How is the Tea Party like the Bolsheviks?

The Tea party is in political science terms an anti-system party and so, to the chagrin of any Tea Partiers who understand this, they are similar in many ways to the world’s preeminent and most successful anti-system party of the last 100 years which was undoubtedly the Bolsheviks during the late tsarist era in Russia.

"The Tea Party is but one example of a common form of political insurgency—one that almost always loses in the long run. This kind of counter-establishment movement is common enough that comparative politics has a term for it: the “anti-system party”—a group that seeks to obstruct and delegitimize the entire political system in which the government functions. As explained by Giovanni Sartori, the Italian political scientist who coined the term in 1976, an anti-system is driven not by “an opposition on issues” but “an opposition of principle.”

“An anti-system party would not change—if it could—the government but the very system of government,” Sartori wrote. “[A]n anti-system opposition abides by a belief system that does not share the values of the political order within which it operates.”

It is unlike the Bolsheviks in that it is almost certain to fail, to dissolve and die. To succeed would almost certainly mean violent revolt because the TP is a minority (and an astroturfed one at that). This doesn't mean it won't have impact and some of its values will be distributed into the electorate and government, but ultimately it is most likely to expire fairly soon. The process has already begun which gives the TP only a very slight chance, probably not even 1% of revitalizing and taking over. To do so would really mean that it would destroy the U.S. government in any semblance of its current incarnation.

Read the rest of the article here or rant at me below, your choice: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz2tfcEjUDl

Anybody want to take bets on it?

I think you're wrong. The Tea Party is a "let's return to sanity, anti-corruption" kind of party. If no one in either major party has the country's best interest in mind, then he/she should be opposed and that's what the tea partiers are doing.

I thought about starting a thread called "What would the Soviet Union do?". If you started a program like say...a healthcare program that no one wanted, WWTSUD? They would make it mandatory under penalty of law. If people still didn't join the program? WWTSUD? They would inflate the numbers while at the same time hiding the numbers so they can declare victory.

Giovanni Sartori coined the term in 1976? This was two decades before the Tea Party. I knew he was a socialist writer on politics but I didn't know he was a prophet. Wow! You learn something new everyday.

The Tea party is in political science terms an anti-system party and so, to the chagrin of any Tea Partiers who understand this, they are similar in many ways to the world’s preeminent and most successful anti-system party of the last 100 years which was undoubtedly the Bolsheviks during the late tsarist era in Russia.

"The Tea Party is but one example of a common form of political insurgency—one that almost always loses in the long run. This kind of counter-establishment movement is common enough that comparative politics has a term for it: the “anti-system party”—a group that seeks to obstruct and delegitimize the entire political system in which the government functions. As explained by Giovanni Sartori, the Italian political scientist who coined the term in 1976, an anti-system is driven not by “an opposition on issues” but “an opposition of principle.”

“An anti-system party would not change—if it could—the government but the very system of government,” Sartori wrote. “[A]n anti-system opposition abides by a belief system that does not share the values of the political order within which it operates.”

It is unlike the Bolsheviks in that it is almost certain to fail, to dissolve and die. To succeed would almost certainly mean violent revolt because the TP is a minority (and an astroturfed one at that). This doesn't mean it won't have impact and some of its values will be distributed into the electorate and government, but ultimately it is most likely to expire fairly soon. The process has already begun which gives the TP only a very slight chance, probably not even 1% of revitalizing and taking over. To do so would really mean that it would destroy the U.S. government in any semblance of its current incarnation.

Anybody want to take bets on it? Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

It's an idiotic comparison. The TP is JUST like the commies because both are anti-system parties? Really? Kind of a broad criteria, don't you think?

That's like saying, "To the chagrin of many people, humans are just like dogs because both have hair and teeth..."

The rest of it decays into even more partisan stupidity, so I won't bother to address it all.

And I write this as someone who disagrees with TP positions on a lot of issues.

It's an idiotic comparison. The TP is JUST like the commies because both are anti-system parties? Really? Kind of a broad criteria, don't you think?

That's like saying, "To the chagrin of many people, humans are just like dogs because both have hair and teeth..."

The rest of it decays into even more partisan stupidity, so I won't bother to address it all.

And I write this as someone who disagrees with TP positions on a lot of issues. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yeh. If anything, most Tea Party followers want to adhere to the real law of the land, The Constitution, and put a end to what they see as Government by Decree.

the Tea Party is out of favor with moderates, and that favor is what it takes to have any success in politics

Kind of a broad criteria, don't you think? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yes, very broad criteria, one uses broad criteria when assessing large political movements. Valid when you assess how various parties rise and fall within political systems plus whether and how they are successful or not. Sorry you didn't like the article - TDB. Maybe political theory is not your thing.

Of course, Obama's alleged "despotism" is not even comparable to Tsarist despotism and the Bolshevik's actions and relation to it isn't comparable to the TP's actions. They do, however, share characteristics in how they relate ideologically to the entrenched system. Their eventual levels of success and fate are not comparable either. So what? That was the point of the article which noted other parallels that more closely align with TP history and so inform us how this whole Tea Party movement might turn out.

Your "Commies" were not actually "real" communists, ala Marx and Engles, either, but more an oligarchy or dictatorship with a veneer of Communist ideology. Marx and Engels hated autocracy and despotism - a view with which we all should be able to agree if not in what should displace that autocracy and despotism. They reviled expansionism as well and especially Tsarist expansionism which they knew well from study. They would have recognized Soviet despotism for what it was (though perhaps not at first) and its expansionism as a potential export which threatened not only the weaker neighbouring nations but the whole world as well.

That is why I would not stop laughing if it weren't for the crying about how hung up on a couple of words like communism and socialism some people are. It cost millions of lives and lots of treasure. We seem to rarely see through the facades of both our friends and enemies to what many of these regimes really are and do to/for their people.

the Tea Party is out of favor with moderates, and that favor is what it takes to have any success in politics Originally Posted by CJ7

I might disagree, both Clinton and Obama captured the middle, though in different ways, since they had a captive fringe. Clinton worked from the middle out when the Dems were too far left and fractured. Obama started left and triangulated to the middle when talking about elections. Of course they were people and not movements.

So you think they are going to eventually be successful or have they seen the height of their influence and are on the wane? You weren't clear on that, but polling rends would indicate the latter.

The Tea party is in political science terms an anti-system party and so, to the chagrin of any Tea Partiers who understand this, they are similar in many ways to the world’s preeminent and most successful anti-system party of the last 100 years which was undoubtedly the Bolsheviks during the late tsarist era in Russia.

"The Tea Party is but one example of a common form of political insurgency—one that almost always loses in the long run. This kind of counter-establishment movement is common enough that comparative politics has a term for it: the “anti-system party”—a group that seeks to obstruct and delegitimize the entire political system in which the government functions. As explained by Giovanni Sartori, the Italian political scientist who coined the term in 1976, an anti-system is driven not by “an opposition on issues” but “an opposition of principle.”

“An anti-system party would not change—if it could—the government but the very system of government,” Sartori wrote. “[A]n anti-system opposition abides by a belief system that does not share the values of the political order within which it operates.”

It is unlike the Bolsheviks in that it is almost certain to fail, to dissolve and die. To succeed would almost certainly mean violent revolt because the TP is a minority (and an astroturfed one at that). This doesn't mean it won't have impact and some of its values will be distributed into the electorate and government, but ultimately it is most likely to expire fairly soon. The process has already begun which gives the TP only a very slight chance, probably not even 1% of revitalizing and taking over. To do so would really mean that it would destroy the U.S. government in any semblance of its current incarnation.

Read the rest of the article here or rant at me below, your choice: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz2tfcEjUDl

Anybody want to take bets on it? Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

I will stick with the Tea-Party... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-a-smith-phd/

The tea party has convinced folks to come out of their double wides dressed like Ben Franklin screaming "don't tax the rich". Lewis Black

I've never seen anyone dressed as Ben Franklin in person or on TV. You do know that he was not a president right? You know we use terms like communist and socialist even though they may not be technically accurate. Kind of calling someone a child molester and they counter by saying that she was 16 and legal. Doesn't really change the basis for the charge just the technicality. Still they are close enough for government work. After all, Hitler was a socialist using nationalism to advance his statist agenda. There was very little right wing about him at all. Somehow nationalism has become comparable to being right wing. Communists are nationalists too but their cause is international communism. That being said, I will stick to labeling people communists and socialist if their ideas fit the mold.

I've never seen anyone dressed as Ben Franklin in person or on TV. You do know that he was not a president right? You know we use terms like communist and socialist even though they may not be technically accurate. Kind of calling someone a child molester and they counter by saying that she was 16 and legal. Doesn't really change the basis for the charge just the technicality. Still they are close enough for government work. After all, Hitler was a socialist using nationalism to advance his statist agenda. There was very little right wing about him at all. Somehow nationalism has become comparable to being right wing. Communists are nationalists too but their cause is international communism. That being said, I will stick to labeling people communists and socialist if their ideas fit the mold. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Did you see anything there about him being president you simple turd? Are you saying then the tea beggers are communists and socialists?

Where the hell did you read that? Are you drinking again?

I will stick with the Tea-Party... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-a-smith-phd/ Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Do you even understand any of this, DROOLY?

I've never seen anyone dressed as Ben Franklin in person or on TV. You do know that he was not a president right? You know we use terms like communist and socialist even though they may not be technically accurate. Kind of calling someone a child molester and they counter by saying that she was 16 and legal. Doesn't really change the basis for the charge just the technicality. Still they are close enough for government work. After all, Hitler was a socialist using nationalism to advance his statist agenda. There was very little right wing about him at all. Somehow nationalism has become comparable to being right wing. Communists are nationalists too but their cause is international communism. That being said, I will stick to labeling people communists and socialist if their ideas fit the mold. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

that's because you have your head up your ass