REFLECTIONS

THPrincess said:
“They will tolerate anything, but a Republican. So open minded!”

Marxists had always thought that freedom of speech and the press were merely examples of weak-kneed bourgeoisie morality – at best – and, instruments for maintaining class oppression – at worst.
Herbert Marcuse “updated” that
essentially pragmatic assessment by developing a rational for “progressive censorship” bases on the writings of the iconic 19th century liberal J.S. MIlls. Mills, a utilitarian, reasoned that – freedom of speech and the press were essential to rational thinking, and rational thinking to the furthering of human well-being
- the moral bench-mark of utilitarian ethics. He thus defined freedom of speech and the press as instrumental rather than fundamental rights.

Marcus in turn, took that distinction – between instrumental and fundamental rights – and ran with it. He reasoned that: we – socialists – already know that capitalism is an evil, and collectivism its remeday. Hence, there is nothing to be added to the discussion by further analysis. And, in fact, in regards to human well-being – there is only
loss to follow from allowing it to
continue in these matters. Fore, by so doing, we merely put obstacles in the way of implementing the “progressive” agenda, and therefore delaying
- or even endangering – the full obtainment of human fulfillment through the demise of capitalism and implementation of socialist equality.

Marcuse’s work in this regards was very influential amongst radical here and in Europe. What proceeded from there was the ongoing infiltration and absorption of the Democratic Party by its most radical elements.

In time, what had been meant by “liberal” into which categories those such as Jack Kennedy, Sam Nunn (sp?), and Harry Truman, could fit comfortably enough up until the last third or so of the 20th Century – mutated into a linguistic smiley-face plastered over various flavours of neo-Marxist pseudo-democratic authotarianism.

J.S. would have cried.
I do as well.