Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 months, 1 week ago
    The title made me hope it would deal with why they wanted a militia--- if it was just inexpensive protection or was it because they thought a standing army would always become like a "knight" class with influence on govt? If it was concern about influence, did the average person understand that? It would be sad if the average colonist at least understood that concept but the average modern American didn't.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  8 months, 1 week ago
      You should get it for yourself. Of all the people here, you will be least troubled by the author's socialist assumptions. It is really very personal, about individuals in time and place. The viewpoint character Seth Abbott is only concerned for his farm. Eventually, he comes to understand the wider conflict, though his wife never develops any sympathies for it. The big ideas, like the larger events, sort of sweep over them. I found it realistic in the aesthetic sense of the word.

      Have you read Citizen Tom Paine by Howard Fast? Fast was a communist. For Marxists, history is a science. Fast did a good job telling the story of the revolution from the viewpoint of the commoner.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 months, 1 week ago
        "Of all the people here, you will be least troubled by the author's socialist assumptions. "
        This line is distracting me. I think I'm more troubled by socialism than the average person.

        The world's major religions have some socialist teachings that go back to these times, when socialism might possibly have made more sense because means of production were limited.

        Technology is creating increased return on investment and decreasing or stagnant prices of ordinary labor. It's also lowered barriers of entry to create new wealth, but if you ignore than and look at higher investment returns and lower wages, it looks like "the rich get richer because the economic system is rigged for the wealthy." That leads to President Obama promising hope and change. Next you get people going beyond "change" and voting for the weirdest clown on the stage. They want to go back to a post-WWII era with lower income inequality. The next clown may be more effective than President Trump and may be an ideological socialist like Bernie Sanders rather than just an attention-seeking clown. I'm not worried about "civil war" between supporters of Trump and supporters of Sanders. I'm worried about Trump's and Sander's supporters figuring out they're not that different and then actually electing people who can execute a plan to wield really gov't power against their scapegoat groups to put things right in the economy for good hardworking Americans.

        That scenario probably won't happen. My point is I think I'm more concerned about socialism than people who come up with simplistic good vs evil narratives and then come up with childish names for the bad guys and pat themselves on the back for being one of the good guys.

        But I understand why you said it: I think gov't helping to the poor is a good idea, which someone could reasonably argue is "socialistic".

        Sorry I got side tracked by the socialist comment. I will check out Citizen Tom Paine.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo