Pete Seeger's 1800 page FBI files released

[tne]

Well of course, all I know about you is that you disagreed with me about Progressive Liberalism cum Communism and my only comment was that you have that right. I don't believe that I made any inference about you, and if you took my meaning to be any more than face value, I apologize. None was meant.

 

No problem, and no apologies necessary. Maybe I am a bit oversensitive these days as I have been having heated discussion about political issues with my very conservative and my very liberal friends. Both sets seem to think that I lie on the other side, although no one would mistake my views as middle-of-the-road.

 

But we all agree that Pete Seeger was a terrific musician!

[AnotherSpin]

Your reasoning here seems a bit unsound to me, if you will forgive my forwardness.

I will.

 

I was just trying to tell, that all extreme ideas (and activities) may be initiated and developed quite innocently, with a turning point which not possible to see in most of the cases. Certain very famous 20th century dictator started as a bohemian painter in Vienna (is there anything wrong with it?). I do not think there are natural born totalitarians, any one from them started from very good/innocent (liberal works fine here) ideas.

[Jud]

We do now seem to be managing to avoid this particular rabbit hole about personal political leanings, which is good. May I suggest that such discussions would be best done in the off-topic forum specifically set aside for that purpose? (Only open to those who are paid site members.)

[lmitche]

LOL Jud, you sound like a capitalistic exclusionist!

[Jud]

Jud, you sound like a capitalistic exclusionist!

 

I prefer "running dog," thank you.

[wgscott]

Lenin for decades lived in Europe discussing ideas, writing articles, and translating Bishop Berkeley to Russian.

 

I thought he got out of Liverpool as soon as his career started to take off.

[Jud]

I thought he got out of Liverpool as soon as his career started to take off.

 

[crenca]

George, I hope you aren't being serious. It's a very big jump from Progressive Liberalism to Communism. Ask the hundreds of millions of democracy loving progressive liberals who live in Western Democracies and are glad they did/do, and who also were opposed to the Soviet Union and it's policies. Hoover obviously thought the opposite, and that was part of the problem.

 

This is largely right - where "communism" is put in place by the gun, "progressive liberalism" is brought about by the ballet box. However, the end product (the economy, government, civil society, etc.) being very similar is also true. In a way, much of modern progressivism is really what communism should have been. It is a communism with a more realistic path of attainment. In that sense, it's anthropology is more realistic - but not real enough, as the "end product" is still an idealism outside the ability of real humans to live it. Real humans are too varied and free to ever actually live a radical "equality"...

[crenca]

We do now seem to be managing to avoid this particular rabbit hole about personal political leanings, which is good. May I suggest that such discussions would be best done in the off-topic forum specifically set aside for that purpose? (Only open to those who are paid site members.)

 

oops, I posted my previous before I read the agreement

[wgscott]

Clarifications of definitions should be ok. It doesn't mean you hold or espouse a viewpoint. (Technically communism means government ownership of the means of production, where the government is comprised of a dictatorship of the working class. That is quite distinct from Liberalism in all its forms.)

[crenca]

Clarifications of definitions should be ok. It doesn't mean you hold or espouse a viewpoint. (Technically communism means government ownership of the means of production, where the government is comprised of a dictatorship of the working class. That is quite distinct from Liberalism in all its forms.)

 

Well, the "technical" Marxian definition is itself an idealism. In reality, humans are organic beings so statements like "the means of producition..government is comprised of a dictatorship of the working class" have implications for other things, like civil society, freedom of persons (in all his varied aspects), etc. Thus, in practice modern "progressive liberalism" and communism have many points of "convergence" so to speak.

 

Interestingly, one can see this convergence even in our modern American situation, where the "rights" of minorities or classes come into conflict with the economy (i.e. "the means of production") of others...

[wgscott]

Well, let's get back to the topic of his real thought-crimes:

 

And I'm still searching

Yes, I'm still searching

For a way we all can learn

To build a world

Where we all can share

The work the fun

The food the space

The joy the pain

And no one ever

Ever need or want to seek

To be a millionaire

 

Small wonder this put a weed up the arse of our domestic political police.

[gmgraves]

You forgot to mention that, for the longest time, Hoover refused to accept that the Mafia existed. The reason that many of his enemies didn't "start slinging mud at him" until he was dead was because he kept files on them that, if released, could have proved very embarrassing, if not considerably worse. The only significance of him being gay is the inherent hypocrisy, because many of those files were on homosexuals.

 

 

Yes, I forgot about the Mafia. But it's just another example Hoover's hit-and-miss style of crime fighting. The man fell into that most human of all frailties: he let power go to his head. As he got older (I believe) he became obsessed with staying in power. He was one of the most powerful men in the government, and he wanted to stay there. He used his power to accumulate more, and then he used it to bully his way into a more secure position. He bullied countless presidents into keeping him on long after he ceased to be effective. Johnson and Nixon were frankly afraid of him, and ultimately reversed their decisions to retire him. The man was also vindictive. The best evidence of that, is the way he treated Melvin Purvis. Once his "fair-haired-boy" and most decorated operative, Purvis nailed Dillinger in front of the Biograph theater in Chicago and his fame grew, eclipsing that of Hoover. Hoover had him re-asigned several times, but Purvis' fame followed him. So Hoover fired him. Purvis went back to his home (in Georgia, IIRC) and went to work for either the local sheriff of the local police, I don't recall which. Hoover intervened and had Purvis fired, Then Purvis tried to join a large private detective agency and Hoover threatened to have that agency's license revoked if they hired Purvis. Hoover continued to harass Purvis until the latter died.

 

If Hoover was a homosexual, then his files on homosexuals were, indeed hypocrisy, but if he wasn't, then Hoover was just following then US government policy that homosexuals are a security risk and cannot serve in any sensitive government agency or in the military, so dossiers would definitely contain information on people's sexual orientation.

[gmgraves]

No problem, and no apologies necessary. Maybe I am a bit oversensitive these days as I have been having heated discussion about political issues with my very conservative and my very liberal friends. Both sets seem to think that I lie on the other side, although no one would mistake my views as middle-of-the-road.

 

But we all agree that Pete Seeger was a terrific musician!

 

 

Yes, I think we can all agree on that. I suspect that we can also agree that Seeger, though an avowed Leftie, was also a pretty benign Lefty. He espoused certain Socialist beliefs and worked on such liberal causes as the fight to clean-up the Hudson River, but he never espoused the Communist ideals of changing America into a puppet of the USSR and a dictatorship, nor did he go so far as to embrace the Marxian economic model (as far as I know). He just wanted equality and dignity for all, and a clean environment in which to enjoy that dignity, equality and freedom. His politics weren't my politics, but I respected him and what he stood for.

[gmgraves]

Well, the "technical" Marxian definition is itself an idealism. In reality, humans are organic beings so statements like "the means of producition..government is comprised of a dictatorship of the working class" have implications for other things, like civil society, freedom of persons (in all his varied aspects), etc. Thus, in practice modern "progressive liberalism" and communism have many points of "convergence" so to speak.

 

Interestingly, one can see this convergence even in our modern American situation, where the "rights" of minorities or classes come into conflict with the economy (i.e. "the means of production") of others...

 

No nation calling itself "Communist" has ever practiced 100% economic Marxism because it simply does not work. So they would say that they were "striving toward a goal of a Marxist utopia" while embracing those parts of the Marxist philosophy that gives them power and ignoring those parts that clearly are impractical. The closest to a true Marxist state is probably North Korea, and they are starving to death while their corrupt and miserable brothers and sisters to the south are happy and prosperous. Speaks volumes.

[firedog]

You guys all need to go back to school. There are all sorts of definitions of Socialism, Marxism, and Communism, not to mention communism (note the small "C"). They aren't the same thing. The words aren't equivalent in meaning to each other.

One can easily be a socialist or communist and a believer in democracy.

Some of the largest business enterprises in the world and in the US are cooperatives - a socialist form of economic organization.

[Allan F]

One can easily be a ... communist and a believer in democracy.

Do you mean like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Just kidding. I find it quite laughable when people refer to Obamacare as "socialism".

[Jud]

Fee for service Medicare is much closer to a truly socialist enterprise. But just try taking it away from our freedom loving, generally socially conservative seniors.

[christopher3393]

Well, let's get back to the topic of his real thought-crimes:

 

And I'm still searching

Yes, I'm still searching

For a way we all can learn

To build a world

Where we all can share

The work the fun

The food the space

The joy the pain

And no one ever

Ever need or want to seek

To be a millionaire

 

 

Small wonder this put a weed up the arse of our domestic political police.

 

^ ^ this.

[gmgraves]

Do you mean like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Just kidding. I find it quite laughable when people refer to Obamacare as "socialism".

 

Well, only because ObamaCare is a half-assed joke. If the USA had true Socialized medicine, we'd have a single-payer system like GB and many other European nations and the system would work. Some Socialism is necessary for a properly working society (like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance and Socialized Medicine). And I believe that the Europeans have shown for more than a half a century that a certain amount of Socialism can co-exist with Capitalism without either diminishing the other in any way.

[gmgraves]

Fee for service Medicare is much closer to a truly socialist enterprise. But just try taking it away from our freedom loving, generally socially conservative seniors.

 

 

Most Conservative seniors realize that Socialism is not a dirty word, and that some of it is simply necessary for a properly functioning society. Nobody is more Conservative than I am (but I am NOT a Repuglican, and do not support the Repug platform) I consider myself a hyper-Conservative Libertarian and I always vote the straight Libertarian ticket. In categories where there is no Libertarian candidate, I don't vote) but reality is reality and a certain amount of Socialism is OK by me!

[jabbr]

Well, only because ObamaCare is a half-assed joke. If the USA had true Socialized medicine, we'd have a single-payer system like GB and many other European nations and the system would work. Some Socialism is necessary for a properly working society (like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance and Socialized Medicine). And I believe that the Europeans have shown for more than a half a century that a certain amount of Socialism can co-exist with Capitalism without either diminishing the other in any way.

 

a) these issues have no answers

b) UK does not have a single payer system: there is an increasingly thriving private system for people with resources.

[Allan F]

If the USA had true Socialized medicine, we'd have a single-payer system like GB and many other European nations and the system would work.

FYI, the country immediately north of yours, it's called Canada, also introduced a single-payer health care system in 1966.

[gmgraves]

a) these issues have no answers

b) UK does not have a single payer system: there is an increasingly thriving private system for people with resources.

 

 

Thanks for the correction. Whatever GB has, it works better than ObamaCare (which, I recently read, will cost everybody MORE MONEY in 2016 - and probably more each year after that).

[jabbr]

FYI, the country immediately north of yours, it's called Canada, also introduced a single-payer health care system in 1966.

 

Actually Canada still has Detroit for those with $$ and the rest of the USA for those with $$$.