[Dave]

This is somewhat true of Marxist thought, but it applies to, and I agree with this, the end of economic hegemony being the starting point for a restructuring of social and cultural societal institutions and that only its removal could spur the egalitarian movement. That's how I've read it, but I am not as much a scholarly Marxist as some others I've seen post here.

Indeed, the idea being that all existing social institutions reinforced class dictatorship, which is partly true. However, the point I was making is that vulgar Marxists have a reductionist tendency to posit economic factors as the cause for...everything. Marx himself suggested historical materialism as a method, not the sole form of analysis.

I think the new liberal movement can be traced directly to Antonio Gramsci's ideas of War of Manoeuvre, which is more like we see in the media, higher education, etc. This took the place of Marxist thought when leftists realized that the worker's revolution wasn't coming by natural insurrection and organization of the the labor class.

Indeed, as well as the activities of Trotsky after his exile. They, and later the Frankfurt School, concluded that Western civilization was preventing the socialist revolution. Therefore their idea was to destroy the civilization they hated so much in order to be able to usher in the socialist revolution. This took some very odd twists, such as the rumor that Adorno worked as a sound engineer for Atlantic Records in order to be able to use popular music as a tool of social deconstruction. W. Cleon Skousen's book The Naked Communist does a good job detailing some of the functional activities of these new Gramscian communists in postwar America.

[Gitana]

I don't think it's all that difficult, but this I can agree with. A future nationalist movement would do well to focus the issue of "Americanism". Who we are, where we come from, and where we want to go.

It would be pretty amusing to see where they would draw the line; who is 'American' and who is not. Who could stay, who would go.

As you said to me earlier; I like you as much as one can like someone they haven't met, and you are extremely well-read and intelligent. However, your political views are simply the other side of the coin; it's still the same coin. Humanity may still be that limited, but hopefully in the future that will not be so. For now, we still need all the tug of war; without it we would tip too far one way or the other.

[Inexorable]

Indeed, the idea being that all existing social institutions reinforced class dictatorship, which is partly true. However, the point I was making is that vulgar Marxists have a reductionist tendency to posit economic factors as the cause for...everything. Marx himself suggested historical materialism as a method, not the sole form of analysis.

Ha . So true Dave. As a fascist, I want to roll my eyes everytime someone pulls out Trotsky writings to explain to me why I am a dupe of the petty bourgeois that wants to maintain my power by oppressing the working class. Right, that's the only reason.

In fact, the other day I was drinking a beer at a bar, thinking about how much the beer was exploiting me, then I saw this beautiful woman and thought, 'no! my mind is being tricked by the phallocentric sexual domination embedded in my mind by the modern capitalist's evil alienation from the modes of production".

After that I watched a movie on TV and realized my enjoyment of the television was linked to the struggle of the third world proletariate against US imperialism.

[Whathastobedone]

The truth is, facism is progressive, because the idea of "progress" is facist.

Progress entails the gradual and ultimately unstopable advance into an elitist-decided future, and to achieve this advancement, those who bravely chose to become obstructionalist in favor of the good old days would need to be siclenced, thus a totalitarian government would need to be formed to surprees regressives.

Thus: Progress = Facist

However facism also entails rediscovering european greeco-roman roots as well as other barbarian forms of paganism, thus restoring a nations "True" heritage, so in that sense facism is regressive, and since progress = facism, progressive = regressive.

Therefore conservatives are in fact the real progressives, as they whish to continue the work Jesus started when he set into motion the gradual destruction of the world's various forms of paganism. Eventually a one-world christian government would be needed to complete the procces, it would have a government similar to the united states, with a congress and a senate, however, instead of having representatives of states or nations, it would have representatives of the various christian sects.

Therefore we can conclude:

Progress = Facist

Facist = regressive

Progressive = regressive

Conseravtive = progressive

Progressive =bad

Conservative = good

[Rei Murasame]

Therefore conservatives are in fact the real progressives, as they whish to continue the work Jesus started when he set into motion the gradual destruction of the world's various forms of paganism.

That has to be the most confusing post I've seen here so far, I'm not even sure where to begin with that.

To begin with, that statement about conservatism does not even hold true in most countries.

[SecretSquirrel]

What Are Conservatives Conserving Anyway?

Congressional seats, mostly

[Individual]

While there are numerous things to be conservative to such as religion or economics, I consider myself a Constitutional Conservative who holds the ideals of the Framers and the responsibility freedom and liberty carries with it. If you need a further explanation I'd suggest you look up the voting record of someone like Ron Paul or Barry Goldwater. Economically I'd be considered a liberal as the current system isn't something I support, and to move away from that system one would take a liberal position. My economic ideals come from Mises or Friedman.

[Genghis Khan]

What Are Conservatives Conserving Anyway?

Old fashioned, non relevant social values and ideas that do not fit the 21st century.

[Individual]

So GK thinks Freedom and Liberty aren't relevant to todays world.... interesting.

[Genghis Khan]

So GK thinks Freedom and Liberty aren't relevant to todays world....

Freedom and liberty are words that are used as political tools for the right. They don't seem to mind an expansion of federal government when a republican president does it, but when a democrat does it, he's a Marxist.

[DanDaMan]

Freedom and liberty are words that are used as political tools for the right. They don't seem to mind an expansion of federal government when a republican president does it, but when a democrat does it, he's a Marxist.

That's because Democrats, traditionally, LOVE bigger government and fight for it.
And let's be fair.. what bigger expansion can compare to the government takeover of health care?

[Todd D.]

Freedom and liberty are words that are used as political tools for the right. They don't seem to mind an expansion of federal government when a republican president does it, but when a democrat does it, he's a Marxist.

You're conflating Conservatives and Republicans. The Republican Party is a political entity, one prone to hypocrisy and outright deception. They can act as conservatives, they can act as liberals, they can act as libertarians. There's nothing inherent to the Republican Party that makes them "conservative" other than how they have happened to be acting since about 1935.

"Conservative" on the other hand is an ideology, one defined as "small government". So when a Republican expands the federal government (as Bush and the NeoCons did for 8 years), it doesn't mean that the conservative ideology is hypocritical, it merely means that the Republicas were not acting as conservatives.

[Genghis Khan]

That's because Democrats, traditionally, LOVE bigger government and fight for it.

You dodged the argument. Probably because you don't have an answer for it.

what bigger expansion can compare to the government takeover of health care?

Now you're reciting talking points from Fox news. It's boring.

You're conflating Conservatives and Republicans.

Am I? Many self described and publicly described conservatives stood by Bush. The only member of congress that I recall that broke from the republicans here and there was Ron Paul, but then again, he's not really a republican.

[DanDaMan]

Freedom and liberty are words that are used as political tools for the right. They don't seem to mind an expansion of federal government when a republican president does it, but when a democrat does it, he's a Marxist.

I would argue that the republican expansion of security and the war machine is fascist and the expansion of health care and entitlements is socialist.

[Todd D.]

Am I? Many self described and publicly described conservatives stood by Bush.

And many self described and publicly described conservatives voted for President Obama. That doesn't make Obama a conservative, it merely means that a conservative felt that Obama was the best person for the job.

Again, you're confusing an ideology with a political party. They aren't the same thing.

[Individual]

Freedom and liberty are words that are used as political tools for the right. They don't seem to mind an expansion of federal government when a republican president does it, but when a democrat does it, he's a Marxist.[/quote]

"Right"? Try Libertarians like Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater or myself.... those other people aren't true Conservatives, as being conservative to the United States Constitution.
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment

A gift^^^^

[Rugoz]

Unfortunately conservatives are not always the brightest people. Freedom and liberty are often abstract concepts (especially when it comes to principles like "habeus corpus"),
while family values, security etc. are easier to grasp.

[DanDaMan]

Unfortunately conservatives are not always the brightest people. Freedom and liberty are often abstract concepts (especially when it comes to principles like "habeus corpus"),

Progressive leftist Liberals, like Obama, don't grasp that either!
He just assassinates pirates while they are in good faith negotiations!
They also fail to understand what "transparent" means.

[Tally-oh]

Mussolini was the first to approve of women's suffrage before Italy became dictatorial, hardly a conservative view.

No he didn't, it was in the manifesto written when freemasons and anarchists were common in the FNP, but Mussolini never even considered extending the suffrage to women.

[Rei Murasame]

And let's be fair.. what bigger expansion can compare to the government takeover of health care?

I can immediately name two:

1. The government being able to use AT&T to watch every single transmission in and out of the USA. That's a pretty big expansion, since that's effectively an international wiretap.

2. Establishing a revolving-door relationship with every corporation on the planet and then devolving all government powers to said corporations in the name of 'freedom'--- oh wait, no, according to Libertarians like DDM, that's called "less government", rather than actually, "more government that has decided to claim that it is 'not government' while it governs you".

This is why bickering about the size of government while neglecting the issue of the roles of government, is completely backward. Especially since 'size' is completely subjective and a rhetoric theme-park.