Crucifixion Eclipse The Large Gizāh  Pyramid : Nostradamus’ Birthdate at Central Axis of Giza Pyramid :


  Welcome, Guest                        Michael Report  

[Contact, Search] World History - Yahoo! - Help

 : H O M E :  

 

 

 I N D E XBook of Life  Index  directory B I B L E Apocalypse Book of Revelationsdirectory W E B S> Internets  directory J O U R N A L  > Journal Directory directory G A L L E R Y >photo gallerydirectory W M D  > XLXXII  ARMAGEDON  directory G A M M A > gamma index 

Privacy  [Public]  

United States of America -- 1960s Great Society -- Part 1

[GUS05] updated web, not file 30 dec 2009

Cold War Liberalism

Web Global by Michael Johnathan McDonald

1960s

New Generation of US leaders:

On Jan 20th of 1961, John J. Kennedy (J.F.K. came into office) represented the United States of America  on the verge of a new beginning. He was a Catholic, and the U.S.A. had never elected a Catholic before; he was educated at Harvard.  He brought rhetoric of idealism and a higher cause – a selfless service…the new generation would carry the burden to carry the liberty… but caring of the Empire of Liberty, as Odd Arne Westad had understood the success of U.S.A. liberty.

President John J. Kennedy took office of the presidency in 1961 and turned his attention to foreign politics. As domestic affairs and reforms were low on his agenda, he was focused on the third world, he shifted from a European  de/neocolonialism to Latin America and the Asia, south pacific. With the Cuban missile crisis, and the Vietnam question he followed Eisenhower policy in Vietnam that if communist took over one south Asian country then a “domino theory” would appear and soon other countries would follow the communist model until it threatened the United States of America. Kennedy did not address civil rights as he was consumed with the Cold War agenda. President Charles De Gaulle warned that America should not get involved in Vietnam, but the United States wanted to support the country that helped found the United States of America, with its former south Asian colonies. In violation of the Geneva Agreement, Kennedy secretly sent military advisers to train South Vietnamese troops. Vietnam’s communist guerrilla warfare victory  was worshipped and used as  model by the New Left to fight a timid decolonization and Soviet model of engagement.

Cold War Liberalism? What does it tell us about Cold War Liberalism and about J.F.K   describing Kennedy’s international liberal agenda and another way to understand that they were strong advocate of New Deal (Truman example) but against communism?[1] “I would win the battle of the hearts and minds” to reshape Americans into the liberal image – the cold war was an idealistic crusade.” [2]

Black interventionism in Africa spurred on Racism back in the United States of America. Zaire, in the heart of sub Sahara Africa, and the Congo, and was led by Lumumba was worst than Castro it was claimed – it was a stretch. The Eisenhower administration, the CIA were used to keep the Belgian colonists in control as long as possible – and  Eisenhower got the  ball rolling in Congo.  This was still idealistic way to help the Africans, but also help the capitalist-liberal views in that controlling the uranium mines; it would keep the Soviets on the nuclear weapons defensive. As Kennedy’s recipe, the ideal communicated the Peace Corps and an economic aid program to Africa, the official rhetoric. As enormous vision on a global reach, Kennedy explained it as Africans needed economic assistance.

Assassination plans of Kennedy CIA: To Poison Lumumba’s food or his toothpaste demonstrated a plan to get rid of a anti-American leader. As U.S.A. recipe, he was assassinated but he turned into a martyr. The U.S.A. government installed Mobutu Seke Seko a violent but pro-American leader. Kennedy praised him and gave him US military support – because he was against the communists—he would remain the US favorite African leader until Reagan ( all pres…till ) term and he amassed several billion dollars – a fortune as the rest of the people remained poor – he helped stir up the Rwandan genocide – he left about 5,000,000 dead.[3] This was Cold War liberalism of the Kennedy administration – a Legacy. It was Cuba that was locked in a time warp, a police state and a U.S.A. embargo -- then the Congo proved a despair and mass death. When Kennedy took office the Civil Rights was in full swing, but the first two years of his administration he ignored the crisis, and shared the Eisenhower sentiment for two years that the Civil Rights was a communist takeover.

Cuba Colonization

Cuban missile crisis was part of a plan to bomb the missile sites that contained nuclear weapons brought over by Russian-Cuba agreements for security against a feared United States of American invasion – a post-decolonization – colonization/imperialism. But, what if they missed, and the Soviet’s launched?  Oct 22, J.F.K. on national Television drew a line in the Caribbean sea and stated that if they did not withdraw their missiles – then an act of war would be the result—and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba the U.S. military was beefing up it forces on the US base.  Two weeks the world waited, the Russian agreed to remove the missiles and the US agreed ( secretly to dismantle their  missiles in Turkey) but publicly it was announced  that the United States of America   would not invade Cuba. – this was the foundation of the U.N. decolonization Charter.

Why did it come close to nuclear holocaust to reach a reasonable solution? There is something behind this – the key behind this was the Cuban revolution – the status that the emergence from colonial Cuba and the US had held Cuba since 1901,  as a protectorate, and also the U.S.A.  had claimed the right to the Guantanamo naval base.[4] – but annulled the agreement in 1934 when Roosevelt was trying to improve relations with the island. Since then Cuba was controlled by the American crime syndicates and Cuban criminals. The island was a place to get away and gamble and live out hedonism, but Fidel Castro sought to liberate it from capitalism. In 1959, a young Cuban Lawyer lead a coup against Batista (American supported government). To the Eisenhower Administration, it was un acceptable to have a communist country so close to home ( think of the Monroe doctrine). So the CIA and Fidel Castro nationalized all US business and allied with the Soviet Union. Che Guevara, a Latin physician ( met Castro in Mexico) went to Castro’s regime to head the Cuban national bank and write about guerrilla warfare tactics before his own imperialistic programs in Africa, the communist movement at that time was called the July 26th movement, fought with Cuba in the revolution to liberate it from capitalist businesses.

The Communist western hemisphere movement symbolizes the idealism of the romantic revolutionary --- guided by a great deal of love for his revolution. It was the core revolutionary policy of guerrilla violent tactics – later worshipped by the new left, including on the model of the Great Proletarian Chinese revolution.  The Guatemala movements harden the physician, and Guevara turned violent. He was skeptical about the Soviet Union, considered them arrogant. However, Havana and Moscow idealistically tied their political knots, and the US accused the Havana as a pawn, but they saw it as a protector. Cuba had been an extension to the U.S.A. New Deal to the western Hemisphere – this was Alliance  -- the idea of the Peace Corps – sent to the world that the US was generally interested in proving their lives – but problem, Postel intends, U.S. finance  went to corrupt leaders.

Also called the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy tried to invade Cuba. On April 1961, and with no air cover ordered by Kennedy, the United States of America was decimated. With limited US air support because the world would see them on the radar, and announce to the world of US invasion as imperialism –the invasion failed because of this revelation. It was to invade another country—it intensified Kennedy’ passion for Cuba.

The Cubans were outraged because they were never consulted by Kruchev or Kennedy about the missiles. The core issue was the Cuban revolution and the break with colonialism. The memories of citizens  in U.S.A. considered this Kennedy’s finest hour – he negotiated the United States of America through a serious crisis. J.F.K. put together this quarantine. To most of the world, it reflected the failure of the U.S.A., who ruled the world with CIA operations and invasions called interventions. Think about Westad – it was ideological, and Cuban was not strong – it was economic, the sugar fields, it was about property, hemisphere power, and domestic political power –anti-communist rhetoric was a political hallmark of J.F. Kennedy’s passion.  To the USA conservatives, the Bay of Pigs was Kennedy’s greatest crime – to not allow air support, Postel intends. As nuclear weapons, it was a time of fear of a nuclear holocaust, the school teachers had the kids duck and cover underneath school desks – representing the fear of this time. As contradiction, Jackie O. was educated in France, and J.F.K. was young and handsome, as compared to Eisenhower as an old president. The Jet Set generation was the Kennedy generation and the United States of America saw his administration as romanticized with fairytales of Camelot.

As Robert Kennedy’s Guidance, Operation Mongoose, was to stir things up on the island with espionage, on the island -- stir it up and justify an US invasion. If US ( Oct 1962 was the plan to spread terror, poison sugar crops, assassination of Cuba leaders)  cause chaos, then the United States of American military could invade the country as an excuse.  At least 33 assassination plans to assassinate Castro, poison his cigars, took place.  Castro had long speeches, so the CIA planned to put LSD in the radio booth so he would broadcast incoherently and turn the people against his regime. The Mafia lost a paradise in Cuba, and these gangsters were willing to work with mobsters to restore their paradise in Cuba –so this was a complex program to restore Cuba – so Kennedy and the Mob were in relationships in a foreign political manner. As later stated, R. Mackmarra said,  if I was in Cuba during this time, I would believe the US was planning an invasion.[5] Cuba was another example of a countryside emerging from colonial or semi-colonial framework,  Westad intend, this could be seen in the twentieth century  over and over again --  this was pattern and they formed nationalism ( under the words communist/ or left-wing governments—some to capitalism but cannot run capitalism until foreign investment of interventionism in  industry.

Did Mongoose have any effect on the population? It had an opposite effect? The people unified -- which is exactly what happened.  Invading a small country can arouse national passion! The opposition to the Big-Cat, the US,  is what describes Cuba’s longevity, it gives the country legitimacy –“Look we stood up to the bullies, so our job is to show the world our society works and is more just.” Cuba was builtd under idealism of the Kennedy vision and did in fact affect Castro – who took the idealists – clashing with each other – so Cuba had to survive to win the psychological battle. What does this prove? Well Cuba has nice 1950 classic US automobiles, and universal healthcare –but no freedom like is known in the western world.  

However, the rhetoric of a just state, Guevara and Castro began to engage in neo-imperialism – the exact rhetoric they told their subjects not to do – to be a legitimate cause of world justice. The excuse does not matter, what matters was communism was no less likely to intervene in other societies as capitalism. The Cuban involvement in Ethiopia (1970s) and Angola ( ‘70s -- 1980s) demonstrated Cuban imperialist intervention. In the 1960s, Cuba is on the offensive, Cuban soldiers fought and died in decolonization – under Che core-guerrilla. Now these tactics moved from fighting the United States to fighting Africans in Africa.

Cuba was an urban labor revolution – for better work and lives.  Guantanamo, the original treaty with the Cuban at the end of Spanish Civil war, it said that US cannot leave unless the US agrees too. It was $4,000 a year, and since the first cashing of the check by Castro, the US says you cashed the first check you cannot have it  -- so now they put these checks in the desks. This is a symbol of American injustice and colonialism. It is a Godsend for Cubans who see Guantanamo as the US unjustness of the world – a rally point for other Third Worlds to understand the opposite the Empire of Liberty, Postel intends.

Kennedy was running against Nixon, and Kennedy had accused the Eisenhower of a missile gap – accusing the President of the Russian allowing the Russians to surpass the US in missile production – but this was fabrication – so this was supposed to be the Democratic who would be more aggressive than the Republicans/conservatives – and the Soviet knew that Kennedy was making up these fudge figures – and said nothing about the  “Jupiter missiles in turkey” at this time. Psychology,  Castro was perceived by the United States of America as an anti-personality, and arrogant, and fame mattered and not the revolution  -- understood in the world, the photos of Guevara and Fidel illustrated a different vision of ideological global conflict against American politics. This became the pattern of [Democratic Party at this time] US interventions [up until Nixon, then Clinton followed as continued until Bush, Jr. as well], which had always been make civil disorder and then we will come in and be the saviors – that has been the American recipe since the 1900s. Operation Mongoose was an example, Postel intends.  

1963, The nation faced a moral crisis – the US preached to freedom around the world, but at home not for Negros ( called at that time by part of white America). So after two  years, Kennedy had planned to initiate civil rights legislation.  But we do not know – he was assassinated—and the U.S.A. was shocked, and myth started, the assassination of a Pope, and his presidency blends in L.B. Johnson’s administration that was more aggressive on domestic reforms, including civil rights.

Lyndon Baines Johnson & Ordeal of Liberalism

Great Society

War on Poverty

Civil Rights

Tale of Two Conventions, 1964

Paper: Postel won a national prize for his book: Frederick Maverick (?) Turner Award. & won the Bancroft Prize. Columbia University issues the award, see wikipedia. That is the institutional side. Be aware that there is a personal side. I was an undergraduate (1993), and then what you do is go into a tunnel, read books, be at your desk, it is unrewarding life ( you spend 8 years working on a book). Gets call from literary agents to come teach at their school.  – postel. After Spring Break, I will miss two weeks of school. Will show a movie, and bring in a professor to talk on the Ap. 11 ( not doing Berkeley in the ‘60s) on Thursday ( then start on 1968 on Thursday, then after spring break will do Berkeley in the 60s and the wave of feminism. ( We will miss black power, for now).

Lecture begins here: Postpone first draft until April 1st. to the whole class. (there was a suicide on the Cal Baseball team, that has affected some students.

Great Society:

When John F. Kennedy was shot, it began one of the most remarkable presidencies in the United States of American history, according to Charles Postel. Yet it was not well understood, he intends. When looking back to this time period, people only saw the smoke and fire of the protests that lead to Johnson’s decision of not trying to retain the office of the presidency. Students that protested across the world believed they had bright down a U.S. president.  Lyndon Baines Johnson had grown up in an impoverish section of Texas, and he lived amongst Mexicans. Most of the students were Mexican American students, and he taught them in school – it was a tough life, so he plunged into Politics. He became one of the most powerful Senators in U.S.  history, Postel claims.  He knew how to force people to change sides in during votes ( postel says “Shakedown other to change their votes). The difference between Kennedy and Johnson were Johnson’s chief concerns of the abetment of the 1930s New Deal. The 1964 Democratic Convention, at Atlantic City, NJ, Johnson at the convention reiterated to return the U.S.A. to F.D.R.’s vision of “freedom from want” – an issue of the F.D.R. Four Freedom Speech -- which was removed from politics in the 1950s, as other agendas were considered then; now they returned. For Johnson, the government was an instrument for positive [social, economic and political] change, Postel claims. Kingship throughout history has been considered centralized government. Now, if the vision is that government is a force of positive change, then centralizing by way of kingship ( this sense the president and his court and lawmakers) can solve the state’s problems, mjm. At the same time, however the Democratic Party, according to Postel, has changed to champion states’ rights. Formerly the Republican party had controlled this role in U.S. A. history.  This is however a contradiction in force, being two forces working against each other. Since 1938, the New Deal, there was a stalling – and some setbacks as the Taft-Hartley Act took the extreme socialistic proclivities out of the U.S.A. equation for consumerism success. The second phase of the New Deal was L.B.J.’s pet project.

Great Society/ L.B.J.: Medicaid, Medicare, Dept of Housing and Urban Development, National Endowment for Humanities/Arts, and National Public Broadcasting, Highway beautification, Sesame Street. These were some of the major elements of the Great Society – other pieces of this could included the Apollo mission – he believing  anything could be accomplished through public effort, Postel claims. But public effort decry’s the role of government’s force onto its citizens to enact their will.

As part of the second phase terminology, everything that was a social problem, or perceived as such, had a linguist phrase attached called “ war on…” As example, war on poverty was L.B.J.’s contribution. The War on Drugs, a Nancy Regan articulated program, the War on Terrorism, by George Bush, Jr., and finally the War on this or that cause, as was the case from the second phase of the New Deal onward. How war in its phrasing is cast from this point on reflected the societies distainment of interventionalistic foreign wars – and turning to wars at home, as civil rights riots, demonstrations, and repression provided war had come home to the United states of America on its own soil. Since the counter culture had disturbed the protestant movement, renationalizing itself as a group opposed to instant gratification and non-commitment to hard work for a better future, the Regan administration made a war on Drugs campaign – legislating stiffer penalties for drug smugglers, drug attics and drug dealers. The nihilistic tendency of the counter culture upset many rural American citizens. The 1950s VA and FHA had led to the 1960s as the most prosperous time in U.S.A. history. Deindustrialization of certain cities, giving rise to suburban garden cities and industrial garden cities “created” the U.S.A. middle class. Once the middle class was established in U.S.A. history, the fall out over the bourgeoisie and proletariat took on dimensions to destroy it.

The rise of suburbia is connected to the middle class in that the VA and FHA visions, as well as municipal state’s building programs were aimed at single family housing – a protestant vision of the importance of the family unit. However, deindustrialization of the cities led to the poor folk inhabiting deteriorating building leading to slums – mainly minorities’. In addition, poor white folk also took the brunt of the poverty issue in Appellations under L.B.J.’s War on Poverty. If the bourgeois was the middle class then all of America citizens were not bourgeoisies. As result, the counter culture monopolized on these evidences, and part of their protests rallied behind the “unequalness” in comparison to Jefferson’s all people are equal argument. As part of the war on nouns, the War on Poverty made a considerable headway into the Johnson administration.

Michael Harrington, The Other America, (1962)  argued that  prosperity was its height. Book focused on social political west, but it became mainstream politics. Forty to Fifty million people in the United States of America lived in poverty; the study located the poverty in structural-graphical change.” It was driven by mechanization of agriculture; small farming resulted in lay-offs and people’s work. Auto Industry was becoming mechanized. As Postel intends, poverty was invisible to the suburban middle class. In response, L.B.J. created poverty programs, like “Head Start” (and “Vista”) a preschool program for children, and the “Office of Economic Opportunity,” a major  institution to address poverty. Prosperity to African Americans was a part of his program. Within four days of J.F.K. assassination, L.B.J. put civil rights at the top of his agenda. Civil Rights also banned discrimination on gender. A southern political official tried to stop women from equal rights. The southern segregationist believed this would sink the proposal of “all civil rights,” and had little to do with suppression of women in the workforce.  But segregationist idea backfired. In Selma Alabama, M. L. King, Jr., illustrated the non-equality of blacks -- with only 15,000 out of 355,000 blacks that had the rights’ to vote. King,  jr. led a march for civil rights. It was something of a turning point. And Johnson recognized it, and as a southern born president sang “We shall overcome,” a back southern Anthem. Federal officials then went into Mississippi and went into south to register voters. To the international community, and even to China who was surprised that the U.S.A. was making headway into civil rights, Tse-tung went ethnically Chinese as nationalistic – trying to deal with the fallout of kicking the Soviets out of China. The Russians had concluded during the Vietnam War that “orientals” were not going to integrate with the white west – and therefore problems of continuing the world communist revolution hit snags. It was here that Tse-tung, who believed China would take over control of the world proletariat revolution.  However, both China’s government and the Russian government were solely ethnically solid and monolithic. While the United States of America was rhetorically called racist and white monolithic in scope, its counterparts were no better in practice – they were better only in neo-quasi- Marxist rhetoric. Europeans saw the Soviet Union as imperialist in the 1960s, no better than the imperialist United States of America. However, since the Soviet Union’s rhetoric was Marxist which emphasizes justice and diversity protestors focused on the United States of America and the number one world enemy. What was not understood was that for a nation, state, country or whatever one calls the Superpower of its age, the economic domination of world markets was the single reason that the United States of America was prospering in the 1960s.

After World War II, the United States of America had quickly, by 1944 and 1945 learnt the system of mass production, at a speed unheard of in history. Even with deindustrialization of the military proper after the war, the domestic, scientific military, and the international market opportunities dominated the United States of American policy.

As United States of American socialist do not want to have a discussion about is how to enact a stern progressive tax and at the same time do not “new imperialize” foreign markets. If we take the Tokugawa model, we understand their socialism faltered at a progressive city tax and the city people fled to the country side’s free market opportunity and employment. They did not flee because of rhetoric of capitalism is better than socialism, but because employment opportunities in the countryside were legally not taxed in jurisdiction of the Bakufu. In the U.S.A. socialist model, beginning under F.D.R.’s globalism tactics, if the United States mentors – that is educate and direct the foreign government structure to capitalism, then the United States of America will have a business partner – but better understood as a dumping ground for American products. One dumping the U.S.A. industrial products, like rubberware, plasticware (Kabul)  and other new U.S. inventions, the money made from foreign farmers to city workers goes to the United States of American industry which pays its employees who in turn pay the government taxes which in turn pay for public programs to win public support politically.

In addition, by re industrializing west Germany, and Japan, the United States would save money by not engaging in another global war because they wanted a piece of the pie as well. In U.S.A. philosophy, at least at some variable, the global market was big enough for foreign competition. At the same time, consumerism reeks of a Marxist principle of non-loyalty. For example, if the market is free and importation of foreign cheaper products eludes the domestic equivalent, then consumers will purchase the cheaper foreign product and put domestic workers – their countrypeople out profit and growth economic base.

As the United States was prospering under semi-capitalism, the Soviet Union after is imperial possession gathering faltered in its economy because of strict market policies. While the Soviet Union was seen as more moral, just and equal than its competitor (minus the KGB, and Stalin murderous repressions), the people were basically living the life of peasants – and little if any middle class existed. As the majority of Russian peasants, watching state run T.V. and counting bread crumbs as entertainment was the Soviet Unions’ version of liberty. To have a better life was the Soviet military, the Soviet Party and/or escape.  As comparisons, The United States of American social Insurance and public assistance was predicated upon foreign new imperialism and understood as domestic reform. It was not that capitalism, which it was not in America, it was more semi-socialism was better than Soviet Socialism; it was the United States of America had a faster start on mass-education, indoctrination and spirit for imperialism. The United States military complex in the 1960s was superior to the Russians and ultimately explains the United States of American economy as dominant.  Since Marx had already proven capitalism as imperialistic, and socialism as so as well, then there was no need to foster the solution to “justice” as justice could never be enacted as Jefferson had proclaimed. By the 1960s, The Soviets were in full new-imperialistic stages understood by the non-alignment states as well as the Middle East and china as so. At this time, The United States of America and the Soviet Union formally began to understand that they could speak to each other (Stalin did not allow this) as equals but still consider competition for “economic” rights in foreign influence. While telling the world it was justice against American evil, the Soviets were in fact for economic power that drove the cold war from now on till the soviet collapse. The Soviets now understood it was not freedom, justice, and liberty of the United States that made their economic engines run, but military and intervention dominance. Part of the game was training foreign militaries, paying foreign militaries, providing military equipment for states to fight states so the big-fist (the two dominates) could clean up the mess and take over the results of war.

While these battles were going on deep inside Washington and Moscow, the average United States of American citizen was crying for better living conditions predicated on injustice. They had no idea that everything around them was drawn upon by injustice. The only thing they could see was another citizen had more material possessions that they had – and that was injustice and not the Jeffersonian way.  For some-odd fifty years the Democratic Party led the United States of America to the economic superpower predicated on global domination a striking contrast to the isolationist policy of the First two neutrality acts and ending with the third Neutrality act that legislated the Lend-Leas programs and onto decision after World War II to facilitate over 200 major military bases throughout the world for economic, tactical and influential purposes – all in the name of Jeffersonian liberty and freedom. The effects were domestic struggles for the wealth at the home front and civil rights were a part of distributing the imperialistic wealth associated with that liberty and freedom. It needs to be understood that most if not the large proportion of the United States of American Citizens did not understand liberty and freedom in this capacity. In released documents from government all over the world, we now know they understood that the U.S.A. rose in this imperialistic measure – called interventionism beginning with decolonization. Decolonization did not solve the under developed nations problems of equal market shared, and can be understood of the many revolutions that resulted after World War two as a way to cope with foreign governments leaving those ‘mentored” states, or as the colonized saw it as the imperialist states. One of those problems that came to light is Tse-tung begging the United States of America to help them stop the Russians from imperializing their northern borders at the end of the 1960s. Tse-tung despised the United States of America but saw no other choice as non-free markets led China to its own version of isolationism in the 1960s after the CCP kicked out the Russian mentors. The mentoring program, although flawed as morality of justice, was the only way in which to get vital industrialized training, vital education, and vital social moral in which to industrialize.

Racial Immigration Laws: The Society of Jefferson, all Are Equal had its racial coloring in the 1960s.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Voting Rights Act of 1965

Hart-Celler, or Immigration Act of 1965

Quotas and (a.k.a. called caps) were changing the structure of immigration into the U.S.A., immigration policies at the wake of Vietnam; but those were special provisions from people fleeing communism from Asia. Iron Curtain countries were eligible, after a person escaping they became celebrities ( like Cubans). “There is an irony in this,” Postel claims.  Immigration of the western hemisphere was never in the quota systems, but now becomes into the quotas (since the 1890s immigration laws and in 1965 western hemisphere immigration -- that was gone)   -- and southerners put it in the bill that the southern boarder of Latin America ( the Latins) would be put on the quota system ( illegal immigration) “ This is an important term in non-racial” programs. Postel. L.B.J. sought to limit the deep pockets of poverty, and that was citizenship and reframing citizenship – as result we have a much more integrated democracy. Statements like the United states should be like many ethnicities ( races) and many religions and many nationalities – “this was important change in American citizenship,” Postel intends. By L.B.J. presidency was about a policy of justice, humanity and…..” Postel. Why did the warring factions in the streets of America explode during his president? L.B.J. said he refused to run for a second term, many pundits say that he would have won re-election. Previously, immigration was a racial topic in state and federal discussions.

Two major issues of poverty, Appellations: attention to poor white people, white rural folk, and the urban slums, mainly dealing with African Americans. Prior to the changing of immigrations laws, Puerto Rico slums were also a part of poverty living conditions. But this was where poverty was attacked ( as in a war). Michael H. said most people that were poor were white folk.

How does the government afford these programs (Postel) ? This is a very important question, Postel intends. The basic idea was, is that if you have a progressive tax you can shuffle taxes around to distribute wealth? Why then during L.B.J. The economy was booming ( Postel does not mention that it was economic imperialism). It was very expensive to run a war Vietnam. The most expensive taxes went to Medicare ( today most people pay taxes that do go to Medicare).

Was there a African civil rights and ( world-color-line had to be changed) connection to relationship of decolonization abroad?  Kennedy was advert about this, but “Johnson was actually passions about his administration, a great irony…” to some --- but Hoover was still in charged at the F.B.I. and black civil rights movement was still singled out by the F.B.I., and this was done under Johnson’s control. It did bring down his administration in that light, but as Postel claims, Johnson was passionate about civil rights, as compared to J.F. Kennedy that did not put it as his top priority.

A great deal was said about the war on poverty, but it depends on a political questioning. Many ways, it worked if one measures by certain perspectives. It cut it in half, Postel exclaims. One had to ask poor people who had never went to a doctor, prior to Johnson’s ( second phase of the New Deal) “Great Society” programs. “It demonstrated the power of government to change people’s lives,” Postel intends. “Government policies had a large impact on poverty,” Postel.  From 1955-1960, Real Average Weekly Wages, W.W. Norton chart, peoples standard of living was huge, a single family house, car and quality. This was an epic. But in another chart, the equality of wages under Johnson’s shows the most equality of all population in the US compared to today and yesterday.  [ mjm, yet we must understand the international economic dominance to understand that the United States of America could force those progressive taxes without collapsing the economy, at this time]

Now charts of integration of blacks allowed to vote ( register to vote, in Mississippi, a revolution of a type).  This is counted in the measure of success of the policies in the Johnson administration, Postel intends.  This was a great change. Immigration, 1960-2000, Latin America is immigrating. Cesar Chavez put Latin politics on the map in the 1960s, with poor Latin farmer rights. He considered himself as a trade-unionist activist, and not a civil rights activist. One of his concerns was illegal immigration and this would bring down unionization of Latins (or Mexican Americans) – this was part of the second wave of New Dealism in America.

Postel: Social policy works in the USA – there are two kinds.

  • Social Insurance
  • Public Assistance.  ( only one-tenth of the cost of the deserving side)

(deserving) Social Security, Medicare, Deserving, 1970= $30.3 billion, 1984=180.9 billion,

(undeserving, as populously seen) ( Public assistance [ core of what is known as welfare]: Aid to families, Undeserving poor, 1970= $3 billion, 1984=8.3. billion ( it becomes a political taboo, throwing money at undeserving people  -- people that cannot know how to use that money. ) [mjm—however, with what is spent on war in one month could be made available one-million dollars to each U.S. citizen. But this is economically disastrous,  economists would say] Public assistance, as the anti-public assistant proponents would say that people that have bad habits, the people that drink, that people that do not want to work hard is not a solution. How to aid dependant families, this was not a Johnson program it was an original Roosevelt New Deal – of subsidize housing.

(Harrington --) Racial discrimination, and mechanization of the U.S. workforce, in connection to the ups and downs of a capitalist society ( postel will not discuss the forbidden discourse – that of U.S. economic foreign market dominance to bring in the capital to finance social welfare) these are structural unemployment issues. Since Tse-tung had the original plan to make his China a social just society, he could not make Chinese life-standards rise in comparison to Russia or the U.S.A. because China had no international market value under Tse-tung’s strict socialist economy. Tse-tung had no tax base in which to offer his citizens social welfare. It is vital to understand that in the U.S.A. the talk about social justice and the evils of certain individuals and groups as restricting that social justice is “never” understood that in order to facilitate this justice, a state must economically dominate – that is exploit foreign peoples and markets to justify their “justice” programs domestically. One cannot blame Tse-tung for trying to enact social justice, it was implausible to do so under the immense population of peasant economies in Chinese territories. Peasants do not pay sufficient taxes.

Structural Unemployment

Job programs

Access

Income security

 

Culture of Poverty * heart of Johnson’s Great Society (was the undeserving section Postel talks about). Pay attention to R. O. Self:  OEO, what it meant that being trained for Jobs that did not exist for blacks, such as working on the BART, in Oakland. In the 1960s, and under the Johnson administration, the key to black employment was education. However, empirically this was not the solution. Blacks after finishing training were bared by whites in government high-paying employment.

Head Start ( relatively cheap program)

Office of Economic Opportunity – train people in habits of work – it is a great idea, but the contradiction is what if one does not have access to those jobs because of racial discrimination, and or mechanization?  

Being Frozen Out: Structural Unemployment – that becomes the focus of the movement, in Detroit 1967 – the Johnson policy was going up in flames because the auto industry was still barring a great share of black agency.

Robert O. Self: Colonialization of whites in suburbs reflected a white dominated United states of America with its White Police force, and its freezing out blacks from federal employment --  that was the big issues of the uprisings. Johnson may have been for civil rights, but saying something in the White House and doing something at the local level is another question.

Tale of Two conventions, 1964: Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Freedom summer, NAACP, south and north coalition that unites the civil rights, that was black people had the right to vote – the capstone of the movement. Murders in the south, forced the civil rights movement not to trust the President ( Johnson), so the blacks ( some whites) set up a Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party ( MFDP), but when they got Atlantic city, the convention only recognized the  whites in the delegation ( a whites only party of democrats, no blacks allowed in the hall – by white democratic supremacists).

Southern Democratic Party (et. al. since the founding) White Supremacy (c. 1700s-1964) now replaced By Republican South Party white supremacy (1964- present). In the Bible, slavery had existed and was not protested in the bible as a moral issue. The Southern Democrats and their forerunner parties in the South of the Untied States of America and even until colonial times did not see enslaving blacks as anti-Christian.   In the Bible slavery was commonplace, and was not protested by Jesus, although slavery existed in his day.  In fact, as contradictory, parts of the New Testament speak of following the leaders of society, as authority figures, and other parts speak of following only God, in a personal way (i.e. Martin Luther).  Since the Whites were the authority figures and correct with God’s notion of following the ones that know – slavery was rationalized.

It is in the Mid-1960s that Postel claims that the Democratic Party reformed its racial denotations and connotations and the Republican Party replaced the ideology of white supremacy [ although, I’m not sure the Republican Party holds this as doctrinal, as the south once did, mjm]. Nevertheless, it was now that the Sothern Democratic Break with George Wallace, and the New Segregated White Democratic/Republican Party of the south, white supremacy begins. Part of the empirical evidence Postel uses is Strong Thurman’s conservative stance.

The Democratic Party exposed shamed and guilty results in an ideological change within the party.

At the Democratic Convention of 1964,  Fannie Lou Hamer, a black snake, held TV audience spellbound as she told of the beatings and racism in the south, which was Hemer’s appeal. And Johnson as a politician fears of more riots, and the democratic party offered a compromise, and said you could have two observer delegates that could sit in the balcony but no votes – all televised, It was white supremacy on TV—it was National Television – and Johnson did not act, it was  case of Johnson’s words and deeds – so his words alienate the southern whites from the convention – they did into come or walked out. So the white  ( follow George Wallace, and supremacy that becomes the Republican Base in the South – alienated from the democratic part)

Barry Goldwater: This was the break, according to Postel.

Tale of Two Conventions, 1964

Atlantic City, New Jersey

Freedom Summer

Young Americans for Freedom, Sharon Statement, 1960.

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

Grass Roots a part of the Civil Rights strategy beginning in the mid-fifties but activating a wide spread adoption by the 1960s.

The Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP)  had  changed US political parties from before till now. It was a political-social shift. It was the grass-roots that took over the Democratic Party.  We must bring about a change, the white supremacist had said – due to being exposed as guilty at the Atlanta Convention

 The goal: Trying to get black issues into the Democratic Party.

Atlantic City Convention of 1964, the key to understanding this was how this was impacted by the Freedom summer, a ultimate expression of grass-roots:  farmers, poor, disaffected, plantation  ( field worker) core activists -- all which had organized the Freedom Summer. A striking feature of this movement was that activists from the university campuses, and most were white folk, went down to Mississippi and participated in civil rights for blacks, which  took courage ( See Robert Williams, “Negros with Guns” (1962) – the freedom riders, a prior grass roots campaign ) as three activists were murdered, and that was tip of the iceberg.  Beatings, intimidations, and activism produced tremendous political repercussions, it produced the Freedom Mississippi Party, and had a huge impact in shaping the Democratic Party for the rest of the century, Postel claims. The Democratic Party refused to seat the MFDP Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, giving them two non-voting seats. As televised and reported heavily in the news cycles, the Democrats were caught saying one thing and doing another.

The great institutional shift that changed Party lines from then until now. -- postel

At the Cow Palace, San Francisco, the rise of the Democratic shift in the west coast. A Senator from Arizona, whose name was Barry Goldwater,  was known at that time as employing a strict patriotic stance against the world –“if US had enemies, we had the atom bomb.” He was about reversing the New Deal, Postel claims. ( Barry Goldwater wrote a book that sold over, 3,000,000, a  very popular book for the Republican Party.  It reflected a turn toward totalitarianism[6], Postel intends, and it was a basic program that advocated the privatization of Security program, Postel).  The political imagery was not to attack grammas, but to attack the “War on Poverty,” to dismiss it faulty statistics. 

This was foundational of the Conservative movement. The welfare queen drove a pink Cadillac -- automobiles, going to the store and swapping food stamps for alcohol. This became the supreme imagery of the conservative movement against welfare state, Postel claims.  Every government program suffers abuse, Postel says, so this change by the conservatives was unnecessary. It started at the San Francisco, a city that drove the Republican Party for 30 years – this imagery was powerful and it had its affects. At the time, these politics of abolishing the second phase of the New Deal was considered an extraordinary extremist position – this describes the landslide that Goldwater had suffered. As Postel correctly observed, these shifts were not understood at that time took place. I contend that the white hippy counter culture was also a part of this shift. Free handouts by the government to the white counter culturalists who were bashing everything American ( U.S.A.) received this shifting backlash as ungrateful citizens as viewed by the protestant working class of white party politics. The problem was it affected the minority groups even more than the white hippies of the counter revolution.

As Postel intends, The white southern vote since reconstruction identified for over a century that Republicans were known as Niger lovers.  But for the first time by 1964, the white south votes Republican. This rhetoric about welfare queen, and the Republicans ‘now’ adopted states- rights – and this had been the Democrats of the south’s rhetoric ( states rights) during slavery –onward;  and not the Republican’s  rhetoric – it was federalism – and now the Republicans adopted this strategy of states rights’ viewpoint and it illustrated legislation that was against civil rights legislation. L.B. Johnson, as Postel claims, said “I think we have delivered the south (1964) to the south.”  (it was an underground shift, that no one understood at the time)

Goldwater’s speech marked the end of the moderate Republican. The extremist conservative (republican position) now emerged, Postel intends. Prior, the Republicans accepted the New Deal, we should have protection against the defenseless – and most republicans accepted that –up till 1964. Goldwater, and the destruction of the new deal, considered the Great Society, second phase of the New Deal as a communist conspiracy. “I want to address that Goldwater is ok today, but in 1964, it was radical and no one thought it was rational – even the republicans, Postel intends. There were activists for this too – the Young Americans for Freedom. One needs to understand that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have grass root movements that demonstrate arguments for freedom – is it the same freedom, Postel asks?

Shift of the Republican, according to Postel.

Founded in William Buckley’s estates (adopted free market-absolutism), at the time he made an alliance with white supremacy (1962 bestowed their freedom award on Strong Thurmond), he was leader of the Dixiecrate party prior to the Convention: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” Shifts in politics was not well understood at that time, There was theater, great drama in the streets which led to L.B. Johnson to retire to his ranch, with the US in flames ( passion in the street).

Cal Crazy Movement of 1960s

The Free Speech Movement at the University of California

Mario Savio, a University of California, Berkeley student, came to tell the world about freedom summer movement, and that is why Mario Salvo wanted tabling on Sproul Plaza, at the University of California, Berkeley -- to tell the world. The faculty and administration were split, but issues of off-campus issues were at the heart of the problem. Since the University of California constantly discusses how unjust whites are to blacks, it became apparent that white faculty were heading up the university while at the same time the Vietnam war, civil rights and American street wars enflamed passions of the students – plus the rigorous exams tipped the psychological stability of the students who began to march around in pageantry protest. Since communism rhetoric framed their argument as society should be diversified in ethnicity – while not knowing the facts about ethnocentric Chinese leadership, or ethnocentric Soviet leadership, the U.S.A.’s involvement in Vietnam provided the vehicle for in which to demonstrate Bezerk emotionalism to media, and communist propaganda manipulation. After everything calmed down by the end of the 1960s, people looked back and said – “what was it all about?” The University did not change its white establishment, nor did the University white kids disown their university. Since the world was protesting over the U.S.A. involvement  in Vietnam, in which their was no real threat to the global society if Ho Chi Mhin would have taken over the south section of the country, the students felt guilt to such a level they reacted the only way they could – that way was intense emotionalism at unfounded knowledge. If Communist was actually racially diverse, then by 2008 as I have written this, we would have concluded that the Berkeley protests for diversity and ethnic inclusion of world governments as opposed to Racist white government would have been empirically credited as a truism – it cannot because those regimes only spoke on racial diversity but in the end never practiced it. Be that it may, communist propaganda led to powerful protests in the Bay Area and the delusionalized Free Speech Movement.

Students now were fighting the authorities – the war. The Committee on Un-American Activities – this is what the Berkeley students were trying to overthrow -- it was called something – engaged in a vast (operation abolition) – a conspiracy by a film of the HUAC. Although McCarthyism was defamed long ago, the search for communists in American midst became an issue tied to the civil rights movement and to U.S. academia. Sine the U.C. Berkeley students believed that by overthrowing authority then automatically racial diversity would come into fruition became the central theme for the hysteria. At the same time, marijuana and L.S.D. and other drugs in the Bay Area had exacerbated a dream world of possibly utopia – that was actually a plea for peace.

Operation Abolition” had been active in Berkeley. So many went to the Bay Area as reaction to eradicate this capitalist scourge; Since the socialists Chinese, and Soviets had propagated that Capitalism was the evil of mankind, any attack against communism was seen as an attack on one’s life in the Bay Area student population – while they were engaged in smoking-out. Concurrently, the IT department was beginning the Internet phases of computers, the communications for the future world were being investigated, and underground newspapers of the early 1960s counterculture led to information dispersion – often outsourced and wrong – but acted upon. Dr, Clark Kerr, talked in a speech about the transformation of information because of new technology in communication – and knowledge production is growing at twice the rate than the rest of the economy. At the same time mechanization scared the students in that what would they do when all the jobs had left the United States of America? The focal point of the national growth (deindustrialization) – this was research in IT, and possibly a shift from industry to service and research jobs. How would US citizens find work, and support wars that took so much money in the world? Disfranchisement possibly set in, then as result, a reaction to protests against the change.  As the movie The Graduate, people came to Berkeley to seek what they called the truth and decided not to take a secured and prosperous job (in plastics). Yet, not Hollywood fantasy, but U.C. Berkeley reality, students feared that losing Vietnam actually meant other countries would close off their markets to the U.S.A. and therefore no jobs would be left to them. There were complicated issues involved on campus, including affordable housing, and the lack thereof. There were racial issues of blacks being trained but being excluded from federal and local business – and they started to become violent affecting the white students. The administration was hanging on to its white traditions.

Subject: Off campus issues – is what the students were attacking, called by the administration, the sandbox issues. They were throwing student groups’ off-campus. and the UC administration reacted and fought the students that wanted to bring information from around the world of student activism to campus --  civil rights issues on to “campus grounds.” The administration believed that the students were going to overthrow the faculty – in which the official story claims about the Free Speech Movement – the overthrow of authority—and the paternalism of the Universities foundation was overturned to what it is today – paternalism. Anti-climatic, the students believed they had won a great victory in the 1960s. But what did they really win? The racial makeup of blacks in the teaching faculty is exactly the same as it was forty-years ago (40-47 black teaching-faculty in all, as average over a 40 year-span). The University continues to be dominated by the White establishment. Part of this could be explained in that when the kids grew-up and began to read some of the translations from the Soviet Archives and the Chinese archives, they found out that communist was not as diverse as it was claimed by these regimes in the 1960s. In effect, they were racial pure regimes – they had their own ethnic supremacy problem. While the Bay Area considers much of Los Angeles as white conservatives, there are many black presidents, vice presidents, and Latin leaders in its communities – whereas in the Bay Area the white still talk a good talk or racial diversity – but do not seem to vote for it making the comparison as stark contrast to its southern neighbor.

(Official Story) 1963, Blacks and Berkeley students joined in activists’ movement in the Bay Area to protest segregation working conditions. As students, they were going to force the establishment to reform by protests. Sheraton Palace arrest(s) was the first major victory – to hire minority individuals. It was part of the preamble of the Constitution – the equality parts. Yet, the communist saw it as a threat – about 500-800 students were involved – the communist felt threatened.

As UC reaction to these students, a ban on campus tabling was put into affect. It was put into practice as the students understood were to stop civil rights activity – the UC said put activism back on to the streets. The students said no. They kept protesting and to force the faculty (or the faculty that were trying to stop the students from protesting.). The said “must stand up for your freedom “now!”  Oct 1st, 1964.  

“I do not take questions, I used to live in Chicago, Mayer Daily, you do what I tell you to do. ”[7]

COFO ( Council of Federated Organizations)

Global counterculture 1960

Protestant Revolution, a continuation into the 1960s:

Calvin: Thrift, discipline and working hard, keeping daily lists as a record to see if one can get into heaven – how is one making progress in their faith. Calvin’s predestination to God’s acceptability if one works hard for the goodness of society and close relationship with family.

Evangelicals: reaction against the counter-culture, a reaction against the embarrassment of the generation of sex, drugs and Rock & Roll.

Counter culture: instant gratification, disillusionment, undisciplined, the generation of sex, drugs and Rock & Roll.  No emphasis on authority, children against their parents, no hope against the machine or called the system.  

Chinese Cultural Revolution (official name “The Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution” : Students rise up against the teachers, as ordered by Mao Tse-tung who believe they are the bourgeoisie, revisionists, and evil in society. Part of this reaction was (1) Mao to return to power after being put out of commission  by his own party; (2) a reaction to Sino-Soviet split; (3) Tse-tung had been preaching ever since his rise to power that the United States of America had been on the decline. Evidence shows that the United States of America is dealing with racism, and its role in the world. Richard Nixon begins to understand that America is not the leader but a nation as part of other nations.

1968: Prague, Shanghai, Paris, Mexico City witness student protests for liberty -- Youth Protests of the Liberty, and a reaction to who was the liberator and what was liberty. A counter culture with a political break from the past was as true in the east as well as the west – the peace campus(es), the students, the Russians breaking with China, Russia imperializing and being seen by the non-alignment or semi-alignment nations, the US fighting in Vietnam – the out lash of hysteria – and Lyndon Baines Johnson stepping down and not considering another run for the White House seen all over the world as the underdeveloped countries had brought down a presidency.

1968 was a time when revolution transformation was taking place globally. The Russian annexation of Czechoslovakia (1968) was less protested in the United States of America than in Europe -- yet still Vietnam was a larger global issue to students around the world. Reform leaders come to power in a totalitarian system to Czechoslovakia government, and they are adopting “socialism with a different face.” Meanwhile, the United States of America will be embroiled with a bombing campaign in Vietnam that will try not to appear as area-bombing – yet after it is all said and done over seven-times the tonnage of bombs used in World War II are used on Vietnam – the U.S.A. tried to make North Vietnam into a parking lot. Czechoslovakia was imperialism, phrased as taking place in “soviet orbit,” ( note the space age lingoism)

In Shanghai, it was the height of the demonstration in China. It was explained a revolt of the people against the capitalist erodeists (they referred here ‘also’ to the Soviet Capitalists) – this was a termed democracy ( see constitutions of CCP China – which used the word democracy and not communism) defined from the bottom down, the people revolution against the capitalists. It was chaos; it was calling for a social transformation from below. It was quite influential at that time, the Chinese –Russian split was complete, and it manifested in the streets.

May 1968, uprising in Pairs, radical were connected to worker-student alliances.

At Paris, it was a nation-wide student revolt, it was like Berkeley, California, revolt. The students go on a national strike, and the workers showed solidarity by going on strike with them. The silk screen imagery in Paris tells the story of students, workers and activists against the reality of the wars of the earth. At Berkeley, the student revolts were connected to every cause imaginable that they saw as “tradition.” Although it was a reaction to ending of tabling on Sproul Plaza, apparently some students were trying to help out the civil rights movement, the goal was violence seeks results against authority – even passive-resistance as a methodology—in which in the end the students won ( at least they believe) and authority was toppled. However, in the last forty years, the number of black teaching faculty has been a consistent number between forty and forty-seven in number. This demonstrates that no strides toward Democracy as multiculturism had taken place on the University of California, Berkeley campus. As bizarre addendum, the University of California, Berkeley probably has the most famous professors  ( White that I’ve known or seen) who had preached of the White intolerance toward black equality as morally unjust – and claims that social justice protesting in a global recognized part of the University tradition.

 

04182008 Great Society lbj [web]

Great Society:

When John F. Kennedy was shot, it began one of the most remarkable presidencies in the United States of American history, according to Charles Postel. Yet it was not well understood, he intends. When looking back to this time period, people only saw the smoke and fire of the protests that lead to Johnson’s decision not to try to retain the office of the presidency. Students that protested across the world believed they had bright down a U.S. president.  Lyndon Baines Johnson had grown up in an impoverish section of Texas, and he lived amongst Mexicans. Most of the students were Mexican American students, and he taught them in school – it was a tough life, so he plunged into Politics. He became one of the most powerful Senators in U.S.  history, Postel claims.  He knew how to force people to change sides in during votes ( Postel says ,  “Shakedown others to change their votes). The difference between Kennedy and Johnson were Johnson’s chief concerns of the abetment of the 1930s New Deal. The 1964 Democratic Convention, at Atlantic City, NJ, Johnson at the convention reiterated to return the U.S.A. to F.D.R.’s vision of “freedom from want” – an issue of the F.D.R. Four Freedom Speech -- which was removed from politics in the 1950s, as other agendas were considered more important then; now they returned. For Johnson, the government was an instrument for positive [social, economic and political] change, Postel claims.

Republican Party strongholds and Democratic Party strongholds swap geographical local – 1960s

A Political Switch affecting the futures political trajectory of both Democratic and Republican parites was significantly identified at the 1964 Democratic Convention fiasco and color-line embarrassment (see below).

United States of America Calls its self a Democracy, but it had never run a democracy in its history, even up until today, April 18, 2008.

Kingship and its relations to Socialism

Kingship throughout history has been considered centralized government. It was opposed to democracy, the representation of the common people. Now, if the vision is that government is a force of positive change, then centralizing by way of kingship (this sense the president and his court and lawmakers) can solve the state’s problems. Socialism is a type of centralization of elected oligarchs with a symbolic king that has executive powers. The misinterpreted Communism associated with Marxism ( or the varied 1000 different interpretations, and nothing convincibly associated with Karl Marx’s writings), was viewed as one-person-one –vote as individual participation to the central government’s trajectory. No local representatives were to be voted into office that carried political determination for the local/national electorate.  These were deemed radical leftists by common consensus. Communists wanted single-person vote that elected the U.S.A. president and congresspersons. Instead, the U.S.A. system contains middleperson representation to think for the common people, therefore ignoring the definition of rule by the common. Therefore, a Representative -Federal - Republic is the correct name for the U.S.A. government. Representative implied by the founders as direct democracy. The Congress, therefore, represented the “republic,” as socialistic side of political power. Two elected state representatives, called Congresspersons, had their own chamber of value in decision-making, and were considered the trusted thinkers for the populous representation of the state. As federalism, the king in this regards is the office of the President of the United States of America. While this office contains restrictive powers, the executive order that is liberally applied by the president operates as powers of a king. These are non-voting measures argued for decisive powers. Yet, some see them as abuse of powers because no populous representation had taken place in implementing national policy. Therefore, opening up loopholes for socialistic proclivities defined U.S.A. trajectory – leading to a conclusion that democracy has never run in the country called The United States of America. Yet, surprisingly, after 1920s, the normative terminology for the trajectory of the United States of American Constitutions, its benches, and its political body, became known as a democratic institution. Therefore, after the framing of terms had change, the confusion, fights, and illusions redefined how the population viewed themselves in the world. Curiously, while the world understood, mainly the third world, that the United States of America was not a democracy, the U.S.A. citizens became enveloped in the myth of its self as a functioning democracy. Therefore, whatever the government had done by executive order, secrecy as in national security actions, the entire population of the U.S.A. had been blamed, as result. This led to confusion and guilt, psychological backlash, social pressure from below, and dispersive discord.

The minorities began to use Thomas Jefferson’s writings to argue against the non-democracy of the United States of America. The white establishment then, as compliance with the myth, began to enact discourse of correct democracy by populous demands. Internationally, the U.S.A. had framed their government as a democracy, leading to the propagation of this terminology, as well as the contention to its effects upon other societies, states and continents. How could the United States of America be called a democracy when President Truman and his national security council had backed Mao Tse-tung after 1947 without offering the population of the United States of America a role in the decision making process? This was not a democracy; this was a kingship or modifying order.

Even evidence such as the Civil War, the south’s insistence that General Washington (after 1776) not hire anymore free northern black soldiers, and Jim Crow laws should definitely point to undemocratic institutions and polices. However, by framing the U.S. Constitution as democratic, a myth often calmed the senses of the human psyche which allowed the soul to operate on a day to day level of efficiency.  What had held back the initial riots of the minorities, were guns, and promises. After 1941, and Philip Randolph had threatened Franklin Delano Roosevelt with a massive Washington D.C. protests by African Americans, and executive order 9066 became law, returning African American marines and soldiers applied their newly acquired skills of gun-handling to the “Civil Rights” of permissible in the Second Amended to the Constitution significantly changing the agency of African American human rights representation in a segregationist south society. These evidences illustrate law codes offer no solution to empirical data that determined a democratic society. As qualified democracy, quasi kingship and predominant ethnic ruler ship, helped defined the government of the people, but by a selective group, not of the people. Within concepts of understanding that the United States of America had never run a democracy, one can denaturalize the national narrative and reconstruct, deconstruct with reconstruction, or name your construction, a clearer – more connected narrative of “what was the United States of American history in the second half of the twentieth century?” By deduction, we have concluded that it was not a democracy. Furthermore, by deduction, we have concluded that it was called a democracy. By further deduction, we have concluded that social foundational forces were in contention to this term –“democracy.” As result, mid-twentieth- century civil right movements and actions beginning roughly around 1941 defined the social-foundational forces that saw contention over their ownership of the term “democracy.”

If democracy was a natural born right of any citizen as argued in the U.S. founding documents, and at the mid-century mark, African Americans were free, then they would have valued the term’s ownership as inclusive of their rights. Why is this so? Because they decided to rise up and claim those rights, even in defiance of regional-ethnic defensive forces. If democracy included all common people, then this had meant the African American citizenry.

What did civil rights opposition mean? It meant that fighting against democracy was a prime goal for many who controlled local and federal governments of the United States of America. Over the course of redefining, fighting for ethnic inclusion, the local and federal government structures are solely being shaped into a wider representation of ethnicities. What this means is that possibly in a long time from now, a real democracy could take place in the Untied States of America. Even until today, The United States of America is not a democracy.

At the same time, however the Democratic Party, according to Postel, has changed to champion states’ rights. Formerly the Republican Party had controlled this role in U.S. A. history.  The swap is symbolic. State Rights in its relevance was the tool to hold on to slavery in the south by the Democratic parties. One must remember that even thought the south had Christianity; the Bible does not condemn slavery. By framing a switch in the parties at this juncture, one could switch the overall roles of “justice” and “morality” within the American discourses. Since the Republicans were the symbolic abolition party of the north which did not champion states rights’ then when the switch happened in the 1960s, the Republican heritage became the Democratic Party, implying racism continuance, as the Democratic Party became the Republican Party.  Therefore, all racism and inequality had a single trajectory. The Northern Union was the original Democratic Party of non-state rights’ as embodied in the shifting and continuance of the Democratic Party. Some commentators call this “white washing” history.  It tends to frame the Democratic Party of today as the traditional Republican Party which was conditioned on freedom and democracy but saw the federal government as the mechanism that dealt out justice. The old Dixicrats, the Old Southern Democratic Parties, were in fact progenitors of today’s Republican Party – and therefore always racist formulating these excuses for ethnic purity. Commentators also claim that the modern Democratic Party acts with paternalistic guidance toward the black communities. As with decolonization, and with intervention, the U.S. government sought to mentor under developed countries.  The mirror in U.S.A. domestic synchronicity was the mentoring of blacks and minorities. Therefore, thinking of domestic mentoring as its relative intervention mentoring as the same conscript. While state rights is a critical criteria for the switch, the Republican Party had always championed capitalism and associated it with conservativism. This meant  that complexities in the switching have resulted in further confusion to as to whom were the continuing racists from a perspective of this framework.  While voting data claims to show a rise in liberal or left-wing movements on the coasts, yet shifts toward the center and south now identified some Republican strong holds after 1960s.  This evidence does suggest a politically-affiliated geographical change. Yet, at the time of the solid south, which before the 1850s, the voting block of institutional racism verses institutional abolition was clearly defined in the data. Whatever the suggestive data consumes, the switch had occurred, complications in identifying proper historiography now exist.

This is however a contradiction in force, being two forces working against each other. Since 1938, the New Deal, there was a stalling – and some setbacks as the Taft-Hartley Act had taken the extreme socialistic proclivities out of the U.S.A., an equation for consumerism success. The second phase of the New Deal was L.B.J.’s pet project.

Great Society/ L.B.J.: Medicaid, Medicare, Dept of Housing and Urban Development, National Endowment for Humanities/Arts, and National Public Broadcasting, Highway beautification, Sesame Street. These were some of the major elements of the Great Society – other pieces of this could included the Apollo mission – he believing  anything could be accomplished through public effort, Postel claims. But public effort decry’s the role of government’s force onto its citizens to enact their will.

War on…

As part of the second phase terminology, everything that was a social problem, or perceived as such, had a linguist phrase attached called “ war on…” As example, war on poverty was L.B.J.’s contribution. The War on Drugs, a Nancy Regan articulated program, the War on Terrorism, by George Bush, Jr., and finally the War on this or that cause, as was the case from the second phase of the New Deal onward. How war in its phrasing is cast from this point on reflected the societies distainment of interventionalistic foreign wars – and turning to wars at home, as civil rights riots, demonstrations, and repression provided war had come home to the United states of America on its own soil. Since the counter culture had disturbed the protestant movement, renationalizing itself as a group opposed to instant gratification and non-commitment to hard work for a better future, the Regan administration made a war on Drugs campaign – legislating stiffer penalties for drug smugglers, drug attics and drug dealers. The nihilistic tendency of the counter culture upset many rural American citizens. The 1950s VA and FHA had led to the 1960s as the most prosperous time in U.S.A. history. Deindustrialization of certain cities, giving rise to suburban garden cities and industrial garden cities “created” the U.S.A. middle class. Once the middle class was established in U.S.A. history, the fall out over the bourgeoisie and proletariat took on dimensions to destroy it.

The rise of suburbia is connected to the middle class in that the VA and FHA visions, as well as municipal state’s building programs were aimed at single family housing – a protestant vision of the importance of the family unit. However, deindustrialization of the cities led to the poor folk inhabiting deteriorating building leading to slums – mainly minorities’. In addition, poor white folk also took the brunt of the poverty issue in Appellations under L.B.J.’s War on Poverty. If the bourgeois was the middle class then all of America citizens were not bourgeoisies. As result, the counter culture monopolized on these evidences, and part of their protests rallied behind the “unequalness” in comparison to Jefferson’s all people are equal argument. As part of the war on nouns, the War on Poverty made a considerable headway into the Johnson administration.

Michael Harrington, The Other America, (1962) argued that prosperity was at its height. The book focused on a social and political west, but it became mainstream politics. Forty to fifty million people in the United States of America lived in poverty; the study located the poverty in structural-graphical change.” It was driven by mechanization of agriculture; small farming resulted in lay-offs and people’s work. Auto Industry was becoming mechanized. As Postel intends, poverty was invisible to the suburban middle class. In response, L.B.J. created poverty programs, like “Head Start” (and “Vista”) a preschool program for children, and the “Office of Economic Opportunity,” a major  institution to address poverty. Prosperity to African Americans was a part of his program. Within four days of J.F.K. assassination, L.B.J. put civil rights at the top of his agenda. Civil Rights also banned discrimination on gender. A southern political official tried to stop women from equal rights. The southern segregationist believed this would sink the proposal of “all civil rights,” and had little to do with suppression of women in the workforce.  But segregationist idea backfired. In Selma Alabama, M. L. King, Jr., illustrated the non-equality of blacks -- with only 15,000 out of 355,000 blacks that had the rights’ to vote. King,  jr. led a march for civil rights. It was something of a turning point. And Johnson recognized it, and as a southern born president sang “We shall overcome,” a back southern Anthem. Federal officials then went into Mississippi and went into south to register voters. To the international community, and even to China who was surprised that the U.S.A. was making headway into civil rights, Tse-tung went ethnically Chinese as nationalistic – trying to deal with the fallout of kicking the Soviets out of China. The Russians had concluded during the Vietnam War that “orientals” were not going to integrate with the white west – and therefore problems of continuing the world communist revolution hit snags. It was here that Tse-tung, who believed China would take over control of the world proletariat revolution.  However, both China’s government and the Russian government were solely ethnically solid and monolithic. While the United States of America was rhetorically called racist and white monolithic in scope, its counterparts were no better in practice – they were better only in neo-quasi- Marxist rhetoric. Europeans saw the Soviet Union as imperialist in the 1960s, no better than the imperialist United States of America. However, since the Soviet Union’s rhetoric was Marxist which emphasizes justice and diversity protestors focused on the United States of America and the number one world enemy. What was not understood was that for a nation, state, country or whatever one calls the Superpower of its age, the economic domination of world markets was the single reason that the United States of America was prospering in the 1960s.

After World War II, the United States of America had quickly, by 1944 and 1945 learnt the system of mass production, at a speed unheard of in history. Even with deindustrialization of the military proper sectors, after the war, it is then that the domestic, scientific military, and the international market opportunities, had dominated the United States of American policy.

As these United States of American socialists do not want to have a discussion about is how to enact a stern progressive tax and at the same time do not “new imperialize” foreign markets. If we take the Tokugawa model, we understand their socialism faltered at a progressive city tax and the city people fled to the country side’s free market opportunity and employment. They did not flee because of rhetoric of capitalism is better than socialism, but because employment opportunities in the countryside were legally not taxed in jurisdiction of the Bakufu. In the U.S.A. socialist model, beginning under F.D.R.’s globalism tactics, if the United States mentors – that is educate and direct the foreign government structure to capitalism, then the United States of America will have a business partner – but better understood as a dumping ground for American products. One dumping the U.S.A. industrial products, like rubberware, plasticware (Kabul)  and other new U.S. inventions, the money made from foreign farmers to city workers goes to the United States of American industry which pays its employees who in turn pay the government taxes which in turn pay for public programs to win public support politically.

In addition, by re industrializing west Germany, and Japan, the United States would save money by not engaging in another global war because they wanted a piece of the pie as well. In U.S.A. philosophy, at least at some variable, the global market was big enough for foreign competition. At the same time, consumerism reeks of a Marxist principle of non-loyalty. For example, if the market is free and importation of foreign cheaper products eludes the domestic equivalent, then consumers will purchase the cheaper foreign product and put domestic workers – their countrypeople out profit and growth economic base.

As the United States was prospering under semi-capitalism, the Soviet Union after is imperial possession gathering faltered in its economy because of strict market policies. While the Soviet Union was seen as more moral, just and equal than its competitor (minus the KGB, and Stalin murderous repressions), the people were basically living the life of peasants – and little if any middle class existed. As the majority of Russian peasants, watching state run T.V. and counting bread crumbs as entertainment was the Soviet Unions’ version of liberty. To have a better life was the Soviet military, the Soviet Party and/or escape.  As comparisons, The United States of American social Insurance and public assistance was predicated upon foreign new imperialism and understood as domestic reform. It was not that capitalism, which it was not in America, it was more semi-socialism was better than Soviet Socialism; it was the United States of America had a faster start on mass-education, indoctrination and spirit for imperialism. The United States military complex in the 1960s was superior to the Russians and ultimately explains the United States of American economy as dominant.  Since Marx had already proven capitalism as imperialistic, and socialism as so as well, then there was no need to foster the solution to “justice” as justice could never be enacted as Jefferson had proclaimed. By the 1960s, The Soviets were in full new-imperialistic stages understood by the non-alignment states as well as the Middle East and china as so. At this time, The United States of America and the Soviet Union formally began to understand that they could speak to each other (Stalin did not allow this) as equals but still consider competition for “economic” rights in foreign influence. While telling the world it was justice against American evil, the Soviets were in fact for economic power that drove the cold war from now on till the soviet collapse. The Soviets now understood it was not freedom, justice, and liberty of the United States that made their economic engines run, but military and intervention dominance. Part of the game was training foreign militaries, paying foreign militaries, providing military equipment for states to fight states so the big-fist (the two dominates) could clean up the mess and take over the results of war.

While these battles were going on deep inside Washington and Moscow, the average United States of American citizen was crying for better living conditions predicated on injustice. They had no idea that everything around them was drawn upon by injustice. The only thing they could see was another citizen had more material possessions that they had – and that was injustice and not the Jeffersonian way.  For some-odd fifty years the Democratic Party led the United States of America to the economic superpower predicated on global domination a striking contrast to the isolationist policy of the First two neutrality acts and ending with the third Neutrality act that legislated the Lend-Leas programs and onto decision after World War II to facilitate over 200 major military bases throughout the world for economic, tactical and influential purposes – all in the name of Jeffersonian liberty and freedom. The effects were domestic struggles for the wealth at the home front and civil rights were a part of distributing the imperialistic wealth associated with that liberty and freedom. It needs to be understood that most if not the large proportion of the United States of American Citizens did not understand liberty and freedom in this capacity. In released documents from government all over the world, we now know they understood that the U.S.A. rose in this imperialistic measure – called interventionism beginning with decolonization. Decolonization did not solve the under developed nations problems of equal market shared, and can be understood of the many revolutions that resulted after World War two as a way to cope with foreign governments leaving those ‘mentored” states, or as the colonized saw it as the imperialist states. One of those problems that came to light is Tse-tung begging the United States of America to help them stop the Russians from imperializing their northern borders at the end of the 1960s. Tse-tung despised the United States of America but saw no other choice as non-free markets led China to its own version of isolationism in the 1960s after the CCP kicked out the Russian mentors. The mentoring program, although flawed as morality of justice, was the only way in which to get vital industrialized training, vital education, and vital social moral in which to industrialize.

 

Racial Immigration Laws: The Society of Jefferson, all Are Equal had its racial coloring in the 1960s.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Voting Rights Act of 1965

Hart-Celler, or Immigration Act of 1965

Quotas and (a.k.a. called caps) were changing the structure of immigration into the U.S.A., immigration policies at the wake of Vietnam; but those were special provisions from people fleeing communism from Asia. Iron Curtain countries were eligible, after a person escaping they became celebrities ( like Cubans). “There is an irony in this,” Postel claims.  Immigration of the western hemisphere was never in the quota systems, but now becomes into the quotas (since the 1890s immigration laws and in 1965 western hemisphere immigration -- that was gone)   -- and southerners put it in the bill that the southern boarder of Latin America ( the Latins) would be put on the quota system ( illegal immigration) “ This is an important term in non-racial” programs. Postel. L.B.J. sought to limit the deep pockets of poverty, and that was citizenship and reframing citizenship – as result we have a much more integrated democracy. Statements like the United states should be like many ethnicities ( races) and many religions and many nationalities – “this was important change in American citizenship,” Postel intends. By L.B.J. presidency was about a policy of justice, humanity and…..” Postel. Why did the warring factions in the streets of America explode during his president? L.B.J. said he refused to run for a second term, many pundits say that he would have won re-election. Previously, immigration was a racial topic in state and federal discussions.

Two major issues of poverty, Appellations: attention to poor white people, white rural folk, and the urban slums, mainly dealing with African Americans. Prior to the changing of immigrations laws, Puerto Rico slums were also a part of poverty living conditions. But this was where poverty was attacked ( as in a war). Michael H. said most people that were poor were white folk.

How does the government afford these programs (Postel) ? This is a very important question, Postel intends. The basic idea was, is that if you have a progressive tax you can shuffle taxes around to distribute wealth? Why then during L.B.J. The economy was booming ( Postel does not mention that it was economic imperialism). The very expensive to run a war Vietnam. The most expensive taxes went to Medicare ( today most people pay taxes that do go to Medicare).

Was there a African civil rights and ( world-color-line had to be changed) connection to relationship of decolonization abroad?  Kennedy was advert about this, but “Johnson was actually passionate about his administration, a great irony…,” Postel mentions. To some --- it was a different story because Hoover was still in charged at the F.B.I. and black civil rights movements were still singled out by the F.B.I., under L.B. Johnson’s watch.  Activists claimed this was done under Johnson’s control. It did bring down his administration in that light, but as Postel claims, Johnson was passionate about civil rights, as compared to J.F. Kennedy who had not put it civil rights at the top priority list.

A great deal was said about the war on poverty, but it depends on political questioning. Many ways, it worked if one measures it by certain perspectives. It cut poverty it in half, Postel exclaims. One had to ask poor people who had never went to a doctor, prior to Johnson’s ( second phase of the New Deal) “Great Society” programs. “It demonstrated the power of government to change people’s lives,” Postel intends. “Government policies had a large impact on poverty,” Postel.  From 1955-1960, Real Average Weekly Wages, W.W. Norton chart, peoples standard of living was huge, a single family house, car and quality. This was an epic. But in another chart, the equality of wages under Johnson’s shows the most equality of all population in the US compared to today and yesterday.  [ mjm, yet we must understand the international economic dominance to understand that the United States of America could force those progressive taxes without collapsing the economy, at this time]

Now charts of integration of blacks allowed to vote ( register to vote, in Mississippi, a revolution of a type).  This is counted in the measure of success of the policies in the Johnson administration, Postel intends.  This was a great change. Immigration, 1960-2000, Latin America is immigrating. Cesar Chavez put Latin politics on the map in the 1960s, with poor Latin farmer rights. He considered himself as a trade-unionist activist, and not a civil rights activist. One of his concerns was illegal immigration and this would bring down unionization of Latins (or Mexican Americans) – this was part of the second wave of New Dealism in America.

Postel: Social policy works in the USA – there are two kinds.

  • Social Insurance (deserving)
  • Public Assistance.  ( only one-tenth of the cost of the deserving side)

(deserving) Social Security, Medicare, Deserving, 1970= $30.3 billion, 1984=180.9 billion,

( Public assistance [ core of what is known as welfare]: Aid to families, Undeserving poor, 1970= $3 billion, 1984=8.3. billion ( it becomes a political taboo, throwing money at undeserving people  -- people that cannot know how to use that money. ) [ mjm—however, with what is spent on war in one month could be made available one-million dollars to each U.S. citizen. But this is economically disastrous,  economists would say] Public assistance, as the anti-public assistant proponents would say that people that have bad habits, the people that drink, that people that do not want to work hard  as others, is not a solution. How to aid dependant families?  This was not a Johnson program, it was an original Roosevelt New Deal program – of subsidize housing.

(Harrington --) Racial discrimination, and mechanization of the U.S. workforce, in connection to the ups and downs of a capitalist society ( postel will not discuss the forbidden discourse – that of U.S. economic foreign market dominance to bring in the capital to finance social welfare) these are structural unemployment issues. Since Tse-tung had the original plan to make his China a social just society, he could not make Chinese life-standards rise in comparison to Russia or the U.S.A. because China had no international market value under Tse-tung’s strict socialist economy. Tse-tung had no tax base in which to offer his citizens social welfare. It is vital to understand that in the U.S.A. the talk about social justice and the evils of certain individuals and groups as restricting that social justice is “never” understood that in order to facilitate this justice, a state must economically dominate – that is exploit foreign peoples and markets to justify their “justice” programs domestically. One cannot blame Tse-tung for trying to enact social justice, it was implausible to do so under the immense population of peasant economies in Chinese territories. Peasants do not pay sufficient taxes.

 

Structural Unemployment

Job programs

Access

Income security

Culture of Poverty * heart of Johnson’s Great Society (was the undeserving section Postel talks about). Pay attention to R. O. Self:  OEO, what it meant that being trained for Jobs that did not exist for blacks, such as working on the BART, in Oakland. In the 1960s, and under the Johnson administration, the key to black employment was education. However, empirically this was not the solution. Blacks after finishing training were bared by whites in government high-paying employment. One will note that this was one of the U.C. Berkeley student off-campus activist activities in the early 1960s– to protests with the blacks for jobs in the Bay Area.

Head Start ( relatively cheap program)

Office of Economic Opportunity – train people in habits of work – it is a great idea, but the contradiction is what if one does not have access to those jobs because of racial discrimination, and or mechanization?  

Being Frozen Out: Structural Unemployment – that becomes the focus of the movement, in Detroit 1967 – the Johnson policy was going up in flames because the auto industry was still barring a great share of black agency.

Robert O. Self: Colonialization of whites in suburbs reflected a white dominated United states of America with its White Police force, and its freezing out blacks from federal employment --  that was the big issues of the uprisings. Johnson may have been for civil rights, but saying something in the White House and doing something at the local level is another question.

Tale of Two conventions, 1964:

Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Freedom summer, NAACP, south and north coalition that unites the civil rights, that was black people had the right to vote – the capstone of the movement. Murders in the south, forced the civil rights movement not to trust the President ( Johnson), so the blacks ( some whites) set up a Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party ( MFDP), but when they got Atlantic city, the convention only recognized the  whites in the delegation ( a whites only party of democrats, no blacks allowed in the hall – by white democratic supremacists).

Southern Democratic Party (et. al. since the founding) White Supremacy (c. 1700s-1964) now replaced by Republican South Party white supremacy (1964- present). In the Bible, slavery had existed and was not protested in the bible as a moral issue. The Southern Democrats and their forerunner parties in the South of the Untied States of America and even until colonial times did not see enslaving blacks as anti-Christian.   In the Bible slavery was commonplace, and was not protested by Jesus, although slavery existed in his day.  In fact, as contradictory, parts of the New Testament speak of following the leaders of society, as authority figures, and other parts speak of following only God, in a personal way (i.e. Martin Luther).  Since the Whites were the authority figures and correct with God’s notion of following the ones that know – slavery was rationalized.

It is in the Mid-1960s that Postel claims that the Democratic Party reformed its racial denotations and connotations and the Republican Party replaced the ideology of white supremacy [ although, I’m not sure the Republican Party holds this as doctrinal, as the south once did, mjm]. Nevertheless, it was now that the Sothern Democratic Break with George Wallace, and the New Segregated White Democratic/Republican Party of the south, white supremacy begins. Part of the empirical evidence Postel uses is Strong Thurman’s conservative stance.

The Democratic Party exposed shamed and guilty results in an ideological change within the party.

At the Democratic Convention of 1964,  Fannie Lou Hamer, a black snake, held TV audience spellbound as she told of the beatings and racism in the south, which was Hemer’s appeal. And Johnson as a politician in fear of more rioting, the democratic party offered a compromise. They had said you could have two observer delegates and that your could sit in the balcony -- but you cannot have contribute with votes. This was  all televised, It was white supremacy on TV—it was on National Television – and Johnson did not act. It was a supreme embarrassment for the Democratic Party to speak about equality and justice for all minorities while it practiced segregation in its democratic convention.  It was a case of Johnson’s words and deeds. So his words alienate the southern whites from the convention – they did intend to come or come to walked out. So the white (follow George Wallace, and supremacy that becomes the Republican Base in the South – alienated from the democratic part)


 

[1] Charles Postel to class in personal lecture notes, March 04, History 124B (University of California, Berkeley, 2008).

[2] Charles Postel to class in personal lecture notes, March 04, History 124B (University of California, Berkeley, 2008).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Guantanamo Bay:  the second largest mine-field in the world closes off the boarders around the US controlled zone. The decriminalize area of Korea is the world largest minefield in the world.

 

[5] Ibid. Also, Why did Robert Williams leave Cuba after only a few years? He planned to take a trip to China, he was not done with Cuba,  Postel intends , he was more interested in China, postel claims – the question was why he leave – postel intends,  it was not that interesting – Chinese world was more interesting. I personally do not believe this rhetoric? Why did Oswald leave Communist Russia, when he did not halve too. He said he was bored. It is not fun to  live on the margins of existence, even though it is called just, many have contended about communism’s morality.

 

[6] Charles Postel to class in personal lecture notes, March 20, History 124B (University of California, Berkeley, 2008). I’m not sure what he means by totalitarianism. Giovanni Gentile who first used the term in his philosophy of Actualism, arguing for Italian Fascism duly promoted social welfare programs as a backbone of Totalitarianism. Everyone had medical care, everyone would be given a job, and everyone would be considered in the government social programs. This totalitarianism was similar to Stalin, Hitler, Tse-tung and Mussolini’s régimes for modernization in all aspects of socio-economic political life. As argued by Gentile, Totalitarianism was never strove for biological determinism. If Postel is claiming this as a shift in Republican ideology than it would not be totalitarianism. To implicate such would be to implicate Russia, China, Germany and Italy, and possibly Nasser’s Egyptian regimes as similar in composure. As part of the constellation of critical criteria in Totalitarian movements, an elite groups of ideologues run the party – this is possibly what Postel was trying to say – but just this single criteria does not constitute Totalitarianism.

[7] Ibid., Postel to class, March 20, 2008. at end of class, after showing part of a U.C. Berkeley movie on the 1960s protests.

 

 


 

Direct corrections and technical inquiries to
Please direct news submissions to Here

Copyright © 1999 - 2013 Michael Johnathan McDonald