The Left

[Love As Arson]

What happened? Have the democrats sucked the air out of various movements? Is is possible to make the democrats a leftist party? Will the left require a third party in order to have its ideals actually achieved? What are the prospects of change right now? I think these are questions that have to be dealt with in order to identify the cause of the persistence of right-wing policies in America. More broadly, we are seeing a shift to the right in western European countries with the implementation of austerity measures. Can we do anything about this?

[saysmydoctor]

I've wondered about this at a more local level with the recent issues of NY's WFP.

[caveBEAR]

I think the left/right situation is perfectly laid out with FoxNEWS/CNN. People who watch FoxNEWS will deny up, down and sideways that it's a right-wing outlet, but then turn and call CNN leftist, when it really isn't 'left' at all.

Same goes for politics, Repub/Dems, etc.

It's sad.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I think this article (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38183.html) explains the state of the Left in this country.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't think it's fair to say Cuomo is an enemy of labor.

[macabre]

What happened? Have the democrats sucked the air out of various movements? Is is possible to make the democrats a leftist party? Will the left require a third party in order to have its ideals actually achieved? What are the prospects of change right now? I think these are questions that have to be dealt with in order to identify the cause of the persistence of right-wing policies in America. More broadly, we are seeing a shift to the right in western European countries with the implementation of austerity measures. Can we do anything about this?

Many people on the Left still see Western-style liberal democracy as an adequate process to achieve progressive goals and the Democrats provide progressive, albeit diluted, solutions to some of our most pressing problems so I think much of the 'steam' from the Left is drastically reduced through the electoral process. A viable third party that represents the Left is likely a pipe dream because of the nature of our institutions (See: Duverger's Law) so the only way I see the Left truly gaining any prominence on the national stage is through a movement like the Tea Party. Unfortunately for the Left, however, high levels of unemployment typically drive radical right movements as segments of the working class begin to unite against foreign workers; this pattern has been seen quite consistently in Europe over the past few decades and seems to be occurring here in the US.

Excluding radical measures, it honestly seems like the Left needs something like a Tea Party movement if it intends on shaping policy through our electoral system. The OPEC oil crises, the resulting stagflation, and the fall of the Soviet Union really put a damper on popular perceptions of the Left so I doubt we'll see an extreme shift in that direction even with the current economic mess.

[sarahbell1219]

Excluding radical measures, it honestly seems like the Left needs something like a Tea Party movement if it intends on shaping policy through our electoral system. The OPEC oil crises, the resulting stagflation, and the fall of the Soviet Union really put a damper on popular perceptions of the Left so I doubt we'll see an extreme shift in that direction even with the current economic mess.

This.

I don't think there will be any strong leftist movement until years after the economy stabilizes and we see the effects of the leftists policies and if they worked. If they have worked, than 20, 30 years from now I could see American being a very leftist state. However, if they have had poor effects on our economy, like causing more recession to occur (see US economy post-New Deal pre-WW2), than I think we will be a right winged state.

I think that Americans are now starting to look for someone who isn't to extreme of one spectrum. I believe they want someone who is going to govern centrally and be bi-partisian, rather than draw party lines.

George Washing said it best: "They (political parties) serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."

[Zeran]

if there were an actual, viable progressive/liberal/leftist third party, i would immediately become a member and vote 100% for them. but i'm afraid this is not going to happen, because there's simply not the driving force there to create a unified, lasting party that can have an actual impact on the current political scene.

[Dunn.Nope]

who is going to write the "Letter to the New New Left" for this generation?

[saysmydoctor]

This.

I don't think there will be any strong leftist movement until years after the economy stabilizes and we see the effects of the leftists policies and if they worked. If they have worked, than 20, 30 years from now I could see American being a very leftist state. However, if they have had poor effects on our economy, like causing more recession to occur (see US economy post-New Deal pre-WW2), than I think we will be a right winged state.

I think that Americans are now starting to look for someone who isn't to extreme of one spectrum. I believe they want someone who is going to govern centrally and be bi-partisian, rather than draw party lines.

George Washing said it best: "They (political parties) serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."
Moderates and centrists are extremists as well.

[Kid CudI]

Obama is not a real president

[<*)))><]

Everyone is an extremist.

[saysmydoctor]

Everyone is an extremist.
Thanks for playing.

[<*)))><]

Thanks for playing.
What do I win? I sure hope it's a giftcard to the Olive Garden.

[Zeran]

Moderates and centrists are extremists as well.

explain?

[caveBEAR]

What do I win? I sure hope it's a giftcard to the Olive Garden.

I saw John McCain in an Olive Garden in Orlando during the Presidential Elections.

He looked like a wax sculpture.
:shudder:

[saysmydoctor]

explain?
It's a point Togepi has made countless times here that I agree with; he could probably explain it better than I could.

[Machu505]

Here's an idea for the Democrats: use your goddamn majorities. If you show the people that leftish policies work for them, they'll reward you. Goddamnit.

[caveBEAR]

Here's an idea for the Democrats: use your goddamn majorities. If you show the people that leftish policies work for them, they'll reward you. Goddamnit.

But...but...that would take...initiative...and balls...

I didn't vote for my Democrats to show either of those. I prefer them as spineless meatbags.

[<*)))><]

I saw John McCain in an Olive Garden in Orlando during the Presidential Elections.

He looked like a wax sculpture.
:shudder:

I once saw Bill Clinton at a local resturant and he looked like a real person.

[Scrandon]

I once saw Bill Clinton at a local resturant and he looked like a real person.

I thought you only eat canned tuna

[<*)))><]

I thought you only eat canned tuna
I saw a crowd outside and someone told me that Bill Clinton was inside so I went to go look. Plus I couldn't afford to eat there, I think it is like $30 for an entree.

[Theseventhson]

Obama is not a real president

Meh, bad trolling attempt is bad.

[<*)))><]

Obama is not a real president

You are right, he is a pornstar.

[Theseventhson]

You are right, he is a pornstar.

Might Be NSFW (http://regent.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/15/gayrack_obama_2.jpg)

[<*)))><]

Might Be NSFW (http://regent.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/15/gayrack_obama_2.jpg)

In general there is a thread about a pornstar that played him in nailin palin just died. I saw that after making my post.

[sarahbell1219]

Moderates and centrists are extremists as well.

Explain? I really am interested. I've never thought about it that way.

[x togepi x]

This.

I don't think there will be any strong leftist movement until years after the economy stabilizes and we see the effects of the leftists policies and if they worked. If they have worked, than 20, 30 years from now I could see American being a very leftist state. However, if they have had poor effects on our economy, like causing more recession to occur (see US economy post-New Deal pre-WW2), than I think we will be a right winged state.

We aren't seeing leftist policies being done so no, we're not going to have a leftist party. If anything, if Obama's policies work (which I doubt they will because his solutions don't really address the root of the problems, which I think is capitalism itself), we'll see a more centrist political arena.

All you have to do is compare the New Deal to the Stimulus package and see that we're not really left. Much of Obama's economic advisors are center-right. Look at the healthcare policy which was essentially a bail out for insurance companies. These aren't left wing policies in the least.


You're right though with the bolded. If I was totally cynical, I'd claim Bush fucked up the economy so badly just so the Democrats would lose in the big picture instead.

I think that Americans are now starting to look for someone who isn't to extreme of one spectrum. I believe they want someone who is going to govern centrally and be bi-partisian, rather than draw party lines.

I honestly don't think most Americans give a fuck about political parties, you know? They really just care about who's going to make the country better. If a hardcore socialist or super libertarian had some plan that seemed like it would work, then most people would vote for them. Ideology is more for the people who are into politics. I think Obama's bipartsianship is shooting him in the foot really.

[LoginBanned]

I don't think any party will fully acheive their ideals, they have to make concessions in order to get elected.

[x togepi x]

explain?
Explain? I really am interested. I've never thought about it that way.

The center/moderates are extreme about their centrism/moderation. The movement has its roots in Aristotle, who generally said that we ought to mediate between extremes. For example, he said that courage is the medium between cowardice and foolhardiness on the other. The problem is that Aristotle also said that the middle is completely contextual. What's courage for a soldier might be foolhardiness for a common citizen for example.

when you are always looking for the bipartisian/moderate position between "the extremes", you run into all sorts of problems. In the interests of time, i'll just talk about one, namely that your position itself is extremist. Extreme isn't something we can define in a vacuum. It's not as if we can say "oh look at the radical leftist floating in space." We need something to refer it to. Often in political discourse, we refer to the extremes/radicals based on how far they differ from "the center", forgetting that "the center" itself is merely a placeholder for the middle between the two dominate parties.

the problem is that we forget that the two dominate parties do not actually have a monopoly on political thought. there's all sorts of positions one could take that aren't democrat or republican. When we don't take into consideration how our own political spectrum could be considered extremist to someone who lives in another place where both democrat and republican are outside theirs, we forget that our views can easily be considered extremist.

For example, take the Center/Moderate view on military spending. They hardly ever criticize the fact that we spend way more on our military than anyone else in the world, dwarfing the budgets of our biggest enemies by far. To criticize this view in the US is to be considered an extremist, but someone in Sweden is going to say our military spending is insanely extremist.

[sarahbell1219]

We aren't seeing leftist policies being done so no, we're not going to have a leftist party. If anything, if Obama's policies work (which I doubt they will because his solutions don't really address the root of the problems, which I think is capitalism itself), we'll see a more centrist political arena.
Okay so the government taking over, appointing officials, CEOs and owning banks and car companies isn't leftist? If we were a true capitalism society, we would not being having these issues. Thank Carter for the collapse of the home market: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

All you have to do is compare the New Deal to the Stimulus package and see that we're not really left. Much of Obama's economic advisors are center-right. Look at the healthcare policy which was essentially a bail out for insurance companies. These aren't left wing policies in the least.
I don't even know how to respond to this because it is pretty much the opposite of everything I've ever been taught and read... The New Deal created Social Security, which IS socialism-esqe. The healthcare policy was NOT a bail out for insurance companies because people are going to have trouble even paying for insurance, leading them to buy the government's insurance, leading to insurance companies committing bankruptcy, along with hospitals and private practices. I wrote a 30 page paper about EMTALA, which allows people free healthcare if they go to the emergency room. Its sorta related to this... if you want, I will send it to you and maybe you'll change your mind about this :).

I honestly don't think most Americans give a fuck about political parties, you know? They really just care about who's going to make the country better. If a hardcore socialist or super libertarian had some plan that seemed like it would work, then most people would vote for them. Ideology is more for the people who are into politics. I think Obama's bipartsianship is shooting him in the foot really.
I agree with some of this. I think people really gravitate towards people who are passionate about their beliefs... and please give me 5 examples where Obama actually has been bipartisan and not just seem like it (ie the "healthcare summit). I really haven't seen it.

[Scrandon]

Okay so the government taking over, appointing officials, CEOs and owning banks and car companies isn't leftist? If we were a true capitalism society, we would not being having these issues. Thank Carter for the collapse of the home market: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act


What the ...?

Did you seriously just trace the economic collapse back to a single law from forty years ago?
Not one single sane economist in the world will agree with you on that.

Moreover, banks didn't loan out subprime mortgages because they were required to by the government, they did it out of their own damn greed and ignorance of the system. If anything, the trend of de-regulation over the last thirty years by both parties is to blame.

The most ignorant thing I have heard is to blame the government for the economic collapse. Without the government, your money would be gone, and we would be facing conditions worse than the Great Depression.

[saysmydoctor]

The center/moderates are extreme about their centrism/moderation. The movement has its roots in Aristotle, who generally said that we ought to mediate between extremes. For example, he said that courage is the medium between cowardice and foolhardiness on the other. The problem is that Aristotle also said that the middle is completely contextual. What's courage for a soldier might be foolhardiness for a common citizen for example.

when you are always looking for the bipartisian/moderate position between "the extremes", you run into all sorts of problems. In the interests of time, i'll just talk about one, namely that your position itself is extremist. Extreme isn't something we can define in a vacuum. It's not as if we can say "oh look at the radical leftist floating in space." We need something to refer it to. Often in political discourse, we refer to the extremes/radicals based on how far they differ from "the center", forgetting that "the center" itself is merely a placeholder for the middle between the two dominate parties.

the problem is that we forget that the two dominate parties do not actually have a monopoly on political thought. there's all sorts of positions one could take that aren't democrat or republican. When we don't take into consideration how our own political spectrum could be considered extremist to someone who lives in another place where both democrat and republican are outside theirs, we forget that our views can easily be considered extremist.

For example, take the Center/Moderate view on military spending. They hardly ever criticize the fact that we spend way more on our military than anyone else in the world, dwarfing the budgets of our biggest enemies by far. To criticize this view in the US is to be considered an extremist, but someone in Sweden is going to say our military spending is insanely extremist.
Very well put and better than I could have ever phrased it.

[sarahbell1219]

What the ...?

Did you seriously just trace the economic collapse back to a single law from forty years ago?
Not one single sane economist in the world will agree with you on that.

Moreover, banks didn't loan out subprime mortgages because they were required to by the government, they did it out of their own damn greed and ignorance of the system. If anything, the trend of de-regulation over the last thirty years by both parties is to blame.

The most ignorant thing I have heard is to blame the government for the economic collapse. Without the government, your money would be gone, and we would be facing conditions worse than the Great Depression.


Read the rest of the wikipedia article... there are many reputable people who link that law to the collapse... I'm not just making this up, lol.

Both parties have done wrong.. not going to disagree with you there!

You kind of contradicted yourself. You said the government's deregulation lead to the economic collapse, which would mean that this is partly the government's fault because they deregulated. Just sayin.

And I am glad that the government did help stop the monster they created, I just wish they went about it in different ways. Supply side policies, ftw!

[saysmydoctor]

Supply side policies ftw?

Are you even watching your evening news?

[Scrandon]

This.

I don't think there will be any strong leftist movement until years after the economy stabilizes and we see the effects of the leftists policies and if they worked. If they have worked, than 20, 30 years from now I could see American being a very leftist state. However, if they have had poor effects on our economy, like causing more recession to occur (see US economy post-New Deal pre-WW2), than I think we will be a right winged state.


The New Deal failed?
Well this is news to me.

You expected the world's largest economic crisis, years in the making, to be solved in less than five years?
Not gonna happen, and the New Deal was much more successful than the Republicans' alternative, which was to wait it out.

This isn't even really debatable, and if you think that the policy of the New Deal Era is 'left' by today's standards, you have some waking up to do.

[Scrandon]

Read the rest of the wikipedia article... there are many reputable people who link that law to the collapse... I'm not just making this up, lol.

You don't think it could have to do with the fact that millions of people around the world could get rich trading mortgage securities? The more mortgages they sold, the more money the made. This led to relaxing requirements for loans, or subprime mortgages. This has nothing to do with the government.

Both parties have done wrong.. not going to disagree with you there!

You kind of contradicted yourself. You said the government's deregulation lead to the economic collapse, which would mean that this is partly the government's fault because they deregulated. Just sayin.

The government can deregulate all they want, that doesn't cause a financial collapse on it's own.
And I am glad that the government did help stop the monster they created, I just wish they went about it in different ways. Supply side policies, ftw!

The government did not create the monster, which is the point illustrated above. Supply side economics has never worked, the success Reagan had with the economy was due to the massive amounts of government spending, or your so called 'leftist policies'.

[saysmydoctor]

I was wondering when someone would bring the Almighty Hypocrite Reagan into the picture. Glad that we've addressed that. Let's not forget who raided the Social Security coffers and then spent it all on things not even grounded in science, like SDI.

[Scrandon]

Remember that tax rebate from President Bush, that did wonders in stimulating the economy right?

[saysmydoctor]

And for the national debt too.

[sarahbell1219]

I was wondering when someone would bring the Almighty Hypocrite Reagan into the picture. Glad that we've addressed that. Let's not forget who raided the Social Security coffers and then spent it all on things not even grounded in science, like SDI.

I don't see why republicans love Reagan... He increased spending while in his administration, although it was because of the Cold War (which I still don't get because the Reagan administration was in the middle of detente, I believe, so there really wasn't much fighting going on if I remember correctly). He also wanted to decrease the amount of missiles that the US had by 1/3, like Obama who got much criticism from it from the people who love him the most (ie Sarah Palin).

[Scrandon]

But you just ...! What?!?!?

[sarahbell1219]

The New Deal failed?
Well this is news to me.

You expected the world's largest economic crisis, years in the making, to be solved in less than five years?
Not gonna happen, and the New Deal was much more successful than the Republicans' alternative, which was to wait it out.

This isn't even really debatable, and if you think that the policy of the New Deal Era is 'left' by today's standards, you have some waking up to do.

Sorry let me rephrase, the New Deal was VERY successful in the short term. No doubt about it. It kept American from staving to death. However, in the long term, it created recessions because the economy became dependent on government spending in the economy, rather than actual economic activity. World War II is what got us out of the Great Depression because it created industry and gave jobs to americans.

You are correct about the New Deal not seeming leftist by today's standards, which is sad. Glenn Beck (please don't kill me for bringing up this man) wrote a book about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Overton_Window_(book). The Overton Window is quite an interesting concept, you have to admit.

[saysmydoctor]

But you just ...! What?!?!?
Yeah, I'm confused too.

[Scrandon]

Sorry let me rephrase, the New Deal was VERY successful in the short term. No doubt about it. It kept American from staving to death. However, in the long term, it created recessions because the economy became dependent on government spending in the economy, rather than actual economic activity.

Oh, I'm sorry government-stimulated economic activity doesn't count as 'actual' economic activity to you.



World War II is what got us out of the Great Depression because it created industry and gave jobs to americans.


New Deal = Government spending.
WWII = More government spending.

If anything, the 'industry' and jobs created during WWII was much more temporary than the majority of the New Deal.

[macabre]

There are many reputable people who link that law to the collapse.

Anybody that links the Community Reinvestment Act to the financial collapse is a political hack that should not be trusted as a "reputable" source. Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies has actually looked into this claim and found that the vast majority of lending came from independent mortgage companies that received no particular help from the CRA.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) encourages banks to expand mortgage lending in the communities in which they have branch offices, subject to maintaining overall levels of financial safety and soundness. Some have argued that this regulation forced banks to lower their credit standards and engage in riskier mortgage products in order to extend credit to lower-income individuals, who perhaps should not have received such loans. However, data provided by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reveal that loans covered by the CRA accounted for only a fraction of mortgage lending to lower-income borrowers and neighborhoods. This is especially true of higher-priced, or subprime, mortgages.

CRA assessment-area lending accounted for only nine percent of higher-priced loans to lower-income borrowers and neighborhoods, while independent mortgage companies accounted for the majority. Further, the subprime share of assessment-area loans made to lower-income borrowers and lower-income neighborhoods was lower than the subprime share for all loans made between 2004 and 2006.

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/5774/subprime1.jpg

Source: Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/governmentprograms/n08-2_park.pdf)

[sarahbell1219]

Oh, I'm sorry government-stimulated economic activity doesn't count as 'actual' economic activity to you.
Once again, let me rephrase. Stimulus does artificially prop up and economy, and if the stimulus doesn't work and solid, long term jobs are not created, than when the spending stops, the economy suffers.

New Deal = Government spending.
WWII = More government spending.

If anything, the 'industry' and jobs created during WWII was much more temporary than the majority of the New Deal.

Yes they were temporary, but they created an air of consumer confidence (ie baby boom) to allow industry to flourish. I'm not an expert on the New Deal, but from what I have read and written about in school- one quote stuck out to me that I read: "Hitler had more to do with the end of the Great Depression rather than the New Deal." Not saying I agree with it, but it's an interesting food for thought.

[sarahbell1219]

Anybody that links the Community Reinvestment Act to the financial collapse is a political hack that should not be trusted as a "reputable" source. Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies has actually looked into this claim and found that the vast majority of lending came from independent mortgage companies that received no particular help from the CRA.



Source: Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/governmentprograms/n08-2_park.pdf)

Interesting... I'll have to look more into that. Thanks. I am always willing to change what I think and what I believe if there is evidence.

[Scrandon]

Interesting... I'll have to look more into that. Thanks. I am always willing to change what I think and what I believe if there is evidence.

Here (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money) is an explanation of some of the causes of the financial collapse.

Take away points:
It wasn't the government's fault.
Government intervention in the economy is not a bad thing.

[open mind]

the left has a bad habit of making a big deal about certain issues when a republican is in power and then (more or less) going to sleep on the exact same issues when a democrat is in power.

[Zeran]

the left has a bad habit of making a big deal about certain issues when a republican is in power and then (more or less) going to sleep on the exact same issues when a democrat is in power.

example?

[Zeran]

Might Be NSFW (http://regent.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/15/gayrack_obama_2.jpg)

omg, i lol'ed so hard at this.

[open mind]

example?

iraq and afghanistan.

[Zeran]

I think Obama's bipartsianship is shooting him in the foot really.

this, i can definitely agree with.

[Zeran]

iraq and afghanistan.

what do you mean by the dems "going to sleep" on these issues?

[open mind]

what do you mean by the dems "going to sleep" on these issues?

i was referring to the left, a lot of dems aren't really on the left.
protests of the wars don't happen so much now that dems are in power although the situation hasn't changed significantly. as far as i know the legal issues surrounding the war on terror haven't been properly addressed yet, but there's next to no noise about that today either.

[x togepi x]

Okay so the government taking over, appointing officials, CEOs and owning banks and car companies isn't leftist? If we were a true capitalism society, we would not being having these issues. Thank Carter for the collapse of the home market: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

If I were to agree with your analysis of the housing market, I could still say this isn't leftist because Carter wasn't left in the least. Even oh so great liberal god JFK wasn't.

If we had a leftist party, the bail out would have gone much differently, probably with an emphasis on helping out the working class instead of giving tons of money to major corporations and allowing those said corporations to continue to pay bonuses to their CEOs and executives.

For example, a critical part of the bail out could have been fixing the credit system in this country so that predatory lending was a lot harder or even nearly impossible. We could have forgiven student debt, which would have helped stabilize the housing market as many graduates would be able to afford to buy new homes instead of paying off student loans while many failing on their mortgages could have more money to keep them from defaulting because they too are often still paying off student debt.

A leftist would try to deal with the socioeconomic conditions that created the market collapse (which I'm still going to say is capitalism whether or not it's being regulated) instead of merely trying to bring us back to the level of prosperity we had before the collapse like Obama did.

This is why I pointed out, and you ignored, that many of Obama's advisors are center-right thinking economists, many of whom have had ties to Bush in some way.

I don't even know how to respond to this because it is pretty much the opposite of everything I've ever been taught and read... The New Deal created Social Security, which IS socialism-esqe.

The New Deal did a whole hell of a lot more than create social security. There were massive government work programs were poor people could get jobs doing things like digging ditches and building roads so that we could have improvements to our infrastructure without contracting private companies. it also made a lot of speculation in the market illegal (until those reforms were repealed by Reagan/Bush/Clinton).

but even then, social security is clearly not enough, which is why we need universal healthcare. That would be the leftist position. Social Security is more moderate/centrist.

.The healthcare policy was NOT a bail out for insurance companies because people are going to have trouble even paying for insurance, leading them to buy the government's insurance, leading to insurance companies committing bankruptcy, along with hospitals and private practices. I wrote a 30 page paper about EMTALA, which allows people free healthcare if they go to the emergency room. Its sorta related to this... if you want, I will send it to you and maybe you'll change your mind about this :).

The fact that people are mandated to by insurance which is, more often than not, going to be from a private corporation IS making it a bail out, as well as the lack of a strong Public Option in the bill. This is why THE LEFT WING OF THE PARTY was complaining about the government healthcare reform.

if your analysis was correct, the healthcare debate wouldn't have been Right Wingers vs. Moderates vs. Leftists. it would have been Dems vs. Republicans. The fact that people like Kuicinich were claiming they'd filibuster shows that the healthcare policy wasn't leftist. It was a moderate/centrist attempt to fix a crisis.

I agree with some of this. I think people really gravitate towards people who are passionate about their beliefs... and please give me 5 examples where Obama actually has been bipartisan and not just seem like it (ie the "healthcare summit). I really haven't seen it.

1) The fact that he didn't support a Public Option in the healthcare bill or universal healthcare
2) The fact that his Supreme Court nominees have been moderates
3) The fact that he continued the war in Afghanistan in the vein of the Bush Administration
4) The fact that he has watered down much of his political positions (see the changes Obama has made from when he was a Senator and now)
5) The fact that he uses the same type of economic advisors that Bush did.

[saysmydoctor]

If I were to agree with your analysis of the housing market, I could still say this isn't leftist because Carter wasn't left in the least. Even oh so great liberal god JFK wasn't.

If we had a leftist party, the bail out would have gone much differently, probably with an emphasis on helping out the working class instead of giving tons of money to major corporations and allowing those said corporations to continue to pay bonuses to their CEOs and executives.

For example, a critical part of the bail out could have been fixing the credit system in this country so that predatory lending was a lot harder or even nearly impossible. We could have forgiven student debt, which would have helped stabilize the housing market as many graduates would be able to afford to buy new homes instead of paying off student loans while many failing on their mortgages could have more money to keep them from defaulting because they too are often still paying off student debt.

A leftist would try to deal with the socioeconomic conditions that created the market collapse (which I'm still going to say is capitalism whether or not it's being regulated) instead of merely trying to bring us back to the level of prosperity we had before the collapse like Obama did.

This is why I pointed out, and you ignored, that many of Obama's advisors are center-right thinking economists, many of whom have had ties to Bush in some way.



The New Deal did a whole hell of a lot more than create social security. There were massive government work programs were poor people could get jobs doing things like digging ditches and building roads so that we could have improvements to our infrastructure without contracting private companies. it also made a lot of speculation in the market illegal (until those reforms were repealed by Reagan/Bush/Clinton).

but even then, social security is clearly not enough, which is why we need universal healthcare. That would be the leftist position. Social Security is more moderate/centrist.

.

The fact that people are mandated to by insurance which is, more often than not, going to be from a private corporation IS making it a bail out, as well as the lack of a strong Public Option in the bill. This is why THE LEFT WING OF THE PARTY was complaining about the government healthcare reform.

if your analysis was correct, the healthcare debate wouldn't have been Right Wingers vs. Moderates vs. Leftists. it would have been Dems vs. Republicans. The fact that people like Kuicinich were claiming they'd filibuster shows that the healthcare policy wasn't leftist. It was a moderate/centrist attempt to fix a crisis.



1) The fact that he didn't support a Public Option in the healthcare bill or universal healthcare
2) The fact that his Supreme Court nominees have been moderates
3) The fact that he continued the war in Afghanistan in the vein of the Bush Administration
4) The fact that he has watered down much of his political positions (see the changes Obama has made from when he was a Senator and now)
5) The fact that he uses the same type of economic advisors that Bush did.
:appl:

[Zeran]

i was referring to the left, a lot of dems aren't really on the left.
protests of the wars don't happen so much now that dems are in power although the situation hasn't changed significantly. as far as i know the legal issues surrounding the war on terror haven't been properly addressed yet, but there's next to no noise about that today either.

yeah, that is true. there definitely don't seem to be the same amount of anti-war protests like there were under bush.

[Zeran]

:appl:

qft.

[Love As Arson]

I remember Jonathan Kozol speaking about how people were worried about their wealth being redistributed in order to provide quality education for the poor. He said his response was, "You're right." I also remember Obama saying something about spreading the wealth and backtracking on the remark. It's a bit sad that this is the case.

[Zeran]

why are people still using the word socialism as if we're still in the cold war? there are a ton of countries that use "socialism" in their policies, and their countries are doing fine. why can we not also do this?

[<*)))><]

why are people still using the word socialism as if we're still in the cold war? there are a ton of countries that use "socialism" in their policies, and their countries are doing fine. why can we not also do this?
Name one.

[caveBEAR]

Name one.

Sweeden. Norway.

[catherinexhimel]

I saw a woman driving a truck a few weeks ago with these two bumper stickers:
http://www.stickershoppe.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/R88.jpg[/URL]

[URL="http://www.cafepress.com/impeachobama08"]http://www.fredstates.com/images/impeachobama08.gif (http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:VRgPNIsaoMNw9M:http://www.americanmethod.com/images/Palin2012-Oval.gif)

That made me cringe.

[<*)))><]

Sweeden. Norway.
They are not socialst.

[caveBEAR]

I saw a woman driving a truck a few weeks ago with these two bumper stickers:
http://www.stickershoppe.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/R88.jpg[/URL]

[URL="http://www.cafepress.com/impeachobama08"]http://www.fredstates.com/images/impeachobama08.gif (http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:VRgPNIsaoMNw9M:http://www.americanmethod.com/images/Palin2012-Oval.gif)

That made me cringe.

Actually, I think Palin as President may spur the Left into action much the same as a black 'socialist' President has spurred the Right.

[caveBEAR]

They are not socialst.

Indeed. However, they have 'socialist' policies in place.

[<*)))><]

Indeed. However, they have 'socialist' policies in place.
You can say that for nearly any country. So find another example

[catherinexhimel]

Actually, I think Palin as President may spur the Left into action much the same as a black 'socialist' President has spurred the Right.
Most likely. My crazy right-winged dad has started talking about Obama as a socialist/evil anti-Christian/suspected terrorist every day. It's annoying as fuck.

[caveBEAR]

You can say that for nearly any country. So find another example

No, you can't say that for every country. Both Sweeden and Norway have policies in place that go further than most countries in leaning towards (what moronic Americans would call) 'socialism'.

Google (www.google.com). Find your own examples.

[paper halo]

They are not socialst.

You asked for one country that simply had elements of socialism about it's policies, not for a socialist country. Try to keep up.

[<*)))><]

No, you can't say that for every country. Both Sweeden and Norway have policies in place that go further than most countries in leaning towards (what moronic Americans would call) 'socialism'.

Google (www.google.com). Find your own examples.
How do go further?

[caveBEAR]

How do go further?

I'm just gonna leave this here...


Everyone enjoy the butchered English. I'm going to work.

[kwsqd]

lol, what a great exchange of words.

[rawesome]

How do go further?
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/56207/list_of_socialist_countries_with_in dividual.html?cat=37

And, as the question is about how some of these countries are doing "fine," examples.

Cuba, because of their state-run and heavily funded educational system, is one of, if not the, most well-educated countries in ALL of Latin America. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Cuba#Level_of_achievem ent)

China has a rapidly growing economy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487044232045750165514 60800026.html), which didn't suffer too much from the U.S. and now European based recessions.

Sweden has a considerably higher ranked health care system (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) than the U.S. and is ranked the 7th happiest country in the world. (http://www.financialjesus.com/how-to-get-rich/top-10-happiest-countries/)

Venezuela has, probably, the most popular and powerful leader in Latin America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez) outside of Brazil and also has a vast amount of oil reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_res erves)which, if Chavez gets his shit together, could lead to an incredibly stable economy for some time.

[caveBEAR]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/56207/list_of_socialist_countries_with_in dividual.html?cat=37

And, as the question is about how some of these countries are doing "fine," examples.

Cuba, because of their state-run and heavily funded educational system, is one of, if not the, most well-educated countries in ALL of Latin America. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Cuba#Level_of_achievem ent)

China has a rapidly growing economy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487044232045750165514 60800026.html), which didn't suffer too much from the U.S. and now European based recessions.

Sweden has a considerably higher ranked health care system (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) than the U.S. and is ranked the 7th happiest country in the world. (http://www.financialjesus.com/how-to-get-rich/top-10-happiest-countries/)

Venezuela has, probably, the most popular and powerful leader in Latin America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez) outside of Brazil and also has a vast amount of oil reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_res erves)which, if Chavez gets his shit together, could lead to an incredibly stable economy for some time.

BUT CUBA, CHINA AND VENEZUELA ARE EVIL!!!

(oblig: :rolleyes:)

[Scrandon]

How do go further?

I refuse to believe you are this stupid.

When you enter a political thread, take time to think about your response and reread your post.
Stop treating it like the fucking PL forum.
If you don't want to think, go away.

[Love As Arson]

I like how democrats are down-talking unions after Blanche Lincoln won last night.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I like how democrats are down-talking unions after Blanche Lincoln won last night.
It makes me want to stop associating myself with the party.

[Zeran]

the dems need to grow some balls.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

the dems need to grow some balls.

It's called "politics" for a reason. This isn't a liberal nation. Dems need to appease to the moderate/right in order to get elected. :-(

[saysmydoctor]

And now the Left is pissed.
(http://feeds.politico.com/click.phdo?i=4528306277890e4ca7e2f3 f95391f844)

[zion the lion]

I remember me and my friends thinking about starting a left wing extremist group when we were like 10 because we were stupid. We thought we were going to change the world and stuff I guess. We didnt even get past naming it.

I saw John McCain in an Olive Garden in Orlando during the Presidential Elections.

He looked like a wax sculpture.
:shudder:

Me and my friend went to an olive garden in orlando on july 13 in like 08 because her birthday was on the 12th and mine was on the 14th...the waiters (there were two for our table because she was wearing a slutty top) thought we were older so they gave us two chocolate cakes at the end.

[Zeran]

It's called "politics" for a reason. This isn't a liberal nation. Dems need to appease to the moderate/right in order to get elected. :-(

they still can enact more liberal-leaning policies when they have huge majorities in both the house and senate.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

they still can enact more liberal-leaning policies when they have huge majorities in both the house and senate.

Well, it took months of convincing several moderate dems of passing the healthcare bill in a compromise.

[Zeran]

Well, it took months of convincing several moderate dems of passing the healthcare bill in a compromise.

i know, but even after all the wrangling, there was still a good chance of putting the public option in there and they didn't do it.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

i know, but even after all the wrangling, there was still a good chance of putting the public option in there and they didn't do it.

I wish they did, but like I said, there were key votes preventing from passing anything. I wish we had more liberal policies, but politicians have to compromise. Bill Clinton became a centrist after the '94 Republican Revolution and I won't be surprised if Obama does the same. Shit sucks, but what could you do?

[Zeran]

obama is already a centrist, isn't he?

[jwicklun]

obama is already a centrist, isn't he?

he's a tyrant, commie, socialist dictator! He's ruining this country raising the taxes like crazy!

[oldwirehands]

The left needs to get their shit together.

[Nevuk]

The left is filled with too much cowardice.

[rawesome]

I would say it is more a failed attempt at diplomacy which is overpowered by cutthroat politics on the part of the wealthy, thus powerful, opponents more than outright cowardice. Basically, the Leftist political process is the prime example of the old adage "Nice guys finish last."

[saysmydoctor]

The left is filled with too much cowardice.
We have a winner.

[zion the lion]

If everyone has come to the consensus that the left is filled with too much cowardice and they arent doing shit, then why dont you guys do some "shit" for the left and grow them the balls they need to make them the actual left instead of the half assed left?

[Love As Arson]

If everyone has come to the consensus that the left is filled with too much cowardice and they arent doing shit, then why dont you guys do some "shit" for the left and grow them the balls they need to make them the actual left instead of the half assed left?
How do you know we aren't? Whether or not it has been effective in the era of democratic majorities is another issue.

[zion the lion]

How do you know we aren't? Whether or not it has been effective in the era of democratic majorities is another issue.

I dont but most people just sit around and complain. You can pull an Alvin Greene at the very least.

[jwicklun]

I dont but most people just sit around and complain. You can pull an Alvin Greene at the very least.

I don't think dropping $10,000 for a campaign you're probably going lose is not exactly the best idea.

[GuitarR0cker1]

If everyone has come to the consensus that the left is filled with too much cowardice and they arent doing shit, then why dont you guys do some "shit" for the left and grow them the balls they need to make them the actual left instead of the half assed left?
I could live with a half-assed left. We don't even have that in this country.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I don't think dropping $10,000 for a campaign you're probably going lose is not exactly the best idea.

Not to sidetrack, but Slate.com actually had a recent article why it costs so much just to get your name on the ballot (http://www.slate.com/id/2256774/). South Carolina is one of the most expensive states to become a candidate because they charge a 1% filing fee of what would be the salary for a 6-year term Senator.

The annual salary for a U.S. senator is $174,000, and the term is six years, for a grand total of $1.044 million. One percent of that is $10,440. (If Greene were running for the House, whose members earn the same salary as senators, he would have had to pay a fee of only $3,480, because House members serve for only two years.)

[Machu505]

That's ludicrous. The people who need those senators the most make that much in a year.

[caveBEAR]

Nevermind. Can't do math.

[saysmydoctor]

I dont but most people just sit around and complain. You can pull an Alvin Greene at the very least.
You have a future as a Republican Strategist.

[zion the lion]

I don't think dropping $10,000 for a campaign you're probably going lose is not exactly the best idea.

Its why you have a rich uncle or something.

You have a future as a Republican Strategist.

No, I have the future of a basketball wife...particularly the wife of that spanish guy who's on the lakers, I find it appealing that he's all into medical stuff like that.

[captivewear]

I think the left needs to grow some balls and get shit done and stop trying to work with the right cause all the right does is filibuster everything and flip flop on ideas just because someone on the left agrees with them. The right needs to chill the fuck out and stop listening to one nutjob and think for themselves instead of what their party is doing. Vote for what is best for your state and country you represent not what your party is doing because lets face it the politicians in Washington don't represent 99.9% of America.

[Zeran]

the gop right now should just be ignored, because they're not contributing whatsoever to government. they don't propose any ideas, don't add to any conversation, don't do anything but react. and by react, they just sound negative and ignorant, no matter what the topic is. it's childish and petulant, and if they won't vote for anything at all as a single block, then they should be ignored because it's as if they're not even there.

with that said, the democrats need to use their goddamn super majority and give progressives/liberals an actual voice, instead of this centrist bullshit we're seeing. why is it so difficult to get anything with even a mildly leftist agenda passed in this country? the conservatives/republicans/the south make up a big voting block, but so do liberals/leftists/democrats. they should not be ignored.

[x togepi x]

the gop right now should just be ignored, because they're not contributing whatsoever to government. they don't propose any ideas, don't add to any conversation, don't do anything but react. and by react, they just sound negative and ignorant, no matter what the topic is. it's childish and petulant, and if they won't vote for anything at all as a single block, then they should be ignored because it's as if they're not even there.

with that said, the democrats need to use their goddamn super majority and give progressives/liberals an actual voice, instead of this centrist bullshit we're seeing. why is it so difficult to get anything with even a mildly leftist agenda passed in this country? the conservatives/republicans/the south make up a big voting block, but so do liberals/leftists/democrats. they should not be ignored.

This is simple. The party shifted to the right. To win majorities under Bush, the party decided it would be politically advantageous to court "conservative democrats". Doing so, gave them a disproportionate amount of power, allowing them to dictate party policy. Those running the party are not progressives/liberals. They're centrist-minded conservative democrats who's real goal is maintaining majorities and winning elections and not policy. This is why you can see democrats abandoning things they originally supported, like the public option.

The party's treatment of liberals has long been- We're going to ignore you and act like moderate conservatives but we know we have your votes because you're not going to want those crazies on the right wing to win again.

Unfortunately, in the adversarial two party system we have, what other choice does the left have?

[Zeran]

with a situation like that, what will it take to get a multi-party system in the u.s? what would it take for that to happen?

[Manicapathy]

with a situation like that, what will it take to get a multi-party system in the u.s? what would it take for that to happen?

We have the technology.....we can bring him back....make him stronger....faster.....BULLIER!

http://charlespaolino.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/tr.jpg

[x togepi x]

with a situation like that, what will it take to get a multi-party system in the u.s? what would it take for that to happen?

We probably need to be further away from the Cold War so that the boogeyman of Socialism loses its scare value. I think we're going to be running into a lot of problems in the near future that are caused by, or made worse by our economic system. This may galvanize the left.

The problem is that many Leftist solutions get co-opted by capitalists and are rendered largely worthless. Take the food movement. It has its roots in Left leaning circles who wanted good quality food to be accessible by people of all economic classes, but with an emphasis on the working class and poor, but now it's turned into this largely upper middle class white people movement who emphasizes major corporations going organic and expensive food co-opts that the lower class can never access.

Until we have a powerful political movement that doesn't assume capitalism is good and isn't afraid of changing that aspect of society, we're not going to see a powerful left.

[Zeran]

We have the technology.....we can bring him back....make him stronger....faster.....BULLIER!

http://charlespaolino.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/tr.jpg
thank you for this. i fucking love teddy (and also the exclamation "bully!".
We probably need to be further away from the Cold War so that the boogeyman of Socialism loses its scare value. I think we're going to be running into a lot of problems in the near future that are caused by, or made worse by our economic system. This may galvanize the left.

The problem is that many Leftist solutions get co-opted by capitalists and are rendered largely worthless. Take the food movement. It has its roots in Left leaning circles who wanted good quality food to be accessible by people of all economic classes, but with an emphasis on the working class and poor, but now it's turned into this largely upper middle class white people movement who emphasizes major corporations going organic and expensive food co-opts that the lower class can never access.

Until we have a powerful political movement that doesn't assume capitalism is good and isn't afraid of changing that aspect of society, we're not going to see a powerful left.

i agree about moving away from the specter of socialism. it's used as a pejorative right now and the gop core group of voters still see this as the root of all evil. in a few decades, the new generation of people who didn't grow up under the threat of soviet destruction won't have anywhere near the same opinion about this as the people who are so against it do now.

however, i find the prospect of the united states moving from a capitalist society a bit unrealistic. the united states is the capitalist country in the world, and people like it too much (despite its faults) to change. it would require a drastic, drastic shift in ideology and mainstream thought, which i just can't see happening. that's why i doubt we'll see a true, powerful leftist/progressive/liberal third party with an anti-capitalist view. it'd probably be more social-democratic, like what the spd is in germany.

[Love As Arson]

however, i find the prospect of the united states moving from a capitalist society a bit unrealistic. the united states is the capitalist country in the world, and people like it too much (despite its faults) to change. it would require a drastic, drastic shift in ideology and mainstream thought, which i just can't see happening. that's why i doubt we'll see a true, powerful leftist/progressive/liberal third party with an anti-capitalist view. it'd probably be more social-democratic, like what the spd is in germany.

under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.
Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.
There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2009/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_ socialism

[Love As Arson]

Oh, and Teddy Roosevelt was an imperialist.

[Zeran]

Oh, and Teddy Roosevelt was an imperialist.

teddy roosevelt got shot in the chest while reading a speech. he waited the 45 minutes until after he was finished to have it looked at by doctors.

[Zeran]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2009/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_ socialism

i'm still not sure if this would translate to a change in the political arena.

[Love As Arson]

teddy roosevelt got shot in the chest while reading a speech. he waited the 45 minutes until after he was finished to have it looked at by doctors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary
i'm still not sure if this would translate to a change in the political arena.
It may not and revolution isn't automatic. The point is, many are very unhappy with the political system and, in some cases, it has translated into active rage. The democrats have offered no viable political program to address the grievances; the radical left does.

[caveBEAR]

I take everything Teddy with a grain of salt, the same way as I view the 'Jefferson had slaves' argument. I don't know how much to chalk up to the politics of the time and how much to chalk up to being a shitty human.

:shrug:

[Machu505]

I take everything Teddy with a grain of salt, the same way as I view the 'Jefferson had slaves' argument. I don't know how much to chalk up to the politics of the time and how much to chalk up to being a shitty human.

:shrug:
Teddy was a conservative dressed up like a progressive. You had to appease the socialists somehow. If I recall correctly, he heard a speech by Eugene Debs and asked if there was any way they could arrest him. And none of that even touches upon his imperialism.

[Zeran]

are you trying to take my love for teddy roosevelt away with this information about him being imperialistic? because it won't work. i love the man.

[caveBEAR]

Teddy was a conservative dressed up like a progressive. You had to appease the socialists somehow. If I recall correctly, he heard a speech by Eugene Debs and asked if there was any way they could arrest him. And none of that even touches upon his imperialism.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Wow. Well, I'll chalk him up there with Andrew Jackson in the historical figures that amuse me for their interesting life stories, but don't need to be revered or emulated.

[Machu505]

Ha ha ha ha ha. Wow. Well, I'll chalk him up there with Andrew Jackson in the historical figures that amuse me for their interesting life stories, but don't need to be revered or emulated.
Howard Zinn tore them both apart in A People's History.

Have I mentioned that you ought to read A People's History of the United States? Because everybody should.

[Zeran]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary

It may not and revolution isn't automatic. The point is, many are very unhappy with the political system and, in some cases, it has translated into active rage. The democrats have offered no viable political program to address the grievances; the radical left does.

it seems to me though, that only the conservative movements in american history have tended toward reactionary movements. examples are the kkk, mcarthyism, etc. where has the left been? maybe i'm missing something, though..

[Zeran]

Howard Zinn tore them both apart in A People's History.

Have I mentioned that you ought to read A People's History of the United States? Because everybody should.

great stuff. i love it. i also love andrew jackson.

[caveBEAR]

Howard Zinn tore them both apart in A People's History.

Have I mentioned that you ought to read A People's History of the United States? Because everybody should.

I've never read it, but I know I should have by now. I've been looking for some good reads, I'll definitely pick it up the next time I see it somewhere semi-affordable.

[caveBEAR]

i also love andrew jackson.

KEGGER AT THE WHITE HOUSE!!!

[Love As Arson]

it seems to me though, that only the conservative movements in american history have tended toward reactionary movements. examples are the kkk, mcarthyism, etc. where has the left been? maybe i'm missing something, though..
This does not make sense to me. If you are trying to say the right has been effective most of the time, I would disagree. The Civil Rights Movement, for example, changed social and political paradigms. McCarthyism hurt the left and was an effort the undermine the influence radicals had attained in worker's struggles during the Great Depressions. The membership of the Communist Party declined from around three hundred thousand to ten thousand when the pressure of senate inquiries, government supervision/infiltration and imperial propaganda. As to the presence of leftists, the eight-hour work day, social security, welfare, disability pay, desegregation, etc., are the result of innumerable struggles of which the left was a part.

[Zeran]

This does not make sense to me. If you are trying to say the right has been effective most of the time, I would disagree. The Civil Rights Movement, for example, changed social and political paradigms. McCarthyism hurt the left and was an effort the undermine the influence radicals had attained in worker's struggles during the Great Depressions. The membership of the Communist Party declined from around three hundred thousand to ten thousand when the pressure of senate inquiries, government supervision/infiltration and imperial propaganda. As to the presence of leftists, the eight-hour work day, social security, welfare, disability pay, desegregation, etc., are the result of innumerable struggles of which the left was a part.

what i meant was, in american history, mass political movements have seemed to tend to be more conservative rather than leftist. obviously the civil rights movement is a great example of a liberal political movement mobilizing itself, but in my opinion, if you look at the history, liberal policies were only passed because of situations that were no longer tenable, not because of the mobilization of the left. it took the civil war to end slavery, not a mass movement. for social justice policies, such as social security, welfare, etc., were those not part of the new deal, or around that era, which was really a result of the great depression, rather than due to the urgings of a highly motivated leftist political campaign?

i'm not saying the right has been more effective, just more often. if that makes sense?

i guess what i mean is, the left has had trouble truly mobilizing itself into an organized force capable of enacting political change that they want, as opposed to the right, which seems capable of doing just that when they feel the need.

[loveisdead]

great stuff. i love it. i also love andrew jackson.

One of my least favorite presidents.

[saysmydoctor]

Andrew Jackson is one of the most fascinating Presidents, in my opinion. Not my favorite (JFK, LBJ), but still interesting.

[Love As Arson]

what i meant was, in american history, mass political movements have seemed to tend to be more conservative rather than leftist. obviously the civil rights movement is a great example of a liberal political movement mobilizing itself, but in my opinion, if you look at the history, liberal policies were only passed because of situations that were no longer tenable, not because of the mobilization of the left. it took the civil war to end slavery, not a mass movement. for social justice policies, such as social security, welfare, etc., were those not part of the new deal, or around that era, which was really a result of the great depression, rather than due to the urgings of a highly motivated leftist political campaign?
The abolition movement transformed the paradigm of the debate regarding slavery. As for the New Deal, FDR enacted those policies to counter the rising radicalism during the Great Depression. These weren't concessions that were simply given over to Americans, it required active demands from a mobilized working class.

[loveisdead]

Andrew Jackson is one of the most fascinating Presidents, in my opinion. Not my favorite (JFK, LBJ), but still interesting.

Interesting, but awful.

[Zeran]

The abolition movement transformed the paradigm of the debate regarding slavery. As for the New Deal, FDR enacted those policies to counter the rising radicalism during the Great Depression. These weren't concessions that were simply given over to Americans, it required active demands from a mobilized working class.

in any case, things were only fully accomplished at its lowest point, i.e., it took the civil war to abolish slavery, it took the worst economic downfall in united states history to enact socialist-type legislation. what calamity will we have to endure to truly achieve what is currently considered leftist/liberal/socialist policies?

[Love As Arson]

in any case, things were only fully accomplished at its lowest point, i.e., it took the civil war to abolish slavery, it took the worst economic downfall in united states history to enact socialist-type legislation. what calamity will we have to endure to truly achieve what is currently considered leftist/liberal/socialist policies?
History isn't made up of events. There are small quantitative changes which transform into qualitative changes. The efforts of a movement typically go unnoticed until an explosive event takes place. It is true, however, that crises, at least in capitalism,demonstrate that it is unsustainable and drive people towards radicalism.

[Zeran]

History isn't made up of events. There are small quantitative changes which transform into qualitative changes. The efforts of a movement typically go unnoticed until an explosive event takes place. It is true, however, that crises, at least in capitalism,demonstrate that it is unsustainable and drive people towards radicalism.

i think that's more of what i'm trying to say, even though i kind of got convoluted there for a while. what i would like to see is a more progressive/liberal/socialist push towards policies sooner rather than later, and not after a catastrophe. does that make sense?

i guess i was just skeptical of the left mobilizing themself soon enough to enact legislation and change before a crisis occurs.

[Love As Arson]

i think that's more of what i'm trying to say, even though i kind of got convoluted there for a while. what i would like to see is a more progressive/liberal/socialist push towards policies sooner rather than later, and not after a catastrophe. does that make sense?

i guess i was just skeptical of the left mobilizing themself soon enough to enact legislation and change before a crisis occurs.
I feel as though the same can be applied to the right, using your logic. For example, the US moved away for Keynesian economics in light of staglfation; the red scare was made possible by the Cold War tensions after the Soviets procured an atomic bomb; the militarism advanced in America was made possible by 9-11 and so on.

[Zeran]

I feel as though the same can be applied to the right, using your logic. For example, the US moved away for Keynesian economics in light of staglfation; the red scare was made possible by the Cold War tensions after the Soviets procured an atomic bomb; the militarism advanced in America was made possible by 9-11 and so on.

but i feel like, at least in regards to mcarthyism and 9/11 and such, the right already had wanted to move in that direction, they just needed a reason to convince other people. in the case of bush and the neocons, they had wanted all along to invade the middle east and whatever, they just needed 9/11 to convince the rest of america that it needed to get done. the so-called left in america is sort of divided up, or atleast the democrats are. many of them don't want truly liberal legislation, and the only way they'll do something in a left-leaning direction is by going against the grain so to speak, which would mean they were only being forced to do so due to society's action. i think back to the civil rights movement and desegregation, or abolition of slavery, and a lot of people at the time didn't care about ending slavery or ending segregation (though a lot did), but they were sort of forced to do so by the drastic times they were living in. in both abolition and desegregation's case, the situation had simply become too untenable for anything other than the end of those systems.

to sum up, i feel as though conservatives use desperate situations to enact further legislation that they simply needed a precursor for, while the left use desperate situations to enact legislation that they have to drag others along with them.

[Love As Arson]

but i feel like, at least in regards to mcarthyism and 9/11 and such, the right already had wanted to move in that direction, they just needed a reason to convince other people. in the case of bush and the neocons, they had wanted all along to invade the middle east and whatever, they just needed 9/11 to convince the rest of america that it needed to get done. the so-called left in america is sort of divided up, or atleast the democrats are. many of them don't want truly liberal legislation, and the only way they'll do something in a left-leaning direction is by going against the grain so to speak, which would mean they were only being forced to do so due to society's action. i think back to the civil rights movement and desegregation, or abolition of slavery, and a lot of people at the time didn't care about ending slavery or ending segregation (though a lot did), but they were sort of forced to do so by the drastic times they were living in. in both abolition and desegregation's case, the situation had simply become too untenable for anything other than the end of those systems.

to sum up, i feel as though conservatives use desperate situations to enact further legislation that they simply needed a precursor for, while the left use desperate situations to enact legislation that they have to drag others along with them.
The same can be said of the left. They wanted to change capitalist policy, they needed the Great Depression and so on to convince other people. I think the main difference is, conservative policies typically leads to drastic repression for the vast majority of working-class people. And I would include the political planks of the democratic party in that sphere as well.

[Zeran]

so i guess we'd better hope the government is under the control of liberals or liberal-leaning politicians when the situation gets to its breaking point?

[Tec Mason]

If you wish to achieve your ideal society through the government, you run into the problem of forcing all others to accept it as well. Aside from the moral problem of forcing others to accept your world view using the long dick of the law, it is very costly and often leads to corruption. My best advice to leftists is to practice what you preach in your homes and with your neighbors, loved ones and communities. If you believe in equal distribution of wealth, then distribute your own wealth and encourage others to do the same. If you believe in communal ownership of capital, then congregate with other like minded people and work out your system. eventually the government will change to reflect the zeitgeist. Politicians are professional demagogue and panderers. If the people change their hearts, the government will change to reflect it.

Just do me a favor and do not use the government to force your world view onto those unwilling to accept it (and yes that goes to the right as well. no one should force others to bend to their will).

[EasySkankin]

If you wish to achieve your ideal society through the government, you run into the problem of forcing all others to accept it as well

An ideal society would be genuinely democratic, IMO.

[Tec Mason]

An ideal society would be genuinely democratic, IMO.

I disagree completely. A democracy still forces the minority to accept the will of a majority. I don't believe it is moral to force others to do what you want them to do. Opinion of course.

[kofiadrian]

The left is filled with too much cowardice.


http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l4rgmtEB4W1qawk0z.gif

[EasySkankin]

I disagree completely. A democracy still forces the minority to accept the will of a majority. I don't believe it is moral to force others to do what you want them to do. Opinion of course.
That is how it's been since man collected itself into tribes. People have to give some respect to the opinions of their neighbors.

What makes genuine democracy ideal and brilliant is how people will hold themselves accountable. If the majority votes one way, and things turned out undesirably, it'd be impossible to ignore the minorities. There would be no partisan ideology to blame, only ideas.

[Multa Tulit]

I think the biggest challenge the Left faces in the U.S., and anywhere else for that matter, is the lack of ideological unison: we have been shattered ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Therefore I think that the only way to form a leftist movement that can thrive is a return to the great Leftist thinkers: Lenin, Trotsky, Lukács, Gramsci et al. It is only through a proper unified ideology that we can hope to confront capitalism.

[x togepi x]

I think the biggest challenge the Left faces in the U.S., and anywhere else for that matter, is the lack of ideological unison: we have been shattered ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Therefore I think that the only way to form a leftist movement that can thrive is a return to the great Leftist thinkers: Lenin, Trotsky, Lukács, Gramsci et al. It is only through a proper unified ideology that we can hope to confront capitalism.

no. no.


fuck no.

I like my left wing without the self perpetuating metanarratives.

[Multa Tulit]

no. no.


fuck no.

I like my left wing without the self perpetuating metanarratives.

Well it depends on your beliefs of course: I think the only way out of capitalism is a revolution, and feel that Communist and Marxist thinkers that have been discredited in the last few decades still offer key insights for understanding capitalism, and where its faults lie.

However, I do not mean to say we should simply copy the ideas of 20th century socialism, which was probably the greatest tragedy in human history. We should approach every Leftist thinker critically (even Marx and Engels), and be willing to revolutionize their ideas in a dialectical fashion; the fact that the drive towards radical emancipation through Communism or socialism is still relevant is, after all, only because of its dialectical basis.

[EasySkankin]

I think the biggest challenge the Left faces in the U.S., and anywhere else for that matter, is the lack of ideological unison: we have been shattered ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Therefore I think that the only way to form a leftist movement that can thrive is a return to the great Leftist thinkers: Lenin, Trotsky, Lukács, Gramsci et al. It is only through a proper unified ideology that we can hope to confront capitalism.
This is unrealistic. How can you have a revolution without an oppressed class? U.S. citizens are among the most comfortable people on earth. No one is necessarily taking away our rights. Ideological unison is fascism, dude.

[Multa Tulit]

This is unrealistic. How can you have a revolution without an oppressed class? U.S. citizens are among the most comfortable people on earth. No one is necessarily taking away our rights. Ideological unison is fascism, dude.

I think the inhabitants of poor urban areas would disagree. But if you want to see a true proletariat: look no further than the slums of South-Africa.

Ideological unison has nothing to do with fascism. Every movement has a certain level of ideological unison, the (radical) Left is lacking exactly that right now: it is in dire need of specific short and long term goals.

[Love As Arson]

This is unrealistic. How can you have a revolution without an oppressed class? U.S. citizens are among the most comfortable people on earth. No one is necessarily taking away our rights. Ideological unison is fascism, dude.
Most Americans aren't comfortable; they're angry and the left has largely been absent in providing an ideological orientation to answer the anger.

If you wish to achieve your ideal society through the government, you run into the problem of forcing all others to accept it as well.
I'm fine with that.

As for ideological cohesion, I'd rather avoid a sectarian organization whose main issue is disproving how un-Marxist others are. If that's not what you're referring to, but rather a consensus on anti-capitalism, then I agree.

[EasySkankin]

Most Americans aren't comfortable; they're angry and the left has largely been absent in providing an ideological orientation to answer the anger.
I think you misunderstand me. I mean comfortable as in we aren't oppressed at all. That's why these old marxist and leninist theories aren't nearly as relevent now as they were then. The american proletariat aren't locked in hot, unventilated, dusty factories in the middle of nowhere like they used to be. We get benefits, minimum wage, union rights, hazard pay, etc. etc. We want more hours, not less.

As far as america's concerned, the capitalist struggle is less about oppression than it is about pacification. No one is sending the national guard after us for demanding fair practices. The real struggle is in the minds of the masses who have been made stupid mainly by our media. I remember reading about these journalists who went to the anti-healthcare reform tea party rallies to ask people what kind of healthcare they have. This one woman was talking about "getting the government's dirty hands out of my medicare". This is a struggle of information.

The movement to change this country is going to be another cultural one, not a militant one. Hopefully this time people don't forget their cause because the war ends.

[x togepi x]

Well it depends on your beliefs of course: I think the only way out of capitalism is a revolution, and feel that Communist and Marxist thinkers that have been discredited in the last few decades still offer key insights for understanding capitalism, and where its faults lie.

Their "key insights" turn into self perpetuating systems that are just as bad as capitalism. The USSR was not good. Those strictly adhering to ideology fucked over or, at best, ignored everyone who didn't fit within their little "marxist" box. I don't hate women. I don't hate minorities. I don't think a return to mainline Marxism is going to help anything. Go pick up some Lyotard. All encompassing ideologies are too limiting.

Just look at the analysis of Neo-Marxist thinkers. Capitalism is so entrenched in society that revolution is pointless. It would lead to backlash that could arguably lead to an even more capitalist system than we already have. Just look at all the idiot tea party people who, in response to the recession which was obviously caused by flaws in capitalism, decided that we need MORE free market bullshit to fix those problems.


However, I do not mean to say we should simply copy the ideas of 20th century socialism, which was probably the greatest tragedy in human history. We should approach every Leftist thinker critically (even Marx and Engels), and be willing to revolutionize their ideas in a dialectical fashion; the fact that the drive towards radical emancipation through Communism or socialism is still relevant is, after all, only because of its dialectical basis.

The dialectic is an illusion and essentially the biggest argument capitalists use to justify their system.

[Multa Tulit]

Their "key insights" turn into self perpetuating systems that are just as bad as capitalism. The USSR was not good. Those strictly adhering to ideology fucked over or, at best, ignored everyone who didn't fit within their little "marxist" box. I don't hate women. I don't hate minorities. I don't think a return to mainline Marxism is going to help anything. Go pick up some Lyotard. All encompassing ideologies are too limiting.

Just look at the analysis of Neo-Marxist thinkers. Capitalism is so entrenched in society that revolution is pointless. It would lead to backlash that could arguably lead to an even more capitalist system than we already have. Just look at all the idiot tea party people who, in response to the recession which was obviously caused by flaws in capitalism, decided that we need MORE free market bullshit to fix those problems.


The dialectic is an illusion and essentially the biggest argument capitalists use to justify their system.

I'm definitely not arguing for a return to 20th century actually-existing-socialism, there has been no greater tragedy. What I do disagree on is seeing Marxism as a closed dogma: because of dialectics it functions like a concrete Hegelian universality, or to put it more succinctly: an eternal truth. The strength of Marxism lies in the fact that it can be 'reinvented' endlessly. There can in the end be no final, conclusive theory of Marxism because of the dialectical evolution of the idea (such as the proletariat, one could argue, as Zizek has, that we are all proletarians now: we stand to lose everything through ecological catastrophe).

There are some contemperary marxist thinkers that think capitalism has triumphed: I just happen to disagree, as do other contemperary Marxists. For me there is no choice: we can either choose communism or a semi-apocalyptic world. I've recently concluded a trip through South-Africa, Brazil and China: if anything the slums and townships there have convinced me that there is no choice. I see it as my duty (in the proper Kantian sense) to strive for a saner organization of production and society: simply because I can do no other.

Also: I'm intrigued by your suggestion that dialectics is used by capitalism to justify the system, could you be more specific (or possibly point me towards some literature which endorses that view)? Although I do not think the dialectical form of reasoning is a myth: it can be used quite fruitfully to resolve theoretical and practical issues.

[x togepi x]

I'm definitely not arguing for a return to 20th century actually-existing-socialism, there has been no greater tragedy. What I do disagree on is seeing Marxism as a closed dogma: because of dialectics it functions like a concrete Hegelian universality, or to put it more succinctly: an eternal truth.

eternal truth is a myth. The search for it causes you to, at best, ignore alternative perspectives (which have value in the fight against oppression) and, at worst, destroy those who are not like you. Like I said, Lyotard's analysis in the Postmodern Condition points out the fallacy of dialectic, you create an ideology that runs on self perpetuating, pointlessly essentializing views of reality, which ironically, keeps us from ever reaching this idea of eternal truth. Within the dialectic, that truth is defined, but those outside it are never going to see it as universal.

For example, look towards the feminist critiques of Marxism. Early Marxists spoke of women pretty poorly, claiming they were bad party members for not thinking class inequality was the end all be all form of oppression. Putting movements in boxes with strict ideologies makes it much easier for the opposition to divide and conquer.

The strength of Marxism lies in the fact that it can be 'reinvented' endlessly. There can in the end be no final, conclusive theory of Marxism because of the dialectical evolution of the idea (such as the proletariat, one could argue, as Zizek has, that we are all proletarians now: we stand to lose everything through ecological catastrophe).

Of course we can reinvent Marxism, but that doesn't mean that we should adhere to it strictly and hope for a second coming of left wing revolutionaries to save us. Doing this ignores the realities of a media constructed hyperreality. We can reinvent Marxism all we want, but the efficacy of the ideology goes out the window when we see how the media reinvents and co-opts the meaning of the very terms we're trying to reinvent. Just look at how revolution is now a branding tool for consumer choice. capitalism is so great at co-opting countercultural movements that we need more than just mere reinventions.

There are some contemperary marxist thinkers that think capitalism has triumphed: I just happen to disagree, as do other contemperary Marxists. For me there is no choice: we can either choose communism or a semi-apocalyptic world. I've recently concluded a trip through South-Africa, Brazil and China: if anything the slums and townships there have convinced me that there is no choice. I see it as my duty (in the proper Kantian sense) to strive for a saner organization of production and society: simply because I can do no other.

You thinking this doesn't prove that communism/marxism is going to save us from the evils of capitalism.

Also: I'm intrigued by your suggestion that dialectics is used by capitalism to justify the system, could you be more specific (or possibly point me towards some literature which endorses that view)? Although I do not think the dialectical form of reasoning is a myth: it can be used quite fruitfully to resolve theoretical and practical issues.

Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and The Last Man. Fukuyama cites Hegel as proof that modern liberal democracy, and its love of capitalism, is *the only true end* of the dialectic. This line of thinking is also found in the work of many globalization apologists, like Thomas Friedman. The logic is that we've seen all of these social systems in the past that solved problems from the social systems they followed but capitalism is the end of history because it hasn't collapsed, which makes it the best possible system.

Dialectical reasoning is useful in theory, but reality isn't neat and tidy enough for the dialectic to be really useful.

[Tec Mason]

That is how it's been since man collected itself into tribes. People have to give some respect to the opinions of their neighbors.

What makes genuine democracy ideal and brilliant is how people will hold themselves accountable. If the majority votes one way, and things turned out undesirably, it'd be impossible to ignore the minorities. There would be no partisan ideology to blame, only ideas.

Again disagree. Respect for your neighbor and forcing your neighbor to do what you want is two different things. The Majority can desire some pretty sick stuff (including of course, the oppression/extermination of the minority). This is where both the left and the right make a huge moral mistake imo. Both sides want to see a certain society, and they are willing to force others violently into accepting that lifestyle. I have no problems with a marxist or neo-conservative or democrat or republican who practices their own ideology using only their own property or body. As long as everyone in the society or group are voluntarily apart of the system the ascribe to, then there is no problem. So I guess im not against democracy per-se, if people want to vote on an issue and willingly subject themselves to the will of the majority then that is great. But if your neighbor peacefully wishes to abstain from your democracy, "give some respect" and do not subject him to your decision.

A question for The Left: Let's say that everyone in a neighborhood votes to build a new park for the kids to play in. the vote comes down to 99 in favor to 1 objection. Are the 99 justified in forcing the 1 to pay? if the 1 refuses, what should be done to him?

My answer, If the 1 voluntarily signed a neighborhood contract or something stating "I agree to be bound to the decisions of all neighborhood votes or forfeit my right to live in the neighborhood" then I agree that he must pay up or be ejected from the neighborhood. If there was no such arrangement and he just happened to live close by, then it would be unethical to force him to pay for that which he does not want.

[rawesome]

Again disagree. Respect for your neighbor and forcing your neighbor to do what you want is two different things. The Majority can desire some pretty sick stuff (including of course, the oppression/extermination of the minority). This is where both the left and the right make a huge moral mistake imo. Both sides want to see a certain society, and they are willing to force others violently into accepting that lifestyle. I have no problems with a marxist or neo-conservative or democrat or republican who practices their own ideology using only their own property or body. As long as everyone in the society or group are voluntarily apart of the system the ascribe to, then there is no problem. So I guess im not against democracy per-se, if people want to vote on an issue and willingly subject themselves to the will of the majority then that is great. But if your neighbor peacefully wishes to abstain from your democracy, "give some respect" and do not subject him to your decision.

A question for The Left: Let's say that everyone in a neighborhood votes to build a new park for the kids to play in. the vote comes down to 99 in favor to 1 objection. Are the 99 justified in forcing the 1 to pay? if the 1 refuses, what should be done to him?

My answer, If the 1 voluntarily signed a neighborhood contract or something stating "I agree to be bound to the decisions of all neighborhood votes or forfeit my right to live in the neighborhood" then I agree that he must pay up or be ejected from the neighborhood. If there was no such arrangement and he just happened to live close by, then it would be unethical to force him to pay for that which he does not want.
Your example only shows problems that come with democracy, not leftist economic policy, which one does "sign a contract" to participate in by living in a democratic country. I'd rather pay taxes for a park I don't use than be subjected to the rule of a tyrannical superior.

[GuitarR0cker1]

A question for The Left: Let's say that everyone in a neighborhood votes to build a new park for the kids to play in. the vote comes down to 99 in favor to 1 objection. Are the 99 justified in forcing the 1 to pay? if the 1 refuses, what should be done to him?

His credit would be docked. That's about it. He would be a prick if he refused to pay though.

[Tec Mason]

His credit would be docked. That's about it. He would be a prick if he refused to pay though.

Do people have the right to be "pricks"? I guess wat I mean is, so long as you aren't violently acting out towards another person, would the Left allow a "scrooge" or a jerk to exist or would you attempt to forcefully correct his behavior?

[EasySkankin]

Again disagree. Respect for your neighbor and forcing your neighbor to do what you want is two different things. The Majority can desire some pretty sick stuff (including of course, the oppression/extermination of the minority). This is where both the left and the right make a huge moral mistake imo. Both sides want to see a certain society, and they are willing to force others violently into accepting that lifestyle. I have no problems with a marxist or neo-conservative or democrat or republican who practices their own ideology using only their own property or body. As long as everyone in the society or group are voluntarily apart of the system the ascribe to, then there is no problem. So I guess im not against democracy per-se, if people want to vote on an issue and willingly subject themselves to the will of the majority then that is great. But if your neighbor peacefully wishes to abstain from your democracy, "give some respect" and do not subject him to your decision.

A question for The Left: Let's say that everyone in a neighborhood votes to build a new park for the kids to play in. the vote comes down to 99 in favor to 1 objection. Are the 99 justified in forcing the 1 to pay? if the 1 refuses, what should be done to him?

My answer, If the 1 voluntarily signed a neighborhood contract or something stating "I agree to be bound to the decisions of all neighborhood votes or forfeit my right to live in the neighborhood" then I agree that he must pay up or be ejected from the neighborhood. If there was no such arrangement and he just happened to live close by, then it would be unethical to force him to pay for that which he does not want.
Well the people invest in their government with taxes. If a person wants to participate in society and their community, they'd pay their taxes. Theoretically, if that guy didn't want to pay his taxes (assuming he's employed) because of some park, The rest of the community can cut off their services to him, including water and energy, garbage collection, police protection, etc. because it is a social contract. Participate or don't, it's a democracy.

Your point is becoming less clear to me... how are people supposed to politically and economically interact with each other? From the tone in your posts you sound like you think everyone should be on some chris mccandless shit

[Love As Arson]

I think you misunderstand me. I mean comfortable as in we aren't oppressed at all. That's why these old marxist and leninist theories aren't nearly as relevent now as they were then. The american proletariat aren't locked in hot, unventilated, dusty factories in the middle of nowhere like they used to be. We get benefits, minimum wage, union rights, hazard pay, etc. etc. We want more hours, not less.
Since the neoliberal consensus in the 70's, Americans have seen a decline in both wages and benefits. Part of the reason for health care reform, for example, was the fact that employers have slowly stopped offering real benefits. As for union rights, I think you are incredibly mistaken, as we've seen a continuous assault on union rights and a characterization of unions as against workers interests; we're at a point today where less than twelve percent of the population in the country is unionized, which I think plays a role in the wage decline over the past thirty years.

As far as america's concerned, the capitalist struggle is less about oppression than it is about pacification. No one is sending the national guard after us for demanding fair practices. The real struggle is in the minds of the masses who have been made stupid mainly by our media. I remember reading about these journalists who went to the anti-healthcare reform tea party rallies to ask people what kind of healthcare they have. This one woman was talking about "getting the government's dirty hands out of my medicare". This is a struggle of information.
Part of the reason why there is no class struggle is it has become a third rail with liberal groups. "Class warfare" is used as a pejorative for a type of argument, instead of representing a real, ongoing issue. I agree, however, in saying that capitalist ideology has been successful in placing the blame elsewhere for its perpetual crises and negative side-effects; so, for example, it isn't corporations which are to blame for decline wages, it is other workers, namely illegal immigrants; the irrational pursuit of profit didn't cause our financial crash, it was poor people who didn't deserve housing. But, using your example of medicare, we can point to a genuine desire to keep the gains of workers made in the past and yet the left and those who supposedly represent them, write this off as idiocy. In all reality, it is representative of conflicted class consciousness that, on the one hand, supports things which are against their interests and on the other, desires to keep safe those things which do provide real, material aid. As I said, what is lacking is a political point of view to point out these contradictions and demonstrates clearly what is in the best interests of the working class.




The movement to change this country is going to be another cultural one, not a militant one. Hopefully this time people don't forget their cause because the war ends.
It isn't a matter of people forgetting, it is a matter of transforming general anger into specific, targeted anger at the capitalist class. During the sixties and early seventies, there was a bourgeois radicalism, which had fair indictments of the system, but which lent itself to the idea of thinking oneself out of oppression instead of organizing; I mean, even Marcuse refrained from endorsing the radical actions of 68.

[Love As Arson]

A question for The Left: Let's say that everyone in a neighborhood votes to build a new park for the kids to play in. the vote comes down to 99 in favor to 1 objection. Are the 99 justified in forcing the 1 to pay? if the 1 refuses, what should be done to him?
It depends on the context. In a socialist society, I do not think the concept of "paying" necessarily exists. In terms of actual dynamics that exist right now, I would say, depending on their income, they might have to pay or could participate in another way which wouldn't force a decline in their real income.

[Love As Arson]

eternal truth is a myth. The search for it causes you to, at best, ignore alternative perspectives (which have value in the fight against oppression) and, at worst, destroy those who are not like you. Like I said, Lyotard's analysis in the Postmodern Condition points out the fallacy of dialectic, you create an ideology that runs on self perpetuating, pointlessly essentializing views of reality, which ironically, keeps us from ever reaching this idea of eternal truth. Within the dialectic, that truth is defined, but those outside it are never going to see it as universal.

Have you read "Specters of Marx" by Derrida? If not, I recommend it:

Written in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall and within the context of a critique of a "new world order" that proclaims the death of Marx and Marxism, Jacques Derrida undertakes a reading of Marx's "spectropoetics" -- his obsession with ghosts, specters and spirits. Derrida argues that there is more than one spirit of Marx and that it is the responsibility of his heirs -- we are all heirs of Marx -- to sift through the possible legacies, the possible spirits, reaffirming one and not the other. He leads beyond the deafening disavowal of Marx today, a disavowal he sees as an attempt to exorcise Marx's ghost.
"Specters of Marx "represents renowned philosopher Jacques Derrida's first major work on Marx and his definitive entry into social and political philosophy.
http://rapidshare.com/files/235262483/0415389577.pdf.html

[Tec Mason]

It depends on the context. In a socialist society, I do not think the concept of "paying" necessarily exists. In terms of actual dynamics that exist right now, I would say, depending on their income, they might have to pay or could participate in another way which wouldn't force a decline in their real income.

hmm, Im glad you responded to this, because it shows a bit of a difference in our perceptions of the term "pay." You say tha tin a true socialist society, there may not be any payments, but I believe this ignores the fact that we live in a world filled with scarce resources and humans with the ability to trade those resources (legally or not is another question). even if everyone had according to their ability and each to their needs, they would still "pay" for things all the time, even if money does not exist. Perhaps I miss understood you, but I believe that trading and payments would still exist in a genuine socialist system, regardless of weather an official money is recognized.

Remember that people can make "non-pecuniary" payments. This is like when we say "you'll pay for what you did to my daughter!" we don't actually mean pay with money, we mean that we will seek restitution via violence or something else to "get even." I think these payments will still exist in a socialist society.

Sorry man, perhaps i am rambling.:-d

[Tec Mason]

Well the people invest in their government with taxes. If a person wants to participate in society and their community, they'd pay their taxes. Theoretically, if that guy didn't want to pay his taxes (assuming he's employed) because of some park, The rest of the community can cut off their services to him, including water and energy, garbage collection, police protection, etc. because it is a social contract. Participate or don't, it's a democracy.

This is not how the government works. Your example of the society "cutting the person off" is actually a great idea and I am all for it, if other people were allowed to offer him their services in the absence of the government alternative. The problem is that the government grants water and power companies with legal, territorial monopolies to provide the service, which prevents others from providing the same service. That is my main problem. The long dick of the law forces people into accepting certain "public goods," If do not want to pay for the goods, they will cut me off from them (as you say), yet they will not allow anyone else to provide the service to me! Im glad you made that point, because it is key to understanding the pro-market argument.

I don't have the time at the moment to debunk your social contract argument, but perhaps another time or thread.

[Tec Mason]

Your point is becoming less clear to me... how are people supposed to politically and economically interact with each other? From the tone in your posts you sound like you think everyone should be on some chris mccandless shit

Let me clear up my point then. I believe that if person A and person B want to voluntarily trade goods or services they own with each other, then no one else has the right to stop them from doing so. That is my entire political philosophy.

[caveBEAR]

Let me clear up my point then. I believe that if person A and person B want to voluntarily trade goods or services they own with each other, then no one else has the right to stop them from doing so. That is my entire political philosophy.

Just gonna throw this out there;

What if the goods/services being traded were something along the lines of 'a minor selling him/herself sexually' in exchange for 'heroin cultivated by some guy'. Should there be a body to stop these practices, or does Person A wanting what Person B has while Person B wants what Person A has make it a deal we have no business interfering in?

[Tec Mason]

Yes, in the absolute sense, the minor has the right to sell her sex for someone's heroine.

You do not have the right to force her to stop. You have the right to educate children and commit your life to the reduction of drug sales through peaceful means. That being said, A free market in insurance/drugs would reduce the frequency of these scenarios. The reason minors have to sell their body for drugs now is that the government prohibits the drugs from being sold at all. This drives up the price significantly for drugs and creates the black market for them. We do not know what an actual free market for drugs looks like, but I assume it would be quite similar to how alcohol is now (which also isn't free, but its closer to free than drugs). People were killed/tortured/and molested during the days of organized alcohol crime. When alcohol was made legal, it significantly reduced the ultraviolence associated with the prohibition.

Insurance companies do not want to pay for your drug abuse, and will increase your premiums if you are a heavy drug user. This will discourage people from doing drugs in the first place. I suppose this would be the "regulatory body" that you were talking about. It cant force you to stop taking drugs, but it can reduce the incentives to do them.

[caveBEAR]

Yes, in the absolute sense, the minor has the right to sell her sex for someone's heroine.

You do not have the right to force her to stop. You have the right to educate children and commit your life to the reduction of drug sales through peaceful means. That being said, A free market in insurance/drugs would reduce the frequency of these scenarios. The reason minors have to sell their body for drugs now is that the government prohibits the drugs from being sold at all. This drives up the price significantly for drugs and creates the black market for them. We do not know what an actual free market for drugs looks like, but I assume it would be quite similar to how alcohol is now (which also isn't free, but its closer to free than drugs). People were killed/tortured/and molested during the days of organized alcohol crime. When alcohol was made legal, it significantly reduced the ultraviolence associated with the prohibition.

Insurance companies do not want to pay for your drug abuse, and will increase your premiums if you are a heavy drug user. This will discourage people from doing drugs in the first place. I suppose this would be the "regulatory body" that you were talking about. It cant force you to stop taking drugs, but it can reduce the incentives to do them.

(Not trying to troll at all, just genuinely curious) So, in your opinion, the government doesn't have a place to interfere in the sale of anything, so long as no one is being forced against their will to sell/do something? The idea being that if no one wanted BJ's from alterboys or some cocaine, there would be no market for it, and therefore it couldn't occur?

[Tec Mason]

Yes. The market of BJ's from alter boys requires a supply of BJs from alter boys and a demand for BJs by others. Even if there is a great demand for the BJs, if the suppliers are unwilling to sell it, then there is no market for BJs. Now if the alter boys were coerced into doing it, thats rape/violence and is not a market transaction.

[Disconsolate]

(Not trying to troll at all, just genuinely curious) So, in your opinion, the government doesn't have a place to interfere in the sale of anything, so long as no one is being forced against their will to sell/do something? The idea being that if no one wanted BJ's from alterboys or some cocaine, there would be no market for it, and therefore it couldn't occur?
ding, ding, ding

[caveBEAR]

Yes. The market of BJ's from alter boys requires a supply of BJs from alter boys and a demand for BJs by others. Even if there is a great demand for the BJs, if the suppliers are unwilling to sell it, then there is no market for BJs. Now if the alter boys were coerced into doing it, thats rape/violence and is not a market transaction.

I guess this is where I get lost. So there would be a body that would be stopping this from happening, but they'd overlook a middle schooler who's blowing hobos because he wants to? I guess I don't know how you set up a body to stop the actions of someone being forced to do something, but have that body completely back off from anything someone wants to do of their own free will.

I guess it's just hard for me to imagine a cop calling out 'Billy! Do you want to blow that hobo or is someone making you?!'

:shrug:

(Please excuse all the 3rd grade level potty humor, I find serious talk very difficult without sprinkles of immaturity.)

[Tec Mason]

Lol no i love this example because it is a tough subject. :-)

Now that I have explained how a kid has the right to blow hobo's in the street, I will explain how it would be equivalent to "illegal" in a free society.

In order to live anywhere decent, like a neighborhood or city or something, there will probably be "terms of use" clauses when signing up with the local police companies. Example: You have the right to offer a child 50$ for a BJ, but If you want to be protected by the Bear Police Company, you have to follow their rules otherwise be dropped from their protection. Since it is socially unacceptable to get BJs from kids, and the Bear Policy Co. wants customers, they will adopt policies which reflect the desires of their customers. In this example they might have a clause to the effect of "By signing up with Beer Police Company I hear by refuse to solicit or recieve sexual acts from any persons under the age of 18. If found soliciting such acts, my contract with the Bear Poliy Company is void and I agree to pay X fine for breaching the contract."

Basically, in real applications, getting BJs from kids would be illegal as it is now because you will give up your right to get them in exchange for protection from the police.

Also, remember that people are capable of making their own decisions, so if I were a cop and saw a kid blowing a hobo, I would run up and beat the hobo's ass. I may not have the right to in the absolute sense, but I would be willing to accept the punishment of violating his rights in order to stop what I believe to be a terrible act.

[caveBEAR]

Lol no i love this example because it is a tough subject. :-)

Now that I have explained how a kid has the right to blow hobo's in the street, I will explain how it would be equivalent to "illegal" in a free society.

In order to live anywhere decent, like a neighborhood or city or something, there will probably be "terms of use" clauses when signing up with the local police companies. Example: You have the right to offer a child 50$ for a BJ, but If you want to be protected by the Bear Police Company, you have to follow their rules otherwise be dropped from their protection. Since it is socially unacceptable to get BJs from kids, and the Bear Policy Co. wants customers, they will adopt policies which reflect the desires of their customers. In this example they might have a clause to the effect of "By signing up with Beer Police Company I hear by refuse to solicit or recieve sexual acts from any persons under the age of 18. If found soliciting such acts, my contract with the Bear Poliy Company is void and I agree to pay X fine for breaching the contract."

Basically, in real applications, getting BJs from kids would be illegal as it is now because you will give up your right to get them in exchange for protection from the police.

Also, remember that people are capable of making their own decisions, so if I were a cop and saw a kid blowing a hobo, I would run up and beat the hobo's ass. I may not have the right to in the absolute sense, but I would be willing to accept the punishment of violating his rights in order to stop what I believe to be a terrible act.

Thanks for breaking it down. I really like it when people come here with differing views from the norm on this forum who aren't raging, moronic trolls. One question;

Basically, in real applications, getting BJs from kids would be illegal as it is now because you will give up your right to get them in exchange for protection from the police.

So someone could elect to not have the protection of the police in exchange for Hobo BJs? The 'police' (or whomever it would be) would let that person do what they want, but wouldn't stop same Hobo from stabbing the man because he's opted out?

[Tec Mason]

Yep. But the great thing about privately owned businesses is the ability to eject people from your property for any reason you want. Again, the police company might say "We will only protect you if you allow all races, sexes, etc into your business" but I highly doubt the police would have a problem with you ejecting a known Child-sex-solicitor. So if I owned Tec-Mart, I could have a sign in the lobby (much like walmart's missing child signs) that shows pictures of people banned from the store and for the reason.

Because businesses like money, and customers hate child-sex-solicitation, businesses will adopt an anti-child-sex-solicitation policy. The hobo would be an outcast from all but the most lenient of places. Is the system perfect? nope. Is it better than our current monopolistic control of policy and judicial services? I believe so. Every time I hear of some kid getting arrested for weed or something it kills me. I keep thinking, I wonder if a free market in police services would outlaw weed also, or if it is only outlawed do to political self interest?

[caveBEAR]

Yep. But the great thing about privately owned businesses is the ability to eject people from your property for any reason you want. Again, the police company might say "We will only protect you if you allow all races, sexes, etc into your business" but I highly doubt the police would have a problem with you ejecting a known Child-sex-solicitor. So if I owned Tec-Mart, I could have a sign in the lobby (much like walmart's missing child signs) that shows pictures of people banned from the store and for the reason.

Because businesses like money, and customers hate child-sex-solicitation, businesses will adopt an anti-child-sex-solicitation policy. The hobo would be an outcast from all but the most lenient of places. Is the system perfect? nope. Is it better than our current monopolistic control of policy and judicial services? I believe so. Every time I hear of some kid getting arrested for weed or something it kills me. I keep thinking, I wonder if a free market in police services would outlaw weed also, or if it is only outlawed do to political self interest?

I can definitely see where you're coming from. I'm a bit too tired to delve any deeper into it tonight. I have some other questions, too, but this forum isn't going anywhere ;-)

Good talk, sir.

[Tec Mason]

A note about the difference between voting with ones dollar and ones democratic vote:

One might say "ah, but if it is politically profitable to outlaw weed, then a free market police company would appeal to the same people, and outlaw weed also." while I believe this is a possibility in small, super religious communities, I do not believe it would happen in a normal society. First off, The "majority" does not vote; politicians only have to win the hearts of the majority of voters, which is often less than 30% of the population. Businesses on the other hand must appeal to all their customers. They are much more likely to appeal to the actual social norms than a government. Perfect example is McDonalds. McDonalds sold nothing but fatty foods until the film Supersize me came out. so many people loved the movie that Mcdonalds had to change their food policies to appeal to the change in the customers demands.

Weed is certainly culturally acceptable. While I believe the government will eventually legalize it do to political pressure, it would have been legal way faster if it was up to private police companies and independent judges.

[Love As Arson]

hmm, Im glad you responded to this, because it shows a bit of a difference in our perceptions of the term "pay." You say tha tin a true socialist society, there may not be any payments, but I believe this ignores the fact that we live in a world filled with scarce resources and humans with the ability to trade those resources (legally or not is another question). even if everyone had according to their ability and each to their needs, they would still "pay" for things all the time, even if money does not exist. Perhaps I miss understood you, but I believe that trading and payments would still exist in a genuine socialist system, regardless of weather an official money is recognized.
If we're all working together to produce what we need, then I'm not sure the concept of trade in the way we are using it is even applicable. This isn't to say that people are forced to work in a particular way, e.g., if you are a writer, then you can write. The technological advances we have can be used to decrease the necessary amount of human participation in production, thereby allowing an even greater amount of freedom. Of course, this isn't a ready-made ideology, it is one which takes into consideration historical developments, so I am a bit hesitant to go farther in discussing specifics of a socialist society.

[GeeBee]

A note about the difference between voting with ones dollar and ones democratic vote:

One might say "ah, but if it is politically profitable to outlaw weed, then a free market police company would appeal to the same people, and outlaw weed also." while I believe this is a possibility in small, super religious communities, I do not believe it would happen in a normal society. First off, The "majority" does not vote; politicians only have to win the hearts of the majority of voters, which is often less than 30% of the population. Businesses on the other hand must appeal to all their customers. They are much more likely to appeal to the actual social norms than a government. Perfect example is McDonalds. McDonalds sold nothing but fatty foods until the film Supersize me came out. so many people loved the movie that Mcdonalds had to change their food policies to appeal to the change in the customers demands.

Weed is certainly culturally acceptable. While I believe the government will eventually legalize it do to political pressure, it would have been legal way faster if it was up to private police companies and independent judges.

Yeah, I can only imagine how great the black community in Oakland would have it if we could just privatize the police force...
Not to mention how much more efficient the prison-industrial complex would be...
:rolleyes:

[GeeBee]

Yes. The market of BJ's from alter boys requires a supply of BJs from alter boys and a demand for BJs by others. Even if there is a great demand for the BJs, if the suppliers are unwilling to sell it, then there is no market for BJs. Now if the alter boys were coerced into doing it, thats rape/violence and is not a market transaction.

This kind of thinking is equivalent in my mind to discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You could pontificate endlessly about the hypothetical theoreticals, but in the end of the day, it's pure puff because it's not feasible in the slightest.

[GuitarR0cker1]

This kind of thinking is equivalent in my mind to discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You could pontificate endlessly about the hypothetical theoreticals, but in the end of the day, it's pure puff because it's not feasible in the slightest.
This is why I hated L-D debates. Not that anyone here will know that is...

[EasySkankin]

This is not how the government works. Your example of the society "cutting the person off" is actually a great idea and I am all for it, if other people were allowed to offer him their services in the absence of the government alternative. The problem is that the government grants water and power companies with legal, territorial monopolies to provide the service, which prevents others from providing the same service. That is my main problem. The long dick of the law forces people into accepting certain "public goods," If do not want to pay for the goods, they will cut me off from them (as you say), yet they will not allow anyone else to provide the service to me! Im glad you made that point, because it is key to understanding the pro-market argument.

I don't have the time at the moment to debunk your social contract argument, but perhaps another time or thread.

if a tax-evader can convince an electric company to give him free energy, and the local water pumps to supply plumbing free of charge, then not only does he deserve these services but a big shiny medal as well.

Let me clear up my point then. I believe that if person A and person B want to voluntarily trade goods or services they own with each other, then no one else has the right to stop them from doing so. That is my entire political philosophy.
If that's your philosophy, then good luck. Such absolutist ideas are impractical, dangerous, inherently flawed, and will never come of anything because of it. Just look at the example earlier with the heroin for BJs. Just because people offer goods and services doesn't make every good or service beneficial to society. Imagine if any and everybody has the right to purchase nuclear weapons, human slaves, or *cough*mortgages that profit large banks on their failure*cough*.

People keep discrediting the ability of the government to do anything. While I would agree (assuming you're american) that nearly the entire history of this country makes evident how hopeless our government is, to just label the government as BAD is fallacious because you're confusing cause and effect. Government isn't an inherently flawed idea, that's completely backwards, it can't be. We as a species can't progress and evolve unless we gather and share resources and talents.

The game is no different now as it was 1,000's of years ago: The Rich vs. The Poor. The upper classes have most the money in the world bet against us, and the only weapon the lower class has against them is government. I don't have to tell you that the individuals people have elected to government don't represent the people. It's just a matter of getting our people in there.

[x togepi x]

This is why I hated L-D debates. Not that anyone here will know that is...

should have ran nihilism and queer theory every round like i did, then you wouldn't have hated it.

[EasySkankin]

Since the neoliberal consensus in the 70's, Americans have seen a decline in both wages and benefits. Part of the reason for health care reform, for example, was the fact that employers have slowly stopped offering real benefits. As for union rights, I think you are incredibly mistaken, as we've seen a continuous assault on union rights and a characterization of unions as against workers interests; we're at a point today where less than twelve percent of the population in the country is unionized, which I think plays a role in the wage decline over the past thirty years.

You're absolutely right, union participation has been going down, but I wouldn't say that causes lower wages, at least without some evidence. I'd figure that has to do with the depreciation of the dollar, and the state of local businesses. Admittedly, I'm not heavily read on economics as much as history, so it would be cool if you could expound a bit. I do know that the unionized construction workers in my town are notorious for taking advantage of union rights. They purposefully take longer to complete projects to maximize their wages, which is cool for workers, but counterproductive for the town.

Part of the reason why there is no class struggle is it has become a third rail with liberal groups. "Class warfare" is used as a pejorative for a type of argument, instead of representing a real, ongoing issue. I agree, however, in saying that capitalist ideology has been successful in placing the blame elsewhere for its perpetual crises and negative side-effects; so, for example, it isn't corporations which are to blame for decline wages, it is other workers, namely illegal immigrants; the irrational pursuit of profit didn't cause our financial crash, it was poor people who didn't deserve housing. But, using your example of medicare, we can point to a genuine desire to keep the gains of workers made in the past and yet the left and those who supposedly represent them, write this off as idiocy. In all reality, it is representative of conflicted class consciousness that, on the one hand, supports things which are against their interests and on the other, desires to keep safe those things which do provide real, material aid. As I said, what is lacking is a political point of view to point out these contradictions and demonstrates clearly what is in the best interests of the working class.

I totally see you on everything but this. To be frank, our media is to blame for all the voices from the left being completely mute in our political discourse. I mean, cmon, "socialist","communist","anarchist", and everything in between are worse than curse words in our culture. At least we curse on T.V., these terms RARELY appear in mainstream media, and when they do it's in negative context. I don't just mean television news, either, it's daily brainwashing in all these reality shows, lawyer and detective dramas, sitcoms, game shows, talent contests, etc. It's all a big pacifier in the form of electromagnetic waves. There are plenty of points of view that tackle these problems from all kinds of angles, but it's waking people up from their apathy that is paramount and most difficult.

[x togepi x]

Yep. But the great thing about privately owned businesses is the ability to eject people from your property for any reason you want. Again, the police company might say "We will only protect you if you allow all races, sexes, etc into your business" but I highly doubt the police would have a problem with you ejecting a known Child-sex-solicitor. So if I owned Tec-Mart, I could have a sign in the lobby (much like walmart's missing child signs) that shows pictures of people banned from the store and for the reason.

Because businesses like money, and customers hate child-sex-solicitation, businesses will adopt an anti-child-sex-solicitation policy. The hobo would be an outcast from all but the most lenient of places. Is the system perfect? nope. Is it better than our current monopolistic control of policy and judicial services? I believe so. Every time I hear of some kid getting arrested for weed or something it kills me. I keep thinking, I wonder if a free market in police services would outlaw weed also, or if it is only outlawed do to political self interest?

Yeah it is great that you can wantonly discriminate against minorities!

[Scrandon]

You're absolutely right, union participation has been going down, but I wouldn't say that causes lower wages, at least without some evidence. I'd figure that has to do with the depreciation of the dollar, and the state of local businesses. Admittedly, I'm not heavily read on economics as much as history, so it would be cool if you could expound a bit. I do know that the unionized construction workers in my town are notorious for taking advantage of union rights. They purposefully take longer to complete projects to maximize their wages, which is cool for workers, but counterproductive for the town..

This chart was ridiculously hard to find.

http://i32.tinypic.com/2nq8o53.png

Worker productivity has nearly tripled since 1960, yet real wages have not kept up.

[x togepi x]

Have you read "Specters of Marx" by Derrida? If not, I recommend it:


http://rapidshare.com/files/235262483/0415389577.pdf.html

i totally missed this post. the professor for a class i'm taking this fall about christianity in the global south recommended this book to me last week but our library has loaned it out to another school so i couldn't get it for a couple weeks. now i don't have to wait. it sounded like something i would be interested in. thanks.

[Tec Mason]

Yeah, I can only imagine how great the black community in Oakland would have it if we could just privatize the police force...
Not to mention how much more efficient the prison-industrial complex would be...
:rolleyes:

I know you are being sarcastic, but I agree completely that the black community would be much better off with private police and prison system. For a complete explanation here is an essay on the subject (in audio and text form)

Text: http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf Starts on page 11.
Audio: http://mises.org/media/4417

[Tec Mason]

Yeah it is great that you can wantonly discriminate against minorities!

Minorities are discriminated against currently by the state controlled policy, and terribly so. My argument is that a market in police services will produce the least corrupt police companies. check out my link above.

[Tec Mason]

This kind of thinking is equivalent in my mind to discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You could pontificate endlessly about the hypothetical theoreticals, but in the end of the day, it's pure puff because it's not feasible in the slightest.

Democratically influenced government was nonexistent as a federal institution for thousands of years. Now it is not only common but the norm. The same might be said about market anarchy in a thousand years. I certainly don't know, but neither do you.

[macabre]

Democratically influenced government was nonexistent as a federal institution for thousands of years. Now it is not only common but the norm. The same might be said about market anarchy in a thousand years. I certainly don't know, but neither do you.

For market anarchy to be seen as an improvement over our current system, it would obviously have to be implemented somewhere in order to compare it to its alternatives. In theory, market anarchy seems like a viable system. However, knowing that human behavior is complex, there would probably be some unintended consequences that would be made explicit upon its implementation; consequences that could render it less viable than what we currently have. I agree with you that we cannot rule market anarchy out simply because it has never been tried but considering the lack of real world examples, I share GeeBee's skepticism.

[GeeBee]

I know you are being sarcastic, but I agree completely that the black community would be much better off with private police and prison system. For a complete explanation here is an essay on the subject (in audio and text form)

Text: http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf Starts on page 11.
Audio: http://mises.org/media/4417
The essay is mere pontification with no concrete ideas. The idea that a privatized police force would be most equitable to everyone is an assertion which carries a MASSIVE burden of proof, one that is hardly even hinted toward in this puff piece.
Democratically influenced government was nonexistent as a federal institution for thousands of years. Now it is not only common but the norm. The same might be said about market anarchy in a thousand years. I certainly don't know, but neither do you.
Right, but as asmolitor has pointed out, it seems far more beneficial to society to deal with what IS, rather than endlessly plan for what feasibly COULD be.

EDIT: Also, the prison-industrial complex is unchecked as it is. I can only imagine how runaway it would be if the entire system were privatized. This underlines my main point against your market theory: If everything is to have a profit-motive, injustice is assured.

[open mind]

I know you are being sarcastic, but I agree completely that the black community would be much better off with private police and prison system. For a complete explanation here is an essay on the subject (in audio and text form)

Text: http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf Starts on page 11.
Audio: http://mises.org/media/4417

we've already got a lot of privately run prisons. so far it seems like the more we have the more inmates we get.

[GeeBee]

we've already got a lot of privately run prisons. so far it seems like the more we have the more inmates we get.

Providing a legal profit motive for what should be illegal behavior seems to me to be an unintended benchmark of a libertarian society.

[open mind]

Providing a legal profit motive for what should be illegal behavior seems to me to be an unintended benchmark of a libertarian society.

i don't know if it's really unintended.

[GuitarR0cker1]

should have ran nihilism and queer theory every round like i did, then you wouldn't have hated it.
hahaha, how did your judges/opponents react to that?

I ended up doing most of my debates on the fly because I didn't care enough to prepare.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Minorities are discriminated against currently by the state controlled policy, and terribly so. My argument is that a market in police services will produce the least corrupt police companies. check out my link above.
That would be feudalism, fool.

[Tec Mason]

For market anarchy to be seen as an improvement over our current system, it would obviously have to be implemented somewhere in order to compare it to its alternatives. In theory, market anarchy seems like a viable system. However, knowing that human behavior is complex, there would probably be some unintended consequences that would be made explicit upon its implementation; consequences that could render it less viable than what we currently have. I agree with you that we cannot rule market anarchy out simply because it has never been tried but considering the lack of real world examples, I share GeeBee's skepticism.

Couldn't agree more. As always you at least grasp what I am trying to convey, even if you disagree.

[Tec Mason]

we've already got a lot of privately run prisons. so far it seems like the more we have the more inmates we get.

We do not have private prisons in the U.S. What we have is prisons in which the Government allows private companies to run. If a monopoly of arbitration hands out the sole rights to prisons to different companies, the result will inevitably be a corrupt and hellish prison system (which we have).

I do not, and have not condoned a system whereby a government makes deals with so called private companies. That is perhaps the worst bastardization of market forces their can be, as it privatizes profits and spreads losses over the public. losses must be as private as the profits if anything is to be considered a market solution.

[Tec Mason]

That would be feudalism, fool.

Sticks and stones, love :-)

[Tec Mason]

Yeah it is great that you can wantonly discriminate against minorities!

Minorities are discriminated against currently and in a gross amount. It is ridiculous what the state police are able to get away with today, and In a system of competitive police agencies that fought for the best reputation, these problems would be minimal if at all.

[x togepi x]

Minorities are discriminated against currently by the state controlled policy, and terribly so. My argument is that a market in police services will produce the least corrupt police companies. check out my link above.

This is empirically denied by essentially the actions of any corporation ever. Don't need to read some bs market theory to understand that.

The same institutionalized racism that exists in police departments is going to exist in private companies that run police departments. how exactly does a free market check institutionalized racism?

hahaha, how did your judges/opponents react to that?

I ended up doing most of my debates on the fly because I didn't care enough to prepare.

i only did LD for a semester after doing like 2.5 years of policy so all the opponents hated me and all the LD people on my team thought i was hilarious and wondered how it would work out. the first time I did it at a tournament i went all the way to semifinals (without ever having done an LD round in my life, even in practice, before). I eventually made it to the qualifying around for nationals that year but lost by getting completely screwed over.

the coaches in my area hated me but they had been hating me for years. even like seven years after debating, there are still coaches that throw a fit if I judge their kids. it's funny.

Minorities are discriminated against currently and in a gross amount. It is ridiculous what the state police are able to get away with today, and In a system of competitive police agencies that fought for the best reputation, these problems would be minimal if at all.

Why?

The fact that people are willing to shop at corporations that use sweatshop labor kinda negates this view. If people are okay with shitty labor conditions, they're not going to care how "criminals" are being treated.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Sticks and stones, love :-)
Really though privatized police companies sounds similar to bands of brigands offering security in exchange for lordship. Honestly it's a terrible idea. Better anarchist idea would be to have "communal security forces" as volunteer groups. It wouldn't check racism or predjuidice but it would be "ethical".

[GeeBee]

Really though privatized police companies sounds similar to bands of brigands offering security in exchange for lordship. Honestly it's a terrible idea. Better anarchist idea would be to have "communal security forces" as volunteer groups. It wouldn't check racism or predjuidice but it would be "ethical".

Blackwater, anyone?

[open mind]

We do not have private prisons in the U.S. What we have is prisons in which the Government allows private companies to run. If a monopoly of arbitration hands out the sole rights to prisons to different companies, the result will inevitably be a corrupt and hellish prison system (which we have).

I do not, and have not condoned a system whereby a government makes deals with so called private companies. That is perhaps the worst bastardization of market forces their can be, as it privatizes profits and spreads losses over the public. losses must be as private as the profits if anything is to be considered a market solution.

yeah you're right, but the failure of the private sector in rehabilitating inmates with government help doesn't give me confidence that private business would do a better job without government.

as long as it makes sense fiscally, morally, and provides a needed service i don't see a problem with government contracting.

[EasySkankin]

Minorities are discriminated against currently and in a gross amount. It is ridiculous what the state police are able to get away with today, and In a system of competitive police agencies that fought for the best reputation, these problems would be minimal if at all.
There's only 2 things that are certain in a competition. There is a winner, and a loser.

What happens when a certain agency is recognized as the "best"? Consider that these are all for-profit.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Blackwater, anyone?
That too.

[Tec Mason]

Blackwater, anyone?

Blackwater is not a private police agency. They receive their contracts from the federal government which is funded by the public purse. You are only a private company if you are funded by and sell to private people. If you sell to the gov't or are funded by the gov't, that aint private.

[Tec Mason]

There's only 2 things that are certain in a competition. There is a winner, and a loser.

What happens when a certain agency is recognized as the "best"? Consider that these are all for-profit.

The best is subjective. Some people say coke is the best, some say pepsi is the best. They compete for your business yet neither goes out of business. Sure, some soda companies will go out of business, and thats a good thing. If you arent providing people with a service they desire, you don't stay in business.

Worst case scenario only one policy firm in the area is left, which is exactly what we have now. At least that firm would be volentaily supported and not funded via taxation.

[Tec Mason]

as long as it makes sense fiscally, morally, and provides a needed service i don't see a problem with government contracting.

I totally agree. But you tell me if you think the gov't prison system sticks to those standards. I don't think incarcerating lower income Americans for drug use makes sense morally, or fiscally. Prisons are overcrowded and full of corruption and crime. The Gov't can't even keep crime out of prisons much less off the streets.

[open mind]

I totally agree. But you tell me if you think the gov't prison system sticks to those standards. I don't think incarcerating lower income Americans for drug use makes sense morally, or fiscally. Prisons are overcrowded and full of corruption and crime. The Gov't can't even keep crime out of prisons much less off the streets.

i object to the war on drugs, but i'd rather legalize drugs than privatize law enforcement and prisons.

[EasySkankin]

The best is subjective. Some people say coke is the best, some say pepsi is the best. They compete for your business yet neither goes out of business. Sure, some soda companies will go out of business, and thats a good thing. If you arent providing people with a service they desire, you don't stay in business.

Worst case scenario only one policy firm in the area is left, which is exactly what we have now. At least that firm would be volentaily supported and not funded via taxation.

Sure, soda's subjective, but a policing force has to worry about performance. No one's going to say "Oh i just like this police force better because of subjective blah blah", companies (which i'd imagine would do most the hiring, another fucked up aspect of your argument) are going to look for an effective organized force that have a good record of handling whatever situation. Eventually, someone is going to win. Maybe it'll be like coke and pepsi, where they trade back and forth, but at some point a certain force is going to be recognized as "the best" because of it's track record, price, etc. With these profits they're going to insure they remain efficient by buying the latest equipment like vehicles, armor, rifles, etc. Then the poor people will be stuck with shitty security forces, and the rich will yet again have everything they want. Seriously, read some history on rome. You'd probably jizz.

[GeeBee]

Blackwater is not a private police agency. They receive their contracts from the federal government which is funded by the public purse. You are only a private company if you are funded by and sell to private people. If you sell to the gov't or are funded by the gov't, that aint private.

Poppycock. Blackwater is the premier example of a private police agency. They are privately owned and operated, they answer only to their shareholders, and are completely unregulated by anyone but themselves. The fact that the government happens to be their biggest customer is irrelevant.

[Tec Mason]

The fact that the government happens to be their biggest customer is irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant that the government is their biggest customer? The profits made by black water come from taxes, which is public money.that isn't private at all.

[GeeBee]

How is it irrelevant that the government is their biggest customer? The profits made by black water come from taxes, which is public money.that isn't private at all.

I'm speaking of their actions as a completely independently owned and operated company. Their behavior seems to indicate to me what comes of having no oversight and a profit-motive. Their customers are completely irrelevant to my point.

[Tec Mason]

They are not independently owned and operated and i believe the customer is absolutely relevant to your point. Let me try to convence you how Blackwater is not an example of privatization at work:

Funding or investment is a huge part of how a company operates, and Blackwater is funded by the U.S. gov't, which gets its money from people who have no choice but to give it or face punishment. This creates a stream of capital from the public sector for Blackwater to spend in ways they would not have the incentive to spend if they were privately funded. Companies care only about the bottom line. If the customer is the government, then blackwater has the incentive to charge above market price for their services. The customer, being the gov't which gets its money by taxation inflation, or borrwing from another taxing government, has less incentive to be thrift then a private company which must keep total revenue above total costs. This means that the customer has an almost never ending stream of capital to throw at Blackwater, resulting in a waste of money and resources.

When you take away the loss side of the profit-and-loss system, you get a nightmare like Blackwater.

[Tec Mason]

I want to rail this thread back on the topic it was created for: The Left. If you want to debate libertarian theory on police services and Blackwater, lets keep it in the Libertarian thread (or start a new one).

Question for the left: How would you grade the U.S. Left's attempts at helping the third world climb out of poverty? What should the left do differently to ensure that the third world reaches a humane standard of living?

[oldwirehands]

Zizek criticizing liberal-democracy.

Pb50-117dQQ

[Love As Arson]

I want to rail this thread back on the topic it was created for: The Left. If you want to debate libertarian theory on police services and Blackwater, lets keep it in the Libertarian thread (or start a new one).

Question for the left: How would you grade the U.S. Left's attempts at helping the third world climb out of poverty? What should the left do differently to ensure that the third world reaches a humane standard of living?
There are a number of steps which must be taken to help them, but require us to have power first or to at least shift the center of the debate. These are the things that need to be on the table:

The IMF and World Bank need to be dismantled, then eliminate monies allocated for the undermining of third-world democracy, as well as shutting down the School of the Americas. Another thing that comes to mind is ending the subsidies to American agribusiness which destroys the markets in Latin American countries and causes a rapid rise in the cost of foods.

From the liberal-democrat point of view, such demands are not on the table.

[GeeBee]

They are not independently owned and operated and i believe the customer is absolutely relevant to your point. Let me try to convence you how Blackwater is not an example of privatization at work:

Funding or investment is a huge part of how a company operates, and Blackwater is funded by the U.S. gov't, which gets its money from people who have no choice but to give it or face punishment. This creates a stream of capital from the public sector for Blackwater to spend in ways they would not have the incentive to spend if they were privately funded. Companies care only about the bottom line. If the customer is the government, then blackwater has the incentive to charge above market price for their services. The customer, being the gov't which gets its money by taxation inflation, or borrwing from another taxing government, has less incentive to be thrift then a private company which must keep total revenue above total costs. This means that the customer has an almost never ending stream of capital to throw at Blackwater, resulting in a waste of money and resources.

When you take away the loss side of the profit-and-loss system, you get a nightmare like Blackwater.

Obfuscation and obscurantism at their finest. If you type enough words and make just enough hypotheses, you sure can craft a mighty-fine counter argument!

[Tec Mason]

The IMF and World Bank need to be dismantled, then eliminate monies allocated for the undermining of third-world democracy, as well as shutting down the School of the Americas. Another thing that comes to mind is ending the subsidies to American agribusiness which destroys the markets in Latin American countries and causes a rapid rise in the cost of foods.

Wow. I think I agree with everything you just said. Thats a first :-)

[Zeran]

There are a number of steps which must be taken to help them, but require us to have power first or to at least shift the center of the debate. These are the things that need to be on the table:

The IMF and World Bank need to be dismantled, then eliminate monies allocated for the undermining of third-world democracy, as well as shutting down the School of the Americas. Another thing that comes to mind is ending the subsidies to American agribusiness which destroys the markets in Latin American countries and causes a rapid rise in the cost of foods.

From the liberal-democrat point of view, such demands are not on the table.

i'm not as versed on this stuff as i'd like to be. can you explain how third-world democracy is being undermined, and what role the school of the americas has?

[Love As Arson]

i'm not as versed on this stuff as i'd like to be. can you explain how third-world democracy is being undermined, and what role the school of the americas has?

In other Latin American countries, graduates of the SOA have been equally prominent enemies of human rights. Former dictators Omar Torrijos of Panama, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, all overthrew constitutionally elected governments in their countries. Leopoldo Galtieri, the former head of the Argentina junta defeated in the Falklands War, was responsible for thousands of "disappeared" citizens who supported freedom and democracy in Argentina, and paid the ultimate price with their lives. He was an SOA graduate.

In Honduras, General Humberto Ragalado Hernandez, was trained at the SOA at the same time that he was linked to Columbian drug cartels, and the highest ranking officers in the Honduran Death Squad were trained at SOA as well.

In Peru, the most senior officers convicted of the February 1994 murder of nine university students and a professor, were graduates of the SOA. In Columbia, a 1992 human rights tribunal cited 246 officers for crimes against the people of Columbia. 105 of the officers were trained at the SOA. In Panama, ex-dictator Manuel Noriega, formerly on the CIA payroll, graduated from the SOA. He is now in a US prison, convicted of trafficking in drugs.

In Guatemala, a country of 10 million, the indigenous Mayan population of 6 million have endured the greatest suffering in Latin America. During more than 30 years of civil war, tens-of-thousands have been slaughtered, with the total killed estimated to exceed 200,000. Most of the ranking generals involved in the numerous coups and acts of terror and murder during this period were trained at the SOA.

In the 1970s and early 1980s, in Guatemala, thousands of political activists and opponents of government policies were assassinated. General Manuel Antonio Callejas y Callejas, Chief of Army Intelligence at the time, was cited by the UN as the individual responsible for most of those murders. He graduated from the SOA. One of the most vicious tyrants in recent Guatemalan history is Jose Efrain Rios Montt. General, dictator, and a former president from 1982-83, Rios Montt was proud of his political philosophy of "beans for the obedient; bullets for the rest". He was also a graduate of the SOA.

The impact of SOA graduates on Latin American freedom has been devastating. Armed with sophisticated training, modern weapons, and up-to-date techniques of control and surveillance, graduates of the SOA have terrorized their own countrymen for a generation.

In the name of its citizens and using American taxpayer dollars, the United States, the most-democratic of countries, has for decades been training some of the most anti-democratic leaders in the world. Administrations that have decried terrorism abroad, have encouraged terrorists right here at home -- at the SOA.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/SOA/SOA.html

[open mind]

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/SOA/SOA.html

aid for exploitative trade agreements, calling in of debts incurred by governments that were just overthrown, and shitty loans with insane interest rates also immediately spring to mind.

[Zeran]

why should the imf and world bank be dismantled? aren't they tasked with providing monetary aid to third-world countries?

[open mind]

why should the imf and world bank be dismantled? aren't they tasked with providing monetary aid to third-world countries?

it's not a sourced or very professional summary but a good enough place to start i guess.
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/International-Monetary-Fund-and-World-Bank-World-bank-critics-on-the-right-and-left.html

[x togepi x]

why should the imf and world bank be dismantled? aren't they tasked with providing monetary aid to third-world countries?

they provide "aid" that is essentially loans with giant interest rates that are essentially impossible to payback. if anything, they make the local economies much worse.

it's about as much aid as Capital One is giving you when you open up a credit card.

[Dan1234]

The party's treatment of liberals has long been- We're going to ignore you and act like moderate conservatives but we know we have your votes because you're not going to want those crazies on the right wing to win again.

Unfortunately, in the adversarial two party system we have, what other choice does the left have?

This is why primary elections are so important. We, as Democrats, need to elect liberals to send to the show in November. But we don't do that and i never understand why. Examples are Kucinich losing in 04 and 08, Bill Halter losing to Blanche Lincoln.


We also need to get more young people and more poor people voting in primary elections.

[Zeran]

This is why primary elections are so important. We, as Democrats, need to elect liberals to send to the show in November. But we don't do that and i never understand why. Examples are Kucinich losing in 04 and 08, Bill Halter losing to Blanche Lincoln.


We also need to get more young people and more poor people voting in primary elections.
i think part of the reason why more liberals don't get elected is because, frankly, there aren't enough actual liberals to vote them in. many on the left are actually centre-left or moderates, and not willing to vote for a truly liberal candidate. also, i feel that candidates are less likely to put forth a truly liberal agenda, unless they reside in a state like, say massachusetts, for fear that they wouldn't get elected unless they were more moderate/centrist.
they provide "aid" that is essentially loans with giant interest rates that are essentially impossible to payback. if anything, they make the local economies much worse.

it's about as much aid as Capital One is giving you when you open up a credit card.

who controls the imf/world bank? i mean, if they need to be dismantled or reformed, who is going to do so? how could this come about?

[x togepi x]

who controls the imf/world bank? i mean, if they need to be dismantled or reformed, who is going to do so? how could this come about?

i think it's regulated by the G20, but the G20 doesn't really care about developing nations. That's the problem, the countries that regulate the IMF are the countries that are benefiting from it, so of course they aren't going to do anything about it.

[Disconsolate]

Obfuscation and obscurantism at their finest. If you type enough words and make just enough hypotheses, you sure can craft a mighty-fine counter argument!
Actually the argument seemed pretty well founded to me. It seems more like you can't come up with a worthwhile rebuttal.

[GeeBee]

Actually the argument seemed pretty well founded to me. It seems more like you can't come up with a worthwhile rebuttal.

Rebuttal to what? Fish the point out of that obfuscation and put it into a coherent sentence and get back to me.

[circasuicide]

it's funny that anyone thinks there are two separate parties.