment of mankind
than even the fall of the Berlin Wall. It shows the most desperate and downtrodden
that even they too can join the libertarian future.
There are several broad areas of policy that can be addressed first. Then more
specific ideas can be presented. This will not be a program by program dissection,
while that can be done, it'll have to be by a policy wonk more in tune with the details
and one not so theoretically oriented.
living, and how it fits into a larger change a-coming. Then on to the workings of
socialism -- its way of explaining things, the attempts to somehow go between the
two forces of capitalism and socialism. Then reordering the political spectrum,
looking at politics, culture, and religion in this new view; the view of human
existence. The need for work, and valuation and economics in its basic nature laid
out, all presented within the context of both the old and new spectrums. And on to
how the thousands of years of history are much akin to the current socialist theory
and paradigm, and how it is opposed to individualism, or libertarianism. And the
basic principle, or simple and complex rights. All of this has gone on the level or
theory, with little mention of facts or history. Even historical analysis.
I have tried to avoid the labels and usual words. And perhaps have been a little
wordier than needed. But this was to make it clearer for those not versed in this sort
of discussion. All of this preceding commentary details the basic shift.: The
socialistic way of looking at the political, culture and religion spectrums was wrong,
and prevented individualism to flourish. The US in the beginning was individualistic.
Then Europe started to follow us. But the Marxist thoughts surfaced. Because they
defined the existing system, the past systems and the new system all with different
words Europe was ready to accept this change. For it did not require a major
change in life or governance -- socialist theory was a call to a new frontier with
great sloganeering -- and a concise supporting book (the Communist Manifesto)
but it hardly changed the status quo in practical effects. And so was easily adopted.
It was with the huge migrations towards the end of the 1800's and early 1900's that
brought the socialist ideas to the United States in enough quantity to make a
difference.
The very confusing picture this all presented worked to help socialistic thinking,
because it allowed the simple sloganeering to succeed. By defining itself by what it
is not, socialism avoids careful scrutiny. Thereby allowing all sorts of difficulties, in
effect, to disappear.
The individualistic view of social organization i.e., the Right, allows for no simple
slogans, and offers no easy answers to refuge in platitudes.
Now that we have come to the end of the philosophic underpinning, it seems rather
simple after all: people have a right to work and be left alone. Their labor is theirs.
And, thus, there is a need to change the perception of the political spectrum. All
these areas covered now allow us to get out the policy areas.
I deal here exclusively with the United State, though these ideas are applicable to
all countries, and all peoples. I will show the perspectives and how the new
spectrum works.
Remember that I have only defined the new paradigm in broad swipes, and more
by defining what it is not and it is not socialistic.
This "new" theory can rest on the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution, for they are the best practical examples. It is probably impossible to
put forth a better written concept and plan of organization. When applying all the
theoretical precepts above to current policy in America, and towards the world, we
can see that something is wrong. That is the general problem with America, and the
people know it. Clinton was elected on the idea of change, but he is really for the
"middle way" -- supposedly going to change and save capitalism -- use the
government to get it better. His program is doomed to failure, especially in the
public's mind. Since he followed the old paradigm and does not like or know the
new one. He sees the old political divisions. And because he does, he can not
solve the problems.
George W. Bush was probably not going to be a great president, becuase not only
was he partially a middle of the road guy, but the forces of soicalistic thinking are
still too strong. Only September 11th changed that. It presented him with an
opportunity to get individualism and libertarianism launched on a world wide scale
the likes of which he and those who agree with him never imagined could be
possible. The liberation of Iraq will have more to do with the betterment of mankind
than even the fall of the Berlin Wall. It shows the most desperate and downtrodden
that even they too can join the libertarian future.
There are several broad areas of policy that can be addressed first. Then more
specific ideas can be presented. This will not be a program by program dissection,
while that can be done, it'll have to be by a policy wonk more in tune with the details
and one not so theoretically oriented.
| CHAPTER 8 |
| Jim Hlavac |
The Socialist Era
| Poltics, Theory & Economics |
