Aint that the truth.Some people around here cant handle the truth.
Printable View
Really Moka? You went to a column in a left leaning broadsheet from leftie Jason "working class shirt" Wilson for your definition of Cultural Marxism?
He bothered to get this bit mostly right
[I]t begins in the 1910s and 1920s. When the socialist revolution failed to materialise beyond the Soviet Union, Marxist thinkers like Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs tried to explain why. Their answer was that culture and religion blunted the proletariat’s desire to revolt, and the solution was that Marxists should carry out a “long march through the institutions” – universities and schools, government bureaucracies and the media – so that cultural values could be progressively changed from above.
Advertisement
Adapting this, later thinkers of the Frankfurt School decided that the key to destroying capitalism was to mix up Marx with a bit of Freud, since workers were not only economically oppressed, but made orderly by sexual repression and other social conventions. The problem was not only capitalism as an economic system, but the family, gender hierarchies, normal sexuality – in short, the whole suite of traditional western values.
[/I]
From there on he sets about trying to attach it to a bunch of extremist Right Wingers. It is a problem that extremists will launch against it....but that doesn't take away the original problem.
The Marxist thinkers not only saw the failure of Economic Communism to spread outside then Russia, they saw Lenin, Trotsky and Stalins slaughtering to enforce it. They were arrogant enough to assume the Soviet would prove to be an outlier and so tried the Cultural Route. The "Long March Through The Institutions" is bearing fruit 100 years later.
If the Democrats manage to lose against Trump (they are capable of it!) the USA is in for a very bumpy ride. The teeth gnashing was bad enough after Hillary failed. They have only themselves to blame.
I was genuinely surprised how nasty some of the expressed disappointment was from people I knew when John Key won his last term in office. Labour thought they had that election in the bag....much as the Dems think they have Trump on the ropes.
Thanks for the condescending post. It was no help.
The proscription on more than two terms occurred much later than Washington. It may well have been his choice not to stand, it was not constitutional compunction.
You omitted a discussion on FDR. Why?
The 22nd amendment came after FDR and was passed in 1947. This made compulsory a tradition that some Presidents had voluntarily accepted. So from 1947 Presidents could not seek a third term and the people were denied the ability to vote in a person for a third term.
So the constitutional amendment was paternalist as those who drafted it did not think that the people's vote could be trusted?
Why wouldn't the impeachment process not be sufficient?
I wasn't being condescending, but can see you've obviously spent some time this morning researching the topic.
Just pointing out I said Washington set a 'precedent' & chose that word because it's the correct word for what he did & wanted others to follow.
As for the impeachment process & why it may not be sufficient. If you need to ask, maybe after you go & live in the US preferably DC, for a few years you'ld understand.
Well no actually I just had to check on the year. Surely there are other checks and balances?
I do query the relevant lessons in the details in current constitutional democracy that still can be gleaned from all the ideas of slave owning C18th American colonists who railed against imperial taxation.
The incredibly amounts of money, and the influence and favour that may bring, needing to be raised for presidential campaigns should perhaps be a greater concern in a democracy than limiting the number of four year terms.
Collins 'believes'. interesting.