The farmer-labor party of Minnesota started in 1918 as a local merger of the Non-partisan league (itself stemming from the Socialist party of America) and the Union labor party (based in Duluth) and quickly gained popularity, becoming the most successful 3rd party movement of the last century in America despite only operating in one state. Farmer-labor candidates were elected in as governors 3 times, as US senators 4 times, and as US representatives eight times. They also had the majority in the Minnesotan legislature for most of the 1930s, and a large presence in the legislature in the 1920s. The party's main policies involved socialism (in the form of social programs, nationalization of major industry, unionism, social progressivism, and establishing workers' cooperatives to replace traditional businesses). The party gained the most support during the Great Depression, but was still hindered by a significant sized conservative-republican opposition in the legislature (The Democratic party in Minnesota at the time was largely irrelevant). Despite this, the farmer-labor party managed to legislate a progressive state income tax system, create a social security program and unemployment insurance (before democrats led by Franklin D Roosevelt did nationally) expanded conservation programs,outlawed wage discrimination against women and minority groups, instituted a living minimum wage, and secured collective bargaining for union workers as a right. The more radical portions of their platform, such as state ownership of industry and establishing workers cooperatives never passed the legislature, as it was voted against by the democrats and republicans. In the late 1930s and 1940s, the Republican Party began gaining large political control due to votes being split between the current/post FDR Democratic Party and Farmer-Labor Party, and as a result in 1944 the parties merged into the Democratic-Farmer-labor Party. Early on, the DFL was more left wing than those of the national Democratic party, acting essentially on a social Democratic platform. In Minnesota, the state branch of the Democratic party is still called the Democratic-farmer-labor party to this day.
What binds society together? The libertarians reply that the cement of society (so far as they will endure any binding at all) is self-interest, closely joined to the nexus of cash payment. But the conservatives declare that society is a community of souls, joining the dead, the living, and those yet unborn; and that it coheres through what Aristotle called friendship and Christians call love of neighbor. Libertarians (like anarchists and Marxists) generally believe that human nature is good, though damaged by certain social institutions. Conservatives, on the contrary, hold that “in Adam’s fall we sinned all”: human nature, though compounded of both good and evil, is irremediably flawed; so the perfection of society is impossible, all human beings being imperfect. Thus the libertarian pursues his illusory way to Utopia, and the conservative knows that for the path to Avernus. The libertarian takes the state for the great oppressor. But the conservative finds that the state is ordained of God. In Burke’s phrases, “He who gave us our nature to be perfected by our virtue, willed also the necessary means of its perfection. He willed therefore the state–He willed its connexion with the source and original archtype of all perfection.” Without the state, man’s condition is poor, nasty, brutish, and short. The libertarians confound the state with government. But government–as Burke continued–“is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants.” Among the more important of those human wants is “a sufficient restraint upon their passions. Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individual, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can be done only by a power out of themselves; and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will & to those passions which it is its office to bridle & subdue.” A primary function of government is restraint; & that is anathema to libertarians, though an article of faith to conservatives. (continued in comments)
I'm exploring a theory I had. I'm not really DemCon anymore. I did a lot more reading about it, and I know a lot more now about DemCon and Communalism, and I know enough to see the bullshit more accurately. DemCon is a good theory, but not perfect. Neither is Anarchism. They all have good points, but aren't 100% solid.
I'm going to be working on something else. While I'm doing that, I'm just your average LibSoc.
It's not that I don't take theory seriously. As I read more, I'm more interested. It's actually quite the opposite of being unserious, I'm very serious about theory. Expect more critiques as I read more. Thanks for being supportive 💚💚💚
Never say good bye ... #gotohell#anarchy#fightforyourright#itsme#newme
Sekembali ny tiada pengakhiran bangkit dimana ia terhenti, biar masa menjadi penentu kejayaan lambat atau laju bukan ukuran ... Hanya nawaitu dimana diri itu mulakan...
"It has become blatantly obvious that confrontation at the level of production is ineffective. Take over the factories, the fields, the schools and the neighbourhoods and selfmanage them, the old revolutionary anarchists proclaimed. We will destroy power in all its forms, they added. But without getting to the roots of the problem. Although conscious of its gravity and extent, they preferred to ignore it, putting their hopes in the creative spontaneity of the revolution. But in the meantime they wanted to hold on to control of production. Whatever happens, whatever creative forms the revolution might express, we must take over the means of production they insisted. Otherwise the enemy will defeat us at that level. So they began to accept all kinds of compromise. They ended up creating another, even more macabre, spectacle."- Alfredo M. Bonanno, Armed Joy
Gustave Herve, another great anti-patriot, justly calls patriotism a superstition—one far more injurious, brutal, and inhumane than religion. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. #revolution#thirtysecondsclosertomidnight#writersofinstagram#resistance#resist#anarchy#patriotism