ideologies. welcome. i open the floor to those who will pioneer the one thread to rule them all...the one thread to find them...the one thread to bring them all...and in the darkness bind them.
2. robertjayb - 6/25/2002 9:41:11 PM
I go Pogo!
3. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/25/2002 9:59:55 PM
4. RickNelson - 6/25/2002 11:27:57 PM
Does the "golden rule" give more people reason to walk all over you, or does it actually keep those important to you, feeling just that, important (to you).
5. RickNelson - 6/25/2002 11:29:14 PM
Those bobbles are pretty funny. It's just those heads need some alteration. Like different ones. Or maybe something stupid happening to them. Maybe something sadistic, eh?
6. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2002 10:15:29 AM
Looks like this thread is dying before it started. Let me throw something to the sharks:
Leaving extremist views aside where is the ideological fault line in today's politics?
7. ivan osokin - 6/26/2002 10:48:23 AM
PelleNilsson:
i think the fault line is the submerging of Class as the major factor in the socio-political climate. it seems like only marxists use "class" in political analysis these days.
8. ivan osokin - 6/26/2002 10:49:00 AM
and Pelle...in regards to your post in RP regarding Europe: i can only hope you are right.
9. CalGal - 6/26/2002 11:10:20 AM
Pelle,
What do you mean by ideological fault line? The issue on which "left" and "right" break?
10. Indiana Jones - 6/26/2002 11:13:36 AM
In domestic American politics, IMO the fault line is tax policy.
11. CalGal - 6/26/2002 11:18:18 AM
No, tax policy is just the symptom. The fault line is the purpose of government.
12. glendajean - 6/26/2002 11:25:05 AM
My feeling is that ideology means less and less to people at large, and that changes in society and the economy make the old labels less and less applicable. Two examples tht come to mind are welfare and budget deficits.
Ideological warfare is a very real presence in American politics, but it is played by a very narrow band of folk. I don't think voters as a whole care very much about the insider "baseball" struggles that take on an ideological slant (such as on presidential appointments).
American ideological politics has a feel that its proponents are always saying that if you support this issue or position or person, you are actually supporting x, y or z, items that may have no actual relationship to the initial problem.
Ideology cries for a unity of world view that isn't very sceptical about itself.
13. CalGal - 6/26/2002 11:38:54 AM
GJ, that's very true. I think most Americans have lost any underlying ideology. I'm not convinced that's a good thing, though. It's one of the reasons that Dem and Republican parties are more than a bit out of date.
14. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 11:40:02 AM
I agree with Cal... almost all of my idealogic differences with both parties is how much should gov't interfere with/manipulate an individual's rights.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
- Social Security vs. Managing one's own financial future.
- Gun control vs. personal responsibility and self determination.
- Pro choice vs. anti abortion.
-Anti-discrimination vs. reverse discrimination.
- Drug war vs. personal responsibility.
- Anti-terrorism vs. privacy.
etc.
etc.
We all have opinions about how much active control the government should take over any issue.
15. glendajean - 6/26/2002 11:40:47 AM
I think that ideology can provide for useful criticism of other p.o.v.'s. This probably comes from my American sense that somebody ought to raise hell and question whatever is the prevailing wisdom or power.
The older I get, the less ideological I am. OTH, I still have an affiliation to certain sentiments and a revulsion of others. I think it was Ace who said in this forum that this drives a lot of political points of view. In his case, he supported people at times who were more liberal than he because they (I think the example was Guilianni or Bloomberg) drove liberals crazy (I hope that was an accurate description).
Clinton at times was easier to support because he drove the American Spectator crowd up the wall.
For many liberals in the 70s, a good part of their politics was based on being against Nixon. The same happened in the 80s with Reagan. Obviously many on the right felt that way about Clinton.
The one person who has that affect on liberals now is John Ashcroft. He opens his mouth and you can feel the anxiety of those who may not like Bush but don't feel all that emotional about him.
16. PelleNilsson - 6/27/2002 2:01:32 AM
ivan
This thread is not taking off. We'd better drop it.
17. betty - 6/27/2002 8:19:18 AM
Pelle,
it's had 16 posts in less than 24 hours, perhaps you should give it some time to find it's feet.
18. betty - 6/27/2002 8:30:15 AM
Cal,
I could agree with the purpose of government being the fault line in the US except so many people on the right encourage moral legislation...anti-choice, criminal drug laws, criminal prostitution, decency laws, etc. What's most annoying about this is that they are making laws which are fiscally unhealthy, unhealthy for the citizens and personally intrusive.
Let's not even get into all the recent legislation which threatens free speech, right to assembly and the very essential to democracy-- dissent.
Mind you i don't think the left is any better but i think they are somewhat consistent and they tend not to infringe on personal rights. though they do often infringe on corporate rights, but that doesn't really bother me.
If we are going to have forced capitalism (which we do have here because of the system of taxation), then corporations should, at the very least, pay for their share.
19. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 8:42:23 AM
It's not just the right that forces morals on us. Stereotyping the left you will find that they want to force morals and on us
Anti gun laws-
Discriminatory, Anti-discriminatory legislation-
Socialist ideals-
and you can't convince me that Liberals hold any moral high ground on free speech. They're just as bad at stifiling ideas... particularly in academics. Politically correct speech is definitely the child of the left. The bru-ha-ha over censoring lebowitz's anti-reparations ad is a good example.
I also hold them principly responsible for the litigatiousness of this country. The left when it fails in congress, tries to get de-facto laws through the courts.
20. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 9:47:35 AM
iiibbb:
i disagree that anti-gun laws are forcing morality on us. i didn't realize guns were moral things.
as for discriminatory anti-discriminatory legislation, i think that's an extreme exagerration and typical of american politics: when those in control (i.e., the bullies in the playground) are finally made to see the point of view of those who've been bullied, they cry foul. i don't feel sorry for a majority that remains a majority, retains its power, but has to give a little more of the playground than it's used to. if anything, the "gov" has done a lot to do quite the opposite...or do you not realize that strict segregation laws were in place even in many of our lifetimes in parts of the US? the very notion of discriminatory laws was invented by the right and happily maintained by it.
as for socialist ideals, i didn't realize economics was a moral issue either. if so, then i'd find it hard to see socialism as immoral.
and finally, as for the litigiousness...please. the courts are not leftist, not all lawyers are leftist, and the government sure isn't leftist. when the left fails in congress (because dem or repub, most are not left at all) it has no other choice (in other countries, they resort to desperate violence...in the US, they don't usually). again, until you are in that minority (true left) you will not be able to see just how ostracized you are. the government is the government of the winners (the right), not the losers...the left lost and will continue to lose in the US beause the center has shifted and those who are even moderately left are ignored and those on the extreme left are victims of smear campaign and hateful, ignorant rhetoric and often victims of overzealous, right-leaning gestapos (hell, does anyone remember kent state? chicago dem convention? the RNC protests in philly recently?).
21. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:14:21 AM
The anti-gun policies have a complete moral slant to them.
-the general populace isn't responsible.
-self-defense isn't a legitimate reason.
-it's morally wrong to defend yourself with a gun.
-a million moms no best.
Gun owners are often painted as morally inferior by the left... and I know this from my first days at the mote when I took the plunge in a gun debate that lasted weeks. My moral character and my idealology were challenged more than anything.
22. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:17:23 AM
often victims of overzealous, right-leaning gestapos (hell, does anyone remember kent state? chicago dem convention? the RNC protests in philly recently?).
Remember- Ruby Ridge... Waco...
tell me those weren't handled inappropriately.
23. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:28:55 AM
The left turns those issues into moral ones simply by looking down on people who hold oposite viewpoints.
In my experience with professed socialists... they adopt this economic viewpoint on moral grounds.
24. Daniel Sickles - 6/27/2002 10:29:04 AM
Apropos of nothing, my mother recently visited my brother and his wife in San Francisco. They went to see a movie. Prior to the film, there was an ad for the Marines. My mother said she heard boos and hisses; not the majority, but she figured about 25 out of 100 to 150 people. Then, there was a corporate remembrance for the victims of 9/11. More boos and hisses, but less so. No one responded. My brother whispered to my mother (who was shocked), "Relax. Remember where you are."
I presume this is ideological and it fascinates me. I'm pretty usre that of someone booed or hissed at the first ad in a theater in Virginia, there would be some public rebuke. I am positive that if someone booed and hissed a 9/11 remembrance, there would be a melee' of fists and Jujifruit.
25. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:33:16 AM
Anti discriminatory laws are starting to go beyond just getting after the bullies.
Infact with this reparations movement you combine to litigation with the discrimination... all based on white's obiligation to make financial restitution to blacks for slavery.
You can't tell me that don't apply moral overtones to these issues.
26. sakonige - 6/27/2002 10:35:55 AM
Don't worry about it. You will have your Judeo-Christian police state.
27. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 10:36:58 AM
iiibbb:
it's simple. a gun is a machine designed to kill. morality doesn't matter here. when your children are killed by guns, morality is not the issue.
Ruby Ridge and Waco...i didn't know the FBI and BATF were liberals or lefties, nor did i know randy weaver and the branch davidians were lefties either. i'm not sure why you brought them up. that's just an example of...oh, wait...guns and the righties who wield them.
and as for the left turning things to moral issues...how many righties have you heard called "promiscuous, satanists, commies (used perjoratively), perverts, corrupters, drug addicts, deviants, murderers (for abortions), etc." by members of the mainstream media? shit, when rudy giuliani (former mayor of NY) commits blatant adultery, he's practically fellated by the press...i guess his stellar performance of...oh, doing his job...during 9/11 absolves him of being immoral.
the term "moral majority" has never applied to the left, has it?
28. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:37:54 AM
Message # 24
My older brother went through college on an ROTC scolarship. His two best friends are intense liberals, one was even a registered conscientious objector.
They gave him holy hell for taking military money and considering a military career. It was morally wrong.
He trumped them by asking if they would prefer that the military be filled with warmongers or include a few peacemongers like himself.
29. sakonige - 6/27/2002 10:38:22 AM
Where is that often promised terrorist strike? I'm tired of waiting and I'm bored.
30. Daniel Sickles - 6/27/2002 10:38:27 AM
Isn't the gun only as moral as the one wielding it?
31. Daniel Sickles - 6/27/2002 10:39:06 AM
Or is the gun inherently immoral?
32. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:39:44 AM
ivan... I'm saying both sides are guilty of turning things into moral issues.
.. re guns...
it's gun ownership... not the guns.
33. CalGal - 6/27/2002 10:41:11 AM
I'm pretty usre that of someone booed or hissed at the first ad in a theater in Virginia, there would be some public rebuke.
And yet neither your brother or your mother issued a public rebuke. Were they expecting someone else to do it? If so, why was your mother shocked? If she didn't act, why should she expect it of anyone else?
I go to movies all the time in San Francisco; more than any other city and I've never seen that. If I did, I wouldn't hesitate to tell someone to fuck off, and loudly. I am quite sure this doesn't surprise you.
I wouldn't deny that there are more people in San Francisco who would boo than in Virginia. But the reaction, or lack thereof, is due far more to the fact that most people are afraid of seeming....weird than the possibility that people are more patriotic in Virginia than SF.
Your mother and brother are, presumably, patriotic. And yet they said nothing. Had you been there, would you? It seems odd to observe anything about other people there that doesn't include your mother and brother.
I'm not trying to make this about you and your family--although it's pretty clear you are trying to make this about California. (g) But the issue isn't ideology, it's willingness to go against what is perceived to be the norm.
Had anyone said, "Shut up, assholes!", I bet there would have been more than a smattering of applause.
34. Daniel Sickles - 6/27/2002 10:44:10 AM
Thanks for telling us what you would do.
I'm off.
35. Edmund Dantes - 6/27/2002 10:44:20 AM
What was the movie?
36. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 10:44:24 AM
dansickles:
that's really interesting. what movie was it? i think that if the film were something like the recent military or intelligence-based movies, that would be even more surprising!
maybe they just were getting impatient with the movie (homer simpson reference: "Just show the movie! just show the movie!)
seriously...i bet that happens often. the backlash has come since the initial sting of 9/11 has started to soften a bit, because a lot of things happened so quickly, people haven't adjusted. maybe they just found it reprehensible to play on the fears and feelings of patriotic americans by using 9/11 as an inducement to join the military. i mean, i see it here in NY state a lot...campaigners use 9/11 as a tool to get support...advertizers join in...it's residual effect is that people who can benefit from it, will use it. before 9/11, how many theatres had ads for marines? probbly not nearly as many, if any.
37. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:46:34 AM
Yeah in SF... why not an ad for the Navy ;)
38. CalGal - 6/27/2002 10:56:39 AM
Thanks for telling us what you would do.
Your reading comprehension is rather bizarrely selective. My post was an observation about group behaviors, not an announcement of what I would do.
39. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 12:10:13 PM
I think it would take a certain amount of courage to admonish a random crowd... but you're right... that would have been a rightious thing to do.
40. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 2:03:29 PM
Here's an interesting idealogical puzzle from Germany
41. CalGal - 6/27/2002 2:20:28 PM
That cinches it. Germans are just nutty people.
42. betty - 6/27/2002 2:29:27 PM
I think it would take a certain amount of courage to admonish a random crowd
it's funny that you think that. It takes way more for me to be clear and assertive with the people I love (other than ivan who is my designated whipping boy) than to admonish a random crowd or stranger.
43. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 2:32:05 PM
I am the opposite... I am much more likely to say something to friends or family.
44. betty - 6/27/2002 2:38:08 PM
i tend to get much more emotionally involved with the idiocy of my close friends and family and easily alienate them...i don't worry about that with strangers.
45. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 2:48:14 PM
I don't like dealing with the random response you get with strangers. I guess I've been threatened too many times. I also get the sense that admonishing strangers does little to correct their attitudes and behaivior. Usually they blow you off... whereas one can actually influence your friends.
46. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 2:49:52 PM
My family is emotional... but arguments are very transient and we don't hold grudges.
My dad for instance, really gets on my nerves sometimes and I have a very short fuse with him... but I know that 5 minutes after even an intense scrap I can ask him for help and it's like nothing happened.
47. KuligintheHooligan - 6/27/2002 2:50:14 PM
"and you can't convince me that Liberals hold any moral high ground on free speech. They're just as bad at stifiling ideas... particularly in academics."
A very hardy and hearty "Amen!"
48. CalGal - 6/27/2002 2:50:59 PM
I don't know that it's courageous. It requires a high degree of "don't give a fuck".
49. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 3:59:40 PM
and you can't convince me that Liberals hold any moral high ground on free speech. They're just as bad at stifiling ideas... particularly in academics. Politically correct speech is definitely the child of the left. The bru-ha-ha over censoring lebowitz's anti-reparations ad is a good example.
oh please. the left is not where "book burning" comes from. nor is it the place that censors radical ideas. the FCC (rather conservative, i'd say) has successfully silenced radical and dissenting voices from getting on the air by making it almost impossible for community-run radio stations. independent media websites are often targets of legal harassment and bullying by law enforcement for presenting leftie ideas. during the RNC, tom ridge happily allowed the massive arrests of protestors who were making puppets and banners (forms of communication) before they were even used and so, were not allowed to demonstrate as they were incarcerated during the RNC. small, lefty presses are almost always ignored by large book chains...who gladly feature books by the right. the so-called "liberal" media has never been...what you call "liberal" media is really just the center. there is virtually NO media representation by anything to the left of al gore. moving the center is a way to increase the degree of conservatism and decrease the presence of the real left. there are no lefty politicians who have any power above the level of congressman. sure, they may be left compared to stalin, but that doesn't mean anything is really liberal.
as to the imaginary "PC Menace", that is an overblown myth by the conservative spin doctors. where has this "PC-ness" changed anything?
and now, under the guise of national security, the right has all but destroyed the right to free speech and assembly (so who is supressing who?)
50. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 4:20:49 PM
oh please. the left is not where "book burning" comes from.
They don't burn books... they use other tactics such as threat of lawsuit... or screeching to the higher powers for censorship.
Lebowitz is a great example. At brown university they were demanding the editor step down and stole all the copies of the paper. At the University of California they threatened the editor.
The left also spawns extremeists like Earth First who think nothing of spiking trees to kill blue collar loggers... and spawned riots in Seattle.
The left is as guilty of wrongs as the right... and I am no defender of the right...
51. alistairConnor - 6/27/2002 4:21:53 PM
Given that it's the US you're talking about, I find somewhat surrealist that the Right is presented as the champion of less government, hands off, personal responsibility...
Are you folks aware that your government is leading you back to the age of protectionism? Steel subsidies, farm subsidies, corporate welfare. Also, driving the dollar down, to dumb down the economy - enough of this "new economy" stuff, let's create a bunch of low-wage factory jobs.
The Clinton era looks retrospectively like a golden age of individual responsibility and innovative free enterprise.
52. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 4:27:30 PM
Yes... a golden age where corporations like Enron and WorldCom flourished...
Now is just an extention of then...
53. CalGal - 6/27/2002 4:30:05 PM
I agree, Alistair, but in fairness to the GOP, Bush's trade policies have received a great deal of criticism precisely because it was pure vote whoring.
54. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 4:31:20 PM
I hate subsidies... bad accounting...
Of course this whole concept of subsidizing industries has it's roots in FDR's 'New Deal'.
55. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 4:36:53 PM
Meanswhile GDP up about 6%.
Although I'd worry that these recent accounting scandals could pull it back.
56. betty - 6/27/2002 4:39:40 PM
ib3,
The left also spawns extremeists like Earth First who think nothing of spiking trees to kill blue collar loggers... and spawned riots in Seattle.
No, inappropriate environmental policies (ie, excessive logging) spawned earth first! and cops trying to interfere with peaceful assembly caused riots in Seattle.
57. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 4:45:51 PM
Earth first targetting loggers are no better than terrorists.
I saw a show on CSPAN about how the 'peaceful' protestors organized their protests in Seattle and the Rep. Natl Convention. They went in there specifically to cause problems... blocking traffic etc. and they fully sought confrontations with police.
58. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 4:48:55 PM
I'm sure our WTO protestors could get Chris Rock to make them a video too.
59. betty - 6/27/2002 4:55:36 PM
iiibbb,
how about this, all of my best friends were thrown into jails because they were making puppets in a warehouse...you may have been working class college boy, but I am working class. You know how the agents busted my friends for MAKING PUPPETS (none of the charges have stood i might add, and the city is expected to pay out millions of dollars in wrongful arrest cases), they busted my friends by posing as union carpenters. specifically designed to divide and conquer the working class. And i didn't learn that on CSPAN, information distributed by the right to smear the (almost dead) left...I was involved with my community where this shit was actually happening. The police rioted and the lefties got arrested.
that's the way it went down.
60. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 5:05:12 PM
Dunno... I can't help what I saw on video.
I also can't help what I know about Earth Firsters I've met (who didn't know my vocation)... and as someone who works in forestry I can't help how I feel about someone who had no qualms about doing people like me physical harm and didn't mind saying so.
I am pretty concerned about environmental issues, and the subject of my research revolves around sustainability... but I guess I chose to work from inside the system.
61. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 5:07:49 PM
I can absolutely concieve a scenario where some protestors or cops allowed the situation to escalate to where all hell broke loose...
62. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 5:18:54 PM
Indeed Betty, you may be more right than me on this one... so I apologize... still if you scroll down you will see that there were instigators in the crowd.
So hopefully you can see where I got my impression from, and the CSPAN video was definitely of people out to cause a disturbance, and were hopeful for a confrontation with police.
I haven't read anything about this for a while. So the lawsuits are news to me.
63. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 5:25:11 PM
x posted from the wrong thread... but...
And all this was under Clinton and Janet Reno's watch... thus my original statement that no side (republican or democrat... 'right' or 'left') has the lion's share of blame for trying establish some kind of dominance consistant with their ideals.
64. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 5:44:52 PM
i've been thinking about definitions...what we consider to be "left", "liberal", "moderate", "conservative", "right", etc..
i think we probably have many different takes on these terms. for instance, i have noticed very few...and i mean very few people i consider "left" having any voice in any relatively large media. i hear the term "liberal" applied to people that, for much of the "left", would be considered moderately conservative.
i think if you are in the trenches of the left, you have seen more and more push to the right so that people like al gore and bill clinton are considered liberal.
but then, what is "liberal"? i know some people who are liberal, but i wouldn't call them "left". i also know some people who are conservative, but ally themselves with lefty causes. i also think that many people on the right have never actually seen or experienced any interaction with a true lefty. during the last prez election here, the left had come closest to having some form of representation by a public figure in Nader, though i'm not sure i accept nader as truly left.
i think that "liberal" and "conservatives" refer to different things than "left" and "right".
anyone wanna chime in? i'm curious to see how y'all feel about it.
65. sakonige - 6/27/2002 5:56:22 PM
President Bush today said that Americans had "received our rights from God."
Hilarious, in a sick way.
66. judithathome - 6/27/2002 6:10:33 PM
I just commented on that in Politics. Very hilarious.
67. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 6:14:10 PM
y'know, when i say that the US is a christian theocracy disguised as a gang of murderous conservatives, i get scoffed at ;)
but seriously...it was ironic to hear bush declare that america is only about one religion yet again.
68. judithathome - 6/27/2002 6:15:33 PM
I just don't get it...why aren't we hearing more outrage over this type of thing?
69. msivorytower - 6/27/2002 6:17:56 PM
Of course this whole concept of subsidizing industries has it's roots in FDR's 'New Deal'.
I couldn't let this pass by....
Absolute rubbish. Favoritism for various business interests heralds back to the latter part of the 19th century. The railroad barons are simply the most obvious example of federal patronage and wealth transfers.
70. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 6:19:53 PM
an even better example...
... I was thinking about ag subsidies... which were right around the dust bowl.
71. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 6:24:39 PM
The controversies with land management in the NW has some roots in those railroad lands. It created a checkerboard of public and private land, so rather than being able to manage based on natural boundaries... you have these artificial devisions.
Forces conflicting land uses to exist in a constrained landscape.
72. Raskolnikov - 6/27/2002 6:25:20 PM
"i think that "liberal" and "conservatives" refer to different things than "left" and "right". "
They do mean different things to different people. From original usage, conservatives favored keeping existing social and political structures, while liberals favored greater democracy and personal and economic freedom.
But somewhere along the line that changed, at least in the US. Here, the terms are generally synomymous, except that "left" and "right" tend to refer to the more extreme ends of the perspective.
The terms have also become proxies for the current US party structure, but historically the ideological beliefs of both major parties have no permanent relationship to either the classic or the modern definitions of the terms. It simply doesn't make much sense to talk about major party figures like Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Jackson, Wilson, and Bryan as "liberals", or "conservatives".
73. sakonige - 6/27/2002 6:48:18 PM
judithathome -
Manifest Destiny lives.
74. betty - 6/27/2002 6:52:43 PM
ibcubed
Clinton and Reno are not left in my book. In fact Reno is the devil. She and Scalia obstructed justice and democracy in Florida (long before this recent round) and supressed evidence that there was rampant vote fraud and tampering.
Read Vote Scam.
Janet Reno is EVIL, EVIL, EVIL!!!
Janet Reno is evil.
75. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 6:59:20 PM
on that we can agree betty.
76. PincherMartin - 6/27/2002 7:03:05 PM
As much as I hate to admit it, Alistair's Message # 51 is right on the money.
Bush hasn't been in office two years and we are back to the era of massive budget deficits, trade protectionism, and, now, new government bureaucracies (for Homeland Security).
There are two reasons I've been a dedicated Republican at the polls for the last decade: I believe Republicans are more willing to protect and expand U.S. interests abroad and, much more importantly, I believe they are more fiscally responsible than Democrats. (I could give a shit about Republican social policies.) But recently I've come to doubt that Bush has anything other than his own political well-being in mind when he makes economic and fiscal policy.
77. judithathome - 6/27/2002 7:08:38 PM
You'd have decided that much sooner, Pincher, had you lived in Texas while he was Governor.
I tried to tell you guys!
78. Rama - 6/27/2002 7:11:31 PM
But recently I've come to doubt that Bush has anything other than his own political well-being in mind when he makes economic and fiscal policy.
Perhaps true, but what are your options?
79. Raskolnikov - 6/27/2002 7:18:09 PM
I don't think the GOP has really been the party of fiscal responsibility since 1980. Which worries me, as the Dems are ideologically ill-suited for the role.
80. CalGal - 6/27/2002 7:26:52 PM
Clinton's decisions on free trade were due to his own priorities, not Dem ideology so yes, it is worrisome.
I've read a great deal of unhappiness among conservatives at Bush's decisions, but it's not going to cost him anything meaningful.
81. PincherMartin - 6/27/2002 7:34:12 PM
Judith --
I've always been far too timid than has been good for me in taking your political advice.
Rama --
The best politicians are able to find the right combination of policies that both enhance their own political survival and advance the country's interests as a whole. I don't expect Bush to fall on his sword, politically, in order to advance some dreamy notion of the common good.
But the president is a Republican who states he's for free trade and smaller government, is he not? He's also an incumbent president, which gives him a great deal of leeway for the next election. (Only two incumbent Presidents have lost their re-election bids in the last seventy years -- Carter and Bush Sr.)
That means short of the national economy tanking, what does he have to fear? And yet, Bush has been operating on the narrowest band of political self-interest. Ironically, it won't save him if the economy tanks, and on the other hand, he won't lose by not implementing these narrow policies, if the economy does well. So, the question is, why do it?
82. CalGal - 6/27/2002 7:37:06 PM
Only two incumbent Presidents have lost their re-election bids in the last seventy years -- Carter and Bush Sr
Analysts on both the right and the left agree that the loss of that second incumbent had a profound impact on Bush Jr., who is determined not to be the third name on that list. Re-election has always been Bush's first goal.
83. PincherMartin - 6/27/2002 7:41:09 PM
I don't think the GOP has really been the party of fiscal responsibility since 1980. Which worries me, as the Dems are ideologically ill-suited for the role.
I should have said "fiscal and economic responsiblity." Reagan was fiscally irresponsible, but there was a far better argument in 1980 for both immediately reducing taxes and building up the military than there was in 2000.
84. PincherMartin - 6/27/2002 7:43:23 PM
CalGal --
I agree with you. But Bush Senior's loss had too much of an impact on him, in my opinion, and he's taken away the wrong lessons from it.
85. PincherMartin - 6/27/2002 7:45:22 PM
It occurs to me that this argument should probably be continued in the American Politics thread.
86. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 10:15:32 PM
Rask:
excellent analysis. i think i prefer "right and left" to "liberal and conservative" because the latter have, as you point out, been contradictory in current and historic usage. left and right are easier to make into a spectrum.
on the left side, there are some interesting dynamics in terms of social perception and what the left considers left or liberal.
the most extreme left is the most hidden from view by the media until they can be used for propaganda purposes (i.e., "those violent anarchists destroyed a starbucks!"). this extreme left is completely misunderstood...even by many other lefties.
then there's the next increment of the left, which is the radical left. the public gets to see this left in dribs and drabs, but despite the intelligent commentary and literature they produce, they are usually portrayed as kooks by the conservative media (if people got wind of their ideas they might realize just how bad this system stinks) and so they are not taken seriously (i.e., nader supporters).
then you get the moderate left...this is more like what the US might consider extreme liberals. they recycle, read the utne reader, listen to NPR (despite its statistically conservative stance), cry foul at racism, and tend to be easy neighbors...generally, these are middle or upper class folks with college educations but with no desire to do anything other than make their money and portray themselves as ethical whenever possible. these are the people who think porn is okay if the woman is not being coerced, but they would never watch it themselves.
(continued)
87. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 10:15:42 PM
other than that, the left considers pretty much on the right. i think the next increment, the so-called center, includes the "liberal politicians" conservatives complain about...like gore, for example. these are the ones who champion the environment by dry humping the sierra club while simultaneously fellating big corporations.
as it heads towards the right...from this lefty's perspective...it's all pretty much the same :)
so really, the shift to the right has blinded the public to the larger left and convinced it that the left is something it isn't.
88. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 10:32:55 PM
and while i'm filibustering (or filiblustering)...
class is also interesting among the left. in my experience, the extreme left is almost exclusively from the upper middle/wealthy class...mostly young kids whose parents are the captains of industry. it makes sense as working class folks can't afford to perform all those actions that require lots of time and money.
among the radical left, however, you find more working class folks...even poor folks in groups like the kensignton welfare rights union.
and then in that moderate left, you see virtually no working class folks, but you do see middle class highly represented.
one of the reasons i do not engage in protests is that i cannot afford the time off from work. another reason is that they don't work...and when they do work, the left takes a big hit and really only succeeds in teaching the next city how to get away with enforcing "public order" by more force, brutality and ignorance of constitutionality.
89. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 10:47:41 PM
well... since I am obviously confused about what is the 'real' left...
what are their central tenants?
90. OhioSTOPAS - 6/27/2002 10:55:28 PM
One of our central tenets is an unyielding opposition to Malapropisms.
91. robertjayb - 6/27/2002 11:14:53 PM
Ba-da-boom!
92. Raskolnikov - 6/28/2002 12:01:05 AM
However, I don't think there really is a consistent ideology to the left, any more than there is a consistent ideology to the right. Instead, what you have are a hodge podge of different ideological systems, or just policy preferences, that happen to coincide. The left is a mix of Marxists, anarchists, feminists, socialists, communists, greens, pacifists, poststructuralists, and radical race thinkers. What unifies them is the set of policy preferences including things like social justice, a dislike of racism, environmentalism, anti-imperialism, and the like. But the ideological reasons for these positions can be quite diverse.
Then you have your bleeding heart liberals, who don't have an ideology so much as a set of emotional responses to things like discrimination, war, and poverty.
The right has equivalents in almost every area, but again, there isn't much ideological consistency between anarcho-capitalists and religious fundamentalists.
But most Americans don't have an ideology, per se, aside from a very loose one that says democracy+some basic rights = good. Overall, they tend to pragmatic, and support the political party that best matches their preferred basket of economic and social policies.
93. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 12:20:22 AM
tenets then... sorry...
hooked on phonics worked for me...
94. concerned - 6/28/2002 12:44:24 AM
Don't worry about it. You will have your Judeo-Christian police state.
Posted by somebody who likes police states just fine, but prefers that they get rid of all the Jews and Christians.
95. concerned - 6/28/2002 12:45:53 AM
"and you can't convince me that Liberals hold any moral high ground on free speech. They're just as bad at stifiling ideas... particularly in academics."
Just let a conservative try to get a professorship at most universities. Hah!
96. concerned - 6/28/2002 12:55:30 AM
I don't think the GOP has really been the party of fiscal responsibility since 1980. Which worries me, as the Dems are ideologically ill-suited for the role.
Despite increases in the SS tax later on, the Reagan years saw a net decrease in overall income taxes. This was followed by two huge tax increases driven by a Democrat Congress in 1990 and 1993. Fiscal constraint by the Republican Congress and conservative monetary policy by Alan Greenspan allowed a budget surplus to develop for several years despite x42.
You may feel that Republican fiscal and monetary policy has fallen short throughout all of this. However, as a whole, they are much preferable to the Democrats here.
97. concerned - 6/28/2002 1:10:26 AM
what are their central tenants?
One may well be gaining the complicity of a central authority to cozen the support of special interest groups through social 'experimentation', at least when they have to contend with political opposition. However, when the Left has gained more or less complete control in countries such as the USSR, they have tended to become much more socially repressive than their RW opposition would be if they were in a similar situation.
98. concerned - 6/28/2002 1:27:28 AM
I find it very significant that the beliefs of modern day big government Leftists, such as they are, are generally opposed to those which were held by classical liberals, of whose ideological stances many have been adopted by US conservatives and libertarians (I won't speak so much for Europeans here).
99. concerned - 6/28/2002 3:24:44 AM
Despite increases in the SS tax later on, the Reagan years saw a net decrease in overall income taxes.
The above applies to inflation adjusted tax rates, to be more specific.
100. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 7:14:49 AM
However, when the Left has gained more or less complete control in countries such as the USSR, they have tended to become much more socially repressive than their RW opposition would be if they were in a similar situation.
see here's the thing. one "tenet" of the radical and extreme lefts is that governmental systems that are centralized and designed to govern extremely large amounts of people, are problemmatic. in the USSR, this "left" (i wouldn't call them left, i'd call them non-capitalists...the anarchists didn't come into power, after all) was essentially a different structure to do the same thing...create and maintain a state. it is in fact the "state" which is a problem for the real left.
101. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 7:27:46 AM
ib3x and rask:
i guess i should clarify. to me, the left and the right are perspectives...not ideologies, per se.
liberal would be an ideology, as would be conservative.
left and right, being perspectives, are different mainly because the right seeks to fit everything within it's preconceived perspective and what doesn't fit becomes an enemy. if you're not on the right, you're not right. if you are on the left, your perspective is to see what's going on first, then build a reaction accordingly. this is why, as rask points out, there is no consistent ideology to the left.
the extreme left, for instance, looks at the environment through movements like deep ecology and earth first! the radical left looks at things like sustainable communities alternative energy as being necessary to save the environment. the moderate left looks to better manage what's already there through democratic means.
on the right, you have the same doctrine throughout the spectrum: corporations know best.
so if we deal with these terms as perpsectives, we find that the actions of one side are going to be misunderstood perpetually by the other side.
i've always advocated that lefty's work "real" jobs for a while, that they live in the "real" world for a while, that they read things like the economist, wall street journal, washington post, current books on corporate management strategies, etc., and that they understand how the right manipulates the majority through media. i always cringe when i see knee-jerk people on the extreme left talk about evil corporations (which is accurate) and how they want to take them down without any understanding of how they work.
102. arkymalarky - 6/28/2002 7:36:51 AM
These court decisions have really brought the question of ideologies back to the question of basic values shared for me. What are the fundamentals that a system with a foundation on an ideology must protect, regardless of the circumstances of individual cases, in order to live up to its own established principles?
103. arkymalarky - 6/28/2002 7:37:42 AM
1st "question"="issue"
104. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 8:23:47 AM
ark:
that's a great question! i think that it reflects the reason why the right tends to stay in power and the left looks scattered and incoherent.
the ideologies of the right operate under the assumption that dissent should be discouraged, because quantitative unity is more important. the ideologies of the left operate under the assumption that dissent should be enocouraged, and this applies even to itself...hence, you get a lot more upheaval and disagreement because dissent is such a basic part of the fabric.
105. arkymalarky - 6/28/2002 8:41:42 AM
Message # 104
I've often considered that, and it makes the Left easier to divide and conquer and harder to manage a political coalition that will hold unless they hold to the most basic shared principles in politics and figure on hashing out the details of where they differ once there. It also makes Left extremists stand out much more than Right ones, because Right ones get thrown bones to keep them quiet such as the recent court decisions, lip service on abortion, taxes, big government, etc etc (which seems to have been enough without actually promoting any specifics), while on the Left you have a more varied set of interests which discourage unified support of the party that supposedly represents them. So you have significant votes for Nader on principle.
Of course that's bitten the GOP as well in past elections, usually having to do with economic issues, it seems, in addition to occasional efforts from the Right to wrench the party that way; and they've learned something from Clinton, who imo is a political genius. The way he reined the Democratic party into the middle is evidence of that.
106. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 8:53:03 AM
ark:
excellent observations!
many lefties want smaller regional government...independent and sustainable communities...less centralization, etc..
none of these structures require large scale majority mobilization...and so, the left has a hard time mobilizing for national power because such a mobilization is exactly what they're fighting AGAINST!
it's essentially a game where the rules are written by the right...whenever the left tries to play, they lose the overall game.
my suggestion has been that the left engage in its own game and ignore the system where possible. there are numerous alternative communities, alternative currency systems, food co-ops, etc...things to do under the radar, and just as many intelligent treatises of how these things can work.
one can be "in the world", but "not of it" (to coin a sufi phrase).
107. arkymalarky - 6/28/2002 9:11:40 AM
I think where they fail is that it's essential they unite behind one presidential candidate and it is usually important to do so in congressional elections as well.
Where I think Lefties do tend to unite more is in basic socio-economic principles. But they consider their own individual pet interests more important and their votes can easily be lost based on the candidates' views wrt that particular interest, be it Gay Rights, environmentalism, or whatever.
Interestingly, though, a lot of conservative Americans feel the same way the liberal ones do locally--and we all know what Tip O'Neil said.
I think that's why in the South voters shifted to Republicans for national offices long before they began to shift to them for local ones. In fact, it's still best to be a registered Democrat to run for state and local offices in much of the South.
108. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 9:27:27 AM
create and maintain a state. it is in fact the "state" which is a problem for the real left.
by holding this 'perspective' doesn't that immediately render them irrelevant given this is the United States?... or are these the type of people that set up their own commune somewhere?
right seeks to fit everything within it's preconceived perspective and what doesn't fit becomes an enemy.
This seems a little harsh and Jaded.
if you are on the left, your perspective is to see what's going on first, then build a reaction accordingly.
This seems a little generous... unless I'm still lumping people in the left that you don't consider to be the true 'left'. Basically you are declaring a monopoly on reasonable thinkers.
the extreme left, for instance, looks at the environment through movements like deep ecology and earth first! the radical left looks at things like sustainable communities alternative energy as being necessary to save the environment. the moderate left looks to better manage what's already there through democratic means.
That puts me in with radical left, moderate left, and right all at the same time. I am a huge proponent of alternative energy, and energy conservation...
Deep Ecology in my opinion is flaky... and makes no real attempt to integrate humans with the environment.
But, given your examples... I actually can't see where I fit in your definitions of the 'perspectives'.
109. Raskolnikov - 6/28/2002 9:29:36 AM
"the ideologies of the right operate under the assumption that dissent should be discouraged, because quantitative unity is more important. the ideologies of the left operate under the assumption that dissent should be enocouraged, and this applies even to itself...hence, you get a lot more upheaval and disagreement because dissent is such a basic part of the fabric."
I think this a huge overstatement, for several reasons:
1) The left can be quite good at suppressing dissent. See any Communist regime, such as Castro's Cuba. Lenin had a specific doctrine where dissent was allowed in private meetings, but you toed the party line in public. Other leftists have resorted to advocacy of censorship to accomplish their goals.
2) Meanwhile, the right isn't some monolithic group of Neandrathal greedheads. Libertarians take belief in free speech to almost religious extremes, for instance, and modern versions of Burkian conservatives (such as George Will) aren't all that big on suppressing dissent either.
I think you get more dissent on the left because they are more idelogical and utopian. They are extremely dissatisified with the current social and political structure, and want radical change. You just can't get two of them to agree on what the best structure should be.
The right, however, tends to be pretty happy with things they way they are. Yeah, they will bitch about big gummint and the like, but they don't really have a Utopian vision or a belief that things should be radically different. They are tweakers. This wasn't always the case, however. When the right *has* been lead by utopian zealots, such as Hitler, schisms and internicene conflict were common. The biggest exception to this in the US is the religious right.
110. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 9:37:45 AM
Here is where I feel I am 'left' by your definitions so far
-reasoned analysis willing to change for new information
-more power to communities for self determination
-alternative and sustainable energy and natural resources
Here is where I fall short of the left:
-Immediate assumption that big=bad
Here is where I am more or kess with the right(thusfar poorly defined except to say they're closeminded):
-Lower taxes
-Federal funding of things that should be local, such as schools
-National defense (my perception of the majority of the left is that war is bad, therefore military is bad)
-Gun rights
111. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 9:38:24 AM
It also occurs to me that there must not be that many people who are truly 'left' by your standards.
112. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 9:42:09 AM
rask:
i agree with what you say, except the part about communists. there are many lefties who are socialists or communists, but not all. the idea that communism is THE left is a bit of a myth, based on the fact that the right sees communism as its antithesis, and dismisses any other lefty ideology as unreasonable or unrealistic. communism gets so much attention because it is, essentially, the ONLY left-leaning ideology that can and does espouse a large-scale state system. the right uses "commies" as examples why the left doesn't work...but that's not a representative of the left, it's a representative of an alternate form of statism assigned by people who were more aligned with the left than the right.
communism can't work, to me, because it is inconceivable that a large-scale system could work without either a tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority. it's the size and scope that is the problem, not the ideology. for instance, consensus can work on a small scale, but not on a large scale. where the line between small and large scale lies, however, is a good question.
113. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 9:51:53 AM
iiibbb:
you are correct...many people on the left espouse a variety of these perspectives. i mean, do you stand still? of course not.
it seems that i am minimizing the intellect of the right. i'm not. i'm talking perspective. the perspective of the "right" doesn't change all that much...and its difference with the left lies in the fact that it takes a solid, unified hard-line stance with less schism than the left (as has been pointed out). to take such a solid view, one often has to sacrifice a level of flexibility and adaptability to change in order to keep the party line clear. when something isn't working, the solution is not to question the ideologies of the right, it's to assume the fault is that people aren't "right enough."
this happens to the left too...but since it's not as united, it happens locally and on a scale that is too small to affect the larger population or be noticed by it.
your stance on deep ecology is pretty much what most people think of it...as i said, radical or extreme ideas on the left are usually portrayed as kooky by the media. you said:Deep Ecology in my opinion is flaky... and makes no real attempt to integrate humans with the environment.
i agree there is a degree of flakiness, but i think that what you said about integrating humans with the environment is off the mark completely. if you consider the environment to be asphalt pavement and concrete and automobiles and factories, then sure...it doesn't help to integerate people into the environment. but it's all about assimilation with nature.
114. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 9:53:49 AM
from "The Basic Points of the Platform of Deep Ecology"...
III. Humanity is part of nature, but our potential of power means that our responsibility towards the Earth is greater than that of any other species.
IV. We feel estranged from the Earth because we have imposed complication upon the complexity of nature.
VII. New kinds of communication should be found that encourage greater identification with nature. Only then will we see our part in it again.
115. judithathome - 6/28/2002 9:53:59 AM
Ivan, are you aware of what iiibbb does for a living? I don't think his idea of nature is asphalt and concrete....
116. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 9:58:32 AM
i am aware. which is why i posted the parts from deep ecology. it is, truthfully, a more extreme left position and one that requires a massive reversal of much that the right has set in place. but, ideologically, it has merit.
and i don't think it's contrary to our nature because it's only in recent history of homo sapiens that we've actually altered the large scale biosystem for our benefit. local clearing of forests by indigenous people has been going on for as long as we can tell, but it never lead to the crises we see now.
117. arkymalarky - 6/28/2002 10:03:03 AM
My brain keeps defaulting to American Left and Right.
118. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 10:29:26 AM
Message # 114
III That is a essentially a statement of land ethic that is not much different than held by mainstream players... take SAF's code. We have an ethical responsibility as well as a practical interest in long term sustainability.
IV You can't make decisions just because the feel. I'm not saying all gut feelings are worthless, but if you paroose the scientific literature you'll find that many management practices that have been labled as 'bad' by whoever... aren't as bad as we thought. Certainly disturbance impacts vary widely by region. The tropics are different than the artic, and you can't just assume what happens here happens there.
VII I don't know if they hold the monopoly on this viewpoint. My major prof and I have talked many times about how the general populace are wholy disconnected from their place in the food chain, or the energy chain. It's a real trick to connect them.
However... I think I can safely say that most Deep Ecologists are no better connected (in my experience), and are only operating from the perspective that management is all bad, consumption is all bad, business is all bad. They pretty much consume like the rest of us.
It'd be great if all of us could go back to living off the land as organic vegan farmers... but that is an impractical world view.
119. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 10:31:55 AM
IV You can't make decisions just because the feel.
=
IV You can't make decisions just because of how they feel.
----
it is really wierd when I do that typing... I start thinking of my next sentence before I'm done typing the one I'm on, and whole ends of sentences disappear or fall apart. Very odd.
120. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 10:33:00 AM
check that... you can make decisions just because of how they feel.
You can't expect everyone else to follow your lead.
121. concerned - 6/28/2002 10:59:32 AM
The problem I have with the concept that the Left, once in power, discards what makes it ideologically distinct because it now needs to 'conserve' its power base is that its basic rhetoric and ideology do not change. For instance, the nature of international revolutionary communism didn't really change much once the USSR and China became 'socialist republics'.
It's important to point this out, because otherwise the inherent defects of the 'utopian' socialist state, as envisioned by the left wing, can be glossed over with the excuse that they are due to Leftists adopting 'conservative' policies to run the state when that is not at all the cause of these problems per se.
122. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 11:28:36 AM
Does Concerned even acknowledge distinctions among (what in the USA are called) "liberals", European-style social democrats, and Soviet-style socialists? He seems to use the word "Left" (with a capital L) for all these groups.
The USA doesn't have a left. The Republicans are the right, and the Democrats are the centre-right with some centre-left.
123. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 11:31:25 AM
"I find it very significant that the beliefs of modern day big government Leftists....are generally opposed to those which were held by classical liberals...."
I find it significant that Concerned reiterates a very hackneyed view -- modern "liberalism" is not the same as "classical" liberalism -- and thinks it "significant".
By the way, since this is the ideologies thread -- which presumably is to have a deeper and less parochial atmosphere than the American politics -- can we use the term "liberalism" in its normal sense?
124. concerned - 6/28/2002 11:36:33 AM
Re. 122 -
PE is being deliberately obtuse here. Or he's just plain dense.
125. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 11:48:15 AM
The USA doesn't have a left. The Republicans are the right, and the Democrats are the centre-right with some centre-left.
well said! there is no left because it is unrecognized and ignored and shunned and censored.
126. marjoribanks - 6/28/2002 11:53:17 AM
The rump of the American Left is also a total minority, probably negligible in real terms. In effect, the Left in this country is completely dead.
127. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 12:30:22 PM
From the way I read your descriptions of why they can't organize, they're dead because of their own inability to communicate whatever message they have to people so that it seems doable or palletable.
A quote I read today... "you don't see the world as it is... you see the world as you are".
Perhaps the left isn't getting their message across because they're not connecting with the mainstream. Not even in little ways. Without finding common ground they're perspective isn't considered. Perhaps they're ot as effective at seeing what's going on first... because if they were they would adjust their strategies whith the goal of wider acceptance of their viewpoint.
128. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 12:33:43 PM
well said! there is no left because it is unrecognized and ignored and shunned and censored.
so the left believes that they have no control over thier own message? The fact that whatever they have to say may have as much to do with the packaging as it does with those in the media.
129. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 12:40:34 PM
An interesting paper from a group of economists at Harvard:
"Why Doesn't the US have a European-Style Welfare State?"
Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser, Bruce Sacerdote National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 8524 October 2001
[ The question in the title of the paper should be understood to mean "why haven't US voters chosen to have a European-style welfare state?"]
From the introduction:
European governments redistribute income amongst their citizens on a much larger scale than does the United States government. European social programs are more generous and reach a larger share of citizens. European tax systems are more progressive. Europe has more intrusive regulations that are often meant to protect the poor. In this paper we try to understand why.
The literature on "the size of government" is rich and varied... We consider economic, political and behavioral explanations for the differences between the US and Europe....
Economic explanations [ in the existing literature ] focus on the variance and the skewness of the pre-tax, pre-transfer income distribution, the social costs of taxation, the volatility of income, and the expected income changes for the median voter....130. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 12:41:05 PM
We conclude that most of these theories cannot explain the US-Europe differences. Pre-tax income in the US has both more variance and is more skewed. There is no evidence that the deadweight losses from taxation are lower in Europe. The volatility of income in Europe appears to be lower than in the US. There is some possibility that the middle class in the US has a greater chance of moving up in the income distribution, a feature that would make the median voter more averse to redistribution.
Political explanations [ in the existing literature ] for the level of redistribution focus on institutions that prevent minorities from gaining political power or strictly protect individuals' private property. Cross-country comparisons indicate the importance of these institutions in limiting redistribution. For instance, America does not have proportional representation, which played an important role in facilitating the growth of socialist parties in many European countries. America has strong courts that have routinely rejected popular attempts at redistribution, such as the income tax or labor regulation. The European equivalents of these courts were swept away as democracy replaced monarchy and aristocracy. The federal structure of the US may have also contributed to constrain the role of the central government in the redistributive arena.
The political institutions result from particular features of US history. The formation of the US as a federation of independent territories led to a federal structure that often creates obstacles to centralized redistributive policies. The relative stability of the US means that it is still governed by an 18 th century constitution designed to protect property. As world war and revolution swept away the old European monarchies, the 20 th century European constitutions that replaced the old regimes were more oriented towards majority-rule, and less towards protection of private property.131. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 12:41:22 PM
Moreover, the spatial organization of the U. S.— in particular, its low density— meant that the US government was much less threatened by a socialist revolution. Many of the European institutions were either directly implemented by revolutionary groups, or a response by elites to the threat of violence.
Finally, we discuss reciprocal altruism and redistribution. Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor, if the poor are perceived as lazy, which they are in the US. In contrast, Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the poor are unfortunate. This difference in views is part of what is sometimes refereed to as "American exceptionalism" (Lipset (1996)
132. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 12:42:18 PM
Racial discord plays a critical role in determining beliefs about the poor. Since minorities are highly over-represented amongst the poorest Americans, any income-based redistribution measures will redistribute particularly to minorities. The opponents of redistribution have regularly used race based rhetoric to fight left-wing policies.
Across countries, racial fragmentation is a powerful predictor of redistribution. Within the US, race is the single most important predictor of support for welfare. America's troubled race relations are clearly a major reason for the absence of an American welfare state.
The last two paragraphs --the role of racial fragmentation in minimising income redistribution -- are the real focus of the paper.
I myself would probably add that the high level of immigration into the USA for long periods is what might have retarded trades unionism and syndicalism in the USA, because the presence of an ethnolinguistically and racially diverse working class probably kept them fragmented and divided.133. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 12:42:49 PM
134. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 12:58:14 PM
For example one of my pet interests is Agroforestry. It is a management paradigm for farming which specifically seeks to combine crops, trees, and animals in a way that they mutually benefit each other, by stratifying resources. The idea is that if you combine these things in the right way you can actually get more yield than if you were to do any one thing alone and create a system that is both environmentally and economically sustainable.
It is really hard to sell today's farmers on this concept. It is complicated both ecologicaly and economically. Human nature is human nature, and like anyone these people look at cash flow and tradition. You need a hook.
Now... take the issue of water quality. Everyone agrees that it's important to preserve water quality. Streams flow through farms so we want to do things that protect streams.
What the government does is create BMP (best management practices) guidlines which primarily consist of the creation of streamside mamagement zones (buffers) that filter out pollutants and avoid direct imputs of sediments or pollution into the stream. They try to entice farmers to create these SMZ's by cost sharing.
To get the cost-share money you need to enter a contract with the government. The government has pretty tight limits on what you can, and can't do with that land once you've entered the agreement.
135. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 12:58:28 PM
BUT
Farmers don't trust the government. They would rather maintain full control over that land. If they take the money they are locked in. They are also not allowed to do anything production-oriented. If their land goes to some natural state (meaning wooded), they are also worried that a law might get passed down the road that prevents them from doing anything with that land ever again. I think this is an absolutely legitimate concern.
But here's an example of how I would approach the problem.
Design an SMZ that encorporates many of the same features that the gov't one does. Usually this involves plants that stabalize banks etc. Allow farmers utilize that land for farm-forestry applications such as growing berries, or nuts, or mushrooms or whatever.
If you design an SMZ that not only protects water quality, but also gives economic benefit to the farmer... then you have something.
But the problem is that so many 'environmentalists' think that environmental protection is not compatible with production.
136. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 1:05:36 PM
I can see taxes for public works... but I find myself not likeing the idea of large scale redistribution of income controlled by the government particularly through taxation.
137. marjoribanks - 6/28/2002 1:07:15 PM
I myself would probably add that the high level of immigration into the USA for long periods is what might have retarded trades unionism and syndicalism in the USA, because the presence of an ethnolinguistically and racially diverse working class probably kept them fragmented and divided.
Interesting speculation. If true, the situation is likely to remain unchanged as the newer significant waves of migrants in this country are either illegal (so can't change policy) or even better-off economically than previous migrant groups (so have less reason to support income redistribution).
138. marjoribanks - 6/28/2002 1:11:12 PM
iiibbb,
You will probably find much to agree with in this article from The Sierra's Club's magazine.
139. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 1:22:55 PM
The only thing that I don't agree with is that it appeals to our 'duty' to conserve as much as anything. While this works for some of us (either in-whole or in-part... because I'm not perfect by any stretch)
My viewpoint is that you need to appeal to people's greed. Everyone wants to better themselves. If you come up with systems that integrate conservation and production and make more money.
Then you're going to get somewhere.
140. betty - 6/28/2002 1:49:04 PM
ib,
as Leonard Cohen said I've been sentenced to twenty years of boredom for trying to change the system from within
what you describe in your 134 on is really a step toward deep ecology, or at least the way i understand it. Try to restate a more natural environment, minimize factory farming and increase "productivity". In Philly our friends and ivan and I went foraging in a small city park and found more than enough food to eat for a week...this wasn't a land specifically designed for that purpose and it wasn't in any way managed...but it was fruitful and diverse and it was an afternoon spent really understanding what we eat and how it all works.
It was an amazing experience.
I grew up in farm country and though there is a growing green awareness there, trying to get those small family farmers to switch to more efficient production is impossible. They wouldn't be competitive anymore...but they are already not competitive...are dieing in debt and the quality of the food, not to mention their profit is suffering. WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT TAKE TO ADAPT?
I'm annoyed by this as a green, as a consumer and as someone who grew up with these guys and doesn't want to see that land become more track housing or even worse, be bought by factory farmers. I want it to be family (or community) farmed and frankly I'd even hate for it to be taken over by nice lefty farmers with an ultra ethical way of doing everything...but that's mostly because I know that once the nice lefties come in very soon the yuppies follow. It takes a certain amount of yokelism to keep the pretty people out...I've made my piece with that.
141. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 2:18:10 PM
The factory farm model is a tough one to compete against because in the short term it can be so lucrative... but what seemed to screw the small farmers is that they were convinced/persuaded or otherwise tried to compete with factory farms.
I think factory farms potentially have their place (and perhaps regulatory laws are best applied to them because they are more formula driven).
Small farmers are better off by diversifying. Multiple crops, multiple practices. It may not be a lucrative, and is more sensitive to interest rates... but it is also less senitive to volatile markets. If you are doing 5 major practices, and the market sucks in 1 or 2 of them for a few years, you have the other or 4 to keep you in business.
142. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 2:23:51 PM
Your friends' experiment living off a park is pretty cool, but it wouldn't work if everyone were doing it...
...I think for new ideas to be effective they need to be demonstrated far more effectively.
On top of that it's got to be easily integrated into the way people already do things. One doesn't just up and change a whole paradigm. You work in things.
With agroforestry... generally the advice given to those who might try it is to work stuff in gradually. It takes way too much capital to adapt in the short term.
I guess that's the biggest problem is getting people to think in the long term. Foresters are more capable of this than most land managers because our resource is so long lived, and the investment is inherently long term.
Farmers work with perinials, and are definitely more apt to look at cash flow.
143. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 2:33:18 PM
re:Leonard Cohen said I've been sentenced to twenty years of boredom for trying to change the system from within.
This kind of change takes a *really* long time. I have no idea what kind of contribution I will make or how particularly satisfying it will be when all is said and done. It's taken about 40-70 years to get small farmers in this mess. It's going to take a while to get them out of it
One step would be to completely rethink farm subsidies... although the depth of my understanding of agricultural politics pretty much ends where agroforestry begins. I don't know a whole lot about traditional farming, or have much experience with traditional farmers.
Diversification and agroforestry principles certainly seems to be one way to improve things... but there has been almost no work with agroforestry in this country, so even though it would be a good model to work from... it would take much more proof about it's viability to get farmers who are already struggling to try something unproven.
144. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 2:50:16 PM
Well... I'm not a green either...
If this is the true 'left' no wonder it can't get anywhere. I feel I am a pretty reasonable guy, but I wouldn't support the majority of this platform...
145. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 3:57:18 PM
My viewpoint is that you need to appeal to people's greed. Everyone wants to better themselves. If you come up with systems that integrate conservation and production and make more money.
this statement reflects what i think is the line between the extreme left and everyone else: the extreme left finds "people's greed" to be the model that needs alteration. the idea of compromise through the incentive of more money is just as short term as anything else...it only leads to more greed. you can only sweep real problems under the rug for so long...eventually, greed needs to be drained (wars, corporate downsizing, taxation, etc.).
this is why the extreme left is usually shunned...it questions the nature of greed and capitalism and believes that humans are not inherently greedy, but that they can develop habits of greed just like they can develop habits of anything else. if you assume greed as "natural", then you can't help but try to change the system by using that motivator. the extreme left thinks that the motivation of greed is something to which we are trained by educational systems, governments, corporations, etc., who convince us that it is the only way people operate (because it benefits them more than us).
and we accept that greed is a de facto instinct, but the extreme left thinks we are brainwashed into it. i'm oversimplifying the position, but it's just the perspective...i don't claim to speak for the extreme left.
146. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 3:59:58 PM
you've probably seen this site already, but it's a good example of the gamut of left perspectives...especially the extreme and radical left.
Indy Media
147. Wombat - 6/28/2002 4:04:00 PM
Don't call it greed, call it "enlightened self-interest."
148. betty - 6/28/2002 4:07:36 PM
call it what ever you want, hippy girls still won't fuck you if yer down with it ;-)
149. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 4:28:17 PM
Greed is perhaps a strong term...
I think greed, or self interest, or competative self-interest or whatever you want to call it is an absolute natural attribute of human beings or any living being.
It's rare to find anyone who isn't acting with some self interest. A legitimate approach is to promoting alternatives that appeal just as much or more to peoples' self interest.
A good title for a book... Save the planet, and make moeny doing it.
and I'd be willing to bet there are even guys out there who don't eat meat more because they want to fuck hippy chicks than any other reason.
150. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 4:29:56 PM
iiibbb:
that's why i first became a vegetarian 10 years ago...i was dating this chick and she didn't date non-vegetarians. so i became a vegetarian. quickly, i learned to like being a vegetarian and to despise my now ex-girlfriend.
151. betty - 6/28/2002 4:31:20 PM
ib,
I have a strict policy of not sucking cock unless it belongs to a vegetarian...they just taste better.
152. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 4:31:43 PM
she must have found out you were greedy :)
153. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 4:34:41 PM
where did you do the taste test?
154. betty - 6/28/2002 4:38:32 PM
ib,
it was a controlled experiment, I assure you.
155. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 4:39:43 PM
I more or less will eat anything. I like vegetarian cooking though.
It always amuses me the way some of my meat-centric friends cringe at vegetarian meals as much as a vegetarian cringes at a hamburger.
I wish I weren't so busy these days... I get very lazy about what I eat. Before I came back to school I pretty much was avoiding fast food and was adopting a more vegecentric eating habits.
I'll never dump meat althogether though. Tastes too good.
156. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 4:40:40 PM
I don't know what I'd do without sushi too.
157. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 4:41:45 PM
so you're into control eh?
158. betty - 6/28/2002 4:42:09 PM
it always amazes me when people say that about meat...I've never known anyone to cook meat without some kind of marinade or sauce or even just some onions...but to each their own.
159. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 4:44:30 PM
yes, betty's a great scientist...she's like the stephen hawking of fucking. she has forumlated the string theory of oral sex in both light AND wave form ;)
160. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 4:52:15 PM
Ever just crave? something?
Animal protein and vegetable protein are just different.
161. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 5:12:07 PM
What is the real story behind agricultural Cooperatives and watermelons?
162. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:21:21 PM
Re. 125 -
Of course there is a strong, vibrant Lefty contingent in America. Some of their wit and wisdom is included in the excerpts below. (Franky, a lot of it is pretty bizarre, scary stuff):
"We already have too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure."
-Paul Elrich, Stanford University biologist and Advisor to Vice President Albert Gore
"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism."
[Judi Barri of Earth First? quoted by Walter Williams, cloumnists with Heritage Features][Syndicate, State Journal Register, June 25, 1992]
"The immediate source of ecological crisis is capitalism."
"Capitalism is a cancer in the biosphere."
"I believe the color of radicalism today is not red, but green."
[Steve Chase,ed., Defending the Earth: A Dialogue Between Murray Bookchin and Dave Foreman] (Boston South End Press, 1991, p 57-59)
"The northern spotted owl is the wildlife species of choice to act as a surrogate for old-growth forest protection," explained Andy Stahl, staff forester for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, at a 1988 law clinic for other environmentalists. "Thank goodness the spotted owl evolved in the Pacific Northwest," he joked, "for if it hadn't, we'd have to genetically engineer it."
-Andy Stahl at a 1988 law clinic for environmentalists, staff forester, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
163. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:21:57 PM
"Now, in a widening sphere of decisions, the costs of error are so exorbitant that we need to act on theory alone, which is to say on prediction alone. It follows that the reputation of scientific prediction needs to be enhanced. But that can happen, paradoxically, only if scientists disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist on. Above all, we need to learn to act decisively to forestall predicted perils, even while knowing that they may never materialize. We must take action, in a manner of speaking, to preserve our ignorance. There are perils that we can be certain of avoiding only at the cost of never knowing with certainty that they were real."
-Jonathan Shell, author of Our Fragile Earth
"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
-Richard Benedict, an employee for the State Department working on assignment for the Conservation Foundation
"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
-Stephen Schneider, proponent of the theory that CFCs are depleting the ozone
"The Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club regional reps were at the Northeast Earth First Rendevouz last year. We all work very well together. Dale Turner, who is the assistant editor of the Earth First Journal, was conservation chair of the Sierra Club in Arizona at the same time. I'm a member of the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society and the Nature Conservancy."
-Dave Foreman, Earth First? Founder, in an interview in E Magazine Sept/Oct 93
Update: Dave Foreman was recently elected to the Sierra Club Board of Directors
164. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:22:23 PM
"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
-David Brower, Friends of the Earth
"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state."
-Keith Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."
-Earth First! newsletter
"I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
-Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd
"The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles."
-Thomas Lovejoy, tropical biologist and assistant secretary of the Smithsonian Institution
"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
Dave Forman, founder of Earth First, and presently a member of the Board of Directors for the Sierra Club
165. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:22:33 PM
Ideological Ties to other Movements
In the 1930s the ecologists "Green Revolution" reached full flower in Germany...In the political sphere, ecologists lobbied successfully, for antivivisection laws,..implementation of organic farming,..and the redistribution of large land holdings to the German peasants (Back-to- the-Land movement)...These laws became the policies of a political party that incorporated a major portion of the ecologists political agenda. This party also believed in the "Blood and Soil" ethic, and was known as the National Socialist Party. Its leader was Adolf Hitler.
-M.Gemmell & J.Lehr
166. stostosto - 6/28/2002 5:26:27 PM
conc:
why don't you ever give the source for such copy-pastes? Just curious.
167. stostosto - 6/28/2002 5:27:08 PM
untag.
168. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:27:48 PM
concerned:
if i were to fill the next 20 posts with equivalently stupid things said by the right, and also finding the more obvious parallels with nazis, i suppose i would be saying just as little about their perspectives as you are about the left.
large corporations have a lot more connections with nazism. i mean, it wasn't the environmentalists who sponsored companies like I.G. Farben. i do recall that many american "captains of industry" were very cozy to hitler and crew, however.
169. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:28:01 PM
Today I had a vegetarian lunch. Yesterday, I had two burgers. So, what?
170. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:32:42 PM
Re. 168 -
Did you note that several of these people are (or were) in high profile positions and that they are talking about their professional policies and goals here?
Planning the extinction of the human race or the end of capitalism is a bit beyond anything I've heard any right winger propose.
171. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:33:09 PM
oops. sorry about html booboo above.
172. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:34:31 PM
conc:
why don't you ever give the source for such copy-pastes? Just curious.
But I have. Each and every cite I gave above includes a specific source.
173. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 5:35:55 PM
I actually like the Nature Conservancy. From my dealings with them, and from the things I have gotten in the mail from them... they are relatively straight shooters. Basically, if they want something done, ore want to protect some piece of land... they buy it, and they do it with pretty low overhead. They are also reasonably cosignant of the idea that people will manage land.
In fact a swamp preserve they own down in Charleston, SC is partially supported by pine plantations they mananage in the same watershed.
174. stostosto - 6/28/2002 5:36:13 PM
But from where did you copy-paste them?
175. stostosto - 6/28/2002 5:37:09 PM
#174 was to co'd's #172.
176. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:39:34 PM
perhaps there is another reflection of the spectrum...the degree of homocentrism that is present. for instance, the extreme left sees humans as being a cancer or virus on the planet. the extreme right sees humans as the pinnacle of god's creations and by right the most important.
it is easy to see why people fear the extreme left ideas on humans' place in the world...such a perspective would mean that we fucked up. and nobody wants to hear that. much easier to say, 'oh well...we're here. get used to it.' and go about bashing the planet in the process.
in the meantime, thanks to the right, the ability to actually diminish the human presence on the planet is only a button away.
177. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:40:22 PM
I don't think it really makes any difference, in the final analysis, from where I got them. These people said what they said for reasons that they must have felt were sufficiently good, and it is to be presumed that they are responsible for their statements.
I will say that the site I got these quotes is not politically oriented, nor is it affiliated with hunting.
178. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:40:42 PM
...I got these quotes from....
179. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:41:06 PM
you may have never heard a right winger say they are for the destruction of humanity, but you've never seen a lefty build a nuclear warhead either.
180. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 5:41:55 PM
The Merry Minuet
They're rioting in Africa
They're starving in Spain
There's hurricanes in Florida
And Texas needs rain
the Whole world is festering iwht unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch
And I don't like Anybody very much.
But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud
For man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lucky day
Someone will set the spark off and we will all be blown away
They're rioting in Africa
There's strife in Iran
What nature doesn't do to us
Will be done by our fellow Man
-- Sheldon Harnick @1958
181. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:42:29 PM
Re. 179 -
That's probably because I haven't lived in the Soviet Union or China.
182. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:46:38 PM
by bringing up extreme sentences expressed by a few on the left, the right makes it easy to dismiss any criticism of itself. the anti-war effort in the 60s was used as a tool by the right..."see? look at that dirty, strung out, lazy hippy! they think we should be commies too!" and there you have it. mr. and mrs. USA-all-the-way will never pay any attention to ANY anti-war information now. it's very easy to close people's minds through clever propaganda.
if a clear-thinking person said...hmmm...this system (the right...y'know, the dominant mob) seems wrong. what's the opposition saying?
instead of them seeing the work of howard zinn or chomsky, they'd be shown the sentence from the earth first newsletter. instead of reading the books, they'd take the soundbyte and leave it at that.
183. stostosto - 6/28/2002 5:46:53 PM
From Pseuder's quote in Message # 131:
"America's troubled race relations are clearly a major reason for the absence of an American welfare state. "
Is this commonly accepted? If not, why hasn't anyone commented (other than marj)?
I too believe the rapid influx of immigrant during American industrialisation made it difficult for labour and socialist political groups to orchestrate a mass appeal. Furthermore, I think there's one more factor at work, namely "The American Dream". The idea that anyone can get rich, therefore anyone identifies with rich people when it comes to redistributive matters, much more than what is the case in any other society on earth.
184. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:47:59 PM
soviet union or china...not leftie. they are non-capitalist, but not the left. why do americans insist that anything that is not capitalistic is the left? they are stat
ists...just like america.
185. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:48:20 PM
statists, that is.
186. stostosto - 6/28/2002 5:48:46 PM
#177:
Why so secretive?
187. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:49:26 PM
The excerpts I gave weren't intended to show that the Left is necessarily more nihilistic than the right, but to the extent that this appears to be the context in which some of the more radical environmentalists describe their larger objectives, it doesn't surprise me that many people tend to be repelled by them.
188. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 5:52:51 PM
idea that anyone can get rich, therefore anyone identifies with rich people when it comes to redistributive matters, much more than what is the case in any other society on earth.
What's the point of working hard if they're just going to take it away?
189. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:52:54 PM
Re. 186 -
I was hoping to draw out some indiscreet statements, perhaps?
Okay, okay. They came from the off-road.com website.
190. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:54:43 PM
concerned:
i agree with you there. i consider myself radical left and i think that there are truths to some of the extreme left's position, it is also far too "dystopian" (they'd say it's utopian) for my taste. no fun there. i think if there were a much more "left-oriented" society, we'd come closer to an alignment with nature and thus, the extreme left's position wouldn't be necessary. i think co-existence is possible. i don't think it can be left in the hands of corporations.
191. concerned - 6/28/2002 5:54:58 PM
Now, nobody try to sell me that offroaders are all dastardly RWingers, please.
192. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 5:57:33 PM
Concerned can trot out as many quotes from the political fringe in the USA (as compiled by the Heritage Foundation, I'm guessing), but nothing changes the fact that there is no electoral Left in Yankistan in any meaningful sense.
The poles of the political spectrum in the mainstream politics of the USA can be expressed in percentages of federal expenditure in GDP. At one end the right wants about 15% while at the other end the centre-right wants about 20-25%.
193. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 5:57:46 PM
iiibbb:
but they DO take it away! whether it's through unfair taxation of our own labor (used to finance wars we don't all want), or through the expenses of our immediate needs (food, shelter, etc..). capitalism couldn't survive if there weren't poor people. shit, when certain conditions arise, the market favors MORE unemployment. it, in fact, NEEDS unemployment. the technological revolution has found us working even MORE hours (thus, taking away our time too). i'd rather them take it away and redistribute it, then to take it away and throw most of it to corporate welfare or military surplus.
194. concerned - 6/28/2002 6:00:51 PM
i think co-existence is possible. i don't think it can be left in the hands of corporations.
I agree with this, 'to a fault', as they say. Governmental and NGO oversight of corporate effects on the environment are necessary. I don't necessarily belief that maintaining a ever-constant drumbeat of opposition oriented activism or subsuming that agenda to an ideological one necessarily works out very well in the medium to long term.
195. concerned - 6/28/2002 6:02:23 PM
Concerned can trot out as many quotes from the political fringe in the USA (as compiled by the Heritage Foundation, I'm guessing)
Hahahahaha!
196. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 6:05:32 PM
Not just talking about the well to do Ivan... the mega rich.
The thing that all of these dreamers (from the small business owner to the ultra rich) have in common is not education... it's the hours they put in. I read they put in ungodly hours... way more than most people are willing to.
So if you have a dream to make a business take off... what's the point if they're going to take a huge chunk of it? Then you have fewer businesses starting because it's not worth the effort.
It's like working for the government (which I have) where it isn't really effort and productivity that's rewarded.
197. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 6:08:25 PM
Or my friends that have worked alongside unions... where they're actually confronted if they were too productive (making everyone look bad).
198. iiibbb - 6/28/2002 6:10:00 PM
One place I worked it was verbotin for white collar workers and lab workers to do things like change a lightbulb. You were taking work away from the union guys. So you call them to do it, and they fuck around for half an hour and charge your project $50 for something that should take 30 seconds.
199. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 6:14:50 PM
Property rights are a very useful and convenient social fiction, a prerequisite in some form to economic prosperity. But I don't understand why property rights are deified in some circles (viz. libertarians and some right-wingers).
If the capital share of output is 40% because there are many workers competing for few jobs (and thus wages can be bid down), rather than 20% because the labour market is tight, what then is so sacrosanct about the way the market has distributed income? Ethically that distribution is arbitrary, based as it is on whether the labour market is tight or loose. So it's hard to say the capitalist "earned" that difference between 20% and 40%.
200. stostosto - 6/28/2002 6:22:20 PM
Deification of property rights is conducive to their instrumentality.
201. stostosto - 6/28/2002 6:26:59 PM
c'd:
off-roader.com? An unorthodox source for ideological analysis. Thanks for giving it.
202. stostosto - 6/28/2002 6:49:45 PM
The poles of the political spectrum in the mainstream politics of the USA can be expressed in percentages of federal expenditure in GDP. At one end the right wants about 15% while at the other end the centre-right wants about 20-25%.
Which is why c'd's claim to be a political centrist, while still a mindbogglingly implausible affectation, is actually less so in an American context.
203. JJBiener - 6/28/2002 6:53:52 PM
PE - But I don't understand why property rights are deified in some circles (viz. libertarians and some right-wingers).
Then you haven't been paying attention for the last six years. It has been explained to you numerous times.
204. pseudoerasmus - 6/28/2002 7:04:53 PM
Message # 203: Yes, but those explanations were stupid. Libertarianism is an incoherent nonsensical pseudo-philosophy.
Message # 202: Concerned supposes himself a "centrist" because his views on abortion are more "left" than "right. He doesn't realise that abortion is a trivial, parochial issue compared with the grand questions of economic & social ideology on which the labels "right" and "left" acquire their meanings.
Message # 200: Deification of property rights also makes a certain segment of the rabble absurdly doctrinaire about economic policy. How can you separate this deification from the excessively laisser-faire attitude found in Yankistan?
205. stostosto - 6/28/2002 7:10:07 PM
Pelle asked about ideological fault lines upthread. If we're talking electoral politics, I think we are actually observing shifting fault lines in Europe. Analysts speak of "old" politics and "new" politics. The "old" issues were those of economic redistribution. Government versus market, labour versus capital, left versus right. Who-pays-how-much-for-what-politics.
The "new" issues are things like the environment, gene technolocy, food safety, animal rights, the EU - and, I would add, foreigners. On these issues (plus a few social ones like crime or abortion), the fault lines cut down through established left- and right categories.
The most potent shift inducing force of late, obviously, has been the issue of foreigners, that is, immigrants. But you will notice that harsh opposition to immigration which is usually lumped together by such terms as "right wing populism", is actually advocated by parties that have greatly diverging programmes on other issues. Le Pen in France is close to a classic authoritarian if not fascist. Jörg Haider in Austria, Carl I. Hagen in Norway and (the late) Pim Fortuyn in Holland are (were) champions of economically liberal (in the Euro sense of that term) platforms. In Denmark, the Danish People's Party is best described as Social Democrat plus xenophobia.
It seems in parliamentary democracies with proportional representation, ideology perceived as a coherent package of policies is on its is way out and is replaced by competing a la carte offerings.
In Britain, I would say Blair has co-opted many Tory policies and views in order to secure the middle ground. Clinton actually pioneered that approach in the US.
206. stostosto - 6/28/2002 7:20:12 PM
How can you separate this deification from the excessively laisser-faire attitude found in Yankistan?
Well, I think they're one and the same, and I agree with your point. By my comment in #200, I really aimed at the legal protection of property rights, effectively enforced by police and courts, something which I agree doesn't require deification. But a strong social consensus as to their inviolability is certainly conducive to their credibility, hence economic usefullness.
207. betty - 6/29/2002 8:49:38 PM
sto,
your "new Politics" sounds to me very like what goes on in the US...isue politics. It's why Gore could get on TV and imply that votes for Nader would deny women their right to reproductive control. It was really offensive and much worse when I would get chastized by other hard lefties for "ignoring this vital issue". but then Nader was the only candidate saying he'd re-instate federal funding for poor women's abortions...but we'll over look that and vote Gore because Bush is one of the Four Horseman of the Apocolypse doncha know.
(I have a little bitterness about that election, pardon me for shitting all over the floor)
Anyway, my point was supposed to be that issue politics is very, very bad for people in this country and that's why you get political schizophrenia here...but you know, I'm sure somebody else will say it better and more clearly.
I'll go back to the wading pool.
208. iiibbb - 6/30/2002 10:47:37 AM
My rather unpopular idea to help the poor is a flat percent tax with a reverse income tax for the poor. Determine the poverty level (make it whatever you want for individuals, married couples, or families)...
Everyone adult above the poverty level gets taxed a flat percentage rate with maybe a few deductions here and there for kids or otherwise. Incomes that are slightly above the poverty level have the percent rate is phased in gradually.
If you are below the poverty level you get enough money to bring you up to it as long as you are working a full-time job receiving minimum wage (set at a level that is workable for small business owners).
Then you are responsbile for doing with that money whatever is required for your personal circumstances... you want to spend it on an abortion... fine... you want to spend it on a mercedes... fine.
But it's all you're going to get and you should show a little fiscal responsibility.
209. Rama - 7/1/2002 9:32:05 AM
Then you are responsbile for doing with that money whatever is required for your personal circumstances... you want to spend it on an abortion... fine... you want to spend it on a mercedes... fine.
I believe you are making the common mistake of treating the symptom rather than the cause. In a country as rich as the US, the vast majority of people who live in poverty do not do so because they can not get enough money to live a middle class life-style. They do so because of bad luck, bad planning or both. Of course, giving them more money will help them, but it also harms other people (those we take the money away from, and those who begin to make bad decisions because of the temptation of being taken care of by the state), so we need to be sure that it provides more help than harm. I think it makes better social sense to mitigae bad luck and help people make better decisions.
210. Rama - 7/1/2002 9:38:04 AM
On a more strictly ideological topic:
It occurs to me that, in America, liberals privilege kindness and justice, while conservatives privilege liberty and security. However, there are inherent conflicts between kindness (or mercy) and justice. And there are inherent conflicts between liberty and security (or safety). So liberals and conservatives not only disagree about which human goods to emphasize, but they both spend a good deal of time pointing out the internal inconsistencies the other side is trying to ignore.
211. bubbaette - 7/1/2002 9:40:00 AM
Working a full time job at minimum wage in this country will not bring you above the poverty line. In some areas of the nation, what full-time jobs are available pay the minimum wage (or slightly above) and offer few opportunities for advancement and few or no benefits. Of course it's always comforting for the comfortable to blame the impoverished for their poverty -- it means that there is no obligation to try to improve their plight.
Many of those who are impoverished are not in or suitable for the workforce -- those of advanced age who worked their entire lives in the types of jobs offering low pay and no benefits -- the mentally and physically disabled -- those who were born into impoverished areas of the country without the resources to moved. But don't trouble your head about them -- it's their own fault.
212. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 9:52:19 AM
Message # 209
I think there should be assistance given in helping people make good decisions... but I am half playing with the left's concept of how to redistribute income (based on the green party platform). The GP says it wants to guarantee everyone a job, and guarantee everyone a minimum wage that one can raise a family on.
Guaranteeing everyone a job... I'm not sure if that means we all become street sweepers or we reinstate the Civilian Conservation Corps. We all know that many small businesses balk at raising minimum wage to what the left proposes.
My idea is a redistribution idea that lets people pick a jobs, minimum wage can be set for people that are dependents, and if they support a family then they get reversed taxed.
You can still provide assistance to the poor through government programs... either abortion clinics... health clinics... gov't prescription drug programs... whatever...
but it forces everyone to operate under the context of cash being exchanged.
I find that a lot of problems with government programs is the concept of the 'free lunch'. People demand services because they're an 'entitlement'.
There is no 'free lunch'. The more our welfare system mimics real life the better it is for everyone.
213. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 10:01:41 AM
In a country as rich as the US, the vast majority of people who live in poverty do not do so because they can not get enough money to live a middle class life-style. They do so because of bad luck, bad planning or both.
to quote rama: "Wrong."
214. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 10:02:08 AM
bubbaette... I am not blaming impoverishment on the impoverished....
The reverse tax them to bring them up to a standard of living, but the minimum wage has to be set so that the businesses that employ them can survive.
My idea helps both sides. You set the minimum wage so that the small businesses can survive as well as employ dependents (who don't need a minimum standard of living).
You use the reverse tax to bring any adult or anyone supporting a family up to a minimum standard of living above and beyond the minimum wage. The only requirement being that the work full time (which you can set for 30 or more hours or whatever).
You can set those levels wherever you want. I am just talking about a system.
Government services can be also be provided, but people pay for them. That puts pressure on the government service to operate in a fiscally responsible manner too.
215. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 10:11:11 AM
perhaps one "tenet" of the radical left is that there is a major difference between growth-motivating profits and greed. that dividing line is where we split off from the more moderate left and the center. for the radical and extreme lefts, most of what constitutes wealth is greed, not growth-motivating-profits (GMP), both for corporate entities or the pirates that run them...nor are they "rewards" for a job well-done.
by accepting that it's admirable for any human to make 50 million dollars a year (i don't care if they have 20 children with expensive medical conditions, there is no need for a human to make that much), you prevent the creation of a rational income system or rational profit system.
the amount of money that goes to corporate welfare, which doesn't actually improve the lot of most americans, is grossly unfair...but what can we expect when our politicians and lawmakers are the very same pirates they support or are fellating the other pirates so they all benefit from their own greed.
216. bubbaette - 7/1/2002 10:11:16 AM
iiibbb
My response was to Rama. I don't know if you recall this, but back in the late 60's or early 70's, Nixon proposed a national standard of living/income floor. Imagine a republican president doing the same today!
Personally, I like the notion that if people abide by the social contract -- work, pay taxes, raise their families, abide by the laws -- then there should be a minimum standard which would not include chosing between heat and groceries, or between college (for those who demonstrate an ability to benefit) and health care.
217. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 10:56:29 AM
I was 3 or 4.
I don't think people have a 'right' to college. You can do plenty in life without a college degree. College is over-rated (or the students coming out of it are) in terms of how well prepared you are to perform a job... many jobs don't require that college degree to perform.
Even in my own experience I shouldn't have gone to college right after high school. I wasn't ready mature enough to appreciate it. If I'd worked first, I think I would have gone to college a lot hungrier.
218. bubbaette - 7/1/2002 11:03:27 AM
I worked first and that experience demonstrated that I had to go to college. Mom and dad weren't able to help much, so mostly I got through on student loans and jobs.
But I think that I still had an advantage that many don't -- I was raised in a household that valued education and was expected to go to college. Many of those who are in multi-generational poverty don't have those benefits.
Actually, I think that there are sufficient resources out there for those who want to further their education for them to be able to do so. I think the main obstacle for those who have the ability to succeed in higher education but no money is that they don't see themselves as the kind of person who goes to college.
This also applies to post-secondary vocational education, be it trade school or an associate's degree.
219. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 11:16:01 AM
If you are in any kind of applied field and you can't find someone to pay for you at least in part... you are either being to restrictive or you're not trying hard enough.
I didn't have stellar grades, but I've gotten a lot of money for education... it's has something to do with luck... but luck improves if you are also driven.
220. PelleNilsson - 7/1/2002 1:07:49 PM
iiibbb
Why should businesses that cannot afford to pay a decent salary be allowed to survive?
Isn't your proposal of a "reverse tax" in fact a massive transfer of income from one cohort of workers to another and a de facto subsidy of the businesses in question?
221. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 1:13:01 PM
Small businesses are hampered by the overhead associated with being small. Unlike large corporations they don't get worker's health insurance as a group plan. They don't have the benefit of a large infrastructure.
They also just do things that may not be worth much but still need to get done. Take any number of jobs a HS student off for the summer might take. Mowing lawns, trimming bushes.
People seem to have me pegged as someone diametrically opposed to the redistribution of income.
222. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 1:17:35 PM
Isn't your proposal of a "reverse tax" in fact a massive transfer of income from one cohort of workers to another and a de facto subsidy of the businesses in question?
Taxes funding government run programs are already a massive transfer... but with more overhead.
In addressing my proposal, you really can't use the words 'massive transfer' because I've not said anything about what the minimum wage should be, what to set the poverty level at, and what percentage rate people will be taxed.
I haven't said a thing about magnitude. This is the basic structure I personally would prefer. It seems to me it is somewhere between the left and right's ideology about taxation.
223. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 1:19:00 PM
Why should businesses that cannot afford to pay a decent salary be allowed to survive?
Tell that to small farmers.
Bigger is better when it comes to minimizing costs.
224. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 1:27:03 PM
It is also in the public interest for small, locally owned businesses to do well. Otherwise everyone winds up working for Wal-Mart...
Which are the dead end jobs we don't people to get stuck in. Fight big business.... right?
225. PelleNilsson - 7/1/2002 1:42:43 PM
iiib
We are not talking about students mowing lawns or small farmers. We are talking about low-salary sectors of the economy such as the textile industry, poultry processing plants and so on. It seems to me that rising the minimum salary to a decent level would be much more effective, and more cost-effective, than a reverse tax scheme which will ineviatbly require a bureaucratic apparatus for its implementation. I'm surprised to see you argue for bigger government
226. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 1:54:53 PM
YouWe are not talking about
You are trying to commendeer the line of thought I started... needless to say all low income people are who I was talking about.
I think my scheme would hardly require any extra government... if not less.
As far as the various low-salary jobs... if you supplement one, you supplement them all. You are fixated on certain low-income jobs in manufacturing. I am concerned about all low-income jobs... no matter the size of the business or how limited it's market.
Low-income manufacturing jobs are always going to be low-income manufacturing jobs.
... and as I said when I stated my proposal... no one likes my idea... even though I think it has merit.
227. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 2:07:08 PM
Let's say we raised the minimum wage in poultry processing plants. The PPP either raises it's prices to stay in the black, or it goes out of business... somemay stay in business because the reduced competition has increased their market share, but they can't keep up with demand so their prices go up.
If you raise wages... someone is going to take the hit... usually consumers. It seems to negate the benefit of increasing wages... at least for those who still have jobs.
Any government policy which sets wages, prices, or whatever economic factor you wish will result in some kind of 'massive transfer' of $$ from one place to another.
Mine seems the most above board... it calls a payout to the lower-income exactly what it is.
228. betty - 7/1/2002 2:12:09 PM
iiibbb,
it would seem to me that all employers would drop wages as much as they could under your system because they know that the government will pay their employee's wages for them. what's going to keep businesses from trying to maximize profits this way?
229. PelleNilsson - 7/1/2002 2:12:18 PM
iiibbb
No, I'm not "fixated on certain low-income jobs in manufacturing". That's a charicature of my argument that it is more effective and simpler to raise the minimum wage than to introduce a reverse tax
I guess we may safely conclude that your Ph.D. studies do not include economics.
230. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 2:17:13 PM
If you raise wages... someone is going to take the hit... usually consumers.
this happens because of greed...not because of mathematical function. there is no need to let consumers take the hit. superlative incomes and bonuses, a system created by the top execs anyway, are not questioned...but they should be. when you make the greedy determine what happens to consumers, you get things like the california energy "crisis" and other enron-like scenarios.
the CEO of the company i used to work for had a 30 million dollar bonus in one year. that's just bonus. and yet, because it was a pharmaceutical company, when problems arose "consumers" always got fucked. because we assume that such exorbitant income is by default right and good and perfectly acceptable, then we also accept that the brunt of economic change "naturally" has to fall on the consumers.
231. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 2:17:45 PM
no they do not...
...and I don't mind reaching for things I don't totally grasp.
The true mark of an expert of course is whether they are capable of communicating principles at a lower level rather than be an arrogant ass about it.
Good afternoon.
232. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 2:18:31 PM
231 addresses 229
233. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 2:19:43 PM
pellenilsson asked a few days ago about the fault line among ideologies. one that comes up, in my mind, is the sheepish acceptance that corporate execs (and sports stars, etc.) somehow deserve to make more money than many local school systems.
234. PelleNilsson - 7/1/2002 2:21:11 PM
I'm primarily a telecommunications man myself.
235. betty - 7/1/2002 2:22:02 PM
ib,
if you raise minimum wage and tie it with a proper proportion between top execs and lowest paid employees, consumer prices will not increase. So now company execs can't make 3,000 times (yes that's a real figure) what their lowest paid full-time employees do, they can only make 100 times. Still an obscene amount of money (In the US some one making 100 times the minimum wage is bringing in 1.3 million dollars), but the business is burning fat in the right place.
236. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 2:24:23 PM
I agree Ivan... I have no idea how to reign in CEO's gone wild...
One side of me wants someone who has an idea that the world wants, suffers obnoxious hours and years of relative low income to build that business up... they should be rewarded. Without the carrot, there may not be an inspiration to innovate.
But then somewhere along the line something happens and you get Microsoft, Enrons, and pharmaceutical companies.
How to fix that yet still inspire innovators?
237. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 3:15:59 PM
ibx3:
i think one major obstacle is that there is virtually no representation of, or influence by, the poor and working class in just about any sector of the "system"...despite the fact that they are a majority.
in academia, in the US at least, fewer than 10% of academics are from poor or working class backgrounds (and that's an optimistic number). among politicians, this may be even less. among corporate execs, perhaps even fewer.
so, ultimately, the largest portion of the country is completely under-represented and has virtually no say in anything. voting does not express the will of the people, it expresses their dissatisfaction with the dearth of choice and representation.
so i guess that nothing will be fixed because the people called in to repair the damages are the same as the people who cause them.
238. bubbaette - 7/1/2002 3:29:17 PM
From my experience working on the lower end of the socio-economic scale, the poor and working poor are not mainly proto-communists yearning to breathe free and escape the yoke of the man. Instead, they tend to resent others who are also poor -- for example those drawing welfare. They don't resent the system, they resent the boss and are easily divided and conquered.
239. betty - 7/1/2002 3:40:58 PM
bubba,
it's always been ironic to me that the people most likely to need some form of public assistance in their immediate future frequently voice disgust for those drawin'. But it's a way of gaining legitimacy and of elevating themselves above the "real poor". there was a time when the rich were resented and hated for being what they are lazy assholes who steal from the labor of others...poor people had it much better then, but now we just smile while they butter up our assholes sure we won't be the next to be raped. Inevitably we are.
240. bubbaette - 7/1/2002 3:43:11 PM
Yeah -- I would have figured there would be more of a "there, but for the grace of god, go I." Now I think it's more akin to whistling past the graveyard.
241. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 3:49:18 PM
the poor and working poor are not mainly proto-communists yearning to breathe free and escape the yoke of the man.
i agree. but i think that part of this situation lies in the fact that, at least in the US, we see the world as either capitalist or communist/socialist. anything else is inconceivable. i think that if alternatives were promoted with equal vigor (which they wouldn't...things like sustainable economies, barter, etc., don't put money into big corporations) they still wouldn't wanna be communists, but they might not be so inclined to be corporate capitalists either.
part of the trick is that the upper classes convince the middle class that the lower class is screwing them. the middle class, which aspires to be upper class, are more likely to complain about those lower classes getting 'a free ride', rather than those corporations getting a 'free ride' (my old company probably paid less taxes than i did last year!). it's a manipulative system, and it's not accidental, and the upper classes have the advantage in the game.
the poor know they are being fucked. but now they have been convinced by the upper class that they can aspire to be middle class. this occurs enough for the upper classes to say, "see? if so-and-so can do it, so can you!"...even though it is a small fraction of the hereditary poor's experience.
as betty said...it was a grand day when the poor didn't trust their bosses.
242. betty - 7/1/2002 3:52:57 PM
bubba,
absolutely...i think it's spin. the government has become increasingly focused on appeasing big government and the poor people are getting raped. over and over and we are just supposed to blame each other and our selves for the discounting of our voices....this errosion of democracy.
243. betty - 7/1/2002 3:55:38 PM
big government=big corporations
244. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 4:22:41 PM
"pellenilsson asked a few days ago about the fault line among ideologies. one that comes up, in my mind, is the sheepish acceptance that corporate execs (and sports stars, etc.) somehow deserve to make more money than many local school systems."
I disagree that this is much of a fault line. Few, except the radical right, would argue that income is a reflection of what one "deserves".
Personally, I would say that while I don't like the fact that a CEO is paid 1000 times more than a teacher, I am uncomfortable determining for a corporation how much their CEO should be paid. I would prefer to leave wage decisions in their hands, because their incentives for efficiency are much stronger than mine, and they therefore will presumably have a much better idea than I will about how much their CEO is worth. I similarly don't feel comfortable deciding for my brother whether he *deserved* that honeymoon in Hawaii, or for my neighbor whether he *deserved* his second baby more than the thousands of able would be parents that can't conceive but are too poor to afford adoption.
This is a point that I think is commonly lost on the left. One can believe that a specific business or personal decision/outcome is unfair, without believing that the state should necessarily intervene except in a very general way, or under the most egregious of circumstances. As such, rather than micromanaging corporate salary structures, I think it makes much more sense to have a progressive tax code, plus some income redistribution, and education, and a little regulation thrown in on the side, where there is a clear public interest that cannot be accomplished some other way.
245. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 4:34:05 PM
For instance, how would you regulate CEO salaries? to 100 times that of the lowest paid employee (this was proposed up thread). Define "salary"? Currently, the vast majority of the CEO wages people are bitching about are in the form of bonuses and stock options, not salary.
Okay, so we broaden the definition of salary. Will corporations just knuckle under and comply, or will they find some other way to channel money through management. A company owned mansion, cabin, car, airplane, and yacht to which they give him a permanent lease?
Or will they hike the salary of employees and find some other method of forcibly taking some of the salary back, in the form of mandatory parking reductions, reduced vacation and sick pay, a worse health plan, and the like?
Okay, so we try to ban these activities (never mind that any attempt to regulate would be chock full of such loopholes). Who enforces these regulations to make sure that CEOs aren't getting unfair benefits over and above their salaries. What sort of budget will this require? How many employees? Where are the taxes going to come from (by reducing the incomes of management, income taxes are going to take a substantial hit, after all)?
The end result is a game of cat and mouse between government and business, where business plays a shell game with benefits while government tries to catch them, costing at least several billion dollars a year.
Final question: what has been gained?
246. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 4:40:44 PM
Other than the new jobs in government regulation and among business accountants, who is better off? The poor employees? Unlikely, and in any event you could have helped them out much easier and cheaper through a progressive tax system that redistributed some income in their direction.
I repeat, just because an activity annoys you, or strikes you as unfair, does not mean that there is a need for government redress, or that such redress would be wise or effective. And even if redress is possible, the same policy goal can frequently be accomplished much easier and more efficiently through other means.
What is the goal of a policy restricting CEO wages? Preventing people from being wealthy? I don't think this is justifiable in and of itself. Helping the poor, or reducing income inequality? That seems more likely, but wouldn't it make much more sense to target these problems directly, rather than mucking about with things like salary ratios, which might not even solve the problem will create a whole new regulatory bureaucracy?
247. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 4:41:07 PM
*while creating* a whole new regulatory bureaucracy.
248. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 4:47:02 PM
Ivan: "the poor know they are being fucked. but now they have been convinced by the upper class that they can aspire to be middle class. this occurs enough for the upper classes to say, "see? if so-and-so can do it, so can you!"...even though it is a small fraction of the hereditary poor's experience. "
This is another problem I tend to have with the Left. For all their protestations to be supportive of poor workers, I constantly see condescending remarks like this, implying that the masses are misled dupes, hoodwinked by a propaganda machine that only the enlightened leftist is able to see through. With attitudes like this, no wonder Marxism evolved into Bolshevism.
249. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 4:50:04 PM
Where is the fault line in American politics? I think it generally lies on whether you see the government as a general force for good, or a force for ill.
But even this isn't perfect, as evidenced by the religious right, which favors a very strong governmental presence in enforcing their religious agenda.
250. CalGal - 7/1/2002 6:08:11 PM
As well as the left, who favors no governmental presence in any area involving civil liberties--which usually clashes nicely with the religious right's agenda.
I think the fault line is defined by what you want the government to protect.
251. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 6:31:47 PM
Didn't I say you have to appeal to peoples' greed to save the environment. I saw an ad for these guys just a few minutes ago.
252. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 10:16:56 PM
"Didn't I say you have to appeal to peoples' greed to save the environment. I saw an ad for these guys just a few minutes ago."
These sorts of actions are chump change. Most real environmental benefits cost money, but it is true that one of the best ways to get these benefits is to align public and private interests through financial incentives.
253. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 10:25:57 PM
Rask:
a) i'm one of those poor dupes, as were my parents.
b) for some reason, people immediately jump to the conclusion that anything said by the left must be referring to governmental or state interdiction. i said nothing of the sort. i am referring to PEOPLE's perceptions, not institutions. it is PEOPLE who are convinced that greed is good...institutions are the ones who make it seem like the right thing, but it is PEOPLE's perception that needs work. i am talking about ideology, not politics.
c) i am not an "enlightened leftist". i do not support marxism or any of its cousins. i consider myself an anarchist who believes organization should not be coerced, forced, or otherwise be the product of peer pressure from people or institutions outside our own community. but that's my utopia. in reality, i find no benefit to large or small STATE machine.
d) i, too, find many remarks about the poor (which includes me) to be condescending...coming from the right or left. mainly because, as i said, much of them come from the minority groups that control the media, politics, economics, and cultural mores (i.e., the middle/upper classes) rather than from people who were actually poor.
continued...
254. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 10:26:08 PM
however, your assumption that my remarks are somehow portraying the poor as dupes is inaccurate. you don't realize how much money, time, and effort is pumped into manipulating the poor. what makes being poor so difficult is that you are offered so many distractions...many more than the middle or upper classes...for your own situation. the reality is that there is class war...and the poor are ill-equipped to resist the massive effort waged against them. they've been crippled not by their intellect, but because it's so much harder to fight when you don't have anything to fight with (i.e., good schools, fair wages, etc.). your attitude seems to be more "enlightened leftist" than mine as you jump to the State and marxism as the basis of the discussion and i think they are invalid.
255. iiibbb - 7/1/2002 10:26:39 PM
I didn't say it wasn't miniscule... but the approach is correct.
256. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 10:29:07 PM
and i don't believe that there needs to be an external force to regulate CEO's salaries...the only force to regulate these things should be the people who are getting fucked due to the 1000X higher salary (or whatever) of CEOs.
but thanks to the upper class/middle class villification of collectivity of any sort (labor or trade unions, or any other collective actions) there is no way for a worker to question the CEOs salary in such a top-down, undemocratic environment.
257. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 10:33:23 PM
" i'm one of those poor dupes, as were my parents."
By your own description, you aren't, as you rail against the powers that be that dupe the masses.
"b) for some reason, people immediately jump to the conclusion that anything said by the left must be referring to governmental or state interdiction. i said nothing of the sort. i am referring to PEOPLE's perceptions, not institutions. it is PEOPLE who are convinced that greed is good...institutions are the ones who make it seem like the right thing, but it is PEOPLE's perception that needs work. i am talking about ideology, not politics."
I made no such assumption. My comments on state intervention were directly related to a concrete proposal that was made.
"however, your assumption that my remarks are somehow portraying the poor as dupes is inaccurate. you don't realize how much money, time, and effort is pumped into manipulating the poor. what makes being poor so difficult is that you are offered so many distractions...many more than the middle or upper classes...for your own situation. the reality is that there is class war...and the poor are ill-equipped to resist the massive effort waged against them. they've been crippled not by their intellect, but because it's so much harder to fight when you don't have anything to fight with (i.e., good schools, fair wages, etc.)"
But this is evidently a trap you yourself have escaped, as you don't share the delusions of the poor about the true state of things. This is my point about leftist condescension.
". your attitude seems to be more "enlightened leftist" than mine as you jump to the State and marxism as the basis of the discussion and i think they are invalid."
I addressed this above. Someone proposed state intervention as a solution for high CEO wages.
258. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 10:40:20 PM
But this is evidently a trap you yourself have escaped, as you don't share the delusions of the poor about the true state of things. This is my point about leftist condescension.
but i haven't escaped! just because you know how you are being raped doesn't mean you can escape! i don't think most of the poor share those delusions either...i think they chose the thing which causes them the least discomfort. i haven't known a poor person who doesn't think they are getting screwed...but we don't have the means to do anything about it and we have been prevented from collectivity. so what do you do? spend your time struggling on the edge between destitution and plain old poverty for some ideological reason (regardless of whether it's right, you are a tiny tiny voice in a big world)? or do you attempt to provide some kind of "normalcy" (i.e., the proscribed consumption imposed on the middle class) for your children and family (or yourself) so that you don't have to spend every day fighting a lonely and difficult battle against a behemoth that controls everything around you? i mean...you give in. you choose your battles because you're tired of losing. this is what i mean.
bob dylan was wrong when he said "when you ain't got nothin' you got nothin' to lose" because in fact, when you ain't got nothin', you got nothing with which to win.
259. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 10:46:24 PM
"and i don't believe that there needs to be an external force to regulate CEO's salaries...the only force to regulate these things should be the people who are getting fucked due to the 1000X higher salary (or whatever) of CEOs."
Please be specific. What force is this? What steps are you actually proposing that the fuckees take to stop the fuckers? I have trouble imagining such steps that would not amount to external force.
"but thanks to the upper class/middle class villification of collectivity of any sort (labor or trade unions, or any other collective actions) there is no way for a worker to question the CEOs salary in such a top-down, undemocratic environment."
I think this is simplistic.
1) Trade and Labor unions have done a lot to damage themselves, through corruption and inefficiency. Everyone who has worked in a Union (I have) has some horror stories about shitty workers that can't be fired, the inability of the best workers to get rewarded, hidebound labor bureaucracy, etc. This is not to say that Unions are evil, but that Union participation is a mixed bag, only something you want if you can't get a better offer from management. You usually can. It seems to me that the Left still thinks this is the 19th century, where most wage jobs are in the manufacturing sector. That isn't the case anymore. You want lawyers, database programmers, bankers, and management consultants to unionize? Here we aren't dealing with poor people who don't have the resources to research their options, but the very well off who certainly could afford other options, yet choose not to.
260. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 10:54:38 PM
"but i haven't escaped! just because you know how you are being raped doesn't mean you can escape! i don't think most of the poor share those delusions either...i think they chose the thing which causes them the least discomfort."
I am saying you have escaped the trap of not seeing what the problem is. If you believe that the poor actually agree with you, I have to question why in the world you think so. I am not disagree that they know they are getting a raw deal, but their solutions will be radically different from yours. Have you ever proposed anarchism to a welfare mom, or an unemployed construction worker? What is your typical reaction?
Take black Americans, a group that is heavily over-represented in America's poor. I see very little support for Marxism and anarchism, and a lot of support for activist government and religious institutions.
I may be projecting some of the views of other leftists onto you, but usually leftists see this as evidence that the poor are hoodwinked.
My disagreements with Leftists usually don't come from a strong disagreement over what the problems are: I also think that inequality, poverty, and environmental degradation are bad. My disagreements are usually over solutions.
261. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 10:56:46 PM
Also, the masses question the salaries of CEOs, movie stars, and atheletes all the time. They just rarely propose doing anything about it. Why? My hunch is that they just don't see an easy solution.
262. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 10:58:32 PM
1) Trade and Labor unions have done a lot to damage themselves, through corruption and inefficiency. Everyone who has worked in a Union (I have) has some horror stories about shitty workers that can't be fired, the inability of the best workers to get rewarded, hidebound labor bureaucracy, etc.
i disagree. first, unions are no more corrupt than corporations or government and yet, corporations manage to continue without the same level of villification...meaning, enough villification to cause their downfall.
the propaganda about how "shitty" unions can be is a way of taking away support for them, not an objective analysis. i have been a teamster, and i know there is corruption in unions...but when i was a corporate cog at a large corporation, i saw just as much pillaging...this time, however, it was applauded. again...people have been spoon-fed enough "anti-union" rhetoric to make them think unfavorably about unions. now that this has gone on for a couple of generations, the new workforce doesn't have any experience of unions other than the negative slant they have gotten from the district managers at taco bell.
263. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 11:01:43 PM
It seems to me that the Left still thinks this is the 19th century, where most wage jobs are in the manufacturing sector. That isn't the case anymore. You want lawyers, database programmers, bankers, and management consultants to unionize?
all of these have greater access to income and to the bargaining chips that the poor don't have. and, btw, i don't mean collectivity to only mean labor or trade unions. people can create collectivity around social issues too, and around their rights as citizens.
in the US, the poor are superfluous...the best janitor means little to a corporation. but watch your best lawyer walk out and see what happens.
socio-economic strata are all given deals to "stay in line" and not collectively (or individually) wreck the Machine. the poor get little recompense because they can't do much (again, they are threatened by the "collectivity is evil" attitude of the people who pay them). the middle class gets a bit more because if they try to wreck the machine (i.e., the lawyer above), they can cause some bit of annoying damage. the people at the top get the most because they can actually damage the Machine. Your paycheck, in one sense, is hush-money.
as for the 19th century...the poor are still there. who does perform the manufacturing and service jobs that are still a legacy from the 19th century? the poor. we are not favored by digital superiority (the "divide", y'know?) nor by access to universities (putting myself through school right now...it's damn tough!) nor by collective labor bargaining.
(FYI: you should check out Peter Lamborn Wilson's most recent book "Escape from the 19th Century"...wilson's an anarchist to the core).
264. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 11:03:46 PM
Also, the masses question the salaries of CEOs, movie stars, and atheletes all the time. They just rarely propose doing anything about it. Why? My hunch is that they just don't see an easy solution
now with THAT, i can agree! there is no easy solution to the poor because we are always put on the defensive and are under pressure to be "good"...kinda hard to deal with that larger issue when that much-needed $170 paycheck may disappear.
265. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 11:06:23 PM
hey rask...it's nice to debate with another figure from russian literature ;)
266. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 11:30:47 PM
"i disagree. first, unions are no more corrupt than corporations or government and yet, corporations manage to continue without the same level of villification...meaning, enough villification to cause their downfall. "
Corporations are seen as having many advantages. they are also the source of much job creation, personal wealth, and prosperity. The reaction toward unions is one of "what have you done for us lately?". They are seen as obsolete - artifacts of an era of less enlightened business practices and lax government regulation.
"in the US, the poor are superfluous...the best janitor means little to a corporation. but watch your best lawyer walk out and see what happens."
Well yeah, this is partly why janitors are poor.
"now with THAT, i can agree! there is no easy solution to the poor because we are always put on the defensive and are under pressure to be "good"...kinda hard to deal with that larger issue when that much-needed $170 paycheck may disappear."
But this only explains (not that I even agree with the explanation) the apathy of the poor, who are a minority, even in the US. When 80% of the country is doing quite nicely thank you, the solution isn't revolution and social upheaval, but some tweaking with income redistribution formulas and education. This is why I think Leftists are still living in the 19th century. They propose complete social upheaval to solve a problem that has been solved without revolution in many European countries.
267. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 11:32:48 PM
"hey rask...it's nice to debate with another figure from russian literature ;)"
I have to confess I hadn't heard of Ivan until I plugged the name into a search engine shortly after your arrival here. I must be slacking in my Russian lit.
268. betty - 7/1/2002 11:32:52 PM
Rask,
my suggestion for making a living wage work was not a concrete plan...it was more a "if you can do this then we can have a living wage that won't result in consumer price escalation".
In practical terms I support living wage or otherwise alleviation of poverty, but in theory, in the place that perfection dwells, I absolutely don't. It assumes the essentialism of production and consumption. I am not convinced of it's necessity, and as time goes by, I am less and less convinced of it.
as for unions...well, I have worked in a union, pretty much everybody in my family has worked in a union and yes we all have bitched about crappy co-workers, but this is not unique to union jobs. Not in the least. And the notion that the best people dont' get promoted is a bedtime story that the inept tell themselves. My mom has worked for over twenty five years with the mentally retarded in state run institutions and community homes. She started as an Aide worked herself up to a shift supervisor then a community home supervisor, then a regional supervisor and recently took a small paycut to be a teacher for school aged DD kids. She has gotten those raises and promotions because she is smart, good at her job and has the necessary skills. My dad has worked in a union waste water treatment plant for almost as long and has not received the same rate of promotion. He's smart, he knows his job inside and out, he's excellent at it. but he lacks some essential skills to be a supervisor, he has no tact and he has little tolerance for others. Not suprisingly it is my dad who is less satisfied with the union and his job..."they should be promoting me, my boss hates me, etc." he whines. but you know, he doesn't have the skills for a supervisor position and that's that.
269. Raskolnikov - 7/1/2002 11:42:30 PM
Betty: well, I also support living wage proposals so long as there is no concrete plan for implementing them. I have no problem favoring hypoethetical outcomes such as living wages achieved without government intervention. I also support an end to racism, only good movies being made, the eradication of McDonalds so my in-laws can't outvote me into eating there, and an end to the wrong people wearing spandex at beaches.
On Unions: My case on merit promotions was overstated. What is more common is the inept employee lingering on for decades as no manager wants to deal with the headache of getting enough documentation to fire him, even if he is a walking sexual harrassment case.
But I don't oppose Unions. I support giving people the choice of whether they should be in a Union, and generally trusting their judgment. In my experience, pro-Union advocates have a lot more advantages in a propaganda war, as management has many restrictions on what they can say stemming from labor law. Hell, you can't even convince most grad students to unionize.
270. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 11:52:24 PM
Corporations are seen as having many advantages. they are also the source of much job creation, personal wealth, and prosperity. The reaction toward unions is one of "what have you done for us lately?". They are seen as obsolete - artifacts of an era of less enlightened business practices and lax government regulation.
they are only mythologized as obsolete because they were the biggest obstacles to unfettered accumulation of corporate wealth through oppressive human resources practices, longer work hours for less pay, and "tasking" workers through decreased health coverage, etc..
the Union it only fails now because it has been villified enough to prevent it from actually BEING "united" as a "union"...if the administrative assistants at my former job were unionized in a national union, their jobs would have more security and better wages because a true "strike" would, in the short term, disrupt enough commerce to gain some leverage. couple that with support of the payroll employees of america (or human resource workers of america, etc) who are also unionized and all of a sudden, it's not so easy to keep down the payscale.
unions only work when they are united. break up the unity and they can be labelled as out of touch.
the apathy of the poor, who are a minority, even in the US. When 80% of the country is doing quite nicely thank you
a number that not only sounds skewed, but awfully subjective. doing well in relation to what? and in what sense?
271. ivan osokin - 7/1/2002 11:54:01 PM
why I think Leftists are still living in the 19th century. They propose complete social upheaval to solve a problem that has been solved without revolution in many European countries
unions exist strongly in many european countries...despite the current corporate fetish in europe where CEOs and their armies imitate american corporate pillagers. in fact, many unions in europe actually DO have the kind of collective power that keeps their employment more equitable or at least, humane.
problems in economy are not the fault of unions (though blaming them is a scapegoating tactic invented and perfected by american corporations), but are the fault of their bosses who are laying seige to the wall of unionization by isolating it and trying to make it starve to death.
272. CalGal - 7/1/2002 11:56:21 PM
unions exist strongly in many european countries
....by murdering the opposition, apparently, in Italy.
273. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 12:36:39 AM
"they are only mythologized as obsolete because they were the biggest obstacles to unfettered accumulation of corporate wealth through oppressive human resources practices, longer work hours for less pay, and "tasking" workers through decreased health coverage, etc.. "
I think this is too dismissive of criticism of unions, chalking it up to propaganda rather than the direct experiences of unionized and non-unionized workers. Again, an increasingly large percent of the workforce is professional. Why in hell would they want a union when they get great wages and benefits without them, and don't have to deal with a hidebound bureaucracy (or *two* hidebound bureaucracies if you count the corporate one) in their job?
"a number that not only sounds skewed, but awfully subjective. doing well in relation to what? and in what sense?"
In relation to being out of poverty (I actually should have said 90%). But if you feel a different threshold is better, feel free to suggest one, describe where the population falls in relation to it, and justify why you think it is a better threshold than the poverty level.
274. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 12:42:30 AM
"problems in economy are not the fault of unions (though blaming them is a scapegoating tactic invented and perfected by american corporations), but are the fault of their bosses who are laying seige to the wall of unionization by isolating it and trying to make it starve to death."
Well, this is false. If you make it tough to fire people, you make businesses reluctant to hire them in the first place, which partially leads to the rigid labor markets you see in much of Europe. As an example, it was *restraint* by the Unions in the Netherlands that allowed that country to drastically reduce its unemployment rate.
But you seem to be implying a causal relationship between unions and the lack of poverty in many European countries. This seems unjustified. A much better explanation is simply a more generous welfare state.
But either way, the point is that poverty is solvable without a radical change in economic structure. If you advocate that the US be more like Sweden, you are more an American liberal than a leftist.
275. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 1:14:06 AM
Cal:
yes...in italy that seemed to be the case. on the other hand, the history of unions in america is filled with examples of deadly union busting by thugs paid for by corporate bosses...including murders of families and their children.
rask...regarding cal's comment:
the stakes are obviously high...if unions were merely obsolete, why go through the trouble of breaking them? why go through the cost and effort to dismantle them now? to villify them? if corporations thought unions were feeble anachronisms, there wouldn't be such effort to wipe them out.
If you make it tough to fire people, you make businesses reluctant to hire them in the first place, which partially leads to the rigid labor markets you see in much of Europe. As an example, it was *restraint* by the Unions in the Netherlands that allowed that country to drastically reduce its unemployment rate.
this restraint has reduced unemployment, but has also put a kink in the abilities of unions to ensure collective bargaining. the economists' recent special section on the netherlands shows that the NL wants more than just 'restraint', but cannot (yet) do otherwise.
and the justification is always: "in order to maintain a competitive advantage we must...". but "competitive advantage" has nothing to do with productivity, it has to do with profiteering. in order to compete with companies that have already squeezed out unions and underpay their employees to increase the profit margin, unionized sectors will be shaken up. the NL is looking at the US model for destabilizing unions and has taken the first steps under the guise of reducing unemployment. sure...you will have more employment, but the doors are open for decrease in the benefits of employment. it's a long-term investment...a wedge in the unions.
276. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 1:19:40 AM
But either way, the point is that poverty is solvable without a radical change in economic structure.
...which is only possible when the presuppositions change. it is only possible when the concept of wealth is understood for what it is rather than how the wealthy describe it. it is only possible when the outlets for education and information are representative of all socio-economic levels.
but since it is truly a monstrous struggle, it will probably never happen because we just don't have the leisure time to mobilize and even if we did, there'd be something to stop us. ("how dare the poor mobilize for a cause! they're terrorizing us!")
If you advocate that the US be more like Sweden, you are more an American liberal than a leftist.
i advocate that the US be more like easter island. sweden (no offense pelle) is only a relatively functional outpost of state-ism.
277. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 1:23:50 AM
I'll be a little more specific by what I mean by "quite well thank you".
Americans are one of the two or three richest nationalities in the world. The only income measure where we don't do as several other industrialized countries is in the quality of life for the poor. But this quality of life disparity only exists for about 10-20% of Americans. Rank Americans and the richer European countries by income. What you will find is that while the 10% poorest Europeans are better off than the 10% poorest Americans, that isn't the case once you move even a little ways up the income ladders, to about 20%.
My point is that therefore the vast majority of Americans are better off than they would be under the economic system of any other country. The poverty of that bottom 10-20% is cause for concern, but the solution obviously isn't a wholesale change in the world's most successful economic system, but tweaking with income redistribution.
If you want to argue that we would be even *better* off under a different, as yet untried, economic system, you may be right, but the onus is on you to prove it before we mess with success.
Also, let us be clear that I am not setting up income as the sole measure of social success. I am instead just responding to Ivan's focus on poverty as a social ill.
278. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 1:31:11 AM
"the stakes are obviously high...if unions were merely obsolete, why go through the trouble of breaking them? why go through the cost and effort to dismantle them now? to villify them? if corporations thought unions were feeble anachronisms, there wouldn't be such effort to wipe them out."
Well, they are expensive anachronisms. This shouldn't be too hard to understand.
"i advocate that the US be more like easter island."
You mean have a tourism-based economy so rich residents of developed countries can fly in and see our statues? If not, I don't know what you mean.
279. betty - 7/2/2002 8:59:31 AM
Rask,
you don't understand what ivan means about Easter Island...but I'm sure he'll explain it to you this afternoon. hehe
On Unions: My case on merit promotions was overstated.
but this is exactly what propaganda does. It takes some kernel of truth and "overstates" it. Your post contributed to anti-union propaganda. And because you and I have pretty equal footing here I was able to call you on it and make you account for it. but when the managers at Borders or Wal-Mart start putting out anti-union propaganda to their union-driving employees, with the subtle threat of termination, well, the equal footing has been lost and the propagandists no longer need be accountable.
I don't think calling propagandists propagandists is an oversimplification as you seem to feel it is. If anything the propagandists are the ones oversimplifing and overstating, as you have confessed.
and as for income and quality of life for american citizens...I'd be curious as to where you are citing from...In several European nations rents and housing costs are significantly lower and/or subsidized by the government. rent eats around half of most poor people's income in the US.
Poverty needs to be examined on a regional level. We pay 650/month (utilities included) for our smallish two bedroom apartment...in Tenessee we'd get a small mansion for that. we only have a handful of small bills otherwise. but at 120% of the poverty line we can only afford 30 to 60 dollars a week on groceries. Even though I have health insurance through my employer I can't afford to go to the doctor because my co-pay is 15 dollars...yet here I am head above the poverty line, everything should be just fine, right? the poverty line has not been raised to keep rate with the cost of living, hence we have a whole lot of working poor people who are above the poverty line, above the assistance line, who are drowning.
280. betty - 7/2/2002 8:59:41 AM
The poverty level in the US is falsely low and kept there so that the government doesn't have to deal with the problem and the corporations don't have to be held responsible and landlords (the most horrible kind of virus known to the cancer of humanity) continue to make huge amounts of money off their conspicious consumption.
281. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 9:59:17 AM
rask...
i guess i would just echo what betty said. basically, the "poverty level" indicates convenient numbers that don't reflect, for instance, those many millions of americans without healthcare because they can't afford it but are not poor enough to get public assistance (we've been there many times). and if you're in that group and apply for grants in college, you find that the programs estimate your "contribution" to be close to 10% of your gross(!) income! (e.g., if your adjusted gross was $25,000 for a family of 3, they may assume your "contribution" may be $3,000, despite the fact that you have no money in the bank and earn a low wage while trying to support a family)...which is a very large dent when you skirt the "poverty line". if i were to get that same estimated contribution while earning, say, $80,000 per year, then i'd still have $70,000 of income...enough to live. but when it's assumed i will have to drop down to $22,000 per year, that makes a big difference.
probably, these "hidden poor" are being excluded from the stats. also, it is this limbo of the hidden poor where you find all those who managed to eek out a better living than they were expected by getting past the poverty line. we're not middle class, we're not lower middle class...we're upper poor.
i suspect our visions of ideals would be similar, rask. i think i would prefer to deal with perceptions, misconceptions, misunderstandings, and education of the poor (all of them) and of the general public about things like corporate greed, than to try and fix the problem by better management. i think if we had, in fact, a 19th century (yes!) attitude towards our bosses, we might be less likely to swallow all the tripe.
282. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 10:52:37 AM
betty: "I don't think calling propagandists propagandists is an oversimplification as you seem to feel it is. If anything the propagandists are the ones oversimplifing and overstating, as you have confessed."
I haven't confessed anything of the sort. I meant that *I* had overstated the problem, but I don't consider this propaganda anymore than I consider your understatement of union problems to be propaganda. One can disagree without believing one's opponent is a propagandist.
"and as for income and quality of life for american citizens...I'd be curious as to where you are citing from...In several European nations rents and housing costs are significantly lower and/or subsidized by the government. rent eats around half of most poor people's income in the US."
My sources are several, from OECD data, and studies of comparative income inequality that I have read.
Please support your claim about rent eating up half of most poor people's income. This doesn't gel with what I know of rent, income, and federal housing subsidies.
"Poverty needs to be examined on a regional level. We pay 650/month (utilities included) for our smallish two bedroom apartment...in Tenessee we'd get a small mansion for that."
Well, that is quite a bit less than 1/2 of your income, unless either of you are not working. Two minimum wage jobs add up to $21k a year, whereas your rent would only be 8k.
I agree that poverty levels vary regionally, but this is a trivial point. Yes, people just above the national poverty level in New York City are doing miserably, but people below the national poverty level in Mississippi are doing quite well. The point is that a national poverty level reflects national averages.
283. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 10:52:48 AM
"we only have a handful of small bills otherwise. but at 120% of the poverty line we can only afford 30 to 60 dollars a week on groceries. Even though I have health insurance through my employer I can't afford to go to the doctor because my co-pay is 15 dollars..."
Your budget doesn't make sense if "you only have a handful of small bills otherwise". What I think you aren't mentioning, but what Ivan already has mentioned, is that he is going to school. This will massively cut into the time available to work, plus you have to pay for tuition and books.
In other words, this is a temporary situation made for long term gain. Most of us have gone through this at some stage in our lives. I personally survived for two years in Grad school on less than 10k each year (including student loans), with several hundred dollars in credit card bills due each month. But this isn't a long term problem, indicating a need for massive social reform. Every college student is poor.
284. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 11:00:38 AM
"The poverty level in the US is falsely low and kept there so that the government doesn't have to deal with the problem and the corporations don't have to be held responsible and landlords (the most horrible kind of virus known to the cancer of humanity) continue to make huge amounts of money off their conspicious consumption."
This is a screed, not an argument. If you have any evidence that the poverty level is kept falsely low, please show it. If anything, it is kept falsely high, as the base US poverty level does not include several forms of government assistance, such as food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, and subsidized housing.
285. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 11:19:03 AM
"i guess i would just echo what betty said. basically, the "poverty level" indicates convenient numbers that don't reflect, for instance, those many millions of americans without healthcare because they can't afford it but are not poor enough to get public assistance (we've been there many times)."
But lack of health care coverage is also only a problem for a minority of the population. As of 1999, the most recent year for which I could find data, only 15.5% of Americans lacked health insurance. And of course, there is considerable overlap between this group and those who are in poverty. The bulk of those not covered tend to be younger adults between 18-35, in other words, people without kids that tend not to get sick and who work in entry level jobs -again, a temporary problem.
Now, I fully support extending health coverage to those who don't have it, but again this is a problem faced by only 10-20% of Americans. Therefore, it is a problem that calls for tweaking and expanding existing government programs, not revolution on behalf of the troubled masses.
"probably, these "hidden poor" are being excluded from the stats."
Yes, college students are excluded from poverty numbers if they make enough money, even if a good share of that money goes for college expenses. But also keep in mind that their student loans aren't counted as income, and student loans are easy to get. So forgive me if I don't shed many tears for college students. 10 years ago, before GSLs were made available to any student regardless of income, I would have sympathized with those whose parents made too much money for them to qualify for loans, but refused to contribute to college costs. But no more. Also, this is a very short term situation done for long term gain.
286. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 11:19:18 AM
"also, it is this limbo of the hidden poor where you find all those who managed to eek out a better living than they were expected by getting past the poverty line. we're not middle class, we're not lower middle class...we're upper poor."
Yes, but my point is that even these "upper poor" are doing as good or better than they would be doing in the economic system of any other country. Therefore the solution is not a new socio-economic order, but expansion of existing government programs. You want to upset the entire apple cart in order to help the 10-20% who are doing badly, even if their situation is only temporary.
287. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 11:27:07 AM
"i think if we had, in fact, a 19th century (yes!) attitude towards our bosses, we might be less likely to swallow all the tripe."
There you go again. The implication is that the attitude the masses have toward their bosses is wrong, and therefore the masses are willing to swallow tripe that enlightened leftists such as yourself are able to avoid swallowing.
I caution you to take stock of this attitude and be wary of it. This is not showing respect for the masses, but contempt for their abilities to make the decisions that affect their own lives. This attitude is epidemic among the Left, and I believe it is the primary reason why every successful leftist revolution has turned into a totalitarian state.
288. PelleNilsson - 7/2/2002 11:42:29 AM
I believe it is the primary reason why every successful leftist revolution has turned into a totalitarian state.
Yes. You need only read Orwell's Animal Farm to find support for that conclusion. And as far as I know every socialist utopian experiment (there were many in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) has fallen prey to the same illness: the emergence of an elitist group, or competing groups, claiming to know "the true will of the people".
289. iiibbb - 7/2/2002 11:56:50 AM
Everyone right and left claims to know the will of the people.
I think the limitation of any system of government (including anarchy) is that people will figure out a way to abuse it. People will always seek to control it. People will always be taking advantage of other people. People can not be trusted to play fair. Underdog status does not guarantee rightiousness either.
290. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 12:00:30 PM
It is a horrible track record, which makes me very suspicious of leftists in general, particularly those who have the telltale sign of describing the poor as deluded by the elites and their stooges in the media (protestations that they really are sympathetic to the poor notwithstanding).
I see similarities with religious fundamentalists who want to redeem my soul, even if it kills me. *They* know what is best for me.
291. PelleNilsson - 7/2/2002 12:03:10 PM
I hasten to declare that I am a leftist, although not an utopian one. It wouldn't do to be seen fraternizing with rask and iiibbb (grin).
292. betty - 7/2/2002 12:05:21 PM
Rask,
again you are lumping anarchists in with the statist left. How much do you know about anarcho-syndicalist?
and after taxes, rent eats up more than half of our income, and we have a good deal because our utilities are included.
As an anarchist I feel the need to point out one essential detail that aplogist capitalists who believe that production and consumption are essential always seem to miss. The poor have no choice. they lack the means to move to another country where they might be treated with more dignity and they don't have the choice to leave the system. As Guiliani said when he was directing the tanks to rip homesteaders out of their homes "If you want to live here you have to pay rent"...there is no opt out clause for poor people you have to suck it up and deal.
and I'm sure ivan will have something fun to say about your every socialist utopian experiment (there were many in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) has fallen prey to the same illness: the emergence of an elitist group, or competing groups, claiming to know "the true will of the people".
ha!
and Rask, I don't discount the problems with unions, I'd be happy to discuss those if they weren't well hammered on in the mainstream press to the detriment of stating unions positives. regardless you were being a propagandist when you "overstated" your case and because you were willing to admit it you did confess to it. and there are a number of things in your post which contradict what you said earlier but I have to work and can't play anymore right now.
293. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 12:09:39 PM
"Everyone right and left claims to know the will of the people."
You misunderstand. I am not talking about a belief that the people support a political point of view. That is indeed extremely common, and there is a check on it every election day.
I am also not talking about complaints of factual accuracy, that the opposition party lied about the costs of a program, and that the public support is based on false information on an issue that they otherwise know little about.
But what I have never seen from mainstream American politicians, whether Democrat or Republican, is an arrogant view that the people are wrong on an issue very close to the personal experience of the American people - that the people don't know what is best for them in regards to their personal relationships (certain radical feminist views on all hetero sex as "rapism"), or at their place of work (leftist cries of exploitation), and that *they*, the politicians, see the truth about the masses that the masses cannot see for themselves.
294. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 12:11:53 PM
Rask...you really don't get it? You criticize me for my opinion on "the poor" as if i'm not. I wonder how, according to you, someone who is poor can discuss the conditions of the poor without you implying that they are condescending! it's very frustrating and quite unfair. are you poor? were you poor? grad school (a luxury) is voluntary poverty, right. so really, where are you coming from? if anything, you are trivializing real problems of people by being academic or statistical, rather than sociological or anthropological. you say, "oh it's only 15% of americans"...well, yeah...that's 40 million people!!! reducing poverty to statistics is like looking at the sheet music for a coltrane piece but never actually listening to it. you miss the point greatly and you do us a disservice by not allowing the vocal poor to speak without lumping them into the predictable labels you learn from the Right.
295. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 12:13:08 PM
Pelle: "I hasten to declare that I am a leftist, although not an utopian one."
I usually try to distinguish between people who have a distinct ideology, and those who just have a basket of policy preferences that cause them to favor similar outcomes as a specific ideology. Libertarians are an example of this. We have strict ideologues, like Adam Selene, who are libertarians out of ideological principle. Then there are libertarians like Ronski that are generally just government skeptics, but don't demand any sort of consistency with an ideology. I have much more respect for and trust in the latter group. Zealots scare me.
296. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 12:18:33 PM
there haven't been any successful leftist "revolutions" in the political sense. communism is not the left...nor is fascism.
the only historically successful revolutions have been the replacement of one large hegemony with another. to me, that's the tone of your solution to things...shake up the existing systems with better management and things will work. in fact, it is the system itself that caused the problems.
this is where we fundamentally disagree. you choose to look at who won and determine that they won because they are ideologically superior. i say it won because it had more motivation to conquer and more power at its disposal. your version of ideology is rooted in that one presupposition you cannot shake: that the winners were right.
297. iiibbb - 7/2/2002 12:19:26 PM
But what I have never seen from mainstream American politicians, whether Democrat or Republican, is an arrogant view that the people are wrong on an issue very close to the personal experience of the American people -
Well... I have seen that on the hotter issues (gun control, abortion, environment...) but in general I agree.
I thought Gore displayed trait more than was to my liking... it was a principle factor in my failure to vote for him.
298. iiibbb - 7/2/2002 12:20:43 PM
I've been enjoying reading Ivan, Betty, and Rask... you folks are pretty eloquent. My contribution seems so rough around the edges...
...perhaps you've been thinking about it longer than I have.
I should be writing a proposal right now.
299. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 12:24:04 PM
"again you are lumping anarchists in with the statist left."
No, I am not.
"How much do you know about anarcho-syndicalist?"
Which flavor? I have passing familiarity with the general tenets of most anarcho-syndicalists. I haven't bothered digging too deep because I frankly find them to be naive and silly.
"and after taxes, rent eats up more than half of our income, and we have a good deal because our utilities are included."
"After taxes" is a different claim. But taxes aren't high for the poor (~7% FICA), and in fact you should be getting an Earned Income Tax Credit. Based on your described rent, you evidently are making less than two people working full time minimum wage jobs. Your current low income stems from the fact that Ivan is in college, not from any structural problems with the economy.
"As an anarchist I feel the need to point out one essential detail that aplogist capitalists who believe that production and consumption are essential always seem to miss. The poor have no choice. they lack the means to move to another country where they might be treated with more dignity and they don't have the choice to leave the system."
Look, using the poor is simply a losing argument for you.
1) They are a small percent of the population.
2) Poverty is solvable under generally capitalist economic models, as seen by several countries in Europe.
"and I'm sure ivan will have something fun to say about your every socialist utopian experiment"
That was Pelle, not me. I don't claim to know about every socialist utopian experiment. My claim was that every successful leftist revolution turned Totalitarian. This is true.
300. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 12:26:46 PM
pelle:
you oversimply (greatly) utopian social movements in the 19th and 20th centuries.
first, they fail mostly because there is too much pressure from the world around them to conform. it is amazingly daring to start an alternative community in the first place, especially in a climate that was rapidly heading towards industrialized, homogenous conformity. the impulse for such communities is, by the way, a symptom of a very american idea of rugged individualism and a very christian idea of creating heaven on earth. there have been very few utopian communities that were not organized from a christian perspective or from a non-americanist ideology. the failure is that they tried to fit into society. the communities that lasted longest were the ones that were more isolated and less publicity-driven...the ones who developed their own organic structure rather than imposing rules that were not unanymously accepted.
i have studied some of these communities and while there are elements of founders' ideologies being self-assured and righteous(they know the will of the "people"), this is not the case for most.
the first "drop outs" in america (early 17th century) were here only a few years before abandoning euro-colonialism to live among the native americans. american history has avoided the issue of alternative and dropout communities (such as the ishmaelites, who were huge and lived outside the federal system in the 19th century) because people might discover that many of these people were not freaky cultists, but ethical and intelligent people.
301. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 12:29:42 PM
and rask...in regards to the earned income credit. we just missed qualifying for it. oh well...too bad for us.
302. iiibbb - 7/2/2002 12:38:26 PM
Ain't for everyone, but the amish, get along ok. Although other alternative communities see them as a threat.
303. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 12:39:50 PM
rask:
i agree about using the poor as examples...but for different reasons. besides...the poor understand this more than you think, it's the middle class that doesn't get it.
and if you are going to accuse me of being condescending, please do so now...because i find no excuse for middle class ignorance. if anyone has actually swallowed the tripe, it's the middle class...which is why they fight so hard to squash the poor which they see as encroaching on them.
in the company for which i worked, i was surrounded by the middle class. never had i seen so many educated idiots and (dare i use the anachronism?) "archie bunker types". regularly, i could walk down my corridor and hear things like "all arab men are dogs" and "i don't want my tax dollars supporting welfare moms" and "did you see what they said on 20-20 last night?"
during the RNC, on the days i was at work, we watched out our windows as demonstrators marched to city hall. my co-workers, who knew my politics, asked me for commentary and "play-by-play". they managed to come out with less judgmental stances as the other department down the hall, who said things like "what are they protesting? it's just a political convention!" and tossing off numerous broad strokes like "it's these 'free-mumia' jerks again"
in the philly press, they always made sure to lump demonstrators in with "free mumia" (abu-jamal) activists who were a small minority who demonstrated (i was there). among the strongest presence, though, was the Kensington Welfare Rights Union, whose concerns and ideology was overshadowed by trumped up (and proven false) allegations about violent protestors. the middle class was happier knowing the protestors were violent supporters of the evil cop-killer than people with rational ideological concerns (y'know...the environment, human rights, poverty, etc.).
304. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 12:42:09 PM
"Rask...you really don't get it? You criticize me for my opinion on "the poor" as if i'm not."
No. I criticize you for having contempt for the views of poor people about issues very close to their area of expertise, such as their attitude toward their employer. I specifically stated that you excluded yourself from their delusions, which was part of my criticism. I see this as arrogant.
"I wonder how, according to you, someone who is poor can discuss the conditions of the poor without you implying that they are condescending!"
Quite easily. Stick with supportable facts that demonstrate the views of the poor are wrong. Avoid arguments implicitly claiming that you know more than they about their specific choices and attitudes in their lives unless you have genuine evidence to the contrary (there are psychological conditions that explain why people stay in abusive relationships, for instance).
"it's very frustrating and quite unfair. are you poor? were you poor? grad school (a luxury) is voluntary poverty, right. so really, where are you coming from?"
This seems a bit random. I was quite poor when I graduated from college. I was unemployed for several months because of the '91 job market, and eventually was only to find employment getting minimum wage in a retail job, with no health insurance, $200 in credit card payments due each month, and another $200 in student loans. With $250 a month in rent, and only making $700 a month after taxes, I was up shit creek until I got promoted to management a year after graduation.
But what is this, a pissing contest over who lived in the smallest shoebox?
305. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 12:42:27 PM
" if anything, you are trivializing real problems of people by being academic or statistical, rather than sociological or anthropological. you say, "oh it's only 15% of americans"...well, yeah...that's 40 million people!!!"
Of course it is a problem, and I am not trivializing it. But speaking in terms of proportions and percent is critical to getting a handle on the scale of a problem. For instance, consider a population of 1 trillion people, with 1 tenth of 1% in poverty. You would scream "that is one billion people, how dare you reduce them to a statistic!" But to me, that miniscule proportion shows that there is absolutely no need for a social revolution. Just give money to the poor.
My point is that a 10-15% poverty rate is a *manageable* problem under the existing socioeconomic system, as seen by how other capitalist democracies have mostly solved poverty. When you consider that the track record of alternative models is utterly abysmal, you will forgive most of us for insisting that you experiment on someone else if you want to prove that your model is effective.
"you do us a disservice by not allowing the vocal poor to speak without lumping them into the predictable labels you learn from the Right"
You mistake me for a rightist. I am not. I am center left. I voted for Paul Wellstone, for Chrissake.
306. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 12:59:18 PM
"there haven't been any successful leftist "revolutions" in the political sense. communism is not the left...nor is fascism."
Please define "left" for me, then. By any definition of left I have seen, the various flavors of Marxism qualify.
"the only historically successful revolutions have been the replacement of one large hegemony with another. to me, that's the tone of your solution to things...shake up the existing systems with better management and things will work. in fact, it is the system itself that caused the problems."
But this is false. The system has *solved* (or made huge strides toward solving) most of the problems that have plagued mankind throughout its history: low life expectancy, poverty, disease, slavery, concubinage, etc.
The best you can do is claim, with lots of evidence against you, that alternatives would be *better*.
"this is where we fundamentally disagree. you choose to look at who won and determine that they won because they are ideologically superior. i say it won because it had more motivation to conquer and more power at its disposal. your version of ideology is rooted in that one presupposition you cannot shake: that the winners were right."
You completely misunderstand me, as I made none of these claims or presuppositions. I have never said that anyone was ideologically superior. I said that they got results in achieving specific goals that are very important to the vast majority of humanity. I have a deep distrust of ideologies.
307. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 1:08:47 PM
No. I criticize you for having contempt for the views of poor people about issues very close to their area of expertise, such as their attitude toward their employer. I specifically stated that you excluded yourself from their delusions, which was part of my criticism. I see this as arrogant.
as i've mentioned...there is no voice for the poor as they are grossly under-represented (you can cite your numbers all you want, but find me 5 public voices coming from poor people discussing issues of poverty!)
so really, who should speak for us but ourselves? you make it sound like there is no problem, but if there was, the proportions and statistics would show it, right?
but i was a database analyst. i know what happens to statistics and what they neglect. i know how to select which data to emphasize and which to humble. they don't give an idea of scale, they give an idea of proportion...a lot less "human" factor. i mean, we say it's just 15.5% (or forty million people) who don't have healthcare and yet when you factor in the cost based on the inflated raping by HMOs and the increase in medical costs, that number becomes very revealing. we're talking about potentially billions of dollars. that's scale. scale is to see that if just 1% of that 40 million were to develop expensive medical conditions (thanks, often, to the toxic byproducts of our greed) then that number starts to increase even more. when i was an analyst, i worked in the short-term disability management unit and i know what happens when such illnesses occur and get worse. there is also the residual and unmeasured effects of such illnesses both on productivity and on families.
when you're one of those uninsured poor, and you break a leg, you pay disproportionately higher costs than the insured, right? so again...add that into the 15.5% and you start to see the gravity.
308. PelleNilsson - 7/2/2002 1:09:53 PM
ivan
Your tactic of defining away leftist movements you don't like (communism) as not being of the left won't do at all. Nobody can deny that late 19th century communism was leftist of the utopian variety. It was after it came to power that it petrified into statism, which really reinforces rask's point made earlier.
309. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 1:10:18 PM
rask:
i don't assume you are on the right. if you were, you wouldn't be so level-headed in your perspective on poverty. however, your views of the left sound as biased as my views on the christian right ;)
310. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 1:11:10 PM
" and if you are going to accuse me of being condescending, please do so now...because i find no excuse for middle class ignorance. if anyone has actually swallowed the tripe, it's the middle class...which is why they fight so hard to squash the poor which they see as encroaching on them."
Based on your examples, I think you are misunderstanding me again. I am not claiming that the poor and the middle class are all perfectly informed people that aren't fooled by advertising. On the contrary, on most political issues, the masses are woefully and blissfully ignorant, which is why I favor a representative democracy, where ignorance is still substantial, but smaller.
But I am very hesitant to second guess the decisions of people when they decide what is best for them in areas very close to their own personal experience: Their choice of jobs, whether they think a union would improve things, whether they are willing to work for a co-op and get more workplace involvement in exchange for lower pay, the nature of their marriage, and whether they are willing to risk a new social structure.
When people start broadly second-guessing these decisions and opinions, without sufficient knowledge of specific circumstances, I start seeing closet totalitarians.
311. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 1:13:50 PM
pelle:
so really, leftist communism never existed in practice? so, as i said, these are not leftist "movements"...they are statist movements that were different than was intended by the leftist core from which it became corrupted. statism does not represent the left, even if we simplify communism (the ideology) to be leftist.
312. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 1:19:05 PM
rask:
you just made me laugh at the tought that i may be a "closet totalitarian" ;)
actually, i'm probably more of a closet fascist as i think that if you are gonna have trains, they should be on time, dammit!
seriously...the reason i'm so incensed by things here is that one cannot escape it. (this was discussed in posts on other threads)...the whole, "america...love it or leave it" would be fine if you could actually leave "americanism" by going someplace else. but there aren't many places left to go where you can avoid it.
oh...my reference to easter island was in regards to their pre 16th century organization...but i used it tongue-in-cheek because i don't prefer the US to be like any nation other than itself. i'm all for tribalism, my friend...just not state tribalism :)
btw: i hope i go up against you in 21. this way, i can at least kick your intellectual ass in something that cannot be reduced to statistics :)
313. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 1:23:23 PM
"i don't assume you are on the right. if you were, you wouldn't be so level-headed in your perspective on poverty. however, your views of the left sound as biased as my views on the christian right ;)"
To be perfectly honest, I am an apostate. Back in college, I was a socialist, who believed that we needed a new social structure to put the employees in charge of the factories. I still find co-ops quite interesting.
My disillusionment with the left was a slow process, as my rationalist instincts took over. I realized that the vast majority of my opinions were based not on an understanding of the issues, but were taken mostly on faith from people that time had taught me weren't all that reliable. I found myself consistently questioning every major opinion I had, and going back to square one to understand the problem. In doing so, I decided that ideologies were dangerous, with a disturbing tendency to ignore issues that most people thought were important in favor of principles taken to absurd lengths. I saw that Marxism ironically contained the seeds of its own Leninist destruction, that anarchism was just a prolonged exercize in wishful thinking, and that all utopias implicitly assumed a change in human nature as a precondition to arriving at that utopia. I then eschewed ideology in favor of pragmatism and a few rational moral principles that were not sacrosanct.
314. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 1:25:26 PM
"so really, leftist communism never existed in practice? so, as i said, these are not leftist "movements"...they are statist movements that were different than was intended by the leftist core from which it became corrupted. statism does not represent the left, even if we simplify communism (the ideology) to be leftist."
Statism is neither right nor left, but a belief that a state is necessary, if only temporarily, to achieve your goals. You seem to be implying that the only leftists are anarchists.
315. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 1:31:03 PM
that anarchism was just a prolonged exercize in wishful thinking, and that all utopias implicitly assumed a change in human nature as a precondition to arriving at that utopia.
ah. THIS is where we find our point of disagreement. i believe that there is no need for a change in human nature as what's in place now is NOT human nature in the first place! if anything, i think a re-evaluation of what "human nature" is might be better than assuming it needs to be changed. i daresay that "human nature" was overtaken by the ridiculously unnatural apparatus of the State (yeah...beginning with early civilizations) and of forced cohabitation based on adherence to textual principles. i don't find these things to be what we gravitate towards naturally. if that were the case, the state could have come about during the 170,000 years of modern homo sapienity before the first signs of state "civilization" occured approx. 10,000 years ago.
so you say human nature has made what exists today, and i say human nature was never meant to exist in what has happened. but i suppose we are all performing our human nature, which is why we're all so very happy and content and satisfied with ourselves ;)
316. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 1:37:15 PM
Statism is neither right nor left
exactly! it's NOT the left (either).
but a belief that a state is necessary, if only temporarily, to achieve your goals. You seem to be implying that the only leftists are anarchists.
the State is a fault line for the left. the extreme left does not believe a State can naturally produce a satisfactory form of organization which can ensure people can live "naturally". the radical left sees the state as the problem and cannot see how large, centralized state machines can function satisfactorily...however, the radical left is much more likely to embrace vigorous (sometimes unrealistic) reforms. the moderate left thinks things need a "tweaking".
what i don't see as "left" is the view that a large-scale State apparatus can work satisfactorily. i am too much of a sensualist to exchange god and creativity for a State and rationalism. i don't think productivity and redistribution does anything more than lock us into a cycle of employment...which i DON'T see as a facet of "human nature".
so i don't think that only anarchists are on the left, i just don't necessarily equate marxists with the left.
317. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 1:39:40 PM
also...i must clarify that "the State" is not just he political state, but the corporate state which created politics to excuse its pillaging.
318. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 1:41:17 PM
Ivan: I agree that human nature isn't perfectly suited for modern civilization - this is basic evolutionary psychology.
But I can't say that I see a return to a hunter-gather society, with 25 year life expectancies, an erratic food supply, superstition, migration, and tribal warfare as much of a utopia. Generally, utopias are defined as places where you would *want* to live.
Same with your Easter Island metaphor. You are of course aware that the Easter Island culture over-expanded, deforested the island, and had a complete civilization die-off, leaving only a few hundred people still scraping out an existence on the island when missionaries stopped by the 19th century? I work in environmental issues, and Easter Island is frequently held up as a cautionary tale of unsustainable growth, not as a utopia.
319. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 1:47:03 PM
"the State is a fault line for the left."
I just don't see this. It is a fault line between anarchists and non-anarchists, but there are right-anarchists as well (anarcho-capitalists).
"what i don't see as "left" is the view that a large-scale State apparatus can work satisfactorily."
You may not see it that way, but almost everyone else does, including most Marxists and leftists. Hell, there are a lot more self-described Marxist leftists than there are anarchists, in my experience. Trying to define Marxists out of the left is like trying to define the Sunnis out of Islam.
320. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 1:49:20 PM
with 25 year life expectancies
that's not accurate. that number is as low as it is because of infant mortality...arguably a problem, but not a sign that people never reached old age.
and i don't see a return to hunter-gathering until civilization uses its technologies to destroy itself and there are only a few people left in the world.
as for easter island...the isolationism of the island ensured its demise once wood became too scarce. but i am not arguing for purely isolated communities. also, the island managed to survive and thrive for a very long time by fair management of resources without the economic models that supported greed...the droughts that caused the wood shortage (the soil is porous due to volcanic base and so water does not get retained well anyway) were not their fault. it was inevitable that such a small place and such a closed system would be very vulnerable to climactic change...but this is not due to their greed. try using the american model of existence on an isolated island in the south pacific and the population would be lucky to survive a few generations because there was nobody else to exploit.
321. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 1:50:37 PM
but there are right-anarchists as well (anarcho-capitalists).
but they are not State capitalists. they are absolutely, ideologically laissez faire in the truest sense of the world.
322. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 1:53:42 PM
Trying to define Marxists out of the left is like trying to define the Sunnis out of Islam.
initially, in this thread, i mentioned that i consider left and right to be perspectives...not purely ideologies. marxism, while it has a perspective, is a model for organization...it seeks a practical implementation of itself and only is a "perspective" when it is trying to rationalize about pragmatic possibilities.
323. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 1:54:31 PM
re:321 i meant "word.", not "world."
324. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 1:54:47 PM
"that's not accurate. that number is as low as it is because of infant mortality...arguably a problem, but not a sign that people never reached old age."
I know this, but incredibly high infant mortality (approaching 50%) is *arguably* a problem???
"but they are not State capitalists. they are absolutely, ideologically laissez faire in the truest sense of the world."
Well yeah, that is my point. Statism is on a separate axis from left/right. There are right statists, left statists, right non-statists, and left non-statists.
325. iiibbb - 7/2/2002 2:06:58 PM
Rask... what do you do?
326. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 2:12:25 PM
infant mortality: when it comes to people criticizing past societies, they are quick to jump on the "infant mortality" statistics...but when it comes to current health care (again, 40 million uninsured and infant mortality, as you know, is more likely among the poor and uninsured) the issue gets subsumed by issues of cost. it's convenient to use it to fault hunter-gatherers, but it's not convenient to bring it up when healthcare insurance rates make it difficult to afford for those most likely to have problems with infant mortality. (not saying you are guilty of this, but it's common).
327. iiibbb - 7/2/2002 2:16:26 PM
I am not sure how humans can function without a state particularly given today's populations.
Hypothetical... for every idyllic community, factory, etc, you can think of, I would give you an unruly neighbor; perhaps an unruly, thieving neighbor. They don't respect resources, or your borders.
Multiply by 100,000.
It just doesn't seem workable. The tragedy of the commons, the human disposition for conflict.
Eliminating the framework of states doesn't seem like it could work.
328. betty - 7/2/2002 2:26:36 PM
anarcho-syndicalism is more about regional, local "states" and a variety of them. the biggest and most valid criticism that left-anarchists can make aboout capitalism is that it is structured as to be destructive to the sovereignty of non-capitalist.
329. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 2:42:36 PM
"Rask... what do you do?"
Environmental Policy Analyst. I serve as a consultant advising various public and private organizations on the impact of proposed environmental policies. It is mostly a combination of microeconomics, statistics, and program evaluation.
330. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 3:08:08 PM
"infant mortality: when it comes to people criticizing past societies, they are quick to jump on the "infant mortality" statistics...but when it comes to current health care (again, 40 million uninsured and infant mortality, as you know, is more likely among the poor and uninsured) the issue gets subsumed by issues of cost."
I don't see this very much. Infant mortality is extremely common as an indicator of public health. It is used by the US government in comparison between states, and organizations like the UN Development Program.
But there is well over an order of magnitude between infant mortality stats in hunter/gatherer societies and stats in modern developed countries (50% vs less than 1%).
331. iiibbb - 7/2/2002 3:11:48 PM
Message # 329
Do you work with a specific region, US, or world?
... I'm incidentally in forestry (soil science). Sustainability stuff right now, but I used to work in Wetlands and hydrology.
332. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 3:20:08 PM
"anarcho-syndicalism is more about regional, local "states" and a variety of them"
But all of the problems of such small, tribal societies, such as war, crime, disease, poverty, famine, polygamy, slavery, etc. are mostly just wished away. Not to mention that tribal societies frequently evolve to having a primitive dictatorial "state", with a chief, or "big man".
Sure, modern capitalist economies have some of these problems, but you also get damned little famine, serious disease is rare, people live a long time, and even the poor have a telephone, a TV, a stove, food, and a roof over their head.
But nothing is to stop you from living in such a communal life right now if you want to. As someone else said, the Amish do it in a way, and there are still some paleolithic tribes in the Amazon and in New Guinea that might take recruits. I even know of a commune in southwestern Wisconsin near where I grew up.
333. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 3:21:06 PM
"Do you work with a specific region, US, or world? "
I work in Minnesota, mostly in the Twin Cities area, although sometimes I do some work outstate.
334. Raskolnikov - 7/2/2002 3:30:15 PM
I have occasionally argued that the best way to utopia is through genetic engineering. Leftists can genetically engineer the perfect humans for their specific utopia: genetic vegetarians who instinctively bury themselves organically before dying; ant-like collectivists working for the common good; and anarchist pagans with all selfishness and inhibitions programmed out of them. Of course, being leftists, they would never agree on one type, and you would end up with the anarchists eating the vegetarians due to a lack of inhibition over cannibalism, but at least life would be interesting and a few of the utopias might survive.
335. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 5:00:59 PM
a) genetic engineering is a tool of the right, btw.
b) if all of us lefties disappeared, slavery would re-emerge, the planet would be paved except for the backyards of the corporate leaders, people would live to be 135 years old but under complete and total dependence on medical technology for the last 50, there would be just one religion and one skin color and one language, any minor dissent would be punished by instant death, people would live in their cars (literally), and the entire library of congress would be burned to the ground, people would have nano-technology tv sets implanted behind their eyelids so they can always be fed propaganda (even in their sleep), the only drugs would be anti-depressants (but everyone would be forced to buy them for hundreds of dollars per pill), the only foods would be those that required murder (vegetbles would be outlawed and people's shit would stink to high heaven and would be a rare occurance as their insides would be plugged up without fiber), rape would become fashionable, women who want abortions would themselves be terminated, and education would consist of the government giving all children guns on their third birthday and then leaving them to their own devices.
c) and what would the right do? breed one type: the person who listens to what they are told, who relies on the right-dominated/controlled media for anything, who believes that techology will save the world and that there is only one god and that's the god of the bible, and who allows their health, relationships, and opinions to be dictated to them.
oh wait...they've already succeeded.
336. ivan osokin - 7/2/2002 5:02:08 PM
and rask, your geneticotopia sounds much more fun than the situation today.
337. ivan osokin - 7/9/2002 9:37:52 AM
As usual, Tom Tomorrow hits the nail on the head. 
338. LEFT - 7/12/2002 12:45:50 AM
This thread would be an interesting place to discuss the ideologies of the anti-globalization left. Certain books and authors - Hardt and Negri's Empire, Pierre Bourdieu - are interesting to discuss if nothing else.
339. ivan osokin - 7/12/2002 12:50:16 AM
i'd love to do that...rather, i'd love to learn about these ideologies as i'm not that familiar with them. excuse my ignorance...normally i'm drawn towards ideologies that emphasize art and the sensual, and that explore possibilities for alternative communities and organizations. but it's always good to expand one's pallette.
340. concerned - 7/12/2002 4:20:06 AM
I can see by the datestamp that IO's fantasy world is starting to take over this thread.
341. concerned - 7/12/2002 4:20:34 AM
I take that back:)
342. concerned - 7/12/2002 4:40:29 AM
Re. 337 -
I take it that you've finally become disenchanted with the turn American business leadership has taken under Mr. 'It's the Economy, Stupid'.
343. concerned - 7/12/2002 4:47:05 AM
re. 335 -
IO -
If you want to be funny, it helps not to beat your modestly risible ideas to death.
344. jexster - 7/21/2002 2:50:09 AM
For those with an interest in historical sociology, political theory and ideologies, social science method, theory & epistemology, you might check out "The Essential Wallerstein" , a collection of essays by Immanuel Wallerstein mostly dealing with the working out of his world-systems theory and its implications.
He is not an easy read by any means although he presents his ideas clearly. His long cycle analysis of history and social structure is of the same genus as Ernest Gellner. The latter however has a Durkeim-Weber-Popper ground while Wallerstein is little "m" Marxist in his approach.
Wallerstein also more directly engages issues of the future of the capitalist world system and how Second and Third World Nations fit or not.
345. alistairConnor - 7/21/2002 9:08:36 AM
I'm surprised that this thread hasn't picked up on the current crisis of capitalism...
The True Believers will shrug it off as a cyclical thing; but there is a huge underlying structural problem. If half the value of the stock market is wiped off, and it takes 20 or 30 years to rebuild it, and half of the US population is relying on stocks for a comfortable retirement... it's quite likely to result in a major ideological shift.
Perhaps this will have the effect of levelling the playing field, and bringing the middle classes who have (literally) bought into popular capitalism back in touch with the other half of the population, whose only prospects are an uncomfortable retirement, at best.
346. alistairConnor - 7/21/2002 9:19:02 AM
Declaration of interest :
Over the last couple of years, having some spare money and few clues of how to store it, I had been putting half of it into a share fund. Which has of course lost half of its value (so far... but the markets open again tomorrow.)
My father, a lifelong leftist, turned capitalist in his old age. I remember how I laughed when he was wiped out in the dramatic NZ stock crash of 1988.
347. sakonige - 7/21/2002 9:56:35 AM
... it's quite likely to result in a major ideological shift
You think so? I don't think Americans' values will be particularly affected by seeing more of their compatriots in the gutters.
348. alistairConnor - 7/21/2002 10:18:30 AM
It's not just a matter of more compatriots in the gutters... the system, over the past 20 years or so, has been very successful in serving the interests of a majority of Americans. A large chunk of these, thinking, voting citizens. will now find that they are no longer among the winners.
349. CalGal - 7/21/2002 11:29:52 AM
If half the value of the stock market is wiped off, and it takes 20 or 30 years to rebuild it, and half of the US population is relying on stocks for a comfortable retirement... it's quite likely to result in a major ideological shift.
I can't speak for other countries, but the US certainly didn't have a major ideological shift in the past 20 years, and that's really about as long as the middle class has been in the market. I believe that's when the "democratization" of financial instruments began.
I also wonder if it's the middle class being in the market that caused the shift to stock prices above all in the first place.
But it's not like the stock market decline is forcing people to eat dog food; they are just putting off retirement a few years, or cancelling vacations.
350. judithathome - 7/21/2002 11:36:59 AM
Sure, it's easy for those still working but what about the people living off their interest who are retired already? If this continues to tank at the rates it has the past few weeks, and it easily could, they may be turning to dog food before it's all over.
351. wonkers2 - 7/21/2002 11:39:45 AM
Depends on how you define "major ideological shift." If you mean from belief in a democratic free enterprise economy, I doubt there will be a major ideological shift. But if you mean a shift away from the Republican Party to the Democrats, that's a real possibility or even probability. A realization of how badly Bush and the Congress have screwed up the economy with ill advised, excessive tax cuts and its reluctance to support obviously needed accounting and corporate governance reform is gradually spreading among the populace.
352. CalGal - 7/21/2002 11:46:36 AM
Sure, it's easy for those still working but what about the people living off their interest who are retired already?
I don't believe that population was heavily invested in the market. Remember, if you're "living off of interest", you aren't in the stock market.
More than one article has mentioned that the population most hurt by the decline was the 51-64 agegroup.
353. alistairConnor - 7/21/2002 11:50:10 AM
The idea that everyone (or even a majority) can get wealthy from capital gains rather than from the production of goods and services, is an interesting one, which has always been counter-intuitive to me. Probably because I understand nothing of economics, the idea that stocks can durably grow in value at a higher rate than economic production, has always puzzled me, and I've always assumed it was a matter of smoke and mirrors.
Or to put it another way, a matter of faith. I think that faith is likely to be severely shaken or destroyed for a lot of people, which is why I speculate about an ideological shift.
The idea that mass participation in the stock market has been driving stock price inflation is an interesting one.
354. judithathome - 7/21/2002 11:59:28 AM
I think the greed of corporate CEOs has driven the stock market...they get those cushy jobs and get paid obscene salaries and cook the books so the stocks looke better than they are and who cares if they get caught? Up to now thy've gotten obscene bonuses even when they fail. Meanwhile, their companies stocks continue to climb until something dire hits the fan...the CEOs don't lose; it's the fools left holding the stock.
That's an ideological shift that came straight from the movie Wall Street and proves they lived by the "Greed is good" principle until it all fell apart.
355. jexster - 7/21/2002 12:10:18 PM
AC...
The current crisis of capitalism of course is what Wallerstein is mostly all about.
356. CalGal - 7/21/2002 12:20:53 PM
The idea that mass participation in the stock market has been driving stock price inflation is an interesting one.
I'm sure there are a number of reasons. The individual investor isn't that big a percentage of the stock purchases. But they do purchase mutual funds.
I don't know if you are aware of the major shift in American retirement plans in the past 20-30 years (there are certainly people who can give a more accurate history than I can).
But we used to have defined benefit plans (pensions) and have shifted to defined contribution plans (401Ks). Pension plans were the purview of the corporation; 401Ks are under the control of the individual, and they can take it with them from job to job.
(The fact that many people cash out their 401K or make bad decisions is causing some folks to push for a return to pension plans. They forget that one of the reasons why pension plans became unpopular is because they were often raided. My father worked for TWA all his life and I remember when Icahn bought the company and his pension suddenly disappeared.)
This put a whole bunch of people in the marketplace making decisions that had previously been made by a small amount of pension fund managers.
The other thing that almost certainly had an impact on stock prices was leveraged buyouts, which are out of fashion but was when stock price was first used as a sort of cash substitute for the company. Again, someone here with more knowledge than me can fill in the blanks and either confirm or deny my impression. But even when they went out of fashion, the use of stock as a funding mechanism stuck.
357. CalGal - 7/21/2002 12:22:00 PM
Finally, it seems to me that stocks are far less likely to pay...ack, what the hell is that word. Dividends. This is generally considered the "innovation" of tech stocks, who arrogantly declared that the income from growth was sufficient; they weren't going to pay dividends. This put the emphasis on speculation, not income.
All of these things played into it, although I might have the root cause wrong (ie, they all may be related to the same SEC ruling from 1972, or something).
But the thing I did want to make clear is that this is all relatively recent--just 20-30 years. It didn't cause a major ideological shift while it happened, and I'm pretty sure there won't be a major pendulum swing to any other position.
It guaranteed a quick death to the privatization of social security, though.
Did Europeans and Antipodeans begin investing more in markets over the past 20 years or so?
358. CalGal - 7/21/2002 12:23:45 PM
This put the emphasis on speculation, not income.
I meant to go back and add the following:
It also meant that the investor began looking to the market for income, not the companies in which they invested.
359. alistairConnor - 7/21/2002 12:39:09 PM
I might have the root cause wrong
Of course you did. The love of money is the root cause.
(Am I the first person to think of that?)
360. jexster - 7/21/2002 12:42:18 PM
They may not know it, but 1.3 million California retirees have become major players in the international campaign for human rights.
The California Public Employees Retirement System, which handles the pensions for state workers, recently enacted a long-delayed program to screen all its overseas "emerging markets" investments to ensure that they are not contributing to human rights and labor rights violations.
Governments from Thailand to Mexico are feeling the pressure.
Sexy it's not, but pension fund activism, an outgrowth of the controversy over globalization, has immense potential ramifications. U.S. pension funds' stock holdings total about $3 trillion, nearly one-quarter of all publicly traded equities. Of that total, about $59 billion is currently invested in firms from emerging-markets nations. CalPERS, with $149 billion in total investments and $2 billion in emerging markets, is the second-largest U.S. pension fund and the third largest in the world
CalPers Flexes Its Muscle
361. alistairConnor - 7/21/2002 12:48:35 PM
It guaranteed a quick death to the privatization of social security, though.
This is part of what I'm getting at. The New Zealand government is in the middle of setting up a mega-(in NZ terms) investment fund as a compulsory retirement scheme. This to be invested mostly in offshore stocks. Meanwhile, same government intends to borrow a roughly equivalent amount of money to invest in infrastructure.
The Greens have been fighting this, on the (perhaps naive?) grounds that retirement should be paid for out of current national production, notwithstanding demographic bulges, otherwise it simply isn't sustainable. Especially since the described setup consists of a gamble that offshore stocks will give, in the long term, a higher rate of return than the interest cost of the borrowing. A very shaky proposition.
362. judithathome - 7/21/2002 12:53:33 PM
(Am I the first person to think of that?)
No, not even the first in the last hour. i mentioned something like that in #354.
363. CalGal - 7/21/2002 12:58:02 PM
The love of money is the root cause.
But that has been there forever. I was talking about specifics.
364. alistairConnor - 7/21/2002 12:59:29 PM
It's more like, the illusion of a free lunch is at the root of it.
365. betty - 7/21/2002 3:33:49 PM
aC,
it sounds like the NZ greens are pushing something similiar to the US Social Security system? yes?
366. Jamie R - 7/21/2002 3:54:12 PM
Betty, are you saying the US SS system is paid for out of current national production? That doesn't sound right. How so?
367. alistairConnor - 7/21/2002 4:26:25 PM
No, the NZ government is pushing for something like the US system, as far as I can see. The Greens are pushing for the status quo, where a universal entitlement is paid out to all citizens from age 60, funded from general tax revenue, at 66% of the average wage.
If, in 20 years' time, the ratio of workers to retired people drops too low, i.e. production can no longer fund that level of redistribution, then maybe that entitlement will have to be reduced. I don't see how funding entitlements out of shares rather than tax changes that at all : the wealth you redistribute has to come from somewhere, it can't be stored.
368. wonkers2 - 7/21/2002 10:05:28 PM
The only possibility for paying Social Security other than current U.S. production would be taking production from other countries by calling in loans or from returns on equity investments in other countries. Another key factor is the rate of increase in productivity. If productivity increases fast enough, a smaller work force will be able to produce enough food and other goods to support an increasing number of retirees. Also, the increasing percentage of women in the paid work force has partially offset the growing number of retirees as has the leveling off or increase in the average retirement age.?????
369. JJBiener - 7/21/2002 11:16:21 PM
I know this is a radical idea, but if we stop paying social security and medicare to wealthy and upper middle class people, we wouldn't have to worry about solvency. Everyone is in a panic about baby boomers reaching retirement age. Well, a large percentage of us baby boomers aren't going to need social security or medicare and it is unconscionable to burden our children when we don't need it.
Here is another radical idea. If we only help the people who need it, maybe we could pay them enough to so they don't have to eat dog food and go without medication.
I know, I know. I just strayed onto the third rail of politics. It is too bad we can't talk honestly and practically about this subject.
370. CalGal - 7/22/2002 12:35:37 AM
No, I completely agree, and I think that even though the US has far fewer problems guaranteeing their citizens a social welfare net, the one that's going to hurt us is SocSec. We should cut the contributions by a half or a third, and only pay to people who need it--use it as an insurance policy. We should also do away with married benefits, of course.
Oddly enough, the main reason that this isn't mentioned isn't old people, who would be protected, but the philosophy behind SocSec. If you means test it, it will be welfare, and no one wants to go there. So instead we spend a fortune paying the middle class a couple thousand extra a month.
371. ScottLoar - 7/22/2002 3:39:08 AM
Is there any predictable consequence to denying the benefits of social security and medicate to wealthy and upper middle class people? I'd think a) a lot of those so denied would be mad as hell (I surely would be, understanding I was obliged without regard to my needs at the time to pay into a system then denied its later benefits on the dubious grounds I was too successful in life. That's a laugh: too successful? At what cost?), b) there would be a rush led by clever lawyers to quickly, legally disengage oneself from that "elite" group of the wealthy and upper middle class, and c)failure would be rewarded, which somehow (or at least to my simple understanding) is quite contrary to Americans' general construction of their lives.
Let's help the people who truly need it? True need measured by what yardstick? Material need, for which there would be no other consideration other than the person is poor and so needs the support? Does American society and government already not provide so?
372. ScottLoar - 7/22/2002 3:47:23 AM
The halt and lame, the orphaned and widowed (sorry if the descriptions aren't modish enough but you do understand what I mean) deserve a society's material support because by doing so we define our humanity, we affirm ourselves as members of the society (such sentiments can be extrapolated from the prehistorical, archeaological evidence of the skeletal remains of those obviously deformed at birth or later crippled but who lived on only by the care of those around them), but those who violate that by living at the ease of others should not be rewarded. That seems to be a genetic imperative: I don't have the resources at hand but I do recall the conclusions of Mark Ridley and others on this seeming genetic imperative to share and share equally without sloughing off.
373. ScottLoar - 7/22/2002 3:49:59 AM
Should be Matt Ridley, yes?
374. ScottLoar - 7/22/2002 3:53:17 AM
Is it unconscionable to burden our children by the levy of taxes to support their elders when it's not needed? Of course, and so I will not burden my child. And I would not burden your child if I could elect so, my election being not paying into a goddamned system that took my money when I most needed it.
I did not have the choice.
375. ScottLoar - 7/22/2002 3:59:23 AM
On Dog Food
If you've lived beyond your means (tickets to the Super Bowl, new car every year, big house, Home Shopping Network all but the last taken from the woes of steelworkers and their wives laid off in places like Allentown during the late '70s and '80s) then what the hell do you expect? Salvation by the US government and the kindness of strangers to stay off the can opener? Did you ever think there would be no price to pay?
Yes, some people are just damned unlucky, and in our communities (if we choose to know our communities) they are known to us, but I'm supposed to continue the support of those who in their best years were spending money on tickets to Jamaica, the Super Bowl, cars and trinkets?
376. ScottLoar - 7/22/2002 4:06:00 AM
Most of the poor people I've seen in US cities were either the addle-brained middle-aged and elderly who need the institutional care US law denies them out of respect for their individual rights, or were young outcasts trying to work their way to maturity.
377. RickNelson - 7/22/2002 6:23:59 AM
You cynic Loar. True, but cynical. Greed has taken JJ's altruism and sped it up, messed it up, and now the good folk are ideologues of entitlement.
Whatever happened to working your ass of from paycheck to paycheck, never getting a savings, never landing that 'right' job, but making do. Upwardly mobile, oh well, that's for that other person, good for them. Maybe someday that good job will come along.
(The immediate above brought to you by the blithering minority.)
But JJ has an altruistic idea, which on it's face would make sense. Patriotic sense in some way. But, is it realistic? Not likely.
I've never met anyone who has been to a Super Bowl. I don't know anyone who buys a new car every year.
I do see the over-the-top mortgaged homes, those who seemingly have it all. It's strange, who are they, where did they get all that money? Who do they know? Was it inheritance? Clubs? The better education opportunity? Their family? Luck?
Good to see your posts Loar.
378. iiibbb - 7/22/2002 7:00:14 AM
I got food stamps for a year once when I was doing my Masters degree. 30$ a month. It wasn't much but I figured I was going to be paying for it the rest of my life. I was actually making pitiful income those few years, so it helped. I quit because it was made more and more of a pain in the ass to stay on the program. I think once they started making me go in there every other month to prove I still qualified I quit. It was a 2-2.5 hr time commitment including the drive over and the line and the actual meeting. Wasn't worth it to me for just 30$.
Anyhow... you'd be surprised how nice some of the cars people were driving... and probably picking up multiple-100 dollar entitlements.
379. ivan osokin - 7/22/2002 8:38:57 AM
I quit because it was made more and more of a pain in the ass to stay on the program.
this has been one of those points about entitlement programs that seems to have been lost in the shuffle of blame. it IS a pain in the ass! it's tough, you have to jump through a lot of hoops and criticism and lack of sympathy and, primarily, bureaucracy and policy complexities. i hate it when i hear people say, "oh...they can just go on welfare and the state will take care of them"...as if it were just that simple! have any of these people ever tried that? the state is a harsh, uncaring, and fickle mistress who begrudgingly holds you on a thin string.
Anyhow... you'd be surprised how nice some of the cars people were driving... and probably picking up multiple-100 dollar entitlements.
in my life (mostly in poverty) i have known one person who was scamming welfare. she owned a house worth at least 200,000 dollars (had it in her elderly mother's name), collected SSI for a disability that kept her from nothing other than extremely heavy lifting (she held a job with that disability...a regular job...for 10 years until she was fired)...she had more in credit card spending limits than i had earned in the last 5 years...she collected food stamps, welfare, and simultaneously vacationed on martha's vineyard.
hmmm...this was a woman who was not at all among the poor, yet SHE was the one who scammed. perhaps we should also consider that there are some among the middle class who cleverly manage their situation to be the lazy scammers of which the poor are usually accused.
380. betty - 7/22/2002 9:16:57 AM
iiibbb,
I wouldn't judge much by cars. first, not everybody who is poor has always been poor, some of them used to be married to husbands who had great jobs, and some of them just got downsized/screwed out of their overspent middleclass lifestyle.
second, people borrow cars to go to the welfare office. Mom's, the neighbors, the boyfriends, their brothers, etc.
third, those same people who lend cars to those on welfare often drive them as well.
You know, poor people do have friends and families and people who love them.
381. betty - 7/22/2002 9:31:20 AM
JamieR,
US Soc Sec is, as Cal said, little more than welfare. It is set up exactly like a ponzi scheme, you take the money from the very first "investors" and then get another set of "investors" to pay off the first set, a third set of "investors" to pay of the second, etc until eventually you can't find anymore suckers. (Ok, it's a little different than a ponzi scheme because it does gain surplus when there is a proper ratio of workers to payees, but you get the picture.)
The first person to collect SS had paid in for about 4 months and drew for about 20 years. There is no personal account drawing interest somewhere. Imagine the three Stooges trying to stop up a pipe with their fingers, yet new leaks keep springing up. That's what Social Security is. And as the government is not willing to readjust for increased life expectancy and population swells the ponzi scheme will be collapsing rather soon.
Mark it on the calendar, I agree with JJ and Cal, the only way we can fix the problem is to call SS what it is, Welfare. The single most expensive welfare program in the US and the only criteria is age. It's absurd that we are paying SS money (and a lot of it) to people who dont' need it.
382. arkymalarky - 7/22/2002 9:39:48 AM
Third, what limited funds many poor have they will spend on a decent car rather than a decent house, because a car is within their reach--the house is not.
For my own money I feel perfectly happy about my social security aid (such little that it is) going to the working class who've worked long hours and years at jobs that have done a lot to serve me and make my life better.
On retirement, my dad's university retirement was considered among the best available and a major draw for PhDs to that small university. He's lost over $150,000 of it in the last year or so. He still ok and they can move their money and he's already moved a lot out of the stock market, but needless to say, they're becoming very concerned. AR teacher retirement was also heavily invested in the stock market, and it's still doing well, but is much less secure. Florida's is in real trouble partly because of its heavy investment in Enron. Enron tried to get ATR to invest some millions (don't remember exactly) more than what it had in the company not long before it tanked, and they wisely said no.
This situation will affect and already has affected a lot of retirees who don't have 401Ks
383. alistairConnor - 7/22/2002 9:49:16 AM
I disagree with means-tested social security.
Partly for pragmatic, accounting reasons : you're creating needless compliance costs, and a cheating industry.
Partly for social reasons : people who "need handouts" will always be stigmatized by the people who consider themselves "winners" and thus despise "losers", and be resented because they are costing them money.
But mostly for moral reasons : in my world view, social security is a fundamental right, and does not need to be deserved, any more than maternal love, or filial piety, needs to be deserved.
384. arkymalarky - 7/22/2002 10:01:14 AM
BTW, my dad is 71, to give some perspective on when he began drawing his retirement.
385. Raskolnikov - 7/22/2002 10:48:05 AM
Loar:"Is there any predictable consequence to denying the benefits of social security and medicate to wealthy and upper middle class people?"
1) Political backlash
2) The program would now explicitly be a welfare program, with much less political support.
386. Raskolnikov - 7/22/2002 10:52:22 AM
Whether social security is a welfare program depends on your definition of welfare. The way most people use the term in the US, it is government aid to help the poor. Under that definition, SS doesn't qualify as welfare.
It also isn't quite a ponzi scheme, in that you don't have to keep on finding bigger fools to continue making money. Instead, people just have to keep on having kids.
387. CalGal - 7/22/2002 10:58:24 AM
Rask--I did say that, you know. But you were more overt. (g)
Hi, Loar!
Betty--actually, SocSec is not welfare now, and I explicitly said that it wasn't.
I really do wonder, though, if someone offered a political program that
a) cut the Social Security tax for people 40 and under.
b) began means testing in 2020, or around there, converting it to a insurance program.
c) Did a cutover period, doing away with things like spouse benefits, decreasing COLAs for people who retire after 2005 until 2020 if they make a particular income.
The program calculations would be a bitch. But I'm not sure that there wouldn't be support.
388. Raskolnikov - 7/22/2002 11:13:54 AM
Cal: First you would have to do the math showing what would be cut when, and how much, and what would replace it.
But my first question is: what is your public policy goal? What are you trying to accomplish with your program?
Social security/pension/retirement programs can accomplish a few different public policy goals:
1) poverty alleviation for the elderly.
2) guaranteed financial security for elderly (related to #1, but aimed more at helping people do long-term planning, whereas #1 is a short term goal of reducing misery for those would otherwise be in poverty).
3) increase the savings rate.
In the US, you also have one key political goal of any reform:
4) Meet financial obligations of current system for those who have been counting on social security. In other words, you don't want to renege on a perceived contract.
389. betty - 7/22/2002 11:26:28 AM
i said it was "little more than" a welfare program...meaning that it isn't exactly a welfare program but really it is, especially when you consider the percentage of elderly living in poverty, and the way it is extracted through taxes and given to people for no services rendered. when corporations get money for doing nothing other than existing, it's called corporate welfare, though it doesn't specifically go to the poor corporations. There is precident for referring to free government money--no matter who it goes to--as "Welfare".
aC, I completely agree with your moral position on this. everyone has a right, no matter how lazy or manipulative or whatever, to have their needs met, but we do have a pragmatic issue here in the states where we will very shortly not be able to fund the SS system as it is in place. If we can raise the age of eligibility to address the problem I'm OK with that. But if we don't do something very soon, working people will be paying no less than 1/3 of their paycheck to SS alone.
and Rask, I'd call excessive and irresponsible reproduction foolish and dangerous. Hence any system that relies on such foolish actions for it's funding is in trouble and will be revealed for the ponzi scheme it is.
390. betty - 7/22/2002 11:42:18 AM
aC,
lots of alternative economics people talk about giving every citizen X amount of dollars each year, tax free with a progressive tax rate for income above the X dollars...wondering if this wouldn't be a better way to accomplish the moral issue in a universal/non-stigmatized way?
391. Jamie r - 7/22/2002 12:51:49 PM
betty, I was confused about what you meant by "current production." I was thinking of this as a deficit spending issue.
>>everyone has a right, no matter how lazy or manipulative or whatever, to have their needs met
This is incomprehensible to me, so I'll just say I disagree strongly.
392. Jamie r - 7/22/2002 12:55:39 PM
When I was going to school and really really dirt poor my second largest expense after housing was social security. And they were nearly equivalent expenses.
If the real justification is a welfare argument (we can't have old people dying in the streets) than I say just run the damn thing as a welfare program for those who need it. The idea that everyone should be ensnared in it to protect the feelings of the beneficiaries is a complete non-starter for me.
393. Raskolnikov - 7/22/2002 1:12:33 PM
"and Rask, I'd call excessive and irresponsible reproduction foolish and dangerous. Hence any system that relies on such foolish actions for it's funding is in trouble and will be revealed for the ponzi scheme it is."
You misunderstand. The system just depends on replacement level reproduction. In fact, the SS best guesses for future population growth actually project reproduction below the replacement rate.
394. Raskolnikov - 7/22/2002 1:21:01 PM
"The idea that everyone should be ensnared in it to protect the feelings of the beneficiaries is a complete non-starter for me."
It is a political reality. The elderly vote in much more disproportionate numbers than the young. If they see you as attempting to screw over what they see as an entitlement, the repercussions will be severe.
I have long maintained that the only way you can reform Social Security is to fund two systems simultaneously -guaranteeing everyone above 40 or so the benefits of the current system, while creating a new system from scratch that exists separately.
For instance, keep payroll taxes at current levels, and institute a mandatory 5% savings on all income, taken out of your paycheck and managed similar to your typical 401K. Put a modest tax on the proceeds to make sure poor people have enough money to retire above the poverty line.
As the obligations of the current system diminish over time, payroll taxes are slowly eliminated.
The only people screwed here are the young, but they don't vote, and they expect to be screwed anyway.
395. CalGal - 7/22/2002 1:55:51 PM
First you would have to do the math showing what would be cut when, and how much, and what would replace it.
What would replace it--nothing. The tradeoff would be the fact that you had much lower payroll taxes.
What are you trying to accomplish with your program?
Stop a program that was created when there were more workers than retirees, and convert it to an insurance retirement program.
Your plan as described is much the same thing I'm talking about, though, so I don't see much disagreement.
396. Jamie r - 7/22/2002 1:58:19 PM
Raskolnikov, I was responding to ac's post about stigma. I agree that no one who has paid in is going to gracefully accept that they were suckered, and that some kind of phase out would be required politically.
397. concerned - 7/22/2002 3:34:39 PM
Re. 347 -
Unfortunately for you, Sak, even America's poorest are doing better than ever before. That must really rub you wrong.
398. concerned - 7/22/2002 3:49:15 PM
Let's compare & contrast native American tribalism vs the dastardly Western influence.
Case#1: Running down game on foot vs. driving to work.
Case#2:Living maybe 26 years and dying like an animal vs. 80 with the highest average standard of living in history.
399. ScottLoar - 7/23/2002 12:48:25 AM
Raskolnikov's 385: Gee, and I thought I had answered the very question I had posed, which answers encompassed what you wrote. So, you didn't read the full text or just lost the jist of what I said? Or, I was too abstract?
400. ScottLoar - 7/23/2002 12:55:26 AM
I rush to correct "gist".
401. RickNelson - 7/23/2002 6:49:28 AM
Back to the ideology of the poor.
So ivan you know this life?
Rask, your rebuttals don't touch enough of the reality of the poor. You've done well with appearing to know but I think you don't know anyone who is really poor.
betty, I don't really care about the living wage deal. It's a crock to my way of thinking. It's never going to be implemented properly and it'll never pass. It's a waste of time and effort imho.
Being poor is easy, you don't have anything so there's nothing to buy and nothing to look forward to. No need to think to much. Get a few beers in yah and it's all better. Been there done that. Not anymore, but I've been there. As ivan implied he has stated that he and his parents are from the poor side of town. At least he had both parents. Try being a child of a single mom, renting, moving every year or more, changing schools every year (except for a short 4+yr stretch once '69-'73). We had very little.
Renting we didn't learn anything that home raised kids knew. How to mow a lawn, run through a sprinkler, rack leaves, ride your bike up and down your street, get to know neighborhood kids. Until we were adults most of our contact with others was from the outside looking in, this was also into much of early adulthood. So, what's it like, who cares! This isn't a poor me story it's just some facts.
402. RickNelson - 7/23/2002 6:58:48 AM
Does it matter? Yes it does, it means that a poor person doesn't know the system the way a middle class person does. Some of us don't know-have extended friendships until adulthood. We work menial jobs. We find ourselves trying to trust others and getting burned because who will tell us it's not a good idea. Sure there is bitterness and resentment with the poor, it's hard! But, with some of us, we don't know what were missing because we've never been exposed. Then one day, POW we start getting trickle-down stuff. Old piece of shit cars that let us drive around. Gee, then guess what, we see how real people live, no more asphalt lots and row after row of apartments. Hmmm.. wow cool man. Now I've gotten dramatic, but it's not far off inner city living for kids. These kids don't know nothin' I didn't know nothin'! So?!
Until I paid my way and got student loans up the ass, I couldn't even expect a future outside of some kind of sales, labor or service. Then with that B.S. degree under my belt I found out that a recession means you can't pick your job. Then within five years, getting a sales manager position and working 60hrs a week, the corp. goes bankrupt because the CEO and Pres. take huge chunks of money and fuck the company (Color Tile), chap.11 1995. Then comes rebuild time and still having a huge load of bills from that great dream of a state university degree. it's all bs.
Finially landing another great sales manager job, it ends when the millionaire owner uses nepotism to replace the owner who hired me and replace us both. I go first, he is gone a little while later. I'll survive, that's not the deal, it's just wear the hell is someone supposed to go to get a break. A real chance, somewhere that hard, bust your ass work is appreciated and rewarded with enough money that some of it can be saved? That is after the studen loan payment.
OK, I admit resentment is throughout this post. Sorry, but deal with it, will yah.
403. ivan osokin - 7/23/2002 7:09:55 AM
Rick...i admire your cynicism and concur with a lot of what you said.
but...
As ivan implied he has stated that he and his parents are from the poor side of town. At least he had both parents. Try being a child of a single mom, renting, moving every year or more
most of my time was with a single mom...my father, the drunk, violent, barely literate abuser was out of the house when i was 13. i never had both parents, even when he lived with us. and we moved a bit too...from a rat infested tenement to the housing projects across the street...a big step up because we now had a shower!
(don't we sound like old people bitching about how poor we were? it's like that monty python skit with the rich guys sitting around talking about how badly they had it...though i'm not rich and you probably aren't either!)
404. concerned - 7/23/2002 11:23:20 AM
Re. 383 -
AC -
I take it that you object to wealthy retirees not receiving SS benefits? I'd rather that happen than SS taxes go up to cover payouts to those who don't need them, considering the expected shortfall in revenues here.
405. wonkers2 - 7/23/2002 12:00:42 PM
Social Security is a fine system. All it needs is a bit of money, an increase in the retirement age to match the improvement in most people's health and longevity, and a little tweak in the cost of living adjustment formula. The folly of "privatizing" it and feeding the little guys to the insurance companies and stock brokers should be apparent to all by now.
406. concerned - 7/23/2002 12:08:27 PM
Well, I still stand behind the privatization plan that I suggested quite a while back, where the government guarantees a mininum payout with an increase slightly lower than the increase in the reference cost of living adjustment for those whose private SS investments aren't doing well.
407. concerned - 7/23/2002 12:15:35 PM
Other compensation strategies in case of poor private investment performance could also have the desired effect of protecting against gross investment failure while still effectively privatizing at least part of SS.
408. wonkers2 - 7/23/2002 12:17:01 PM
Wouldn't that provide an incentive for the riskiest private investments. That is, why not roll the dice for a big payoff on long shots if Uncle Sam will make it up if they are losers? [I don't remember the specifics of your proposal. But why not just let people do all the private investing they want IN ADDITION to Social Security. SS doesn't exactly provide for a cushy retirement. I just heard a financial advisor say that people who don't have a defined benefit pension plan should be putting 10-20 percent into their 401ks if they expect to have a decent retirement. That makes sense to me. I have both and am not exactly living like a king, especially since the meltdown.]
409. concerned - 7/23/2002 12:39:30 PM
Wouldn't that provide an incentive for the riskiest private investments. That is, why not roll the dice for a big payoff on long shots if Uncle Sam will make it up if they are losers?
Well, I think there should be enough of a downside to minimize that potential. Plus, perhaps some investment guidelines & restrictions should be imposed by the government such as nothing riskier than individual stocks and bonds or even mutual or money market funds. Say, for instance, that if an individual were allowed to privately invest no more than half of his SS 'contribution', and even if he incredibly manages to lose every dollar of that by the time he is eligible for retirement, the government could make good on, say, half of the the differential in benefits that it would otherwise have paid this unlucky private investor as compared to somebody who paid everything in SS taxes. I imagine that should be enough incentive for people to take such retirement investments seriously, and nobody would then receive less than 3/4 of what somebody who paid the whole amount as SS taxes would.
But why not just let people do all the private investing they want IN ADDITION to Social Security.
I take it that you mean that these would be untaxed if redeemed at retirement age. I agree that IRA investment limits should be greatly increased, say, to $10K/year and indexed to inflation, also.
410. concerned - 7/23/2002 12:49:26 PM
I have to admit that when I previously proposed this concept, I didn't think or spell it out to this extent. Basically, I suggested that the government simply provide a base level of protection for private SS investments so that retirees wouldn't suffer too much if the market went bust.
411. betty - 7/23/2002 1:12:33 PM
Rick,
I agree that living wage will never be a reality, especially not in this country. and really, really, I wouldn't want to see it because every time you develop a social welfare program you protect capitalism from collapsing.
But your post was so beautifully honest...even if you do all the right things, even if you get that college degree and you work hard, if you are poor, if you were poor, you get fucked because you are alone. It's one of the reasons that we have lower college enrollment, because going to college means in a very real way being thrust into a world of lonliness. You are alienated from the world you were in and alienated from the one you are in.
My mom was a single teen mom for many years then married an alcoholic...don't feel too bad 'bout not having a daddy, it could have been much worse.
412. wonkers2 - 7/23/2002 1:17:43 PM
Well, it's simpler to just have a basic level of Social Security, as is, and incentives for additional savings and investment in anything the individual wants. With Social Security we are just providing enough to keep from tripping over beggars on the sidewalks. Trying to convert this perfectly good and workable basic Chevrolet social safety net program into a BMW program with a bunch of bells and whistles promising more than it could possibly deliver (other than to the insurance companies, investment bankers and other snake oil salesmen) would be a mistake IMO.
413. Raskolnikov - 7/23/2002 2:10:15 PM
"Rask, your rebuttals don't touch enough of the reality of the poor. You've done well with appearing to know but I think you don't know anyone who is really poor. "
I don't recall saying anything about the "reality of the poor", or even saying anything where that "reality" would be relevant.
414. RickNelson - 7/23/2002 6:10:39 PM
Rask I have reread 300 to 306 and still think you work around the pretence of understanding the poor.
Yeah Wellstone!!
I've forgotten you're in this state.
Here is welfare state #1. Is it enemy #1? Interestingly, welfare is pretty dynamic here in Minnesota. If I'ld time we could look into it, but I've almost no time while I work on this house. That is why I've reverted to personal experience. My post this morning was my qualifier. I know the poor, having been one.
Your note of the '91 job market is my direct experience as well. Therefore you verify the validity of what I've said.
To acknowledge that you know what it's like to be a poor college student is good. However, if you were raised knowing what is expected of you, that you had a home, or something tangible which made you understand families, then you have had advantages. Which kind is debateable. We all know hardship, that's not my point. My point is that not knowing certain things, which are taken for granted by those who know and knew them, leaves the person without certain types of knowledge at a disadvantage. It's just that simple.
It's not rocket science to understand the poor. We just didn't know some things. A lot of us are not ignorant as stated much earlier, we just didn't know. Often, we didn't know that we didn't know. Get it?
415. RickNelson - 7/23/2002 6:27:56 PM
For example, because I think that question is on a mind of two, consider banking.
I didn't see the inside of a bank a possibly hadn't noticed much of their outsides, until I was 16. Does that make sense, when considering that I lived in second tier suburbs a lot of the time? I hadn't seen what a savings account was or would do.
How about cars? Until I was 16 and trying to learn to drive, I was barely aware of who owned them. Then in High School, whew, what the hell is this? All these kids have cars, what the hell?! I didn't think kids would get cars so young. I was in a rural area for ninth grade and part of tenth. So it wasn't until later that I discovered that so many kids had cars.
Now, isn't it taken for granted? What of those who don't? Do you wonder why? Of course not, their just kids, who cares, right? Except what is the great equalizer in this society? A car, right?! So, what's the kid who doesn't know anyone and hasn't a car going to learn about anything? Nadda, zip, nothing much.
Do you wonder at those kids and adults who smash store fronts during riots or blackouts? Why? They've not had much of a chance for something so that's their chance, see 'em go at it? Hell yah, smash and grab baby! I've never done such a thing, nor would I now. But, when I was young, hell yeah I would have. Good thing we never had a riot or blackout.
416. RickNelson - 7/23/2002 6:34:09 PM
ivan,
I was lucky in one thing. My dad took off for another woman when I was 5. My 6yr old sister and 4 yr old brother and I didn't know what the hell was up. His drunken messen up and hitting left with him.
I've since had some time to reconcile with him. It's Ok, but some of this flashes back once and a while.
No, I'm not rich. But I think I'm middle class now.
417. RickNelson - 7/23/2002 6:38:49 PM
So, this damn SS. Will it be there when I need it 27 yrs from now? If not, will I have finally had a chance to save or invest? I don't think it will be there. So, what does that mean? Full circle back to the poor?
cynical, cynical....
418. concerned - 7/24/2002 12:20:15 AM
Re. 412 -
But consider that many people, and a majority of younger wage earners, believe that they will never see their SS investment returned to them by the government. If they are allowed to privately invest at least a significant portion of it in a plan such as I proposed, then it's hard to imagine a more straightforward way to obviate this concern and massive distrust of possible governmental misuse of their retirement investments.
419. concerned - 7/24/2002 1:00:17 AM
We should also do away with married benefits, of course.
Never. Away with this idiotic, insensate agenda to trash marriage which is a greater social good than its detractors will ever admit.
420. LEFT - 7/24/2002 1:52:00 AM
A wealth tax combined with a reduced payroll tax would be the best way to fund a social security program. The preservation of the payroll tax is necessary for the "universality" of the programs, which is the key to its political health. Theda Skocpol has written on this concept fairly extensively.
A wealth tax, which has been recently discussed in Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott's The Stakeholder Society, is intriguing for a couple of reasons. First, it is a new and very progressive source of revenue if done properly. Second, it doesn't run into many of the incentive problems that income taxes have - it actually provides an incentive for the productive investment of assets, rather than mere accumulation. Third, it resolves some of the inequity surrounding the repeal of the estate tax. With a relatively steep wealth tax -say %1.5 of everything over $2 million (retirement assets excluded), the elimination of the estate tax becomes relatively meaningless.
421. LEFT - 7/24/2002 1:56:15 AM
As for the incentive effects of the income tax, I wonder why the "wealth effect" is never really mentioned, only the income effect. The wealth effect runs counter to the income effect, relying on the human impulse to maintain a certain level of material well-being. When the marginal return of labor is reduced, rather than working less, people work more - to maintain their status.
Clearly, it isn't usually as strong as the income effect. It is a cuontervailing force, though, and it at least moves the point of inflection of the laffer curve further to the right.
422. LEFT - 7/24/2002 2:03:28 AM
Concerned,
You plan seems like nothing more than lowering SS benefits and payroll taxes. People can already invest in private retirement accounts if have the resources and desire.
For some people, SS is nothing more than protection against "gross investment failure."
423. concerned - 7/24/2002 2:04:32 AM
Wouldn't a 'wealth tax' result in people moving assets offshore, concealing them in trusts and resorting to other stratagems to reduce the effect of such a tax on them?
424. LEFT - 7/24/2002 2:07:16 AM
An interesting, brief essay on the effect of the minimum wage on employment. The author makes the fairly obvious point that most economic systems are so complex that changing a single factor, even one as fundamental as the wage rate, doesn't often result in a predictable outcome.
425. LEFT - 7/24/2002 2:09:10 AM
Concerned,
Yes, a wealth tax would increase that problem. It would require a fairly sophisticated enforcement mechanism. Perhaps we could just have postal workers, truckers and meter readers estimate the wealth of their clients.
426. concerned - 7/24/2002 2:09:22 AM
Re. 422 -
Not at all. Almost every person who privately invested a portion of his SS retirement savings would benefit in the long run from stock fund or bond appreciation.
As a matter of fact, the salient difference between the plan I proposed and other privatization plans I've seen is that my idea would have the government step in to protect those whose investments have done particularly poorly. I haven't seen that in other privatization plans, but I think this level of potential government subsidization is acceptable given the benefits derived.
427. LEFT - 7/24/2002 2:12:20 AM
Concerned,
I actually do not understand your plan. Would it require people to invest in private accounts? Otherwise, what we have now is a system where people can voluntarily invest in retirement accounts if they so choose. Social Security benefits simply serve as a floor - or a level of protection - for people whose investments have failed.
Would you make benefits unavailable to people who don't open a private account?
428. concerned - 7/24/2002 2:28:16 AM
Would you make benefits unavailable to people who don't open a private account?
No. My thought was that they would be allowed to divert any fraction they wish, up to say, a maximum of 50% of their SS taxes to be invested in reasonably secure stocks and bonds, or perhaps funds. My feeling is that some limitations on the allowable risk of the private investment can be imposed by the government, in a manner somewhat like that of 401K plans.
Then, come retirement, the government would, if necessary, assuming all the private SS investments somehow vanished into thin air, make up half the differential of the payout not privately invested as compared to that of somebody who allowed the entire amount to be taken by the government as taxes for a minimum disbursement of 75% of the full SS benefit.
Of course, when an investment profit has been made in a plan such as this, there may be issues relating to how quickly the retiree should be allowed to cash out his private investment; the worst case would be that he buys a yacht with the entire amount invested and accrued in this plan and then the US government would then pay out 75% of the reference SS allotment each year after that, but such extreme scenarios should be easily avoidable.
429. concerned - 7/24/2002 2:34:42 AM
According to this plan, then, if somebody invested 25% of their SS 'contributions' in approved private accounts and their investments failed entirely, then the government would pay them 87.5% of the reference SS benefits upon retirement. But such total long term investment failures are the extreme worst case, and I expect the incidence of anything approaching such a scenario to be negligible.
430. concerned - 7/24/2002 2:40:28 AM
I think part of the trick is retain enough incentive (yes, there is a potential downside, but it won't kill anybody and will hardly affect anyone) to encourage serious participation in a plan which will have multiple benefits:
1) Most will see significantly greater return on their SS investment than if they submitted them all as taxes.
2) People who participate will have the assurance that at least some of their SS money is there: it's visible, they can track it, and nobody can take it away from them.
431. concerned - 7/24/2002 2:41:35 AM
multiple benfits, including, I should say,...heh
432. concerned - 7/24/2002 2:50:04 AM
Wrt IRAs, 401K's, etc., I've avoided too much damage so far, losing only about 1% in the quarter ending 6/30. But, if I were to check my figures right now, I'm sure it would appear I would have taken a bath. At least as of this moment, I've got 75% of my assets tied up in my house. Real estate, the last remaining bubble....gulp.
433. Ms. No - 7/24/2002 2:52:52 AM
2 Questions:
1 - What if 75% of one's SS benefits is not enough to live on?
2 - The money that comes out of my paycheck every week currently is not being stockpiled to pay my social security. It is paying the SS benefits of my grandmother. If I divert have of what I pay then where does the money come from to pay those currently drawing SS checks?
434. Ms. No - 7/24/2002 2:54:19 AM
half, not have, sorry.
435. concerned - 7/24/2002 3:03:26 AM
Re. 433 -
The first one is hard to give a completely satisfactory answer to, but considering the average investor will benefit significantly, perhaps that rare unlucky person has a giving brother or sister...?
Regarding the second question, the US government would have to assume the additional burden for the time being, which is one reason I think of the whole idea as being a bit of a subsidy, after all. For anybody who has subscribed to the idea of a lockbox, such a concept has already been found acceptable, of course.
436. concerned - 7/24/2002 3:06:43 AM
Actually, regarding the first question, such an eventuality will probably give some evidence of manifesting itself well before retirement, so, in most cases, a person with a failed investment could either pull out of private investments and/or delay retirement, either of which will significantly boost SS benefits.
437. RickNelson - 7/24/2002 9:47:51 AM
concerned,
From the standpoint of being poor, I'm not so sure that early age employment will offer these people benefits as predicted. Perhaps my scenario will explain where my mind goes with your plan.
I'm poor, I'm young, I might or might not have gone to college. I'll use a college scenario, but some of us started later than just out of high-school (I didn't go until I was 23). Ok, set this with the realities of living in the U.S. Paying for rent and bills, a car or bus (which I used for over 2 yrs), and loan expense from college loans. Ok, your out there, your young and trying to show you can do the job, can make your employer money, a can do attitude and efforts to prove it. Well, what is your return? A living wage? Maybe, but not in a recessionary environment, let- me- tell- you-!
So, here comes the bills, the grace period is over, life begins. But, WAIT I'm- not- ready!! God not now, I've not been earning enough yet, what am I gonna do? I work 60 hrs a week, where can I fit in another job and still be with my little family, oh yes I'm married with child. Did I forget to say this? Well, my wife is working, thank god, we could make do without two incomes. So all is Ok, we'll survive.
Two income families, that's the norm. It's perfectly acceptable, and it's not ideal for being a family, is it?! I say that we have missed family in many ways, we worked to much. But, it's Ok, some day things will get better, this is the foundation. Oh, and by the way, we're almost 30 yrs old now. Didn't know that? Well I didn't tell yah, that working through college includes some stretches where money is gone and full-time work is required to get back and finish.
cont.--
438. RickNelson - 7/24/2002 9:48:04 AM
SOooo, I wanna invest. I am gonna follow concerned's plan and take 25% of my eligible SS, under govt' subsidized and supervised investments. I decide to split it up somewhat, some safe mutual funds and some aggressive. Can't make money without a little risks, eh? (eh! is a colloquial norm here) I am happy, my bi-yearly report shows that I'm doing 19% gains on aggressive and 7% on safe. Good 'nuf!!
Well, what the hell is this, my company goes bankrupt! I've no savings, I've been living paycheck-to-paycheck with our two incomes for 5+ yrs. Couldn't save, couldn't make enough, even later as a manager, there was never enough beyond those damn bills and loans. Yes I bought one car during that time. And yes that loan payment, plus insurance, plus maintenance took more of the possible savings than it could have, had I used a bus instead. But, what of living, eh?
Now, I take my investment as a loan or whatever the govt' set up for those who just have to draw early on that investment money. We can't wait for retirement, we have to pay bills now, or face bankruptcy ourselves.
End of scenario. Can ya dig it? Do ya get it?
439. RickNelson - 7/24/2002 9:58:12 AM
we could make do without two incomes
error: ,b>couldn't
440. concerned - 7/24/2002 10:25:57 AM
Are you saying that there's a way that the government gives you you SS benefits before age 55? I've never heard of that before. AFAIK, there's no way they'll fork it over even if you're in the poorhouse.
441. concerned - 7/24/2002 10:28:25 AM
So to speak, of course....
442. concerned - 7/24/2002 10:38:26 AM
Actually, now that I check, the SSA says 62 is the earliest age they'll begin to pay out SS benefits. Their site says:
You can begin to receive Social Security benefits as early as age 62, but at a reduced rate. Your basic benefit will be reduced by a certain percent for each month that you receive benefits before your full retirement age. The closer you are to your full retirement age when you begin receiving benefits, the greater your benefit amount.
So, if you're under 62, having a SS private account investment wouldn't make any difference financially that I know of. If there's something I missed, let me know.
443. Rama - 7/24/2002 10:42:29 AM
End of scenario. Can ya dig it? Do ya get it?
I have seen this scenario many times. And as has been mentioned, the way it works out in the long run is largely dependant upon the class values of the individuals.
Those with traditional bourgeois values save regardless of absolute income level. During tough times they cut out experiential expenditures (fun stuff) first, then sustenance expenditures and finally cut appearance expenditures (which are much more important to bourgeois than to rich or poor). Because they benefit from multi-generational investment in filial ties, they frequently have sustenance options (send the kids to stay with Aunt Lucy, get an cheap car from Cousin Tom) not available to the generational poor.
The generational poor save after expenses are met, and cut expenses in appearance, then sustenance and then experiential budgets ("But, what of living, eh?") during tough times. They draw on savings before cutting sustenance expenses.
So in the long run, those with bourgeois values tend to end up with savings and those who grow up without that sort of "up-tight" value system end up without. During the prosperous post-War era, where many people without bourgeois hang-ups had middle-class incomes, this difference has been masked.
444. concerned - 7/24/2002 10:45:38 AM
To continue my train of thought, a partially privatized SS investment probably could allow some form of loan before retirement age similar to that of 401K's. That flexibility would be advantageous, if anything.
445. RickNelson - 7/24/2002 10:54:18 AM
Concerned,
Advantageous in what respect? Short-term yes, the bills are paid. But, long term wouldn't it continue the (rama's words) "generational poor" such as I was?
446. RickNelson - 7/24/2002 10:57:15 AM
rama,
There are certain dynamics at play, which I leave out to create the scenario in a best case light. Not that it's a best case, sheesh no. I'm trying to set an example of a smallish family, working it's ass off, trying to get to the middle-class and overcoming obstacles, which are partly their own and partly the societal experience which they aspire. Do they not attempt to attain betterment via normal upward channels as university? I think the scenario, taken as intended sets a good example of real life for those in such a struggle.
447. concerned - 7/24/2002 11:00:43 AM
Well, the assumption inherent in allowing any such option is that the individuals affected could use it to better their financial position in the long haul. If they're not reasonably certain that they can manage such a loan long term, why not just not take the loan? They'll still be just as well off as their non private investing neighbors. IAC, the option to take such a loan wasn't in my thoughts about this in the first place, and access to that money if allowed at all should probably be restricted to certain well defined emergencies such as medical expenses, IAC.
448. RickNelson - 7/24/2002 11:07:37 AM
Concerned,
That's reasonable. I'm making a case for the other side of the tracks. A path most will want to avoid. The people are not averse to saving, they just live hand to mouth so to speak. Did they choose this? That's part of my stance, I think not. Therefore, again there is the case which they must choose bankruptcy at age 30, which means they lose what? In my case just a car and one retail (exorbatant rated) retail credit card with about $1,200 on it. Credit is ruined for 8 odd yrs and the rebuilding of credit is difficult. There isn't money to buy credit items and these will have even higher payments of interest. SOooo, where is this scenario? It's just out of the radar of most people. They've not lived a life of the poor, so there isn't anything to draw upon to understand it.
Am I right?
449. RickNelson - 7/24/2002 11:10:46 AM
I know pseud dude doesn't care much about the issues of retirement within the scope I've presented. But, learning this is part of understanding the breadth of human experience. Ignoring it is a snub of sorts. But, to be expected, everyone ignores other peoples business, unless they've reason to be involved, eh?
450. concerned - 7/24/2002 11:14:21 AM
Re. 448 -
I can see that. I just thought of something else, too. If the private SS funds are made too accessible to the beneficiary in any way, then that might be used as grounds in divorce & civil settlements to garnish or otherwise take all or part of such investments. Perhaps it is best to leave such retirement investments pretty much untouchable until retirement age.
451. RickNelson - 7/24/2002 11:15:01 AM
Post 448 did not happen to me by the way.
452. RickNelson - 7/24/2002 11:17:08 AM
I agree with that concerned. Being made unavailable the people, knowing this, would be more likely to work 80 hrs and at any job available. That is Ok. The poor, if they aren't lazy morons will know better than to wallow in selfpity.
453. concerned - 7/24/2002 11:19:01 AM
Well, those funds are pretty inaccessible now. Is there some SS reform that you are in favor of that conflicts with what I suggested?
454. RickNelson - 7/24/2002 11:20:39 AM
Now that is established, the plan is inspiring. However, wrt divorce, this is interesting. Will there be future payments to the ex? Perhaps a law which minimizes the payments on a sliding scale of success. Considering what the person is making at the time and what appears to be future success.
455. betty - 7/24/2002 11:26:10 AM
The generational poor...cut expenses in appearance, then sustenance and then experiential budgets ("But, what of living, eh?") during tough times.
Rama,
having grown up poor, being poor now, coming from a family that has always been poor, and a community where over 40% of the people receive some form of public assistance, I'd really like to see some support for this statement because it runs against pretty much everything I've observed. I can't believe that my experience as a poor person has been so different from that of "the poor". But please, educate me.
456. RickNelson - 7/24/2002 11:29:38 AM
I'll check back later, I've sheetrock to do for now.
457. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 11:34:49 AM
From another thread. Calgal said:
"I was just saying that in America, only a Dem hack would refer to Sickles as right wing or even particularly conservative. He's a Republican party boy, more than anything. Zan is a tad more conservative, actually, upon review. But mainly on social issues."
Well, given their rhetoric on foreign policy issues and the fact that they are Republicans, I simply assumed that they were typical party-line Republicans: avid tax-cutters, free-marketers, unilateralists, etc. I don't know what Sickles's views are on any issue except what he's posted in the various foreign policy threads. And those views are straightforward standard right-wing: unilateralist, hawkish, defensively nationalist, given to taking potshots at Europe, etc. There's nothing "Dem hack" about that assessment. If you tell me Sickles has views on domestic mattrs different from the current mainstream of the Republican Party, I will take your word for it, but I have my doubts. What the hell is a "Republican party boy" these days but a right-winger anyway?
"....it's just odd to see you describe relatively commonplace American views as "right wing"."
I said in the movies thread that Americans don't like ideology in their movies, and that's because Americans shy away from strong ideological divisions in general. That's why terms such as "right-wing" or "left-wing" seem so loaded to you and that's why they are almost always used as pejoratives in American discourse. "Liberals" don't like the label left-wing because they are not socialists. The conservatives deny they are right-wing (and Calgal goes along with it) because many Americans think of David Duke or Oklahoma City when they think of the term "right-wing". Hence, the use of blander terms like "liberal", "conservative", and "moderate".
458. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 11:35:04 AM
But this is just terminological provincialism. Politically sophisticated people should know better than to think it odd to "describe relatively commonplace American views as right-wing". But then we're dealing with Calgal.
459. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 11:38:13 AM
"Then define a non-conservative republican."
Personally, historically or ideologically?
Personally: an example of a non-conservative Republican would be Bob Dole. George Bush Sr. would be another example example. Nixon was yet another.
Historically: non-conservative Republicans dominated the Republican Party before 1980 and continued to be prominent well into the 1980s, but definitely became an endangered minority by the 1994 congressional elections. A traditional non-conservative Republican sought to reform the programmes and institutions of the New Deal but not to abolish them outright. By contrast, a conservative Republican seeks the quasi-revolutionary goal of overturning the New Deal (and Great Society) completely.
Ideologically: a non-conservative Republican holds fiscal rectitude in high esteem but does not hold "supply-side economics", perpetual tax-cutting and the free market as articles of faith. A non-conservative Republican may also be pro-choice, but both conservative & nonconservative Republicans are essentially "hawkish" on crime issues. There are other non-economic considerations, but economics is primary.
"....there is no left-wing moderate right or right-wing moderate left anymore."
Those terms were jokes, a parody of your pathetic hair-splitting tendencies.
460. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 11:40:25 AM
"There used to be, but Jeffords has been an anomaly for quite some time--since Packwood left, anyway. There are hawks on the Dem side (the New Republic sort). But that's foreign policy only."
I've never seen anyone miss such an enormous forest for so many tiny little weeds. But it's not unusual. Some people are so lost in the details of partisan party-politicking and horse-trading that meaningful ideological description & generalisation is not possible for them.
In US politics, there are always hawks on both sides, because there is hardly any genuine Left in American electoral politics. US politics is basically dominated by two parties. The Republican Party represents a right-wing constituency, a coalition of business interests, Christian fundamentalists, and populist libertarians ("get the government off our back" types, who are not exactly adherents of the philosopher Robert Nozick). The Republicans still count among their ranks some residual traditional-centrist elements, known by various popular halting labels as "moderates" or "fiscal conservative but not....". The older terms "Rockefeller republicans" and "liberal Republicans" are really popular anymore.
The Democratic Party represents a centrist constituency, also dominated by business interests, with some residual soft-left elements (in parochial American parlance, "the liberals"). These residual "liberals" are to the right of at least one-third of the leftward political spectrum in Western Europe.
461. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 11:42:50 AM
The hawkish tendencies found at TNR date from a brief period when the so-called Jackson Democrats stood out as exceptions within the Democratic Party. Until the late 1960s or early 1970s, there was a consensus between the two parties on the Cold War and the hardline against communism. However, this consensus broke down with the Vietnam War and the emergence of the New Left. Within the Democratic Party was now a substantial faction of "doves". Whereas the Democratic mainstream had opposed the Republicans primarily on economic & social issues before, now they added strong differences in foreign policy to the mix. Against this trend, the Jackson Democrats were strong exceptions: they maintained their hawkish hardline in foreign policy, i.e., stayed the same even as the Democratic Party moved somewhat to the left. The most prominent opponents of the Nixon-Kissinger policy of détente with the Soviet Union, the Jackson Democrats were responsible, to the great annoyance of Nixon and Kissinger, for conditioning the approval of the SALT I treaty on the so-called Jackson-Vannick Amendment.
This is the historical & ideological context of the present-day TNR hawks. (There is some overlap between Jackson Democrats and the neoconservative movement, a relevant point since TNR was the launching pad for the career of many a neoconservative.)
Nonetheless, WTETCW ("with the end of the Cold War"), the brief post-Vietnam interlude of high disagreement between the Republicans and Democrats over major foreign policy issues came to an end. Now, the difference between the average Republican and the average Democrat in foreign policy issues is just a matter of degree: Republicans are slightly more unilateralist and the Democrats are slightly more multilateralist.
462. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 11:43:39 AM
The three major fault lines of ideology in the US political system are economics, foreign policy and law & order.
Economics: if you're to the right, then you favour lower taxes and lower "government" (less spending and less regulation); if you're more "liberal", then you tolerate somewhat higher taxes, spending and regulation. The difference is quantitative, not genuinely ideological.
Foreign policy: again, quantitative: the difference between the poles of the mainstream political spectrum in the USA is about the degree of unilateralism. Isolationism, at best a dormant political force, is not in the mainstream of the political spectrum at all. In the Republican party, it died in the early 1950s as a serious position.
Law & order: It used to be that the Democrats emphasised civil liberties and "social roots of crime", but now both parties are essentially united on "toughness". There is today little serious ideological division.
Of course there are other fault lines, such as abortion or race relations or gay rights. And yes, there are pro-abortion Democrats and super-unilateralist Democrats and super-multilateralist Republicans and pro-choice Republicans and Republican supply-siders who are also civil libertarians and Republican isolationists and gay Republicans and gay-hating Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats et cetera et cetera ad infinitum. But today, these are anomalies in the broad sweep of things, and only people under the grip of pathological petty exceptionalism, such as Calgal, would bother splitting hairs over them.
463. CalGal - 7/25/2002 12:33:57 PM
PE,
If, as you point out, there is relatively little difference (and none ideological) between the three "fault lines", how are they fault lines?
Nonetheless, I don't disagree with your history lesson. It just doesn't make you any more correct about calling someone a right-wing conservative, just because they are a Republican. I'm not speaking of historical Republicanism, I am saying here and now, not all Republicans are "right wing". I'm sure it's viewed that way in other parts of the world, but here in the US, we make distinctions despite, as you note, the complete lack of ideology.
You didn't seem comfortable with examples of people, but you ran with the magazine example, so I'll stick with that. The National Review represents the views of the right wing--not the far right. The Weekly Standard is more towards the moderate right, more akin with The New Republic on the moderate left. I'm not sure we have a left equivalent of National Review--The Nation is a bit fringe in comparison.
So yes, I realize that the difference between the parties is largely quantitative, and in fact we mentioned that earlier in this thread. But there is still a spectrum, and it is inaccurate to call a Republican a right wing conservative if he supports abortion, doesn't much care one way or another about free trade, and votes occasionally for Democrats.
464. Daniel Sickles - 7/25/2002 12:37:26 PM
pseudo
I simply assumed that they were typical party-line Republicans: avid tax-cutters, free-marketers, unilateralists, etc. I don't know what Sickles's views are on any issue except what he's posted in the various foreign policy threads. And those views are straightforward standard right-wing: unilateralist, hawkish, defensively nationalist, given to taking potshots at Europe, etc.
This is accurate, though my free-market credentials are suspect and their is nothing defensive in my nationalism. But that is splitting hairs.
As for fault lines, your comments are generally accurate.
465. thoughtful - 7/25/2002 12:42:06 PM
PseuE, Did you see Tom Friedman's piece in the NY Times mag a year or so back about his take on the american political spectrum. Rather than a line he used a 4-block chart with one axis globalizer vs. isolationist and the other social safety-netter vs. "let them eat cake-ers". He put clinton in the safety net/globalizer block, gingrich in the eat cake/globalizer block, ross perot in the eat cake/isolationist block and gephardt in the safety net/isolationist block.
466. CalGal - 7/25/2002 12:48:41 PM
And those views are straightforward standard right-wing: unilateralist, hawkish, defensively nationalist, given to taking potshots at Europe, etc
Daniel--but this is largely descriptive of most Americans these days. The point--which you apparently missed--is that both the Dem and Republican parties have divisions in them, though they certainly aren't guided by ideology.
467. CalGal - 7/25/2002 12:55:27 PM
I thought the test that was linked in a while back was a good grid. It split political views based on government control of behavior and economics. So being over the x axis meant strong support of government intervention on behavior (social issues), and being to the left on the y axis meant you supported a great deal of economic intervention. As I recall it, anyway.
That leaves out the international issues to some extent, though, which the globalizer vs. isolationist chart would cover.
468. betty - 7/25/2002 1:00:14 PM
personally, i think you could call 90% of americans right-wingers without ever breaking a sweat.
469. Daniel Sickles - 7/25/2002 1:12:09 PM
Cal
I was confirming the description, not entering the discussion.
470. alistairConnor - 7/25/2002 1:35:12 PM
Ivan, I was going to apologise for calling a plague of americanists down on your thread...
But some of the discussion is interesting.
471. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 1:43:03 PM
Well, I haven't been participating in this thread precisely for the same reason: despite the title, this thread has been a mere extension of the American politics thread, with discussions of concrete policy issues (as opposed to actual ideology) which interest only the Americans.
I didn't mean to contribute to the further Americanisation of this thread, but I was compelled to reply to Calgal's stupid remarks.
I'm generally not interested in the internal politics of most advanced industrial countries, except on a comparative international basis. But Yankistan's politics are so sui generis in so many ways (i.e., major ideological issues present in other countries are absent in the USA, ideological issues absent elsewhere are uniquely present in the USA) that it's hard to get interested in American politics per se.
472. concerned - 7/25/2002 1:44:56 PM
But how does that excuse posts which are not empathic to utopian 'progressive' ideology? You're slipping, AC.
473. concerned - 7/25/2002 1:45:24 PM
My last was wrt 470.
474. Daniel Sickles - 7/25/2002 1:52:25 PM
But Yankistan's politics are so sui generis in so many ways (i.e., major ideological issues present in other countries are absent in the USA, ideological issues absent elsewhere are uniquely present in the USA) that it's hard to get interested in American politics per se.
It is a healthy, but ultimately wearying homogenization. The differences are so nil that the remaining actual points of disagreement are posited as bloody and ridiculous crucibles.
475. ivan osokin - 7/25/2002 1:56:31 PM
Re: Pseudo's post #460...
your analysis was brilliant. there IS no "left" in american politics...at least not among anyone who decides, influences, or otherwise contributes to establishing policies. in fact, there's not much of a "left" on even a smaller-scale of american politics (meaning, the more local representation). the center has effectively pushed the left off the radar screen.
but being off the radar may have some advantages ;)
476. concerned - 7/25/2002 2:04:51 PM
Just wait for the implosion of American society. That'll be your moment, IO.
477. CalGal - 7/25/2002 2:06:22 PM
I was confirming the description, not entering the discussion.
So a right wing conservative is pro-choice and uninterested in free trade issues?
478. Daniel Sickles - 7/25/2002 2:09:07 PM
Argh. PE's description of my foreign policy ideology.
479. concerned - 7/25/2002 2:11:24 PM
Just curious. What are the de jure litmus tests for soi-disant non-US Lefties? Kyoto and Kumbayah?
480. CalGal - 7/25/2002 2:24:48 PM
PE's description of my foreign policy ideology.
PE said: And those views are straightforward standard right-wing: unilateralist, hawkish, defensively nationalist, given to taking potshots at Europe, etc
You are agreeing that hawks who take potshots at Europe are automatically right wing conservatives?
If not, you may want to remember that facts usually require a context. One wonders if you would have confirmed PE's description of your foreign policy views had he said, "Daniel is clearly a Martian--hawkish on defense, potshots at Europe, etc."
481. CalGal - 7/25/2002 2:27:37 PM
Ivan, with the exception of concerned and POJ, there isn't a person at the Mote who hasn't observed the fact that there is no American left. I'm surprised you hadn't noticed before now.
482. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 2:34:50 PM
Message # 479: Ideological description should always be according to individuals' positions on the three big issues on which ideologies are formed: the role of the state in the economy, the balance between domestic security and personal liberty, and how to interact with the outside world.
483. concerned - 7/25/2002 2:38:18 PM
I strongly doubt the veracity of any assertion that there is no US Left among anyone who "decides, influences, or otherwise contributes to establishing policies", let alone the general populace.
Do not several dozen members of the US House also belong to the DSA? Are not energetic, even violent protests involving many tens of thousands of activists against the IMF, WB and WTO to be expected whenever these organizations host meetings in the US? Do not forums such as the Atlantic and the DU regularly feature much bitter invective against US centrist and conservative politicians, policies and ideologies?
484. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 2:38:50 PM
Message # 480: "You are agreeing that hawks who take potshots at Europe are automatically right wing conservatives?"
Nothing I said implies any such thing. Non-right-wingers do make Europhobic comments. But that's just in the nature of American nationalism, just as European nationalism is based, in part, on complaining about American unilateralism. However, all American right-wingers have a nationalism which is tinged with slight Europhobia.
485. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 2:39:01 PM
Message # 463: If, as you point out, there is relatively little difference (and none ideological) between the three "fault lines", how are they fault lines?
[Shakes head] By "fault lines" I mean those issues on which it is possible to have different views based on underlying ideological differences.
The differences that exist between the mainstream poles of the US political spectrum are largely a matter of degree, not ideology, and the degree of difference is not all that great in the scheme of things.
"It just doesn't make you any more correct about calling someone a right-wing conservative, just because they are a Republican. I'm not speaking of historical Republicanism, I am saying here and now, not all Republicans are "right wing". I'm sure it's viewed that way in other parts of the world, but here in the US, we make distinctions despite, as you note, the complete lack of ideology."
Blathering nonsense. It was more appropriate in the past to say "not all Republicans are right-wing", since there was a substantial number of centrists among Republicans. Today, that party is overwhelmingly right-wing; and therefore it is ever safer to simply assume that a Republican is also a right-winger.
486. ivan osokin - 7/25/2002 2:39:53 PM
cal.
:-b
(that's a tongue sticking out at you!)
yes i noticed...i just wish this tragic fact would be seen as just that.
487. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 2:41:25 PM
Message # 463: "So yes, I realize that the difference between the parties is largely quantitative, and in fact we mentioned that earlier in this thread. But there is still a spectrum...."
Did you suffer acute fistula from the birth of your offspring, or something? I never said there was no spectrum.
The American political spectrum has two characteristics: (1) the distance between the mainstream poles is narrow (between right and centre); and (2) the centre of the spectrum itself is located farther right than the norm (for advanced industrial democracies).
"....and it is inaccurate to call a Republican a right wing conservative if he supports abortion, doesn't much care one way or another about free trade, and votes occasionally for Democrats."
You are indeed a fistula case.
The great questions of ideology revolve around things like the role of the state in the economy, the balance between security and liberty, and how to interact with the outside world. Abortion is a minor issue in the scheme of things and cannot be held as a deciding difference.
If an American believes in projecting power unilaterally in the pursuit of the national interest, international opinion be damned, and furtheremore holds beliefs such as "welfare perpetuates poverty [or breaks up families]", "taxes are too high" and "government is too big", then he is a right-winger even if he believes the foetuses can be aborted a day before birth. You can't have a separate descriptive label for every personal idiosyncrasy and exception!
Free trade is an issue dear to intellectuals and some business interests, not a mainstream concern of the right-wing masses. In parochial American terms, the "free market" means low & flat taxes, small federal government, little regulation of business, little to no income redistribution, and that's about it.
488. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 2:41:53 PM
Message # 463: "The National Review represents the views of the right wing--not the far right. The Weekly Standard is more towards the moderate right, more akin with The New Republic on the moderate left. I'm not sure we have a left equivalent of National Review--The Nation is a bit fringe in comparison."
More blathering. Why the hell do you keep bringing up the far right???
The National Review and the Weekly Standard are both solidly right-wing. There used to be much more of a difference between the National Review and other right-wing journals, that difference being primarily in the social origins of their conservatism, not their ideology.
The New Republic might be called "centre-right" in international political parlance. The Nation is left-wing, though certainly not far left.
Message # 465 & Message # 467:
This is just a modification of the standard axis approach to ideological description, based on the supposed dichotomy between political/social and economic ideologies. Thus you supposedly have: (1) economically & sociopolitically liberal (libertarian); (2) economically liberal but sociopolitically interventionist (Reagan, Thatcher, the German Christian Democrats come to mind); (3) economically interventionist but sociopolitically liberal (European social democracy); and (4) economically and sociopolitically interventionist (fascist).
The Economist, I believe, is enamoured of this approach and has depicted an XY graph plotting various individuals & parties. The axis approach generally presupposes a libertarian conception of political divisions, and not necessarily one which accurately depicts political reality.
I prefer the traditional left-right approach.
489. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 2:42:05 PM
Message # 474: "It is a healthy...homogenization.
Well, a narrow political spectrum is healthy in the sense that it is more stable: elections have a smaller chance of generating radical changes. For example, if a country could actually alternate between a market-based economy and a command economy every five or ten years, that would be a serious problem. But I suppose whether a narrow political system is deemed healthy depends on what your ideology is and where the centre of that political spectrum is.
On the other hand, elected governments, whether of the left or the right, have a well established tendency to cater to the median voter, i.e., they almost always gravitate more to the centre of the political spectrum (within that country) than their platform and rhetoric before attaining power would suggest. That's presumably why George Bush has announced support for a Palestinian state under certain conditions even when his own right-wing constituency believes even talking about it is rewarding terrorism.
490. concerned - 7/25/2002 2:43:59 PM
Re. 481 -
Newsflash for CalGal:
Not having a personal acquaintance who meets the description is not a sufficient basis for asserting that there is 'no' US Left.
491. ivan osokin - 7/25/2002 2:47:49 PM
concerned:
you are providing no evidence that the Left influences anything other than creating increased police thuggery at protests and uninfluential diatribes in a hostile media environment.
492. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 2:48:12 PM
Message # 483
"I strongly doubt the veracity of any assertion that there is no US Left among anyone who "decides, influences, or otherwise contributes to establishing policies", let alone the general populace. Do not several dozen members of the US House also belong to the DSA? Are not energetic, even violent protests involving many tens of thousands of activists against the IMF, WB and WTO to be expected whenever these organizations host meetings in the US? Do not forums such as the Atlantic and the DU regularly feature much bitter invective against US centrist and conservative politicians, policies and ideologies?"
How can you say the anarchist-pinko scum who protest at the IMF, WB and WTO meetings are anything but a fringe movement in the USA? They are just loud. They have no electoral clout at all. And how can you think participants at online discussion in anyway indicative of whether there are many influential people are who leftists?
Your only salient point is the DSA. How many members of Congress are self-declared socialists?
493. concerned - 7/25/2002 2:48:14 PM
I suspect what people who claim that there is 'no' US Left really mean is nothing more than that unfettered Leftist policies are not well received by the majority of voters.
494. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 2:48:40 PM
And are those really socialists? What policies do they advocate?
495. CalGal - 7/25/2002 2:54:30 PM
PE,
Actually, Spawn has fistulas.
As for the rest of your post, you just confirmed that you are using a global standard. Since I've said specifically I am talking about American political identities, your blathering is irrelevant to my rather mild point, which is that by American political standards of today, someone with Daniel's views is not a right wing conservative.
496. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 2:56:23 PM
Message # 493: "I suspect what people who claim that there is 'no' US Left really mean is nothing more than that unfettered Leftist policies are not well received by the majority of voters."
That may be an illusion of the way the US electoral system is structured.
The USA has got a first-past-the-post electoral system -- something which always favours two dominant parties. If the USA had a system of proportional representation, as all of Europe except the UK does, there would surely be many more political parties represented in the US political system.
I wager, if the USA had proportional representation, small parties, including the Greens, the Reform party, various socialists and various far-right groups would probably capture at least 15% of the seats in the popular assembly.
497. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 2:58:51 PM
I was referring to the anal-vaginal fistula occuring in women as a result of giving birth.
Even in the parochial American standard, a pro-choice Republican could be called a right-winger as long as certain conditions were met.
498. betty - 7/25/2002 3:12:20 PM
the anarchist-pinko scum who protest at the IMF, WB and WTO meetings
Just when I thought "my PE seems to make sense". I'm so glad I was slapped back to reality.
499. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 3:16:07 PM
"...I strongly doubt the veracity..."
I now know how to describe the flavour of many of Concerned's postings.
The overwhelming majority of cases where the word "veracity" is used remind me of the prole tendency to prefer big words to simple description, as in "the suspect was apprendend upon his entry into the premises with a firearm", as opposed to "we caught the crook when he went inside with a gun".
500. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 3:18:58 PM
Don't make any mistake about it, Betoskin: The fact that I find most American right-wingers too right-wing for my taste, does not reduce the vehemence of my opposition to your pinko causes. As I said, Betoskin, you both are best located inside concrete walls.
501. sakonige - 7/25/2002 3:20:43 PM
(ew, thanks pe. I didn't even know such a disease existed. Interesting thing to discover over lunch.)
502. betty - 7/25/2002 3:32:09 PM
PE,
stop talking dirty to me.
503. CalGal - 7/25/2002 3:45:37 PM
Even in the parochial American standard, a pro-choice Republican could be called a right-winger as long as certain conditions were met.
I completely disagree. The most likely pro-choice Republican who meets your other criteria is probably a faux libertarian.
But do list the criteria to be met.
504. transient1a - 7/25/2002 4:07:24 PM
pseudoerasmus,
Message # 497
I was referring to the anal-vaginal fistula occuring in women as a result of giving birth.
Oh.
Probably worth emphasizing that this is entirely different from your persistant anal fistula.
505. sakonige - 7/25/2002 4:49:33 PM
which, of course, is something else you don't want to look up on the internet.
506. arkymalarky - 7/25/2002 6:00:06 PM
...the balance between domestic security and personal liberty....
This is the one that will begin in the current political climate--and in fact already has begun--to most visibly and significantly separate Americans along real ideological lines as opposed to the picking at individual issues like abortion and drug laws to try to label people with a Big L or Big C that has been the tendency in recent years.
507. ivan osokin - 7/25/2002 6:05:18 PM
so true, arky.
unfortunately, this issue will further impact the remaining Left as they will be the second ones targeted (the first ones, muslims, are still not through being targeted)...thereby further homogenizing the american socio-political climate which will, in effect, eliminate any possible defiance or alternative viewpoint.
508. arkymalarky - 7/25/2002 6:11:16 PM
I don't know. Moderate liberals and Libertarians and even some Republicans are beginning to make real noises about this issue. It's an easy one to overplay in the current climate, imo, misjudging the balance of America's fears with its value of civil liberties, and I think Ridge and Ashcroft have been doing so already, and congress is beginning to balk on some inititiatives they're pushing.
509. alistairConnor - 7/25/2002 6:13:52 PM
510. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 6:30:18 PM (1) Governments formed in countries with wider political spectrums do not behave all that differently from governments formed in countries with narrower political spectrums. As I said in Message # 489, elected governments and dominant political parties always end up catering to the median voter. Therefore, it's not the width of the political system that really matters; what matters is where the centre is located in that spectrum. In the USA, the centre is located farther to the right than in Western Europe. That is the most salient point. 511. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 6:32:39 PM social dems and christian dems in germany, that is. 512. alistairConnor - 7/25/2002 6:35:16 PM True enough. But I would argue that the breadth of the European political spectrum makes it more permeable to new ideas. For example, virtually all parties in Europe have greened their doctrines over the past decade, in response to the emergence of an electorally influential ecological movement. This hasn't happened in the US, at least not at a national level. 513. alistairConnor - 7/25/2002 6:37:44 PM Another example : the electoral weight of the various European xenophobic extreme right and populist parties is leading to radical changes in immigration legislation and practice. 514. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 6:51:31 PM I don't think that's due to the breadth of the spectrum. It's more to do with proportional representation. Under PR, groups with minority views have a better chance of getting elected to a legislature and win an opportunity to present their views to the mainstream. 515. concerned - 7/25/2002 7:03:23 PM Re. 493, 6 - 516. pseudoerasmus - 7/25/2002 7:16:03 PM "I wonder if it makes sense if the US Two party system could be thought of as tracking a political centroid which wanders somewhat through the political spectrum," 517. concerned - 7/25/2002 7:18:11 PM Could it be that some of this damping effect results when there are fewer than a nominal number of parties in a political system such that essentially all of the political parties are forced to take a broad political range of the electorate into account when formulating and selling their policies? This may also increase the incentive for such parties to develop initiatives which cause them to stand out and/or gain approval from the electorate. Just thinking here. 518. Cellar Door - 7/25/2002 7:21:06 PM They mumble a few vague pseudo-promises to the electorate and then do the bidding of their corporate masters -- the only ones they truly represent. 519. alistairConnor - 7/25/2002 7:29:08 PM I don't think that's due to the breadth of the spectrum. It's more to do with proportional representation. 520. wonkers2 - 7/25/2002 7:29:29 PM Me too, and plenty have. It would be like the Easter Parade. 521. DocBrown - 7/25/2002 10:36:34 PM All democratic political systems drift to the centre of that spectrum (within the country). 522. pseudoerasmus - 7/26/2002 2:21:06 AM Message # 519: 523. RickNelson - 7/26/2002 8:15:33 AM dang pundit systems. you guys and your diversity. 524. RickNelson - 7/26/2002 8:37:49 AM If Rask were around, maybe he would give his views of the Coleman run for Sen. Wellstones seat. I think Coleman is a coat-tail politician. An arrogant outsider (he's not originally from Minnesota) who cares only about where Coleman is going. He will want the presidency if his aspirations work. He's like Nixon. 525. Rama - 7/26/2002 8:45:40 AM having grown up poor, being poor now, coming from a family that has always been poor, and a community where over 40% of the people receive some form of public assistance, I'd really like to see some support for this statement because it runs against pretty much everything I've observed. I can't believe that my experience as a poor person has been so different from that of "the poor". But please, educate me. 526. RickNelson - 7/26/2002 8:52:47 AM Rama, 527. Rama - 7/26/2002 9:02:03 AM Just a question, not a judgement. 528. RickNelson - 7/26/2002 9:05:15 AM Aha, yes very important. Thank you for the incite. 529. Raskolnikov - 7/26/2002 11:06:33 AM Rick: On Coleman v. Wellstone. 530. RickNelson - 7/27/2002 8:07:12 AM Rask, 531. LEFT - 7/29/2002 1:45:28 PM Rick and Rask - 532. jexster - 8/2/2002 10:52:06 AM Since I have taken the name of this thread in vain in another place, I post a copy here. 533. ivan osokin - 8/2/2002 11:16:42 AM jexster: 534. jexster - 8/2/2002 11:23:06 AM I feel your pain Ivan...wishing for dual EU/US citizenship 535. jexster - 8/6/2002 5:00:18 PM Ivan... 536. Indiana Jones - 8/7/2002 9:21:34 AM Since the link above doesn't work, I've no idea who the "I" is in piece (or for that matter, why all the detail about giving a talk 12 years ago at the Distinguished Speakers for the Vermont Bicentennial is relevant; were I to introduce one of my posts with "in an address I gave at the Yoknapatawpha County Rotary Club back in 19xx," I'm not sure how much added weight such an introduction would give the remarks that followed). 537. Indiana Jones - 8/7/2002 10:05:06 AM Question: What is the relationship, if any, between the "level of ideology" in a political system versus the "level of democracy"? 538. Raskolnikov - 8/7/2002 11:07:02 AM LEFT: "What Congressional Districts are yout two in? I am in the Seventh CD, Congressman Collin Peterson." 539. Raskolnikov - 8/7/2002 11:11:25 AM "What is the relationship, if any, between the "level of ideology" in a political system versus the "level of democracy"? " 540. ivan osokin - 8/7/2002 11:21:32 AM rask: 541. jexster - 8/7/2002 11:28:36 AM Allies Cool to Striking Baghdad 542. jexster - 8/7/2002 11:30:46 AM My apologies Indy. 543. jexster - 8/7/2002 11:33:01 AM Now for the correct link... 544. Indiana Jones - 8/7/2002 4:41:26 PM In that talk, I discussed God's blessings to America: in the present, prosperity; in the past, liberty; in the future, equality. Somehow God had not distributed these blessings to everyone everywhere. 545. Indiana Jones - 8/7/2002 4:56:17 PM Rask: My dictionary doesn't show democraticism, but I did get 46 hits on it on Google. From Orwell, I'm not too find of "-ism" as a suffix, though I do get your meaning. 546. Raskolnikov - 8/7/2002 5:29:26 PM Indy: my point is just that democratic ideology helps to enforce democracy. The US is an example, where the US Constitution has been called "a civic religion". Why do Americans like democracy? To the vast majority, I would bet the reason would be ideological rather than pragmatic. 547. alistairConnor - 8/7/2002 6:31:04 PM Why do Americans like democracy? 548. jexster - 8/7/2002 7:17:46 PM Indy...garden variety luddite nativist.... 549. ivan osokin - 8/7/2002 9:17:33 PM Paradox : Less than half of adult Americans like democracy enough to vote, or even register. 550. Raskolnikov - 8/7/2002 11:19:05 PM "Paradox : Less than half of adult Americans like democracy enough to vote, or even register." 551. Raskolnikov - 8/7/2002 11:28:17 PM "democracy seems to crumble as a model for larger populations. anyone know of any feasibility studies for democracy at local, state, or national levels?" 552. concerned - 8/8/2002 12:39:09 AM but i don't mind being associated with euros...none of their governments has, as of yet, caused extremists to fly large airplanes into their tallest buildings. 553. concerned - 8/8/2002 12:41:10 AM Wellstone, well he's a little bit liberal for me, but he's smart and cares about people. He's matured on the job, ripened so to speak. 554. concerned - 8/8/2002 12:44:30 AM re. 547 - 555. concerned - 8/8/2002 1:33:23 AM re. 507 - 556. concerned - 8/8/2002 1:45:27 AM I don't see anything in the US Constitution that guarantees to 'progressives' the right of having the 'great unwashed' tremble while making idological obeisances to Marx and Rousseau simply because the extreme left farts. 557. concerned - 8/8/2002 1:47:06 AM ...typo in my last.... 558. concerned - 8/8/2002 3:25:20 AM Lefties take note! According to the Wikipedia, the only successful Communist state with significant popular support in history was arguably militaristic Sparta. 559. jexster - 8/10/2002 9:47:27 PM Rask...Wellstone on his worst day is better than Don Nichols (fill in the blank) is on his worst... 560. jexster - 8/10/2002 10:24:05 PM Message # 551 561. Indiana Jones - 8/11/2002 10:50:31 AM My point is just that democratic ideology helps to enforce democracy. 562. Indiana Jones - 8/11/2002 10:55:00 AM John Rawls and the Liberal Faith 563. jexster - 8/11/2002 12:08:43 PM Thanks Indy, you ole Puritan Prot you....Rawls is very popular at SFSU at least 564. jexster - 8/12/2002 1:10:53 PM "War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense .. . the nation in war-time attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war...The State is intimately connected with war, for it is the organization of the collective community when it acts in a political manner, and to act in a political manner towards a rival group has meant, throughout all history - war." 565. jexster - 8/12/2002 1:16:35 PM 566. jexster - 8/15/2002 12:01:16 PM Limits to Increased Political Participation,/b> 567. jexster - 8/15/2002 12:03:08 PM I was canvassing a couple of elections back when I ran into two women very diligently trying to read not only official and paid pro-con arguments but plow through the actual text of a proposed statute. 568. PelleNilsson - 8/16/2002 3:24:57 PM ivan 569. ivan osokin - 8/16/2002 3:42:22 PM pelle... 570. concerned - 8/16/2002 4:34:53 PM Amin is an unorthodox non-communist marxist. It was he who coined the metaphor of the "center" (the West) and the "periphery" (the Third World) and how, in his view, the center keeps up a facade of benevolence while, in fact, exploiting the periphery. 571. concerned - 8/16/2002 4:35:08 PM However, Amin's interpretation implicitly denigrates the industry and desire to improve the standard of living among the citizens of the 'peripheral' nations that he refers to. He thinks of them as having hit the brakes as far as cultural and economic development (which, if he gave it a moment's thought, he would also blame on the "center's" influence. Damned if the West does, damned if the West doesn't, IOW), such that they lack the initiative to ever better their economic status to the point where they could eventually gain control of the development of their own resources. 572. PelleNilsson - 8/16/2002 4:37:29 PM concerned 573. concerned - 8/16/2002 6:12:13 PM Just some general observations, of which I might be willing to be convinced to modify a few. 574. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 8/23/2002 8:45:24 PM The good doctor needs give this domicle a friendly bump lest the over-zealous strike it down. 575. Cellar Door - 9/3/2002 10:57:35 AM Archeologists searching the recently opened cellars of a villa in Berchtesgarden, Germany unearthed the following document, apparently published by a liberal or socialist newspaper sometime around 1933. 576. Cellar Door - 9/3/2002 10:58:17 AM Obviously the right's superior financial backing from local backers I.G. Farben to international supporters like the Ford Motor Company accounts for much of the fun the right is having. "The Triumph of the Will" had an unlimited budget for extras for the crowd scenes at Nurenburg, while Stalin keeps Eisenstein on a strict budget. 577. Cellar Door - 9/3/2002 10:58:33 AM How the anything goes drug and sex party that the cultural left threw in the '60's segued into an Amish wake featuring stern readings from the joyless work of Upton Sinclair, the scoldings of Winston Churchill is anybody's guess. 578. concerned - 9/3/2002 12:16:30 PM Actually, the Nazis were the most left wing government that Germany had had since unification. They and the Communists drew their supporters from the same disaffected group of nutcases. 579. concerned - 9/3/2002 12:17:59 PM Anybody who thinks the Nazis were not to the left of both the Weimer Republic and the Kaisers is fucked in the head. 580. concerned - 9/3/2002 12:20:49 PM Weimar 581. PelleNilsson - 9/3/2002 1:47:33 PM Hahaha! 582. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/3/2002 1:55:07 PM :-P 583. glendajean - 9/3/2002 2:26:29 PM I don't think the world in the mid-20th century (or now) gave much thought to how much more liberal Hitler may have been to either Kaiser Wilhelm or the very weak Weimar Republic, concerned. 584. glendajean - 9/3/2002 2:37:20 PM Speaking of ideology...I am getting more cranky in my old age. I watched a bit of Meet the Press Sunday and wanted to scream. Reps. Tom Davis and Nita Lowry, who head their respective party's house campaign efforts, were interviewed about the upcoming elections. 585. concerned - 9/3/2002 2:40:10 PM Well, even though they've borrowed extensively from the LW playbook and I could make a strong argument that they are indeed LW, I'm not going to go quite so far as to call the Nazis out and out 'Leftists' per se, but I hope to convincingly counter statements that they are 'far right wing'. Such assertions are ludicrous, particularly when the Left attempts to smear the American right, which hasn't traditionally had even the accommodation with statism that Bismarck did, with the term. 586. glendajean - 9/3/2002 2:41:12 PM The actual real debate of the day was between Lawrence Eagleburger and Sen. Thompson (R-Tenn) about going to war with Iraq. 587. glendajean - 9/3/2002 2:50:38 PM concerned -- in German politics in the 1920s and 1930s, the Nazi Party was considered right wing by the Germans. 588. concerned - 9/3/2002 3:12:19 PM The Nazis rose to power with the support of many socialists; their populist appeal at the time was certainly not very strongly right wing. 589. Wombat - 9/3/2002 3:15:05 PM Concerned: 592. Ms. No - 9/5/2002 12:43:23 PM 590 and 591 moved out of order, sorry. They'll be replaced when the other posts are inserted. 593. concerned - 9/3/2002 3:22:35 PM Re. 40: 594. glendajean - 9/3/2002 3:29:08 PM The Nazis rose to power with the support of many socialists; their populist appeal at the time was certainly not very strongly right wing. 595. concerned - 9/3/2002 3:37:03 PM I say that Hitler was more a populist than a right winger; he was not politically associated with the German right which had held power before him in any meaningful way, and his political tactics were definitely borrowed from the Left. 596. glendajean - 9/3/2002 3:39:10 PM In fact, in every political utterance, he attacked Jews and Marxists. His thugs broke up Marxist political rallies. It is a consistent theme in his political utterances during the 1920s and 1930s. 597. concerned - 9/3/2002 3:42:11 PM Just because one attacks Marxists or Jews does not make one a right winger. To wit, there's no shortage of Democrats in the US who do one or the other. 598. concerned - 9/3/2002 3:42:51 PM Or both, may I add. 599. concerned - 9/3/2002 3:44:45 PM But Hitler was more a populist than a right winger. In fact, to classify him, even by default, solely as a right winger is misleading at best, IMO. 600. judithathome - 9/3/2002 3:45:15 PM Else, how could he have attracted so many socialists to his socialist party? (I'll never let go of that one.) 601. concerned - 9/3/2002 3:46:25 PM Apparently, enough to put him over the top in 1933... 602. judithathome - 9/3/2002 3:46:54 PM And, those he attracted were described as "formerly socialist", to boot. 603. Wombat - 9/3/2002 3:49:12 PM Only Concerned could take the phrase "a not insignificant number of former socialists" and turn it into "so many socialists." 604. concerned - 9/3/2002 3:53:21 PM Re. 59 - 605. Wombat - 9/3/2002 3:58:08 PM Of course, the Socialist party in Weimar Germany (and before) ran along a broad political spectrum from the center on leftwards. The Socialist Party supported Germany's entry into World War I, and most of it went along with the repression of the Spartacists as well. 606. judithathome - 9/3/2002 3:58:42 PM the useless 'formerly' 607. glendajean - 9/3/2002 3:59:44 PM concerned -- my objection isn't because I think the left wing of European politics was pure or clean or holy. (God knows, Stalin was equal to Hitler in many ways). I am currently reading Orwell's Homage to Catalonia and I am struck again at the stupid energies of the ideological during that period. 608. PelleNilsson - 9/3/2002 4:03:46 PM concerned's problem is of course that he has zero real knowledge of Germany between the wars. If anyone deservs the epitet "google-educated" it is him. He derives all his "knowledge" from dubious internet sites rather than from recognised textbooks and scholarly works 609. Wombat - 9/3/2002 4:04:04 PM Concerned: 610. PelleNilsson - 9/3/2002 4:05:57 PM Hi Wombat! Long time. 611. Wombat - 9/3/2002 4:07:49 PM Yep, Gregor and Peter Strasser really rose high in the party once Hitler took the Nazis out of the lunatic fringe and into government. 612. Wombat - 9/3/2002 4:09:10 PM Hi Pelle: 613. concerned - 9/3/2002 4:09:39 PM I believe the Nazis are not usefully classifiable as RW'ers, despite some of their antecedents. To do so is to leave the reader with the mistaken impression that the mainstream (German or any other) political right ever endorsed the precepts of Naziism - a favorite distortion of the political Left, I may add. 614. concerned - 9/3/2002 4:14:50 PM However, I understand the LW's insensate need to blindly assert that the Nazis were extreme RW, period, in order to discredit all political opposition to their political right. That's very unethical, very wrong and very, very stupid, but beating thoughtful dissent over the head with the 'RW Nazi' bugagoo is a keystone LW technique to enforce unquestioning acceptance of their stupid statist agendas. 615. Wombat - 9/3/2002 4:17:47 PM The mainstream right in Germany was perfectly willing to welcome the Nazis into an electoral coalition (under the mistaken impression that they could control them), once Hitler had ditched the elements within the Nazi party that were hostile to the existing economic oligarchy. They willingly subscribed to Hitler's nationalist and militarist message, and while some may have found his antisemitism distasteful, it was not at variance with mainstream beliefs that the dagger that "stabbed Germany in the back" to end Worls War I was held by Jews. 616. glendajean - 9/3/2002 4:21:00 PM Concerned -- your reasoning (to me) reads like this: the mainstream right didn't support him; he had centralized government tendencies (as do most dictators regardless of ideology) and he used leftist tactics, so it is UNFAIR to say his party was from the right. 617. PelleNilsson - 9/3/2002 4:28:48 PM For anyone who is interested in the political and cultural climate of Germany from the final stages of WW1 and into the 30s, I strongly recommend a book by Sebastian Haffner. Its German title is "Geschichte eines Deutschen" so it would probably be called "The History of a German Man" or something like that. It is a very fine book. 618. Wombat - 9/3/2002 4:31:17 PM Concerned: 619. Wombat - 9/3/2002 4:33:17 PM Nice try, Concerned. 620. Wombat - 9/3/2002 4:42:09 PM Concerned...the Chomsky of the "Center." 621. concerned - 9/3/2002 7:02:36 PM Wombat - 622. concerned - 9/3/2002 7:07:15 PM I think what you are probably sensitive to is people linking all right parties with Hitler. That's a valid argument. 623. Cellar Door - 9/3/2002 8:58:24 PM connie doesn't know his Left from his Right. 624. PelleNilsson - 9/4/2002 1:08:55 AM Here is one example of the wacko sites concerned feeds on. 625. Wombat - 9/4/2002 8:37:27 AM Concerned: 626. Ms. No - 9/5/2002 12:53:09 PM 119. concerned - 9/4/02 12:26:47 PM 627. concerned - 9/4/2002 3:41:42 PM 'Course, the fact that the Nazis walked, talked and smelled like Lefties, what with Centralized government, massive social services, big brotherism, pervasive state propaganda, gun grabbing, anti-religious attitudes is too inconvenient for Pelle to face up to. But shit's shit, either way. 628. Wombat - 9/4/2002 3:50:19 PM That Louis XIV, whatta Socialist! 629. Wombat - 9/4/2002 4:01:33 PM Nazi religious attitudes such as they were tended to embrace Norse paganism; which is not exactly a characteristic of a "godless" socialist ideology. 630. felch dupree - 9/5/2002 12:12:22 AM Two signs "concerned" is an idiot: 631. PelleNilsson - 9/5/2002 4:01:45 AM concerned has three problems with this issue, 632. Wombat - 9/5/2002 9:02:36 AM The most amusing thing about Concerned is that his political thought process suffers from exactly what he derides in others, namely incessant attempts to force what he calls "facts" and events into his preconceived notion of how the world operates. 633. pseudoerasmus - 9/6/2002 3:43:31 AM Concerned: 'Course, the fact that the Nazis walked, talked and smelled like Lefties, what with Centralized government, massive social services, big brotherism, pervasive state propaganda, gun grabbing, anti-religious attitudes..... 634. pseudoerasmus - 9/6/2002 3:43:50 AM (4) As for "big brotherism", given that it is typical for the mainstream political left to emphasise civil liberties while the mainstream political right seeks to constrain them to some extent in the name of internal and external security, on what basis does Concerned say "big brotherism" is leftie? 635. concerned - 9/6/2002 3:45:51 AM re. 632 - 636. pseudoerasmus - 9/6/2002 3:45:57 AM Message # 571: "The lessons that the East Asian Tigers have to offer for third world sad sack mugwump cultures are being sadly ignored by the likes of Amin, who would rather eat flies and dirt." 637. concerned - 9/6/2002 4:03:55 AM I's amusing to see PE falsely attempt to dismiss Third Reich big brotherism. I never claimed that the Nazis were Leftist - I have asserted that they were farther Left than any unified German government which preceded them, which is certainly true. 638. concerned - 9/6/2002 4:08:52 AM Of course, today's conservativism, as I see it, borrows heavily from classical liberalism. 639. concerned - 9/6/2002 4:27:16 AM I am considering ideologically classifying 'tribalism', as a global phenomenon under Leftism, in the category of 'useful idiots', btw. 640. concerned - 9/6/2002 4:31:48 AM Perhaps, just 'idiots' would be more accurate. Tribalism: An ideology by default; manipulable peasants who can be relied upon to be suckered by the nearest authoritarian Utopia peddler. 641. pseudoerasmus - 9/6/2002 4:39:53 AM Message # 638: "Of course, today's conservativism, as I see it, borrows heavily from classical liberalism." 642. pseudoerasmus - 9/6/2002 4:40:25 AM "I's amusing to see PE falsely attempt to dismiss Third Reich big brotherism. 643. Wombat - 9/6/2002 8:17:29 AM What Concerned calls "conservatism" is in act Adam Smith's "liberalism," with--as the Brits would say--a small "l." 644. RickNelson - 9/6/2002 10:40:01 AM Please read this link and Pseud, Wombat, concerned and anyone give me your thoughts about the ideology and reality of this situation. 645. Wombat - 9/6/2002 11:14:56 AM Rick: 646. stostosto - 9/6/2002 11:24:49 AM I think it's high time we we expose the myth that Stalin, or Lenin or Mao were somehow on the "left". That false idea is no more than an attempt --incredibly transparent when you think about it -- by rightists to smear their opponents by disingenuosly associating them with inhuman tyrants who are in truth much more right wing than anything else. 647. Wombat - 9/6/2002 11:31:28 AM Sto: 648. concerned - 9/6/2002 1:02:13 PM Re. 642 - 649. concerned - 9/6/2002 1:04:24 PM Re. 643 - 650. concerned - 9/6/2002 1:05:50 PM Wombat can't seem to avoid conflating polemical style and substance, in my case. I try to make allowance for his deficiencies when possible. 651. Cellar Door - 9/6/2002 1:11:37 PM We make no allowances for yours, connie. 652. stostosto - 9/6/2002 1:32:10 PM Wombat, I don't know what you mean. But I'd also like to point out that the present American administration is veering dangerously towards the left in its dismissive attitude to human rights. 653. stostosto - 9/6/2002 2:01:50 PM Rick: 654. Wombat - 9/6/2002 2:04:35 PM Since what Concerned calls "substance" in this discussion consists of self-invented definitions, followed by--to put it charitably--questionable and uninformed assertions, backed up in this case by sources that actually end up saying the opposite of what he asserts, style is all that is left. 655. PelleNilsson - 9/6/2002 3:02:10 PM concerned in Message # 637: 656. wonkers2 - 9/6/2002 4:34:33 PM Black IS white. 657. RickNelson - 9/6/2002 6:52:26 PM Wombat, 658. arkymalarky - 9/7/2002 1:00:09 PM #654 is a gem. 659. concerned - 9/8/2002 2:00:49 AM re. 655 - 660. concerned - 9/8/2002 2:01:57 AM re. 654 - 661. concerned - 9/8/2002 2:04:53 AM Wombat is a sad case. He cannot back up his ass-ertion that any cite I've posted contradicts anything I've had to say. Depend upon it, he won't be able to, because he couldn't, even if he had the mental faculties to do so. 662. concerned - 9/8/2002 2:09:09 AM Wombat also seems to be attempting to glorify a total lack of interpretive ability in his ad-hominems directed toward me. Undoubtedly mental dullness makes Leftists more easily controllable, which is perhaps why such as Wombat feels uncomfortable around somebody who does not share his shallow approach to reality. 663. concerned - 9/8/2002 2:13:40 AM I want people such as Wombat to answer the following question honestly before attempting to question my political centrism further: 664. concerned - 9/8/2002 2:23:04 AM It is true that fascism is closely related to socialism and is probably a subset of socialism, that Mussolini was a former socialist, and that nobody from the Left gainsaid the descriptive accuracy of the term 'National Socialists' until the Nazis lost in WWII. 665. concerned - 9/8/2002 2:26:24 AM There has also not been a word from these supposedly competent posters as to the serious damage that has occurred to the realm of social and political discussion from letting the Left falsely portray the Nazis as being the epitome of conservatism, which is what they ought to bend their energies toward counteracting, rather than play the fools by lying about and quibbling with me. 666. concerned - 9/8/2002 2:29:46 AM Appropriate to this post number, I invite whomever has posted the lie that I said the Nazis were Leftists to shove it up their asses forthwith, because I don't need to be troubled with other people's lies. 667. concerned - 9/8/2002 2:31:55 AM I reiterate, once more, that Hitler was more a populist than an animal of either political persuasion. 668. concerned - 9/8/2002 2:33:02 AM Does anybody deny that Hitler was a populist, or a charismatic speechmaker? 669. concerned - 9/8/2002 2:44:46 AM Let's be honest. In point of fact, there is very little I posted that anybody has successfully disputed. It's basically that they don't like the fact that it's me who has taken the initiative to make various more or less astute observations regarding the true nature of the Third Reich, as opposed to the lies the Left has committed itself to peddling about National Socialism. 670. concerned - 9/8/2002 5:14:06 AM Btw, wrt my 'style', here's a post I made today in an audiophile group, in which I discuss a way I done thunk up to enhance bass performance of sound systems. It works and it's original, also. This is a forum where some big names in audio congregate. (I use my real name in that forum,also): 671. PelleNilsson - 9/8/2002 10:02:52 AM Drunk and crazy. 672. stostosto - 9/8/2002 10:26:06 AM Concerned 673. PelleNilsson - 9/8/2002 10:28:56 AM Hello sto! Long time. How has your summer been? Have you read about Rustler's latest adventures? Jailed and then put under house arrest. 674. concerned - 9/9/2002 1:48:16 AM re. 671 - 675. concerned - 9/9/2002 1:57:58 AM re. 672 - 676. Wombat - 9/9/2002 10:39:36 AM If I was to make an assertion on some aspect of--for example--the enhancement of the bass performance of sound systems, which is something I know absolutely nothing about, I would be deservedly derided by those who do. 677. concerned - 9/9/2002 10:46:30 AM Ah, but nobody has demonstrated that the National Socialists were as right wing as either the Weimare Republic or the Kaisers, neither of which enjoyed the level of left wing support, nor advocated as statist policies as the Nazis. 678. concerned - 9/9/2002 10:47:23 AM It appears, therefore, that I know better what I'm talking about here than anybody else in this thread. 679. concerned - 9/9/2002 10:51:05 AM The argument of Wombat et al is that the Nazis were extreme right wingers because they were supported slightly more by the German right than the Left. I have proved that such a conclusion certainly does not follow, but that the Nazis had fewer right wing characteristics and more of the lw than either the Weimar Republic which was quite conservative and far less statist than the Nazis and the Kaisers who were out and out fucking monarchists, for christ sakes. 680. concerned - 9/9/2002 10:52:33 AM Re. 630 - 681. concerned - 9/9/2002 10:53:12 AM I reall don't give a shit how blue in the face the Left gets screaming that the Nazis are 'far right wingers'. It just ain't so. 682. glendajean - 9/9/2002 10:57:01 AM I am reading Eberhard Bethge's biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian and pastor who was killed in a concentration camp a day or so before American soldiers liberated it. Bonhoeffer participated in the 1944 plot to kill Hitler. 683. Wombat - 9/9/2002 11:10:17 AM Concerned: 684. Wombat - 9/9/2002 11:18:57 AM What Concerned is unable to assimilate is that Germany (and Prussia) has had "statist" economic and political traditions dating back to Prussia's foundation as a modern state in the 18th Century. 685. PelleNilsson - 9/9/2002 12:13:37 PM I really don't give a shit... It just ain't so. 686. concerned - 9/9/2002 12:15:24 PM What Wombat is unable to comprehend is that the National Socialist government was far more interventionist in private enterprise than either the German monarchy or, in particular, the Weimar Republic. It seems that it is a difference that is simply too subtle for him to discern. 687. concerned - 9/9/2002 12:18:08 PM Re. 685 - 688. Cellar Door - 9/9/2002 12:25:11 PM "It appears, therefore, that I know better what I'm talking about here than anybody else in this thread." 689. Ms. No - 9/9/2002 12:48:13 PM You guys are wasting your time, but I like reading your posts. Consider that you're trying to debate with a guy who adamantly describes himself as a "centrist" but who, at every turn defines himself by his vehement and complete loathing for the "left". If one hates only one side but not the other then one can't be a centrist. We are often more accurately defined by that which we loathe than by that which we profess to embrace. 690. Ms. No - 9/9/2002 12:50:27 PM Does anyone recall the political survey that looked kind of like a baseball diamond? Or perhaps it only looks like a square turned on it's point and I remember Trouserpilot taking place so I've now associated baseball with the whole thing. 691. ronski - 9/9/2002 3:13:17 PM Here it is. 692. Ms. No - 9/9/2002 3:32:31 PM Thanks Ronski! 693. ronski - 9/9/2002 4:17:36 PM I don't know about a UK one. But I'll look for it when I get the chance. 694. Ms. No - 9/9/2002 5:03:38 PM I certainly like the questions. I think they're pretty wide in scope and balanced. 695. concerned - 9/9/2002 6:27:57 PM Re. 689 - 696. concerned - 9/9/2002 6:30:40 PM What I gather is that nobody is actually disagree with my main points regarding the Third Reich's political orientation; it's just not 'PC' to admit them because to do so stymies the traditional Leftist lies. 697. ronski - 9/9/2002 9:06:07 PM connie, 698. concerned - 9/10/2002 1:50:03 AM rondums - 699. concerned - 9/10/2002 2:11:02 AM Besides, why should I go out of my way to say the Nazis were explicitly LW when there's more than enough real left wingers today who are just as bad, it not worse, such as this Noel Ignatiev? 700. concerned - 9/10/2002 2:11:35 AM ..if not worse.. 701. concerned - 9/10/2002 2:20:44 AM Such as he indicate that Leftists generally will not have an excessive amount of trouble adopting, for instance, extreme Islamist tenets. Wonder how many generations it will be before Europe is primarily Islamic. 702. concerned - 9/10/2002 2:32:42 AM I suspect that the political Left will increasingly embrace illiberal, anti-human rights positions as the unholy marriage of a variety of narrowly self interested PC types and tribalistic religious fundamentalists continues to be consummated. 703. concerned - 9/10/2002 2:39:38 AM Islamofactoid: 704. alistairconnor - 9/10/2002 5:54:41 AM Hey Con, how are you getting on with reading Camus? 705. alistairconnor - 9/10/2002 5:56:38 AM Hm. 22 of the last 40 posts are Con monologues. 706. concerned - 9/10/2002 11:01:01 AM Re. 704 - 707. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2002 6:41:06 AM Concerned, you keep claiming that no one has refuted your main argument, but you haven't really presented any argument. You have only presented unsubstantiated assertions. 708. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2002 6:43:02 AM That is not at all. Before the war, conservatives outside Germany generally saw the Nazis as a positive phenomenon. Both Hitler and Mussolini were admired by industrialists and conservative politicians in Britain and France. Churchill is famous for his early admiration of Mussolini: "If I were an Italian, I should don the fascist black shirt". Hitler too didn't really bother him until about 1935 or 1936. 709. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2002 6:44:17 AM I still don't understand why it bothers you so much that the Nazis be labelled extreme right-wing. 710. Raskolnikov - 9/11/2002 11:50:05 AM "This does not make the US republican party similar to the Nazis, any more than it makes the French socialists similar to the Stalinists. That kind of parity should settle your pathetic partisan anxieties. 711. ronski - 9/12/2002 12:25:22 AM Condums, 712. concerned - 9/12/2002 12:48:56 AM Re. 711 - 713. concerned - 9/12/2002 1:00:54 AM Moreover, when Hitler was appointed chancellor in 1933, which party did he invite as a coalition partner? Why, the DNVP -- the party which was unambiguously traditional right-wing. This was the party of Big Business, founded by the industrialist Hugo Stinnes, led by the newspaper magnate Alfred Hugenberg, vehement opponent of trades unions and advocate of the restoration of the monarchy. The DNVP had also closely cooperated with the NSDAP during the elections. 714. concerned - 9/12/2002 1:10:37 AM Re. 710 - 715. alistairconnor - 9/12/2002 3:37:35 AM Howler upon howler, Con. I really love this one, 716. Wombat - 9/12/2002 8:57:20 AM Concerned--of course--misses Rask's point altogether when he applies the broadbrush to left-wing parties in the same way that he accuses the left of doing to parties of the right. 717. JJBiener - 9/12/2002 9:47:17 AM This is an interesting discussion, but I think it misses the point. Of course there are differences between the mainstream right and the extreme right just as there are differences between the mainstream left and the extreme left. I think the real question is whether there is a substantive difference between the extreme right and the extreme left. Totalitarianism inhabits both extremes. Whether it is in the name of the state or in the name of "the people", the result is pretty much the same. 718. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2002 2:38:35 PM "Concerned--of course--misses Rask's point altogether when he applies the broadbrush to left-wing parties in the same way that he accuses the left of doing to parties of the right. 719. ronski - 9/12/2002 9:35:52 PM Bitter? Hardly. 720. wonkers2 - 9/12/2002 10:26:55 PM Hannity is one of the biggest assholes on Television. 721. wonkers2 - 9/12/2002 10:30:21 PM Well, traditionally, fascists, Nazis and monarchists are considered far right and communists, far left. They do have certain common characteristics. 723. Wombat - 9/12/2002 10:44:36 PM Ronski, you silly billy. Concerned is a "Centrist." 724. concerned - 9/13/2002 1:05:07 AM 715. alistairconnor - 9/12/02 8:37:35 AM 725. concerned - 9/13/2002 1:08:26 AM Where is it written that collectivism automatically denies all private ownership, AC? 726. concerned - 9/13/2002 1:10:12 AM Individual rights and liberties were secondary to the wishes and objectives of the state. That is a LW characteristic. 727. concerned - 9/13/2002 1:15:12 AM Re. 718 - 728. concerned - 9/13/2002 1:17:05 AM re. 721 - 729. concerned - 9/13/2002 1:28:16 AM Another thing, Raskol. I back my cases up over and over with specific cites of the damage, fecklessness, hypocrisy and closed mindedness which result from far too many applications of Leftist ideology. I'm not forced to resort to little but prevarications and ad hominems in order to try to prop up some preposterous fabrication that the Nazis were 'far right wing'. 730. Cellar Door - 9/13/2002 1:43:03 AM The Nazis were NOT "Far Right Wing" at all. 731. concerned - 9/13/2002 2:00:22 AM Heh heh heh... 732. Wombat - 9/13/2002 10:01:51 AM Given what he believes, Concerned can truthfully say that he is to the right of Adolf Hitler. 733. concerned - 9/13/2002 12:32:39 PM Well, so was Theodore Roosevelt. 734. pseudoerasmus - 9/13/2002 1:39:13 PM Message # 713: "How would that make the Nazis any more 'far right wing' than the equally pro business attitude and policies, of say, the x42 administration, during which GATT and NAFTA were signed, the largest tech bubble in US history developed, Robert Rubin (Dem - Goldman Sachs) was Treasury Secretary and the Mr. 'It's the Economy, Stupid' ran interference for companies like General Electric, Unocal, Loral, Occidental Petroleum, Enron, etc. in their domestic and foreign affairs?" 735. pseudoerasmus - 9/13/2002 1:39:36 PM Message # 725: "Where is it written that collectivism automatically denies all private ownership, AC?" 736. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2002 2:01:47 PM Teddy also created the National Forest Service, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and pushed for the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Meat Inspection Act. He also set aside some 70 million acres of public lands for protection from forests and mining. He tends to be described much more favorably by left wingers than right wingers nowadays, at least on domestic issues. 737. concerned - 9/15/2002 2:19:43 AM Re. 735 - 738. concerned - 9/15/2002 2:22:50 AM re. 736 - 739. concerned - 9/15/2002 2:23:51 AM And now, a little ideological humor: 740. Cellar Door - 9/30/2002 9:46:35 PM My latest Blog entry: "Unhitched" 741. concerned - 10/25/2002 12:04:23 PM "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness." --George Washington 742. jexster - 10/25/2002 3:03:17 PM What we see now is the tragedy of a great country, with noble impulses, successful institutions, magnificent historical achievements and immense energies, which has become a menace to itself and to mankind." Anatol Lieven, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 743. concerned - 10/25/2002 3:52:14 PM Anatol Lieven needs to have his medication adjusted. 744. Cellar Door - 10/26/2002 10:29:04 PM Notto be outdone by Faux News' Rita Cosby. . . . 745. transient1a - 11/4/2002 10:45:11 PM What is the difference between Capitalism and Communism? 746. PelleNilsson - 12/4/2002 11:04:41 AM Considering that the "political debate" in this forum has degenerated into partisan sloganeering, kneejerk responses and general hackery, it would seem that this thread is superfluous to requirements.
Just curious. What are the de jure litmus tests for soi-disant non-US Lefties? Kyoto and Kumbayah?
Easy enough : just take Pseudopath's three fault lines, of economics, foreign policy and law and order. They will do.
But bear in mind that the playing field is different, and the political spectrum is generally wider. Take a French centrist, put him in the US, and he'd theoretically be a left-wing democrat (in practice, he would lurch rightwards to find the centre again : centrism is more of a temperamental disposition, or personality disorder, than a political stance).
Despite the wider political spectrum in Europe, you have seldom seen much radical change in policy from government to government. The last time was Thatcher, and before that was Attlee in 1945 in the UK. One could also argue that Mittérand's ascension in 1981 brought in many changes (nationalisations, abolition of the death penalty, etc.) But in general, elections in Europe do not generate radical changes. Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, who have alternated in power, have governed within rather narrow differences. Once again, this is because of the tendency of mainstream politics to drift to the Median Voter, regardless of the width of the spectrum.
I 'took five' immediately posting 493, and strangely enough, started also thinking of the representational constraints of the US two party system relative to the multiparty coalition prone systems of Europe as I ran an errand.
Now, reading PE's posts, I wonder if it makes sense if the US Two party system could be thought of as tracking a political centroid which wanders somewhat through the political spectrum, e.g. tending more liberal from the Great Depression until the Great Society and more conservative since then. It would seem that the overall damping effect is perhaps a good thing, given a well thought out constitution.
OTOH, it could work if the Democrat Party renames itself the Leftist Party Coalition preparatory to splitting off some of its dotingly nurtured identity groups so that they can prepare more representative platforms.
retrace your steps and read the comments about the "median voter". All democratic political systems drift to the centre of that spectrum (within the country).
Love to see a Perp Walk with not only Big Time Racketeers like the Adelphia Mob, but every politician who took money from them, regardless of party affiliation.
The breadth of the system is due to proportional representation.
(Dickhead.)
Except when it isn't : France has a broad spectrum, but no PR at a national level.
Perhaps this reveals the ultimate secret to democratic happiness: Forget about molding the world after your personal political beliefs. Instead, change your beliefs to be just as median as they can be. You'll have the government eating out of your hand.
"The breadth of the system is due to proportional representation."
If you mean that the ideological diversity of the membership of an elected legislature is enhanced by proportional representation, then that is true. If you mean that the ideological diversity of the population at large is enhanced by proportional representation, then that is obviously false since the ideological diversity of the populace at large is determined by the culture.
An electoral system is a distorting filter. It overrepresents or underrpresents the diversity of the country's electorate.
"Except when it isn't : France has a broad spectrum, but no PR at a national level."
You are arguing against your own misconstruction.
While proportional representation is known to cause a greater number of smaller parties to be represented in the legislature, the reverse is not necessarily true, i.e., ideological diversity in the legislature can be the result of other causes besides proportional representation.
In India, the political parties represented in the legislature are even more diverse and numerous than in France, but India like France has got the first-past-the-post electoral system. France and India just have intrinsically diverse electorates.
Ideological diversity in the elected bodies of the USA is probably reduced by two factors: the FPTP electoral system, as well as the political culture.
So here I am, Mr. Diverse. That's right, me.
I'm gonna vote for the best possible choice (now that I'm old enough to see the advantages of straying from party voting). If that choice is Dem, Rep, Indep. or Green it doesn't matter. What matters is the person. Are they like Abe Lincoln or Richard Nixon. Are they going to save the environment like Teddy or like Ronnie-ray-gun. Will they raise taxes or give come cock-a-mayme jive about how we have to balance the budget with a tax increase. The alternative being to slim down the govt. beauracracy.
Do you think the average joe cares much about your systems and diversity? Do you think that gets them a job which pays the bills? I wanna know what gets me a job that pays the bills. I've paid dues for that opportunity, I care about my family, my community, my world and my country. I care what happens to people. Systems analysis doesn't understand people-- we the people. Who cares? Pundits that's who. Pundits are people to, so let's care about each other.
Right-- ranting a bit there, but it doesn't matter. Most of what I post is meant to communicate my own personal view about us as humans. I get a chance to share my experiences in here. Does that matter in the big scheme of things, ha! Now you know I am not here as a wind bag, I know this isn't big news or agenda making material. I'm kind of like a conscience, I spread my words here and there about human interaction, being real and caring.
Ok, that's what I want to believe.
Best regards,
me.
Wellstone, well he's a little bit liberal for me, but he's smart and cares about people. He's matured on the job, ripened so to speak. One more term will do him and all Minnesota some real good. He deserves another term and Coleman truely deserves nothing.
I believe you are too old to educate. However, education is the key to improvement, and awareness of the differences between the socialization of the generational poor student and the middle class teacher is the starting point. Some very useful work has been done in this area by Ruby Payne.
Just a question, not a judgement. How can paying to see this learning seminar bring one closer to understanding the poor? Ground breaking research?! Is there so much information in a seminar one must pay to attend, that it truely supports the expense?
For educators, yes. My wife teaches in a school where over half of the students are on free or reduced lunch. She ran across one of Payne's books, and recognized several of the behaviors she had been seeing in her students and their parents. Since she has been taking these issues into account, she has been getting success so dramatic that other teachers have noticed it and have also started applying some of these observations.
I think Coleman has been around long enough, and paid enough dues, to not get tagged with the "carpetbagger" label just because he is originally from New York. I don't much like him, but I could live with him as a Senator better than someone like Rod Grams.
However, I am not a big fan of Wellstone. He is the type of hysterical liberal chest-pounder that usually gives me hives.
What will probably have more of an impact on my election choices is that control of the Senate might hang in the balance, and I do *not* want the GOP to regain the Senate, even if that means I put up with Wellstone for 6 more years.
I am much more interested in the Governor's race, and am leaning strongly toward Tim Penny.
If Moe wins I might vomit.
I obviously have less regard for Coleman. I've heard Wellstone speak on two occasions. One was on Veterans day at Fort Snelling National Cemetary. That was two years ago and I found his passion impressive. His need to express gratitude toward those how have served admirable.
That gratitude and passiion leans me toward him. Because his sense of honoring those veterans and finding ways to care for their needs are two quality ideals.
Then Coleman spouts off about his record toward military spending. Coleman saying something like Sen. Wellstone's spending could be said to have disasterous consequences if the votes went negative like his vote. Coleman straying toward calling Wellstone's votes likely to have caused more U.S. soldier deaths.
Preposterous.
What Congressional Districts are yout two in? I am in the Seventh CD, Congressman Collin Peterson.
The real problem with Coleman is that he was claiming to be a liberal Democrat as recently as 1996. He chaired Clinton's campaign in MN, gave an extremely laudatory endorsement of Wellstone in 1996, proclaiming himself to be a "Wellstone Democrat" and governed as the "liberal" mayor of St. Paul.
He clearly couldn't break into the Humphery establishment in the 1998 gubernatorial race, so left for the Republican party. He adopted extremely conservative positions on social issues, directly contrary to publicly proclaimed positions less than a year old, and ran for governor. In 2000, he chair Bush's campaign in MN.
Wombat...no offense but look at the reactions to Wallerstein here..the article is about Iraq...the reactions almost without exception are to the proposition that the US is a fading power.
That tells me that what is being discussed is not Iraq but American Exceptionalism,which Wallerstein also speaks of in other writings btw,or what our Motier Euros call "Americanist idiots."
Now as far as your post and your pique over his comments re: American power, see the extensive discussion in The Eagle Has Crash Landed which begins in the second or third paragraph with
Intro to hegemony
The rise of the United States to global hegemony was a long process that began in earnest with the world recession of 1873. At that time, the United States and Germany began to acquire an increasing share of global markets, mainly at the expense of the steadily receding British economy
and proceeds from there for several pages before addressing the coming disaster in Iraq.
Vive La France! Vive La Republique!
actually, i think i coined the term "americanist idiots" and i'm from the US (alas).
but i don't mind being associated with euros...none of their governments has, as of yet, caused extremists to fly large airplanes into their tallest buildings.
i say, "as of yet" because the american system is sure to rope in as many other nations into its own suicide mission as possible.
On Oct. 24, 1990, I was invited to give the opening lecture of the Distinguished Speakers Series in celebration of the bicentennial of the University of Vermont. I entitled that lecture: "America and the World: Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow."(2) In that talk, I discussed God's blessings to America: in the present, prosperity; in the past, liberty; in the future, equality. Somehow God had not distributed these blessings to everyone everywhere. I noted that Americans were very conscious of this unequal distribution of God's grace. I said that the United States had always defined itself, had always measured its blessings, by the yardstick of the world. We are better; we were better; we shall be better. Perhaps blessings that are universal are not considered true blessings. Perhaps we impose upon God the requirement that She save only a minority....
It is a rare president of the United States, in the twentieth century at least, who has not at some point made the statement that the United States is the greatest country in the world. I'm not sure our omnipresent public opinion polling agencies have ever put the question directly to the American public, but I suspect that the percentage of the U.S. population that would agree with such a statement is very large indeed. I ask you to reflect on how such a statement sounds, not merely to persons from poor countries with cultures that are very different from ours but to our close friends and allies - to Canadians, to the English, and of course to the French. Does Tony Blair think the United States is the greatest country in the world, greater than Great Britain? Would he dare think that? Does Pope John Paul II think it? Who, besides Americans and those who wish to migrate to the United States, believe this?
Americans [Americanist Idiots] & The World
Regardless, what is the point? The more meaningful analogy is, do the French think they're the greatest country? Does Tony Blair think Great Britain is? If they do, more power to them. I'm not inherently offended by such sentiments any more so than were a man to tell me he had the most beautiful wife in the world, he went to the best church, his political party was superior to others, or his child was the most wonderful creature to soil a diaper.
Has the writer considered the arrogance of public speaking or putting words to paper in general and thus assuming his ideas are so superior they need to be published and therein attempt to influence others to change their minds and think as he does?
Arrogance is oftentimes in the eye of the beholder.
By level of ideology, I think I mean the variety, intellectual completeness, and visceral strength of the ideologies held by the populace. And by level of democracy, I mean extent of suffrage, degree of direct decision-making, and power of majorities over minorities.
I am currently in Bill Luther's district, but that is changing. I just moved, and didn't know where I was moving to when all the redistricting maps were in the newspapers, so I don't know what district I will be after the next election. I'll find out by November, I am sure.
Coleman is a political chameleon. I am not sure he really has much of a political ideology. On the bright side, he wouldn't be an idelogue like Rod Grams, but on the downside, chameleons are usually looking out for themselves rather than the state or the nation.
Depends on the ideology, I should think. If the ideology is democraticism than there will be a fairly strong positive relationship. If the ideology is fascism, then there will be a strong negative relationship.
could you show an example of where and how: if the ideology is democraticism than there will be a fairly strong positive relationship.
(not disagreeing, just wondering how or where this occurs in any actuality).
Policy: Any U.S. military action against Iraq should first be approved by the U.N., some say. Popular opposition to an attack is growing in Europe.
And why did I include the intro you ask? Isn't it obvious?
Come on, you can figure it out. Smart fella like you.
Look at the paragraph's second sentence.
"America and the World: The Twin Towers as Metaphor"(1)
©Immanuel WALLERSTEIN
This is sloppy writing/thinking: how can one "distribute" equality unequally?
Our density of freedom is visualized in so many ways.
A sentence worthy of freshman comp. Passive, abstract, trite, virtually meaningless. "Density of freedom"?
I can't find an idea in Wallerstein's essay that is original or expressed eloquently. Whatever your political persuasion, he's a ghastly snooze of a writer.
The last metaphor that is attached to the Twin Towers is that these structures were, are, and will be a choice. We chose to build them. We are deciding whether or not to rebuild them. The factors that enter into these choices were and are and will be very, very many. We are rebuilding America. The world is rebuilding the world. The factors that enter into these choices are and will be very, very many. Can we maintain our moral bearing amidst the uncertainty that the world we have made heretofore is only one of thousands of alternative worlds we might have created, and the world that we shall be making in the 30-50 years to come may or may not be better, may or may not reduce the contradiction between our ideals and our privileges?
Zzzz...
What I really wonder is whether strong, widespread democracy doesn't at all enforce an ideology (even one that believes in democracy), but rather tends to dilute and weaken ideologies in general. I've been thinking lately that ideologies in America are on the fringe and the dominant political belief/motivation is the most basic self-interest.
I would agree that other types of ideologies would tend to be diluted by democracy, or, more likely, would tend to dilute democracy.
Paradox : Less than half of adult Americans like democracy enough to vote, or even register.
Sweet dreams
AC:
thanks for reminding us of this.
i'm not sure i buy the idea that most americans "like democracy" because what democracy would seem to be and what is presented to them as "democracy" is quite different. there is great disillusionment about democracy when it is tied to such things as election fraud, minimal (and often identical) choices for representation, and tyranny of either a minority or a majority in practice.
but the powers-that-be have reduced the world to either two options for organization: by democracy or by communism/socialism. we have been ideologically led to pigeonhole our considerations of organization to be based on either of them. and if you don't support "democracy", you must be a communist. (anarchism or any other form of social organization is irrelevant, apparently). all of this prevents exploration of other possibilities and only allows for either/or dichotomies...which make it easy to create enemies.
we support democracy in the states because we don't know what else we could do...we are not empowered to actually do anything other than vote for the elites who use democracy for personal profit.
not a very creative lot, are we?
democracy seems to crumble as a model for larger populations. anyone know of any feasibility studies for democracy at local, state, or national levels?
I think it is unwise to draw from that a conclusion that non-voters don't like democracy. There are many other alternative explanations, such as a belief that their vote is inconsequential, or apathy in a particular election. But that doesn't mean they don't want the option, or don't want leaders to be accountable through the election process.
Huh? You live in the US, right? What do you think you have at the city, county, or state level?
All forms of government get cumbersome as they get bigger, as you end up needing a large bureaucracy to get anything done. This is one reason why many democratic (small d) enthusiasts favor more localized power and authority, as opposed to large federal programs.
Don't confuse this with Reaganesque "new federalism", which is just greater state's rights. Die hard democratic enthusiasts want the power to be at the local level - city, neighborhood, etc.
The problem is that you get real accountability problems at this level, and there is a lot of room for corruption. The greater efficiency of local governmment also means that there are fewer checks and balances. These problems are theoretically solvable, but state and federal officials prefer to micromanage anyway, so it is mostly academic.
Can IO back such an assertion up with reason? I doubt it.
Wellstone - bright enough fella for the party of x42 - a SAT aggregate of about 850, I hear.
Actually, it's much more sensible to interpret this as those Americans who are too indolent to vote taking democracy for granted a bit too much.
Which is to say that the romanticism that some associate with radical Leftism is dissipating, little more. Islamic fundamentalists do make very strange bedfellows, I agree.
Sorry.
The first communist book was Plato's Republic, which took much of its inspiration from Sparta. The ruling classes of Sparta were organized as a military commune, as a way of keeping the helots down. Communism was born as military rule over a class of serfs. It was also born together with Republicanism; Sparta was the first republic in the world, ruled by five ephors, the assembly of all Spartan citizens, and the council containing the two kings and 28 men over the age of sixty. Sparta, odd as it seems to Americans, was the first popular government. The next popular government, Athens, was much more like what Americans would recognize as a precursor of our government (although only vaguely so). Communism and popular government have turned out to be combined only rarely, perhaps even only in the singular case of Sparta. Plato junked the popular aspect in favor of rule by the philosophical elite, and was followed in practice by all later communist governments, although they tend to retain popular government as a slogan (and only a slogan).
A lesser of evils choice if ever there was one but Wellstone in a heart beat....
Rask is right, local control, subsidiarity, citizen empowerment, bottom up good, top down bad...all new left buzz words...post modernist/feminist rage du jour (See Government Is US
Ragingly fashionable partial answers as I have bluntly argued with Mary Timney, a leftie author of the above. San Francisco is a case in point...you'd be hard pressed to find a more devolved governance, a more informed electorate ...yet SF's voter participation numbers are no better than average...how can this be???
Local control and empowerment creates countervailing vice...the price is balkanization...the result is the same....
Society is too complex, too diverse...modern education and modern labor is all about specialized labor division, atomized society, citizens in name only...
Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Committment in American Life offers a more penetrating insight into the problem - developing an ethos of community and empathy for the interests and concerns of others...sadly short..any solution beyond the most trivial or most extreme (eg WWII)
Rask: And I agree with that, but am not sure the converse is true.
To the vast majority, I would bet the reason would be ideological rather than pragmatic.
Or even "familiarity" and rote, rather than ideological. And I suspect in many cases in which pragmatism and democracy conflict, many if not most Americans would choose pragmatism (or short-term self-interest). For example, in Bush versus Gore I personally doubt more than 10 percent of those with interest in the outcome cared more that their ideological principles prevailed or were followed in how the outcome was achieved against that "their" man won.
In the universities, at a time when most philosophy professors were engaged in dry-as-dust conceptual analysis, John Rawls gave new life to a certain progressive interpretation of classical liberalism. His philosophical labors, which were devoted to clarifying the structure of liberal thought, brought to light, in some cases unwittingly, stresses and strains, fissures and flaws, and ironic twists and turns in the liberal spirit. Nowhere was this more true than in relation to liberalism's foundations.
[A War Diary by Randolph Bourne, September 1917]
SF-Mail carriers beware: San Francisco's Nov. 5 voter handbook may swell to 350 pages, the bulkiest in city history and just a tad shorter than the Sacramento White Pages.
Voters will weigh in on 19 local, one regional and seven state measures. There also are all the races for state and local offices.
"It's a little bit scary, overwhelming," said Sarah Diefendorf, co-president of the San Francisco League of Women Voters.
I spent some time trying to help them....nuff said
The non-communist left is, I think on the upswing, at least here in Europe. It is most visible in the anti-globalisation movement.If we look at its ideological underpinnings there are three strains. One is anarchism of which you know more than I.
The second goes back to Samir Amin, a Senegalese now in his late 70s I believe but still active. Amin is an unorthodox non-communist marxist. It was he who coined the metaphor of the "center" (the West) and the "periphery" (the Third World) and how, in his view, the center keeps up a facade of benevolence while, in fact, exploiting the periphery. He is particularly critical of the World Bank/IMF so called Structural Adjustment Programmes which called for less state participation in the economy leading to cuts in education and primary health care.
The third strain is the most interesting in my view. Its guru is Karl Polyanyi, a Hungaro-Austrian non-communist, non-marxist economist, ca 1880 - ca 1955 (I don't have his biodata handy). His seminal work is The Great Transformation (1944). His central thesis (extremely simplified) is that prior to the late 18th century the economy, including the markets, was subordinated to society's norms and values but since then society has increasingly become subordinate to the market's values, which is a Bad Thing.
It is interesting that Polyanyi would attract the left. I see him as a romantic conservative. It seems it happened by default. With marxism discredited, the anti-market movements needed an alternative ideological foundation and Polyanyi seemed to fit the bill.
The anti-globalisation movement has been rather quiet lately but I think we weill see a lot of activity during the upcoming (September) UN Development Conference in Johannesburg. There will be a parallel conference for activists of various kinds.
very interesting line of discussion, which i will have to table for the moment as i'm leaving for work in a few minutes....
There are a some major problems with Amin's interpretations here, IMO.
Wrt tangible exploitation, I presume he primarily refers to natural resources such as would be extracted from his 'peripheral' countries for processing elsewhere.
First of all, he ignores that such arrangements are usually the results of (bilateral) business or governmental contracts or treaties. Thus, Amin's connotative contrivance here includes an element of nihilism and quite possibly provincial xenophobia.
Secondly, such arrangements seldom, if ever, deny the inhabitants of the 'peripheral' nation the use of that resource. Indeed, the usual result (assuming that the 'peripheral' nation's government is not a venal despotism) is enhanced access by the 'peripheral' countries interests to the resource in question, as well as an economic boost to employment and the standard of living which is concommitant to the necessary infrastructure development to exploit the resources.
The lessons that the East Asian Tigers have to offer for third world sad sack mugwump cultures are being sadly ignored by the likes of Amin, who would rather eat flies and dirt. Finally, Amin seems to have no deeper, nor clearer interpretation of the word 'benevolence' as he used in the excerpt above than 'handout'.
Which text of Amin's are you referring to?
Btw, I believe I may have found a leftward thinker who isn't congenitally wired to spew excessive amounts of fertilizer: Camus. I'll have to read up on him some more.
Goose Step Envy
By Emma Goldman
A few months ago, I began putting new issues of the Daily Worker side by side with Mein Kampf and, to my surprise, discovered that while unread copies of the Worker invariably rose in guilt inducing stacks, I am almost finished with Mein Kampf. Why? Seen purely as literature, Mein Kampf is incomparably more alluring. The Nazis woo you by saying "we're having big fun over here on the right." And in some undeniable sense that's true.
Back in the Twenties and until quite recently, really, the left wing parties of the Weimar Republic were the home of humor, iconoclasm, pleasure. Just read your Christopher Isherwood or think about the glory days of the Kit Kat Club.
But in the last few years, we splinter parties have splintered the party. The German left now feels hedged in by shibboleths like constitutional government and defeatism in face of mob rule, while the right has been having a blast be it Adolf Hitler grooving on Wagner or grimly gleeful Josef Goebbels serving up bile as if it were schlag, to say nothing of blasting the Reichstag and blasting open all those Jewish shop windows. And who can compete with Eva Braun, who actually is the Eva Braun of morning radio?
But it's not just money that makes fascist movie going so much fun. Fascist journalists are more likely to allow readers to enjoy a magazine article without strong-arming them into signing the ideology oath that seems to come packed with so much lefty journalism.
For instance, when the author profiled Jews in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, he both laughed at his subject and exalted their power without fear of contradiction. (Of course, many readers couldn't become fascists whatever they believed, because they're wrong race.)
And here's a source of the left's illness -- the Stalinist impulse to prescribe proper attitudes toward culture, art and journalism.
A lefty writer who say wants to use humor or wit to make his point mustn't abuse gays, blacks, Jews, or the like. The righties, on the other hand, are free to have all the fun of abusing gays, blacks, Jews, gypsies, the mentally retarded, Poles, Socialists. Not only can they have the fun of abusing gays, blacks, Jews, etc., they can have the fun of packing them into trains, the hilarity of working them to death and the side-splitting guffaws of gassing them when they reach the end of their productive days. This leaves the left with just one angle from which to compose its point: what's right and what's wrong. Such is the state of left journalism that writers since Plato have made a career out of painting and repainting this mono mural.
Would I dance with those folks? Or would I make a beeline for the house on the right, which looks like a charnel house in comparison to the one of the left?
From the grave,
EG
Transcribed and reported by Linda Hirshman
Freelance writer and retired professor of philosophy
Brandeis University
National Socialists. Get it?
But it would take a bit of magical wand waving to say convincingly that the Nazis were leftists. I suppose the band bends at somepoint and the result of a Stalin or a Hitler meet at a common point, but ideologically, Hitler and his party were considered by Germans to be from the right.
I know it is their job to only say positive things about their side and negative about the other, but there is a point in which I wish they would just say, "look, I am going to lie if necessary to push my side of things, and you should just rationally accept that this is the case." And then I wish the moderator would say, "we know that you are going to belch out your partisan arguments, but I am going to ask questions that let you do that because we've got some time here and we need to fill it and wink-wink-nudge-nudge, we know that all of this is pure hogwash."
Here's my hackish thought. The Democrats own ideological positioning over the past several years seems to have left them incapable of asking intelligent questions about public policy related to national security. In their cowardice, we are left with a great silence. So I should be grateful that Eagleburger, a bit of a gas bag and somebody who looks like he would be a great character actor from the 30s, arguing politely with a very good character actor (and a competent Senator) from our own time about whether or not we should attack Hussein alone or not.
The great debate on Iraq is between Cheney and Rumsfeld on one side, and Powell, Eagleburger and Scowcraft (sp?) on the other. Where are the Democrats?
I think they are:
a) afraid they may be wrong and would be labeled as Chamberlains by history and the voting American public.
b) afraid that any questioning of the war strategy would be considered unpatriotic by the public at large.
c) their own sense of when we should go to war is muddled by those who consider any military action as immoral or wrong. They found themselves in that position right before the last war with Iraq, and now they don't want to be seen as "weak" on national defense.
It would be great if they would sort through some of these issues, some of which linger from Vietnam. But in the meanwhile, in this democracy, the people deserve its divided government to question and challenge policies such as this going to war with Iraq.
Once a war starts, it is too late to argue or question. The time to do this is now.
What I think we can agree upon is that they were thugs, murderers, a vile plague on civilization.
In the 1930s, in the middle of the Depression, there was on the far right and the far left, committed ideologists ready to save the world with political religion. That these extremists got power and used it so devastatingly is great tragedy.
I'd be interested in a cite for your last statement.
'Populist' Nazis not as RW as Weimar Republic, etc.
quote:
Although the NSDAP drew its most important support from the Protestant bourgeoisie it was not predominantly a class-party but an integrative people's party. It reached out to nationalist workers who had never liked the socialists, and it included large groups from all layers of German society. It also attracted a significant, though not overwhelming, group of formerly socialist workers. In this sense, the NSDAP was a true people's party, a status the DVP or DNVP had never achieved.
concerned -- When Hitler was in the army after the war, he reported on Marxists to his superiors. In fact, the reason they sent him to a meeting of the German Worker's Party (forerunner of Nazis) was because they suspected a party with the name Worker in it.
He was active in Munich and drew much support there, which was a right wing hotbed. That was where he held his putsch. He was often taunted by communists in his speeches. His program was nationalism and anti-semitism. Did he copy organizing from the socialists? Probably. Was he a communist/marxist/socialist (in the context of German politics)? No. In his book and in his speeches, he was against the left..
He and his party were from the right wing of German politics.
Else, how could he have attracted so many socialists to his socialist party? (I'll never let go of that one.) Nationalism is hardly a RW attribute, I might add, given its decisive prevalence in socialist countries today.
You may think his actions were leftist in nature, (and that would be an ideological contortion). You cannot truthfully say that Hitler was from the left wing of German politics.
It also attracted a significant, though not overwhelming, group of formerly socialist workers.
You say "so many" and I wonder how many is "so many" but you provide the answer to that in your other quote "...though not overwhelming" number of them. Hmmmmm.....
Hitler ditched whatever "socialist" elements existed in the NDSAP, and the people who advocated them, in order to build a coalition with right wing and religious-based popularist parties.
Wombat -
'Ditched', nothing - A quite significant number of socialists (whether one appends the useless 'formerly', or not) supported Hitler and you're not going to convince anybody that he didn't freely accept their support. It happened, so fucking deal with it already. This LW 'holier than thou' shit is way past old and deceitful.
I know Concerned might find this hard to believe, but it is possible that some people who had supported the socialists in the past may have succumbed to the Nazi promises of a return to Germany's "betrayed" greatness, law and order, and the promise of a stronger economy, rather than whatever "socialist" fragments remained in Nazi ideology.
Oh please, when something is former, it isn't what it used to be, period. That applies to Democrats who become Republicans and to socialists who are no longer socialists and to virgins who are no longer virgins due to experience.
As far as American politics today, none of this makes much sense anyway. There isn't a corelation between Hitler or Stalin and our two parties today.
But in German politics of the 1920s and 1930s, to deny Hitler and the Nazis were not on the right of the spectrum is to fancifully ignore the truth. It is taking bits of language to quilt together a fantasy.
Your link doesn't seem to work.
My workload has increased lately.
Then, too, as I pointed out, Hitler and the Nazis depended so heavily on LW style dialectic and centralized government control that the disparity between the Third Reich and any truly Right Wing form of government becomes huge.
I think what you are probably sensitive to is people linking all right parties with Hitler. That's a valid argument.
But to deny his party was on the right in Germany, at a time when there were many multiple parties on all sides looking for their piece of the pie, is to deny the truth.
Yes, he was a populist, and yes, he did draw in people from beyond his original base. But his party was never considered on the left.
The extract below is from the same source that you cited earlier. Note where on the political spectrum the source places the Nazis in summing up the failure of the Weimar Republic.
"The Weimar Republic was first undermined by an aggressive group of industrialists, agrarians, and conservative party politicians. When they could not find much popular support for their authoritarian regime they thought about including the strongest right-wing party, the Nazis, in government, hoping to manipulate the Nazis so as to tame and split the party within a few weeks and to deal the socialist movement a decisive blow. This was a fatal miscalculation because it did not take into account the presence of several hundred thousand determined street fighters and the fact of Nazi control over the police (one Nazi became Interior Minister)."
You leave out that this 'aggressive' group was trying to manipulate the Nazis. They absolutely were not subsuming their agenda to fascist ideology. So much for your weak broad brush categorization of the German right.
It's more than valid -it's essential to free our understanding of what occurred in Germany from this Leftist red herring which they rely upon so consistently to stymie any balanced consideration of events.
They didn't have to subsume their agenda. Once the Nazis ditched the anticapitalist side of their ideology, their agendas were almost the same, barring Hitler's obsession with Jews.
You also have trouble assimilating the fact that it is possible to be right wing and be anticapitalist as well. This is easy to understand if one believes that the "system" is "controlled" by "outsiders" at the expense of the ordinary guy.
Finally, you again build up your left-wing straw man to impute that anyone who does not accept what passes for your political wisdom must then be a lefty. I wouldn't think that it needed asserting that not all right wing ideology must automatically be branded as "nazi" or "fascist." Anyone with a shred of intellectual acuity--which you obviously lack--can see that.
Perhaps you should spend more time on anarchist or socialist worker web sites, where you will be able to debate people whose thought processes are more like yours, albeit from a different part of the political spectrum.
Re. 80 - (624 in Ideologies)
Pelle -
Never saw it before.
1. lards his prose unnecessarily with big complicated words
2. thinks he can tie Hitler to the American left
First, he has no idea about the context, i.e. the political, economical, cultural and social situation in Germany in the 20s which created the Nazi party. Without such knowledge it is impossible to understand Nazi ideology.
Second, he appears to find it significant is named the National Socialist Party, i.e. he thinks that the name itself says something about the phenomenon it represents. Those with some knowledge of philosophy will recognise this as nominalism which flourished among scholastic philosophers in the Middle Ages. And to the extent the name is significant National is really the operative word.
Third, he doesn't know where the dividing line is between the far right and the far left. The things he lists in #94 are characteristics of the one-party, authoritarian state, not of the left or the right. Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal and, why not, Pinochet's Chile all fit into this scheme but nobody in his right mind would call these regimes leftist.
All in all, concerned demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Nazi ideology and, at best, a very shallow understanding of political ideology and thought in general.
Arguing with him reminds me of the countless discussions that I had in college and grad school with Marxists and people from the Middle East. I am sure that he would miss the irony of that.
(1) Socialist rhetoric has always been internationalist. Moreover, I have yet to hear a single socialist or communist espouse racial supremacy. Therefore, the Nazis, extreme nationalists par excellence, did not talk like lefties.
(2) re: "centralised government". Germany's peace-time economy under Hitler, and even the war-time economy, was unambiguously capitalist. German big business profited handsomely under Hitler. The Nazi state did not expropriate the private sector nor did it own a significant portion of the country's productive capacity. The political economy of Nazi Germany was essentially a collusion between the state and big business, which is fundamentally a right-wing trait, even today. Right-wingers always talk free-markets, but usually practise Big Business welfarism.
(3) re: "massive social services". I'm not sure what Concerned has in mind, but if the Nazis were lefties for having had social services, then Bismarck, who is the father of the modern welfare state, must also have been a "leftie". What about Churchill? As an opposition member of Parliament in 1946, Churchill voted for the legislation that created the National Health Service; and he voted for at least two nationalisations undertaken by the Labour government that I'm aware of. In fact Churchill's son, Randolph, who was one of the two official biographers of his father, asserted that Churchill's activities as a radical reformer in the first two decades of the 20th century qualifies him as "one of the founders of the British welfare state". Why do American right-wingers worship a leftie pinko scum like Churchill?
Wombat -
What you are describing is primarily my conscious borrowing of popular LW rhetorical tactics.
You mean, ignore free trade (restriction of imports, state promotion of exports), state planning of industrial sectors and (in the case of South Korea) virtually ban foreign investment?
Message # 573: "Btw, I believe I may have found a leftward thinker who isn't congenitally wired to spew excessive amounts of fertilizer: Camus. I'll have to read up on him some more."
Concerned had never heard of Albert Camus before? He's only one of the world's most famous novelists and essayists of the 20th century (and a Nobel laureate).
Politically, he's famous for being an anti-Soviet communist, making him a kind of a French Orwell.
Again, my point is to expose the damaging wrong headedness and rigid thinking processes of those who paint the picture of the Nazis being archetypical RWers or of being a natural extension of conservatism, which it isn't. Clearly, my polemical approach has demonstrated that it's quite possible to break through the Lefty spoon fed propaganda regarding the actual political nature of mid century totalitarianism to all but the most ideologically fossilized Lefty, particulalry wrt National Socialism by pointing out fascism's close relationship with Leftism in many areas, and its relatively far less extensive commonality with traditional conservatism.
To merely point out that the Nazis were not ideologically driven in such a way as to stifle all capitalistic initiative does not really affect the point I'm driving at. The Nazis had little or no regard for traditional conservative concepts of universal human rights or freedoms, which is germane to my argument.
As you see it ! It's hilarous how often you pick up clichés and try to pass it off as an original thought of yours. I suppose the ignorant wouldn't know clichés from novel ideas.
All the same, one might say modern libertarians borrow heavily from classical liberalism, but the average conservative is not exactly a libertarian, except economically.
Message # 637: "The Nazis had little or no regard for traditional conservative concepts of universal human rights or freedoms...."
Those are not traditional conservative concepts. Those are ideas which prevailed in spite of opposition from conservatives. For example, the current political party in Great Britain which bears the name Conservative is the very one which fought tooth and nail against every one of the five major "classical liberal" reform bills since 1832 which slowly extended the voting franchise to the general population. It was not the Conservatives, but the Labour government, which, in 1948, finally got around to establishing one-adult-one-vote suffrage in the UK. Before that, business owners had two votes! Before the fourth extension of the franchise in 1918, only about 50% of the British adult male population could vote.
Where did I do that? My point is that the mainstream right in most developed countries, not the mainstream left, typically advocates diminutions of civil liberties, whether to fight crime, or terrorism, or espionage, or whatever. In the US context, does the ACLU have a lot of right-wing members?
I never claimed that the Nazis were Leftist - I have asserted that they were farther Left than any unified German government which preceded them, which is certainly true.
No it's not true. Three elements define Naziism: extreme nationalism, collusion between state and capital; and abolition of civil liberties. The first two are very much within the German right-wing tradition; and the last one is typical of modern dictatorships, left-wing or right-wing. And all three magnify elements found in earlier German governments. In particular, blood-and-soil nationalism is archetypically right-wing, and the Nazis were an extreme manifestation of that tendency.
Concerned has invented his own definition of conservatism to make sure that it aligns with with his own preconceptions. Under his definition, someone like Pat Buchanan would be a "leftist," because he opposes free trade, and has dabbled in religious bigotry. It is self-invented doublespeak that would make Orwell's jaw drop.
Concerned "borrows" what he calls "left-wing" rhetorical tactics because they are the only way that he can possibly provide a rationale for the nonsense he spouts. Of course, these tactics are not only found among sophomoric, soi-disant student radicals, but also in right-wing extremism, religious fanaticism, and deranged cultists. It is telling that this is the rhetorical company he keeps.
Excerpt:
"On November 5, 2001 Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro Cabrera, members of the Organization of Ecologists of the Sierra of Petatlan and Coyuca de Catalan (OESP) were released from prison,
3 weeks after the assassination of human rights lawyer Digna Ochoa, who had been working on their case."
(To borrow from Wombat) I've few "rhetorical" experiences of late.
I read how you people discuss an issue. The thought I come away with is a question of context. I question where the information is valid to current events which I am made aware of here at home.
There needs to be understanding that I'm aware of the limitations of my news sources and the accuracy of said source. Furthermore, the consequences of ignorance toward an issue continue to be blurred without myself being introspective. Add to this my being open to your interpretations. I then must ask for aid toward better understanding. This is who I am, this is what I need. Can you help me?
I am not sure exactly what you expect. It is obviously a report from an advocacy group. Advocacy groups of all political/ideological stripes often put the most negative possible emphasis on what their opponents are doing, while putting a similarly positive emphasis on their own activities, sometimes with little regard for veracity or context. Their statistics are often suspect.
On the other hand, the Mexican government and those who keep it in power--particularly in the provinces--are often secretive, corrupt, and repressive.
Unless you are looking to score rhetorical points in order to buttress or propagate your existing preconceptions, one would read such reports with a healthy degree of skepticism, while recognizing that amidst all that, given where this is happening, there is a strong likelihood that some of what they are describing may indeed be taking place.
Is that what you were after?
Has Ivan Osokin gotten into your computer?
PE -
You completely failed to refute my point, in fact, you've not even cited any relevant comparison which tends to refute that the Third Reich was farther left than either the governments of the German Empire or the Weimar Republic.
Actually, it seems you implicitly agree with my point, since you have provided no reason to consider the Third Reich to be as right wing as either previous unified German government.
The latter half of this post is completely contrived, specious and untrue. It's particularly laughable that you attempt to marginalize my centrist personal political beliefs. Such are the tactics of the clueless.
the consequences of ignorance toward an issue continue to be blurred without myself being introspective.
I am contemplating the consequences of that. I definitely think it'd make for a great tagline.
Concerned's style is at best provocative and at worst sophomoric, with very little space between them. As to his soi-disant (to borrow one of his rhetorical flourishes) "centrism," it is based on his definition of the political right and left: with the right confined to Genghis Khan, and the left being anyone who disagrees with Concerned.
I never claimed that the Nazis were Leftist
So we have to add dishonesty to his many other intellectual failings.
Regarding your response in post 645. The answer in part is yes. You have constructed an answer which coincides with some muddy supposition of mine.
Sto3,
Yeah, perhaps. One would hope to have a more confident tag-line.
No, Pelle, you have merely reinforced you predeliction for dishonesty. You cannot find a post where I claimed that Nazis were Leftists; in fact I have careful to say that I wasn't making that particular claim.
Thanks in advance for your apology, btw.
Gee, arky. I've never seen 'gems' made out of bullshit before.
What right winger are you aware of who favors abortion, some affirmative action, welfare and who would be in favor of greater state involvement in health care and funding higher education if carefully administered?
If you can't think of one, then it'd probably be fair to say that I'm not a right winger, ipso facto. To continue to assert such a falsity would demonstrate nothing at all but the purely partisan narrow mindedness of the accuser.
Pelle, Wombat and PE have not even attempted to refute these assertions of mine, which probably means they are unwilling to attempt the undoable.
Once again, there seems to be universal agreement with this assertion.
So, sorry, guys, you haven't done much here.
Hi, Freddy -
Well, when I did my back of the envelope calculations about what this circuit could do (I'm assuming here that the frequency of the upper impedance peak is pretty much twice the frequency of the lower one and that the impedance null is the geometric mean of the two peak frequencies), that the most boost possible at the impedance peaks is 6db when the LC circuit is tuned to the impedance minimum, even if the peak impedances were infinite. So that would imply worst case doubling of amplifier voltage at the speaker terminals, which doesn't seem unduly hazardous to me, since the actual worst case power dissipated wouldn't increase beyond that of other frequencies under these conditions. Of course, more than 6db may be possible for one peak if the LC tuning is offset somewhat toward that peak.
Extending the 4648 ports is definitely an option, and may lead to less high power compression also. I just found it easier to block one:)
(The response increase I mentioned earlier between the peaks of the 4648's at about 32hz was due to the increase at the new tuning frequency when I blocked the port, not to the LC circuit.)
Let me know what you think of your overall sonic impressions of this circuit, Freddy. Sorta cool to get an extra third to half useable octave almost 'for free', so to speak.
Let's be honest. In point of fact, there is very little I posted that anybody has successfully disputed.
Let's be honest. You wouldn't acknowledge a "successful disputation" of anyhing you post if your life depended on it.
And let's be honest about another thing. The only reason anybody bothers with you at all is because the Mote has been very slow of late.
That's pathetic, Pelle.
Regarding your latter paragraph: you wish.
Concerned:
I favor war with Iraq, free market capitalism (with some regulation), and am against race-based affirmative action. Does that make me a rightist?
Duh. No one is disputing that Hitler was a populist. What we have been disputing is your assertion that his agenda was to the left of the existing right wing parties in Germany at the time. Since you made that assertion based on your own definition of what constitutes left and right, using a source that ended up contradicting your own assertion, and have demonstrated only the most superficial knowledge of--for example--the history of social insurance in Germany and the German political milieu during Weimar and afterwards, you have been comprehensively hauled over the coals by people who have more knowledge in the field.
Incidentally, it is not an ad hominem attack to deride your knowledge and style of writing in this area. It is based on what you have already demonstrated as ignorance and a willingness to be provocative. You shouldn't whine if it gets thrown back at you, particularly when you do not know what you are talking about.
So, my point stands that the Nazis were less right wing than any unified German government to date.
Three signs felch dupree is a moron:
1) Can't read
2) Couldn't marshal a fact to save his life
3) Goes immediately for the ad hominem attack
Bonhoeffer came from a very conservative, establishment family -- his father was a leading neurologist in Berlin, and his grandfather was a well-known theologian as well.
From the biography:
During his last years at school there is increasing evidence of his opposition to the right-wing radicalism that was becoming more and more obstreperous. When he went off on his last school holidays, he wrote to his parents, he found himself sitting opposite 'a man wearing a swastika' and had to spend the whole time arguing with him. The man, he said was 'readily quite obtusely right-wing.' "
This letter was written in 1922.
Only a magic wand erasing history would back up a contention that Germans saw the Nazi party as anything but on the right side of the spectrum.
During the Second Reich, Bismark introduced unemployment insurance and accepted--eventually--the role that labor unions and political parties that represented tham in the German political system. To that extent, under Bismark, Germany attained a degree of "socialism" that the British didn't reach until after World War One, and the United States didn't reach until the 1930s. Bismark also attempted to curtail the power of the Catholic church in Germany.
Your assertion that socialist voters supported the Nazis (to quote your source "a small, but not insignificant number") is provocative, but essentially meaningless. You would be interested to know that your source makes a similar point about the female vote as well, before returning to the greater--and accepted conclusion--that people who voted for the Nazis in the elections of the 1930s did so not out of an ideological affinity with the "socialist" part of the Nazi political agenda, or their "enlightened" feminist views, but because the Nazis promised solutions to the social and political unrest and economic instability that Germans were suffering under, and were not an established--and therefore discredited--party. If they had wanted to vote for parties with a leftwing agenda, they had the Socialist and Communist Parties available.
Interestingly, which Concerned fails to note, the Nazi vote declined in the last elections before democracy ended in Germany. What does that tell you?
Concerned has again demonstrated how little he knows about this subject.
A beautiful, intellectually mature statement showing master debater concerned at the height of his power.
This pretense on Wombat's part that the simple absence of a night and day difference in public welfare policies between the German Empire and later governments is evidence that the Nazis are RW fails because such is hardly a comprehensive measure of overall political orientation, and the trend is for increased social programs during the Third Reich than during any previous German government, IAC. Additionally, though Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm II were very conservative politically, they felt compelled to preempt the appeal of radical socialism by establishing a series of socialized insurance programs for retirement, unemployment and medical care.
The too subtle for Wombat to grasp difference here is that there was less intervention of the state in private industry with the more right wing governments (i.e.: the German Empire and the Weimar Republic) than with the more LW Nazis.
In no way can it be asserted that the National Socialists were as right wing as the previous governments; the Nazis were both more statist and exercised a greater level of centralized control over private industry; one need not foolishly require that private profits need be abolished to establish this, of course.
Additionally, nationalism is no determinant of political orientation. The majority of the more strongly political leaning governments in recent history which have exploited nationalistic leanings have been left wing, e.g. Cuba, North Korea, etc.
Pelle -
I was inadvisedly lowering myself to somewhat above your level for a moment. IAC, PE, for instance, has quite often stated that he 'doesn't give a shit' about some matter or other, and in those precise words, and you have eaten that up with a spoon.
Pelle is posting and hypocrisy is in the air.
Why stop at the thread?
Does it make you think of baseball or is it just me?
There's another one I was thinking of which is British I believe----only because most of the figures on it's spectrum are British. Do you know where that one is.
Does it strike you as suspicious that a survey being run by a Libertarian site turns up nearly 40% Libertarians with it's findings? I mean, the survey isn't worded in a biased manner---unlike many I've seen. Perhaps it's the focus of the questions asked?
Actually, I think the 40% score is low, considering that The Advocates for Self Government is a libertarian site to begin with, but I suppose people with other ideologies are referred to it from time to time, as they have been from the Mote, and some folks just stumble upon it.
The Quiz itself was designed by a libertarian wanting to develop a more accurate way of evaluating political preferences than the standard left-right spectrum, which has no place for libertarians on it.
I mention the other survey because it's the one I was originally thinking of although I think yours was the first presented here in theMote. It has the same spectrum of affiliations in that it's not just a questions of political values but also of governing styles.
If I come across it I'll post it.
Well, the only things I loathe are the loss of freedoms, unnecessary suffering and loss of human life because of idiotic policy and politically correct regimented groupthought, Ms. No.
Are you saying that's a bad thing?
To that, I say: Awwwwwww.....
You gather wrong.
Did you read any of the posts here?
Yeah, Nazis were hideous statists, and Commies are hideous statists, but that doesn't quite make Nazis socialists or leftists, just collectivists, using generally accepted definitions.
Did you read any of the posts here?
I have repeatedly made clear that I do not consider the Nazis to be Leftists. How stupid are people here that I have to do so?
Generally accepted definitions? Afraid not.
Notwithstanding these advantages of definiteness, the word collectivism has not been widely employed, even in France and Belgium; nor does it promise to supplant the older term (socialism) in the future.
Islamic extremists (Laskar Jihad) have killed over 10,000 Indonesian Christians in the last year. The number is expected to be higher this year.
No wonder whatsisface from Indonesia is afraid to show it in the Mote anymore.
I rate him along with Orwell as my favorite mid-20th century writers, and both are political heroes for me too.
So maybe you and me are political soulmates after all?
Reading Camus definitely on my 'to do' list. Recently, I've been catching up on my NYT bestsellers, however.
Your unsubstantiated assertions are two-fold:
(1) The Nazi state was more interventionist with respect to the economy than either the Weimar Republic or
Wilhemine Germany.
(2) Many left-wingers supported the Nazis.
Both assertions are false.
Unlike you, I have actually read economic histories of Nazi Germany and Wilhemine Germany. Where I am now, I don't have my books but in October I can quote from them at some length. They elaborate to what extent Nazi economic policies were essentially continuations of Wilhemine industrial policy and state capitalism.
The other assertion is even more false. During the many legislative elections of the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Nazis primarily ate into the vote of the centrist and right-wing parties. Neither the Social Democrats (the mainstream left) nor the Communists (the far left) had their electoral base much eroded: their shares of the popular vote in German elections remained large and more or less constant.
Moreover, when Hitler was appointed chancellor in 1933, which party did he invite as a coalition partner? Why, the DNVP -- the party which was unambiguously traditional right-wing. This was the party of Big Business, founded by the industrialist Hugo Stinnes, led by the newspaper magnate Alfred Hugenberg, vehement opponent of trades unions and advocate of the restoration of the monarchy. The DNVP had also closely cooperated with the NSDAP during the elections.
Anyway, the point is that the mainstream right in Western Europe overwhelmingly thought fascism a healthy thing right up to the war itself, while there is no evidence whatever that the left (mainstream or radical) gave any support to fascism. The fact that Mussolini began his political career as a socialist is the only, pathetic crutch for your argument.
Perhaps the confusion that exists in your mind might be cleared up if you split up the left-right political spectrum into two separate spectra: authoritarian and liberal-democratic. I think that would be more useful.
In both spectra, capitalism and nationalism would be associated with the right, while state-socialism and internationalism would be associated with the left. Therefore, Nazi Germany qualifies very much as the right wing of the political spectrum of authoritarian states and Stalinist Russia as the left wing. In the political spectrum of liberal-democratic states, you could put the US Republican party on the right and (for example) the French socialist party on the left. This does not make the US republican party similar to the Nazis, any more than it makes the French socialists similar to the Stalinists. That kind of parity should settle your pathetic partisan anxieties.
"
Therein lies the problem. Concerned *does* see the French socialists as stalinists, and he is trying to stave off a similar lumping of "good" and "bad" right wingers.
I see. "The Nazis walked, talked, and smelled like Lefties," as you posted a while back, but somehow that means you never accused Nazis of being leftists.
Right, sure.
Concerned: The jexster of the Right.
I see that rondums is very bitter this evening. However, that is no justification for him trying to force his false personal prejudices and misconceptions on me.
How would that make the Nazis any more 'far right wing' than the equally pro business attitude and policies, of say, the x42 administration, during which GATT and NAFTA were signed, the largest tech bubble in US history developed, Robert Rubin (Dem - Goldman Sachs) was Treasury Secretary and the Mr. 'It's the Economy, Stupid' ran interference for companies like General Electric, Unocal, Loral, Occidental Petroleum, Enron, etc. in their domestic and foreign affairs?
Being pro business is no determinant of political conservatism.
Raskolnikov discerns the point I am getting at. The most critical issue, to me, is to discredit the ideologically motivated broadbrush distortion of what conservatism may constitute; the said distortion and overgeneralization tends to have a very stultifying effect on political discourse. The German National Socialist Party incorporated many LW characteristics into their style of governance, and nobody should be browbeaten to believe that they were archetypical of the 'far right', when so much evidence exists to the contrary. The Nazis were collectivists, if not quite doctrinaire socialists. Individual rights and liberties were secondary to the wishes and objectives of the state. That is a LW characteristic.
So, private ownership vs. collective ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange no longer cuts it as a determinant on the left/right spectrum! Con says so, therefore it's a fact!
Even better, in the following post ! Individual rights and liberties were secondary to the wishes and objectives of the state. That is a LW characteristic.
Yeah! Yeah! So, the Spanish civil war was completely unnecessary, because Franco was actually a left-winger! No, wait a minute : the Communists should have been allies of the Phalangists, against the Anarchists, who were the real right-wingers (i.e. the Good Guys), because they stood for individual rights and liberties over the wishes and objectives of the state!
Oh my! Ideology 101 is such fun, with wacky professor Con!
Unlike Concerned and his left-wing straw people, most of us posting here do recognize differences between the Nazis and other rightwing parties (the Nazis were far more extreme) and differences between socialist, communist, and other leftwing parties. We also know that populist politics and personality cults (and statist economies) predate Lenin by at least a thousand years.
It seems to me the farther you go out in either direction, the more you need a government to enforce your beliefs. This leaves the true advocates for freedom in the center. We can argue all day about where exactly that center is and where each of us stands relative to that point. But the truth is that the vast majority of people both in this forum and in the US in general are pretty close to center. Appeals to either extreme never garner much mass appeal.
I guess what I am saying is that the discussion of whether Nazis are left or right is a bit moot. At that extreme, there is not enough of a difference to really count.
"
Bingo. Concerned doesn't want the left to do to him what he likes to do to the left.
But is it laughable to see neo-cons prattling on about how they are the true defenders of liberty, as Sean Hannity, and our own concerned, are doing these days.
It is a disinformation campaign that is going nowhere.
Conservatives are very, very selective about whom they wish to have liberty.
And those on the list do not include women, gays, those who self-medicate, etc.
Howler upon howler, Con. I really love this one,
So, private ownership vs. collective ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange no longer cuts it as a determinant on the left/right spectrum! Con says so, therefore it's a fact!
Perhaps you should direct your foolish tittering toward Ronski, who first brought up the classification of Nazis as collectivists. Your whinnying post actually goes a long way toward backing up my response to Ronski that such a distinction is not commonly accepted by many.
Yes, you dolt. The state, as opposed to, say a religion or a simple despotism.
You're a real intellectual disappointment, AC.
Raskol -
I may affect to do so on occasion, but the real culpability lies with significant portions of the Left, such as far too many Europeans, who believe they do not damage truth and political discourse by classifying the political right wholesale in the most erroneous and demeaning terms. They should really do far, far better than that.
Yes, 'traditionally'. And, according to your 'reasoning', shit's really ambrosia, too, because fifty billion flies can't be wrong.
They were Republicans.
That makes Clinton and Clinton-like Democrats centre-right, because they are in essence the other business faction within the US political spectrum, albeit with a few things which move them somewhat leftward. (And the "largest tech bubble in US history" was allowed to develop with the connivance with both parties in the USA.)
"Being pro business is no determinant of political conservatism."
Rubbish. Not just pro-business, but pro Big Business is the sine qua non of being right-wing. Conservatives espouse free markets more than anybody else, but in reality there is no political party on earth which actually practises free markets. What gets actually implemented is a pro-business orientation, which is a very different thing from free markets.
Concerned, I don't know where you get your ideas from, but you seem to have an undisclosed, private definition of "right wing" which simultaneously mocks history and lacks coherence.
The definition of 'collectivism' in standard political philosophy parlance means the collective ownership of the means of production, i.e., not private, but communal.
Message # 733: Theodore Roosevelt, I believe, was a trust-buster. That makes him to the left of most recent American presidents, at least when it comes to business & economic issues.
Hitler was the ultimate corporatist (i.e., one who allowed private businesses to amalgamate and collude).
Centralized economic control relies on methods such as parceling out market share, controlling vendor/customer relationships, allocating manufacturing rights and defining profit flows to achieve its aims, most of which techniques which would be considered effectively identical to extreme collusion and amalgamation in an oligarchic private industry. Yet such control is a hallmark of the more extreme Leftist socialist regimes, which is one reason I why I believe that relying on a merely economic model to place a regime's implementation on an ideological scale is often less than satisfactory at best.
I believe that T. Roosevelt's initiatives are at least as well accepted by the political right as the left in the US today. You'd be hard pressed to find any RWers who are against safe food, medicine and national parks.
What's the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat?
The Socialist removes the dishes before he pisses in the sink.
Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man.
Communism is the reverse.
The Mote | Mote Archive
back to top