Thanks, and your 100% correct… the idea of an administrative state has been tossed around since Plato’s Republic… And Wilson was president way after Lenin became leader of Russia and many other states they latched onto. if one wants to put most of the blame in the proper place, then one would have to fault Dewey. as its one thing to read and think about an idea, its another thing to go to the soviet union, and then copy their ideas and structure american schooling by that.

it matters not where the idea started, it matters where it was implemented, and then copied. mostly because an unimplemented idea is of no substance. I posted also the sources of the idea of the control of the people through journolism, the man who influenced Hearst from publishing the news to publishing the news in a certain way as to manipulate the readers en masse

John Dewey was an American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer whose ideas have been influential in education and social reform. Dewey is one of the primary figures associated with philosophy of pragmatism and is considered one of the founders of functional psychology. A well-known public intellectual, he was also a major voice of progressive education and liberalism

Known for his advocacy of democracy, Dewey considered two fundamental elements–schools and civil society–to be major topics needing attention and reconstruction to encourage experimental intelligence and plurality. Dewey asserted that complete democracy was to be obtained not just by extending voting rights but also by ensuring that there exists a fully formed public opinion, accomplished by communication among citizens, experts, and politicians, with the latter being accountable for the policies they adopt.

The wiki has been scrubbed as to his soviet union stuff or russia stuff… so much for being accountable, and knowing that this USA is a republic not a democracy.

if you do a search as to dewey, who started his ideas BEFORE the russia revolution, but then went over there and admired totalitarians and copied their ideas (just as hitler did as well).

Dewey launched a frontal assault on the traditional school beginning with the publication of his persuasive dual treatise The School and Society and The Child and the Curriculum in 1899 and 1902.

5 years before the russian revolution…

Dewey’s major work Democracy and Education (1916) had a Promethean effect on educational theory and practice around the world. As far as I know, Dewey himself never crossed the border, but his ideas took our educational establishment by storm. The impact of his progressive philosophy became increasingly evident in Canada as Dewey’s disciples began to turn his ideas into a new educational orthodoxy. The progressive model of what came to be known as “active learning” or “pragmatism” captured the hearts and minds of generations of Canadian teachers, and continues to dominate the thought of most of Canada’s educational theoreticians

so it wasnt just the USA that he changed, but also Canada, and many other places using the soviets as a kind of justification… it didnt hurt that Time magazine had made Stalin, and hitler and mao men of the year… (As they are now trying to choose person of the year)

Heilbroner goes on to describe an “Ariadne’s thread” comprised of four premises common to all Marxist thought. These he summarizes as follows:

1. The dialectical approach to knowledge.
2. The materialist approach to history.
3. A general view of capitalism that starts from Marx’s socio-analysis.
4. A commitment to socialism or a belief in the unity of theory and practice.

from that you can analyse..

and further agreeing with Geofry:
His philosophical influence on socialist educators in Russia can be traced back to the 1905 revolution, but since his most prominent followers did time in Czarist prisons thereafter, his ideas were not resurrected until after 1917. Nevertheless, his early Soviet disciples said they found much value in the work of John Dewey. One prominent Soviet educator, Albert P. Pinkervich, in comparing Dewey to contemporary German educators, said “Dewey comes infinitely closer to Marx and the Russian Communists.” There is little indication that Dewey found this sort of comparison to be extreme or uncomplimentary.

though i think given the new republic magazines current fate, this next sentence would be quite interesting:
Dewey published a series of laudatory impressions of Soviet Russia in The New Republic between 1920 and 1928, most of which developed a less than cautious “new world in the making” theme for Soviet Russia. However, throughout the 1930s, Dewey’s infatuation with the Soviet state declined in direct proportion to the Central Committee of the Communist Party’s own disappointment over the debilitating effects of progressive education on Russian graduates. Apparently the products of Dewey’s “project method” were becoming increasingly illequipped to fulfil Stalin’s Five Year Plans. In light of the somewhat embarrassing suggestion that perhaps only capitalist societies had the resilience to survive Dewey’s progressive educational reforms, he may have reacted with the wrath of the scorned. In 1937 he accepted the leadership of the Trotsky inquiry which exonerated Stalin’s mortal enemy of all charges laid by the Soviet State. His involvement in The Commission of Inquiry Into the Charges Laid Against Leon Trotsky resulted in a communist campaign of personal vilification that labelled Dewey a defender of capitalism and imperialist reaction.

and

Himmelfarb concluded that the extraordinary influence of Marxism in British Historiography was not an inevitable intellectual side effect of industrial capitalism. It was, rather, a conscious ideological commitment by a group of dedicated Marxist historians to impose their interpretation on Britain’s national history. Non-Marxist critics, however, believing that every historical work should be evaluated on its own merits and not by any indicting affiliations, disallowed themselves any consideration of Marxist influence. They accepted the omission of any consideration of Marxism solely on the grounds that it would be strident and improper – “rather like an ad hominem argument.” But Himmelfarb goes on to argue that it is “neither irrelevant nor ungracious” to consider Marxism in a serious analysis of work that one has good reason to believe is guided by the fundamental premises of Marxist thought. Indeed, not to do so can be counterproductive because it means refusing to take seriously what the author himself took most seriously.

the history is very large for this area and peoples, and there is never enough space to actually cover things here…

The left and right as defined by the left. As I have said many times, the left equates Hitler with the right, Stalin on the left. Between those two poles, both of which are actually leftist, they attempt to ignore the truth, and rid people of self governance, small governments, and the rest. Get out of that loop, and realize what the right truly is, and they have no power. Don’t let them define the loop, or, as you suggested, you have squandered your ability to think freely and clearly.

I can partially agree with Artfldgr’s “this is the SOVIET way of communism” but it started well before Lenin. Arguably, it started with the 19th century German philosophers (Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, etc) precursors to the philosophical schools of existentialism, postmodernism, and post-structuralism.

As evidence that the American left started before the Soviets, I offer this pertinent quote;
“We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.” — Woodrow Wilson – An Address to the New York City High School Teachers Association – January 9, 1909

Much of the political and economic difficulty now in easily in view comes from a point where either we plow further on into what you describe, or reality intrudes and we rethink. I don’t see any rethinking, in either of the two parties, and no third party with any real revisions on offer. It’s not looking so good for the West.

seems like a crazy point.. that is if you didnt know the history of things and what owners of slaves did with the female slaves… now the females are communally owned and earn their own keep, which is easier on a master who traditionally had to pay for the slaves upkeep. now they upkeep themselves and their youth is spent learning how to out sex Messalina (third wife of emperor claudius who competed in sex with a prostitute as to how many men they could do)

but if you know the origins of the modern feminist movement with the satanist sex communes of Moses Harmon (i have pointed him out before) and his daughter lilian harmon, and how that would need abortion on demand, or else sex/nintendo would not bo so fun… and so is a cornerstone..

Slave women were forced to comply with sexual advances by their masters on a very regular basis. Consequences of resistance often came in the form of physical beatings; thus, an enormous number of slaves became concubines for these men. Most often the masters were already bound in matrimony, which caused tension and hatred between the slave and the mistress of the house. Many “mulatto” or racially mixed children also resulted from these relations. Because the “status of the child” followed that of his or her mother, the child of a white man would not be freed based upon patriarchal genealogy. These children also became a sore reminder for the mistress of her husbands infidelity.

http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/projects/gsonnen/page4.html

to people of the time, who thoughut this was all well and good, abortion was a solution to how to have lots of fun with the lower class without social movement of the children produced by the hobby.

lots of stuff like this, but we are over 100 years past the time when the points were openly discusses. feminists dont bring up this part of the history, and all this amounts to is grooming women to be so sexual that they serve the elite as agents of release of sexual tension under the guise of liberation… note that they are also to do most of the work. taking a page out of history to avoid outcomes like spartacus…

note that promoting gays is also taking a page out of chinese history of how they organized their elite system. gay men would do what men did, but could not procreate… women were in harems for sexual use, and were put to work… the bottom where the common man who could not achieve or change station.

Hidden Power: The Palace Eunuchs of Imperial China
http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/eunuchs1.html

Eunuchs, males who have been rendered sexually impotent by mutilation or removal of the external genitals, served as palace menials, harem watch-dogs, and spies for rulers in most of the ancient world kingdoms stretching from Rome, Greece, and North Africa, through the biblical lands, and on across the Man continent

It should be pointed out that Chinese dynastic histories were all written by mandarins, the educated elite who, as a class, despised the palace eunuchs. Mandarins alone were eligible to hold office in the bureaucracy, the “Great Without.” Men qualified for coveted bureaucratic positions by passing grueling official examinations that required years of arduous study