PDA

View Full Version : Can we use Communist techiniques to grow C4L?




mozarkriver
06-27-2009, 02:04 AM
The more important question in my mind is SHOULD WE be using communist techniques of recruitment and indoctrination?

Read this:

http://www.garynorth.com/Hyde.pdf

Kludge
06-27-2009, 02:43 AM
"First, Hyde argued, the appeal of communism was not its ideas. It was rather the moral fervor of the Communists, a fervor which appealed to people who were committed to a moral cause greater than themselves. Communists were idealists, Hyde said. This is a great irony, for Karl Marx dismissed all such appeals to morality as irrelevant at best and deceptive at worst. He saw all morality as class morality. He identified morality the superstructure of the dominant class, a tool of class dominance. The substructure is fundamental, he said: the structure of economic production. He proclaimed scientific socialism, and he dismissed all rival socialist systems as utopian. I am convinced that this is equally true of all broad-based ideological movements. Few people join them because their founders developed philosophically persuasive systems of istorical cause-and-effect. They join because the movements promise moral uplift personally and even moral reform culturally.

Second, Hyde told his listeners that a statistically abnormal number of Communists he had met on several continents had this in common: They were lapsed Catholics. Why? Because of their idealism. The Church failed to appeal to this idealism, especially among youth. So, they departed into the camp of the enemy.

Third, Hyde argued that when organizations make minimal demands on their members, they get minimal commitment. When they make big demands, they get big commitment. This theme pervades this document. Of course, the Communist movement was always a minority movement. This went back to
Lenin’s organizational decision to limit the Bolsheviks to an elite, although Hyde does not mention this. Hyde was speaking to missionaries: the Church’s hardest of hard core members. The Roman Catholic Church has always allowed religious orders to form on the basis of extreme personal commitment. This degree of commitment is not expected to be widespread in the
membership. This tension between universal appeal—mass evangelism—and minority commitment affects every large organization. The standard rule of thumb is that 20% of the members will do 80% of the work. The top 4% (20% of 20%) will be the equivalent of the military’s field-grade officers, and less than one percent will be the senior decision-makers and innovators (20% of 20% of 20%).

Fourth, he insisted that successful long-term leadership requires systematic training. The Communist Party was careful to provide such training at all levels. Everyone was trained to exercise leadership in his appropriate field.

Fifth, the communists understood that, in order to be an effective leader in the trade union movement, a person must be good at his job. If he is a slack worker, he will not be taken seriously by his peers, no matter how good a speaker he is. So, the communists pressured members to become the best workers on the shop floor.

Sixth, Communist leadership was for the sake of the Communist Party’s cause. It was not leadership for its own sake."



??? Apparently, this model is outdated. The Libertarian Party sees very little growth considering how energized the libertarian base is.

Optatron
07-08-2009, 01:19 AM
??? Apparently, this model is outdated. The Libertarian Party sees very little growth considering how energized the libertarian base is.

I believe the LP had for a long time, make members agree they will
"not advocate the initiation of force as a means to achieve political, social, economic goals"
but I can't find it on their website anymore.

But using communist techniques isn't forceful, just deceptive, right?

idiom
07-08-2009, 01:38 AM
No, its just techniques for motivating a group towards a common goal. Anybody could opt out at any time.

libertarians often confuse the use of force with leadership. Anybody who seems to be leading anybody *must* be using force. Thus we have a pretty strong and common abdication of leadership in the expectation that one day everybody will magically wake up and lead themselves.

Optatron
07-08-2009, 01:40 AM
No, its just techniques for motivating a group towards a common goal. Anybody could opt out at any time.

libertarians often confuse the use of force with leadership. Anybody who seems to be leading anybody *must* be using force. Thus we have a pretty strong and common abdication of leadership in the expectation that one day everybody will magically wake up and lead themselves.

which is why i never opposed using force

mediahasyou
07-09-2009, 07:47 PM
I believe the LP had for a long time, make members agree they will
"not advocate the initiation of force as a means to achieve political, social, economic goals"
but I can't find it on their website anymore.

But using communist techniques isn't forceful, just deceptive, right?

the libertarian party uses force because all libertarians in office did not abolish/voluntarize the government when elected.

idiom
07-09-2009, 11:30 PM
the libertarian party uses force because all libertarians in office did not abolish/voluntarize the government when elected.

When were Libertarians in office?

Elwar
07-10-2009, 02:16 PM
Perhaps we can use police to force people to want to be free?

IPSecure
07-10-2009, 02:36 PM
If we can raise $6,000,000 in one day...

Dr. Paul will not deal with lobbyists, but others will.

We should do a chip-in to hire many of these people to:

- Support HR 1207
- Remind Congress of their oath to the Constitution.
- Support all bills introduced by Dr. Paul.
- Appose all other bills being introduced.


American League Of Lobbyists: [/URL]http://www.alldc.org/ (http://www.alldc.org/)

Lobbyists for Hire: http://www.alldc.org/publicresources/lobbyists.cfm (http://www.alldc.org/publicresources/lobbyists.cfm)

[URL]http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=193580 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=193580)

idiom
07-10-2009, 09:08 PM
Perhaps we can use police to force people to want to be free?

Perhaps we can train people to efficently spread the message.

Those are the tactics in the OP.

Akus
07-11-2009, 09:44 PM
...Apparently, this model is outdated. The Libertarian Party sees very little growth considering how energized the libertarian base is.I disagree. The model is not outdated. In, fact, we missed out in 2008, because the RP campaign was led by college kids with bullshit in their heads, instead of concrete specific goals and concrete specific way to attain these goals. But 2012 is a new window of opportunity. I doubt Ron Paul will still run, but someone with politics and at least a similar track record of Ron Paul can run and they can attract those disenchanted with Barak's message of change and hope.

We can offer a new ideal, or, rather, the old one, but with a new vehicle to bring it to life. We can appeal to emotions, appeal to religious beliefs, to whatever other strings that you can pluck in people to get them to listen to you. We can do that. And we don't have to lie about it. Ron Paul refused to wear his Christianity on his sleeve, but doing so wouldn't be a lie.

The model is not outdated and it is immaterial what ideals are the end goal of those applying it.

micahnelson
07-11-2009, 10:13 PM
We can appeal to emotions, appeal to religious beliefs, to whatever other strings that you can pluck in people to get them to listen to you. We can do that. And we don't have to lie about it. Ron Paul refused to wear his Christianity on his sleeve, but doing so wouldn't be a lie.

Do this and lose credibility.

Do this and get a better chance of winning an ELECTION.

Do this and when you don't act as people expected you to, watch them turn on you (IE liberals turning on Obama.)

I am in for any effort where local groups work within their communities to raise awareness and educate people. I am in for making our message simple, clear, and attractive. I am not for draping it on a cross to appeal to the religious, painting it on a tank to attract the warmongers, or worse, doing what they did in the eighties and appealing to the racist southern mouthbreathers.

But guns and bibles are fast becoming the tools of this crowd, so march on me hearties march on- but don't be surprised if this movement looks very different 12 months from now.

mediahasyou
07-12-2009, 11:21 AM
When were Libertarians in office?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)#Election_victori es

dr. hfn
07-12-2009, 08:04 PM
i think we need to read up on all the tactics and strategies we can find and then use them to our advantage. here a very useful tactic called the diamond tactic: http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/diamond_tactic.pdf

Akus
07-16-2009, 11:21 PM
Do this and lose credibility.

Do this and get a better chance of winning an ELECTION.

Do this and when you don't act as people expected you to, watch them turn on you (IE liberals turning on Obama.)Dude, did I not say that we neither should nor have to lie about what we're representing?