liberal vs radical

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House liberal vs radical

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #70791
    wv
    Participant

    #70792
    zn
    Moderator

    Some of that’s changing.

    Constructivism, for example. Many on the left contest the idea that we are social down to the somatic level.

    A lot of the other distinctions hold up I think.

    .

    #70802
    wv
    Participant

    she wrote a book thats online

    w
    v

    ====
    link:https://deepgreenresistance.net/en/resistance/liberals-radicals/history-of-liberalism/

    “….
    ……..In 1776, half the immigrants to America were indentured servants. Three out of four people in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia were or had been indentured, 20 percent of the population were slaves, and 10 percent of the population owned half the wealth. George Washington was the wealthiest man in America.

    Groups of people don’t endure oppression without some of them fighting back. This is true everywhere, no matter what. There were huge and fertile populist movements in America at that time, with visions for a true democracy that have yet to be equaled. For instance, the commoners seized control of the Pennsylvania statehouse and wrote the following into their constitution: “An enormous portion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights and destructive of the common happiness of mankind; and therefore every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property.”

    And here are a few other facts you probably didn’t learn in public school. Between 1675 and 1700, militant confrontations brought down governments in Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. By 1760 there had been eighteen rebellions aimed at overthrowing colonial governments, six black rebellions, and forty major riots. “Freedom from all foreign or domestic oligarchy!” was a slogan of the common people. “Domestic” referred to George Washington and his friends, the merchant-barons. People knew who their enemies were—most of them had been literally owned by the rich. Contrast their slogan to the following quote from John Jay, the president of the First Continental Congress and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: “The people who own the country ought to govern it.” In fact, common soldiers mounted multiple attacks against the headquarters of the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Nobody was taken in by the government that the merchant-barons were proposing.

    What the merchant-barons wanted was a centralized national government with the ability to coercively suppress internal dissent movements, regulate trade, protect private property, and subsidize infrastructure that would drive the economy. What they ultimately wanted was to gut a vast, living continent and turn it into wealth, and they didn’t want anyone to get in their way. That’s the trajectory this culture has been on for 10,000 years, since the beginning of agriculture. The only thing that has changed is who gets to benefit from that gutting.

    We need to understand the contradictory legacy of liberalism……see link for entire book…”

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.