PDA

View Full Version : Rethinking the Left-Right Paradigm: a New Political Spectrum



iustitia
11-24-2013, 07:56 PM
Let me start by acknowledging my own political sympathies. My beliefs are rooted in classical conservatism and classical liberalism but if I had to choose a label I'd go with constitutionalist. I start off with that because I wanted to attempt a discussion without bias, if possible on a political forum. We're routinely told that political ideologies fall on a left-right spectrum with Communism on the left, Fascism on the right, and everyone else in between. I think that's irrational. Total government is total government isn't it? Regardless, there are other paradigms such as the authoritarian-libertarian punnet squares measuring beliefs on economic freedom vs social freedom. Isn't economic freedom a social freedom? Aren't social and fiscal issues related often? Is homelessness a social issue, a fiscal issue, or both? And if two people agree that the state has a role in something but just disagree on how to implement its involvement, are they really polar opposites when they both acknowledge a desire for state influence in said situation?

I'm asking these questions because I don't think the political spectrum makes any sense. It's based off of semantic arguments and false categories. Such as socialism and nationalism being opposites. When you socialize an industry you're nationalizing it. When you nationalize an industry you're socializing it. These are distinctions without differences. Is a country that subsidizes chattel slavery less mercantile than a nation that subsidizes railroads and steam boats?

I submit that if a political spectrum should exist, it should be based on the role of the state, or rather the power of the state. It's a common trend in history that a new ideology criticizes those of the past while in reality building upon it or at the very least presuming the continuation of state organs but for new ideological purposes. In my spectrum one side represents oligarchies of a variety of forms though totalitarian, and the other side represents the lack of a state for governance. And again, I'm only human but I tried to ignore my own doctrines for the sake of accuracy. While I personally prefer a republic I can't pretend a republic has less state control than a stateless society like anarcho-capitalism. And again, my beliefs were kept out of this to the best of my ability. So while I despise Marxism, I acknowledge that the socialist dictatorship is a means to an ends, and that final stage Communism is meant to be stateless. I try to make distinctions when possible or needed.

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/6795/i3q8.png

CLICK TO ENLARGE (http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/74/2v3p.png)

Anarchy is the absence of a state authority. My understanding is that anarchy is Greek for one rule or self rule. Now I'll admit I spend very little time studying anarchism. So if I'm off base please feel free to correct me.

Anarcho-primitivism preaches a return to pre-agriculturalism which would mean less social organization than the other anarchist concepts so I put it at the end of the anarchist spectrum but really stateless is stateless. All anarchist systems could be called voluntarism.

Anarcho-capitalism is capitalism without the state, free interaction and free markets and essentially individualist. Even courts and policing would be done with private planning rather than central planning.

Anarcho-syndicalism combines anarchism and syndicalism, creating what I suppose could be called stateless collectivism. People freely unite into a syndicate without relying on the coercion of the state to achieve objectives.

As I acknowledge, Communism represents what Marx and the Communist Manifesto claim Socialism would become or lead to - a stateless and classless society; the dictatorship of the proletariat is transitioning to this final stage. I stuck it between syndicalism and democracy because of the notion that a true Communist society would be a worker's collective but also democratic.

Now we get to small states to total government...

Classical-Enlightenment

Democracy represented by Athenian lawmaker Solon. Democracy is often called mob rule and unstable. However Athens was quite stable according to my understanding of ancient Greece, and it was in fact because mob rule wasn't how things were and in fact the people were jealous guardians of their freedom and this was represented in the closest thing Athens had to mob rule - ostracism (the process in which citizens banished the most destructive politicians for 10 years). And as a city-state, direct democracy was rather small and while suffrage wasn't universal, power rested directly with the voters and thus the people were the state, not its subjects.

Minarchism represented by Objectivist Ayn Rand. Anarchists believe any state violates non-aggression, however many libertarians, Objectivists and others support a minimal state responsible only for courts, police and national defense to protect property and deter aggression/fraud. Often called a night-watchman state. I put this after democracy because Athens never really had a developed justice system like most true states do. Justice was often sanctioned for the individual to execute. Minarchism conceivably has more power and control than democracy.

Republic represented by Roman lawmaker Cato. There are *many* definitions of a republic, some similar, many different. Usually a republic is defined by not having a monarch. But that doesn't really tell us how much power the state had. Republic comes from Latin. Res publica. A public affair. Laws may not be decided by the people directly but they are decided by varying levels of representation. Ultimately the state gets its authority from the people, in theory, but the fact is that the state makes the laws and yields more power than a democracy. My definition for a republic here is a typical sovereign state in which policy decisions are a public matter/affair rather than bureaucratic or oligarchic. Usually limited with a fixed body of law (constitution).

Now here's where my bias comes in. I wanted to make things related to as many people as possible, and to me that means other Americans. So. The next few are American-centric statesmen or documents to get a point across about the growth of state power.

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union represented by fierce anti-federalist Patrick Henry. Confederation, a loose union of sovereign states with a weak central government. So take a democracy or republic and join them with a bunch more under a compact for the sake of common defense. The central government has little power or control over its constituents.

Republican Party of Jefferson. Fiercely state's rights and against federalism though accepted the Constitution with a Bill of Rights. I included a few political parties based on their original premises and foundations to demonstrate where I think American politics was and has gone.

The United States Constitution and its architect James Madison. Like the Federalists Madison supported a new Federation system, however he also supported limiting centralized government like his dear friend and ally Jefferson and thus helped draft a Bill of Rights. A federation is more powerful in scope than a confederation. War powers, greater commerce coordination, official fiscal/monetary policy, revision of trading system and a greater emphasis on organized government branches. Federalism includes duel sovereignty, where sovereign states retain their freedom but loan powers to a strong central authority for fundamental needs. This is not a unitary, top-down system, but a balance of power for common interests.

Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson. The Democratic Party was originally founded on individualism and free markets, state's rights (kind of), and strict constructionist obedience to the Constitution. Jackson opposed federalist efforts to support a central bank and other programs he viewed as unconstitutional, while he also threatened to hang opposition in South Carolina threatening to secede because of tariffs even if he disagreed with the tariffs. Strict construction, no bullcrap. Again, this is just an attempt to place historical political parties. Clearly the Democratic Party of the common man from Jackson's time is not the same as today, and the same can be said of the GOP. Democrats didn't just support free markets, but laissez faire capitalism.

Capitalism with Wealth of Nations author Adam Smith. I placed Smith between Hamilton and Jackson because while he opposed the protectionism of mercantilist economics, he also wasn't laissez faire like Jacksonians. In fact other than the issue of trade barriers, Adam Smith saw a place for state innovation. Public works were acceptable to him just as they were to the Federalists.

Federalist Party with Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist Party supported deviations from the Constitution. A central banking system, internal improvements such as roads, bridges and canals, national debt and tariffs to support young industry.

Whig Party and Henry Clay. The Federalists and anti-Jacksonian Republicans joined to form the Whig Party. Like the Federalists they supported central banks, internal improvements and tariffs. However, during this period Prussian-educated Americans started bringing over concepts from the statist and mandatory Prussian school system. Many Whigs started championing government education.


Continued...

iustitia
11-24-2013, 07:56 PM
Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln. I'm not going to talk crap about Lincoln and the Civil War and how he's a bigger tyrant than Hitler or whatever's fashionable to say now. Anyway, in Lincoln's own words he was an old Henry Clay-style Whig. When the Whigs collapsed many became Republicans. Republicans also supported a central bank, internal improvements and high tariffs for industry. However two things of note- During this time the Congress started supporting quasi-mercantilist policies beyond trade barriers. Railroads and steamships were being contracted, chartered and subsidized by Congress. The second thing was the creation of the Department of Agriculture which Lincoln called "the people's department". This is the first time I'm aware that the federal government made agriculture a federal policy.

Mercantilism/Imperial Monarchism with King George III. If you're British, it's nothing personal against George. He was our king too, right? Honestly I just didn't know who else to put so I played it safe. Originally I was going to have a separate place for monarchism and Mercantilism as I was going to have with Capitalism. However, Monarchism is more of a constitution than a description of power. Traditionally, monarchs claim the divine right of kings to rule, however that rarely meant anything substantive. Well, that's not entirely true. Regardless, monarchism at its strongest was absolutism or absolute monarchy and the very concept of such a system ever existing is debated. The Czar would be an example of an absolute monarch. However, compared to today, monarchs had little control. They had internal conflicts to struggle with, often couldn't control wealth, and needless to say they didn't have control over the sheer amount of resources or government constructs that exist today. Monarchs at their most controlled war, diplomacy, the treasury, trade, taxes, and land management and a few other things perhaps. Absolute monarchism was only absolute by the standards of those times. Compared to today absolutists look like amateurs at control. Regardless, I define mercantilism as the system used to expand an empire's wealth through imperialism and colonial acquisitions, internal improvements, state-backed monopolies (East India Company anyone?) and elimination of competition, trade barriers beyond protectionism (trade prohibition), and usually tariffs against competing empires though free trade tended to catch on after Adam Smith came around. I'd also say the GOP under McKinley could fit around here, perhaps between the protectionist Lincolnian Republican Party and mercantilism.

And now for Socialism. Well, not really. Or maybe so. Socialism can mean anything. It doesn't have to be Marxist to be socialist. Anyway.

Soft socialism-

Social Democracy/Progressivism with Otto von Bismarck. Admittedly Bismarck was not an ally of the socialist revolutionaries of the 1800's. However, to cement his power and prevent socialists from making advances, Bismarck essentially found a way to give the socialists everything they wanted except power - the welfare state. Bismarck created the first modern welfare state and other countries would follow. Senior pensions, accident, unemployment and health insurance. Otto von Bismark is quite possibly the most influential person you've never heard of. And as I've said, systems carry over. This welfare state still retained the economic, military and political control of a powerful imperialist nation and now gained control over social programs and insurance schemes. And again, to be intellectually honest, Bismarck does not represent the Social Democrat community, I'm sure. He was the Realpolitik man after all, and he did what he needed to win the support of the nation. Regardless, he found a way to give his opponents the socialism they wanted but without the revolution. I would posit that men like Theodore Roosevelt and *early* Progressives would fit here.

.............. ....... ....
I didn't have the patience to list every socialist country or model or learn every tiny difference. So I left a gap between Social Democracy and the totalitarian systems of the 20th century. This is where most modern states seem to be either by design or by incrementalism.

Totalitarianism ("Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.")-

Corporatist socialism. National Socialism, Fascism/Corporativism, Falangism, National Integralism where the state controls the means of production in some way or form and property exists but must serve the government's interests either openly or behind the scenes. The state decides what to make, when to make it, how much to make, who to sell it to, how much to charge, et cetera. You live to serve the state because you are part of an organic whole.

State Socialism and not even the illusion of property. Soviet socialism, Maoism, North Korean Juche (maybe?), National Bolshevism?
The point in which the State has total control over affairs as opposed to a public affair state (republic) or stateless society. More powerful than any king or tyrant of the past. Essentially human farming.

As for the Goldman Sachs thing, I was half joking and half not. It could be said the US is an oligarchy but that's not the argument, rather the scope of the state vs the individual. I will defend the placement on the chart though. Federal departments for war, foreign affairs, the treasury, justice, education, labor, agriculture, commerce, land management, energy, health and human services, housing and urban development, transportation, and numerous independent agencies and state corporations for mail, communications, intelligence, banking, the environment, business and oversight, science and technology, et cetera. A military-industrial complex, a prison-industrial complex, welfare statism. Taxes, regulations and subsidies, corporatism and bailouts. A lack of duel federalism and perpetual strengthening of each branch of government rather than checks on power. I'm making the observation that the government in the US controls more in America than even the British did. But I'm getting ideological.

Anyway, I'm just some dickhead with too much time to think about things like this. Let me know what you think and if you have any corrections you'd like to make. Again, this isn't me trying to be ideological. This is purely about evaluating the level of government control over the people for better or worse. If you feel I misrepresented your ideology or philosophy or system by all means have at it, because I can edit the model no problem. Or maybe you have a better model.

Peter1469
11-24-2013, 08:04 PM
I agree with your idea of the left-right Paradigm.

BTW, welcome to the forum!

KC
11-24-2013, 08:17 PM
Social Democracy/Progressivism with Otto von Bismarck. Admittedly Bismarck was not an ally of the socialist revolutionaries of the 1800's. However, to cement his power and prevent socialists from making advances, Bismarck essentially found a way to give the socialists everything they wanted except power - the welfare state. Bismarck created the first modern welfare state and other countries would follow. Senior pensions, accident, unemployment and health insurance. Otto von Bismark is quite possibly the most influential person you've never heard of. And as I've said, systems carry over. This welfare state still retained the economic, military and political control of a powerful imperialist nation and now gained control over social programs and insurance schemes. And again, to be intellectually honest, Bismarck does not represent the Social Democrat community, I'm sure. He was the Realpolitik man after all, and he did what he needed to win the support of the nation. Regardless, he found a way to give his opponents the socialism they wanted but without the revolution. I would posit that men like Theodore Roosevelt and *early* Progressives would fit here.


I agree with you about Bismarck. If you're curious look into Theodor Lohmann, he was the real architect behind the programs that Bismarck created. In a lot of ways I think Lohmann was social democracy's first engineer.

KC
11-24-2013, 08:17 PM
Almost forgot, welcome!

Mainecoons
11-24-2013, 08:20 PM
Definitely welcome and I really enjoyed reading your opening posts. Let's hope some of the liberal know nothings on this board read them and learn some history for a change, not the made up stuff they parrot here.

Dr. Who
11-24-2013, 08:54 PM
Welcome iustitia or may I call you Justice - it's easier. I look forward to good discussion.

Dangermouse
11-24-2013, 09:54 PM
Definitely welcome and I really enjoyed reading your opening posts. Let's hope some of the liberal know nothings on this board read them and learn some history for a change, not the made up stuff they parrot here.

You're so funny! Anyone would think you had a brain.

Chris
11-24-2013, 10:09 PM
iustitia, welcome. Great posts. Some comments.

One, anarchy is not absence of state exactly but more governance without government.

Two, governance would be by society rather than the state. In your graph, as state power decreases from absolute to none, another but reverse slope would represent that power as rights returning to where it came, society.

Three, that governance would be voluntary as opposed to coerced.

Four, take a look at Positive & Negative Liberties in Three Dimensions (http://www.friesian.com/quiz.htm), you'll probably like it.

iustitia
11-24-2013, 10:38 PM
I agree with your idea of the left-right Paradigm.

BTW, welcome to the forum!Good to hear, and thanks.


I agree with you about Bismarck. If you're curious look into Theodor Lohmann, he was the real architect behind the programs that Bismarck created. In a lot of ways I think Lohmann was social democracy's first engineer.


Almost forgot, welcome!

Absolutely, and it really demonstrates the collusion of so-called polar opposite ideologies at the turn of the century. Socialism, Christian socialism/postmillennialism, and imperialism/monarchism would be forces of collusion not just in Europe's age of imperialism and socialist unrest/labor movement but also in America in the form of the 2nd Klan, Progressivism, prohibition, "New Nationalism" and even scientific racism/eugenics. Not to mention the realization of true socialization of education in America through the efforts of men like Dewey to institutionalize the statist Prussian model.

But back to the welfare state, I think Progressivism is really analogous to American Bismarck model. Conservatives claim men like Theodore Roosevelt as a conservative and progressives claim him as a liberal. And yet his platform is summarized as the New Nationalism. Isn't nationalism something imperialists tend to fall back on? Well, yes, because he was an imperialist. But he also supported a stronger centralized government for implementing the progressive system - the welfare state. I think conservatives mistake his party allegiance (ignoring his departure to found Bull Moose) as an indicator of being not a socialist and looking up to his manly aura as a war hero because of San Juan Hill while playing down his domestic agenda. The "left" meanwhile ignore his nationalism because they only want to see his domestic agenda rather than his militarism and promotion of nationalism/Americanism.

Nationalism and Socialism have, I believe, worked together more than they've fought. People that belong to either ism would rather die than admit collusion but the reality is that they go hand in hand. Nationalism, if you go by the German understanding, means blood and soil. That can mean anything from imperialist wars to nationalizing an industry for the sake of the fatherland. Socialism can mean anything from tax-funded welfare programs to state-ownership of a business or industry. Regardless of my droning, I don't think one can look at the Progressive Era and not see the welfare state as an addition to the imperial model rather than a rejection of it. Of course both sides will deny it though. As my spectrum shows I see history linearly. And thanks for the welcome.


Definitely welcome and I really enjoyed reading your opening posts. Let's hope some of the liberal know nothings on this board read them and learn some history for a change, not the made up stuff they parrot here.
lol I look forward to the discussion.


Welcome iustitia or may I call you Justice - it's easier. I look forward to good discussion.
I welcome the name and the welcome.

No seriously, I'm happy for the response I've gotten. I've tried a few forums and every time I tried suggesting a model like this I was jumped on or couldn't get any feedback.

iustitia
11-24-2013, 11:28 PM
iustitia, welcome. Great posts. Some comments.

One, anarchy is not absence of state exactly but more governance without government.

Two, governance would be by society rather than the state. In your graph, as state power decreases from absolute to none, another but reverse slope would represent that power as rights returning to where it came, society.

Three, that governance would be voluntary as opposed to coerced.

Four, take a look at Positive & Negative Liberties in Three Dimensions (http://www.friesian.com/quiz.htm), you'll probably like it.

I will concede that my spectrum is heavily state-centric. I intend to demonstrate the power of the state vs the individual, which is why even in anarchism I tried placing systems by social organization. But you're right the graphic demonstrates the growth of the state rather than the loss of the individual. That is a combination of my conception of the state as a compromise of sovereignty thus the more power the state has the less sovereignty the individual has regardless of claims of citizenship or popular rule. Also I was in a rush to make it and didn't get to include as much as I would have if time was infinitely allotted to me. =P

And you're right anarchism depending on the strain does advocate a civil society, just without a state's coercion. It's fitting since it evolved alongside socialism and syndicalism that it abide by social organization.

The problem I have with society rule vs state rule is that society and state tend to go hand in hand in politics. Outside of anarchism every political concept I'm aware of relies upon a state for its goals even if that goal is the elimination of states (marxism) or restraining the state's authority (Bill of Rights). You'd be right to point out that eventually control does slip from the hands of the public to the hands of the state. At what point that is I can't say definitively but I suppose a good place to generalize would be when the term statism can be aptly applied. I don't believe a republican or "public affair" entity can fairly be labeled statist, though I do believe an oligarchy should. And this isn't a defense of the state from me; my ideology is not on the agenda here nor do I wish to insult yours, I'm merely considering the terminology to use. I believe mercantilism to be a statist system. I believe nationalism to be collectivist.

I do like charts that try to expand the way we organize politics, and I have seen that one before. However my contention is still that society and economics shouldn't be separated as though they represent a dichotomy. Generally to plot things on axises there have to be distinct differences however I don't think anything can be so separate in politics. Everything is economics and everything is social. If conservatives want to stop funding Planned Parenthood isn't that social and economics? If progressives want gay marriage because of tax incentives isn't that social and economics? I think the whole social issues vs economic issues has in part helped sustain the typical left-right paradigm only instead of linear left and right there's another dimension to move on an ill-defined separation of subjects.

Thank you for your comment though. I'm really enjoying the feedback from here.

Peter1469
11-24-2013, 11:34 PM
I agree with what you say above. I particularly agree with this:


The problem I have with society rule vs state rule is that society and state tend to go hand in hand in politics.

The entire concept of "non-governance" cannot work on a large scale.

Keep up with the great posts. Glad you found this place.

Green Arrow
11-25-2013, 12:30 PM
I'll have to give this some thought. Thank you for posting this, it's very well-written and intelligent!

iustitia
11-25-2013, 10:26 PM
Thanks for the feedback. =)

iustitia
11-28-2013, 10:46 PM
Upon further deliberation I've determined my chart is fundamentally flawed, for reasons that might be unsettling.

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were both funded and established by Wall Street. You might be thinking that that's not only crazy but also doesn't make sense. However, after finishing Antony Sutton's trilogy on Wall Street I can conclude that both post-WWI Germany and Russia turned out the way they did on behalf of American and German monopolists, bankers, financiers, industrialists and politicians. Germany's economy tanked in the Wiemar Republic due to inflationary policies set in place by monopoly-seeking German General Electric (A.E.G.) and Hamburg-America Line (HAPAG) members who took the Chancellorship. United European Investors Ltd. had as a member FDR. FDR used the inflationary policies of Germany and the weakness of the mark to profit off of cheap assets. The Bolsheviks in Russia, like the Progressives in the US and National Socialists in Germany were funded primarily by western bankers and their regime built up by corporations like GE and Ford. Woodrow Wilson in fact secured Trotsky's freedom and a passport to get him into Russia, as well as using US troops to secure railways in eastern Russia and held off the Japanese until the Bolsheviks could take it themselves.

This is a short overview, but in essence western monopolies wanted to use socialism to create captive markets. Cleveland, McKinley, TR, Wilson, Hoover and FDR were all financed by corporate giants, especially JP Morgan, Standard Oil, and so on. The concept of trust-busting is a myth. Even Theodore Roosevelt supported big business. And knowing that American foreign policy as far back as the 1910's or really the 1880's has been guided by corporate interests and said interests have in fact held control of foreign countries, I can't pretend the US is in a different category than totalitarianism. The US should be in the same category as the states it funded and created.

http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/articles/whofinanced/dee-lighted.jpg

For further reading, I recommend Antony Sutton's trilogy on Wall Street, published in 1974-6 and free online-
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=WallStHitler
Wall Street and FDR
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=WallStFDR
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=BolshevikRev

Chris
11-29-2013, 10:12 AM
The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were both funded and established by Wall Street. You might be thinking that that's not only crazy but also doesn't make sense. However, after finishing Antony Sutton's trilogy on Wall Street I can conclude that both post-WWI Germany and Russia turned out the way they did on behalf of American and German monopolists, bankers, financiers, industrialists and politicians....



That's the basic theme of Keynes' The Economic Consequences of the Peace. He was right in some respects, in modern warfare the enemy cannot be destroyed without turning them into a welfare dependent when your own prosperity depends on trade with them. His solution, central planning, only added to the problem of corporatism, the rent-seeking collusion of government and business, the source of creation of monopolies.

Alyosha
11-29-2013, 10:15 AM
I agree with what you say above. I particularly agree with this:


The entire concept of "non-governance" cannot work on a large scale.

Keep up with the great posts. Glad you found this place.

Why must we live in "large-scale"? Smaller states like Lichtenstein rarely start shit up and live amicably with their neighbors. Moreover, I don't see large scale working either. We're in extreme debt, we have to continually create fake jobs to keep a large-scale economy going OR go the right wing Keynesian path of war.

Peter1469
11-29-2013, 10:46 AM
Why must we live in "large-scale"? Smaller states like Lichtenstein rarely start shit up and live amicably with their neighbors. Moreover, I don't see large scale working either. We're in extreme debt, we have to continually create fake jobs to keep a large-scale economy going OR go the right wing Keynesian path of war.

We don't have to live large scale; I don't see small scale catching on until a crash.

Chris
11-29-2013, 10:48 AM
Large scale is failing then. Time for a different theory of government. A more naturalistic one that aligns more with our nature.

Mini Me
11-29-2013, 11:30 AM
Thanks, iustitia.

It is only through the study of history, that we can even begin to understand politics and economics and today's world events. Nothing is as it appears at first glance.

There are too many posters on this forum that only see politics through the false left-right spectrum dichotomy, as dictated to them through their propagandistic handlers. All this does is to divide us as a people, and allow the power elite to solidify their control over our minds.

Peter1469
11-29-2013, 11:33 AM
Large scale is failing then. Time for a different theory of government. A more naturalistic one that aligns more with our nature.

I am eagerly awaiting the roll-out.

Mini Me
11-29-2013, 11:35 AM
Definitely welcome and I really enjoyed reading your opening posts. Let's hope some of the liberal know nothings on this board read them and learn some history for a change, not the made up stuff they parrot here.

Parrot, where do you get your history?

From Ben Gleck of Beckerheads, or Bill O'Reilly of Faux news, or Goldberg or hate radio?

Try reading real history, by acclaimed historians.

Chris
11-29-2013, 11:37 AM
Thanks, iustitia.

It is only through the study of history, that we can even begin to understand politics and economics and today's world events. Nothing is as it appears at first glance.

There are too many posters on this forum that only see politics through the false left-right spectrum dichotomy, as dictated to them through their propagandistic handlers. All this does is to divide us as a people, and allow the power elite to solidify their control over our minds.


Interesting that by post #15 iustitia has taken a standard leftist anti-capitalism stance.

Mini Me
11-29-2013, 11:53 AM
Justice, what do you think of Teddy Roosevelt?

He came after Mckinley, who was a hand picked man of industrialists, and TR rolled back the Robber Barons(or did he?) and took a strong stand on conservation, and appeared to be for the little guy.

I don't see him as any kind of war hero...mainly just a poser at San Juan Hill and was definitely an imperialist with the war(?) against Spain. He took Cuba and the Phillipines, just because he could, and did that not benefit the industraialists? To me he was an odd case, an enigma, but still a great POTUS.

To me, the closest thing to anarchy was the wild, wild west, when the west was just territories before statehood. It was mostly lawless, ruled by vigilantes and frontier justice at the end of a rope, and even so called sheriffs, marshalls and governors were mostly outlaws and profiteers out for personal gain. It was a new opportunity for beaten Confederate soldiers to come and become outlaws and gun slingers, as there was nothing left of the old south to salvage for them.

Mini Me
11-29-2013, 12:04 PM
Justice, have you ever read Howard Zinn's "A peoples history of the United states" ?

If so, how would you judge it for accuracy?
Zinn is accused by the far right of having a strong socialist bent.

Of course, the far right is always busy rewriting history, and anyone who does not agree with them is a commie!

It all relative, you know.

Chris
11-29-2013, 12:30 PM
I am eagerly awaiting the roll-out.

As you seem to eagerly await the fall-out of big government.

Chris
11-29-2013, 12:32 PM
Parrot, where do you get your history?

From Ben Gleck of Beckerheads, or Bill O'Reilly of Faux news, or Goldberg or hate radio?

Try reading real history, by acclaimed historians.



Yea, mainecoons, dammit, read leftist revisions of history and parrot them like strange.

Mainecoons
11-29-2013, 12:35 PM
Parrot, where do you get your history?

From Ben Gleck of Beckerheads, or Bill O'Reilly of Faux news, or Goldberg or hate radio?

Try reading real history, by acclaimed historians.

Interesting that you thought that my comment was somehow addressed to you personally.

If the shoe fits, wear it as you appear to be doing.

:grin:

kilgram
11-29-2013, 12:44 PM
I agree with your idea of the left-right Paradigm.

BTW, welcome to the forum!
I disagree.

From my point of view Anarchism cannot be situated only in the right. Anarchism is leftist and rightist, Anarchism is Libertarian.

Left/Right never can be a line. It should be situated in a two dimensions axis. Left/right and Authoritarism/Libertarianism.

kilgram
11-29-2013, 12:47 PM
Large scale is failing then. Time for a different theory of government. A more naturalistic one that aligns more with our nature.
I agree with you.

Small governments are the best, and also it makes closer the government to people and an anarchist approach and scalable is easier to do.

Internal thinking made public: I think that my English is becoming more active rather than pasive.

Chris
11-29-2013, 12:56 PM
I agree with you.

Small governments are the best, and also it makes closer the government to people and an anarchist approach and scalable is easier to do.

Internal thinking made public: I think that my English is becoming more active rather than pasive.



Like your thread on Figaró: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19418-Spain-Figar%C3%B3-an-Assambleary-town-where-children-have-access-to-the-budgets.

KC
11-29-2013, 01:17 PM
I agree with you.

Small governments are the best, and also it makes closer the government to people and an anarchist approach and scalable is easier to do.

Internal thinking made public: I think that my English is becoming more active rather than pasive.

Big government works better on a small scale too. There is a reason that little Norway is able to successfully run a country with such a big government--part of it is oil, another is that government which reflects the values of the people is government that is more likely to succeed.

Chris
11-29-2013, 01:25 PM
Big government works better on a small scale too. There is a reason that little Norway is able to successfully run a country with such a big government--part of it is oil, another is that government which reflects the values of the people is government that is more likely to succeed.

Including Norwegian homogeneity, now breaking up because of importation of cheap labor, leading to a failure of big government there.

Peter1469
11-29-2013, 01:40 PM
As you seem to eagerly await the fall-out of big government.
The government will collapse sooner or later; we have too much debt.

Peter1469
11-29-2013, 01:42 PM
I disagree.

From my point of view Anarchism cannot be situated only in the right. Anarchism is leftist and rightist, Anarchism is Libertarian.

Left/Right never can be a line. It should be situated in a two dimensions axis. Left/right and Authoritarism/Libertarianism.

I agree with that, but the OP was about a 1 dimensional axis. Total state control on the left, absence of a state on the right.

iustitia
11-29-2013, 10:23 PM
Interesting that by post #15 iustitia has taken a standard leftist anti-capitalism stance.
I really don't know what you're talking about. Being anti-statism is anti-capitalism?


Justice, what do you think of Teddy Roosevelt?

He came after Mckinley, who was a hand picked man of industrialists, and TR rolled back the Robber Barons(or did he?) and took a strong stand on conservation, and appeared to be for the little guy.

I don't see him as any kind of war hero...mainly just a poser at San Juan Hill and was definitely an imperialist with the war(?) against Spain. He took Cuba and the Phillipines, just because he could, and did that not benefit the industraialists? To me he was an odd case, an enigma, but still a great POTUS.

To me, the closest thing to anarchy was the wild, wild west, when the west was just territories before statehood. It was mostly lawless, ruled by vigilantes and frontier justice at the end of a rope, and even so called sheriffs, marshalls and governors were mostly outlaws and profiteers out for personal gain. It was a new opportunity for beaten Confederate soldiers to come and become outlaws and gun slingers, as there was nothing left of the old south to salvage for them.Theodore Roosevelt actually worked hard to bust trusts that were in competition with his backers. Later on though he's actually openly pro-corporation and actually advocates a closer relationship between business and the state.

Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States and the grandson of Cornelius Roosevelt, one of the founders of the Chemical National Bank. Like Clinton Roosevelt, Theodore served as a New York State Assemblyman from 1882-1884; he was appointed a member of the U.S. Civil Service Commission in 1889, Police Commissioner of New York City in1895, and Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1897; and was elected Vice President in1900 to become President of the United States upon the assassination of President McKinley in 1901. Theodore Roosevelt was reelected President in 1904, to become founder of the Progressive Party, backed by J. P. Morgan money and influence, and so launched the United States on the road to the welfare state. The longest section of the platform of the Progressive Party was that devoted to "Business" and reads in part:

"We therefore demand a strong national regulation of interstate corporations. The corporation is an essential part of modern business. The concentration of modern business, in some degree, is both inevitable and necessary for national and international business efficiency."

Progressivism was fascist before fascism was cool. The only really significant difference between this statement backed by Morgan money and the Marxian analysis is that Karl Marx thought of concentration of big business as inevitable rather than "necessary." Yet Roosevelt's Progressive Party plugging for business regulation was financed by Wall Street, including the Morgan-controlled International Harvester Corporation and J. P. Morgan partners. In Kolko's words:

"The party's financial records for 1912 list C. K. McCormick, Mr. and Mrs. Medill McCormick, Mrs. Katherine McCormick, Mrs. A. A. McCormick, Fred S. Oliver, and James H. Pierce. The largest donations for the Progressives, however, came from Munsey, Perkins, the Willard Straights of the Morgan Company, Douglas Robinson, W. E. Roosevelt, and Thomas Plant."

There is, of course, a long Roosevelt political tradition, centered on the State of New York and the Federal government in Washington, that parallels this Wall Street tradition. Nicholas Roosevelt (1658-1742) was in 1700 a member of the New York State Assembly. Isaac Roosevelt (1726-1794) was a member of the New York Provincial Congress. James I. Roosevelt (1795-1875) was a member of the New York State Assembly in 1835 and 1840 and a member of the U.S. House of Representatives between 1841 and 1843. Clinton Roosevelt (1804-1898), the author of an 1841 economic program remarkably similar to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was a member of the New York State Assembly in 1835. Robert Barnwell Roosevelt (1829-1906) was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1871-73 and U.S. Minister to Holland 1888-1890. Then, of course, as we have noted, there was President Theodore Roosevelt. Franklin continued the Theodore Roosevelt political tradition as a New York State Senator (1910-1913), Assistant Secretary of the Navy (1913-1920), Governor of the State of New York (1928-1930), and then President (1933-1945).

There were other Roosevelts on Wall Street. George Emlen Roosevelt (1887-1963) was a cousin of both Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt. In 1908, George Emlen became a member of the family banking firm Roosevelt & Son. In January 1934, after passage of FDR's Banking Act of 1933, the firm was split into three individual units: Roosevelt & Son, with which George Roosevelt remained as a senior partner, Dick & Merle-Smith, and Roosevelt & Weigold. George Emlen Roosevelt was a leading railroad financier, involved in no fewer than 14 railroad reorganizations, as well as directorships in several important companies, including the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust Company, 23theChemical Bank, and the Bank for Savings in New York. The full list of George Emlen's directorships at 1930 requires six inches of small print in Poor's Directory of Directors.

An alliance of Wall Street and political office is implicit in this Roosevelt tradition. The policies implemented by the many Roosevelts have tended toward increased state intervention into business, desirable to some business elements, and therefore the Roosevelt search for political office can fairly be viewed as a self-seeking device. The euphemism of "public service" is a cover for utilizing the police power of the state for personal ends, a thesis we must investigate. If the Roosevelt tradition had been one of uncompromising laissez-faire, of getting the state out of business rather than encouraging intervention into economic activities, then our assessment would necessarily be quite different. However, from at least Clinton Roosevelt in 1841 to Franklin D. Roosevelt, the political power accumulated by the Roosevelt clan has been used on the side of regulating business in the interests of restricting competition, encouraging monopoly, and so bleeding the consumer in the interests of a financial élite.


Justice, have you ever read Howard Zinn's "A peoples history of the United states" ?

If so, how would you judge it for accuracy?
Zinn is accused by the far right of having a strong socialist bent.

Of course, the far right is always busy rewriting history, and anyone who does not agree with them is a commie!

It all relative, you know.I've read Zinn, Chomsky et al. And while it's impossible for any rational person to deny the validity to many critiques of American foreign and domestic policy I also admit that sometimes the socialist pov is too much to take. It's a shame ideological socialists have to be the ones to cut through patriotic revisionism, however I find they themselves twist things themselves to over-exaggerate our shortcomings. The patriots are wrong for the right reasons and the socialists are right for the wrong reasons and everyone is jaded because of ideology. A People's History has many errors to put it kindly, however I do admit that it's one of the few critiques of American policy that's all-encompassing from past to present. Basically he's right about a lot but he's still a pinko. lol


I disagree.

From my point of view Anarchism cannot be situated only in the right. Anarchism is leftist and rightist, Anarchism is Libertarian.

Left/Right never can be a line. It should be situated in a two dimensions axis. Left/right and Authoritarism/Libertarianism.The punnet square model makes just as little sense as linear left-right because it's based on the same false premise that economics and society aren't intertwined.


I agree with that, but the OP was about a 1 dimensional axis. Total state control on the left, absence of a state on the right.Exactly. I discard the left-right concept entirely because I find it irrational and focus on substantive distinctions like concentration of power. It's not perfect because every government is different but I find it to be more honest.

Chris
11-30-2013, 09:32 AM
Upon further deliberation I've determined my chart is fundamentally flawed, for reasons that might be unsettling.

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were both funded and established by Wall Street. You might be thinking that that's not only crazy but also doesn't make sense. However, after finishing Antony Sutton's trilogy on Wall Street I can conclude that both post-WWI Germany and Russia turned out the way they did on behalf of American and German monopolists, bankers, financiers, industrialists and politicians. Germany's economy tanked in the Wiemar Republic due to inflationary policies set in place by monopoly-seeking German General Electric (A.E.G.) and Hamburg-America Line (HAPAG) members who took the Chancellorship. United European Investors Ltd. had as a member FDR. FDR used the inflationary policies of Germany and the weakness of the mark to profit off of cheap assets. The Bolsheviks in Russia, like the Progressives in the US and National Socialists in Germany were funded primarily by western bankers and their regime built up by corporations like GE and Ford. Woodrow Wilson in fact secured Trotsky's freedom and a passport to get him into Russia, as well as using US troops to secure railways in eastern Russia and held off the Japanese until the Bolsheviks could take it themselves.

This is a short overview, but in essence western monopolies wanted to use socialism to create captive markets. Cleveland, McKinley, TR, Wilson, Hoover and FDR were all financed by corporate giants, especially JP Morgan, Standard Oil, and so on. The concept of trust-busting is a myth. Even Theodore Roosevelt supported big business. And knowing that American foreign policy as far back as the 1910's or really the 1880's has been guided by corporate interests and said interests have in fact held control of foreign countries, I can't pretend the US is in a different category than totalitarianism. The US should be in the same category as the states it funded and created.

http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/articles/whofinanced/dee-lighted.jpg

For further reading, I recommend Antony Sutton's trilogy on Wall Street, published in 1974-6 and free online-
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=WallStHitler
Wall Street and FDR
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=WallStFDR
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=BolshevikRev



iustitia, ^^^that is anti-capitalist, not anti-statist. It's a typical leftist/Marxist point of view.

iustitia
11-30-2013, 09:36 AM
Please explain how it's anti-capitalism.

Chris
11-30-2013, 09:49 AM
Please explain how it's anti-capitalism.

It blames business for the evils of the world. It's blatantly obvious.

Polecat
11-30-2013, 11:05 AM
I see an equilateral triangle with anarchy, communism and capitalism at the points. Somewhere in the body of this analogy is a spot that represents reason. The problem always has been and always will be the lack of unity among the people of the world on ethical & moral beliefs. This will always keep us in a state of climbing out of ruin or decaying into it.

Chris
11-30-2013, 11:17 AM
I see an equilateral triangle with anarchy, communism and capitalism at the points. Somewhere in the body of this analogy is a spot that represents reason. The problem always has been and always will be the lack of unity among the people of the world on ethical & moral beliefs. This will always keep us in a state of climbing out of ruin or decaying into it.

Free-market capitalism is voluntary and anarchist. Mixed with the state, in the form of crony corporatism, from fascism to social democracy, it becomes statist.

iustitia
11-30-2013, 02:24 PM
It blames business for the evils of the world. It's blatantly obvious.What? So your definition of capitalism, just so I'm not putting words in your mouth, is when big business and big government work together to create captive markets through monopolies and centralized banking? If that's your definition of capitalism then maybe I'm anti-capitalism. But I don't think it's anti-business to be against a corporate-owned oligarchy writing its own legislation, profiting off of war, destroying currencies for self-interest and consuming freedom for power. I don't think that's capitalism, I think it's mercantilism. Which we fought a revolution against. I suggest you look into why things like the Boston Tea Party happened. A reaction to British monopolies restricting markets, raising taxes on local industries to force out competition in favor of the East India Company, et cetera. Free market capitalism requires the state to not pick winners and losers. You are, in your ignorance of history, defending a system you falsely associate with capitalist industrialism, free markets and competitive entrepreneurism. In reality the Wall Street-Government complex is an assault on capitalism. The fact is you're defending a system that propped up socialist regimes for profit at the expense of millions of people.

And it hasn't changed since. 352 members of Congress have left office since 1998. 79% have worked as lobbyists. There is a revolving door between government, the financial system , and big business. Denying it isn't going to fix anything. Party politics mean nothing; following the money means everything.

Chris
11-30-2013, 02:29 PM
What? So your definition of capitalism, just so I'm not putting words in your mouth, is when big business and big government work together to create captive markets through monopolies and centralized banking? If that's your definition of capitalism then maybe I'm anti-capitalism. But I don't think it's anti-business to be against a corporate-owned oligarchy writing its own legislation, profiting off of war, destroying currencies for self-interest and consuming freedom for power. I don't think that's capitalism, I think it's mercantilism. Which we fought a revolution against. I suggest you look into why things like the Boston Tea Party happened. A reaction to British monopolies restricting markets, raising taxes on local industries to force out competition in favor of the East India Company, et cetera. Free market capitalism requires the state to not pick winners and losers. You are, in your ignorance of history, defending a system you falsely associate with capitalist industrialism, free markets and competitive entrepreneurism. In reality the Wall Street-Government complex is an assault on capitalism. The fact is you're defending a system that propped up socialist regimes for profit at the expense of millions of people.

And it hasn't changed since. 352 members of Congress have left office since 1998. 79% have worked as lobbyists. There is a revolving door between government, the financial system , and big business. Denying it isn't going to fix anything. Party politics mean nothing; following the money means everything.



No, that's my definition of corporatism. --Love how you ask if that's my definition and then long-windedly proceed to assume it is. Nice straw man.

Your long post ending with cartoon with Marx at the center was anti-business. Like many on the left, while you recognize the problem is collusion of government and business, you criticize business alone.

Money (wealth) is not the problem, power, concentrated in the hands of a few politicians, is.

iustitia
11-30-2013, 02:45 PM
I don't know what you're talking about; I never said business was to blame, but collusion between business, banks and government. I think you should look at that political cartoon again. Do you notice Theodore Roosevelt in it? You seem jaded by your economic philosophy to where you're unable to read between the lines. You're assuming bad faith towards a capitalist because you're ignoring the context of a political cartoon blatantly showing Wall Street businesses and progressive politicians backing socialism. If you're for capitalism I don't see why you're accusing me of leftism.

Chris
11-30-2013, 03:23 PM
I don't know what you're talking about; I never said business was to blame, but collusion between business, banks and government. I think you should look at that political cartoon again. Do you notice Theodore Roosevelt in it? You seem jaded by your economic philosophy to where you're unable to read between the lines. You're assuming bad faith towards a capitalist because you're ignoring the context of a political cartoon blatantly showing Wall Street businesses and progressive politicians backing socialism. If you're for capitalism I don't see why you're accusing me of leftism.

Hey, you the one got my definition all wrong and then criticized the one you made up. Now, please tell me what my economic philosophy is.... You're telling me everything else I think with no basis. I criticized your post with the Marx cartoon. How you managed to associate Marx with capitalism is beyond me--oh, yea, you read a book.

Mini Me
11-30-2013, 03:27 PM
Justice, everything looks leftist to Chris from his narrow, biased viewpoint!

"When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

Jeez, all this panty wadding over a silly cartoon!

Mussolini said: "The merging of corporations with government is fascism"

This is what we have today in the US, or call it a kleptocracy, or corporatism, whatever.
I am still looking for him to show me a "free market"!

I suspect Chris is a paid poster for the corporate elite, with all his posts. Eh, Chris?

Mister D
11-30-2013, 03:38 PM
Justice, everything looks leftist to Chris from his narrow, biased viewpoint!

"When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

Jeez, all this panty wadding over a silly cartoon!

Mussolini said: "The merging of corporations with government is fascism"

This is what we have today in the US, or call it a kleptocracy, or corporatism, whatever.
I am still looking for him to show me a "free market"!

I suspect Chris is a paid poster for the corporate elite, with all his posts. Eh, Chris?

Mussolini wasn't talking about entities like Exxon when he said that.

Chris
11-30-2013, 03:41 PM
Justice, everything looks leftist to Chris from his narrow, biased viewpoint!

"When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

Jeez, all this panty wadding over a silly cartoon!

Mussolini said: "The merging of corporations with government is fascism"

This is what we have today in the US, or call it a kleptocracy, or corporatism, whatever.
I am still looking for him to show me a "free market"!

I suspect Chris is a paid poster for the corporate elite, with all his posts. Eh, Chris?


So you redefine capitalism as corporatism.

And I'm sure you're impressed with your ad hom and straw man I support corporatism, for three posts above I criticized corporatism: "Free-market capitalism is voluntary and anarchist. Mixed with the state, in the form of crony corporatism, from fascism to social democracy, it becomes statist." Make you look kind of silly.

The Sage of Main Street
11-30-2013, 04:11 PM
Thanks for the feedback. =)

You completely ignore the tumor of hereditary power, which puts inferior people in superior positions. Whatever the ruling class never allows to be radically questioned is what they are desperate to hide. Just imagine how it would work out in sports if the players could pass on their positions to their sons.

Second, that means you also ignore how the people who achieve positions of responsibility in these structures. Besides the cancer of inheritance, many get ahead just through office politics or brown-nosing. In other words, you can have the blueprint for a fine building, but if the materials used for holding up the structure are not the best, it will collapse.

The Sage of Main Street
11-30-2013, 04:19 PM
Parrot, where do you get your history?

From Ben Gleck of Beckerheads, or Bill O'Reilly of Faux news, or Goldberg or hate radio?

Try reading real history, by acclaimed historians.

You mean scribbling prostitutes from academentia? Please. The university is an obsolete aristocratic institution.

Dr. Who
11-30-2013, 05:46 PM
@iustitia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=926), ^^^that is anti-capitalist, not anti-statist. It's a typical leftist/Marxist point of view.

I don't see how it is anti-capitalist, it's anti-collusionist. It suggests that the corporate/government collusion has been operating to the detriment of society since the late 1800's and that the best way to ensure corporate monopolies was to encourage socialism, even communism, and thereby ensure captive markets. Whilst so manipulating the American market and politics would take more time, given its history, targeting markets where the large majority of the people were suffering under poverty was easy. If anything in this world is patently obvious, extremely large business concerns can exert/buy equally large influence on individuals in government who are in positions to favor those businesses above all others. The fact that these corporate entities continue to get larger and more powerful simply extends their influence, a fact that we should all regard with trepidation. This is not a free-market capitalism issue, it is a corruption issue.

Chris
11-30-2013, 05:50 PM
I don't see how it is anti-capitalist, it's anti-collusionist. It suggests that the corporate/government collusion has been operating to the detriment of society since the late 1800's and that the best way to ensure corporate monopolies was to encourage socialism, even communism, and thereby ensure captive markets. Whilst so manipulating the American market and politics would take more time, given its history, targeting markets where the large majority of the people were suffering under poverty was easy. If anything in this world is patently obvious, extremely large business concerns can exert/buy equally large influence on individuals in government who are in positions to favor those businesses above all others. The fact that these corporate entities continue to get larger and more powerful simply extends their influence, a fact that we should all regard with trepidation. This is not a free-market capitalism issue, it is a corruption issue.

It blames business as most lefties do. You're doing the same. Influence is simply not coercive power.

Dr. Who
11-30-2013, 06:03 PM
It blames business as most lefties do. You're doing the same. Influence is simply not coercive power.Justice does not identify as lefty, but rather as a Conservative. Political identification does not mean that you have to close your eyes to the bad behavior of certain individuals or certain businesses. The one thing they all have in common is people. People can corrupt other people. Corrupt people find each other. It does not condemn all business or the free-market for that matter, only those run by corrupt power seekers. If anything those people don't believe in a free market but rather a monopolistic market where only they may make a profit. They seek to drive out all competition by corrupt means and will buy whomever they have to, to accomplish this goal. The world has been running this way for time in memorial. It used to be aristocracies that controlled all business. They have simply morphed into corporate predators.

Chris
11-30-2013, 06:12 PM
Justice does not identify as lefty, but rather as a Conservative. Political identification does not mean that you have to close your eyes to the bad behavior of certain individuals or certain businesses. The one thing they all have in common is people. People can corrupt other people. Corrupt people find each other. It does not condemn all business or the free-market for that matter, only those run by corrupt power seekers. If anything those people don't believe in a free market but rather a monopolistic market where only they may make a profit. They seek to drive out all competition by corrupt means and will buy whomever they have to, to accomplish this goal. The world has been running this way for time in memorial. It used to be aristocracies that controlled all business. They have simply morphed into corporate predators.

In order to serve justice you need to identify and clarify the problem. While many see collusion as the problem too many see one or the other, business or government as the sole causative agent. It is those views that are left and right.

Influence is not coercive power. There are only two sources of power, originally society (the people) and now, more and more, government. Power so concentrated corrupts. These monopolies are created by government.

kilgram
11-30-2013, 06:19 PM
Free-market capitalism is voluntary and anarchist. Mixed with the state, in the form of crony corporatism, from fascism to social democracy, it becomes statist.
Social democracy in theory limits capitalism. Never can become statist, in the same way as corporatism.

Chris
11-30-2013, 06:35 PM
Social democracy in theory limits capitalism. Never can become statist, in the same way as corporatism.

Social democracy tries to manage the free market, and is becoming more statist everyday, and I doubt is smart enough to stop growing, too much like a parasitic cancer. There will always be free markets though, as the economy moves more and more underground.

kilgram
11-30-2013, 06:50 PM
Social democracy tries to manage the free market, and is becoming more statist everyday, and I doubt is smart enough to stop growing, too much like a parasitic cancer. There will always be free markets though, as the economy moves more and more underground.
Social democracy, leaves free market, but also has socialized services. It is the idea of social democracy.

However in theory, social democracy is an utopic and fantastic ideology that had (today socialdemocracy is dead) the goal to subvert the capitalist system into a socialist system. Doing it inside from the Liberal Democracy in difference with the other Socialist ideologies that were revolutionary.

This conversion should have done, or with the original idea of more nationalizations and more participation of the workers in the private companies(cooperatives), but it has never been applied. Social democracy today is relatively present only in a few countries like Finland, Sweeden(being killed) and Norway, and also in Canada, Australia and New Zealand in a lesser extent I believe.

In the Central European countries there is Social democracy but lesser than the others that I said.

Dr. Who
11-30-2013, 07:05 PM
In order to serve justice you need to identify and clarify the problem. While many see collusion as the problem too many see one or the other, business or government as the sole causative agent. It is those views that are left and right.

Influence is not coercive power. There are only two sources of power, originally society (the people) and now, more and more, government. Power so concentrated corrupts. These monopolies are created by government.
Those in government and those in business can be the same people, bound by familial or ideological ties. Consider that there are certain schools that the children of the very wealthy attend in order that they may lifelong relationships. Some go into politics, some go into business, but the relationships remain. The elected members of government are tied in many ways to the large corporate entities, like an exclusive network of friends and family. Since you find the children of these corporate emperors in government, how do you distinguish which came first, corrupt government or corrupt business? Similarly some attend the military colleges gaining a fast track to the military executive. Ask yourself why wealthy people would push their children into a military career? It is a pattern of infiltration that has been taking place for a very long time. Why were so many wealthy titled people members of the British parliament. Why are so many wealthy people attracted to politics in general? How many American politicians come from modest roots vs the number that come from money. Is it any coincidence that the same large corporations donate to both sides of the political aisle? The politics are irrelevant. Ensuring that their chosen candidates get elected is what is important. The corruptions starts well before they get into elected office.

Chris
11-30-2013, 07:05 PM
Social democracy, leaves free market, but also has socialized services. It is the idea of social democracy.

However in theory, social democracy is an utopic and fantastic ideology that had (today socialdemocracy is dead) the goal to subvert the capitalist system into a socialist system. Doing it inside from the Liberal Democracy in difference with the other Socialist ideologies that were revolutionary.

This conversion should have done, or with the original idea of more nationalizations and more participation of the workers in the private companies(cooperatives), but it has never been applied. Social democracy today is relatively present only in a few countries like Finland, Sweeden(being killed) and Norway, and also in Canada, Australia and New Zealand in a lesser extent I believe.

In the Central European countries there is Social democracy but lesser than the others that I said.

Social democracy to me is a policy of managing the free market to fund social agendas.

It's dead in Europe, but just as it failed and died there, the US picked it up. Krugman for example is an avowed social democrat.

Chris
11-30-2013, 07:07 PM
Those in government and those in business can be the same people, bound by familial or ideological ties. Consider that there are certain schools that the children of the very wealthy attend in order that they may lifelong relationships. Some go into politics, some go into business, but the relationships remain. The elected members of government are tied in many ways to the large corporate entities, like an exclusive network of friends and family. Since you find the children of these corporate emperors in government, how do you distinguish which came first, corrupt government or corrupt business? Similarly some attend the military colleges gaining a fast track to the military executive. Ask yourself why wealthy people would push their children into a military career? It is a pattern of infiltration that has been taking place for a very long time. Why were so many wealthy titled people members of the British parliament. Why are so many wealthy people attracted to politics in general? How many American politicians come from modest roots vs the number that come from money. Is it any coincidence that the same large corporations donate to both sides of the political aisle? The politics are irrelevant. Ensuring that their chosen candidates get elected is what is important. The corruptions starts well before they get into elected office.

Yes, they can be but only through government is coercive power to be found.

Dr. Who
11-30-2013, 07:25 PM
Yes, they can be but only through government is coercive power to be found.

And the solution? Would small government be any less infiltrated? The shenanigans would begin anew, and this business or that would either find a way to be favored, or there would be a disinclination on the part of government to interfere with unsavory business practices.

Codename Section
11-30-2013, 07:58 PM
And the solution? Would small government be any less infiltrated? The shenanigans would begin anew, and this business or that would either find a way to be favored, or there would be a disinclination on the part of government to interfere with unsavory business practices.

It gives you a fresh start with lessons learned, no more or less. That's still better than what we have now.

http://files.sharenator.com/Internet_Spying_Epic_Fail2E_Infinite_Picdump_106-s600x431-296436-580.jpg

Dr. Who
11-30-2013, 08:04 PM
I have always been of the opinion that it is people who have to change. Perhaps when people no longer accept corruption as being the norm, it won't be.

Codename Section
11-30-2013, 08:17 PM
I have always been of the opinion that it is people who have to change. Perhaps when people no longer accept corruption as being the norm, it won't be.

Even if "the people" woke up in large numbers the laws and infrastructure is there. They won't let people be free and they have the big guns.

iustitia
11-30-2013, 08:32 PM
Hey, you the one got my definition all wrong and then criticized the one you made up. Now, please tell me what my economic philosophy is.... You're telling me everything else I think with no basis. I criticized your post with the Marx cartoon. How you managed to associate Marx with capitalism is beyond me--oh, yea, you read a book.You claimed I was anti-capitalism because I posted a picture critical of corporatism. So since logic would dictate that, since you believed a picture criticizing corporatism was a picture criticizing capitalism, your understanding of capitalism was really of corporatism/mercantilism. The basis for your definition was your labeling me anti-capitalist for an anti-corporatist picture. And again here, you associate Marx with capitalism, not me. You still believe capitalism is under scrutiny in the picture rather than corporatism. You're not paying attention. Perhaps reading books isn't as detrimental as you might think?


You completely ignore the tumor of hereditary power, which puts inferior people in superior positions. Whatever the ruling class never allows to be radically questioned is what they are desperate to hide. Just imagine how it would work out in sports if the players could pass on their positions to their sons.

Second, that means you also ignore how the people who achieve positions of responsibility in these structures. Besides the cancer of inheritance, many get ahead just through office politics or brown-nosing. In other words, you can have the blueprint for a fine building, but if the materials used for holding up the structure are not the best, it will collapse.I'm not sure how to represent sycophancy on a spectrum.

Dr. Who
11-30-2013, 08:49 PM
Even if "the people" woke up in large numbers the laws and infrastructure is there. They won't let people be free and they have the big guns.
You can eliminate both, but people will keep bringing them back. The real freedom that people have is the ability not to do business with the thieves and cutthroats of the world. We could simply refuse to buy their products, refuse to use their banks, identify the politicians in their pockets and not vote for them.

kilgram
12-01-2013, 05:31 AM
Social democracy to me is a policy of managing the free market to fund social agendas.

It's dead in Europe, but just as it failed and died there, the US picked it up. Krugman for example is an avowed social democrat.
In USA is also dead. They are copying the false social democracy that we have in Europe.

The Social Democracy started to die in the 70s/80s and the final coup was in the 90s, with the fall of the USSR. There is when the social democracy died and was changed for what you say crony capitalism, and what we say in Europe: Neoliberalism.

As I stated, social democracy is a kind of socialism, with the goal to install socialism, but without using the revolution as a method. Obviously it is absolutely uthopic, because when you prove the power, you won't want to change it.

PS: Yes, Krugman is a socialdemocrat of these days. But a SocialDemocrat that shares the ideology of the main SocialDemocrat parties of Europe like PSOE(In Spain), Labour Party(In Great Britain),... It is representing the ideas of the parties that have abandoned all their principles and they have become parties without clear ideology, except the money and the power.

Polecat
12-01-2013, 08:18 AM
Democracy can not work in any society that has been conditioned to believe what they are told by authority.

Chris
12-01-2013, 09:47 AM
And the solution? Would small government be any less infiltrated? The shenanigans would begin anew, and this business or that would either find a way to be favored, or there would be a disinclination on the part of government to interfere with unsavory business practices.

There, that's exactly why you're identifiable with the left. The problem is with business and the solution is government. You fail to see that both business and government consist of the same flawed human beings. You also fail to see that the smaller the government the less coercive power it has. Assume your view is correct, for the sake of argument, that government does the bidding of business to enslave the people. OK, now what would increasing the size and power of government do other than increase it's ability to do do the bidding of business to enslave us. But maximum government would mean minimum freedom, and, conversely, minimum government, maximum freedom.

Chris
12-01-2013, 09:51 AM
You claimed I was anti-capitalism because I posted a picture critical of corporatism. So since logic would dictate that, since you believed a picture criticizing corporatism was a picture criticizing capitalism, your understanding of capitalism was really of corporatism/mercantilism. The basis for your definition was your labeling me anti-capitalist for an anti-corporatist picture. And again here, you associate Marx with capitalism, not me. You still believe capitalism is under scrutiny in the picture rather than corporatism. You're not paying attention. Perhaps reading books isn't as detrimental as you might think?....



Now you're twisting what I said. I clearly and plainly enough to be understood said you were anti-capitalist and I am anti-corporatist. There's no logic in straw manning the opposite.

"you associate Marx with capitalism"

You're delusional.


I read lots of books, not just one.

Chris
12-01-2013, 09:56 AM
In USA is also dead. They are copying the false social democracy that we have in Europe.

The Social Democracy started to die in the 70s/80s and the final coup was in the 90s, with the fall of the USSR. There is when the social democracy died and was changed for what you say crony capitalism, and what we say in Europe: Neoliberalism.

As I stated, social democracy is a kind of socialism, with the goal to install socialism, but without using the revolution as a method. Obviously it is absolutely uthopic, because when you prove the power, you won't want to change it.

PS: Yes, Krugman is a socialdemocrat of these days. But a SocialDemocrat that shares the ideology of the main SocialDemocrat parties of Europe like PSOE(In Spain), Labour Party(In Great Britain),... It is representing the ideas of the parties that have abandoned all their principles and they have become parties without clear ideology, except the money and the power.



That's what I would think, that advocates of social democracy, like Obama, Krugman, others, would see its failure in Europe and stop. I think they think they can throw enough money and smarts at it to make it work. It's foolish.



As I stated, social democracy is a kind of socialism, with the goal to install socialism, but without using the revolution as a method. Obviously it is absolutely uthopic, because when you prove the power, you won't want to change it.

Precisely! It's the most insidious form of socialism because it operates on the pretense of being free-market capitalist.



PS: Yes, Krugman is a socialdemocrat of these days. But a SocialDemocrat that shares the ideology of the main SocialDemocrat parties of Europe like PSOE(In Spain), Labour Party(In Great Britain),... It is representing the ideas of the parties that have abandoned all their principles and they have become parties without clear ideology, except the money and the power.

"except the money and the power" That bears repeating: "except the money and the power".

kilgram
12-01-2013, 10:07 AM
That's what I would think, that advocates of social democracy, like Obama, Krugman, others, would see its failure in Europe and stop. I think they think they can throw enough money and smarts at it to make it work. It's foolish.

No, you don't understand wht I mean.

In Europe Social Democracy has not failed. It worked well until it was internally destroyed but keeping the same name with a liberal ideology mixed with social values, what is called in Europe as Socioliberalism.



Precisely! It's the most insidious form of socialism because it operates on the pretense of being free-market capitalist.
No, Socialdemocracy, the real one, never hided this fact that they wanted to transform the society from a capitalist to a Socialist one. It was the real socialdemocracy, the previous to this shitty thing without any kind of ideology, and theseone are the traitors to everyone, the ones that even believed they were continuing being Socialists and to the Liberal(capitalist) system.

Socialdemocracy was marxist, but now the socialdemocrats of today have abandoned the Marxism, the Marxism of Karl Marx for the Marxism, the Marxism of Groucho Marx.


"except the money and the power" That bears repeating: "except the money and the power".
I don't understand this part. Is it some kind of American joke, or something? Can you explain it to me, please?

iustitia
12-01-2013, 10:09 AM
Now you're twisting what I said. I clearly and plainly enough to be understood said you were anti-capitalist and I am anti-corporatist. There's no logic in straw manning the opposite.

"you associate Marx with capitalism"

You're delusional.


I read lots of books, not just one.No-
Hey, you the one got my definition all wrong and then criticized the one you made up. Now, please tell me what my economic philosophy is.... You're telling me everything else I think with no basis. I criticized your post with the Marx cartoon. How you managed to associate Marx with capitalism is beyond me--oh, yea, you read a book.I never associated Marx with capitalism. The cartoon associates Marx with Wall Street. You identified it as capitalism, not me. I never said anything negative about capitalism. You jumped to the defense of what you perceived as capitalism but was actually corporatism.

Chris
12-01-2013, 10:17 AM
No, you don't understand wht I mean.

In Europe Social Democracy has not failed. It worked well until it was internally destroyed but keeping the same name with a liberal ideology mixed with social values, what is called in Europe as Socioliberalism.



No, Socialdemocracy, the real one, never hided this fact that they wanted to transform the society from a capitalist to a Socialist one. It was the real socialdemocracy, the previous to this shitty thing without any kind of ideology.

Socialdemocracy was marxist, but now the socialdemocrats of today have abandoned the Marxism, the Marxism of Karl Marx for the Marxism, the Marxism of Groucho Marx.


I don't understand this part. Is it some kind of American joke, or something? Can you explain it to me, please?




In Europe Social Democracy has not failed. It worked well until it was internally destroyed but keeping the same name with a liberal ideology mixed with social values, what is called in Europe as Socioliberalism.

Thus it has failed.



No, Socialdemocracy, the real one, never hided this fact that they wanted to transform the society from a capitalist to a Socialist one. It was the real socialdemocracy, the previous to this shitty without ideology.

Historically, the socialist in the 90s conceded the long-running debate whether socialism could solve the economic calculation (Mises) and coordination (Hayek) problems, abandoned seeking the collapse of capitalism, and turned instead to trying to manage capitalism to achieve their agenda. Social democracy is still socialist, but a lighter version.

It took a couple decases for US socialists to catch up, like Robert Reich: The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-answer-isnt-socialism_b_1491243.html).



I don't understand this part. Is it some kind of American joke, or something? Can you explain it to me, please?

Just wanted to repeat what I think, ultimately, bottom line, any statist goal is, whether fascist, communist, social democrat, hell what any theory of government is all about: "the money and the power".

Chris
12-01-2013, 10:19 AM
No-I never associated Marx with capitalism. The cartoon associates Marx with Wall Street. You identified it as capitalism, not me. I never said anything negative about capitalism. You jumped to the defense of what you perceived as capitalism but was actually corporatism.

Give it up, iustitia.

Here, tell us, whatever it is you see as the problem, what is the solution: More, or less, government. Commit yourself, be clear, no obfuscating wall of words.

iustitia
12-01-2013, 02:40 PM
What do I have to give up? You misunderstood what I was saying from the start, you attacked a political cartoon for motives that weren't present (the real message going over your head), and you've been trying to evade manning up to that. You came at me with accusations of being anti-capitalist because you didn't understand what you were seeing, and instead of just admitting that and letting it be... I'm the one that must "give it up"?

And then you wrap things up by telling me to state what the problem is in a forward manner... like I haven't done that from the start. My posts could not have been more direct about what I believe the problem is. But in your rabid blitzkrieg against anything even perceived as anti-capitalism, you labeled a capitalist as a leftist, and then pressed on knowing you were wrong and now you're trying for a pyrrhic victory? You're being very one-dimensional.

The first step to fixing a problem is acknowledging there is one. I'll leave that to you and we can press forward when you're ready to come to terms with your mistake.

Chris
12-01-2013, 03:26 PM
What do I have to give up? You misunderstood what I was saying from the start, you attacked a political cartoon for motives that weren't present (the real message going over your head), and you've been trying to evade manning up to that. You came at me with accusations of being anti-capitalist because you didn't understand what you were seeing, and instead of just admitting that and letting it be... I'm the one that must "give it up"?

And then you wrap things up by telling me to state what the problem is in a forward manner... like I haven't done that from the start. My posts could not have been more direct about what I believe the problem is. But in your rabid blitzkrieg against anything even perceived as anti-capitalism, you labeled a capitalist as a leftist, and then pressed on knowing you were wrong and now you're trying for a pyrrhic victory? You're being very one-dimensional.

The first step to fixing a problem is acknowledging there is one. I'll leave that to you and we can press forward when you're ready to come to terms with your mistake.


If I were you I'd give up your blatant straw men. Here's an obvious example:


And then you wrap things up by telling me to state what the problem is in a forward manner...

I didn't ask you to state the problem, I asked you to state the solution, plain as day:


Here, tell us, whatever it is you see as the problem, what is the solution: More, or less, government. Commit yourself, be clear, no obfuscating wall of words.

Two things could account for this. (A) you're not a native speaker of English. (B) Your way too emotional. OK, it could be both.

The Sage of Main Street
12-01-2013, 04:16 PM
You claimed I was anti-capitalism because I posted a picture critical of corporatism. So since logic would dictate that, since you believed a picture criticizing corporatism was a picture criticizing capitalism, your understanding of capitalism was really of corporatism/mercantilism. The basis for your definition was your labeling me anti-capitalist for an anti-corporatist picture. And again here, you associate Marx with capitalism, not me. You still believe capitalism is under scrutiny in the picture rather than corporatism. You're not paying attention. Perhaps reading books isn't as detrimental as you might think?

I'm not sure how to represent sycophancy on a spectrum.

Write the specious spectrum on tissue paper and you will see what I mean about the importance of the quality of the people holding the individual ideologies' structure together.

You follow self-appointed experts. They shouldn't be judged by their credentials, but by their logic and relation to real experiences.

Dr. Who
12-01-2013, 05:05 PM
There, that's exactly why you're identifiable with the left. The problem is with business and the solution is government. You fail to see that both business and government consist of the same flawed human beings. You also fail to see that the smaller the government the less coercive power it has. Assume your view is correct, for the sake of argument, that government does the bidding of business to enslave the people. OK, now what would increasing the size and power of government do other than increase it's ability to do do the bidding of business to enslave us. But maximum government would mean minimum freedom, and, conversely, minimum government, maximum freedom.
Government needn't be bigger or smaller, it is about honesty and integrity. Scale is not in and of itself going to help unless you root out and make impossible the cronyism that is responsible for all of the problems. Perhaps there must be more responsibility on the average citizen to keep their reps honest. Perhaps a right of recall every year might help. One day each year when the public reviews the voting record of their elected representatives and votes yes or no as to whether they should continue in their elected role. Based on a supermajority of votes cast, the elected rep could be removed from office. This could happen over the internet, with each citizen issued a unique voting ID.

Chris
12-01-2013, 05:17 PM
Government needn't be bigger or smaller, it is about honesty and integrity. Scale is not in and of itself going to help unless you root out and make impossible the cronyism that is responsible for all of the problems. Perhaps there must be more responsibility on the average citizen to keep their reps honest. Perhaps a right of recall every year might help. One day each year when the public reviews the voting record of their elected representatives and votes yes or no as to whether they should continue in their elected role. Based on a supermajority of votes cast, the elected rep could be removed from office. This could happen over the internet, with each citizen issued a unique voting ID.



I've said it before, drawing from Franz Oppenheimer, people have two means of getting what they want at their disposal, economic means, where you work for what you get, and political means, where your purchase favors from government. The political means is simply easier, so people will naturally take that route if it's made available to them. You can't stop them all. But you can limit if not stop government from providing those corrupting means.