RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/15/2007 9:42:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

The Cold War was a very basic assault on the free market system, and a conflict in which the very survival of both capitalistic and democratic systems was in question, and under assault. 


This comment seemed odd to me.

Exactly what did Stalin, Kruschev or Breshnev do to assault the free market system of the United States?


This is a rhetorical question, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

The Cold War resulted in the greatest increase of science and technology in the history of Mankind, as well as the largest expansion of corporate power in the United States since our founding.

That was the outcome.


Those were by-products.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

2.  A world system which embraces capitalism will favor other systems which you can largely group under an umbrella of "democracy" - increased individual freedoms.


Are you suggesting that people who work for Walmart and suckle at the teat of government handouts qualify as individuals with increased individual freedoms?


Yes and no.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

7.  The US's actions in Iraq are an attempt to reorder the basis of Middle Eastern society, by demonstrating that a capitalistic, non-religious-based, rule-of-law-based society can exist and prosper in their culture milieu.


I agree with this in theory.  However, I do not believe you can call the US's actions in Iraq  "non-religious-based."


Interesting view point.  How so?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

8.  The US (and all other Western capitalistic democracies) will benefit from such a successful change, by removing one of the fundamental issues that drives the Islamic terrorists and increasing global markets.


That explains the largest economic expansion in US history happening under Clinton.


I fail to see the relevance of this comment to the main thrust of the discussion.

FirmKY



Sinergy -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/15/2007 10:40:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

The Cold War was a very basic assault on the free market system, and a conflict in which the very survival of both capitalistic and democratic systems was in question, and under assault. 


This comment seemed odd to me.

Exactly what did Stalin, Kruschev or Breshnev do to assault the free market system of the United States?


This is a rhetorical question, right?



No.

It was a response to your comment about the Soviet Union attempting to assault the economy of the west.

I asked you to clarify (provide source materials) to your assertion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmHandKY
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

The Cold War resulted in the greatest increase of science and technology in the history of Mankind, as well as the largest expansion of corporate power in the United States since our founding.



That was the outcome.

Those were by-products.



By products of what?

Understand if you provide another obtuse "not relevant to the conversation" I will simply rephrase my question to make it relevant.

Put up or shut up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:


2.  A world system which embraces capitalism will favor other systems which you can largely group under an umbrella of "democracy" - increased individual freedoms.

quote:


Are you suggesting that people who work for Walmart and suckle at the teat of government handouts qualify as individuals with increased individual freedoms?


Yes and no.



Please elucidate your assertion.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

7.  The US's actions in Iraq are an attempt to reorder the basis of Middle Eastern society, by demonstrating that a capitalistic, non-religious-based, rule-of-law-based society can exist and prosper in their culture milieu.


I agree with this in theory.  However, I do not believe you can call the US's actions in Iraq  "non-religious-based."


Interesting view point.  How so?

I have posted elsewhere about AnencephalyBoy's religious leanings.  About the religious right's attempts to gain control of the United States.  But I will post it again.

http://www.amazon.com/American-Theocracy-Politics-Religion-21stCentury/dp/067003486X/sr=8-1/qid=1168358902/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1697787-6452929?ie=UTF8&s=books


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

8.  The US (and all other Western capitalistic democracies) will benefit from such a successful change, by removing one of the fundamental issues that drives the Islamic terrorists and increasing global markets.

quote:



That explains the largest economic expansion in US history happening under Clinton



I fail to see the relevance of this comment to the main thrust of the discussion.



I understand you fail to see the relevance.  Fair enough.

Clinton oversees the largest expansion of the US economy in the history of the United States.

AnencephalyBoy utilitizes Clinton's military, the robust economy he built, the budget surplus, etc., and decides to borrow money from China in order to invade Iraq in a never-ending struggle that promises to bankrupt the economy of the United States.

Sinergy



NorthernGent -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 12:02:20 AM)

Ah Firmhand, there you are. I was about to file a missing persons complaint: male, 40s, last seen posing questions on a message board, disappeared, presumed unwilling to consider the answers :-) Never mind, better late than never.

I'll be at work much of today, but will get back to you at some point over the next couple of days.



FirmhandKY -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 12:19:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Ah Firmhand, there you are. I was about to file a missing persons complaint: male, 40s, last seen posing questions on a message board, disappeared, presumed unwilling to consider the answers :-) Never mind, better late than never.

I'll be at work much of today, but will get back to you at some point over the next couple of days.


np, NG.

I look forward to your responses, as time permits.

FirmKY



FirmhandKY -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 12:33:06 AM)

quote:

FirmhandKY
The Cold War was a very basic assault on the free market system, and a conflict in which the very survival of both capitalistic and democratic systems was in question, and under assault. 

Sinergy
This comment seemed odd to me.

Exactly what did Stalin, Kruschev or Breshnev do to assault the free market system of the United States?

FirmhandKY
This is a rhetorical question, right?

Sinergy
No.

It was a response to your comment about the Soviet Union attempting to assault the economy of the west.

I asked you to clarify (provide source materials) to your assertion.


I don't think you read my comment correctly.

I'm not sure what good it will do to "source" the fact that Marxist-Leninist philosophy called for the destruction of the capitalist system as inherently evil and corrupt.

Are you saying that the elimination of capitalism wasn't a basis of Communist ideological beliefs?

quote:

Sinergy
The Cold War resulted in the greatest increase of science and technology in the history of Mankind, as well as the largest expansion of corporate power in the United States since our founding.[

That was the outcome.

FirmHandKY
Those were by-products.

Sinergy
By products of what?

Understand if you provide another obtuse "not relevant to the conversation" I will simply rephrase my question to make it relevant.

Put up or shut up.


I find your "put up or shut up" comment unnecessarily rude and unhelpful.

The political, military and economic conflict between the USSR bloc and the West (in particular the US) resulted in a concentration of research and development that increased scientific knowledge and technology above the anticipated baseline of a period without such a conflict.

Because the primary focus was on what these advances could do in the competition between the two blocs, then they are classified as a by-product of the Cold War.  If you wish to classify them as some other way, feel free, because I really don't see what that has to do with the main topic.  If you wish to debate or discuss it, please start your own thread on the subject.


quote:

FirmhandKY
2.  A world system which embraces capitalism will favor other systems which you can largely group under an umbrella of "democracy" - increased individual freedoms.

Sinergy
Are you suggesting that people who work for Walmart and suckle at the teat of government handouts qualify as individuals with increased individual freedoms?

FirmhandKY
Yes and no.

Sinergy
Please elucidate your assertion.


Not at this time, thank you.

quote:

FirmhandKY
7.  The US's actions in Iraq are an attempt to reorder the basis of Middle Eastern society, by demonstrating that a capitalistic, non-religious-based, rule-of-law-based society can exist and prosper in their culture milieu.

Sinergy
I agree with this in theory.  However, I do not believe you can call the US's actions in Iraq  "non-religious-based."

FirmhandKY
Interesting view point.  How so?

Sinergy
I have posted elsewhere about AnencephalyBoy's religious leanings.  About the religious right's attempts to gain control of the United States.  But I will post it again.

Excessively lengthy URL


Kevin Phillips has never impressed me with his research, logic or non-partisanship, so please excuse me if I don't take something he wrote as valuable in a reasoned discussion.

Nor is it easy to take someone serious who's height of political acumen consists primarily of repetitious mudslinging.

But, if you like Kevin Phillips, you might also be interested in this video about how it was the American Beef Council was responsible for the JFK assasination ...


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I understand you fail to see the relevance.  Fair enough.

Clinton oversees the largest expansion of the US economy in the history of the United States.

AnencephalyBoy utilitizes Clinton's military, the robust economy he built, the budget surplus, etc., and decides to borrow money from China in order to invade Iraq in a never-ending struggle that promises to bankrupt the economy of the United States.


Still irrelevent.

FirmKY



NeedToUseYou -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 5:59:10 AM)

Sorry to return to the beginning of the thread when it has progressed. But as I was reading, I was thinking maybe most of the problems with these "systems" is that of size, not necessarily in the fundamentals of the system itself. Seeing that it is a known fact(I can look it up if someone insists, but it's hardly a rare fact), that the larger the Group, the more immoral they act in average.

So, this leads me to the thought, that maybe just maybe the cause of all this "corruption" isn't necessarily that one system is Communist, Socialist,Capitalist,Liberal, etc... As each unto themselves under ideal circumstances lead to a fairly equal result. But rather it is these concepts don't scale well. The difference being it is virtually impossible for a democracy/capitalism to be ideally equitable. And it's virtually impossible for a completely Centralized Government that owns everything  to keep good leaders in government, thus since everything is controlled by the state, can turn into a absolute dictatorship rather easily. The difference being the nearer to democracy the less ideal but less likely it would fall to absolute dictatorship(because the power is more dispursed). Whereas Communism more power is in the hands of the government so it facilitates such power grabs(though in theory it could facilitate periods of utopian existance). Or any concept related to humans "scales" well. Maybe the reason for all these problems is the lack of "choice" of what system we select to live under which leads to a sense of being "cheated" and thus corruption. There are enough people agreeing with any particular viewpoint to facilitate a active state.
This makes sense to me, as I ponder it. I assume this was the original concept behind states rights versus federal. Seeing that each state is effectively identical to one another, in all but the most superficial of ways, excluding california, it is a false choice. I've not enough knowledge of history to know if the states were more unique in the old days(excluding slavery of course).
edited to add.... I understand a Communist state could not exist in the US. for example but a socialist one could, next to a complete dog eat dog, full out capitalist state, for example. There is a range that could exist, without being diametically opposed to the point of war.


So, how come the solution can't be each state being unique unto itself in a real manner, and people could gravitate to where they felt comfortable with the values present in that state. Instead of this constant back and forth about one ideal or "best" system?

To put it simply isn't the problem, really a lack of choices, rather than finding a one universal "best" choice.



Sinergy -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 7:39:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Because the primary focus was on what these advances could do in the competition between the two blocs, then they are classified as a by-product of the Cold War. 



No argument here.  They are by-products of the East/West struggle.

Your statement is that the Cold War was a direct assault on our economic system.  I disagree with this.  The Cold War was a direct result of an attempt by Stalin to conquer and amass territory following World War 2, as well as a falling out among the Allied powers towards the end of the war.

From what I have read, Stalin wanted power and control in Europe and could give a rat's keister about the United States economy except insofar as it was a threat to his power.

Sinergy





meatcleaver -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 9:00:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

From what I have read, Stalin wanted power and control in Europe and could give a rat's keister about the United States economy except insofar as it was a threat to his power.



There is no documentary evidence to suggest Stalin had eyes on western Europe after the war. After the war the USSR had what they wanted, a neutered Germany and a buffer zone to protect Russia from attack from the west. What scared rightwing western Europeans was that much of their own populations were infatuated with the USSR and communism because WWII was seen as a failure of capitalism and many could remember that capitalism equaled poverty. It was in the interests of the European monied classes to see Stalin and the Soviets as a potential hourde of Huns sweeping down out of the steppes. Since the media was easily manipulated, it wasn't difficult fot the rightwing to dominate the media with anti-Soviet propaganda. No one knew at the time what the state of Russia was like so none of the propaganda was based on fact, it was based on western money worrying about their own proles wanting a communist system.



FirmhandKY -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 10:31:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

From what I have read, Stalin wanted power and control in Europe and could give a rat's keister about the United States economy except insofar as it was a threat to his power.



There is no documentary evidence to suggest Stalin had eyes on western Europe after the war. After the war the USSR had what they wanted, a neutered Germany and a buffer zone to protect Russia from attack from the west. What scared rightwing western Europeans was that much of their own populations were infatuated with the USSR and communism because WWII was seen as a failure of capitalism and many could remember that capitalism equaled poverty. It was in the interests of the European monied classes to see Stalin and the Soviets as a potential hourde of Huns sweeping down out of the steppes. Since the media was easily manipulated, it wasn't difficult fot the rightwing to dominate the media with anti-Soviet propaganda. No one knew at the time what the state of Russia was like so none of the propaganda was based on fact, it was based on western money worrying about their own proles wanting a communist system.


A very pro-Marxist view, not without some basis in some fact.

However, the question now is ... what are the structural changes you'd make in current Western liberal institutions in order to bring about your vision of a "better" system?

Are you of the opinion that a Soviet style world would have been a better choice for the populations of Europe and the rest of the world?

Or are you simply anti-US, and anti-capitalist, with no better vision than the destruction of the best (regardless of how flawed) systems that have brought the world's highest levels of both economic success and personal freedom that the world has ever seen?

Being an anarchist because you see less than perfection is a valid choice, but recognize it for what it is - a choice without a solution.

If you are a Marxist at heart, and simply hold a hatred for capitalism, then simply admit it, and we can then argue the merits of Marxism versus capitalism.

FirmKY

PS.  For some interesting details about the historical period you mention in your post, you may wish to read Reassessing the Cold War alliances.



NorthernGent -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 11:35:52 AM)

Evening Firmhand,

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Your assumptions that I disagree with:

1.  The US is evil



There are two things I have a problem with, and neither of them amount to "the US being evil".

1) The US government is denying people their self-determination.
2) US market dominated values are not values I would like to see spread outside of US borders. If a nation such as Iraq wants to build their society around these values, then that's their call, and I wouldn't object to that, but I do object to a nation with a huge amount of military power imposing their market values in foreign nations - by force/coercion.

I don't deal in "good" and "evil", there are ideas, some of which I think are better ideas than others. If you automatically jump to the conclusion that I think the US is "evil" simply because I don't agree with you, or the market dominated values held by the neo-conservatives, then you'll simply be putting a shutter up which will close down the discussion. Do me a favour, until you see the phrase "the US is evil" in one of my posts, keep an open mind on the situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY





1. What is more important: wealth creation or equal opportunity?


I think they are linked to such an extent that they are close to the same thing.  Without wealth, or the creation of it, then equal opportunity is an illusion.  Without equal opportunity, wealth creation becomes skewed and less effective.



I'm not sure what you mean by "close to the same thing". Can you expand on this?

Equal opportunity, by definition, involves wealth distribution. I'll use the US as reference as it'll be something you can relate to. If you want to give someone from a poor neighbourhood from New Orleans the same opporunities as someone born to one of your top politicians, then it can't happen without wealth distribution. The reason being, someone born into a poor community is not afforded as high a standard of education, health, housing - all of which provide the backdrop for a person to flourish. It is wealth distribution that allows for the investment needed to improve factors such as education and thus, in theory, provide a level playing field.

Wealth creation on the otherhand does not account for equal opportunity. You can see this in the US economy today - it is growing, but the rich are getting richer and the poor have seen a decrease in their real terms income in 30 years. In other words, the spoils of wealth creation are not being channelled into the investment in the poorest socio economic groups in society, and thus there is no attempt to redress the balance in terms of education, health etc.

I'm not sure what you mean so I'll put the question another way, so there's less scope for ambiguity: in Nicaragua 1986, the US government installed a regime that murdered and tortured its citizens. Blatantly, killing people is not providing equal opportunity. So, why did the US government do this, and what does this mean for the driving force behind US foreign policy?


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY




2. Do you believe US foreign policy is undemocratic? Reference to Iran, Guatemala, Venezuala, Brazil, Iraq and Nicaragua will be useful here.




In general, whether or not US policy is "undemocratic" isn't really the main issue.  The question is "is it effective".  Of course, you might ask what "effective" means.  I'd say the first requirement for free markets is order and security.  These are two things required for the smooth functioning of a capitalistic system.

The Cold War was a very basic assault on the free market system, and a conflict in which the very survival of both capitalistic and democratic systems was in question, and under assault.  You can certainly question any individual act that the US and it's allies may have taken.  Discussion and free disagreement with policy is a very basic part of the democratic system.

Hindsight is also just wonderful.  Now, almost two decades after the collapse of the Soviet system, you can easily condemn certain US actions as unnecessary and counter-productive.  You may even be correct.

That doesn't take away from the very real threat at the time, nor does it place those actions into any context for better understanding.



The question of whether or not the US foreign policy is democratic is the issue, considering "spreading democracy" is the reason some give for invading Iraq. It is at the heart of the discussion. Out of interest, what is your justification for Iraq if it's not spreading democracy?

I'm struggling to understand why you launch into a defence of capitalism when questioned on democracy, they are not one and the same. I've been through it, but we'll have another crack at it:

1) There are possibly 6 key pillars of democracy:
a) Mass participation
b) An active civil society
c) Regular elections
d) Equal opportunity
e) A liberal economic system
f) The rule of law and the protection of private property.

Capitalism exists in many countries without a-d existing. For example, Singapore - authoritarian, Brazil of the 1960s-1980s - the US supported military rule in Brazil in these years and in return the US was the regime's best trading partner, and Brazil attracted more investment than any other Latin American country. Other non-democratic regimes actively supported were Pinochet, South Africa and Marcos. Ultimately, because these regimes shared American beliefs of open economic systems, it was acceptable. In other words, democracy is expendable in US foreign policy providing US market interests are satisfied.

The freedom espoused by US foreign policy is the freedom of US corporations to make money, the freedom of the people of the nations on the receiving end are not even close to being on the map in this game.

The part I've placed in italics is simply rhetoric, Firmhand. I condemn the actions of the US government because they're imposing their system through violence and coercion. The rights, wrongs and collapse of the Soviet system are irrelevant to me, and not even in my mind. They're both as bad as each other from where I'm standing - both imposing their way of life around the world through force. You could attempt to direct the thread towards a discussion on the Soviet system, but then it would derail the thread and close down the discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

3. Do you believe US society is undemocratic? Reference to the power of your corporations will be useful here.

No, I do not believe that US society is undemocratic.  I actually believe that most European societies could better be described as undemocratic, in comparision to US society in general.

The thing about "freedom" is that it is messy.  It doesn't guarantee equality of outcomes, which is what you seem to desire.  It should only give an opportunity for success, not guarantee success.

This is the hard part for many people, and I can understand why, but the freedom to fail is what drives the need to succeed.  Take away the ability for people to not succeed, and you take away a very important part of the human spirit.


 
This is simply rhetoric and misquoting. "Freedom is messy". What does this mean? "You seem to desire equal outcomes" - I've never once said that, I would like to see equal opportunity.

In terms of the question posed, if it is accepted that mass participation and an active civil society are cornerstones of democracy, then how can the US be considered democratic where only 50% of people take the time to vote?

More importantly, this is the key, whichever way you vote at the next election, you will get the same government concerned with protecting corporate interests first and foremost. In other words, you will be getting what you are given, and if you accept that democracy must provide a platform for choice and representation of ideas, then the US can't reasonably be described as democratic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

4. Do you believe equal opportunity and mass participation is possible in any society?

Yes.  To an extent. 



Care to expand on this one, Firmhand? What do you mean by "to an extent", and can you provide practical examples?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


5. Do you believe corporations are the new monarchs? An explanation and your approval/disapproval will be useful.

No, I do not.  I do think that the power of corporations is an important issue, which I very briefly discuss.




Again, care to expand on why you do not? As a guide, where the media refuse to broadcast advertisements on the grounds that the advertisment is deemed to be "in opposition to US business interests", then what are the implications for the power of corporations in society, and particularly closing down alternative views/ideas?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
 
6. Is your personal wealth more important than the life of an Iraqi? i.e. on another thread you said US foreign policy should serve Americans, regardless of the consequences. Why do you believe you should not respect the wishes of sovereign nations, and what exactly is it that makes your interests more important than life?

Here, I believe we are walking into deep moral issues, and some requirements to see a larger picture that some people do not wish to address for reasons of moral blindness or fear.

I don't see the US's action in Iraq as primarily one of financial considerations.  If it were, we could have approached it much differently, and at much less cost to ourselves in money, and in lost human lives.  Your (and others) belief is a function of a will to believe and a skewed understanding of a lot of issues, that I don't think you can address in one simple post, or even a thread.


 
The reason I asked this question was because on another thread you said foreign policy was simply a means of satsifying your interests:

1) US foreign policy includes killing people in Iraq.
2) It is serving your interests - whether financial or some other real or perceived interest.
3) Does it follow that you believe your interests are worth more than others' lives?

I don't see the US's action in Iraq as primarily one of financial considerations.
 
In terms of your quote above that I've placed in italics, I'm curious, what do you see as the primary consideration?



meatcleaver -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 11:53:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

A very pro-Marxist view, not without some basis in some fact.

However, the question now is ... what are the structural changes you'd make in current Western liberal institutions in order to bring about your vision of a "better" system?

Are you of the opinion that a Soviet style world would have been a better choice for the populations of Europe and the rest of the world?

You miss the point. In 1945 there were a vast number of communists in western Europe, capitalism being seen as one of the major forces that had brought the continent such destructive wars. After the war there weren't many people that wanted to go back to the poverty of before the war which is why Churchill was voted out in Britain and the Labour Party won a landslide.

Or are you simply anti-US, and anti-capitalist, with no better vision than the destruction of the best (regardless of how flawed) systems that have brought the world's highest levels of both economic success and personal freedom that the world has ever seen?

What economic success for who? Britain was the richest country in the world before 1914 but the majority of Brits didn't see any benefit of that. There was no reason to believe anything would change after WWII by going back to the same old capitalism. Most Brits were better fed and clothed under rationing through the war (which was a socialist run economy) than before the war. As my father kept telling us through our childhood, he and his brother got their first new boots in the army and only then to fight for a country that was happy to see them starve when there wasn't a war to fight. It was nothing to do with being anti-American but anti-capitalist because it was capitalism that kept them in poverty. What we have today and what brought their generation some wealth was a rejection of pre-war capitalism an introduction of what became known as European style social economy.




Mercnbeth -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 12:15:16 PM)

quote:

It was nothing to do with being anti-American but anti-capitalist because it was capitalism that kept them in poverty.
MC,
How? Leaving for a moment the idea that a capitalist government generates its success on the exploitation of other nations; how does a capitalist government keep the opportunity for that same success from its own citizens?



NorthernGent -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 12:41:37 PM)

 
Continued:

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

5.  However, until those societies actually threatened the stability of the world capitalist system, they were "free" to work out their own destiny, culture and society.



a) There are more ideas in the world than capitalism. You make it sound like it is the world against the Middle East, and this is a nonsense view. As a matter of fact, most nations did not want to invade Iraq, so the US and Britain invaded pretty much on their own i.e. in opposition to the rest of the world.

b) You appear to be saying they are free to determine their way of life providing they agree with your way of life. In other words, agree with you and the US system, or face armed violence and suppression. This sounds very similiar to Stalin and co. You appear to me to be at the opposite end of the political spectrum. Both systems intent on killing people to preserve their view of life.

I'm curious, can you point out the difference between your methods and Stalin's methods?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

6.  As part of their "freedom of cultural choice", a certain active portion of that culture has choosen to oppose the basics of the Western world i.e. secularism, democracy and capitalism through death, destruction, terrorism etc.



Firmhand, I know you can't get your head 'round this, but I'll have another crack anyway.

There is widespread belief the US government is the force opposing the basics of the Western world. I know you can't accept or consider this because you appear to be oblivious to ideas that see the US government as a negative force.

Genuinely, in the Western world as you put it, there are more nations that disagree with your view of life than agree with it. The vast majority of Western Europe opposed Iraq. France, Germany etc. Spain sent troops and withdrew them. Britain sent troops only because the PM lied before Parliament. The majority of the people of Western Europe do not agree with you or the actions in Iraq.

The Western values you mention:

Secularism - there are many over here who are concerned about the religious overtones which suggest a crusade - "we must fight evil", "we must fight the islamo-fascists". People in Europe see this as dangerous.

Democracy - many people over here see the US government as a barrier to democracy. They overthrow regimes and install their preferred choice. That is not democracy.

Capitalism - yes, capitalism is very much a Western European concept, and largely we adhere to a liberal economic system. I wouldn't disgaree with this. Where Western Europe and the US part ways is that Western European societies believe in the concept of public spending programmes to provide equality of opportunity (think NHS). Many over here see the size of the US wealth gap and just don't understand how it can be accepted. Of course, these are simply ideas, but the point is Western Europe and the US part company on this idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

7.  The US's actions in Iraq are an attempt to reorder the basis of Middle Eastern society, by demonstrating that a capitalistic, non-religious-based, rule-of-law-based society can exist and prosper in their culture milieu.



This was my worry with you, Firmhand. You're going to show them how they should lead their lives. You believe you have the one true answer, and consequently no sacrifice is too great for it.

In other words, you're going to make them better people - measured according to your ideals - by killing some of them.

Firmhand, this is why the US government and their supporters are considered by many in Western Europe to be the most dangerous people on the planet. A potent cocktail of military power and self-righteousness, unable to see that their thinking of is simply an idea, but you're going to kill people for it. I would call this the despotism of righteousness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Do you believe the US has the right to impose its view around the world:

Yes.  Isn't that exactly what you advocate, but from the opposite side of the ideological table?



No, don't tar me with your brush. I advocate that the British government steps back to within its own borders. I advocate self-education, and I'm hoping this will enable Britons to come to the conclusion that democracy (equal opportunity, mass participation, widespread ideas, humanity) is the only way forward for Britain. I do not advocate any force or coercion. If it doesn't happen in my lifetime, then tough shit.

What I do not advocate is armed violence in order to push people towards my way of thinking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

9. Does it then follow that you believe in the suppression of ideas?

Yes.  Not all ideas are equal.



I agree that not all ideas are equal.

For example, I think your idea of imposing your idea around the world is stark raving mad, but I'm not going to suppress your ideas, nor try to kill you or members of your family to bring you 'round to my way of thinking.

Accepting that not all ideas are equal does not conclude that ideas should be suppressed.

Basically, you want to close down ideas that are opposed to yours. The very antithesis of democracy i.e. mass participation. You're not democratic, Firmhand - you're a supporter of tryanny.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
 
There's a lot of material I left uncovered, NG, but I think this is a pretty good response. 



It was a good response in the sense you have put some meat on the bones of your ideas, so there's a clearer picture of how you think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
 
The problem with coming up with a "new morality" that so many seem to wish for is that it's been tried before.  The "New Soviet Man" was the result, along with tryanny, economic privation and the loss of most all human rights in comparison to the capitalistic democratic West. I find it difficult to conceive of good logical reasons for many to still advocate such a system.

FirmKY


The righteousness of your idea is so blinding for you that you can not get your head around the obvious - your views on Iraq are akin to tyranny, they are nothing to do with democracy.

In terms of better systems, I'll come back to the rest of your post when I have more time - probably tomorrow.



Sinergy -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 12:45:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

we can then argue the merits of Marxism versus capitalism.



One thing that always puzzles me about this topic is how so many people see Marxism / Communism at one end of a dichotomy, whereas Capitalism exists at the opposite end of the spectrum.

I imagine that there are any number of variations and gradations between one end of the spectrum and the other, and Capitalism, Marxism, Communism, etc., simply exist somewhere within this spectrum.

Sinergy



FirmhandKY -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 12:54:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

A very pro-Marxist view, not without some basis in some fact.

However, the question now is ... what are the structural changes you'd make in current Western liberal institutions in order to bring about your vision of a "better" system?

Are you of the opinion that a Soviet style world would have been a better choice for the populations of Europe and the rest of the world?

You miss the point. In 1945 there were a vast number of communists in western Europe, capitalism being seen as one of the major forces that had brought the continent such destructive wars. After the war there weren't many people that wanted to go back to the poverty of before the war which is why Churchill was voted out in Britain and the Labour Party won a landslide.

Or are you simply anti-US, and anti-capitalist, with no better vision than the destruction of the best (regardless of how flawed) systems that have brought the world's highest levels of both economic success and personal freedom that the world has ever seen?

What economic success for who? Britain was the richest country in the world before 1914 but the majority of Brits didn't see any benefit of that. There was no reason to believe anything would change after WWII by going back to the same old capitalism. Most Brits were better fed and clothed under rationing through the war (which was a socialist run economy) than before the war. As my father kept telling us through our childhood, he and his brother got their first new boots in the army and only then to fight for a country that was happy to see them starve when there wasn't a war to fight. It was nothing to do with being anti-American but anti-capitalist because it was capitalism that kept them in poverty. What we have today and what brought their generation some wealth was a rejection of pre-war capitalism an introduction of what became known as European style social economy.


You are avoiding the topic and my simple question:

However, the question now is ... what are the structural changes you'd make in current Western liberal institutions in order to bring about your vision of a "better" system?

Is not your "European style social economy" based on a capitalist economic system, with a certain amount of "social consciousness"?  Are you not condemning "capitalism" in it's entirety, and therefore the basis of your "European style social economy" as well?

As for your statement:

.. because it was capitalism that kept them in poverty

Would you be so kind as to show me any figures, facts or information that shows either of the following:

1.  The average standard of living is higher in non-capitalist nations in comparison to capitalist nations.

2.  That the absolute standard of living in any capitalist country is lower now, than it was before World War II.

If you can give me any reasonably convincing data that supports either of these to assertions, then I may start to take you as something other than a pure anti-capitalist, anti-US ideologue, lost in illusion and Marxist dogma.

FirmKY



Sinergy -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 12:55:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Kevin Phillips has never impressed me with his research, logic or non-partisanship, so please excuse me if I don't take something he wrote as valuable in a reasoned discussion.



So you have read his works then?

There is a fascinating article in Rolling Stone, the author's name escapes me, about a man who is starting up a religious organization aimed at militarizing children in the name of Jesus.  He has not yet actively advocated they do violence, but has told them numerous times that The Time For Violence may come.

What is interesting to read is how similar his approach is to the approach used by Moonies, ESTies, Fundamentalist Muslims, etc.

Break the person away from friends and family.

Control their access to information.

Constantly repeat emotionally charged statements.

Surround the person with other people to bring mankind's tendency to blend in with the herd in to play.

etc.

I was struck reading the guy's description of what he was doing with wondering why he is so afraid of the idea that his followers might learn to think for themselves.

Sinergy



meatcleaver -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 1:16:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

It was nothing to do with being anti-American but anti-capitalist because it was capitalism that kept them in poverty.
MC,
How? Leaving for a moment the idea that a capitalist government generates its success on the exploitation of other nations; how does a capitalist government keep the opportunity for that same success from its own citizens?


International captalism keeps the poor in poverty, a government aids and abets by allowing the country's economy to be capitalist.  Of course there is varying degrees to which a government allows capitalism to operate within a country. Absolutes are a problem whether capitalist or communist. The free market puts a downward pressure on wages, particularly the poor. The function of corporate capitalism is to make profits for its shareholders regardless of the social problems it leaves in its wake.

Britain and France are always worth comparing because their governments have a different ethos when it comes to the economy. One being rabidly free market and the other being more protectionist. It doesn't escape me that Britain is supposed to be richer now than fourty years ago and its economy is out performing France's. According to Blair this is due to allowing the free market to have its head. But it is noticeable that in Britain the wealth gap has widened, the rich are richer, the poor are poorer, public services have deteriorated (which have a disproportional effect on the poor), education standards have decreased (across the board) and wages have lowered. It is true that there is lower unemployment in Britain than France but when you are unemployed in France you are unemployed, in Britain you are counted as employed if you work more than 16 hours which wouldn't be enough hours to earn someone a wage. It is also noticeable that French educational and health standards are now much higher than Britains as are its services. However, the French rich complain about government interference and high taxes but given the choice, even with all its problems, there are few countries were people are happier to live than in France. I accept France has problems but their problems I would say are not as ingrained as Britain's.



Sinergy -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 1:52:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

There is no documentary evidence to suggest Stalin had eyes on western Europe after the war.



I am not really talking about "after the war."

Are you saying that Stalin, assuming he did not run in to Allied troops approaching from the other direction, would have stopped his armies marching through Europe as Germany's war machine collapsed in front of him?

Sinergy



Mercnbeth -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 1:52:17 PM)

quote:

International capitalism keeps the poor in poverty, a government aids and abets by allowing the country's economy to be capitalist.
MC, I didn't want to focus on the international use and abuse of capitalism. Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought that this quote, regarding the situation of your father:
quote:

As my father kept telling us through our childhood, he and his brother got their first new boots in the army and only then to fight for a country that was happy to see them starve when there wasn't a war to fight. It was nothing to do with being anti-American but anti-capitalist because it was capitalism that kept them in poverty.
Addressed internal capitalism. The inference I took was that the capitalist condition of the country prohibited your father from getting new boots until he was in the army, and starved him when he wasn't. What did capitalism do to cause/effect this?

Going back to those times, my father also said the same thing. He wore hand me down shoes and clothes from his 12 siblings until after the war too. The reason he gave though was the 'Depression'. After the war there was no depression. There was virtually unlimited opportunity. 

Unlike Europe and the Europeans, the USA had the benefit of not having its citizens be subject to the war first hand. That was no small difference. After the war the citizens of Europe wanted, needed, and deserved a break. The governments of Europe set up a different post war society than the US. Cradle to grave social programs were the norm from health care to life-long employment. In the US the producers of war goods transitioned to to cars, TV's, refrigerators, ovens, and other consumer goods and hired and paid a work force at a rate which produced consumers for their goods. The employees didn't have to worry about driving past an area that was a few months prior a war-zone. The infrastructure was in place as a result of construction financed by the government to put people to work before the war. When they got back from fighting it was there to use. Europeans didn't have that luxury.

Capitalism doesn't represent equal distribution. It makes no pretense on that regard. Equal access and opportunity are the fertile grounds for capitalism. At the other end of the spectrum, at some point if you are too successful you end up subject to monopoly regulations. Businesses will fail at a much higher rate than persons. However, the opportunity to be the next "Bill Gates" is what keeps a capitalistic economy in place.

Many in the US would like to follow the example set by most of Europe. Full cradle to grave social programs from health coverage to housing sounds like a desired goal until it gets time for someone to pay the bill. If capitalism fails in the US it will be because the tax payers can no longer afford to support the tax users.

Whether the USA provides a real or imagined equal opportunity/access environment is debatable. However something must be said for the image of opportunity if not the reality of it, by the number of legal and illegal immigrants desiring to come to the US.



LadyEllen -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 2:25:18 PM)


Would you be so kind as to show me any figures, facts or information that shows either of the following:


1.  The average standard of living is higher in non-capitalist nations in comparison to capitalist nations.

2.  That the absolute standard of living in any capitalist country is lower now, than it was before World War II.


FirmKY
[/quote]

I hesitate to bring it up, but it depends very much on what criteria are used in the measurement of a standard of living, and improvements to it?

In simple terms - do the vast majority have the necessities of life now, compared to before? It would seem apparent that we have a good standard of living compared to a century ago, though by no means can this be said of all those within our society, who may lack necessities such as housing for instance.

Do the vast majority have the luxuries of life now, compared to before? Clearly not, and clearly even for those who do have such luxuries they do not have them equally. The vast majority have a television, washing machine, car etc which scores a point for our system on the positive side, but this is the most basic level of luxury - what we would accept as a minimum standard of living in fact from our positions. What it noticeable though, is that we do not have the luxury of leisure - the US and UK being amongst the longest hours cultures in the world.

I would suggest that a good standard of living is made up by the necessities being met and a certain level of luxury and the time to enjoy it, allowing a more adequate if difficult to define measurement to be introduced, that of contentment.

E




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625