imported post
Pace,
I think you are experiencing some confusion due to the missuse of the various labels you have brought up.
First of all, claiming progressive movements (which OCDO in theory is ONE of) is elitist is ridiculous, and just silly. By definition Elitist means there are classes, but you are claiming it's socialist, which defies its own definition.
Dispite what socialist claim about their ideology (there are no eletists -everyone is equal) socialism does create classes that are not equal. The power structure of socialism has varying levels of amenities/benefits. Those with no power recieve the least while those at the top of the heap (the head rulers) reap the most. The top dogs of a socialist society will justify their higher share of the amenities by claiming that they are the ones making all the policy decisions for the benefit of everyone. The notion that socialism harbors equality is a deception.
On both sides, traditionally, you have multi-millionaires claiming to represent the "little people" while they have all made their money off of the backs of workers.
About the time I graduated HS (Class of '71) I didn't know the difference between the two parties, so I started asking around. the concensus I got was the the Democrat Party was the working mans party and the Repub's were the Big business Party. Theoritically, the Dem Party would try to take care of the "little guy" by raising taxes on those "evil rich" corporate people and their businesses. Problem is, that it almost always backfires and the working man loses his job. When the Republicans cut taxes on those "evil rich" businesses, the working man gets to keep his job and more get hired.
It didn't appear to me that the Democrat party was much help at all to the working "little guys." Even today, I think the Democrats are the working mans biggest problem, even though the Dems pitch a decievious argument to stir wealth envy amoung the working people, as well as the slackers of society. They make promises to redistribute the wealth and provide more "equality." It all may sound good, but they always fall short of delivering on those promises.
I will agree though, that there are a lot of those multimillinaire politiciansthat have no clue what it's like to be in the "little guys" shoes. And they don't care, either. That's why they seek power in politics so they can control their own destonies and make sure the little guy doesn't knock them off their pedistols. They'll make what ever BS promises they have to to stay in office.
The weirdest part is that I don't understand at ALL why liberals in this country are against gun rights, because world wide most progressive, liberal politicians in the world are actualyl FOR gun rights, while the conservative parties are for stricter gun rights.
OK, hereyou reference liberals/conservatives as it applies to foreign countries. You have to remember that across the pond these terms have the opposite meaning as they do here.
For example, in the land of the former USSR, the hardline communists are the conservative group while the pro-capitalist/pro-democracy group are the liberals/progressives. I think that is what is confusing you about the liberals in this country. A the time of the American Revolution the colonist that revolted against the British crown would have been considered liberals while the rest would have been conservative.
The Marxists/Communists/Socialist in this country are always attempting to "brand" themselves as something there not, to decieve the public of their true nature. To call themselves Liberals (Classic Liberals?) or Progressives is in opposition to what their ideology really is.
The "Classic Liberal" , as defined by Ludwig Von Mises, is pretty much what the modern Libertarian is. They beleived in small government and individual self-governence, just the opposite of what the Marxist/Communists/socialists strive for.
Progressive? I suppose that depends on how one defines progress, in my opinion. I think most of us here would agree that this would refer to a growing prosperous freemarketeconomy and less encroachment on individual liberties by government. Again, just the opposite of what Marxists/Communists/Socialist want. To me, their idea of being "progressive" sounds regressive, oppressive, anti-freemarket and anti-liberty. The self-proclaimed progressives in this country seem to want to control everything and everyone.
Now if the Marxists/Communists/Socialist can get what they want, I suppose you could say they'vebeen "progressive." I personally don't want to see them make any progress in that direction.
