Sunday roast
October 26th, 2008 - 2:41 pm
Open thread. Is capitalism — or at least capitalism as we knew it — dead? Has freedom simply become too burdensome to bear? Isn’t it better if we simply struck a deal with Russia and Islamic fundamentalism and just got along?
Sure. As long as the deal includes religious freedom, property rights, and freedom of speech with clearly spelled out punishments for those who would violate same. And don’t forget to include the Chinese autocrats in the discussion.
And just what would this deal entail?
Freedom has been gone since Jimmy C killed it with the welfare state surpassing all other spending and is now more then all other spending put togehter, religious freedom dies with the “O”ne as he ushers in socialism, the only thing left is Islam and it will be the one world government religion that will herald in the 2nd coming of our Lord….
Hehe. It wouldn’t be the first deal neither with the soviets neither with Islamic fundamentalists. Both got weapons and support from the west to fight Evil. Few years later each become Evil enough to trigger third world war. Strategic enough,huh?
There’s no way to strike a deal. You can’t have socialism/marxism AND a right to property and the fruits of your own labor; you can’t have freedom of religion AND an Islam that insists on vanquishing anything un-Islamic. You have no choice except to make a choice, which one. If you choose to accomodate socialism or Islam, you’ve made a choice by default. There really is no Third Way.
Freedom has become too burdensome for the faithless.
Isn’t that the purpose of the upcoming world economic meeting that Bush is hosting? That America financially bail out the rest of the world, including Europe and Russia and maybe China, while we continue to feed Africa and the parts of the Middle East that don’t have oil money. All the while we agree that they can still keep calling us arrogant and blaming everything on America and the Jews?
Such an agreement would be the end of capitalism, no?
And if Obama is elected he’s already on-board with spreading the wealth around, so he’ll be taking it from Joe the Plumber and giving it to Achmed the Bomb-Maker so Achmed can afford Wife Number 3 and to feed Child Number 11. Not to mention giving whatever wealth America still has left to Putin to enable the Russian vodka-industry to keep up enough production to keep Russian peasants sodden and obedient.
Actually, that is what the people following The Messiah are hoping for, under the rubric, “Hope and Change.”
Eric Hoffer, in the first chapter of his book “The True Believer” says this:
“For men to plunge headlong into an undertaking of vast change, they must be intensely discontented yet not destitute, and they must have the feeling that by the possession of some potent doctrine, infallible leader or some new technique they have access to a course of irresistible power. They must also have an extravagant conception of the prospects and potentialities of the future. Finally, they must be wholly ignorant of the difficulties involved in their vast undertaking. Experience is a handicap. The men who started the French Revolution were wholly without political experience. The same is true of the Bolsheviks, Nazis and the revolutionaries in Asia. The experienced man of affairs is a latecomer. He enters the movement when it is already a going concern. It is perhaps the Englishman’s political experience that keeps him shy of mass movements.”
I think Obama’s supporters are sick of The War (they have heard nothing but negative stuff about Iraq); they don’t like having the responsibilities of being a Great Power; they want to be liked by Europeans. They are tired of ‘problems’ and are angry at “The Government” for causing the financial meltdown. They want CHANGE and HOPE.
To the extent that capitalism as we know it is dependent on the continuation of the nation-state model as we know it, then yes, capitalism as we know it is on its last legs, just as the nation-state model is – regardless of who wins in November. Indeed, neither McCain nor Obama have shown me that they get this, or have any clue how to adapt to the post-Westphalian world that is slowly emerging.
Capitalism is not dead, but via the multi-national corporations it has evolved to a “system” where it’s individual parts are not nearly as closely tied to particular nations/ideologies. It remains to be seen whether, on the whole, that is good or bad. It could go either way.
“[Obama's supporters] are tired of ‘problems’ and are angry at “The Government” for causing the financial meltdown. They want CHANGE and HOPE.”
What’s unfortunate for Obama’s supporters is that, if elected, The Anointed One will ultimately be unable to deliver either as they envision them.
To the extent that capitalism as we know it is dependent on the continuation of the nation-state model as we know it, then yes, capitalism as we know it is on its last legs, just as the nation-state model is – regardless of who wins in November. Indeed, neither McCain nor Obama have shown me that they get this, or have any clue how to adapt to the post-Westphalian world that is slowly emerging.
I think you are half-right. Obama because of his familiarity, if not actual adherence to Marxism, is naturally post-Westphalian and “Internationalist”, but not in Bobbit’s “market state” sense. His conception of internationalism is based on an older tradition. Whereas the “market state” exists to maximize the opportunities available to individuals, Obama’s probable ideology will emphasize the traditionally authoritarian welfare state approach.
One of the problems bedeviling Republicans is that they have not created mental model that has post-Westphalian aspects.
I think the freedom we will enjoy is freedom from any authority of government. Think ‘no go zones’ in the large cities of France.
There is a small area near here that is situated across a lake, accessible by a cable ferry. There are maybe 1000-1500 people living across there. If you drive only the length of the community, you don’t need to license your vehicle, many don’t. The two sources of income are people working elsewhere, or drug cultivation. If the police show up, word spreads quickly, and all evidence is hidden.
Obama and supporters think that government can do things. It’s too late. They will raise taxes to the point where it is more profitable to run a criminal enterprise. That is the condition in Canada. They will weaken the powers of prosecutors, all in the name of righting an injustice done to the black community, and doing so will remove one of the costs of criminal enterprise.
When the US withdraws from the many parts of the globe that they are attempting to influence, failed state, complete societal breakdown will produce the usual criminal states. The largest driver of wealth will be drugs, traffic of humans for slaves or prostitution or immigration.
This is the freedom that awaits us.
Of course, that is the type of system and community that Obama has thrived in.
Derek
You know, at this point, I’d have to say yes…..it will just avoid a lot of conflict. Let’s just skip the Second Civil War and accept the inevitable…a majority of Americans are idiots or pussies, or both.
If I thought the most Americans still cared or understood, or were even willing to listen, then I’d be all about fighting the good fight….but they don’t care, they don’t understand and they won’t listen. They are intent on not looking reality in the face, intent on voting for the cheerful American Idol-looking guy and getting back to the next episode of Lost.
Screw em. I’m living outside the US and I think I’ll just stay here. I’d rather watch it turn into Eurabia from a distance, I just couldn’t stand seeing it up close. (my current home is a small insignificant country that will likely be one of the last decent places to live.)
Congratulations America, you’ve turned a patriotic ex-soldier willing to fight for you into someone who just doesn’t give a damn. Enjoy your shiny new overlord!
Some folks have no choice but to be dragged into the future by events beyond the control of any of us. I heard that more than half the colonists were against the American revolution. Looking at Obama’s voters, I believe it.
Lastly, how do you make deals with folks you know will stab you in the back the moment you relax?
These are the death-thoes of the welfare state.
The 20th Century was the story of overthrowing of the previous imperial order. Who is alive today who can believe that our grandparents lived at a time when the Habsburgs and the descendants of the Holy Roman Emporors still ruled in Europe, alongside feudal lords and islamic raiders. And who of our grandparents could have believed that their children would live in a world where men can walk on the moon, where the common man can travel around the world at a whim, and where dozens of cities can be wiped off the face of the earth at the push of a button?
The empirial world was overthrown by the welfare state, communist, national socialist & fascist, democratic socialist, and the american version. Again, who of our grandparents would have thought that the government would promise that taxes would be spent on a guaranteed retirement income and on paying physicians on our behalf? Who would have thought that governments would provide very high safety nets and very low ceilings of opportunity. And who of them would have accepted that?
But the world has discovered the weakness of the welfare state. Thatcher and Reagan exposed its corruption, and the world’s governments (even China!) are in retreat from the Commanding Heights so that even Democrat Clinton and Labour’s Blair could not go against the tide.
This was not a failure of capitalism. It was a failure of transition from the old order to the new. The Democrats may take overwhelming control and try to relive a New Great Depression, which would hurt the country, but it is nothing more than The Empire Strikes Back, a temporary setback.
There is a New Hope. Its names are Freedom of Choice, and Personal Ownership. And resistance is futile.
Just to clarify, the small area I described is under policed not due to fear, but due to lack of resources. More important things await the precious tax dollars than maintaining a reasonable level of security.
I wonder if the brilliant people who run things realize that when your currency is worthless (a year ago all the vendors in town were refusing $50 and $100′s, and closely questioning $20′s), the main economic activity is criminal (drug cultivation), you are more than half way to not being part of a sovereign state?
Capitalism requires the rule of law. Contract law, recognition of currency. Right now, if I work for someone, install some equipment etc., with fully signed contracts in place, they can not pay me, and I have no recourse. Oh, I can sue, lien, or whatever. By the time a judgment comes down, unless the deal is in the 6 digits, it will cost me more to collect than what I can possibly collect. The cost of collection is higher than the profit.
The only thing that keeps it running is that everyone believes that it is in their interest to keep it running.
That fact, or attitude, or impression hangs by a very thin thread.
I wonder if any of the intellectual class even know this?
Derek
Bob @ 13
I understand your sentiment, have been engaged in an internal fight with it all day.
Part of me still hopes the McCain/Palin ticket wins. The other part thinks it would only be a pyrrhic victory in any case.
If Obama/Biden are the wave of the future, who are we to stand in their way?
As somebody once said, “Bring it on.”
If it means “the use of markets to guide resource allocation,” capitalism has been around for thousands of years, as long as organized human societies. There’s a reason Adam Smith called it a “natural inclination.” (I don’t like the word “capitalism” used in this way, because that’s not what Marx meant when he made the phrase popular, but I’ll stick with it in deference to our host.)
It is true that the ideological madness that emanated from Europe – fascism, communism, the welfare state – has allowed the state to shove markets off the mark a bit. And the irony is that just as Europeans are beginning (perhaps too late) to recognize the bankruptcy of their vaunted social model, Americans may be trending that way, if the current election polls are to be believed.
But it won’t last. East Asians, South Asians and Africans are beginning to realize the market’s liberating potential. (South America, alas, is for now another story.) This is where the back of the nanny state will be broken – by (as someone from India once put it) the Indians who match the European desire for a 30-hour week with the Indian desire to work a 30-hour day. Although the state never stops fighting, never stops encroaching, never stops ravaging, capitalism always wins. The welfare state is the endpoint of the natural human desire to have someone else do the work we don’t want to, but capitalism, in addition to delivering the goods, is the only system consistent with individual autonomy and dignity.
As to the geopolitics of the Russians and the Islamists, I leave that to someone else. In the long run it has little to do with whether capitalism stays or goes.
More socialism in America, socialized health insurance, higher personal and business taxes, more onerous double taxation of C corps, more unionized industries (through card chack non-secret ballots) and America will not be able to afford the defense of Europe. Either the states in Europe and many other nation states will have to take on the expense of self defence or it is only a matter of time before one after the other falls to more militarized states.
My grandfather was a small business man in England. He owned a truck and would sell milk, eggs and vegetables out of his truck with my grandmother walking from door to door taking orders. He claimed to have never paid taxes. Didn’t believe in it. Saved all his money in a box in his closet. When the american taxpayer wakes up to the fact that over half of the populus is getting a free ride and that the ruling class thinks of them as just so many cows to be milked, they may decide they don’t believe in taxes either.
The best definition of Capitalism I have ever heard is “What you get when you leave people alone to do as they wish.”
After over 4 years working in the DC area, I formulated a definition of Communism: “What you get when you leave governments alone to do as they wish.”
And strangely enough, Communism primarily comes not from the efforts of committed Bolshivics but rather from the combined efforts of bureaucrats shoring up their inevitably crumbling empires and special interest groups seeking to gain some advantage – or just a desire to be “fair.”
It was my sad conclusion from working in the 5 sided Ft Fumble on the Potomac that all private companies want to be subsidized, protected against competition, and enjoy special privilages – while simultaneously expressing a desire for less government regulation.
And it is not just the Defense industry, either. I recall a small article in the Wash Post I read on the way home on the Metro one evening. The title was “Small firms chafe under govt regulations.” An interview with a lady who owned a new start-up cookie company said that she agreed that there were too many regulations, but she also added that there should be a law requiring retailers to buy new products, since it was very hard to get started against an established competition. That she saw no contradiction in these two viewpoints sums it up.
Freedom and capitalism, led by the USA, has fed the world for nearly a 100 years. Socialism has failed, and failed badly, every time it’s been tried. Subtract the US engine of progress and the situation in Europe, the far East, and the rest of the world would likely be worse, not better. If the US adopts European Socialism, capitalism will not be finished, but the US may be, in terms of growth and opportunity. Capitalism works, period. No other economic model half as well.
As far as “Freedom” is concerned, we need to define terms. If we’re talking about basic “human rights” as defined first in the US Constitution and bill of rights, that’s an open question. When Ben Franklin was asked “have we got a republic or monarchy”, he replied “A republic, if you can keep it”.
If you listen to the collective voices of the Democrat left, both the economic model (capitalism) and governing model (Constitutional Republic) are in their cross-hairs. Obama has promised change, and if elected, change we shall have.
The country is ripe for a revolution, but I do not see a revolution (in the traditional sense of the word) in America’s future. The world views of the “red staters” and “blue staters” diametrically on opposition. The left despises not just the policies of conservative Americans, but they have contempt for the people themselves.
How then, will the schism in world views impact the country ? I believe we’re seeing it now as the US Stock Market tanks in a slow death spiral. There are no fundamental market reasons for a crash of this magnitude. It’s caused by a crisis of confidence in American leadership, both here and abroad. American’s will respond next, by contracting, by retreating to a protective stance. As the political left grabs the levers of power by promising “95% of Americans” everything at a cost of nothing, American producers are reacting in self-defense.
What’s next, if Obama and a Congressional Democrat super-majority take office in January? The economic slide will continue. Individual states may rebel as the Feds force new laws and obligations upon them (e.g. anyone see Gay marriage happening on Utah any time soon?). Certainly, the US will withdraw internationally. If American’s have no confidence at home, they will will have little appetite to look outward. Certainly, Obama will withdraw from areas of current military obligation as soon as feasible, keeping a “skeleton” presense in some areas that will fool no one (read as: “no deterant value to Putin or others like him”). And, leading Democrats have already demanded an immediate 25% cut in the US military budget.
The political left in America feels that if they just control enough, if they control the agenda in the schools, the major media, in Congress, and if the “messiah” leads, the country will follow. In fact, Americans will react the same as any other coerced people, i.e. passive-aggressively. Out economy will contract, jobs will contract by the millions. Americans will be less outgoing, less confident, donations to charity will drop, and volunteerism will drop as well.
Optimistically, the pain will be sufficient that Americans will “upchuck” the whole lot in 2010 or 2012. Pessimistically, Americans will be to fractured and divided to present an effective challenge in the near term. Maybe when enough Americans are hungry, they’ll act.
Sad thing is, in this new fascist corporatist reorder I’ll end up a serf. Anyone needs their field tilled?
“…simply struck a deal with Russia and Islamic fundamentalism and just got along?”
It’s the weekend. Perhaps you have old friends in town…but drinking this heavily on a Sunday, Wretchard?!! We aren’t as young as those days along the Charles; our bodies don’t recover as rapidly.
Is capitalism — or at least capitalism as we knew it — dead?
Yes, capitalism as we knew it is dead. But there is nothing new here. Capitalism – an economic system based upon individual liberty and property rights – is constantly dying and reanimating. That is what happens when individuals and markets drive resource allocation. It’s messy, merciless, chaotic, and uncontrolled. And destructive. But creatively destructive, as Schumpeter put it.
The capitalism my grandfather knew is dead. Thank goodness, as that version was greatly inferior to the current version, especially for women who had commercial aspirations, and blacks who had any aspiration. And we’ll no doubt look back in 50 years and wonder how we could be so backward in our thinking, whether it is affirmative action, banking regulation, carbon cap-and-trade systems, auto industry bailouts, or taxing income vs. consumption.
The question is what the next version will look like. Hard to tell; as Yogi Berra said, predictions are hard to make, especially about the future. But in the short run, it looks to get much more regulated, and therefore will be much less creative, and much less destructive. I remain confident that, whatever happens in the short run, the long run global march toward individual freedom and property rights will continue.
After all, human beings are meant to be free. And since we’re not perfect, so our freedom will continue to lead to death. But life, too.
Capitalism is dead. Long live capitalism.
L3
No capitalism is not dead. The Reverse.
The more Obama has designs for sending money here and there, the more he will require a more robust capitalism. His ambitions and that of his followers requires a lot of money, far more than anything socialist economies can produce.
Moreover, the nation state is not dead, it is reviving. The threat of nuclear proliferation and terrorism guarantees that the Nation State will revive, as every nation hunkers down and creates isolationist trade blocs. Post blast.
As far as making “deals” … with whom? Riyadh? What of Waziristan? What of say, Kuala Lumpur? Or Jakarta? Or the teeming slums of Cairo, and the various middle class places around them.
There are simply too many players, with too many incentives to undercut rivals, to make any “deal” … it’s a mark of insanity to think there is any deal to be made.
All this globalism is merely America saying that no post WWII state may take over another state. Like Kuwait, we simply will not stand for it. Small exceptions allowed (Russia, Balkins). When our guaranty ends, the nation state will become institutions of survival as they have been before. It does not matter how much trade and capital flow or information flow is allowed; there will always be humans who find war and pilage a superior way of survival to working to satisfy customers.
If it only involved watching tortured nations die of self immolation maybe it isn’t worth being vigilant for freedom. Unfortunately, the monsters who prostrate themselves before the moon god want to eat my lunch too. At the risk of drawing the wrath of Nazi blowhards like Cedarford, I don’t desire to watch Israel strangled in blood either. In the 1930′s ,isolationism didn’t pay. It won’t now either.
Has freedom simply become too burdensome to bear?
Living the life of a free person is not child’s play. It is a game for adults. It has always been burdensome, too burdensome for children. Too much responsibility, too little frivolous entertainment.
It takes an adult to absorb repeated setbacks and challenges and yet continue striving toward a goal.
It takes an adult to forgo gloating and strutting when providence puts you on the winning side, because you may be on the other side some day.
It takes an adult to suffer defeat with grace, and not run screaming back to daddy (i.e. the state) if you end up with the short tine of the wishbone.
It takes an adult to put the needs of the others ahead of one’s own, to sacrifice your wants and desires for those you love.
It takes an adult to make the hard decision, knowing it won’t be the popular one, but it is best for all concerned.
Children think that freedom means doing what I want to do.
Adults know that freedom means doing what’s right, regardless of the cost.
This is a hard lesson to learn. It usually requires the experience of being let down by someone you thought you could believe in. But that experience is not enough; you must also realize that just because one person let you down doesn’t mean you should abandon belief in others. You have to travel the rocky and winding road from trust to distrust, then back to trust. Along the way, you move from näivete to cynicism to skepticsm. Older, but wiser.
Our nation’s prosperity has created large numbers of perpetual “children,” people who have always been taken care of by “adults.” (I used the quotes because adulthood is not correlated with age, but with experience.) Obama’s promise – take from the independent “adults” to give to the dependent “children” – may well get him elected. But when his supporters discover that the change was not worth believing in, I believe they will change. They will grow up.
Not all of them, maybe, or even most. But enough.
L3
Making “a deal” is more a matter of degree than boolean logic. Of course, deals have been made and will be made, regardless of who is elected. At some level, compromise is necessary in the phenomenal, non-theoretical world. The real question is what deals, and whether they will be in the interests of the United States and her friends?
It seems that some believe that if Obama is elected, William Ayers will personally knock on their door and escort them to the re-education camp. This is terribly convenient because it excuses us from the hard work of actually convincing the country. (What? Those idiots don’t read the Belmont Club? Sheeple!)
Denethor peering into Sauron’s palantir or Samwise doing his duty?
The conceit of the socialists is that they believe they are stronger than Islam is. Socialists believe religion to be an illusory construct, which is why they see it as the sigh of the oppressed. They don’t bother to learn that shaheeds willing to die for Allah are motivated by “religious” striving. The fact that so many shaheeds are not poor makes no impression on the socialist “intellectual.” It is the belief of the socialists that in making common cause with the Muslims that they are the true liberators of the Third World Muslims. They believe that when capitalism collapses, due to the Muslims’ jihad and the socialists’ application of Cloward-Piven, at that point the Muslims will shuck their primitive religion and become good socialists. I know, it’s crazy thinking, but that is how the socialists think about this.
The jihadis know all this. They understand perfectly well that the socialists are using them to attempt to further their own goals. But the jihadis also know that if capitalism and the West collapse the socialists do not have the strength, courage, or resourcefulness to resist dar al Islam.
Neither side of that alliance has the dynamism to grow an economy to sustain its fight. Both are parasitic upon free enterprise, innovation, investment, consumption, and private property. Parasites grow nothing, except their own colonization of the host. Both underestimate the ability of the host to fight back.
Marxism in all of its permutations has always been a failure. The conceit of their current ideologues and political operatives is that somehow they will “get it right this time.” And that, my friends, shows that they do not understand the nature of the failure and the causes. They continue to live the myth that it was on account of the personal corruption and incompetence of the leadership in socialist countries, or perhaps some explanation which says that the capitalist pig dogs caused the failure by pulling strings from outside the system.
I do not understand why some people think of Barack Obama as a brilliant man. If he was truly steeped in history, philosophy, and some grasp of economics, at 47 years of age he would not still be a socialist. But he is. The bulk of his devotees have no idea of the provenance of the ideas encoded in the Pied Piper’s tunes that resonate with the memes their teachers and professors planted in them. One would hope that in time with life experience significant numbers of these people will finally get it. That is what I am banking on. I’m an optimist about human beings and their ability to learn from their mistakes. Mind you, not everyone excels at that, but it only takes a critical mass to cause the socialist experiment to fall apart.
I am hearing more and more stories about bright young people who are not smitten with Obamamania and socialism. They know that this is a very bad thing. We need to encourage them to persevere with us and fight the long fight for liberty. There are a lot of people of average or low intelligence who are on the Obama wagon train because he’s promising them goodies. Essentially parasites. There are some highly educated people among the Obama Pied Piper Train. But their championing of parasitism will be their undoing and they won’t even be footnotes in history.
So, faced with a truculent and energized Jihad on one side of us, and an enervated socialist state wedded to intellectual sloth on the other hand, I believe the American people and all free peoples will wake up the seize the day.
Which capitalism do you mean, Wretchard? The capitalism of Viet Nam? The capitalism of Russia? The capitalism of China? The capitalism of India? The capitalism of … fill in the blank. Heck, we’ve won. It is easy to confuse economic models with political models. But, in general, the burgeoning economies of the world have pretty much all adopted the capitalist way. Look at Ireland’s banks and the way they ambushed the other Eurobanks in the current kerfluffle. Cutthroat capitalism at its finest. Where ever there is a merchant/banker donning his eye patch and running up the poltically correct version of the local Jolly Roger, capitalism is alive and well. Not every body can be a capitalist or entrenpeneur. So what do we do with the non-capitalists? Letting them starve to death doesn’t sound much better than the earlier discussion of the Weather Underground’s final solution. Just different. I know that the old idea of “those who don’t work don’t eat” is appealing, but it upsets my wife when I advocate evolution in action. So perhaps the best government for us, the USA is a mixture of liberal AND conservative policies that provides freedom to innovate and freedom from starvation. Hew to the center and avoid the precipice along the edges. The body politic of America is, to mangle a metaphor beyond belief, a buffered solution. It tends to resist massive changes and can absorb a lot of lunacy and still kind of meander down the middle in a rather civilized way. Don’t despair. Trust in the common man. And offer to drive for any one who can’t get to a polling place, especially if they are Republican.
Is Capitalisn dead?
But, what does our master have to say for himself?
Our Master’s Voice!
Aristide #33
Whoops! There it IS!!
This is THE clip to distribute as widely as possible in the next week.
Isn’t it better if we simply struck a deal with Russia and Islamic fundamentalism and just got along?
Well, a deal requires two parties who want to deal. The first step of any deal is finding out if the bid-ask spread is bridgeable. If it is, you’re in the “deal zone.” Then real negotiation can begin. But if you’re not in the deal zone, you’re wasting time talking any further. You’ll have to stop talking, and “meet in the market,” which means we’ll continue to compete.
In the case of Russia, the ask (from us) is “behave like a Western nation-state.” The bid is “give us back our empire.” Nope, not in the deal zone. So I guess we’ll meet in the market, which means we have to push them back every time they try to expand their footprint, by force if necessary. If you give them Georgia, they’ll ask for Ukraine next. Then the Baltics. Then Poland. Etc. Competitive strategy 101: the first order of business for the guy with the stronger position is to make sure he stays the guy with the stronger position.
In the case of Jihadism, the ask is “stop killing us.” The bid is “submit or die.” Nope, not in the deal zone there either. So we’ll meet in the market here too, which in this case is kill or be killed.
Doesn’t sound promising for “just getting along.” I suppose that means it might be premature, then, to cut our military by 25%.
Frankly, the children will just have to wait a little longer for their new Barney toys…
L3
In the long run, the natural advantages of the free market will cause the nations that adopt it to surpass those that don’t adopt it, or abandon it. It’s not magic, it’s the simple reality that in the capitalist system, you get rewarded for doing things that in general consensus, are good. The best that marxists can ever manage is a system in which you get rewarded for doing what the leadership thinks is good. This is the root of capitalism- do something that someone else wants you to do and get rewarded for it.
It’s a powerful thing, and that’s why it is loved and hated. If your mantra is do your own thing, and get paid for it… well, it sounds really good in a coffee shop in Berkeley and then someone realizes the devil in the details: if you’re just doing what you want to, then the person paying for it probably really has no interest in doing so, and has to be forced to. For this reason, any non-Capitalist system must be or become an unfree system.
If we move away from Capitalism, and China moves towards it, there really will come a day when New York and London are backwaters, maybe still a strong and vibrant cities, but no longer the cutting edge, which will have moved to Hong Kong, Beijing and Shanghai. The wave will have left us, like it left Athens and Constantinople and Alexandria, and it may or may not come back.
Konyok said:
“Denethor peering into Sauron’s palantir or Samwise doing his duty?”
I love the analogy (memo to self: don’t look at the palantir, must avert eyes…)
“Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.” Ayn Rand
This is all in our Declaration of Independence. Our unalienable God-given right to human liberty is the prerequisite for our unalienable God-given right to the pursuit of happiness, i.e.: to work creatively. A person simply must be free in order to be creative; the pursuit of happiness can only occur under human liberty.
Fred: “The jihadis know all this. They understand perfectly well that the socialists are using them to attempt to further their own goals. But the jihadis also know that if capitalism and the West collapse the socialists do not have the strength, courage, or resourcefulness to resist dar al Islam.”
Exactly; and others have also said the exact thing, and it is true.
“The enemies we have are common enemies — Left-fascist ideology (formerly expressed as Communism, but now reorganizing around the “scientific materialism” of the environmentalist cause), and Islamo-fascist ideology (now called “Islamism,” to distinguish political from religious Islam, on the assumption that this can be done)…What happens if our enemies succeed? I would guess it is then Green versus Green, and the Islamist monster eats the Environmentalist monster, for the former is more wilful and ruthless.”
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=9b47e919-d90c-4841-ac1a-295f8ee101ee
With the disclaimer that I have not read any of the prior comments, no, it’s not dead. The creative chaos that is capitalism has swung heavily toward chaos for the moment. One outcome- just like many who heretofore thought themselves true civil libertarians softened to the idea of heightened security and its consequences after 9/11, many who previously would have rejected any form of increased regulation in any industry now embrace it along with its consequences. Arguably Greenspan himself gave a mea culpa before congress that will be used by pro-regulation and/or pro-socialist types for years to come.
As far as going along with Russia and Islamic fundamentalism, I do not believe the demands of each can be simultaneously met in any way that would satisfy both sides. I’m not sure the Islamists could ever be completely satisfied even if that were the sole objective.
The dems will do their best to finish the job they’ve started in killing capitalism, as well as killing off your freedom to show dissent and resist them.
And in their best Orwellian fashion, they’ll pitch it all as INCREASING your freedoms.
L3 re: #29.
Okay, so how long will that take?
Marxism:
“The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property” Karl Marx
“In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.” Karl Marx
“You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.” Karl Marx
“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state… Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property” Karl Marx
Capitalism, i.e.: Free Enterprise and the Creative Pursuit of Happiness:
“The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right.” James Madison
“The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted.” James Madison
“Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” James Madison
“Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.” John Adams
“Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.” John Adams
“Now what liberty can there be where property is taken without consent?” Samuel Adams
“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams
“In the general course of human nature, a power over man’s substance amounts to a power over his will.” Alexander Hamilton
“In a free government almost all other rights would become worthless if the government possessed power over the private fortune of every citizen.” Chief Justice John Marshall
“To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association–the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” Thomas Jefferson
“Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have … The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.” Thomas Jefferson
“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.” Thomas Jefferson
“Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” Thomas Jefferson
“The Constitution of most of our states, and of the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” Thomas Jefferson
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.” Thomas Jefferson
“Property is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.” Abraham Lincoln
Piltdown Man,
My guess: 2-4 years. My observation is that kids grow up fast when the have to.
And they’re gonna have to with what’s in front of us…
L3
Both parts of your question are easy to answer, but they are not really related. Capitalism has been gutted and will expire if Obama is elected. An Excellent preview of the Obama nightmare is provided by the entertaining (and now scary) Michael Medved at http://tinyurl.com/6dtyem It is REALLY worth reading and passing on!
The second part of your question about striking a deal with Russian and radical Islam does not automatically follow from the first. A deal with radical Islam is not possible. “I just want you to die” .. is their idea of a deal. This has been going on for CENTURIES! It isn’t going away.
My prediction is that an Obama Presidency will bend over and give every despot and potentate everthing we have in our treasury. Despots and potentates will jolly him along for three years. In year four, Biden’s “TEST” will take place. It will come from Iran, or China, or India, or Russia, or etc.. Read any Tom Clancy scenario you like. Our military, cut by 50% funding by then, will be asked to respond and loyally they will. I’m a retired USAF officer and I’d tell anyone in the military that early 2009 would be a good time to get the hell out.
Find us domestic oil reserves and the threat of Russia (and Venezuela) go away.
While the MedVed article is well worth reading http://tinyurl.com/6dtyem I FIRMLY believe it is too late to change anyone’s mind about this election and that the ONLY useful thing you can do is to DRIVE SOMEONE TO VOTE who might not otherwise use their voting right this year. DRIVE SOMEONE TO VOTE! It’s the only way to make a difference at this point. A family member, a neighbor, someone at work… whoever.. get the to vote NOW! The time for Facebook persuasion and PAjamas Media discussion is over. DRIVE SOMEONE TO VOTE today and tomorrow. It’s the only way to save capitalism and personal freedoms.
I forgot to give a hat tip to naked emperor news.com for the bombshell 2001 Obama Chicago Public Radio Redistribution of Wealth Interview on WBEZ.FM.
You must listen to this chilling interview!
Wretchard:
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are post-Westphalian in about every sense that counts. Moreover, the same sort of thing was typical of central and eastern Europe going back more than a century, before the iron curtain dropped… leading to another, perhaps derivative, post-Westphalian model. But linking Afghanistan and Iraq to the necessity of a Lockean political imperative hasn’t been well expressed, that’s for sure.
However, the justification is embedded in the American Ideology itself. First is the notion that it’s possible to establish a political order on something other than ethnicity or “nationality” in its original meaning: nation that doesn’t have a containable nationality. So history returns, and ideology is again at the nexus of the human struggle.
Thus far the anti-Lockean ideology hasn’t been able to establish a “lasting nationality” that can compete successfully with Lockeanism, and if there’s a defeat of the latter from within (or it’s brought low by http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGQ0MGJiNDE1MGJiYmZjYWVlMTllYjY0MTQzODZiYWM=it may just signal a general dissolution rather than an ascendence. Or it could be a last gasp of anti-Lockeanism? The mystique upon which “the revolution” depends assumes no critical defections.
I think I messed up the html in post #46. Here’s the “fixed” version, I hope:
Wretchard:
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are post-Westphalian in about every sense that counts. Moreover, the same sort of thing was typical of central and eastern Europe going back more than a century, before the iron curtain dropped… leading to another, perhaps derivative, post-Westphalian model. But linking Afghanistan and Iraq to the necessity of a Lockean political imperative hasn’t been well expressed, that’s for sure.
However, the justification is embedded in the American Ideology itself. First is the notion that it’s possible to establish a political order on something other than ethnicity or “nationality” in its original meaning: nation that doesn’t have a containable nationality. So history returns, and ideology is again at the nexus of the human struggle.
Thus far the anti-Lockean ideology hasn’t been able to establish a “lasting nationality” that can compete successfully with Lockeanism, and if there’s a defeat of the latter from within (or it’s brought low by ”the charge of the fake brigade” it may just signal a general dissolution rather than an ascendence. Or it could be a last gasp of anti-Lockeanism? The mystique upon which “the revolution” depends assumes no critical defections.
Obama Media
[Mark R. Levin]
Everyone is noticing.. The media are out of the closet.
In a Fox News Sunday panel segment on the media’s pro-Obama and anti-McCain bias, Juan Williams revealed journalists were in such a swoon for Barack Obama that during the primaries “what you saw was that the executive editors and the top people at the networks were all rushing to Obama events, bringing their children, celebrating it, saying they were, there’s this part of history.”
Aristide #33 and #45
That naked emperor news audio clip of Chicago State Senator Barack Obama discussing redistribution of wealth on Chicago Public Radio WEBZ-FM in 2001 (Wish we had the exact date) is THE SMOKING GUN.
For me, this clip is also something of a Rosetta stone. This brings all of his coy campaign rhetoric and the “Audacity of Hope” prose into sharp relief.
This convincingly proves that Obama is a knowing socialist of Gramscian provenance.
Well I shouldn’t be shocked, but I have to admit that I am stunned. From the link in #33, this guy, “Oh”, admitted to seeking “economic justice” meaning not just reparations, not just punitive economics, but outright theft of property in search of some very sketchy version of justice, by using a very sketchy legal rational for it.
He is worse than a communist, he is worse than a socialist, he is a frigging thief. A no good two faced lying thief. This is what the Democrats are all about? Is this what Benj has been arguing for? Total and complete criminality?
Bravo Aristide.
Here is the beginning of an email I’ve sent out. (Don’t ask me what choice words I added after it; use your own.)
For two and a half centuries, the labors of U.S. citizens who generate wealth and pay taxes has provided the margin that has allowed our government to defend Europe and allies in other parts of the world, *and* come to the aid of many scores of other nations when they have experienced crop failures, cyclones, plagues, earthquakes, and other disasters. That has also allowed us to support the cost of operations of the United Nations in both its occasional legitimate work, and its massive bureaucratic extravagance and multiple criminal corruptions, along with many decades of foreign aid, including the re-building of Europe under the Marshall Plan.
The heady optimism of the Left – who see themselves about to assume the reins of the government – don’t reckon it as significant that this government has shown itself to be the solitary Western government with the will to resist subsumption by the Jihadists and collectivists. (It’s interesting to see how no one in the U.S. Liberal / Left ventures any judgment or comment on the ruthlessness of Russian response to Islamic terrorism.)
On one hand, the Left in the U.S. have been so thoroughly rewarded by hewing to Marxist dogma despite the worldwide collapse of Marxist-Socialist governments, that they have no need to allow any other interpretation of resistance or opposition to U.S. policies or culture.
On the other hand, they utterly take for granted the robustness of the U.S. economy, and refuse to consider that imposing further confiscatory taxes on productive labor can ever exhaust what they regard as surplus to be used for their purposes.
Finally, they fail to consider that we are in fact even more vulnerable now than we ever have been, to world-wide plague from naturally-occuring microbes.
A person need not be a scholar to see the parallels between the decline of Rome and the current ex-sanguination of the United States.
Sorry,
Bad grammar.
Flu symptoms.
Regarding that audio clip of the Obama interview back in 2001, after hearing it I almost held my breath in amazement of how something so bold was hiding in plain sight.
At this point our only hope to stop him and his party after January will be the blue dog Democrats. And even then, can they withstand the utter amorality and ruthlessness of Nancy Pelosi, who you may recall was once a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, which morphed into The New Party in the early Nineties.
“In their heady optimism, the Left…”
Fred,
Right now our best hope is to broadcast this clip as widely as possible.
My response was exactly as yours, it is literally breathtaking.
Have you read Ron Rosenbaum’s “The Meaning of Hitler”? In it he discusses the *knowing look* of Hitler and his confederates as they spoke in euphemisms of the final solution. I see that here and now in Barack Obama.
He is a *knowing* socialist. In the clip he speaks of the negative rights conferred by the constitution – the rights NOT to be violated by the government. He uses the standard leftist formula as he laments the lack of positive rights to be enforced by government. In a matter-of-fact manner he discusses how government can be used to enact the redistribution of wealth civil rights remedy.
Thus, two birds with one stone: reparations and socialism.
Meanwhile, we have complicated any prospective deal with Syria. October surprise anyone?
Benj,
If you are lurking, I would love to see your reaction to the audio.
Konyok @ 49
The Obama interview is fromn January 18th , 2001.
Here’s the link to the Chicago Public Radio (CPR) audio library. Scroll down to the 18th.
The above passage appears to be accurate, minus the “uhms” and “ahhs”.
Pelosi’s white. The way I read Obama, that would mean he’d be very interested in taking her wealth away from her and redistributing it to some deserving black Katrina victims.
Thanks, Aristide.
I’ve been e-mailing like a mad fiend. It really helps to be able to put an exact date to the clip.
His desire for “major redistributive change” is unambiguous. He is a socialist. He is a Gramscian socialist because he believes in *evolving* the system rather than revolution.
This is the smoking gun. This is Obama’s own words, not somebody’s interpretation.
Good work!!
Konyok,
Any deal with Syria contingent upon us strong arming Israel to give up the Golan… if I were the Israelis I would give us the big “f**k you.”
We’ve already nixed the Israelis desire to go and destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons’ development sites. And now the CIA has to give up the ghost on that politicized NIE and acknowledge that in February Iran has the hydrogen bomb. Talk about embarrassing for Langley, Foggy Bottom, and Homeland Security!
I think we are throwing Israel under the bus. Obama will do it even more blatantly, and he’ll laugh at the secularized, Leftist Jews who voted for him.
I see mushroom clouds over Israel and us not doing anything about it next year. That’s why a President Obama’s numbers are gonna sink, and why Biden was asking the faithful kool-aid drinkers in Seattle to not despair at the rest of the nation’s rage at him.
The dying Jewish State’s last act is going to be letting loose several hundred nukes on Iran. It will destroy Iran utterly, as Israel is utterly destroyed. Tens of millions of people are going to die because our current President is so politically wounded he can do nothing to authorize stopping this and his successor could give a rat’s ass.
Nahncee,
That is a corollary of the Leninist concept of “False Consciousness.” Dear Nancy just doesn’t understand where her true class interests lay …
Meanwhile, it turns out that William Ayers is preparing to publish a new book about White Skin Privilege and the Criminal Justice system.
The clip is a kind of Rosetta stone. It underlines the nexus between Black Liberation Theology and socialism – socialism IS reparations.
Fred,
Did you see this?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D942EFR80&show_article=1
Oh, and Ahmadinejad is being treated for “exhaustion.”
Konyok,
Yes, I saw that story earlier this evening, posted at another weblog I go to. My take: I think Iran is behind the rat lines going in from Syria now. A few years ago it was the Baathist remnants, but now I think Iran is behind just about all of it. Hamas and Hizb’allah are now proxies for the al Qods Force, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. Syria is nothing more than an Iranian satellite now, as is Lebanon.
I think we may see Syria and Lebanon attack Israel next year, with the threat of the Iranian nukes added for good measure. First, before they kick it off, Iran and the United States will start pressuring Israel to give up pretty much everything the enemy is asking for. The Israeli government finally figures out that we are not a trustworthy ally, and flips us the bird. What else can they do? Death by a thousand paper cuts, or risk being brave and maybe surviving by their own pluck. Hey, I would take the second option.
I am convinced Obama is a character type much like his allies and associates: utterly amoral and ruthless, committed to a socialist transformation of the country and will do whatever it takes to achieve it. He will also make nicey-nice with all manner of unsavory foreign characters. He’s just a low, cunning lawyer in a narcissistic, personality-disordered persona.
Fred,
This means that Bush is negating whatever *deal* he may have had with Baby Assad. I would think that this development is being cheered in Israel. Damascus is reminded of what a soft target it is.
The Ahmadinejad news: coincidence?
It may be that a *deal* is in the works with the Iranian clergy.
It also may be that Dubya is being a very busy lame duck president …
Konyok,
You don’t seriously think Iran can be trusted to put its nuclear ambitions in abeyance, do you? “War is deceit” is a favorite saying of the Prophet. They are only allowed a hudna with the kafir, and a hudna can only be used to prepare to resume the war at a point when you are stronger than the kafir.
I don’t trust any deal with those snakes. Anyone who does is a fool.
I don’t buy any of this westphalian end of nation state biz. What’s happened is that the US courtesy of the dems stealth great society program has become embarrassed. there is now financial tourmoil in the US and Europe
but not in Asia where the big banks in China and Japan were not seriously exposed to toxic US paper.
Don’t bet for an instant that either the Japanese or the Chinese are keenly interested in ceding sovereignty.
what we’re seeing is a shift in financial power eastward.
(If McCain Palin can kill the export of US dollars overseas to pay for energy–there can be a rebalancing.)
The europeans have thought that somehow they could pull relative advantage from the US by conveniong a world council but if anything happens there at all–the europeans will come up short as well — because their systems are also over leveraged.
U.S. has plundered world wealth with dlr -China paper
The Europeans have also vastly overleveraged & overextended themselves. Its not just bad US real estate paper. There’s a good discussion of this over at the elephant bar.
Karen:
There’s no way to strike a deal. You can’t have socialism/marxism AND a right to property and the fruits of your own labor;
Yes you can. As private property rights are strong in socialist countries AND people have a right to fruits of labor. A doctor or banker in Israel or France or Japan or China or India still lives much better than a laborer. you can’t have freedom of religion AND an Islam that insists on vanquishing anything un-Islamic. You have no choice except to make a choice, which one. If you choose to accomodate socialism or Islam, you’ve made a choice by default. There really is no Third Way.
Just as you can have laissez faire capitalism and a fair part of the population living as slaves, exploited serfs or peasants living on rented land – where the “fruits” are what the Patron or nobleman SAYS you deserve. Capitalism also flourishes under Fascist, Oligarchal, Authoritarian, and Totalitarian systems.
you can’t have freedom of religion AND an Islam that insists on vanquishing anything un-Islamic. You have no choice except to make a choice, which one.
The record of Islam is generally not good, but there are historical precendents that show Islam did live generally, peacefully, alongside other religions in certain areas for many hundreds of years. Islam also had a tolerant “Golden Age” which was shattered by the Mongols. Unfortunately, thanks to the Saudis in main, and Shiite radicalism secondarily, Islam in the modern era is much less tolerant than in past eras.
If you choose to accomodate socialism or Islam, you’ve made a choice by default. There really is no Third Way.
Of course there is. Democratic socialism is all about finding a “3rd Way” between rapacious, Darwinian capitalism and war for wealth – and communism and democides.. And within Islam, sects have spun off that no one feels are a threat – Sufis, Sikhs, mystics – while other sects like the Assassins, Wahabbis, and followers of the Cult of the Mahdi – are.
Karen – Freedom has become too burdensome for the faithless.
But as a true believer, convinced it is all black and white, you similarly spare yourself the burden of thought when the reality is far from being contained in simplistic slogans.
There is a saying in the Arab world that none are freer than the desert barbarian riding into battle in Jihad against fleeing infidel enemy. Wind in your face, hoofs pounding, Allah pleased, blood dripping from your scimitar, women you spare made you slaves to do as with you please..it doesn’t get freer than that.
In America, a few mass murderers have explained their actions as “loving freedom, being unbound from laws that ordinary people must follow”. Similar thoughts have been expressed by wealthy Jewish financiers and WASP “Masters of the Universe” caught in spectacular scandals – who proclaim they are “Unconfined by laws lesser men must obey. Live by different rules.”, unbound from stifling things like borders, citizenship, repressive social norms and odd notions that each person’s influence on votes and political representation is somehow supposed to be “equal” in magnitude.
********************
I do believe capitalism must change…since poorly regulated “freedom-lovers!!” on Wall Street pumped poison into the global financial markets and burned not just US investors, but Western and Asian ones – who happen to be our creditors. They will insist on better regulation and oversight – or the T-Bill buying that keeps our gov’t afloat and the confidence in the US investor market will suffer greatly.
Capitalism can survive, but after 7 major financial scandals since Reaganomics culminating in this Mega-Disaster, not as it once was. Not the American 80s variant of it, at least.
Let us hope that the Democrats listen carefully to their “serious, wise men” successful and very familiar with the system – about what needs to be fixed with the “free markets” and “free trade, lowest bid labor system” that has so far badly weakened America’s economic strength.
It’s not just China that has eaten our lunch. Since Reagan, we have found “supply-side economics”, “trickledown” are preposterous theories and most dereg has screwed Americans. And wealth has concentrated at the top in a way not seen since the eve of what may be only our 1st Great Depression. And our lunch is being taken away from us and eaten by every nation that trades with us – not just China…
Remember that we have been forced to go in and really take profound measures to change capitalism when it failed our nation and it’s citizens – (1)Jacksonian democracy; (2)The Grange revolt; (3)Monopoly and Trust-busting; (4)revamping the whole structure under FDR, (5)Forcing safety, quality standards, and equal employment opportunity rules on business in the modern age.
Leo Linbeck #29
Very thoughtful. To
“It usually requires the experience of being let down by someone you thought you could believe in. But that experience is not enough; you must also realize that just because one person let you down doesn’t mean you should abandon belief in others.”
I would add only that some of the deepest disappointments in others are when one is let down by those who have tried hardest not to let us down–parents who want to shield the child from pain or loss. At those times the child, who believes parents are all-powerful, may try to find security in the belief that the parent really still has the power to prevent that pain or loss if the parent really wanted to or if the child demanded more forcefully. And the parent may be reluctant to accept that he or she does not have the power to protect a child from all of life’s hazards, even though the price of not accepting the limits of power is condemning oneself as a bad parent.
Granting the limits of the analogy between parents and children and political leaders and followers, I think the greatest anger toward Obama, should he become President, will not be from those of us who believe he is misguided in his promises. (I am willing to believe that he believes in his own promises and his ability to deliver on them.) I think the greatest anger will be from those who now believe in his promises and power and will be let down. Maybe an important task for those of us who can see that anger coming will be to direct it in constructive ways.
Of course, just as it can help a disappointed child if a parent can admit the parent’s limitations, it will help if Obama can admit his.
The old saying from the 50′s “I’d rather be Red than dead” will be altered but mean the same; no sacrifice needed, move along. First they came for the plumber, but I wasn’t a plumber; then they came for the Florida TV interviewer, but I wasn’t a TV interviewer, then . . . . . it was too late.
C4 @ 72
The record of Islam is generally not good, but there are historical precendents that show Islam did live generally, peacefully, alongside other religions in certain areas for many hundreds of years.
Like where? The Balkans?
Maybe capitalism is dead, we can’t know yet. Personally, I tend to doubt it. I think the Chinese are likely to be the most ferocious capitalists of all.
I don’t think the Westphalian nation state is dead either. But the American version of captialism and the nation state is in serious trouble because the Americans are tired of it — tired of the war; tired of being a Great Power; tired of being disliked, and want “change” and “hope.” They’re electing tin God Hussein-Obama to me-too the Euros.
But the Euros are going to club together with the Russians Chinese, the Persians and the Tinpot Coalition formerly known as the Third World to lay the Americans under contribution. We’re going to be hollowed-out to subsidize the Euro welfare state for another generation; pay for rebuilding the Russian Empire; feather the nests of the dictators’ club and to keep the drug lords happy. Obama and crew seem to be okay with such an agenda.
The question is whether we can be kept still long enough to swallow the pill. I tend to think Obama and crew are going to run wild for the first two years, have a more difficult time before we can rid ourselves of them four years hence, but in the meantime the rest of the world will have acquired a commanding enough position towards the US in power terms that we might not find it so easy to climb out of the hole Obama and the socialists are going to put us in.
El Jefe #76. Your statement “The question is whether we can be kept still long enough to swallow the pill.” is the real question.
The military power of the U.S. is the only thing holding the world together (and has been for the past 50 years or so). So the real issue is can we survive long enough for the children to grow up? Doubtful, for several reasons:
1) China – the world’s greatest threat. Communist dictatorship, a growing military power, a growing population in need of many resources, a stated position of seeking world domination. The next few years will be their big opportunity, and why would one think they would waste it?
2) Ignorance – how do the children, brainwashed for years by biased media and biased educators, suddenly learn and experience all they need to bring themselves into the 21st century so that they can make adult decisions instead of being swept up in a chaos of fear and guidance from “their betters”? It takes time to learn the lessons of thousands of years of history and philosophy so that one isn’t simply repeating mistakes that have been made many times before.
3) Experience – how do the children survive long enough to gain experience in a world where so many want to kill us? Maturity is a combination of knowledge and wisdom – an appreciation of the relative importance of what is known and not known and what is at present unknowable. Our current culture is such a witches’ brew of conficting data (think “dense pack” or sensory overload) that it is doubtful that most will be able to “grow up” and many or most just won’t want to make the effort.
4) Downsizing our military – a prime goal of the One and the Left. When the U.S. withdraws inwards to contemplate its navel, all bets are off, and things may unravel quickly without the threat of the U.S. military to restrain ambitions around the world.
“Capitalism” seems to have many definitions; this is another example of the Left corrupting the language to serve its interests. As some have noted, capitalism in some form or another has been around ever since the first humans engaged in free exchange of goods and services. During that same time there has always been a greater or lesser effort by those who wish to rule (oligarchs, leftists, kings, priests, politicians, lawyers, etc.) to appropriate and live off the efforts of the productive. Only with the creation of the United States and it’s Constitution was there (briefly) a society where laissez faire capitalism was implicitly guaranteed to be a fundamental part of everyday life based on individual rights to property and the strict limitation of government power. Due to the efforts of Hamilton, Marshall, and others, that freedom and laissez faire capitalism began to be erroded almost immediately. So the question of “Is Capitalism dead?” depends on how you want to define it. In its purest form, capitalism has been dead in the U.S. for more than a century. But even in its limited form it made the U.S. the most productive society the world has ever known. But now the looters are on the verge of ending that. Whether the internal looters or the external Chinese, the productive people of the world seem headed for a return to “the good old days” when the “elite” ruled the many “for the common good”. Only due to the advances in technology, the next world dictatorship may be nearly impossible to throw off, whether imposed from within or without.
Fred said:
“I am convinced Obama is a character type much like his allies and associates: utterly amoral and ruthless, committed to a socialist transformation of the country and will do whatever it takes to achieve it…. He’s just a low, cunning lawyer in a narcissistic, personality-disordered persona.”
No argument about this. Unfortunately unless the Bradley Effect is real, he’s soon to be our President. I wonder if it was simple bad luck that the Chosen One crawled out of the wood work or if he was groomed for the job? He sure has an awful lot of money for his campaign ads. Also it was convienent the way the hyenas in the MSM lined up behind him. Usually they’re not that obvious.
@ K – Just “lurked” here – I was away during weekend so I missed your response to the Small Schools thingy as well. More later? But let’s get to the latest…SCANDAL. Obama is for wealth “redistribution” – he believes (as per liberal traditon since pre-FDR) that there are rights beyond “the right to be left alone.” Back in my high school social studies clases I think the operative distinction was between “positive” and “negative” visions of Freedom – Or, more to the point, between 19th and 20th Century versions of liberalism. Obama doesn’t believe the courts are the way to go when it comes to bringing about largescale social change, though he allows it would be possible to “craft” legal arguments in support of social democratic policies…If you want MORE smoke from this sort of gun, do check The Audacity of Hope. The positions sketched out briefly in this interview are fleshed out in detail in Audacity. There’s a good discussion, in particular, of the tendency of the lib/Left to rely too much on the Courts in the pursuit of soc justice. OBama wants to organize and win MANDATES for legislative change. And he underscores that means a politician like him will have to push class-based – rather than race-based – approaches to social policy. Since the Age of Reagan – including the era of Clinton – class talk has been dampened way down in America. So my guess is that only a brother could have pulled off the paradigm change back to the future New Deal/helpful gov – Precisely because he’s offering that gov – and himself – not as a voice of an interest group (black people in particular) but of a larger American community…BTW – Might look out for OBama’s comments on 90′s era Welfare Reform. He places himself as a skeptic back in the day who learned that there was something to be said for busting up a gov entitlement program. So, he’s not simply down for a Great Society redux. But, what can I say, OBama is not Grover Norquist. He don’t want to shrink the gov so much you could drown it in a bathroom (or let it go down the drain with Brownie). Hope he turns out to be as, ah, radical as Moynihan-era Nixon – you know the one who considered guaranteed national income and healthcare? Still, I recall how you noticed O’s nods to Reaganism and then got pissed when you thought he’d backed off. Well – he NEVER was entraced with R. But. He did pick up on some of the entrepreneurial ethos. BEing a neo-Third Worlder helped him on that front. He’s got a sis who’s tried to save up a little capital to get something happening over in Kenya – not easy to save when you got extended fam pressing in on all sides. So he’s had a felt connection with the the charms/probs of the small entrepreneur. (And then there’s his mom’s work re micro-lendign schemes for Market women). He’s not a heavy statist or a social democratic ideologue. I’m going to cut and paste comment by a FIRST writer whom I once suggested you check out – nicely underscores the diff between Obama and Socialists. The notion that Obama is Gramscian is off. Wrong trad. But you could definitely place him in terms of of MLK’s Poor People’s Movement or MLK’s late speeches…While I’m looking back to MLK, reminds me that maybe you might tell the folks here who have picked up on Wretch’s “presentism” re the Weatherman to chill. I think we’re past the 30 anniv of the dissolution of the Weatherman…And then there was that Prarie Fire that didn’t start…Here’s the short peice I mentioned..
American Socialism 2.0
Scott Spencer
The days of government bashing may be over: people want their government not only to keep them safe from terrorists, but they are calling for government to protect us from unsafe food, dishonest bankers, polluters, upper-income tax cheats. Obama wants the government involved in our health care, he wants to stop foreclosures, he is even murmuring about income redistribution, and right now, less than three weeks from the end of his political career, John McCain is accusing Obama of being a secret socialist. (In an earlier time, he might have suggested Obama move to Russia.)
The last time a socialist had a real voice in the national conversation was in the early Sixties, when Michael Harrington published THE OTHER AMERICA. It was a call to conscience, a plea for well-off Americans to recognize the poverty in their midst, and it helped pave the way to The Great Society. Now the socialist message need not be one of charity and kindness toward Others: with so many lives being squeezed by the gears of global capitalism, with jobs disappearing, pensions dwindling, ice caps melting, and CEO suddenly becoming a term of scorn, and the so-called Free Market an obvious invitation to chicanery, millions of us may be ready to consider a real socialist alternative. At last, socialism can be viewed not as a ticket to some ethical heaven but as a way of saving ourselves right here on earth.
If the Left can find a figurehead that can do for socialism what Barack Obama has done for liberalism then we may be closer than we think to having a real third party here in our country. If Barack Obama’s ascendancy can teach the Left anything it’s that youth, beauty, guts, and discipline really do matter. It may be time for the left to begin holding open auditions.
@ Wade said “Well I shouldn’t be shocked, but I have to admit that I am stunned. From the link in #33, this guy, “Oh”, admitted to seeking “economic justice” meaning not just reparations…”
Let’s get this straight. Obama did not endorse race-based reparations in this statement – He has he explicitly rejected that tactic in writing and in his speeches. He did endorse “redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice.” That is to say, he’s a liberal. The fact that you are SHOCKED by this is simply an indication that the basic ideas of liberalism have been out of favor with Americans since the 60s. But no longer? O is betting we are the change we’ve been waiting for…
Just to put an apocalyptic spin on things:
Revelation 21:4 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Benj,
Do you realize that you are undercutting the argument that both you and I have been trying to make on this forum?
The equation of redistribution of wealth with social and/or economic justice is unambiguously the socialist argument. That is to say that redistribution of wealth by the state is the preferred or indicated remedy for social or economic disparities. (Senator did not nuance his argument, as you and other respondents have, he was very clearly stating a policy preference.)
In arguing that this is “liberal tradition since pre FDR,” you are only validating the identity between liberalism and socialism held by many here.
As I understand it, liberalism has been mostly a communitarian program to do *good works* through the agency of government financed by a progressive tax system. Although sharing some structural similarities with socialism, traditional liberalism differs greatly in its goal. Liberalism views transfer of wealth via government as a transaction cost of doing *good works,* socialism views transfer of wealth as the desired end in and of itself.
In speaking warmly of “redistributive change” the candidate is knowingly expressing a socialist ideal. This is not something that Bill or Hillary or even Kerry would ever say. (Some would say because they are too cadgy, I would say that that they are liberals, not socialists.)
Your apologia only muddys the waters, my friend.
That is not what his words state, Benj. It is not the message he took pains to nuance for that audience. It is the same message he gave, unwittingly to Joe the Plumber.
I would not grace him with the shroud of a liberal, foolish as I think they are, I would not pin on him the mantle of Communist nor socialist either. Their visions, well at least the socialists, involve a certain amount of agreement to the fleecing, on the part of those being fleeced.
No, what he proposed in that radio visit was nothing short of theft of property and wealth based on any old rational that could be cobbled together. His words, Benj. That is not the vision of a leader. It is the thought process of a thief. It is just another scam.
Is this the change Benj is looking for?
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/obama-campaign-lawyer-trying-to-intimidate-student-jounalists-why-because-they-found-actual-fraud/
The pettiness of evil.
Cedarford @ 72:
I’m surprised to see you addressing me. I can only suppose you decided to go after easier pickin’s.
Just as you can have laissez faire capitalism and a fair part of the population living as slaves, exploited serfs or peasants living on rented land – where the “fruits” are what the Patron or nobleman SAYS you deserve.
Where do slaves, serfs and peasants figure in the discussion? I thought we were talking about 21st century America. In any case, I’d rather be dealing with a “boss” – an individual(s) subject to free market conditions and competition – as opposed to The State telling me how it’s gonna be. When the state is the sole owner of the means of production, then we can talk about slaves and serfs and peasants. Sorry, but where is the proof that “property rights are strong in socialist countries…”? Wherever property rights are still strong in socialistic countries, that fact is a holdover from old custom and convention. “AND people have a right to fruits of labor.” Yes, however much the state commands. I’d much sooner trust the disinterested open market’s determination of what’s fair than the determination of the almighty power of the State’s political agenda.
A doctor or banker in Israel or France or Japan or China or India still lives much better than a laborer.
Well that’s saying something anyway. But what’s to keep the State from deciding, if they should so desire, that a laborer is just as valuable as a doctor or banker? After all, he is just as valuable, intrinsically speaking.
And who, other than you, is talking about laissez faire capitalism? Nobody is advocating a rampaging, rapacious laissez faire capitalism unbeholden to any law.
The record of Islam is generally not good, but there are historical precedents that show Islam did live generally, peacefully, alongside other religions in certain areas for many hundreds of years.
I agree that Islam’s record is generally not good; peaceful co-existence has been, and unquestionably is today, the exception rather than the rule.
I do believe capitalism must change….since poorly regulated “freedom-lovers!!” on Wall Street pumped poison into the global financial markets and burned not just US investors…
Funny thing, how it was the socialist-loving Dems blocking regulation and reform this time… or hadn’t you heard?
But as a true believer, convinced it is all black and white, you similarly spare yourself the burden of thought when the reality is far from being contained in simplistic slogans.
I concede that my brief post at #5 appears more or less, shall we say, dogmatic. Perhaps it’s the manifestation of a phenomenon that’s somewhat akin to the ex-smoker who becomes the most adamantly anti-smoking. But since you see that I spare myself the burden of thought, can I trust that you will pay no more attention to anything I might post in the future?
@ K – Re this passage – Although sharing some structural similarities with socialism, traditional liberalism differs greatly in its goal. Liberalism views transfer of wealth via government as a transaction cost of doing *good works,* socialism views transfer of wealth as the desired end in and of itself.
This is an admirably clear statement of a distinction that may once have seemed significant to certain liberals at a certain time. It’s certainly the kind of separation that corporate liberals/progressives on the Right of the New Deal might have gone for as they distanced themselves from, say, Fabainism or European Social Democrats. But I’m guessing you’ll allow that your distinction wouldn’t apply to say, farmer-labor dems in Minnesota, to texas populists like Ralph Yarbourough in the early 60s. Or to Martin Luther King. And I doubt it would have been a distinction that Bobby Kennedy would have labored to make in 68.
You’re certainly right that neither Kerry or Clinton would have been caught dead talking re “spreading the wealth.” But that’s just evidence of WHY/HOW liberalism lost its way! Those guys weren’t just afraid of the word, tney were afraid of a articulating an alternative to greed-is-good politics…
For the past 30 years government tax policies have been chiefly engaged in redistributing wealth upward – though Reagan himself with the earned income tax credit (which Clinton jumped on and amped up) did some redistributing in the left direction. Scratching my head at the idea of anyone wondering at the “radicalism” of the flipping Reagan’s script there…Reagan and W. were the rads!! I’m sure you’ll recall that Reagan was regarded as something of an extremist at one point in American history…
I associate socialism with (1) state control of the economy – a rejection of the “anarchy” of the market – the people determining national priorities for a collectivized apparatus of production (even the terms feel clunky/outdated!) – You know the dealio as an old Marxist K. – the righteous disgust at 40 brands of soap made by one company. The despair at the existence of a whole industry based on nurturing envy and the fetishism of commodoties. When O starts explaining clearly how foul it is that America’s great art form is the commercial, then I’ll agree that Obama is beginning to sound like a Socialist. (And then I ‘ll REALLY be over the moon for him!) But Obama has evidenced no interest in a radical statist approach to production. He’s hot – a little too hot from my pov – for the market. Not a socialist bone in his body…
@ Wade “No, what he proposed in that radio visit was nothing short of theft of property and wealth based on any old rational that could be cobbled together.”
Wade – Go read the transcript. It’s crystal clear again – NO nuance to freak you out. Or give you any excuses for your paranoia. Obama argues (as he has repeatedly) the Courts are not the way to go if you want to bring about major “redistributive” change in America. EVEN though he allows that he – or anybody! – could come up with legal rationales for such transformations. ONE MORE TIME- He is saying NO to the idea of using the courts to implement HIS favored policies! As I underscored above (and have pointed out here many times) OBama is all about getting electoral mandates. Not relying on the courts. So WHAT are you whining about. I’m beginning to wonder if OBama Derangement Syndrom has made it impossible for you to READ what the despised One is saying.
See here’s the deal – If the American people vote for a party that wants to make the SAge Of Omaha, Donald Scum-Trump and P Diddy pay more taxes, that’s OUR choice. Now what I’d like to see would be a SERIOUS cap on how much money ANY American could inherit. That would be our choice too!! It’s called (economic) democracy!! And if the economy goes to hell and Obama’s half-measures on this score seem like just that, maybe Americans will move toward something like Socialism in the next generation. My hope is that worker ownnership – another beter paradign will kick in first. But W.E. – it’s up to us…
PS “JUST ANOTHER SCAM – Damn – now you got ME angry! Let’s think on the MOST obvious campaign-related scam we’ve seen lately…Check yourself man. Here you are expressing your pathetic little outrages. But not a fugging word from you (or any other Clubber) about that upside down b. Or your candidates rush to offer their condolences to someone ANYONE with a lick of sense about this country would KNOW was lying. Get a hold of your anger and direct at somebody/thing who deserves it. Thank you for your service 9as they say) but you’re fucking LUCKY to be alive to see those AFrican American grandmothers voting for O…Get a grip and be grateful Obama is giving all of us a chance at some measure of redemption.
“Isn’t it better if we simply struck a deal with Russia and Islamic fundamentalism and just got along?”
Oh dear. I believe that there is a logical fallacy here though I don’t know what it’s called. Anyway, it is to do with inappropriate grouping.
Resurgent Russian authoritarianism and Islamic fundamentalism are completely different problems; they just happen to present at the same time. For the moment, we have to get along with Russia, because of their nuclear arsenal if nothing else, but they are going to have a demographic implosion fairly soon and cease to be a problem.
Fundamental Islam is just about completely opposite to this; their numbers are increasing, particularly in Western countries, because they breed like bacteria – a not entirely inappropriate simile. And we don’t have to get along with them; had the West the will, the problem of militant fundamentalist Islam could be solved in an hour. The consequences – and not just the physical ones – would be unpleasant, true. The problem is also soluble on longer timescales, by a combination of different methods I won’t bother to repeat for the umpteenth time. Again, it requires the will to apply the solution.
@ K & W – Wrote a long thing last night but it disappeared when I tried to post – I’ll keep this one short but means LESS praise pour K for this wonderfully clear statement: “As I understand it, liberalism has been mostly a communitarian program to do *good works* through the agency of government financed by a progressive tax system. Although sharing some structural similarities with socialism, traditional liberalism differs greatly in its goal. Liberalism views transfer of wealth via government as a transaction cost of doing *good works,* socialism views transfer of wealth as the desired end in and of itself.”
That clear statement might very well ring the bell of certain Right-wing New Dealers, corporate liberals – a range of progs intent over the last century on distancing themselves from, say, Fabianism, Euro Social Dems or Norman Thomas…But I doubt it would compute for many left New Dealers, farmer-labor dems in Minnesota, Southern populists like Texas’s Ralph Yarborough, Martin King or Bobby Kennedy in 68. As I understand it, to use your phrase, the key distinction on the left (in the old days) was between Communists and (small D) democrats. (As a former Trot – and pleae don’t misunderstand, I’m NOT casting aspersions – I’m guessing you may have missed that fundamental distinction on the left because, as you know, it wasn’t a live issue for Trot who did dirt on demos.) The diff between socialists and liberals was not nearly as sharp as you make out. You’re surely right, th ough, that Clinton and Kerry wouldn’t have dared whisper re “spreading the wealth.” But that’s simply evidence of the decline of an AFFIRMATIVE liberal tradiion. There’s a reason why Bill and Kerry were called NEO-LIBERALS. Think back to your comrades K – doesn’t socialism mean the “rational” democratic state wins out over the “anarchic” market when it comes to determining national priorities? – Remember all the angst re 50 soaps produced by one manufacturer and a whole industry (advertising) designed to cultivate envy and the festishism of commodoties. A little wealtth distribution wouldn’t amount to socialism in their, ah, texts! (Oh yeah, when Obama starts decrying the fact that America’s definitive art form is the commercial, I’ll start allowing he might have socialist tendencies – and I’ll REALLY be over the moon for him – But I’m afraid that’s not a happening thing.)
Wade – I really am wondering how you manage to turn an argument against the historic tendency on the American left to rely on the Courts into an argument for “theft of property and wealth based on any old [legal] rationale that could be cobbled together” I’m not asking you to appreciate O’s nuance in this instance. I’m asking you to understand that you have turned his argument upside down. One more time – He’s arguing AGAINST using the courts to effect the major social changes that he envisions. You really should STOP projecting – see your comment above re “reparations” – and deal in reality.
“It is just another scam.” This latest aspersion really struck me given that it comes a day after that backward b on the cheek. Did you notice any Clubber saying one word about that little incident? No shame about the fact that your candidates rushed to offer condolences to the mad girl though anyone with a lick of sense knew it was…just another scam. Might think on that…And maybe even consider that you’re lucky to be around to see those black grannies early voting and crying at the thought of what they’d lived to see.
PS Ya’ll got a big prob with a hard limits on inheritance?? Doubt O will get there – but if this beocmes the Age of Obama (as the old generation was Reagan’s), I could happily imagine caps on how much wealth Trump or P Diddy pass on to their scions. Would that amount to socialism? Not even close, just simple justice…
Benj,
You’re making Storm-Rider’s argument for him!
I’m taking pains to distinguish Liberals from Socialists. When you move out to the leftist suburbs then Democratic Socialists must be differentiated from Communists. The generic goal is indeed redistribution of wealth, for its own sake. Democratic Socialists generally believe in a re-ordering of Capitalist structures in order to redistribute the wealth. This was commonly viewed as a half-way house on the road to nationalization, but its compromises developed a pretty robust stability of their own. I’m sure than many ostensible “liberals” would be quite comfortable with this state of affairs, as it would empower them in their *good works.* In this model, private ownership of capital coexists with a strong regulatory welfare state in a kind of symbiosis.
The rationalization argument is more common among Marxists and particularly different flavors of Communists. The logic of the labor theory of value is that the management drag of capitalism, including such frills as advertising, is a major component of the alienation of labor. The goal of “scientific socialism” is greatly improved efficiencies by removing the entrepreneurial class. More goods will be produced for cheaper and the workers will benefit. Disagreements between different marxian schools is mainly about strategy and tactics for achieving socialism.
Which is precisely the context of the candidate’s discussion of redistribution and the courts. Redistributive change is a given. The variable is how to go about it.
What is ultimately mind boggling about all of the above is to consider the efficiency of a well run corporation like McDonald’s which provides consistent quality at a lower price. It is very popular in the FSU, for that very reason. In traditional quantifiable economic terms of efficiency, the argument is over. Today, the left is absorbed in redefining alienation as more of an aesthetic, existential term. Advertising is condemned not for the waste of resources, but for its cheesiness.
I am very surprised that you would describe Hillary et al. as neo-liberal. You really ought to know that that term is the more technical (or, European, if you will) name for free market conservatives.
Jeez.
All in all, you seem to be confirming the proposition that he is a socialist by traditional definition, and, more interestingly, confirming the argument that liberals are socialists.
Fascinating.
@ K – Re Storm et al. – Not sure I can keep sraight all the permutations in the various “lines” of regular Clubbers – But I should underline that I haven’t seen my posts here (or yours!) as “tactical.” While I’m always trying to connect and I don’t mean to pain you! – you argued above for a pretty hard and fast distinction between libs and socialists. That didn’t correspond to my understanding of the history of the American left so I said so. Sounds like you allow that I had more of a point on that front than you indicated earlier in the thread. See your comment above re “ostensible” liberals. (Your scare quotes not mine, needless to say!)
BTW – I never had a deep sense in the past that I shared an understanding of O’s political economy with you. What I thought we were (generally) in unison on was that O wasn’t about to start filling up labor camps. Or initiating the Final Conflict that’s dreaded by some Clubbers and welcomed by others. Though you were rather more tactful/doubtful than moi, I noted thankfully that you often gently registered your sense that Ken (and more than a few of his friends) were out of their fucking minds. And even un-American!! I’ll still agree to agree w/ you there!!
As for Hill the Neo-liberal. Aren’t you coming on from pretty high there? – “You really ought to know” etc. That’s an angle I associate with sectarian lefts who are less than easy with democratic discourse and chiefly intent on establishing their own intellectual superiority. Perhaps the phrase stuck out at me because I recall how I wasn’t worth your 2 cents just a few days back. Trust me, your disdain didn’t get under my skin then, but your tone might be worth thinking on. (The Man on this front at the Club is Buddy. He knows how to say it plain w/o talking down. Means he’s a genuinely democratic sensibility. A brother under the skin of Obama, though Buddy would HATE that comparison. BTW – Bud was the One early on here who said – c’mon down Benj – I’ll hear you out…)
OK – ‘nough plaints/history on my end – So here’s the deal re the term neo-liberal. No reason for you to have kept up with leftist discourse since you headed Right…but Clintonian economics was regularly defined as “neo-liberal” by my side. Back in the 90s there was (pretty famously) a school of market-friendly (big D) Democrat pundits – Kinsley and Kaus come to mind immediately – who went under the label of neo-liberal. The term was often taken as something close to a synonym for neo-con. But there were marginal – though not unimportant – differences between dem pundits in the Clinton era and flat-out Reaganites. Neo-liberal vs. Neo-Con – and the politics of school uniforms!! The Good Old Days. Not!
You must understand that Benj is a committed Marxist, and that his fanatical support of Barak Obama derives from the fact that Barak Obama is also a Marxist. Birds of a feather stick together.
We should be paying attention to the Europeans who are warning us about neo-Marxism, i.e.: neo-Communism. Many Europeans have been through it all, and some of them can tell the story.
“It (Socialism) is based on big and patronizing government, on extensive regulating of human behavior, and on large-scale income redistribution….There is always a limiting (or constraining) of human freedom, there is always ambitious social engineering, there is always an immodest ‘enforcement of a good’ by those who are anointed on others against their will, there is always the crowding out of standard democratic methods by alternative political procedures, and there is always the feeling of superiority of intellectuals and of their ambitions…These alternative ideologies are successful especially where there is no sufficient resistance to them, where they find a fertile soil for their flourishing, where they find a country (or the whole continent) where freedom (and free markets) have been heavily undermined by long lasting collectivistic dreams and experiences and where intellectuals have succeeded in getting and maintaining a very strong voice and social status. I have in mind, of course, rather Europe, than America. It is Europe where we witness the crowding out of democracy by post democracy, where the EU dominance replaces democratic arrangements in the EU member countries, where [some people] do not see the dangers of empty Europeanism and of a deep (and ever deeper) but only bureaucratic unification of the whole European continent. They applaud the growing formal opening of the continent, but do not see that the elimination of some of the borders without actual liberalization of human activities ‘only’ shifts governments upwards, which means to the level where there is no democratic accountability and where the decisions are made by politicians appointed by politicians, not elected by citizens in free elections.” President of the Czeck Republic, Václav Klaus
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/206
“The former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy, who has warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union, thinks that while the West won the Cold War in a military sense, we lost it in the context of ideas: “Communism might have been dead, but the communists remained in power in most of the former Warsaw bloc countries, while their Western collaborators came to power all over the world (in Europe in particular). This is nothing short of a miracle: the defeat of the Nazis in 1945 quite logically brought a shift to the Left in world politics, while a defeat of communism in 1991 brought again a shift to the Left, this time quite illogically. Bukovksy is right: We never had a thorough de-Marxification process after the Cold War, similar to the de-Nazification after WW2, and we are now paying the price for this. Many Marxist ideas have been allowed to endure and mutate, such as the notion that culture is unimportant or that it is OK to stage massive social experiments on hundreds of millions of people. The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm has stated that had the Soviet Union managed to create a functioning Socialist society, tens of millions of deaths would have been a worthwhile price to pay. But Marxist ideals of forced equality can only be enforced by a government with totalitarian powers, and will thus inevitably lead to a totalitarian society. There is no “enlightened Marxism,” and the idea that there is has ruined more lives than probably and other ideology in modern history. Marxism is an organized crime against humanity.”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2125/print
K – lost another post late this afternoon – Not getting paranoid (yet). Not like the thing got in the thread and then was removed after the fact like that time recently that made me wonder re Wretch – I’m just guessing there’s some screw-up wiht the pjm. But it is a little daunting. I’m going to keep this short – and I’m going to rush it so forgive it’s less than consecutive/tactful…
Short and sweet – Think I should underscore that there’s nothing “tactical” about my posts here. I don’t think that way. You drew a prety hard and fast distinction between liberals and socialists. That didn’t correspond to my understanding of the history of the American left so I said so. You now seem to allow that I had a point as per you line above re “ostensible” liberals (Your scare quotes not mine!).
For what’s it worth, I never id’ed us as sharing an understanding of O’s political economy. What we seemed to be in unison on was a certain skepticism that O would start up Labor CAmps. Or initiate the Final Civil Conflic tthat some Clubbers fear (and others yearn for). While you had more tact/doubts than moi, I’ve had a sense that you recognized cats like Ken (and some of his friends) were not only out of the fucking minds, but deeply un-American. Maybe we can agree to agree on that!
One final thing – Aren’t you coming on from above above – “You really ought to know…” That’s an angle I recognize from arguing with doctrinaire lefts for whom political discourse is chiefly an op to display their (supposed) intellectual superiority. Maybe that line jumped out at me cos I recalled how I wasn’t worth your 2 cents only a few days back. Trust me, I’m not overly sensitive, but I figure I’d suggest that climb down from that high horse of instruction.
For the record – the term neo-liberal was commonly applied to Clinton’s economics by leftists in the 90s. And there were – pretty famously – a group of prominent dem party pundits who were classified not just by academic Marxists but the MSM as “neo-liberals.” Kaus and Kinsley come to mind immediately, but there were others. Back in that day, distinguishing between neo-libs and neo-cons often seemed like splitting hairs. But the folks in question took their talking points pretty seriously. Those were the days – Neo-cons vs. Neo-libs and a national politics that came down to Dick Morris’s advice to Trent Lott AND Clinton PLUS school uniforms. The good old days. Not.
@K – lost another post late this afternoon – Not getting paranoid (yet). Not like the thing got in the thread and then was removed after the fact like that time recently that made me wonder re Wretch – I’m just guessing there’s some screw-up wiht the pjm. But it is a little daunting. I’m going to keep this short – and I’m going to rush it so forgive it’s less than consecutive/tactful…
Short and sweet – Think I should underscore that there’s nothing “tactical” about my posts here. I don’t think that way. You drew a prety hard and fast distinction between liberals and socialists. That didn’t correspond to my understanding of the history of the American left so I said so. You now seem to allow that I had a point as per you line above re “ostensible” liberals (Your scare quotes not mine!).
For what’s it worth, I never id’ed us as sharing an understanding of O’s political economy. What we seemed to be in unison on was a certain skepticism that O would start up Labor CAmps. Or initiate the Final Civil Conflic tthat some Clubbers fear (and others yearn for). While you had more tact/doubts than moi, I’ve had a sense that you recognized cats like Ken (and some of his friends) were not only out of the fucking minds, but deeply un-American. Maybe we can agree to agree on that!
One final thing – Aren’t you coming on from above above – “You really ought to know…” That’s an angle I recognize from arguing with doctrinaire lefts for whom political discourse is chiefly an op to display their (supposed) intellectual superiority. Maybe that line jumped out at me cos I recalled how I wasn’t worth your 2 cents only a few days back. Trust me, I’m not overly sensitive, but I figure I’d suggest that climb down from that high horse of instruction.
For the record – the term neo-liberal was commonly applied to Clinton’s economics by leftists in the 90s. And there were – pretty famously – a group of prominent dem party pundits who were classified not just by academic Marxists but the MSM as “neo-liberals.” Kaus and Kinsley come to mind immediately, but there were others. Back in that day, distinguishing between neo-libs and neo-cons often seemed like splitting hairs. But the folks in question took their talking points pretty seriously. Those were the days – Neo-cons vs. Neo-libs and a national politics that came down to Dick Morris’s advice to Trent Lott AND Clinton PLUS school uniforms. The good old days. Not.
Note, I always, always look twice before looking a third time anytime some one claims injury without witness. The carving of the “B” no doubt preceded that turkey’s being cooked, much less thawed. A scarlet letter for Brainless, Bonehead, take your pick, as my imagination runs wild and my exasperation with false police reports is nearly complete.
I suppose I am naive enough to want to believe that there is some redeeming virtuous goal behind the advance of big-socialized problem solving. I find the arrogance of a group telling others how to best perform the duties in their lives equally obnoxious whether from religious or leftist platforms.
For all of their quirks and foibles, the religious right and center tend to focus their message and their dollars at helping by utilizing programs that have a proven track record of being more successful in attaining the stated goal that others.
What the Dems’ since FDR, and especially since Carter espouse is a theft of american’s property and wealth in order to prop up institutions and programs that do not come close to achieving the stated mission or the stated goal. In fact, most of the wealth and treasure collected will be spent on the salaries and office furniture of the folks hired to run the institutions that are not achieving their stated mission or accomplishing their goals.
Congress being the biggest most problematic of them all as it controls all the purse strings, and has shown no intent to reform, inclination to account for nor urgency to share. Now you admit this is “Oh”s vision, with the documented efforts to silence criticisms, it is my observation that “Oh” has taken Jesse’s game to a whole other level.
Yup, its a scam. pouring money into programs that do not work, to divert the money into the pockets of folks who will not work, all while abandoning folks who do work and folks who need help to continue working. Where is the justice in that? Where is the justice in schools that do not work, where is the social justice in supporting programs and lifestyles that tear apart the proven and successful fabric of the family.
Where is the justice?
There isn’t any to be had in “Oh”s vision. He isn’t seeking justice, he seeks power. He is not seeking equality, he is seeking mediocrity. Whether you call it socialism, communism, neo-liberalism or rock paper scissors, it is no way to run a life or a nation. No individual has any incentive to excel under “Oh” supervision.
The question to be decided is where the balance between the individual and the state ought to be? Since Lincoln the question is includes the balance and the distance from the individual to state to the nations/state. Dems seek to eliminate the middle man, the state and local influences, for efficiencies sake. But like the banking institutions experience with fannie and freddie, those very efficiencies put everything else at risk. Trying to show good faith, the tried and untrue communal zelot turned to cultural diversity. Figuring it can substitute for community and small groups brought together by local and logical self interest of the melting pot. But celebrating diversity only serves to drive a wedge.
And to top it all off, the left of “Oh”s vision expects me to buy into global warming using the same approach they have used to screw up the rest of the country’s business (trial and mainly error with little to no scientific basis for the trial and no recognition of the error). Well no wonder I don’t believe in “Oh”, I don’t find “Oh”s arguments to be credible, and I suspect they are the same sort of practiced lies that certain salesmen and lawyers tell their clients and anyone else in hearing range.
I know what “Oh” said about the courts, that the courts were not effective enough in gaining reparations for social injustices. That legislating it was the way to go, and that the we in the ones we’ve been waiting for means all the folks who figure to benefit from a Democrat super majority that would fleece the rest of the nation while failing utterly to live up to any promises made other than the promise to put more in their overseas and tax free bank accounts.
There will be no balance, there will be no justice, and there is no injury worth the malice a Democrat Super majority would preside over.
May God bless and preserve the republic.
This is, In My Humble and Honest Opinion, a perfectly logical and rational interpretation of “Oh”s actions and “Oh”s record and “Oh”s books and “Oh”s words, and “Oh”s associations and “Oh”s successes and “Oh”s failures and “Oh”s stated objectives. Still I know more about Howard Hughes’ reclusive years then I do about “Oh”.
Benj,
Sorry if I offended. This is an example of the inadequacy of our political nomenclature. “Neoliberal” has a very specific meaning in economics, I was unaware of your usage. I can understand, DLC or “New Democrat” is a bit awkward. The usage that I am comfortable with refers to “Liberal” in the original sense – a bourgeois follower of Adam Smith who believes in free markets, as opposed to a “Conservative” – a defender of monarchy and aristocratic privilege, or a “Radical” – a champion of the working classes.
Perspective both expands or collapses, depending on your, well, perspective. As he just reiterated, Storm-Rider believes that everybody to the left of him is a marxist. Everybody to the right of Bill Ayers is a fascist. You and I see a whole continent between these two end members. But, most of these differences shrink almost to insignificance when compared with islamicism or honest to goodness fascism. We are all heirs of the enlightenment.
I see the differences and the commonalities. I will oppose my opponents, but I won’t brand them as “enemies.” We are Americans first and foremost.
Coming as I do from a marxist background, it is my reflex to view politics through the lens of economics. So, that is where I pay closest attention to political speech. I know that your candidate says nice things about parents taking responsibility for turning off the TV or the gameboy, but to me that is just more advertising fluff like Republican “family values.” Impressionism.
But, when, in his carefully controled fan dance campaign, the candidate reveals a cornerstone of his political philosophy, I think that it is terribly significant. When what he reveals is sharply dissonant with the country’s mainstream beliefs, and with his own carefully modulated and reassuring messages, I think that it is urgently significant. When this dissonance is viewed in the context of the candidate’s underlying theme – what YOU need is leadership, my unique leadership to transcend partisan divisions – it becomes existentially significant. (I would think that this *dear leader* aspect of the campaign would really, really bother the left. This is precisely what has animated fears of demogogic right-wing dictatorship for years. A dangerous precedent is being set here – the template for future populist candidacies that will be to the liking of neither of us.)
That these ideas of redistributionism are NOT being discussed, but merely characterized, is deeply troubling to me. The candidate should be making his argument on principles, not pandering or obfuscating. The press should be demanding explanations (perfectly reasonable to ask the other: why not?), not breathlessly obsessing on every mechanical detail of the horserace.
Okay, Benj, I’ve had my rant. I need to have one question answered. What is the incentive to do well under an “Oh” administration? What incentive is there?
Justice is not an incentive. Equality is not an incentive. They are not even realities, just desirable outcomes that it may or may not be possible to realize. What is the incentive to produce? Where is the incentive, the drive toward perfection in a democrat controlled nation?
Unless you suggest that every one strives for power over each other and that alone is the incentive, there is none that I can fathom, under an “Oh” led nation.
Konyok,
I don’t consider everyone to my left as Marxists, but obviously some are. My wife is very liberal, as are many of my friends and neighbors. I come from a family of died-in-the-wool Southern Democrats; but as it has been said – the Party left me.
Socialism and Marxism can be distilled down to its essence; it is unjust government power which our founding fathers understood from their experience with Rightist Monarchy; and which they anticipated with Leftist Ideology. Socialism is any form of human government, Left or Right, which does not rule with the informed consent of the governed. Socialism is the opposite of government of the people, by the people and for the people; it is government of the elite, by the elite and for the elite. Socialism is elite minority rule over the majority – against its will.
I hate classic conservatism, just as I do modern Marxist/Socialist liberalism – a pox on both of their houses because both are anti-American; both represent unjust government power which rules without the informed consent of the governed. I am a classic liberal; and my hero, outside of religious figures, is Thomas Jefferson.
“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson
“All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.” Thomas Jefferson
“Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have … The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.” Thomas Jefferson
“The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” Thomas Jefferson
“Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them.” Thomas Jefferson
“The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism.” Thomas Jefferson
“Most bad government has grown out of too much government.” Thomas Jefferson
“Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.” Thomas Jefferson
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Thomas Jefferson
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson
“Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” Thomas Jefferson
“That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.” Thomas Jefferson
“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” Thomas Jefferson
“The accounts of the United States ought to be, and may be made, as simple as those of a common farmer, and capable of being understood by common farmers.” Thomas Jefferson
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” Thomas Jefferson
“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.” Thomas Jefferson
“Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens . . . are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion.” Thomas Jefferson
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson
religious freedom dies with the “O”ne as he ushers in socialism, the only thing left is Islam and it will be the one world government religion that will herald in the 2nd coming of our Lord
I think Islam is so popular among European socialists precisely because its values (other than atheism, that has got to go) are in accord with socialist values: centralized power in an unaccountable elite, top-down command and control of everything, the crushing of all disagreement and dissent, and total control of education and media.