Monday, April 30, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
Social Justice: Code for Communism
By Barry Loberfeld
The signature of modern leftist rhetoric is the deployment of terminology that simply cannot fail to command assent. As Orwell himself recognized, even slavery could be sold if labeled "freedom." In this vein, who could ever conscientiously oppose the pursuit of "social justice," -- i.e., a just society?
To understand "social justice," we must contrast it with the earlier view of justice against which it was conceived -- one that arose as a revolt against political absolutism. With a government (e.g., a monarchy) that is granted absolute power, it is impossible to speak of any injustice on its part. If it can do anything, it can't do anything "wrong." Justice as a political/legal term can begin only when limitations are placed upon the sovereign, i.e., when men define what is unjust for government to do. The historical realization traces from the Roman senate to Magna Carta to the U.S. Constitution to the 19th century. It was now a matter of "justice" that government not arrest citizens arbitrarily, sanction their bondage by others, persecute them for their religion or speech, seize their property, or prevent their travel.
This culmination of centuries of ideas and struggles became known as liberalism. And it was precisely in opposition to this liberalism -- not feudalism or theocracy or the ancien régime, much less 20th century fascism -- that Karl Marx formed and detailed the popular concept of "social justice," (which has become a kind of "new and improved" substitute for a storeful of other terms -- Marxism, socialism, collectivism -- that, in the wake of Communism's history and collapse, are now unsellable).
"The history of all existing society," he and Engels declared, "is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf ... oppressor and oppressed, stood in sharp opposition to each other." They were quite right to note the political castes and resulting clashes of the pre-liberal era. The expositors of liberalism (
Today the terms have broadened to mean essentially income brackets. If Smith can make a nice living from his writing, he's a bourgeois; if Jones is reciting poetry for coins in a subway terminal, he's a proletarian. But the freedoms of speech and enterprise that they share equally are "nothing but lies and falsehoods so long as" their differences in affluence and influence persist (Luxemburg). The unbroken line from The Communist Manifesto to its contemporary adherents is that economic inequality is the monstrous injustice of the capitalist system, which must be replaced by an ideal of "social justice" -- a "classless" society created by the elimination of all differences in wealth and "power."
Give Marx his due: He was absolutely correct in identifying the political freedom of liberalism -- the right of each man to do as he wishes with his own resources -- as the origin of income disparity under capitalism. If Smith is now earning a fortune while Jones is still stuck in that subway, it's not because of the "class" into which each was born, to say nothing of royal patronage. They are where they are because of how the common man spends his money. That's why some writers sell books in the millions, some sell them in the thousands, and still others can't even get published. It is the choices of the masses ("the market") that create the inequalities of fortune and fame -- and the only way to correct those "injustices" is to control those choices.
Every policy item on the leftist agenda is merely a deduction from this fundamental premise. Private property and the free market of exchange are the most obvious hindrances to the implementation of that agenda, but hardly the only. Also verboten is the choice to emigrate, which removes one and one's wealth from the pool of resources to be redirected by the demands of "social justice" and its enforcers. And crucial to the justification of a "classless" society is the undermining of any notion that individuals are responsible for their behavior and its consequences. To maintain the illusion that classes still exist under capitalism, it cannot be conceded that the "haves" are responsible for what they have or that the "have nots" are responsible for what they have not. Therefore, people are what they are because of where they were born into the social order -- as if this were early 17th century France.
Men of achievement are pointedly referred to as "the priviliged" -- as if they were given everything and earned nothing. Their seeming accomplishments are, at best, really nothing more than the results of the sheer luck of a beneficial social environment (or even -- in the allowance of one egalitarian, John Rawls -- "natural endowment"). Consequently, the "haves" do not deserve what they have. The flip side of this is the insistence that the "have nots" are, in fact, "the underpriviliged," who have been denied their due by an unjust society. If some men wind up behind bars, they are (to borrow from Broadway) depraved only because they are "deprived." Environmental determinism, once an almost sacred doctrine of official Soviet academe, thrives as the "social constructionist" orthodoxy of today's anti-capitalist left. The theory of "behavioral scientists" and their boxed rats serviceably parallels the practice of a Central Planning Board and its closed society.
The imperative of economic equality also generates a striking opposition between "social justice" and its liberal rival. The equality of the latter, we've noted, is the equality of all individuals in the eyes of the law -- the protection of the political rights of each man, irrespective of "class" (or any assigned collective identity, hence the blindfold of Justice personified). However, this political equality, also noted, spawns the difference in "class" between Smith and Jones. All this echoes Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek's observation that if "we treat them equally [politically], the result must be inequality in their actual [i.e., economic] position." The irresistable conclusion is that "the only way to place them in an equal [economic] position would be to treat them differently [politically]" -- precisely the conclusion that the advocates of "social justice" themselves have always reached.
In the nations that had instituted this resolution throughout their legal systems, "different" political treatment came to subsume the extermination or imprisonment of millions because of their "class" origins. In our own American "mixed economy," which mixes differing systems of justice as much as economics, "social justice" finds expression in such policies and propositions as progressive taxation and income redistribution; affirmative action and even "reparations," its logical implication; and selective censorship in the name of "substantive equality," i.e., economic equality disingenuously reconfigured as a Fourteenth Amendment right and touted as the moral superior to "formal equality," the equality of political freedom actually guaranteed by the amendment. This last is the project of a growing number of leftist legal theorists that includes Cass Sunstein and Catherine MacKinnon, the latter opining that the "law of [substantive] equality and the law of freedom of expression [for all] are on a collision course in this country." Interestingly, Hayek had continued, "Equality before the law and material equality are, therefore, not only different, but in conflict with each other" -- a pronouncement that evidently draws no dissent.
Hayek emphasized another conflict between the two conceptions of justice, one we can begin examining simply by asking who the subject of liberal justice is. The answer: a person -- a flesh-and-blood person, who is held accountable for only those actions that constitute specifically defined crimes of violence (robbery, rape, murder) against other citizens. Conversely, who is the subject of "social justice" -- society? Indeed yes, but is society really a "who"? When we speak of "social psychology" (the standard example), no one believes that there is a "social psyche" whose thoughts can be analyzed. And yet the very notion of "social justice" presupposes a volitional Society whose actions can (and must) be held accountable. This jarring bit of Platonism traces all the way back to Marx himself, who, "despite all his anti-Idealistic and anti-Hegelian rhetoric, is really an Idealist and Hegelian ... asserting, at root, that [Society] precedes and determines the characteristics of those who are [its] members" (R.A. Childs, Jr.). Behold leftism's alternative to liberalism's "atomistic individualism": reifying collectivism, what Hayek called "anthropomorphism or personification."
Too obviously, it is not liberalism that atomizes an entity (a concrete), but "social justice" that reifies an aggregate (an abstraction). And exactly what injustice is Society responsible for? Of course: the economic inequality between Smith and Jones -- and Johnson and Brown and all others. But there is no personified Society who planned and perpetrated this alleged inequity, only a society of persons acting upon the many choices made by their individual minds. Eventually, though, everyone recognizes that this Ideal of Society doesn't exist in the real world -- leaving two options. One is to cease holding society accountable as a legal entity, a moral agent. The other is to conclude that the only practicable way to hold society accountable for "its" actions is to police the every action of every individual.
The apologists for applied "social justice" have always explained away its relationship to totalitarianism as nothing more than what we may call (after Orwell's Animal Farm) the "Napoleon scenario": the subversion of earnest revolutions by demented individuals (e.g., Stalin, Mao -- to name just two among too many). What can never be admitted is that authoritarian brutality is the not-merely-possible-but-inevitable realization of the nature of "social justice" itself.
What is "social justice"? The theory that implies and justifies the practice of socialism. And what is "socialism"? Domination by the State. What is "socialized" is state-controlled. So what is "totalitarian" socialism other than total socialism, i.e., state control of everything? And what is that but the absence of a free market in anything, be it goods or ideas? Those who contend that a socialist government need not be totalitarian, that it can allow a free market -- independent choice, the very source of "inequality"! -- in some things (ideas) and not in others (goods -- as if, say, books were one or the other), are saying only that the socialist ethic shouldn't be applied consistently.
This is nothing less than a confession of moral cowardice. It is the explanation for why, from
What is "social justice"? The abolition of privacy. Its repudiation of property rights, far from being a fundamental, is merely one derivation of this basic principle. Socialism, declared Marx, advocates "the positive abolition of private property [in order to effect] the return of man himself as a social, i.e., really human, being." It is the private status of property -- meaning: the privacy, not the property -- that stands in opposition to the social (i.e., "socialized," and thus "really human") nature of man. Observe that the premise holds even when we substitute x for property. If private anything denies man's social nature, then so does private everything. And it is the negation of anything and everything private -- from work to worship to even family life -- that has been the social affirmation of the socialist state.
What is "social justice"? The opposite of capitalism. And what is "capitalism"? It is Marx's coinage (minted by his materialist dispensation) for the Western liberalism that diminished state power from absolutism to limited government; that, from John Locke to the American Founders, held that each individual has an inviolable right to his own life, liberty, and property, which government exists solely to secure. Now what would the reverse of this be but a resurrection of Oriental despotism, the reactionary increase of state power from limited government to absolutism, i.e., "totalitarianism," the absolute control of absolutely everything? And what is the opposite -- the violation -- of securing the life, liberty, and property of all men other than mass murder, mass tyranny, and mass plunder? And what is that but the point at which theory ends and history begins?
And yet even before that point -- before the 20th century, before publication of the Manifesto itself -- there were those who did indeed make the connection between what Marxism inherently meant on paper and what it would inevitably mean in practice. In 1844, Arnold Ruge presented the abstract: "a police and slave state." And in 1872, Michael Bakunin provided the specifics:
[T]he People's State of
It is precisely this "new class" that reflects the defining contradiction of modern leftist reality: The goal of complete economic equality logically enjoins the means of complete state control, yet this means has never practically achieved that end. Yes, Smith and Jones, once "socialized," are equally poor and equally oppressed, but now above them looms an oligarchy of not-to-be-equalized equalizers. The inescapable rise of this "new class" -- privileged economically as well as politically, never quite ready to "wither away" -- forever destroys the possibility of a "classless" society. Here the lesson of socialism teaches what should have been learned from the lesson of pre-liberal despotism -- that state coercion is a means to no end but its own. Far from expanding equality from the political to the economic realm, the pursuit of "social justice" serves only to contract it within both. There will never be any kind of equality -- or real justice -- as long as a socialist elite stands behind the trigger while the rest of us kneel before the barrel.
The contemporary left remains possessed by the spirit of Marx, present even where he's not, and the best overview of his ideology remains Thomas Sowell's Marxism: Philosophy and Economics, which is complemented perfectly by the most accessible refutation of that ideology, David Conway's A Farewell to Marx. Hayek's majestic The Mirage of Social Justice is a challenging yet rewarding effort, while his The Road to Serfdom provides an unparalleled exposition of how freedom falls to tyranny. Moving from theory to practice, Communism: AHistory, Richard Pipes' slim survey, ably says all that is needed.
Seriously Dale, you stole a total of $500.00 in a period of a year and a half? Mathematical calculations would put it around an average of $27.75 a month. WTF Dale? Did your mind turn into puppy shit? Do you think that you live in Chicagostan?
Progdolytes just keep finding new lows. The Tribune has to do something to get some viewers and Sarah Palin is a draw. I wonder if I painted third grade images of Nancy Pelosi, Jan Schakowsky or some other Libturd broad if the Tribune would print it? What a terrible fish wrap it has become. Grow up Bruce Elliot, for a 65 year old libturd, when will you realize that since you progdolytes can't give a valid alternative to Conservatism, then the best that you can do is attack the messenger.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term used to describe people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.
The term was originally used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication was that although the people in question naïvely thought of themselves as an ally of the Soviet Union, they were actually held in contempt and were being cynically used. The use of the term in political discourse has since been extended to other propagandists, especially those who are seen to unwittingly support a malignant cause which they naively believe to be a force for good.
An early usage identified is in a 1948 article in the social-democratic Italian paper L'Umanita - as cited in a New York Times article on Italian politics of the same year. Despite often being attributed to Lenin, in 1987, Grant Harris, senior reference librarian at the Library of Congress, declared that "We have not been able to identify this phrase among [Lenin's] published works."
The Republican Party Establishment is trying to regain it's control of the GOP after a very contentious primary. They were able to get Mitt Romney as their front runner but it was through shrewd political wrangling and not through political popularism. The Tea Party will support whoever is the front runner because the primary process forced Mitt Romney closer to Conservative principles then he originally set out to represent. There is no question that he is not Conservative, his personal life is an example of what Conservatism espouses. He will get the support of the different elements of the Tea Party in the General Election on November 2012.
Obama is not getting the monetary support from the professional left. These useful idiots are so self centered that they feel that by withholding their financial support that they can punish the President for not have changing this nation further to the Left then they had hoped for. The Progressives have caused so much damage that it will take generations to fix their mess. It is humorous to note that they will be lined up against the wall with the rest of us when the true Left takes final control.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
The Catholic Church attempts to rid itself of the corrupting progressive infestation of 'social justice'. This is what has been attacking the christian faith from within and has been the root evil of what has brought so much damage to not only the Christian faiths but has been very active in undermining the Catholic Church. Satan has been very busy in his corruption.
MSM propagandist Comrade Rex W. Huppke, a Chicago Tribune reporter, writes a lengthy piece of garbage about facts. His real intent is to attack Florida Representative Allen West's revelation of the communist influence in the Democrats party members in the House. Rex' terrible article doesn't go on to provide any evidence or 'facts' for or against his comments. It is simply a satirical progdolytical attempt at humor with the intent to discredit Allen West. Nice try comrade, but unfortunately this will only work on the ignorant and your fellow travelers. Please progress to your communist party and goose step around your collective. I find it amusing why the owners of these newspaper cannot understand why nobody is buying these fish wraps. Could it be that more people are actually aware of this being a marxist propaganda lies?
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
Sunday, April 15, 2012
You ever wonder why whatever type of socialist there are, they just love to goose step? I figure that since America is heading in that direction anyways, we might as well figure out our own style of goose stepping. The NORK's babes seem to have a penchant for their hotties to goose step around during their many parades. I imagine that they don't want to be late arriving at one of their many communist parties. We'll be seeing this soon coming down Main Street, USA.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
I remember these the most because you sat there watching everything before the jump. You could actually get a couple in that day sometimes and we did them just to keep our jump status active in case the unit wasn't doing any jumps that month. They were called 'fun jumps' because we didn't have to take all of our gear and equipment on those.
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2009
RAVENSWOOD Detective pursues seemingly random '03 murder of aspiring actor
September 5, 2009
BY Maureen O'Donnell Staff Reporter
But even by Chicago standards, the slaying of Barry Cunnane seemed particularly senseless and vicious.
Cunnane, 27, was murdered six years ago in his Ravenswood neighborhood. An apparent stranger walked past him on the street, uttered a "flippant" phrase --and opened fire.
It was "a random act of obscene violence," said Belmont Area police Detective Robert Clemens.
Despite the years gone by, Clemens hasn't given up on the case.
"It's here someplace," he said, as he recently walked the 1900 block of West Leland, where the shooting took place. "Someone has the answer."
Cunnane was killed May 24, 2003. He and some friends had been at a party to celebrate the marriage of two other friends. When the party broke up, Cunnane and others stopped at Konak, a restaurant in the 5100 block of North Clark.
Then Cunnane and a friend walked through Andersonville toward a neighborhood bar in the 4700 block of North Damen. They headed west on Winnemac, south on Wolcott, and west in the 1900 block of Leland.
There, they saw two men, Cunnane's friend told police, walking eastbound on Leland. The friend described the men as African-American and between the ages of 18 and 25. One was about 6 feet tall; the other was about 5 feet 8 inches tall.
At the time of the slaying, Cunnane's friend reported one of the men said something "flippant" -- in a tone like "What's up?" -- and opened fire.
There was no attempt at robbery, Clemens said. There's no indication Cunnane or his companion exchanged words with anyone.
Cunnane, a native of Sandyford, County Dublin, Ireland, had high hopes for his life in Chicago. By day, he worked as a data specialist at an arm of the American Medical Association.
By night, he followed his dream of becoming a character actor in Chicago's theater scene. Friends say he was on his way with gigs at the St. Sebastian Players Theatre Company. He was also a gifted singer.
"His range was pretty excellent," said former co-worker David Olsen.
Jim Masini directed Cunnane and was impressed by his flair for accents and his generosity with other actors.
"He was an extremely intelligent and thoughtful actor," he said.
The slaying shattered Cunnane's family in Ireland and a close-knit group of friends in Chicago.
"It's bad luck to lose somebody to death," Olsen said. "But to lose somebody in a ... senseless way -- it affected a lot of people."
His friends initially raised $25,000 for reward money but have since disbursed it to local charities with the approval of Cunnane's family, said a former co-worker, Michael O'Malley. Cunnane's mother made sure some of the funds went to a mission for at-risk youth, O'Malley said: "She was adamant that [if] she could spare a mother in the future" from similar heartbreak, she would.
Clemens is asking anyone who remembers anything about that night -- ''no matter how inconsequential" -- to call Belmont Area detectives at (312) 744-8261.
So what happens when you have an incompetent Progdolyte for a mayor and his worthless minions closing police and detective stations down? They said that there would be more cops on the streets, but how can that be if there are over 600 retiring every year? A sixty percent rise in HOMICIDES!!!