Progessiveism, Socialism, Democracy : Freedom? Liberty?

This is an interesting note from the past. Here is someone that understands Republicans as ready to cave on any subject if it means being excluded. It seems Republicans haven't changed much over the years as we are watching the same nightmare unfolding now in our congress and many parts of our country. A prime example is California.

It's understandable that the members of congress that profess their beliefs in the Constitution as being the law of the land, and when they come under attack for those beliefs in the media, want only to be seen as good Americans, not some sort of deviant from the new 'norm'. The new 'norm', as understood by nearly half of the voting public and almost the entire media, is toward a form of Marxist socialism, that is, progressive liberal socialism. A Democratic socialism like found in Europe only more so, one further to the left of socialist Europe.

The only saving grace here is Conservatives are becoming the target now but they aren't caving under the pressure. The progressive socialist understands if the Conservative agenda of personal freedom and liberty is allowed to become the new 'norm', as it was for the last 220 years, the last ten years have had a decided shift to the far left, all is lost to fundamentally changing the country.


Joseph Schumpeter in "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy," 1942:

Perhaps the most striking feature of the picture is the extent to which the bourgeoisie, besides educating its own enemies, allows itself in turn to be educated by them. It absorbs the slogans of current radicalism and seems quite willing to undergo a process of conversion to a creed hostile to its very existence.

Haltingly and grudgingly it concedes in part the implications of that creed. This would be most astonishing & indeed very hard to explain were it not for the fact that the typical bourgeois is rapidly losing faith in his own creed. This is verified by the very characteristic manner in which particular capitalist interests and bourgeoisie as a whole behave when facing direct attack.

They talk and plead—or hire people to do it for them; they snatch at every chance of compromise; they are ever ready to give in; they never put up a fight under the flag of their own ideals and interests—in this country [the U.S.] there was no real resistance anywhere against the imposition of crushing financial burdens during the last decade [the 1930s] or against labor legislation incompatible with the effective management of industry. . . .

Means of defense were not entirely lacking and history is full of examples of the success of small groups who, believing in their cause, were resolved to stand by their guns.

The only explanation for the meekness we observe is that the bourgeois order no longer makes any sense to the bourgeoisie itself and that, when all is said and nothing is done, it does not really care.

A version of this article appeared January 4, 2013 , on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Notable & Quotable.