I SEE A GREAT DEAL OF 'PURGING'.
I attended a Johns Hopkins gathering of professionals and heard the discussion of needing more sheep----getting rid of those people with individual personalities. That is what a corporatized K-12 with testing and evaluation will do.
THIS IS HOW BALTIMORE BECAME A COMPANY TOWN----HOPKINS CULTIVATES SHEEP FOR GOVERNMENT AND ORGANIZATION LEADERSHIP.
Just think about the move in the US by Libertarian/neo-conservatives like Johns Hopkins to pose left-leaning with Marxism -----while privatizing all Baltimore City schools into vocational apprenticeship K-12 with testing and evaluation of children tracking them as they go----prison factories-----and you have the same process as Mao's Chinese reforms that used labor to build a nation of sheep. Asian nations have citizens who do not rebel----who do not see themselves as individuals, but as a collective. Trying to build a socialist culture in the midst of an American takeover by an autocratic, criminal plutocracy is setting the stage for anything people build collectively simply being seized as is happening right now. All of the citizen volunteering replacing our public sector-----all of our tax revenue simply being sent directly to corporate subsidy and corporate non-profits----people having individual personalities being culled from the ability to find jobs. Today in the US citizens are being made afraid of speaking out against what is happening for fear of not being able to get a job. THAT IS WHAT AUTOCRATIC CORPORATE CONTROL DOES. THAT IS WHY NEO-CONS WANT TO CONTROL LABOR UNIONS BY POSING MARXIST.
WE THE PEOPLE SIMPLY NEED TO MOVE BACK TO SOCIAL CAPITALISM----LABOR AND JUSTICE PROGRESSIVISM---BY REINSTATING RULE OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION ===WE DO NOT NEED TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD TO AUTOCRACY!
This is what Trans Pacific Trade Pact and global corporate tribunal rule wants to install after the coming bond market crash brought to you by Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons----ALL OF MARYLAND POLS ARE GLOBAL CORPORATE POLS.
Laogai: "Reform Through Labor" in China
by Ramin Pejan*
Laogai, which translates from Mandarin to mean "reform through labor," is the Chinese system of labor prison factories, detention centers, and re-education camps. Mao Zedong created the system in the early 1950s, modeling it after the Soviet Gulag, as a way to punish and reform criminals in a manner useful to the state, producing thought reform and economic gain. The Laogai system is still in place today and continues to deprive individuals of basic human rights. An individual's mere association with groups unpopular with the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) government can result in the individual being sent to a reform institution in the Laogai system, through a process that deprives the person of due process rights. Once inside the Laogai, prisoners are subject to cruel and degrading treatment and oftentimes torture. These human rights abuses violate both Chinese and international human rights norms.
We want to be clear------whether Stalism or Maoism----this is not socialism, it is autocratic corporatism. Mao was simply transforming Chinese culture into laborers for the industrialization of China----China has been Wall Street naked capitalist neo-liberals for decades and not Communist.
This is what far-right politics in the UK and US is trying to do to our first world progressive Democratic societies-----re-educate all of the individual rights and freedoms out of America...ns and English----and engineer back the labor class for the rebuilding of industry in the US under Trans Pacific Trade Pact.
Now, your national leaders know this goal as do your state leaders. Local leaders may simply be doing what they are told. National union leaders like Trumka and Weingarten know this is where TPP and right-wing Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons are taking unions. This is why they are backing Clinton neo-liberals to the end----- We must restructure our US labor unions to domestic social Democratic and not International Marxist.
Below you see UK's Cameron who is the same as Bush neo-cons doing in UK what Clinton neo-liberal Obama is doing in the US. THEY ARE THE SAME. In the US, the Republicans are calling Obama Socialists while it is the far-right that is building these Marxist political structures to move the US to a corporate autocratic control.
So, the rich will have sucked all of the wealth from UK and US with this coming bond market collapse and economic crash and they are ready to create a sheep society under the guise of Marxism keeping the rest of people impoverished workers. Look below to see the comment about how Cameron in the UK and Obama in the US both look to 2015 for the dismantling of Federal agencies and passing the Trans Pacific and Trans Atlantic Trade Pacts. It is this schedule of massive economic collapse tied to these treaties that move the US---MOVING FORWARD----to this MAOIST purge of all democratic and freedoms of America.
What is great about this article is it brings the political philosopher HAYEK in as the source of the LITTLE RED BOOK---Hayek being the neo-liberal philosopher embraced by Clinton and Obama and as this article shows-----Thatcher and Cameron. None of this has anything to do with Socialism or Communism----it is simply a political structure to dismantle all signs of Democracy----Rule of Law---and all economic gains of the American people
Is the coalition really 'Maoist'?
By Brian Wheeler Political reporter, BBC News
- 21 December 2010
- From the section UK Politics
1. LOCALISM? - Mao wanted to smash the elites that ran pre-communist China, believing they had become corrupted by power. He wanted the peasants to rise up and effectively take charge of services in their own communities. Sound familiar? With its plans for elected police chiefs and local council tax referendums - not to mention its war on the highly-paid elites who run Town Halls and its call for an army of "armchair auditors" to hold civil servants to account for the money they spend - the coalition has, arguably, attempted to unleash its own cultural revolution in Britain's public services.
2. INFORMERS? - You had to be very careful what you said - and who you said it to - in Mao's China. Informers were everywhere - and citizens were forever being exposed for expressing "counter revolutionary" views. Vince Cable must know how they feel. He was having a private conversation with constituents when he described the coalition as "Maoist", and revealed dark thoughts about overthrowing the regime, only to find his words splashed across the pages of a national newspaper. For the analogy to work, of course, The Daily Telegraph would have to be seen as a party newspaper which, despite being affectionately known as The Torygraph, would be stretching it.
3. CHAOS? - Mao's cultural revolution unleashed chaos in Chinese society. Nothing was sacred. At the weekend, Tory MP Nick Boles, one of the coalition's leading thinkers, described the "chaos" that will follow the ripping up of central government planning as a "good thing". Political pundits have marvelled at the speed and ruthlessness of coalition ministers as they set about reforming monolithic institutions such as the NHS and the benefit system. One senior minister, commenting on the devolution of power from Whitehall, has reportedly used one of Mao's favourite slogans: "Let a thousand flowers bloom."
4. PERMANENT REVOLUTION? - Mao was a firm believer in the theory of permanent revolution, which he believed should be in the hearts of all Chinese Communists. The coalition is also partial to ideological purity (Before they adopted Mao as their role model, Tory high command urged activists to take a leaf out of Gandhi's book and "be the change"). Like Mao, the coalition is working to a strict Stalin-esque five year timetable. David Cameron's chief strategy adviser, Steve Hilton, described by Observer columnist Andrew Rawnsley as "the most Maoist person in the government", has reportedly been heard to tell colleagues: "Everything must have changed by 2015. Everything."
5. GANG OF FOUR? - The later stages of the cultural revolution were guided by an inner circle of powerful Communist party officials known as the Gang of Four. The coalition is, similarly, guided by what insiders call the "quad" - David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, Nothing important happens without their say so apparently. They will be hoping to avoid the fate of their Chinese counterparts, who included Mao's wife, Jiang Qing, who were eventually tried for treason.
6. BRUTALITY? - The violence unleashed by Mao's cultural revolution, with students in the forefront, was responsible for many deaths. There may have been injuries and criminal damage caused in London during the recent student protests but even the most ardent opponents of the coalition would not claim it was going down a similar route to China in 1966.
7. DEFENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY? - Chairman Mao's China built up an impressive military might with a legacy of having the largest army in the world. The People's Republic also sought to avoid dependence on, and economic ties with, Western Europe and the capitalist world. By contrast Cameron's coalition has been slashing spending on defence and despite Eurosceptics urging the government to cut ties with the European Union, there are few signs of it happening.
8. IDEOLOGY? - Mao was driven by a belief in violent class struggle. As a devout Marxist, he would have had little time for the wealthy, public school educated plutocrats at the top of the coalition government. Everyone would be equal in theory in the communist state. He set the rules for all political, cultural, economic and intellectual activity. In other words, it was the exact opposite of the "small state" philosophy espoused by coalition ministers. Most Conservatives in the coalition government grew up in the Thatcher years, sharing a belief that there should be equality of opportunity for all, whatever the circumstances of their birth. As they put it in their 2010 slogan: "We're all in this together". One Baltimore!
9. PROPAGANDA? - Their parties may have been keen on pasting giant posters or paintings of them in prominent city centre locations, but Mr Cameron has yet to come up with his own version of Mao's Little Red Book - a handy pocket book collection of quotations from his speeches Chinese citizens were encouraged to carry with them. The Conservative Party manifesto - a hardback entitled "an invitation to join the government of Great Britain" - in deepest Tory blue - may have become its nearest equivalent, if it had not been rendered obsolete by the coalition agreement.
10. RE-EDUCATION? - If Vince Cable had lived in Mao's China he would probably be packing his suitcase for a trip to a re-education camp by now. This was where "troublemakers" were sent to be persuaded of the error of their ways and to experience and reconnect with the life of the humble peasant. In London in 2010 Mr Cable may well be facing some tricky meetings with colleagues and strategists, but it's unlikely he's going to be sent off for a spot of farming.
Here is a selection of your comments:
What a load of populist tosh. One Minister says somethign in private and it happens to be his private opinion, and all hell breaks loose. This is a coialition for gods sake! There are bound to be differences (some of them big) between the coalition partys, and making an elephant out of a mouse is not really doing the country any good at this point in time. I believe the coalition as it is is making a really good job out of a very bad situation, and the more we let them get on with their job rather than mudsling both parties and their coalition, the better. I dread to think how labour would have spent us into oblivion over the next few years. NIk C, knebworth
One thing the Maoists and the current UK administration have in common: no sense of obligation to the people that they serve. Megan, Cheshire UK
Perhaps the thing that most strikes me about the coalition government and Mao's China is the way they are both driven by idealistic philosophical world views. For Mao it was his form of marxism, for the coalition it is an extreme form of neo-liberalism. Mao's ideas were a dismal failure - the neo-liberal ideology of the 80s was likewise a failure. It led to a massive gap between the rich and poor. Pity this government can't learn from the mistakes of the past. Jennifer, Barnoldswick
Spot on - this is something I saw early on in Thatcher's reign, whom I described then to colleagues as a Right-wing Maoist. One of the crucial indices of Maoism was its hostility to elites (ironic, in view of the elitist nature Communism in practice) the chief elite being that of experts. For Mao pure communism would replace the experts, whereas for Thatcher market forces would perform that function. Remember the attack on consultants and their power in John Moore's "reforms (= deforms) of the NHS, and Kenneth Bakers attack on teachers in GerBIll which became the 1988 Education Act? Cameron is only playing the same tune, under the guise of devolving power to the localities = smashing the power of the highly trained & qualified Civil Service, which might act as a fetter on the Con-Dems aim of deconstructing the Welfare State, Destructive chaos is what they are after, and by golly, they are in danger of finding that they will get just that. The sttudents are only the harbingers of more to come. Andrew, Norwich
I find the premise you suggest has some merit. Points 1 to 5 have fair correlations with MAOISM in its purest form. This may have become inevitable with such a forced coalition attempting to merge two opposing political philosophies. However, as recent events demonstrate, idealism yields to necessary contingency driven behaviour and reactive policy follows. Malcolm, Devon
Mao started the "Cultural Revolution" in the 1960s, which was an anti-intellectual, grassroots purge of authority at all levels. It was based on the ancient Chinese concept of "hegemony" - the complete domination of society's political and social agenda by a single model of how the world is - and the role of the state - in this case, as defined in Mao's little "Red Book". Maoism therefore had a strong anarchic vision based on direct local action by indoctrinated cadres of activists, who would infiltrate local organisations and structures, then act in concert to pull down the "corrupt" system from within, backed up by central control of the mass media. Sound familiar? If you trace Libertarian entryism into the Tory Party in the late 70s, their rise to power under Mrs Thatcher and the way that certain local authorities like Wandsworth, Westminster and Bradford become test beds for privatisation, service cuts and workfare experiments, there are striking parallels to the way the Libertarians and Maosits operate politically - and they even have Hayek's little book too: "the Road to Serfdom", in which he argued that warned of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning, and in which he argues that the abandonment of individualism, liberalism, and freedom inevitably leads to socialist or fascist oppression and tyranny and the serfdom of the individual. Interestingly, Goeorge Orwell, that great whistleblower on the risks of tyranny comments:"A return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because it is even more irresponsible, than that of the state." I find the ideology of the Cameron government is pure Hayek - and their policies for local government and the "Big Society" display an ideological fundamentalism that Mao would immediately recognise as a deliberate attempt to gain control of the way we see ourselves and our communities - the rhetoric of "setting people free" is straight out of Hayek and the combination of deregulation and massive spending cuts are ideologocal choices, not pragmatic or practical decisions about what will deliver the best services at the local level. To say that the Tories are ideologically motivated and that they use the levers of power to implement their ideology is merely a statement of fact. To question the validity of such an ideology as a statement of FAITH - not a reflection of social and economic REALITY - is to begin to address the reason why we find the criticism of "Maoist" worrying, because if this faith is just a dangerous delusion based on the obessive ravings of another old man, it takes us to precisely the same place as every other dogma has done down the ages - up a blind alley - and as with every other zealot-inspired witchhunt, a hell of a lot of innocent and vulnerable people will get hurt in the process. Richard, Devon
Now, if Americans have lost the ability to 'have fun' it is because Reagan/Clinton neo-liberalism attacked and dismantled all of what made the US a first world Democracy with a strong middle-class. The Clinton's and the Bush's are the source of the decline to America and Americans into third world poverty. They worked hard to bring this coming bond market crash designed to send the US into a Great Depression and worked hard on Trans Pacific Trade Pact to end national sovereignty and our rights as citizens----
SO WHAT IS HILLARY REALLY TALKING ABOUT??????
Well, since neo-liberals and neo-cons are embracing
Marxist Stalinism-----I would go with re-education camps.
Hillary Clinton Says to Fix The 'Fun-Deficit' in America, 'We Really Need Camps for Adults'
Hillary Clinton Says to Fix The 'Fun-Deficit' in America, 'We Really Need Camps for Adults' (March 19, 2015) NBC News----You Tube
I have spoken about the neo-liberal national charter chains like KIPP where students are given 'no excuses' and are culled from the charter through behavior and achievement shortfalls. Meanwhile, the stats that say KIPP is improving achievement have often been found to juke the stats---they are not really achieving. What they are doing is re-educating and changing behavior. Now, people may say underserved children need discipline but this is not where all this is leading. ... These national charter chains and Common Core are all attached to what will become an autocratic control of all information the American people receive. It was written by Wall Street and Bush neo-cons and Clinton neo-liberals as global corporate tribunal pols.
IT IS CRITICAL THAT WE GET RID OF ALL GLOBAL CORPORATE POLS IN THESE COMING ELECTIONS. BECOME ENGAGED AND BE THE CANDIDATE IN ALL PRIMARY ELECTIONS. ALL MARYLAND POLS ARE CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL OR BUSH NEO-CON.
The urgency of every minute to learn----is straight from the neo-liberal education handbook from Asian schools.
Achievement First: Boot Camp for Kiddies
By dianeravitch July 10, 2013 //
Achievement First prides itself on its high test scores, but recent stories report that these charters are also distinguished for startlingly high suspension rates. Half the 5-year-olds were suspended last year.
Dacia Toll, the Ivy League-educated leader of the charter chain, promised to cut the suspension rate in half. Instead of suspending the kids, apparently they will get even tougher on them in school.
I have always wondered how privileged white college graduates learned to be so hard on impoverished black children. It is highly unlikely that what they do in these boot camps reflects their own home life or schooling.
Here is the drill in the AF charters that gets higher test scores:
“There is an urgency in the tenor of the classrooms at Achievement First schools; a sense that every second must be used for learning. Even on the last day of school at the Hartford middle school, a history teacher has a tightly structured lesson that students are clearly enjoying. She uses a timer to ensure that small tasks — like moving the desks into a U-shape for discussion — don’t take longer then necessary.
“The schools also have a language of their own that expedites communication and students, for the most part, respond like a precision team. A teacher at Bridgeport elementary schools tells her students to: “SLANT, fold your hands and make a bubble.” Translation: Sit up straight, listen, ask and answer questions, nod to signal engagement and track the teacher with your eyes. And the bubble? Purse your lips and fill your cheeks with air — a move that ensures quiet.
“For years, the Achievement First students in Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport, have outperformed their peers on state tests in almost all grades and subjects. On a recent visit to Achievement First’s middle school in Hartford, a strict disciplinary code was evident.
“In a large lecture hall with stadium seating — the “reflection room” — two or three students who had been removed from class for behavioral reasons sit quietly under the supervision of a staff member.
“At the front of the room, the consequences of breaking the rules and the rewards of not doing so are spelled out on large posters that proclaim, “You’re not a born winner, you’re not a born loser. You’re a born chooser. Make the Right Choice!”
“And in most classrooms, two or three students wear a white shirt over their blue school uniform, signaling that they are in “re-orientation” — a disciplinary measure that permits them to stay in academic classes but forbids interaction with peers and removes them from special classes like music or physical education.”
There is something Orwellian about that “Reflection Room.” I wouldn’t let my children or grandchildren go to such a school. Would you?
A comment posted on the article by Carol Burris, the principal of South Side High School in New York:
“As a public school principal, if I engaged in such practices, I would be fired. No middle class suburban parent would put up with the systematic humiliation of their children. The “culture” is more aligned with a communist nation than our nation.
“As for the “reflection room”–that is in-school suspension and for state accounting purposes, it should be counted as such. These practices may develop compliant children controlled by fear, but they will not develop leaders who have learned self-control.”