Fox News wrote:
Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday. Talking to reporters, the House speaker was defending a jobless benefits extension against those who say it gives recipients little incentive to work. By her reasoning, those checks are helping give somebody a job.
"It injects demand into the economy," Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. "It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."
Pelosi said the aid has the "double benefit" of helping those who lost their jobs and acting as a "job creator" on the side. "It's impossible to think of a situation where we would have a country that would say we're not going to have unemployment benefits," Pelosi said. Democrats have been trying for more than a month to pass a bill extending jobless benefits to more than 1 million people. Currently, jobless benefits last nearly two years -- up to 26 weeks paid by state treasuries with federal help for up to an additional 73 weeks.
Of course, those workers could be sending a lot more money into the economy if they had jobs since unemployment benefits generally do not cover the entire cost of lost wages.
The counterintuitive statement drew jeers from Republicans, who claim Democrats can't figure out any way to tackle the economic slump that doesn't involve spending massive amounts of taxpayer money. "No plan to create jobs -- just more stimulus spending," House Republican Leader John Boehner said at a dueling press conference.
Despite the wave of unemployment aid and stimulus spending dating back to the end of the Bush administration, the jobless rate is still hovering close to 10 percent. New figures out Thursday showed new jobless benefits claims rising for the second time in three weeks. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., on Thursday called the newest extension plan "fiscal insanity" because it is not paid for and will only create future problems. "I support, and Republicans have supported, extending unemployment benefits, but we must not do so at a cost to the deficit, to the economy and to future generations. Our inability to get our fiscal house in order isn't just damaging future generations; it is wreaking havoc on jobs today," he said in a statement.
Pelosi criticized Republicans Thursday, saying she's still optimistic the bill will pass though it failed again in the Senate Wednesday night.
Unemployment benefits are always about balancing the fact that they dissuade people from actively seeking employment against the fact that they enable people to seek employment by providing for food, rent, transportation, etc.
Pelosi is sort of right in that unemployment benefits place money in the hands of consumers, and therefore 'create' demand; though its certainly better to say that they only work to mitigate any decrease in demand. Given the latter, the idea that unemployment creates jobs is nonsense. It may prevent some jobs from being lost by keeping demand from falling as far as it otherwise might, but that's it.
The counterpoint is obviously that unemployment benefits only serve to extend the time people spend between jobs; thereby artificially decreasing the rate at which job creation can occur by preventing demand from remaining at its optimal level.
dogma wrote:Unemployment benefits are always about balancing the fact that they dissuade people from actively seeking employment against the fact that they enable people to seek employment by providing for food, rent, transportation, etc.
Pelosi is sort of right in that unemployment benefits place money in the hands of consumers, and therefore 'create' demand; though its certainly better to say that they only work to mitigate any decrease in demand. Given the latter, the idea that unemployment creates jobs is nonsense. It may prevent some jobs from being lost by keeping demand from falling as far as it otherwise might, but that's it.
The counterpoint is obviously that unemployment benefits only serve to extend the time people spend between jobs; thereby artificially decreasing the rate at which job creation can occur by preventing demand from remaining at its optimal level.
Not really, stimulus spending will increase demand in any situation where you're not at full capacity, and that's only at the peak of the cycle.
Ultimately Pelosi's comment makes perfect sense. It will allow people who've lost their jobs due to the poor economy to keep eating, and the money they spend will develop economic activity, which will maintain jobs. It isn't rocket science, and it's a sign how intentionally stupid the GOP noise machine has become that they're trying to pretend otherwise.
There is an extremely stupid comment in that article, from "No plan to create jobs -- just more stimulus spending" from Minority House Leader Boehner. It's the equivalent of saying 'there's no plan to score points, just a plan to score touchdowns'. FOX accepted that drivel at face value though... not sure why.
I don't see how it is at all "counter-intuitive" as fox news claims. If you don't have cold cash to spend on transportation, childcare, and the other things we take for granted, you're going to have a very difficult time finding employment.
Furthermore, it is hard to argue with the premise that if consumers have money, regardless of where it comes from, there is going to be more people spending money.
This isn't the case of handing money out to people who wont work. Potential earners aren't getting jobs, and they are trying.
Yeah well so am I. The town I live in has a pizza place, a truck stop, and a bar. If you don't work at one of those places you are driving a half hour just to try to find a job, often at places that simply aren't hiring anyways because anyone lucky enough to get in the door is sure as heck not going to quit. I have never recieved an unemployment check in my life but there's some times where it shure would have been easier to go job hunting every day if I had a place to wash up and change my clothes instead of job hunting in the clothes I slept in.
It does stimulate economies in towns like this, perhaps not in big cities, but around here, there just aren't any jobs. Plants closed, the auto industry caved, people who thought they had job security and had made a home for their families suddenly find themselves laid off and unable to make their car payments or mortgages.
There's about 800 people living in this town and there's about 20 jobs. If nobody has an income, but they are still expected to pay sales tax and property tax, why is that tax money not supposed to go towards relief. We pay in when we have it but we don't get back when we need it? That's kind of bs.
Contrary to fox news republican biased propeganda, most people who are unemployed would love to have a job. There a few bad apples I've met that just work long enough, then quit and live off of unemployment for 6 months, but they are a minority... as are welfare queens who rape the system. But I have known many homeless people who would gladly shovel horse manure for 5 bucks.
Unemployment at 10% is hardly an accurate number either, the actual number is far greater. There's people who have work 1 hour a week who are technically 'employed' as long as they claim it on their taxes (which they don't) there are the homeless who don't have any way to get a job let alone get to work, and don't show up in the numbers, there's the legitimately injured people incapable of working but who don't want to sue their bosses because they hope to get their job back when they heal. A LOT of people don't get added to that statistic, but I can tell you, around here its probably more like 80% of the population doesn't have a job because there's no job to be had. That's not laziness or lack of skills necessarily as republican hardliners make it out to be, thats just a lack of demand. Most of downtown is boarded up and out of business (Detroit is nearby and ALL of downtown is boarded up and out of business for the most part)
Some are retired and live off of a pension or SSI, some get unemployment, and a scant few work at the bar or the truck stop. What will these people do without an income? forclose the whole town and go marching on the trail of tears with whatever they can carry to the next town over that's just as fethed as this one?
While some do milk the system like loser slackers, I think most people who don't have jobs would love to have the means to get one. I believe that is what her point was, otherwise they spiral downwards until they are living in the bushes and have lost all of their posessions they once had, just because the auto plant closed, etc.
Creating demand for products does not create jobs, its just not that easy. A McDonalds that turns out 200 burgers with a 10 person crew will still turn out 300 burgers with the same crew. Demand for products that are already at glut levels in the market will not create jobs until the excess is mostly gone. Look at the housing market.... Way more houses are on the market so demand for new construction is down. An extension of unemployment is not going to fix that.
Certain industries are working at capacity, namely those relating to food. They are not losing jobs but there is also no room for jobs to open.
helgrenze wrote:Creating demand for products does not create jobs, its just not that easy. A McDonalds that turns out 200 burgers with a 10 person crew will still turn out 300 burgers with the same crew. Demand for products that are already at glut levels in the market will not create jobs until the excess is mostly gone. Look at the housing market.... Way more houses are on the market so demand for new construction is down. An extension of unemployment is not going to fix that.
Certain industries are working at capacity, namely those relating to food. They are not losing jobs but there is also no room for jobs to open.
I don't think people on unemployment are getting homes. I think the argument is that they're going to have to purchase basic needs, which in and of itself requires workers to create those basic needs, furthermore, you're going to have to give people the ability to survive until they find a job.
The thing I hate about politicians (especially Pelosi) is that they are locked in an eternal battle for brownie points with the public.
I am quite sure she is only fixated on a report that indicates that unemployment benefits are a good thing. She grabs that and runs with it.
But of course you don't want a leading member of the political community going out to a podium and spouting bad things. Those kind of granstanding bad messages tend to send things sliding off into anarchy and chaos (relative to normal American stability).
Grignard wrote:I don't think people on unemployment are getting homes. I think the argument is that they're going to have to purchase basic needs, which in and of itself requires workers to create those basic needs, furthermore, you're going to have to give people the ability to survive until they find a job.
Which is fine, and I fully support.
BUT! The idea that a sector that is already employed to capacity is magically going to have new jobs available is fantasy. Look at what sectors have lost the most jobs in the ...last 10 years. Manufaturing and Construction. Creating demand for "basic needs" is not going to reopen closed auto plants or create construction jobs.
With this nations infrastructure suffering at least one major catastrophic failure a year, you would think that the Government would be throwing money into projects that address the infrastructure instead of shoring up privately owned banks. How about mobalizing the unemployed workforce in and around Detroit to fix roads, bridges, and ports in Michagan?
Or is that just not "economically vaible?"
No that's because nobody sane would voluntarity move to Detroit any more. Besides, Detroit didn't get hit by Katrina and win the superbowl either, they deserve no help. Next time get a better football team or piss off god, instead of car companies...
If unemployment is cut in areas where plants are closing due to economic powers beyond the control of the locals, and that is their version of a disaster... it seems to me that we should just cut off Katrina victims, 9/11 victims, and so on from their disaster relief. I knew a Katrina victim. Worst manager I had ever seen at my stupid restaurant job. The restaurant got a hand out from the government for agreeing to take her on. All she had ever done was make fries at burger king but she got relocated, housed, and handed a cush job she couldn't do on a platter. How is unemployment not also a 'disaster' to the communities it effects, is what I don't understand.
Guitardian wrote:No that's because nobody sane would voluntarity move to Detroit any more. Besides, Detroit didn't get hit by Katrina and win the superbowl either, they deserve no help. Next time get a better football team or piss off god, instead of car companies...
If unemployment is cut in areas where plants are closing due to economic powers beyond the control of the locals, and that is their version of a disaster... it seems to me that we should just cut off Katrina victims, 9/11 victims, and so on from their disaster relief. I knew a Katrina victim. Worst manager I had ever seen at my stupid restaurant job. The restaurant got a hand out from the government for agreeing to take her on. All she had ever done was make fries at burger king but she got relocated, housed, and handed a cush job she couldn't do on a platter. How is unemployment not also a 'disaster' to the communities it effects, is what I don't understand.
From the rest of your post I'm going to take the first paragraph as sarcasm.
I agree that unemployment can be as much as disaster as anything. The two modes of employment, outside of a few small businesses, in the town where my ex fiance lived there were basically two modes of employment, retirement or methamphetamine synthesis. This is the result of the only large employers pretty much just taking off and leaving.
I don't think someone should be "unfireable" no matter what their circumstances. In other words, I think you have a point, but your tone leaves much to be desired. You can't understand losing your home or being displaced until you are in that situation. I know it probably isn't what you meant, but you came off as an incredibly self-centered idiot there.
Tone has as much to do with what you say as what you're actually saying.
helgrenze wrote:Creating demand for products does not create jobs, its just not that easy.
No, it really is that easy. Any increase in an input will increase aggregate demand, and increasing aggregate demand will increase jobs. Unless you can establish that all welfare cheques are spent at restaurants that are operating with surplus labour, which would probably win you a Nobel prize.
You're right that not every dollar spent will lead to new jobs, some portion of spending will go towards companies with surplus capacity. More still will be saved (or in the case of welfare it's more likely to replace debt financed consumption). As such, it's true that not every dollar of spending will be equal, certain kinds of stimulus will work better than others. Typically infrastructure spending is the most effective, tax cuts the least effective, but this is situational and contentious.
But all of that is a mile away from the claim made by the Boehner in the above article, that stimulus spending does not create jobs at all. That's simply a ridiculous thing to hear from someone at that level of government. Probably about as ridiculous as the FOX line in the article that welfare payments won't stimulate jobs.
It depends on what is being stimulated. How many jobs were created by this latest bank bailout?
This isn't a situation where throwing Big money at big problems makes better.. that is Reaganomics/trickle-down theory. The current situation needs a different approach.
Like having the National DoT create a list for each state for infrastructure repair. With the resourses of the FAA, FTA, FRA, MARAD, NHTSA and OIG, they should already have a list of what needs fixing or replacing. Then its just a matter of funding and .. HIRING people.
Wow, look at that I just created theoretical jobs for who knows how many.
sebster wrote:
Not really, stimulus spending will increase demand in any situation where you're not at full capacity, and that's only at the peak of the cycle.
Unemployment, at least in the US, has the additional effect of extending the average period that people remain unemployed. There have been quite a few studies which have supported, though not proven, this effect. Now, these studies were conducted during the 90's when we had very near what I would consider peak employment, as 5% has been the nominal rate of unemployment for the majority of recent US history.
The current circumstances are not necessarily comparable. The aforementioned studies essentially concluded that unemployment benefits permitted the unemployed to exercise choice in their job search, and therefore often encourage holding out for better positions. Given the current job market, I doubt that there are many people remaining unemployed by choice. Individuals who have a proven desire to work do not live on less than they are accustomed to for long; especially when given the opportunity to improve their relative standing. As such, the extension of unemployment benefits while at 10% unemployment makes perfect sense.
sebster wrote:
Ultimately Pelosi's comment makes perfect sense. It will allow people who've lost their jobs due to the poor economy to keep eating, and the money they spend will develop economic activity, which will maintain jobs.
We're on the same page then, I was only trying to acknowledge the fact that people living on temporary, subsistence wages aren't likely to spend at the same rate, or on the same things, as people who are employed.
helgrenze wrote:
Like having the National DoT create a list for each state for infrastructure repair. With the resourses of the FAA, FTA, FRA, MARAD, NHTSA and OIG, they should already have a list of what needs fixing or replacing. Then its just a matter of funding and .. HIRING people.
Wow, look at that I just created theoretical jobs for who knows how many.
Highway infrastructure investment $26,725,000,000
Highway infrastructure investment in Puerto Rico $105,000,000
Highway infrastructure funds distributed by states $60,000,000
Highway infrastructure funds for the Indian Reservation Roads program $550,000,000
Highway infrastructure funds for surface transportation technology training $20,000,000
Highway infrastructure to fund oversight and management of projects $40,000,000
Source, and that's just the infrastructural funding related to highways.
You can argue that it wasn't big enough, you can't argue that it wasn't done.
True but I know that a large portion of the money being spent in North Carolina is being used to expand an access road in the "Global Transpark" while other roads and highways are not being fixed let alone improved.
The money has little oversight after it is dispersed to the states, so little pet projects like a freight based airport which is not really well located for highway or rail access get the attention. Meanwhile, bridges that should be replaced are left to corrode and collapse. Also, the project that are being worked are only done by state crews that, due to various overtime rules and generous deadlines, have no interest in hiring additional personel.
helgrenze wrote:True but I know that a large portion of the money being spent in North Carolina is being used to expand an access road in the "Global Transpark" while other roads and highways are not being fixed let alone improved. The money has little oversight after it is dispersed to the states, so little pet projects like a freight based airport which is not really well located for highway or rail access get the attention. Meanwhile, bridges that should be replaced are left to corrode and collapse. Also, the project that are being worked are only done by state crews that, due to various overtime rules and generous deadlines, have no interest in hiring additional personel.
Sounds like you need a new state if the money isn't getting distributed to counties correctly. Write a letter to your governor.
OTOOH Lack of jobs to be had is a pretty good incentive to get food stamps. I don't need them but I know many folks who rely on them, not out of laziness but out of need. Take that away and you will have a lot of hungry people looting and pilliaging and rioting. Nothing causes a good ol' fashioned riot like hunger combined with desperation. "Take away our benefits and we will loot your fridge for your caviar or maybe eat your soft, well-fed fat ass too" is the general idea from the have-nots to the have's when hunger becomes a problem.
All i can say is the unemployment rate where i live is still high, now it has dropped a little bit but last summer we had one of the highest unemployment rates in the state between 30 to 40 percent, i live in Ill. enough said gotta love our governors, I have alot of family that work for the UAW they could even help. One company here closed doors, turned around sold it and reopened. but heres the bad part they stole everybodys pensions, the compensted them with 500$, pennies compared to the money they invested in there pensions several of my family members had 30 yrs. plus invested in that company. I dont know what say about that but its sure as hell wrong. you be in your 50s and have some dam corporation steal your pension and see how you feel.
Now back to the subject, i know alot of people who are trying to find work, but like Guitardian, most people have to drive over 30 miles one to work and for 10$$ an hour. its not enough with gas being almost 3$$ a gallon plus your standerd livin costs.Im lucky though i got laid off but i went to work for the state as a self employed private nurse. But i take care of terminally ill people as a nursing aid. but i i ready had the schooling for that. alot of them people especially didnt have no other jobs skills so they want to work but cant find work. theyrely on them cheks to feed and shelter their families,heck its so bad that grown men are in copetion with the hs kids to work at fast food places and they are usually discrimnated agaist because of thier age. give them the money its not like all of them are lazy. the money goes rite back into the local econmy. so their is no real loss. It just stinks to see somebody who worked for a long time and nenver had a government hand out taking them. who has pride and wants to work but cant because theirs no job for them. Its time for a change.
Ok just because some-one has to be the "bad guy" and say it.....
The main area that is in real dire straights for job in this country is manufacturing. With Union wages draining the working capitol of the industry plants are closing and jobs are lost over seas. This is primarily due to the Unions failure to adapt to the changing demands of a global market. They do not function competitivly with foreign manufacturers. The UAW actually refused to take an across the board paycut in order to save plants that built Pontiacs. Which wound up costing jobs which have not been recovered yet.
American Unions have stagnanted and have shown little growth over the last 20 years, mainly due to loss of jobs in the sectors where they hold sway.
Not saying Unions are all bad, but they need to change and adapt to the global economy to be competitive with other manufacturers around the world.
Ok just because some-one has to be the "bad guy" and say it.....
The main area that is in real dire straights for job in this country is manufacturing. With Union wages draining the working capitol of the industry plants are closing and jobs are lost over seas. This is primarily due to the Unions failure to adapt to the changing demands of a global market. They do not function competitivly with foreign manufacturers. The UAW actually refused to take an across the board paycut in order to save plants that built Pontiacs. Which wound up costing jobs which have not been recovered yet.
American Unions have stagnanted and have shown little growth over the last 20 years, mainly due to loss of jobs in the sectors where they hold sway.
Not saying Unions are all bad, but they need to change and adapt to the global economy to be competitive with other manufacturers around the world.
Unions have realistically little to do with modern manufacturing job flight, the average U.S. untrained factory worker was overpayed heavily for years and as globalization made outsourcing manufacturing jobs easier those jobs were outsourced. Americans aren't willing to work for the wages the companies want to pay, unions or no, thus the jobs leave. Manufacturing is a low pay untrained sector that exists comfortably in developing nations. The start to every new economy is resource exploitation and manufacturing. About the only manufacturing jobs that our economy can keep are highly automated or highly trained jobs like chipset manufacturing or high end machinery. An economy doesn't need to manufacture actual cheap goods to function, and the obsession with bringing the mills back in america is hurting the areas of economic growth it should be encouraging instead.
Unions have realistically little to do with modern manufacturing job flight, the average U.S. untrained factory worker was overpayed heavily for years and as globalization made outsourcing manufacturing jobs easier those jobs were outsourced.
Surely they wouldn't have been so drastically overpaid (or more accurately, overpensioned), if not for the unions?
Americans aren't willing to work for the wages the companies want to pay, unions or no, thus the jobs leave.
You can speculate as to what people are willing to do, but we can't say that for sure. The only thing we can say for sure is that with unions around, people aren't ALLOWED to work fot the wages companies want to pay.
An economy doesn't need to manufacture actual cheap goods to function, and the obsession with bringing the mills back in america is hurting the areas of economic growth it should be encouraging instead.
While you're largely correct here, I think there calculations aren't being done very thoughtfully.
When you send work overseas, you send capital overseas, and generally it doesn't come back. If you pay an American worker 30% more than a foreign worker, don't forget, he then pays that 30% right back to us in taxes, and then that goes to build roads to your factory, schools to give you better trained workers, etc. etc.
Now, I realize that a foreign worker doesn't typically want 30% less. They often will work for more like 300% less. But there's a place where you set the bar, and I think we've set it without thinking very hard about the real costs of foreign labor.
Wow... this turned pretty quickly from what is obviously an erroneous statement by Pelosi ("It [unemployment benefits] creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.") to an argument on the merits of paying benefits in general.
It's simple folks... businesses won't hire people if they face uncertainty. Government spending like drunken sailors in the face of massive debt and deficits creates uncertainty.
You want to create jobs? Ease the tax burden on the populace. THAT is the fastest way to create jobs.
The Green Git wrote:Wow... this turned pretty quickly from what is obviously an erroneous statement by Pelosi ("It [unemployment benefits] creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.") to an argument on the merits of paying benefits in general.
It's simple folks... businesses won't hire people if they face uncertainty. Government spending like drunken sailors in the face of massive debt and deficits creates uncertainty.
You want to create jobs? Ease the tax burden on the populace. THAT is the fastest way to create jobs.
Tax breaks are the single least effective form of economic stimulus a government can engage in. This has been proven every year in every economy since the conceptual basis between macro supply and demand and the aggregate spending power of a populace was realized. If you had attended any sort of anything involving anything even remotely related to an economics class you would be aware of that. Our tax burden is lower than it was during the clinton boom and still lower than it was post WW2 which saw the longest period of economic growth in the nations history.Given our ludicrous amount of debt cutting taxes is the last thing this country should do. Another round of massive tax cuts would put the last nail in this nations coffin.
Surely they wouldn't have been so drastically overpaid (or more accurately, overpensioned), if not for the unions?
It's possible, and it's quite likely that functionally corrupt unions have exacerbated the problem by a few years in several industries. The automotive industry specifically. It doesn't make a tremendous difference though, whether the job flight occurred now, a decade ago, or five years from now, it was going to happen regardless. With tighter union controls at a national level I doubt the nation could have squeezed more than five years out of the industries that are now ailing. Of the lot only the automotive industry strikes me as something that proper controls could have saved, and it's a highly technical field and it's loss shows poorly on the managerial and working abilities of the companies involved. American made hasn't meant quality at any time that I've been alive, and if the cars aren't better the employees and bosses definitely shouldn't get paid more.
You can speculate as to what people are willing to do, but we can't say that for sure. The only thing we can say for sure is that with unions around, people aren't ALLOWED to work fot the wages companies want to pay.
I find that to be an irrelevant proposition anyway. Companies WANT to pay nothing. They SETTLE for paying the minimum possible. In most fields of manufacture the minimum possible is under a liveable wage in america. These are jobs the country doesn't actually want, they are bad for it in a global economy because they pull it's standard of living down. No one cares for an american made little carnival spider ring, and when you can pay a man in africa 35 cents a day (significantly beyond 1000% less then what an american would work for) there is absolutely no incentive to produce in America. Labor unions exist for a reason, and that reason is to prevent American workers from being treated like Thai workers.
While you're largely correct here, I think there calculations aren't being done very thoughtfully.
Its quite thoughtful thankyouverymuch!
When you send work overseas, you send capital overseas, and generally it doesn't come back. If you pay an American worker 30% more than a foreign worker, don't forget, he then pays that 30% right back to us in taxes, and then that goes to build roads to your factory, schools to give you better trained workers, etc. etc.
The alternative is to shutter these same companies due to an inability to compete with low cost foreign firms. As an alternative you can up tarifs, but thats even more destructive to the western economic model which relies on economic growth outpacing borrowing. The government doesn't outsource jobs, private companies do. Multinationals care little for the aggregate loss of capitol due to their business practices. Average manufacturing wages in america are what? 12-16$ an hour? At foxcon, which is a highly trained electronics manufacturer making things like the Ipad (in china) the average hourly wage is ~1.20$. This is after a series of pay raises making it one of the highest paying companies in the region. Cut the head off of every union leader in america, you're not getting these jobs back. It's not worth trying. The american manufacturing industry is going to be going through some difficult times and it's not going to abate, but it has nothing to do with unions and everything to do with the fact that America has been an island of high quality of living and the ocean is a much smaller distance to travel then it used to be.
Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Allentown.... All cities that were part of "big Steel", all affected by the collapse of same when foreign steel was found to be more affordable. Many jobs in the mills were classed as "Unskilled". These were also bastions of the United Steel Workers Union. Of these three, Buffalo is still not recovered, Allentown has become a study in alternative energy and Pittsburgh is still recovering.
Not look at the auto industry in this country. Companies that rely heavily on Union employees are falling behind. Honda, Toyota, and VW all have nonunion plants in this country. Detroit may be the first major city in this country to become an effective ghost town.... but not the last. They are already closing schools by the hundreds and disincorporating outlying areas.
The unions have stagnated, they have no growth, and are spending more on politics than on improving things for the dwindling membership. They are supporting a bill that has Obama's stamp on it, The so called "Employee Free Choice Act". This act will give unions more power to subvert the work place than ever before by technically eliminating the secret ballot vote to unionize. They will be able to claim to represent a workplace with just a majority signing. The unions need this because they have had zero growth and are losing members as plants close and industries they are involved in start dying off.
Cut the head off of every union leader in america, you're not getting these jobs back. It's not worth trying.
If it's all the same to you, let's give it a try, just to be sure?
As an alternative you can up tarifs, but thats even more destructive to the western economic model which relies on economic growth outpacing borrowing.
In thinking on this issue I've always come to tariffs, and then concluded much as you have... Just not feasible.
But then again, I wonder if some sort of retroactive tariff isn't on the horizon. As it stands now, the US has a debt on a scale that I just don't see us paying off. We have this idea that if we can just run a surplus for long enough, away it goes! NEVER going to happen.
The largest surplus we ever ran was $236 billion under Clinton. Massive embarassment to the Republicans that he's the only fiscally responsible President of the past 50 odd years... But anyway, $236 billion is the MOST we ever did in a single year, and right now the debt is over $13 trilion. So, if you can pay off, say, $250 billion that's 52 YEARS of doing that to pay off the debt. Not going to happen, ever.
So you look at what's actually going on. We have a pretty massive trade deficit with China. We send all our money over there, and then because we can't operate without it, they loan it back in the form of bonds. Eventually we'll get to a point where we can't afford to do this any longer, or the Chinese decide not to buy any more bonds, or whatever. And then they Chinese will say "we want our $7 trillion" (or whatever it's up to at that point) and we just say "no. And I checked with our military, and they say no as well."
And so, because we all basically just want to keep doing what we do, they'll make some sort of deal, where there's a retroactive tariff, and the debt is gone, or whatever madness, so we can all keep going.
It could be that we can raise taxes, cut spending, find a way to generate a surplus, and do that long enough to reduce the debt to a manageable level. We don't have to pay it ALL off to be under control, just pay off a good chunk and be more responsible going forward.
But I work with the Feds. I can assure you, it's not going to happen.
Anecdote: You may have heard of Second Life or There. If you haven't they're like World of Warcraft where you play yourself, and do boring crap like talk to people, or buy t-shirts. The agency I work with feels that this software might enable them to improve the effectiveness of their teleconferencing and meetings, and they've set aside $18 million dollars to develop an implementation.
Better idea, Feds. Buy all your employees WoW accounts. They can have meetings at the Orgrimmar bank, and if any of them (probably by pure accident) manage to collect some gold, you can sell it on eBay and put it towards the deficit.
Better idea, Feds. Buy all your employees WoW accounts. They can have meetings at the Orgrimmar bank, and if any of them (probably by pure accident) manage to collect some gold, you can sell it on eBay and put it towards the deficit.Fantastic idea!!! thanks Phryxis
The Green Git wrote:
It's simple folks... businesses won't hire people if they face uncertainty. Government spending like drunken sailors in the face of massive debt and deficits creates uncertainty.
There is always uncertainty in the future. Simply saying that businesses won't hire due to uncertainty is self-delusional nonsense as it ignores the fundamental reality of unpredictability.
The Green Git wrote:
You want to create jobs? Ease the tax burden on the populace. THAT is the fastest way to create jobs.
Maybe, but that's not being done now. Pelosi stated that unemployment is the most effective method of creating jobs that is currently being practiced. Its almost as if you don't read the articles you post.
Pelosi doesn't know her head from her ass (and frankly I bet her ass is better looking than her face) so anything NP says is to be regarded as fallacy and bs.
Of course she could say the sun was purple and somewhere, someone would believe her. It's like that Hope and Change nonsense.
Pelosi is indeed completely worthless. There are people on the American left, say like Rahm Emanuel, who are very smart, and very good at what they do, even if I think they're completely wrong ideologically.
Nancy Pelosi is not one of those people. She's just a total dimwit.
Here's my favorite Pelosi moment:
She was applauding herself and Congress for passing an anti-harassment law for Federal employees.
One thing this law did was make it illegal to fire a Federal employee within 1 year of their filing a sexual harassment lawsuit. Thus, if you file a lawsuit every 364 days, you can never be fired from a Federal job.
Of course, that would be unethical...
So what's the moral? The moral is that Nancy Pelosi passed a law that says, in effect, the only way a Federal employee can ever be fired is if they ARE ethical.
And I work with the Feds. I spent the first year and half at my current job, listening to the Fed over the cube wall rant to whoever had the misfortune of being in her vicinity about how everyone was sexually harassing her, and the job was a nightmare. I should also point out this woman was a good 350 lbs, and had some sort of respitory issue that made her pant loudly any time she walked around.
helgrenze wrote:It depends on what is being stimulated. How many jobs were created by this latest bank bailout?
Giving money to people for consumptions spending, as in the extension to welfare, is wholly different to lending money to the banks, which was money needed to put cash into the banks and prevent a greater crash.
This isn't a situation where throwing Big money at big problems makes better.. that is Reaganomics/trickle-down theory. The current situation needs a different approach.
That’s not right. The trickle-down theory argues that you get the rich end of town investing and making even more money and that money will flow down to the middle and lower classes. This is normally attempted in terms of cuts to the top marginal tax rate and to the capital gains tax.
The general theory has merit, much of the productivity (and therefore incomes) of the poor and middle class is created by investment spending by the rich. The theory fails in assuming the rich are inclined to invest more when given a tax break – that part never seems to work out.
Like having the National DoT create a list for each state for infrastructure repair. With the resourses of the FAA, FTA, FRA, MARAD, NHTSA and OIG, they should already have a list of what needs fixing or replacing. Then its just a matter of funding and .. HIRING people.
Wow, look at that I just created theoretical jobs for who knows how many.
Yes, infrastructure spending is an excellent source of stimulus, most economists argue it is the most effective source. There practical arguments against relying purely on infrastructure, though, there are timing delays, often several years, before the bulk of the money is spent, and that might be too late. Further, you need to put the new bridge where the new bridge is needed, and that might not match up with the areas most affected by the economic downturn.
More than, that, however, are the political problems, mostly built around the fixation on tax cuts that dominates US political thinking. It’s worth noting the original stimulus bill contained much, much more infrastructure spending, and that this was cut considerably as part of the compromises to get the Republicans and blue dogs to support the bill. They wanted a smaller bill, and they wanted tax cuts, so the planned infrastructure spend took the hit.
dogma wrote:Unemployment, at least in the US, has the additional effect of extending the average period that people remain unemployed. There have been quite a few studies which have supported, though not proven, this effect. Now, these studies were conducted during the 90's when we had very near what I would consider peak employment, as 5% has been the nominal rate of unemployment for the majority of recent US history.
Sure, as you note later we’re basically on the same page. I’d agree that in stronger economic conditions an extension or increase in welfare payments would allow people to be more selective in the job they take.
JohnHwangDD wrote:OTOH, a lack of food money is a pretty darn good incentive to get a job...
The assumption that the primary cause of unemployment right now is a lack of incentive among the unemployed is problematic.
helgrenze wrote:Ok just because some-one has to be the "bad guy" and say it.....
The main area that is in real dire straights for job in this country is manufacturing. With Union wages draining the working capitol of the industry plants are closing and jobs are lost over seas. This is primarily due to the Unions failure to adapt to the changing demands of a global market. They do not function competitivly with foreign manufacturers. The UAW actually refused to take an across the board paycut in order to save plants that built Pontiacs. Which wound up costing jobs which have not been recovered yet.
American Unions have stagnanted and have shown little growth over the last 20 years, mainly due to loss of jobs in the sectors where they hold sway.
Not saying Unions are all bad, but they need to change and adapt to the global economy to be competitive with other manufacturers around the world.
Unions often don’t help, especially in the US, but they aren’t the primary cause of manufacturing job loss. Unions were more powerful in previous decades and yet US manufacturing was still very strong.
The primary issue is simply that industries built around low skilled work can’t be economically viable in a country with relatively higher wage. The industry with the lowest skill and lowest level of capital investment is textiles, and it’s always the first to go. Funnily enough, as wages in Chinese cities are rising they’re finding their textile industry is becoming increasingly less competitive, and jobs are moving to inland China and to countries with even lower wages. Meanwhile China shifts into industries requiring greater investment of capital and greater employee skills, which justify the higher wages.
That’s the nature of economics, as economies change competitive advantages will come and go. The US no longer has any advantage in low value added manufacturing, but it does have a population with a high skill base and it remains an extremely safe place for investment. This gives it an overwhelming advantage in high level manufacturing and services industries. In terms of sheer dollars of manufactured goods produced, the US is still the biggest in the world, and it isn’t because it’s producing t-shirts. It’s because it’s producing aircraft and precision medical equipment, things like that.
The Green Git wrote:Wow... this turned pretty quickly from what is obviously an erroneous statement by Pelosi ("It [unemployment benefits]
The claim that Pelosi’s comment was inaccurate was dismissed as silly on the first page. Pelosi’s comment was based on a basic truth of economics. Follow the conversation, please.
It's simple folks... businesses won't hire people if they face uncertainty. Government spending like drunken sailors in the face of massive debt and deficits creates uncertainty.
You want to create jobs? Ease the tax burden on the populace. THAT is the fastest way to create jobs.
No, that’s a contrived and wrong headed view of the situation. Risk is certainly a factor in investment decisions, but it’s foolish to equate employment and investment as the same thing. Either way, the primary driver of employment is demand. Businesses employ when there is demand for their products above and beyond their present capacity. In an economic downturn in order to stabilise the economy it is sensible to promote demand through stimulus spending.
The debate on any of the above ended in the 1930s.
Phryxis wrote:But then again, I wonder if some sort of retroactive tariff isn't on the horizon. As it stands now, the US has a debt on a scale that I just don't see us paying off. We have this idea that if we can just run a surplus for long enough, away it goes! NEVER going to happen.
Sort of. It’s unlikely the debt will be brought to zero, but it can be brought back to manageable levels in the medium term. While the nominal amount might not be addressed, the US economy will continue to grow. In the twenty or thirty years when the US economy has doubled again, and if you’ve maintained a balanced budget or slight overall deficit in that period, then the debt will still be around $10 trillion, but it’ll $10 trillion in comparison to a GDP of around $25 trillion.
Either way, the primary issue right now is to get through the recession, and following that the issue is to move the deficit to a sustainable level. From there you can plan for deficit reduction, but the first and second steps are hard enough without worrying what’s 10 or more years down the line.
So you look at what's actually going on. We have a pretty massive trade deficit with China. We send all our money over there, and then because we can't operate without it, they loan it back in the form of bonds.
I’m beginning to believe the most necessary point of economic reform in the world right now is for China to either float their dollar or readjust it to a much more sensible value in comparison to the US dollar. It’s the primary cause for the trade imbalance, and a primary cause for economic instability world wide.
Phryxis wrote:Pelosi is indeed completely worthless. There are people on the American left, say like Rahm Emanuel, who are very smart, and very good at what they do, even if I think they're completely wrong ideologically.
Nancy Pelosi is not one of those people. She's just a total dimwit.
Of the leaders of the house and senate, majority and minority, I think I like Pelosi more than any of them. This is not so much a compliment to Pelosi as it is a condemnation of the rest.
Unions often don’t help, especially in the US, but they aren’t the primary cause of manufacturing job loss. Unions were more powerful in previous decades and yet US manufacturing was still very strong.
The primary issue is simply that industries built around low skilled work can’t be economically viable in a country with relatively higher wage. The industry with the lowest skill and lowest level of capital investment is textiles, and it’s always the first to go. Funnily enough, as wages in Chinese cities are rising they’re finding their textile industry is becoming increasingly less competitive, and jobs are moving to inland China and to countries with even lower wages. Meanwhile China shifts into industries requiring greater investment of capital and greater employee skills, which justify the higher wages.
There is more than enough information besides this clip to reinforce your opinion, but I think it will do for the moment. The moment from the early part of this year...
That’s the nature of economics, as economies change competitive advantages will come and go. The US no longer has any advantage in low value added manufacturing, but it does have a population with a high skill base and it remains an extremely safe place for investment. This gives it an overwhelming advantage in high level manufacturing and services industries. In terms of sheer dollars of manufactured goods produced, the US is still the biggest in the world, and it isn’t because it’s producing t-shirts. It’s because it’s producing aircraft and precision medical equipment, things like that.
In other words, most people would not want to fly in a plane that was built by workers that earned less than a satisfactory fart.
I will add something real quick of my own. I gladly dig ditches and work with the unblessed, but there are no more ditches to dig. Years in construction leaves me with little more than disdain for opinions that boil down to little more than, "Go dig your own grave". I pity the fool who thinks that a shovel and a kick ass attitude will get you anywhere these days, it simply isn't true. If I know someone who has work, I get work. It is really that simple, and it doesn't matter if I am the fastest gravel pusher in the state; I need to know people to get work, and at that point I can set whatever pace I feel like.
How many yards of gravel can you move in a day? Take one or two days to average your ability, then continue to shoot for that average over 6 weeks. The weakest will be weeded out within one week, followed by those who injure themselves attempting to be Rambo the gravel pusher.
I’m beginning to believe the most necessary point of economic reform in the world right now is for China to either float their dollar or readjust it to a much more sensible value in comparison to the US dollar.
I really don't get the Chinese... They spend all this energy on depressing their currency to prevent exactly what you're talking about. It's a very antagonistic stance they take, and I don't really understand their logic. We're going to give them what we're going to give them, no more.
Why suppress your own population to gain an favor you'll never be able to collect on?
After all, while it's a very, very bad idea, we could decide to default on all the bonds we've issued to Chinese banks... That would really screw things up for us, and for the world. But is that really as bad as getting $7 trillion for free is good? Ok, what if it gets up to $10 trillion (which I'm sure Obama will have taken care of by the end of his first term)? There's a point at which we've broken ourselves so badly that this kind of thing is actually a decent option.
I can't fathom why the Chinese want to force that issue. If we decide to walk away, what are they going to do? Threaten us? We're not Taiwan. And, hell, Taiwan IS Taiwan, and all the Chinese have for them is empty threats.
Hell, we should just sue them $7 trillion for stabbing us in the back during the Korean war about 13 seconds after we freed them from the Japanese.
This is not so much a compliment to Pelosi as it is a condemnation of the rest.
It's certainly one way to look at it. I would agree, the others are more calculatingly wrong. Pelosi is more of a wishful thinking simpleton. The others are true criminals and thieves.
It’s because it’s producing aircraft and precision medical equipment, things like that.
An impression I've always had of the Chinese is that they're incapable of leadership. They're a society of order takers. They don't do new things. They do what somebody else thought of, but for less.
In that respect the US has a sort of "industry bubble" problem facing it. We NEED to be innovators and produce new techology, that's what's going to keep us growing at the rate we require. But as we do that, we create these industries that thrive for a time, and then get shipped over to China as the processes become well enough understood that consultants can spool them up in China. It'll repeat over and over... It's something we need the agility to prepare for.
Better watch out, as that may be the new spin on Rambo of the 21st century. Coming in 2012....
Well, it is true that connections can make or break your potential job. People prefer conformity and comfort when hiring people, so don't be suprised when friends, people of the same mold, and people who make others comfortable get the position you wanted.
Better watch out, as that may be the new spin on Rambo of the 21st century.
I'm betting it's more like Rambo vs. the evil corporations and capitalist bourgois leeches, as he battles in defense of the glorious Hope and Change Revolution.
Remember when we just hated Commies and were pretty glad about it?
These days we elect Commies and all the war movies are lamentations about how racist and confused we are about Muslims.
I long for the days when life as as simple as a big knife with a serrated back, a compass in the butt, and a hollow handle full of waterproof matches.
Remember when we just hated Commies and were pretty glad about it?
These days we elect Commies and all the war movies are lamentations about how racist and confused we are about Muslims.
The world is complex. No over-simplification of people is allowed anymore as well as all issues dissected by all walks of life. That is the price of an informed public within a free society with ever expanding boundaries of communication at their fingertips.
I'm pretty sure Rambo was about the horrors of war and the destructive effects of internecine strife on the psyches of soldiers and the lives of citizens. Life wasn't any simpler back when those movies were new.
You were not put on this Earth to get it, Mr Burton.
They spend all this energy on depressing their currency to prevent exactly what you're talking about. It's a very antagonistic stance they take, and I don't really understand their logic. We're going to give them what we're going to give them, no more.
It’s much like mercantilism of old, playing economics to win rather by exporting more than you import. Which as you rightly point out results in building up a pile of surplus cash while your population consume far less than they’re should be able to.
I suspect it probably comes out of the materialist assumptions of communist thought, that you can measure progress and living standards by a series of numbers. The Soviets used to assume that the country was succeeding when steel production went up, because that meant there was more to consume therefore everyone must be happier, they didn’t really notice that the steel was piling up in the warehouse and that the emissions were making everyone sick.
I think the Chinese still have some of that some ideology, they think they’re winning because they’re expanding their production, and the best way to expand is to keep the Yuan low. Like the Soviets, it escapes them that the actual end game of the economy is for your people to have better lives.
I can't fathom why the Chinese want to force that issue. If we decide to walk away, what are they going to do? Threaten us? We're not Taiwan. And, hell, Taiwan IS Taiwan, and all the Chinese have for them is empty threats.
Basically, if trade between the US and China collapsed both countries would enter recession overnight. You are both major importers and exporters of each other’s stuff. I’d assume if the US did default then there’d be a negotiated interest free period, or a reduction in the debt to a manageable amount.
Hell, we should just sue them $7 trillion for stabbing us in the back during the Korean war about 13 seconds after we freed them from the Japanese.
Well, except you tried to free them from the Japanese by sponsoring the KMT, who pretty much spent all their time hunting the communists while letting the Japanese do what they want. After the Japanese were defeated you continued to sponsor the KMT, right up until their defeat by the communists.
The Communist government of China would not have considered you their ally, they had every reason to consider you an enemy that had directly supported their enemy.
It's certainly one way to look at it. I would agree, the others are more calculatingly wrong. Pelosi is more of a wishful thinking simpleton. The others are true criminals and thieves.
Sure. I’d say Harry Reid manages to be both calculating wrong, and a simpleton. Which is quite something, when you think about it.
An impression I've always had of the Chinese is that they're incapable of leadership. They're a society of order takers. They don't do new things. They do what somebody else thought of, but for less.
Well, that a pretty broad generalisation to put across a billion people. For a few thousand years they were inventing all kinds of stuff, after all.
I’d argue it’s more a product of their planned economy. The Soviets had outstanding growth figures into the 50s and 60s, because a planned economy can grow very quickly through sheer resources, taking people from subsistence agriculture and chucking them into factories.
But there comes a point where you’ve run out of peasants and further growth is dependant on free enterprise to innovate. Into the mid-60s the Soviets, while never quite a match for the US, were at least within touching distance. But then there was 20 odd years of almost complete stagnation, arguably even decline, meanwhile the US continued to grow, and developed computing tech and all kinds of robotics and high end manufacture.
China will reach that point, as well, where all the peasants have been put to work and future growth will only be possible if government stops planning everything, and lets free enterprise take over. The Russians tried it and screwed it up, by the Chinese will likely be too clever to let the IMF anywhere near their economy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:I'm pretty sure Rambo was about the horrors of war and the destructive effects of internecine strife on the psyches of soldiers and the lives of citizens. Life wasn't any simpler back when those movies were new.
Well, the first movie was. It was pretty good.
After the first movie, though, they're basically power fantasies about slaughtering Vietnamese, Russian and Burmese people.
First Blood was interesting from a social point of view, Rambo was just plain stupid. How many faceless nameless evil communists does it take to guard a wooden cell with a couple of POWs that have been there for decades?
The answer is, enough for all the explosions we can fit into a Reagan-era anti-commie movie. Stupid stupid. That premise was just so dumb that at the time, people were so scared of the commie threat that they thought the movie was patriotic and awesome. Dumb dumb dumb. I've seen Tom And Jerry episodes with better thought out plots.
The one thing that stood out to me lately in this thread was the world war II japanese bailout. If the U.S. hadn't invested an AWFUL LOT of resources to topple the Japanese imperialist occupation of China, they would still be grubby uneducated peasants living in 3rd world (4th world?) conditions under Japanese occupation.
I think a case could be made that the money loaned to the U.S. no matter what actual dollar amount, could be considered payback for freeing them to let them get into the position they are now.
If our trade was even, our labor and their labor could do just fine trading back and forth. But we have Unions, while they have communist authority over their people, so they will naturally be able to pump out crappy goods faster than our more regulated labor force, sell them cheaper, ship them wherever, and undersell us. How did you get those factories, China? You didn't build them with Chinese knowhow of how to make bamboo spears or 19th century rifles. Why aren't you being forced to worship the Emperor of Japan and converting to Shinto?
The Japs occupied a good deal of Chinese land and it was just peasants and some outdated technology, (also inherited from the west), and distance issues opposing a total takeover of the area. The U.S. smashed Japan with the worlds first nuke, and massive island-to-island naval and marine investment, which and gave China the breathing room to actually develop beyond a bunch of grubby peasants... At great cost and effort from the U.S.
Maybe our national debt should be called our national invoice.
Fateweaver wrote:Pelosi doesn't know her head from her ass (and frankly I bet her ass is better looking than her face) so anything NP says is to be regarded as fallacy and bs.
Pelosi is an idiot, but to conclude that, because she is an idiot, everything she says is wrong is itself idiotic.
Basically, if trade between the US and China collapsed both countries would enter recession overnight.
Right, but then if we spent our way out of the recession, would that cost $10 trillion? I'd have to assume it would not.
Plus, what's China gonna do? Not sell to us anymore?
I just don't get their plan here. It's like they're trying keep giving free stuff to the town bully. If you ever try to call that debt in, who wins? Sure, people might then call him the deadbeat town bully, but he still doesn't have to do what you say.
After the Japanese were defeated you continued to sponsor the KMT, right up until their defeat by the communists.
Oh, I know, I'm just saying, you have to have a reason. Like WMDs.
Sure. I’d say Harry Reid manages to be both calculating wrong, and a simpleton.
And a Mormon. A Democrat Mormon. Figure that one out.
Well, that a pretty broad generalisation to put across a billion people.
No question. But can you think of a billion people who'd better be generalized? I've been to China more than once. They're a very, very homogeneous bunch when compared to virtually any other nation.
Also, I'm not really generalizing the whole population so much as their government and leaders of industry. It's not so much that they're all the same person, as they've taken a certain approach.
The US, for example, has a particular mentality and approach to business. That's not to say all Americans agree, but there is a certain way we do things the great majority of the time.
For a few thousand years they were inventing all kinds of stuff, after all.
They def had a period of technological innovation that was very, very long.
On the other hand, they've always been invaded and subjugated. The Great Wall is a testament to that. Their Dynasties are basically breaking up their history by times they got invaded and taken over. Then you've got the UK coming in and making them slaves in their own country. When you add Communism to that, you've got a real submissive populace.
I agree, a managed economy is also a factor, but it's a managed economy that focuses on doing what others have done at lower costs.
After the first movie, though, they're basically power fantasies about slaughtering Vietnamese, Russian and Burmese people.
With some torture of hero to establish moral highground. Pretty sweet, if you ask me.
gave China the breathing room to actually develop beyond a bunch of grubby peasants... At great cost and effort from the U.S.
Actually, what Mao did was just kill the grubby peasants, to the tune of about 60 million people.
One of the reasons I love Rambo killing Communists is because Communism is LITERALLY that evil. It's the single most destructive concept in human history. People focus on Hitler killing 5 million people. Mao killed 60 million. Stalin killed 30 million. Hitler was a samaritan by comparison. Forget Hitler, if you want to talk about the most evil Germans of all time, look at Marx.
Of course, these days we view "Fascism" as being from the "right" so it's very very scary. Even though the Nazis called themselves socialist. By comparison Communism, while not good, isn't ALL that scary, because it's founded on good ideas of equality and providing for all, right? Right? Yeah, it must be true, Obama has hope and change going for him, he wouldn't be steering us TOWARD the ideology of the most brutal, mass murdering regimes in human history, would he? No...
And to be clear, I'm not saying Obama is a Communist, I'm just saying that the mainstream media suddenly become less fond of their "slippery slope" arguments when it works against their favorite politicians.
Guitardian wrote:First Blood was interesting from a social point of view, Rambo was just plain stupid. How many faceless nameless evil communists does it take to guard a wooden cell with a couple of POWs that have been there for decades?
The answer is, enough for all the explosions we can fit into a Reagan-era anti-commie movie. Stupid stupid. That premise was just so dumb that at the time, people were so scared of the commie threat that they thought the movie was patriotic and awesome. Dumb dumb dumb. I've seen Tom And Jerry episodes with better thought out plots.
The one thing that stood out to me lately in this thread was the world war II japanese bailout. If the U.S. hadn't invested an AWFUL LOT of resources to topple the Japanese imperialist occupation of China, they would still be grubby uneducated peasants living in 3rd world (4th world?) conditions under Japanese occupation.
I think a case could be made that the money loaned to the U.S. no matter what actual dollar amount, could be considered payback for freeing them to let them get into the position they are now.
If our trade was even, our labor and their labor could do just fine trading back and forth. But we have Unions, while they have communist authority over their people, so they will naturally be able to pump out crappy goods faster than our more regulated labor force, sell them cheaper, ship them wherever, and undersell us. How did you get those factories, China? You didn't build them with Chinese knowhow of how to make bamboo spears or 19th century rifles. Why aren't you being forced to worship the Emperor of Japan and converting to Shinto?
The Japs occupied a good deal of Chinese land and it was just peasants and some outdated technology, (also inherited from the west), and distance issues opposing a total takeover of the area. The U.S. smashed Japan with the worlds first nuke, and massive island-to-island naval and marine investment, which and gave China the breathing room to actually develop beyond a bunch of grubby peasants... At great cost and effort from the U.S.
Maybe our national debt should be called our national invoice.
You say that, however it was Japan that got Taiwan (Formosa) started into industrialisation during the pre-WW2 period.
For all we know, the Japanese would have developed all the territories they could, including China, given enough time and resources.
The newest Rambo was bestest Rambo. Watching guys blow apart into bloody chunks when hit by that 50cal was just awesome as hell. The jeep scene was classic.
This entire administration is a bunch of idiots. Bill was smarter than BO in that at least he got a bj from an intern in the oval office. BO just wants to play golf. Of course I still wanted to see Clinton impeached for lying about his affair and the Waco incident but I think the collective IQ of the Clinton administration was at least 3 times that of the current administration (and that's admitting something I don't much care to admit).
Phryxis wrote:Forget Hitler, if you want to talk about the most evil Germans of all time, look at Marx.
To be fair, Marx's Communism was very different from Lenin's, Stalin's, or even Trotsky's. In fact, Marx's Communism shares a great deal with Capitalism in terms of eventual intent (though Adam Smith let John Locke talk about that), its only the methodology which differs.
Phryxis wrote:
Of course, these days we view "Fascism" as being from the "right" so it's very very scary. Even though the Nazis called themselves socialist.
This conversation lasted about 4 pages last time, with people (including myself) breaking Nazism and German policy during that era into minutia. The consensus therefore seems to be that Nazism occupies an odd place outside the political spectrum; a third way, if you will.
I don't think a level of 'evil' can be simplified by a comparison of body counts. Hitler didn't have the opportunity that Stalin and Mao had, hence the lower tally. He was too busy trying to invade places at the same time.
Communism isn't evil, neither was Marx. It is, at its best, a caring and thoughtful way for everyone to help take care of everyone else in return. Nothing wrong with that. When it becomes a government regime and enforced compliance under threat of force, police, re-education etc... NOW you have your good efficient uncomplaining work force making crap for cheap and seeing how far you can milk the people's toil in the name of The People.
Reminds me of bees. Yeah they make honey, something we like, and to a certain extent have a mutual relationship over. Try to explain a concept like 'liberty' to a worker drone. But you can't really do much about them without the workers wanting to sting you for messing with their giant hive, for the sake of the hive. Well china is a pretty big busy bee hive because communism only works on small levels (like 'i'll bring some beer, you bring the potato salad, she brought the meat, etc lets have a BBQ' kind of levels)
One of the reasons I love Rambo killing Communists is because Communism is LITERALLY that evil. It's the single most destructive concept in human history. People focus on Hitler killing 5 million people. Mao killed 60 million. Stalin killed 30 million. Hitler was a samaritan by comparison. Forget Hitler, if you want to talk about the most evil Germans of all time, look at Marx.
The evils of collectivist farming comes from it's historically disastrous implementation and the evils of communist industrial growth under stalin came from his overt use of force to silence and pacify threats that most often didn't exist. The dead under stalin were dead because of stalin, not because of communism. You don't need collectivism to kill your own people and you certainly don't need it to run out of food. To take the body counts of those two nations and attribute it to communism alone is foolish and speaks to a lack of knowledge concerning the events themselves.
Of course, these days we view "Fascism" as being from the "right" so it's very very scary. Even though the Nazis called themselves socialist. By comparison Communism, while not good, isn't ALL that scary, because it's founded on good ideas of equality and providing for all, right? Right? Yeah, it must be true, Obama has hope and change going for him, he wouldn't be steering us TOWARD the ideology of the most brutal, mass murdering regimes in human history, would he? No...
They see you trollan' you hatin' they tryin' to catch you blamin' commies.
Ubercapitalists cause famines too, just ask the Indians. I mean, the famines under the British Empire weren't quite as bad, but mismanagement is mismanagement.
As you can see, it has Hitler as a centrist left-right, but extreme authoritarian.
In my opinion Hitler was actually left of center, and had numerous collectivist elements to his ideology, but this site seems to see the left-right center as a bit more to the left of where I do.
Suffice it to say that I think that the current American left is well within the upper left quadrant, as are virtually all the names we associate with great evil, such as Hitler and Stalin, which is something that the American media and educational system seek to downplay as much as possible.
It is, at its best, a caring and thoughtful way for everyone to help take care of everyone else in return.
That's what they always say. And yet, virtually everywhere it's ever been, it's total horror. Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, even Cambodia ran up Hitler-esque numbers of dead. Then there's the places like Cuba, where it's not a total genocide, but it's still an oppressive police state.
It's failed EVERY single time it's tried on a large scale, and usually in a fashion more horrific than anything before.
So I say it's evil. The thing about evil, is that it's not like in the comic books. It's not like somebody decides "hey, I'm evil" and so they go figure out what good is, and do the opposite of it. On the contrary, evil is what happens when people with twisted minds try to do good.
Hitler thought he was a good guy. He didn't burn Jews because he thought it'd make for a really good villain when they novelization was written, he did it because in his messed up head it was a really good thing to do for the world.
Evil is twisted people trying to do good. That's key. People who think they're doing good will take it that much further, and drive it home with that much more self-assuredness.
And that's EXACTLY what Communism is. It's the ULTIMATE in twisting somebody's mind. It teaches control, it teaches you to take everything somebody has, and control their life and their future "for their own benefit," as a way of "helping" them. Communism teaches the management of virtually every aspect of the individual's life, until everything they are is what you made them, rather than what they chose to be.
In the name of "helping" everyone becomes a well cared for slave. And that's the best case scenario. They're rarely actually well cared for.
That's EVIL. It's not merely slavery. It's giving people a logical/moral framework that allows slavery to be seen as benevolent and beneficial to the slave.
Now, I realize that Stalinism isn't the necessary conclusion of Communism. You don't have to go murdering and oppressing everyone in order to conduct your policy, and in THEORY you could have a happy communist society. On a very small scale, I think this has actually happened from time to time.
But, that said, and with history as my most obvious support, when you start thinking of people as farm animals to be cared for, you end up treating them like farm animals, slaughter included.
To take the body counts of those two nations and attribute it to communism alone is foolish and speaks to a lack of knowledge concerning the events themselves.
You spend too much time assuring people that they don't know history.
I fully understand history. I understand the differences and similarities between Stalin and Mao. I understand the role of starvation and mismanagement of agriculture (Mao) vs. that, plus willfull mass murder (Stalin).
I'm not saying that Communism has a "commit genocide" phase built into it. I'm saying that it's an ideology that seems compassionate, but actually teaches contempt for the individual, and without saying "commit genocide" that's the end result in the majority of cases.
I mean, come on... You can say genocide isn't part of Communism, but after ALL major implementations of it result in genocide, you need to start asking "ok, we know Communism ends in genocide. Why is that the case?"
As I've said, I think the reason is that it destroys the concept of the individual, which results in indivduals being expendable. The only reason Communism sometimes works on a small scale, is that all the participants have a concept of each other as individuals, which they maintain in parallel to the Communist system they live under, and thus preserve themselves from the moral decay that would otherwise inevitably occur.
When you control everything a person does, when you loan them everything they ever have, you inevitably begin to see them as your property. I don't care if Communist dogma admits that or not. It's the facts, and it's been proven over 100 million times in the brief period of human history since Marx articulated his evil in text.
I mean, the famines under the British Empire weren't quite as bad, but mismanagement is mismanagement.
They're a symptom of not caring about individuals, and not fearing them either. Communism assures that situation occurs more readily than any other political system. That's why it's the world leader in genocide.
I'm not trying to say that the same can't occur in other systems. Clearly it can and does. But Communism assures it on a large scale, every time.
The British Empire was mercantilist when the majority of the various famines occurred, and it could be argued that the manner in which India was governed was feudal.
dogma wrote:The British Empire was mercantilist when the majority of the various famines occurred, and it could be argued that the manner in which India was governed was feudal.
Fair enough, but I feel the point has been made; namely that famine and death occur under other systems, something that Phryxis has acknowledged, to be fair.
Phryxis said "makes you no better than a well cared for slave"
Have you seen the wage-slave job opportunities available to the smallfolk under other capitalist regimes lately? Hey at least they were well-cared-for slaves. We just pay our rent (barely) and suck it up if we need a doctor. I'd rather be a well-cared-for-slave than a wage-slave who isn't cared for.
What he said was that they can never exceed the position of a well-cared for slave, not that they're always (or even often) in that position.
Exactly.
I think it's a mistake to compare the status of an American "wage slave" with a citizen of the Soviet Union or China.
For example, something I came across the other month on Wikipedia:
Magnitogorsk was mentioned in the Blacksmith Institute's 2006 survey of the world's worst polluted cities, placed in the report's unranked list of the 25 most polluted places outside the top ten. Pollutants include lead, sulfur dioxide, heavy metals and other air pollutants. According to the local hospital, only 1% of all children living in the city are in good health. The Blacksmith Institute says that, according to a local newspaper report, "only 28% of infants born in 1992 were healthy, and only 27% had healthy mothers."
While I don't dispute that some Americans have it much harder than others, I don't think the average American can even BEGIN to imagine what it's like to live in a genuine 3rd world situation, or similarly oppressed condition.
It's almost disrespectful to the people who really lived it to pretend that the pain of not being able to save as much as you want, and settling for the 32" LCD TV, is even remotely close to the folks trying to survive in the USSR, China, Cambodia, Cuba, etc.
To be fair to China, their standard of living has improved immeasurably since Mao, and a great deal even between the times I visited there (1993 and 2001). Obviously Russia, being no longer Communist, is a very different situation, with incredible wealth, poverty and corruption.
Phryxis wrote:
Suffice it to say that I think that the current American left is well within the upper left quadrant, as are virtually all the names we associate with great evil, such as Hitler and Stalin, which is something that the American media and educational system seek to downplay as much as possible.
I'd place the entirety of the American political spectrum to the left of center where domestic politics are concerned, and to the right of it when considering international politics. I don't think either end of that continuum is especially libertarian, or authoritarian though.
I also think that the smear on socialism prevents many people from accepting that they advocate socialist policies; in essence there is a desire to hear a sort of rhetoric that appeals to a certain zeitgeist, regardless of whether or not that rhetoric jives with reality. I think the most obvious aspect of this tendency is the mythos of Ronald Reagan regarding toughness and responsibility.
Phryxis wrote:
As I've said, I think the reason is that it destroys the concept of the individual, which results in indivduals being expendable.
I think that, ultimately, any state will be forced to come to terms with expandability of the individual.
Phryxis wrote:
Suffice it to say that I think that the current American left is well within the upper left quadrant, as are virtually all the names we associate with great evil, such as Hitler and Stalin, which is something that the American media and educational system seek to downplay as much as possible.
I'd place the entirety of the American political spectrum to the left of center where domestic politics are concerned, and to the right of it when considering international politics. I don't think either end of that continuum is especially libertarian, or authoritarian though.
Really? Some American politicians (certain Republicans in particular) sound like Ultra-nationalists when speaking about their country in relation to others. Also, if enforcing an almost completely foreign form of political system upon middle-east nations isn't authoritarian, then perhaps I'm misunderstanding the word in this particular context.
I fully understand history. I understand the differences and similarities between Stalin and Mao. I understand the role of starvation and mismanagement of agriculture (Mao) vs. that, plus willfull mass murder (Stalin).
I'm not saying that Communism has a "commit genocide" phase built into it. I'm saying that it's an ideology that seems compassionate, but actually teaches contempt for the individual, and without saying "commit genocide" that's the end result in the majority of cases.
If thats what you mean why did you wait until now to say it?
One of the reasons I love Rambo killing Communists is because Communism is LITERALLY that evil. It's the single most destructive concept in human history. People focus on Hitler killing 5 million people. Mao killed 60 million. Stalin killed 30 million. Hitler was a samaritan by comparison. Forget Hitler, if you want to talk about the most evil Germans of all time, look at Marx.
Because you certainly didn't say that here.
I mean, come on... You can say genocide isn't part of Communism, but after ALL major implementations of it result in genocide, you need to start asking "ok, we know Communism ends in genocide. Why is that the case?"
As a quick note though neither collectivist farming nor stalins purges were tantamount to genocide.
gen·o·cide [jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA –noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
Unless you consider "traitors" (stalin) and the remains of Changs loyal forces to be ethnic or political groups then no genocide went on. The cultural revolution was poorly targeted and largely reactionary and uncontrolled, it's targets were neither universal nor particularly well disseminated. Mass killings and starvation were certainly hallmarks of eastern marxist revolutions, but those are the hallmarks of nearly all forms of violent revolution. We had one, remember? Communism has far from the resume for genocide that capitalism has.
You spend too much time assuring people that they don't know history.
Then please, clean up your posts so I don't have too.
As I've said, I think the reason is that it destroys the concept of the individual, which results in indivduals being expendable. The only reason Communism sometimes works on a small scale, is that all the participants have a concept of each other as individuals, which they maintain in parallel to the Communist system they live under, and thus preserve themselves from the moral decay that would otherwise inevitably occur.
Sup? Damn those communist killers! If only the light of true capitalism had shined on us earlier!
I wonder where this boats going? I certainly hope it isn't any place communist!
I fully understand history. I understand the differences and similarities between Stalin and Mao. I understand the role of starvation and mismanagement of agriculture (Mao) vs. that, plus willfull mass murder (Stalin).
I'm not saying that Communism has a "commit genocide" phase built into it. I'm saying that it's an ideology that seems compassionate, but actually teaches contempt for the individual, and without saying "commit genocide" that's the end result in the majority of cases.
If thats what you mean why did you wait until now to say it?
One of the reasons I love Rambo killing Communists is because Communism is LITERALLY that evil. It's the single most destructive concept in human history. People focus on Hitler killing 5 million people. Mao killed 60 million. Stalin killed 30 million. Hitler was a samaritan by comparison. Forget Hitler, if you want to talk about the most evil Germans of all time, look at Marx.
Because you certainly didn't say that here.
I mean, come on... You can say genocide isn't part of Communism, but after ALL major implementations of it result in genocide, you need to start asking "ok, we know Communism ends in genocide. Why is that the case?"
As a quick note though neither collectivist farming nor stalins purges were tantamount to genocide.
gen·o·cide [jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
Unless you consider "traitors" (stalin) and the remains of Changs loyal forces to be ethnic or political groups then no genocide went on. The cultural revolution was poorly targeted and largely reactionary and uncontrolled, it's targets were neither universal nor particularly well disseminated. Mass killings and starvation were certainly hallmarks of eastern marxist revolutions, but those are the hallmarks of nearly all forms of violent revolution. We had one, remember? Communism has far from the resume for genocide that capitalism has.
You spend too much time assuring people that they don't know history.
Then please, clean up your posts so I don't have too.
As I've said, I think the reason is that it destroys the concept of the individual, which results in indivduals being expendable. The only reason Communism sometimes works on a small scale, is that all the participants have a concept of each other as individuals, which they maintain in parallel to the Communist system they live under, and thus preserve themselves from the moral decay that would otherwise inevitably occur.
Sup? Damn those communist killers! If only the light of true capitalism had shined on us earlier!
Walk into our local Walmart. Damn sure as hell no genocide or expendability of the Native Americans going on. Walmart does as good as it does because of the Native American populace shopping at ours.
Albatross wrote:
Really? Some American politicians (certain Republicans in particular) sound like Ultra-nationalists when speaking about their country in relation to others.
Sure, but I think those people possess outlying beliefs, or are in the process of grandstanding. Remember, the political structure of any given democracy can classified aesthetically (through rhetoric) or mechanically (through policy). American foreign policy tends to be aggressive, and interventionist which places it to the right on a spectrum regarding proactive foreign policy.
Though, honestly, spectra don't mean a lot when it comes to international politics as they tend to be classified only according to the dominant parallel beliefs of their advocates.
Albatross wrote:
Also, if enforcing an almost completely foreign form of political system upon middle-east nations isn't authoritarian, then perhaps I'm misunderstanding the word in this particular context.
I don't consider authoritarianism to be meaningful in the context of international politics, as nearly all proactive (read: non-isolationist) foreign policy turns on exertion of will in one way or another.
Phyrxis, would you accept that the free market naturally leads to exploitation?
Depends on what you mean by "exploitation," but probably.
One of the properties of a free market is that it strongly tends to exploit people's natural ability. What "exploit" means to you is colored by your view of the free market, but what's interesting is that the word is always applicable.
It might mean "make the best use of," or it might mean "take unfair advantage of.
That said, I'm not arguing that any particular political system is immune to negative experiences. Any system can go bad, and can be abused by bad people.
That said, in a free market system, the key to survival is competitive advantage. That means that the "boss" needs to find the best possible people. He needs to figure out what those people value and figure out how to lure them to work for him. All that requires that he understand these people as individuals, know what sorts of interests and hobbies indicate a good worker, know what sorts of benefits and perks they want, etc. etc.
So, certainly, the "boss" might still abuse his workers, but all along the way he's forced to recognize them as individuals.
Even if the "boss" decides to abuse his workers, even if he builds up a monopoly that makes escape difficult, it's still always possible. All it takes is somebody else with deep pockets to come along, cut in, and offer good jobs to his employees.
By comparison there is NO alternative to the state in Communism. If the state is wrong, there's nowhere else to go. And given that the state is not at all inclined to see you as anything by a cog in their machine, you can rest assured there WILL be a problem.
I'd place the entirety of the American political spectrum to the left of center where domestic politics are concerned, and to the right of it when considering international politics. I don't think either end of that continuum is especially libertarian, or authoritarian though.
Really? Relative to the rest of the first world, I think the US is right/libertarian. As fast as we swing left/authoritarian, and we've been doing it pretty much since 1776, we don't outpace with the rest of the first world. My opinion.
I also think that the smear on socialism prevents many people from accepting that they advocate socialist policies
Absolutely. Public schools. Fire departments. Police. Many, many government programs are socialistic in nature. It's not that we're not comfortable with a certain amount of socialism. And, as you say, I think part of the backlash is due to Europe being "Socialist" and us wanting to not be "lame" like them.
I think that, ultimately, any state will be forced to come to terms with expandability of the individual.
I assume you meant expendability, unless you're referring to the American obesity problem.
I agree, it's very hard not to notice, as the leadership of a nation of 300 million, that one life is absolutely meaningless. At least on one level.
On the other hand, when you rely on the strengths that America (and much of the first world) does, you rely on the sanctity of the individual. Even if one person doesn't really matter, the idea that they do does.
The fact that Communism attempts to crush that idea, and that it does so fairly explicitly, is the reason it is an ideology of evil.
If thats what you mean why did you wait until now to say it?
I thought I had. The comments you quote don't seem contradictory to me. I stand by my assertion that Communism is evil. Just because Marx didn't say "step 2: EVIL" that doesn't mean it's not evil.
As a quick note though neither collectivist farming nor stalins purges were tantamount to genocide.
Absolutely true. I noticed that one of the last times I typed it out, and I gave it a pass since nobody had said anything. It's not genocide. I guess the best term is "mass killing." There's no intent to wipe out a specific race or ethnic group. There's simply an intent to kill large numbers of people either to shift demographics to a more "useful" profile, or to terrorize opposition.
I wonder where this boats going? I certainly hope it isn't any place communist!
A very weak argument. You're resorting to ad hominem attacks against American history as a refutation of my assertion that Communism is evil. I guess I should be glad that you're not resorting to ad hominem attacks directly against me, except that you're doing that too.
The fact is, you're talking about a different time and context. America engaged in imperialism and indeed genocide against the Indians at a time when this was going on all over the world. That doesn't make it right... It just makes it possible for a relatively "moral" society to still do it. Also, the Indians were an "external" threat. A "foreign" enemy. I'm not aware of ANY political system that has had much success in treating external threats with much humanity. Anybody that gets in the way is dehumanized and attacked. That's human nature for all of history.
So I'm not arguing that the American system is all hugs and roses, 24/7/365. I actually didn't say much of anything about the American system. You brought it up because you like to argue, and you know Communism is indefensible, so you decided to sidetrack. But since you did bring it up, I repeat, I'm not saying that the American system is perfect. What I'm saying is that it at least tends to treat SOME people with compassion and respect. Communism treats NOBODY with compassion and respect.
Phryxis wrote:Right, but then if we spent our way out of the recession, would that cost $10 trillion? I'd have to assume it would not.
If you flat defaulted on your debt with China there would be massive ramifications beyond trade with China.
Plus, what's China gonna do? Not sell to us anymore?
No, the two countries need each other. And the US certainly needs its position of pre-eminence and reputation for honest trade. All of which would be lost if they simply refused to pay a debt. Which is why if the US reached a point where debt servicing was not viable they’d negotiate an interest moratorium or reduction in total debt.
And a Mormon. A Democrat Mormon. Figure that one out.
Huh, I didn’t know that. That is weird.
No question. But can you think of a billion people who'd better be generalized? I've been to China more than once. They're a very, very homogeneous bunch when compared to virtually any other nation.
The Han are possibly, but in general non-Western places are. The idea of being markedly individual (and needing to buy the right products to show that to everyone else) is a fairly new, Western thing. Outside of the major cities you get into some pretty diverse ethnic groups.
Also, I'm not really generalizing the whole population so much as their government and leaders of industry. It's not so much that they're all the same person, as they've taken a certain approach.
The US, for example, has a particular mentality and approach to business. That's not to say all Americans agree, but there is a certain way we do things the great majority of the time.
Yeah, that’s fair. There are certainly national characteristics.
They def had a period of technological innovation that was very, very long.
On the other hand, they've always been invaded and subjugated. The Great Wall is a testament to that. Their Dynasties are basically breaking up their history by times they got invaded and taken over. Then you've got the UK coming in and making them slaves in their own country. When you add Communism to that, you've got a real submissive populace.
Yeah, they certainly got invaded a lot. They were very bad at fighting.
The Great Wall wasn’t ever really about defence, mind you. The final project to connect all the pieces that made up the Great Wall It was a big make work project to keep a potentially rebellious population busy. It also did what, ultimately, all walls are really for – it formalised the boundary of China, and made lands that were previously disputed with Mongolia formally Chinese.
One of the reasons I love Rambo killing Communists is because Communism is LITERALLY that evil. It's the single most destructive concept in human history. People focus on Hitler killing 5 million people. Mao killed 60 million. Stalin killed 30 million. Hitler was a samaritan by comparison. Forget Hitler, if you want to talk about the most evil Germans of all time, look at Marx.
Your figure on Hitler is wrong. Looking just at the victims in the concentration camps you’ve got 9 million. You then seem to attribute a significant portion of the WWII casualties to Stalin (the only way to get over 20 million for Stalin) while ignoring the massive number of casualties caused by Hitler starting WWII.
And if we go by straight bodycount figures then the English come right up the top, as the famine they caused in India killed twenty million, which is equivalent to those caused by Stalin. Meanwhile bodycount maths leave Pol Pot off the list entirely, all of which basically makes bodycount maths a really poor way to understand evil.
At the end of the day, any ideological nut with unlimited power will get a lot of people killed. Ranking them doesn’t mean anything, they’re all going to get loads of people killed.
But tying a direct line from Marx to Stalin is incredibly problematic. Have you read it? It’s basically the world’s first economic history book.
Of course, these days we view "Fascism" as being from the "right" so it's very very scary. Even though the Nazis called themselves socialist.
No, that’s wrong. The National Socialists were originally formed in Bavaria, as a working man’s party opposed to the Socialist party. They took the name as a point of distinction, they were a working man’s party without any of that internationalist, all men are equal stuff, they were about the superiority of the German worker and the superiority of the German state. The name Nazi is a play on the nickname given to their opposition, the Socialists, who were called Sozis. There were Socialists in the party, who took on a strange hybrid of aggressive foreign policy and socialism (while blaming everything on the Jews), but Hitler killed them in the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler reached power with the support of the conservatives of Germany, who saw him as a strong man to oppose the actual Socialists, who were growing rapidly in numbers. The first people Hitler put in camps were the communists.
The Nazis were simply not Socialists, they were directly and overtly opposed to the Socialists. But the truth is, fascism doesn’t fit all that comfortably on a left/right axis of politics, because the axis is defined more or less by economic policy, and fascist economic policy is all over the shop. Spanish, Italian, German, Chilean or whatever other fascist economics you can think of were all very different. Ultimately the fascists don’t care about economics, they care about power. Power for themselves, and power for their country. Whatever economic policy gives them the next quick burst of power will be accepted.
By comparison Communism, while not good, isn't ALL that scary, because it's founded on good ideas of equality and providing for all, right? Right?
It’s a lot more complicated than that. Social policy, helping the poor, providing a more equitable distribution of income is good, it helps individuals and it produces a better society overall. There’s a limit to that, people and nations that go way too far to the left tend to get loads of people killed. Similarly, countries that go way too far to the right tend to get loads of people killed.
Both communism and laissez faire economics aren’t dismissed despite their death tolls, because used sensibly they do a lot of good. On the other hand, fascism never does any good, there is no sensible, moderate amount of fascism. It is a stupid, delusional fantasy on any level.
Yeah, it must be true, Obama has hope and change going for him, he wouldn't be steering us TOWARD the ideology of the most brutal, mass murdering regimes in human history, would he? No...
And to be clear, I'm not saying Obama is a Communist, I'm just saying that the mainstream media suddenly become less fond of their "slippery slope" arguments when it works against their favorite politicians.
That’s pretty crazy rhetoric no matter how you qualify it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:The one thing that stood out to me lately in this thread was the world war II japanese bailout. If the U.S. hadn't invested an AWFUL LOT of resources to topple the Japanese imperialist occupation of China, they would still be grubby uneducated peasants living in 3rd world (4th world?) conditions under Japanese occupation.
If you hadn't defeated the Japs then they would have been liberated by the Russians who advancing against the Japanese on all fronts by the end of the war. If the war hadn't ended when it did China would have been liberated by the Russians and given a communist government.
Which, umm, they ended up with anyway. Seriously, this idea that the US tried to liberate the Chinese is crazy talk.
If our trade was even, our labor and their labor could do just fine trading back and forth. But we have Unions, while they have communist authority over their people, so they will naturally be able to pump out crappy goods faster than our more regulated labor force, sell them cheaper, ship them wherever, and undersell us.
Not really. The Chinese have cheaper labour, but you have higher skilled labour, a much lower level of risk for investment, and a free enterprise system that encourages innovation and more efficient allocation of resources.
This naturally leads to the Chinese being able to produce low cost plastic crap, while the US builds airplanes. This is how trade works.
The difference in the terms of trade is more to do with Greenspan monetary policy craziness and and the Chinese decision to deliberately undervalue the Yuan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:Really? Relative to the rest of the first world, I think the US is right/libertarian. As fast as we swing left/authoritarian, and we've been doing it pretty much since 1776, we don't outpace with the rest of the first world. My opinion.
I’d agree with you completely over US politics right now. Historically, up until some point in the Cold War the US has been more progressive, more left wing than Europe.
On the other hand, when you rely on the strengths that America (and much of the first world) does, you rely on the sanctity of the individual. Even if one person doesn't really matter, the idea that they do does.
Ultimately, the whole point of civil liberties is the idea that if one life doesn’t matter, then no life matters. The rights of the individual need to be placed
The fact that Communism attempts to crush that idea, and that it does so fairly explicitly, is the reason it is an ideology of evil.
I’d recommend re-reading 1984, but this time read it while realising the thing they never tell you in school – George Orwell was a Socialist. Think about that, here was a guy writing this great book that brilliantly dissects the failings of the Socialist rhetoric and Socialist governments of the time, and ultimately accuses them of desiring nothing but power for themselves. Then compare that with Orwell’s own platform of democratic socialism.
One can have worker’s rights and a more equitable distribution of income without removing democracy or civil liberties.
Absolutely true. I noticed that one of the last times I typed it out, and I gave it a pass since nobody had said anything. It's not genocide. I guess the best term is "mass killing." There's no intent to wipe out a specific race or ethnic group. There's simply an intent to kill large numbers of people either to shift demographics to a more "useful" profile, or to terrorize opposition.
Do Mao’s disastrous agricultural policies get the same consideration?
At the end of the day, any ideological nut with unlimited power will get a lot of people killed. Ranking them doesn’t mean anything, they’re all going to get loads of people killed.
I don't disagree with anything you're staying, really...
Hitler certainly started WWII, and that's probably 50 million dead right there. On the other hand, I'm not sure that WWII wasn't a forgone conclusion with the way WWI was ended. There's a lot less deliberate calculation in the full figure of the casualties, though. The concentration camps map more directly to the work of Stalin and Mao. Deliberate killing for the sake of killing. War is not about killing directly, it just happens that killing is one of the most effective ways to win.
As far as the overall numbers go, I'm basing them off memory of what I've read in the past. The number I heard for Mao's Great Leap Forward is 60 million. For Stalin it was 30 million. It's all greatly debated, but here's a useful doc:
Note the comments on Stalin. I would fall into the "Why doesn't anyone realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school.
This doc places the number around 30 million.
For Mao, it places the number around 50 million.
As you said, though, the details are not really relevant, and it's a bit ghoulish and trivalizing to dwell on them. I don't really want to, I just want to establish the point that Comminist regimes (nominally Coomunist at least) are responsible for more death than any other force in human history. If that's something everyone agrees upon, that's good, I'd rather not bandy about numbers, as it is unseemly and disrespectful.
The Nazis were simply not Socialists, they were directly and overtly opposed to the Socialists.
I realize that they weren't true Socialists, that's why I sad "called themselves" instead of "were." That said, I do think they had numerous elements of collectivist mentality.
Both communism and laissez faire economics aren’t dismissed despite their death tolls, because used sensibly they do a lot of good.
I'm not aware of anywhere that Communism has ever benefitted anyone on any scale worth mentioning. On the contrary, it's been a horrible disaster virtually every time.
Compared to laissez faire economics, which certainly has had it's dark spots, it's still no comparison. Laissez faire economics are the basis of the prosperty of the first world, and the current, much more regulated version, is still offering a very good lifestyle.
That’s pretty crazy rhetoric no matter how you qualify it.
My point is that we're taught that Fascism is AWFULBAD and Communism is "beneficial when done right." You appear to espousing that very argument.
But, as I said, I'm aware of no large scale implementation of Communism that wasn't a disaster for the citizenry. By comparison, Hitler's Fascism was initially very, very good for Germans, pulling them out of economic collapse and into profitability. Had he not been a total lunatic, and simply contented himself with, say, France and Poland, he might very well have ushered in a period of great prosperity for his people.
Then compare that with Orwell’s own platform of democratic socialism.
I knew that about Orwell, but I never really understood it re: 1984. I had always rationalized it based on the fact that the left loves to project their failings on others.
And yes, I know right-leaning megachurch pastors do it too.
Do Mao’s disastrous agricultural policies get the same consideration?
Absolutely, that's the "useful" demographics bit. He didn't want to be about agriculture, so he just starved the farmers out. I don't think it was a "disaster" as far as he was concerned, I think he intended it that way.
Phryxis wrote:That said, I do think they had numerous elements of collectivist mentality.
I've always considered nationalism to be necessarily collectivist as it emphasizes the connection individuals have to one another through the nation. Honestly, there's an almost natural marriage between socialism and nationalism that I think gets missed in the modern American dialogue simply because the Republicans have co-opted nationalism, and the Democrats have co-opted socialism. Well, that, and there were these dudes called National Socialists who did a bunch of bad stuff, so no one is going to ever use that union in a rhetorically charged environment.
Phryxis wrote:
I'm not aware of anywhere that Communism has ever benefitted anyone on any scale worth mentioning. On the contrary, it's been a horrible disaster virtually every time.
Well, it seemed to make Mao pretty happy.
Phryxis wrote:
Compared to laissez faire economics, which certainly has had it's dark spots, it's still no comparison. Laissez faire economics are the basis of the prosperty of the first world, and the current, much more regulated version, is still offering a very good lifestyle.
I'd argue that there's a point at which an unregulated economy is detrimental to the standard of living as, given its tendency to produce monopolies and oligarchic corruption, it falls quickly into the same trap as communism. The stereotypical example being England during the industrial revolution.
I see capitalism and socialism as the moderated, and effective, methodological siblings of anarcho-capitalism and communism. Not that anarcho-capitalism has ever been tried officially, but something similar certainly exists in many African nations.
I think its also worth noting that Marx's communism was simply the final stage of governmental evolution. He believed that it was inevitable, and that it would be brought about by a proletarian revolt, but he wasn't a whole lot more specific than that. No doubt he anticipated violence occurring, but its doubtful that Stalin and Mao were what he had in mind.
Phryxis wrote:As far as the overall numbers go, I'm basing them off memory of what I've read in the past. The number I heard for Mao's Great Leap Forward is 60 million. For Stalin it was 30 million. It's all greatly debated, but here's a useful doc:
The thing to remember is that the various bodycount figures are almost always politically motivated. I’ve read figures from academics for Stalin of around 100 million and seen that figure accepted by others. People honestly claiming 100 million, out of a population of about 150 million. Ridiculous.
On the other hand, I’ve spoken to Stalinists who have told me very earnestly that the numbers were wildly exaggerated to discredit the USSR, and that the total figure was not more than 5 million. As if 5 million dead people wouldn’t be enough to discredit a system. Also ridiculous.
This would be a problem if the numbers really mattered. They were all bad, but they were bad for very different reasons. Ultimately the thing to take from it is not the numbers, but the reasons their ideas got loads of people killed.
As you said, though, the details are not really relevant, and it's a bit ghoulish and trivalizing to dwell on them. I don't really want to, I just want to establish the point that Comminist regimes (nominally Coomunist at least) are responsible for more death than any other force in human history. If that's something everyone agrees upon, that's good, I'd rather not bandy about numbers, as it is unseemly and disrespectful.
I don’t really agree, no. Nationalism played a significant role in both world wars, and a lot of other wars besides. But there are elements of nationalism that are acceptable and entirely not deadly. The same is true of everything, really.
I realize that they weren't true Socialists, that's why I sad "called themselves" instead of "were." That said, I do think they had numerous elements of collectivist mentality.
No, they really didn’t, as that would require a coherent policy and the Nazis didn’t really do coherency. They were simultaneously mad keen about the power of the state, but also mad keen about Social Darwinism and the right of the strong to triumph over the weak – ideas which to our understanding of right and left can look to be contradictory. But to the Nazis they were hand in hand, because there was no left or right ideology underpinning their beliefs, there was just a power fantasy. Everything else, even the racism, was highly malleable.
I'm not aware of anywhere that Communism has ever benefitted anyone on any scale worth mentioning. On the contrary, it's been a horrible disaster virtually every time.
Communism is generally considered the extreme end of socialism, as laissez faire is generally considered the extreme end of capitalism. At their extremes they both end up with lots of people dead. In considered, correctly applied amounts they’ve built the world we have today.
Compared to laissez faire economics, which certainly has had it's dark spots, it's still no comparison. Laissez faire economics are the basis of the prosperty of the first world, and the current, much more regulated version, is still offering a very good lifestyle.
Capitalism moderated by social policy is the basis of the modern world.
My point is that we're taught that Fascism is AWFULBAD and Communism is "beneficial when done right." You appear to espousing that very argument.
Yes, I am. Because capitalism is beneficial when done right, when taken to the extreme it’s laissez faire and then you get dead people. In the same way socialism is beneficial when done right, but taken to extreme it’s communism and then you get dead people.
But, as I said, I'm aware of no large scale implementation of Communism that wasn't a disaster for the citizenry. By comparison, Hitler's Fascism was initially very, very good for Germans, pulling them out of economic collapse and into profitability. Had he not been a total lunatic, and simply contented himself with, say, France and Poland, he might very well have ushered in a period of great prosperity for his people.
Much of the groundwork for German recovery was made under the Weimar govt, Hitler came to power at the right time. Nor were they ever profitable, while living standards improved this was based on the back of unsustainable government spending (don’t say, please don’t say it ). Nor is practical to assume the victory over France was based on sensible policy, Hitler’s generals fell into a successful operation, and benefitted from a deeply incompetent French opposition.
Also, while all that was going on minorities, the handicapped and undesirables were being rounded up into workcamps.
I knew that about Orwell, but I never really understood it re: 1984. I had always rationalized it based on the fact that the left loves to project their failings on others.
It’s a very misunderstood book, as people assume it is a criticism of all socialism. It’s a criticism of non-democratic socialism, the type that came to power in the USSR, China, Cuba and so on. Orwell’s point is that non-democratic socialism is built around the same lust for power that defines fascism is extremely astute.
It’s that distinction that makes it such an insightful book, a commentary on what really went wrong in the USSR.
Absolutely, that's the "useful" demographics bit. He didn't want to be about agriculture, so he just starved the farmers out. I don't think it was a "disaster" as far as he was concerned, I think he intended it that way.
Yeah, I’ve seen that claim before. To be honest I’ve never seen it supported by anymore than anecdotal evidence, and it seemed representative of the fanaticism and callousness of individual party officials. I think the real disaster came from forming ideologically sound policy, and assuming reality would match that.
That’s not to say there wasn’t plenty of ruthlessness going on in Mao’s China. I found out the other day the Chinese troops that were slaughtered en masse in human wave attacks in the Korean war were largely made up of ‘volunteers’ of the old nationalist troops. They were sent into battle in such a callous way because the Chinese officers wanted them dead, using US bullets to get rid of potentially troublesome old rivals.
I knew that about Orwell, but I never really understood it re: 1984. I had always rationalized it based on the fact that the left loves to project their failings on others.
It’s a very misunderstood book, as people assume it is a criticism of all socialism. It’s a criticism of non-democratic socialism, the type that came to power in the USSR, China, Cuba and so on. Orwell’s point is that non-democratic socialism is built around the same lust for power that defines fascism is extremely astute.
It’s that distinction that makes it such an insightful book, a commentary on what really went wrong in the USSR.
Though the point has been made before in this thread, I feel it's worth making again. The problem with the implementation of communism isn't communism. The problem is the concentration of power in insane megalomaniacs.
I knew that about Orwell, but I never really understood it re: 1984. I had always rationalized it based on the fact that the left loves to project their failings on others.
It’s a very misunderstood book, as people assume it is a criticism of all socialism. It’s a criticism of non-democratic socialism, the type that came to power in the USSR, China, Cuba and so on. Orwell’s point is that non-democratic socialism is built around the same lust for power that defines fascism is extremely astute.
It’s that distinction that makes it such an insightful book, a commentary on what really went wrong in the USSR.
Though the point has been made before in this thread, I feel it's worth making again. The problem with the implementation of communism isn't communism. The problem is the concentration of power in insane megalomaniacs.
bs. To keep control you have to kill people. A lot of people.
Communism is just like any other dictatorship. one grup controls everyone else. if you don't do what they say they kill you.
Call it communism, fascism, monarchy, whatever. At the end of the day its the same thing.
I knew that about Orwell, but I never really understood it re: 1984. I had always rationalized it based on the fact that the left loves to project their failings on others.
It’s a very misunderstood book, as people assume it is a criticism of all socialism. It’s a criticism of non-democratic socialism, the type that came to power in the USSR, China, Cuba and so on. Orwell’s point is that non-democratic socialism is built around the same lust for power that defines fascism is extremely astute.
It’s that distinction that makes it such an insightful book, a commentary on what really went wrong in the USSR.
Though the point has been made before in this thread, I feel it's worth making again. The problem with the implementation of communism isn't communism. The problem is the concentration of power in insane megalomaniacs.
bs. To keep control you have to kill people. A lot of people.
Communism is just like any other dictatorship. one grup controls everyone else. if you don't do what they say they kill you.
Call it communism, fascism, monarchy, whatever. At the end of the day its the same thing.
So you don't consider yourself to be under government 'control'? Go take a naked walk down the street and let me know how that works out for you.
Frazzled wrote:bs. To keep control you have to kill people. A lot of people.
Communism is just like any other dictatorship. one grup controls everyone else. if you don't do what they say they kill you.
Call it communism, fascism, monarchy, whatever. At the end of the day its the same thing.
I contend that dictatorships by nature are ruled by insane megalomaniacs.
However, communism is not necessarily a dictatorship.
Frazzled wrote:
bs. To keep control you have to kill people. A lot of people.
Yeah, that's sort of how states form. It would be naive to think otherwise. The difference is that national methodologies involve more death than others, because certain national methodologies are less effective than others.
Frazzled wrote:
Communism is just like any other dictatorship. one grup controls everyone else. if you don't do what they say they kill you.
Tzoo's point was that the dictatorial element of all recorded incidences of communism was, in fact, the problem; as opposed to communism itself.
I don't know what you're disagreeing with, given what you've written. I suspect that you don't either, because you probably didn't bother to read.
Frazzled wrote:
Call it communism, fascism, monarchy, whatever. At the end of the day its the same thing.
No, that's wrong. The only form of government in that list which is dictatorial by fiat is fascism, the other two can be, but don't have to be. Note that communist and monarchist states are nominally controlled by either ruling parties, or ruling families. Totalitarianism is not the same thing as a dictatorship.
How do you think the communist state has to form? It needs a dictatorship. That comes from Marx himself. It never evolves beyond the wholesale killing stage. People who believe otherwise are kidding themselves or willfully ignorant.
I don't think a lack of work ethic is really such a simple scapegoat. When the economy is broken and you bust your ass for a long day to get a job done on time, only to find out that your neighbor did jack gak in an office for 5 x as much money, and his wife makes more than you just for answering telephones and dressing nice... it tends to discourage you from trying hard at your job any more.
Ain't it great how some of the most difficult, labor intensive jobs are the ones that pay the least. Hardest job I ever had was running a fast food kitchen. I am multitasking all the time, getting everything done all at once and keeping track of 20 things at once. My manager was in the back doing paperwork and I had a slowed high school kid running the cash register. Yay minimum wage.
Anyone who works in a cubicle and thinks they are better than that because hey, they got a degree so they earned their spinny chair and bobble heads on computer monitor job should try working a single day in the pit and see what they have to say now about work ethic. Oh yeah... I got minimum wage too and subbed in for someone at least once a week. I still couldn't make rent and have any money left over. So what's the point of a work ethic if, in certain jobs, having a work ethic still leaves you underpaid and unappreciated. Work ethic can go feth itself, either that, or become something valuable to have any more when you look over at your neighbor or landlord and realize you are just busting your ass to live in poverty while they file papers or take phone calls or organize numbers in a nice air conditioned office or hold board meetings where they do jack gak and everything to wreck people's banks and need bailouts that my Burger King working ass pays for out of every paycheck. Now tell me what about why I need a work ethic any more?
I was of the mentality that I'll spit in the damn fries they eat that I can't afford if they want to talk about 'work ethic'. Work ethic is 'I spent 8 hours at the office and had to cut my break short because Jim from accounting wanted to show me his new Lexus'... on the other end... 'hey I'm union, I make $25 bucks an hour to stand around the work site, once in a while I get to use the jackhammer while my 3 buddies stand around me and watch...'
Guitardian wrote:I don't think a lack of work ethic is really such a simple scapegoat.
.well ..what other reason can there be for the denizens of the OT board to not have succesffuly carried out their devious mission and beginning The Harrowing ? Hmm... oh, apparently we're waiting for the FAQ to come out first.
Frazzled wrote:How do you think the communist state has to form? It needs a dictatorship. That comes from Marx himself. It never evolves beyond the wholesale killing stage. People who believe otherwise are kidding themselves or willfully ignorant.
Well, the Soviet Union did once Stalin was dead.
It wasn't a great place to live but it wasn't a land of purges and death camps.
Frazzled wrote:How do you think the communist state has to form? It needs a dictatorship. That comes from Marx himself. It never evolves beyond the wholesale killing stage. People who believe otherwise are kidding themselves or willfully ignorant.
Well, the Soviet Union did once Stalin was dead.
It wasn't a great place to live but it wasn't a land of purges and death camps.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Though the point has been made before in this thread, I feel it's worth making again. The problem with the implementation of communism isn't communism. The problem is the concentration of power in insane megalomaniacs.
Sure, but then there is a problem with megalomaniacs coming to power in communist countries.
Even then, there are lots of problems with communism aside from the bodycount. Compare the economic growth of the US from 1950 to that of the USSR, free enterprise really does drive innovation and expansion in a way that communism can't match.
Frazzled wrote:How do you think the communist state has to form? It needs a dictatorship. That comes from Marx himself. It never evolves beyond the wholesale killing stage. People who believe otherwise are kidding themselves or willfully ignorant.
I'm guessing you haven't actually read a lot of Marx, no?
Frazzled wrote:How do you think the communist state has to form? It needs a dictatorship. That comes from Marx himself. It never evolves beyond the wholesale killing stage. People who believe otherwise are kidding themselves or willfully ignorant.
Well, the Soviet Union did once Stalin was dead.
It wasn't a great place to live but it wasn't a land of purges and death camps.
The Gulag System wasn't a wholesale killing system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:How do you think the communist state has to form? It needs a dictatorship. That comes from Marx himself. It never evolves beyond the wholesale killing stage. People who believe otherwise are kidding themselves or willfully ignorant.
Well, the Soviet Union did once Stalin was dead.
It wasn't a great place to live but it wasn't a land of purges and death camps.
Kilkrazy wrote:But not a mass killing system, and the purges ceased too.
I'm just pointing out that you were wrong.
I'm not. Its still a formalized instrument of repression and murder, just murder lite. No communist nation achieves, much less stays in power (except for universities...maybe ) without repressive instruments of terror. They are just dictatorships like any other form.
Kilkrazy wrote:But not a mass killing system, and the purges ceased too.
I'm just pointing out that you were wrong.
I'm not. Its still a formalized instrument of repression and murder, just murder lite. No communist nation achieves, much less stays in power (except for universities...maybe ) without repressive instruments of terror. They are just dictatorships like any other form.
I would contend that the sample size is much too low for you to make a blanket statement such as that, communism as a form of governance has existed for half a century and mirrors many forms of ancient and successful governance. Communism has only historically been tried in corrupt and unstable nations such as china and the soviet union, both of which had historically weak and harsh forms of governance that were prone to violence against their own peoples anyway. Throwing in a mass citizen revolt and overarching alteration of the form of government and you will logically end up with a bodycount, it's the nature of revolution and of destitute countries. Capitalism has been horrendously destructive to africa over the last fifty years as well, and during the colonial periods and industrial revolutions of the west that same level of debased violent repression occurred. Blaming communism or making blanket statements like the requirement for oppression (which marxist communism would seemingly argue against at its core) because of what happened in china and the soviet union is childish.
Can't we not just send all dissidents to Australia instead of purges and gulags and death camps oh my? I think that was a capitalist system that tried that, and Australia turned out great!
Guitardian wrote:Can't we not just send all dissidents to Australia instead of purges and gulags and death camps oh my? I think that was a capitalist system that tried that, and Australia turned out great!
Kilkrazy wrote:But not a mass killing system, and the purges ceased too.
I'm just pointing out that you were wrong.
I'm not. Its still a formalized instrument of repression and murder, just murder lite. No communist nation achieves, much less stays in power (except for universities...maybe ) without repressive instruments of terror. They are just dictatorships like any other form.
I would contend that the sample size is much too low for you to make a blanket statement such as that, communism as a form of governance has existed for half a century and mirrors many forms of ancient and successful governance. Communism has only historically been tried in corrupt and unstable nations such as china and the soviet union, both of which had historically weak and harsh forms of governance that were prone to violence against their own peoples anyway. Throwing in a mass citizen revolt and overarching alteration of the form of government and you will logically end up with a bodycount, it's the nature of revolution and of destitute countries. Capitalism has been horrendously destructive to africa over the last fifty years as well, and during the colonial periods and industrial revolutions of the west that same level of debased violent repression occurred. Blaming communism or making blanket statements like the requirement for oppression (which marxist communism would seemingly argue against at its core) because of what happened in china and the soviet union is childish.
bs. Name a country thats been communist that hasn't had a bloodbath?
Kilkrazy wrote:But not a mass killing system, and the purges ceased too.
I'm just pointing out that you were wrong.
I'm not. Its still a formalized instrument of repression and murder, just murder lite. No communist nation achieves, much less stays in power (except for universities...maybe ) without repressive instruments of terror. They are just dictatorships like any other form.
I would contend that the sample size is much too low for you to make a blanket statement such as that, communism as a form of governance has existed for half a century and mirrors many forms of ancient and successful governance. Communism has only historically been tried in corrupt and unstable nations such as china and the soviet union, both of which had historically weak and harsh forms of governance that were prone to violence against their own peoples anyway. Throwing in a mass citizen revolt and overarching alteration of the form of government and you will logically end up with a bodycount, it's the nature of revolution and of destitute countries. Capitalism has been horrendously destructive to africa over the last fifty years as well, and during the colonial periods and industrial revolutions of the west that same level of debased violent repression occurred. Blaming communism or making blanket statements like the requirement for oppression (which marxist communism would seemingly argue against at its core) because of what happened in china and the soviet union is childish.
bs. Name a country thats been communist that hasn't had a bloodbath?
Name one country thats been communist that didn't turn communist in a violent revolution against a repressive dictatorial regime during a time of extreme economic hardship. Take off the black and white glasses and crack open a history book for once in your life, these places didn't instantly turn into violent shitholes because of communism, they were violent shitholes that became communist. It's not like bored people just decide to have "peoples revolutions", they do it because conditions are awful. Violent revolutions, especially ideological ones always result in a high death toll, it's the nature of ideological revolution. Non believers get re-educated or they die. It's not like the communists invented ideological or nationalist purges, those had been around for thousands of years and were always the result of the same situations.
Kilkrazy wrote:But not a mass killing system, and the purges ceased too.
I'm just pointing out that you were wrong.
I'm not. Its still a formalized instrument of repression and murder, just murder lite. No communist nation achieves, much less stays in power (except for universities...maybe ) without repressive instruments of terror. They are just dictatorships like any other form.
I would contend that the sample size is much too low for you to make a blanket statement such as that, communism as a form of governance has existed for half a century and mirrors many forms of ancient and successful governance. Communism has only historically been tried in corrupt and unstable nations such as china and the soviet union, both of which had historically weak and harsh forms of governance that were prone to violence against their own peoples anyway. Throwing in a mass citizen revolt and overarching alteration of the form of government and you will logically end up with a bodycount, it's the nature of revolution and of destitute countries. Capitalism has been horrendously destructive to africa over the last fifty years as well, and during the colonial periods and industrial revolutions of the west that same level of debased violent repression occurred. Blaming communism or making blanket statements like the requirement for oppression (which marxist communism would seemingly argue against at its core) because of what happened in china and the soviet union is childish.
bs. Name a country thats been communist that hasn't had a bloodbath?
Kilkrazy wrote:But not a mass killing system, and the purges ceased too.
I'm just pointing out that you were wrong.
I'm not. Its still a formalized instrument of repression and murder, just murder lite. No communist nation achieves, much less stays in power (except for universities...maybe ) without repressive instruments of terror. They are just dictatorships like any other form.
I would contend that the sample size is much too low for you to make a blanket statement such as that, communism as a form of governance has existed for half a century and mirrors many forms of ancient and successful governance. Communism has only historically been tried in corrupt and unstable nations such as china and the soviet union, both of which had historically weak and harsh forms of governance that were prone to violence against their own peoples anyway. Throwing in a mass citizen revolt and overarching alteration of the form of government and you will logically end up with a bodycount, it's the nature of revolution and of destitute countries. Capitalism has been horrendously destructive to africa over the last fifty years as well, and during the colonial periods and industrial revolutions of the west that same level of debased violent repression occurred. Blaming communism or making blanket statements like the requirement for oppression (which marxist communism would seemingly argue against at its core) because of what happened in china and the soviet union is childish.
bs. Name a country thats been communist that hasn't had a bloodbath?
Kilkrazy wrote:Name a country that hasn't had a bloodbath.
As state policy?
You'd be hard-pressed to find one that hadn't had bloodbath as a state policy. The USA? Check. Australia? Check. Most of Asia? Check. Most of Europe? Check. Most of Africa? Check.
This isn't a trait of communist societies, it's a trait of human societies.
Kilkrazy wrote:Name a country that hasn't had a bloodbath.
As state policy?
You'd be hard-pressed to find one that hadn't had bloodbath as a state policy. The USA? Check. Australia? Check. Most of Asia? Check. Most of Europe? Check. Most of Africa? Check.
This isn't a trait of communist societies, it's a trait of human societies.
Not their own citizens, but whatever, I don't give a gak. If you like it, I strongly suggest you diligently work for your nation to become communist.
Kilkrazy wrote:Name a country that hasn't had a bloodbath.
As state policy?
You'd be hard-pressed to find one that hadn't had bloodbath as a state policy. The USA? Check. Australia? Check. Most of Asia? Check. Most of Europe? Check. Most of Africa? Check.
This isn't a trait of communist societies, it's a trait of human societies.
Not their own citizens, but whatever, I don't give a gak. If you like it, I strongly suggest you diligently work for your nation to become communist.
And here it is folks, when Frazzleds delusion becomes too much for even him to bare he states something trollish and then quits the thread.
Kilkrazy wrote:Name a country that hasn't had a bloodbath.
As state policy?
You'd be hard-pressed to find one that hadn't had bloodbath as a state policy. The USA? Check. Australia? Check. Most of Asia? Check. Most of Europe? Check. Most of Africa? Check.
This isn't a trait of communist societies, it's a trait of human societies.
Not their own citizens, but whatever, I don't give a gak. If you like it, I strongly suggest you diligently work for your nation to become communist.
Aboriginals. Native Americans. Serbia. Rwanda. Nazi Germany.
Kilkrazy wrote:Name a country that hasn't had a bloodbath.
As state policy?
You'd be hard-pressed to find one that hadn't had bloodbath as a state policy. The USA? Check. Australia? Check. Most of Asia? Check. Most of Europe? Check. Most of Africa? Check.
This isn't a trait of communist societies, it's a trait of human societies.
Not their own citizens, but whatever, I don't give a gak. If you like it, I strongly suggest you diligently work for your nation to become communist.
And here it is folks, when Frazzleds delusion becomes too much for even him to bare he states something trollish and then quits the thread.
incorrect. I'd rather not waste my time arguing with people attempting to equivocate communist dictatorships.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Name a country that hasn't had a bloodbath.
As state policy?
You'd be hard-pressed to find one that hadn't had bloodbath as a state policy. The USA? Check. Australia? Check. Most of Asia? Check. Most of Europe? Check. Most of Africa? Check.
This isn't a trait of communist societies, it's a trait of human societies.
Not their own citizens, but whatever, I don't give a gak. If you like it, I strongly suggest you diligently work for your nation to become communist.
Aboriginals. Native Americans. Serbia. Rwanda. Nazi Germany.
Just off the top of my head.
thats just random blatherings. But like I said, if you wish to test your theory about communism not having been implemented properly then I strongly suggest you do so. Hot house coffee shop debates about the merits of communism are sad when the real life comparables are unimaginably murderous. Do what you want.
incorrect. I'd rather not waste my time arguing with people attempting to equivocate communist dictatorships.
Thats not true at all, it's all you've been doing. It's not like you've been making measured or sensible posts, you've just been arguing for the sake of arguing using a sheer black and white ideological viewpoint with very little actual historical perspective. You don't like communism, thus communism must be evil.
thats just random blatherings. But like I said, if you wish to test your theory about communism not having been implemented properly then I strongly suggest you do so. Hot house coffee shop debates about the merits of communism are sad when the real life comparables are unimaginably murderous. Do what you want.
Posts like this in fact. I wish you'd join the debate, but hey, for some the cold war is never over.
You specified that you meant state sanctioned bloodbaths of citizens. Those were exactly that.
The whole serbian/yugoslavian/croatian situation is special given that the region was previously communist, at least in name, but the situation came about in large part due to fall of the soviet union and the collapse of communism. Had it remained, possibly we don't get the civil war happening, neh?
Frazzled wrote:I'm just saddened that you misinterpreted anything on the OT as being a debate. You really should watch one, or take a class.
Mmm, yes. Whatever, thats nice. Oh, are you still here? I thought you threw your hat at the ground and stomped off already? Did you stick around just to troll me because of my expectations that you act like and adult, even on the internet?
Frazzled wrote:I'm just saddened that you misinterpreted anything on the OT as being a debate. You really should watch one, or take a class.
Mmm, yes. Whatever, thats nice. Oh, are you still here? I thought you threw your hat at the ground and stomped off already? Did you stick around just to troll me because of my expectations that you act like and adult, even on the internet?
Frazzled wrote:I'm just saddened that you misinterpreted anything on the OT as being a debate. You really should watch one, or take a class.
Mmm, yes. Whatever, thats nice. Oh, are you still here? I thought you threw your hat at the ground and stomped off already? Did you stick around just to troll me because of my expectations that you act like and adult, even on the internet?
Frazzled wrote:I'm just saddened that you misinterpreted anything on the OT as being a debate. You really should watch one, or take a class.
Mmm, yes. Whatever, thats nice. Oh, are you still here? I thought you threw your hat at the ground and stomped off already? Did you stick around just to troll me because of my expectations that you act like and adult, even on the internet?
I am saddened by absence of weiner dogs being diplayed here. Why is a cat getting top billing?
[/
I don't even remember what the topic was after all that. I think we need a prize fight between the reanimated mass murderers of the past to decide this one. My money is on Zombie Stalin. Joe don't take no guff.
Nationalism played a significant role in both world wars, and a lot of other wars besides.
Ok, I agree. I'm just not counting "nationalism" as a form of government. I mean, as far as causing great death, how about "intolerance" or "greed" or "hatred" or other more basic impulses? Clearly they're present in virtually every death.
So, to be clear (because I wasn't) I'm saying that Communism is the political system responsible for the most death in human history, and it did it a comparitively brief period of time, albeit at a time when there was a lot more people around to kill.
Because capitalism is beneficial when done right, when taken to the extreme it’s laissez faire and then you get dead people. In the same way socialism is beneficial when done right, but taken to extreme it’s communism and then you get dead people.
To me it's strange to say this... On the theoretical level, I can see the argument, and understand why you make it... But then there's reality, and it doesn't agree with you.
Clearly extremism is almost always bad. Extreme laissez faire would be bad, as is Communism. The problem is that Communism has a good 100 million bodies to its credit, and laissez faire capitalism does not. Furthermore, laissez faire capitalism has evolved into what the first world is today. Communism has evolved into collapse, Cuba and China.
It's as I said earlier, eventually the theories have to be discarded, and you have to look at the actual events. You have to say "ok, we KNOW Communism is a horrible mass killing failure. Why?"
Also, while all that was going on minorities, the handicapped and undesirables were being rounded up into workcamps.
Right, but this is about insanity, not about success. It actually COSTS money to do this, it's not like you get free labor and everything is great. Instead you get people who hate you, who you have to spend a lot of money to keep contained.
So, I'm not saying the Nazis were GOOD by any stretch. They were horrible. But they did oversee a huge boom in the German economy, and while it certainly was financed by debt, that's the same thing that the US did at the same basic time, and we came out of it with a huge period of prosperity.
So you don't consider yourself to be under government 'control'?
It's all by degrees. In Soviet Russia, they tell you where to live, where to work, what to think, what to wear. In the US they just tell you that you have to wear SOMETHING, and if you're at the beach, barely even that.
Yes we're all under control. But come on.
Communism has only historically been tried in corrupt and unstable nations such as china and the soviet union, both of which had historically weak and harsh forms of governance that were prone to violence against their own peoples anyway.
No question, all the places that have turned to Communism were pretty brutal places to begin with. But that brings two points to mind:
First, Communism is so transparently controlling, oppressive and dictatorial, that only people who are already in that situation will even consider it.
Second, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that Communism turned brutal, repressive countries into INSANELY brutal and repressive countries. The Tsars weren't the kindest and gentlest people, but they were looking to change and modernize even as the revolutionaries murdered them. And then the body count increased by several orders of magnitude in short order.
Take a look at the death of Alexander II. The lunacy of communism had already infected the Russian populace, and even when leadership attempted to give the people a better life, they just HAD to have their idiot revolution. Still, this gives a picture of just how "brutal and repressive" the monarchy was. They were looking to create a parliament, democratic reforms, etc. All Communism did was halt that progress, assure that something a hundred times worse would come about, and would last for a good 50 years and 30 million dead.
So, basically, while your facts are correct, your conclusions aren't. Communism doesn't have a history of near total failure because the people who try to implement it are bad people... On the contrary, it has a history of near total failure because it's an awful, awful system, and only bad people are stupid and damaged enough to think it will work.
To me it's strange to say this... On the theoretical level, I can see the argument, and understand why you make it... But then there's reality, and it doesn't agree with you.
Clearly extremism is almost always bad. Extreme laissez faire would be bad, as is Communism. The problem is that Communism has a good 100 million bodies to its credit, and laissez faire capitalism does not. Furthermore, laissez faire capitalism has evolved into what the first world is today. Communism has evolved into collapse, Cuba and China.
It's as I said earlier, eventually the theories have to be discarded, and you have to look at the actual events. You have to say "ok, we KNOW Communism is a horrible mass killing failure. Why?"
I take it you've never studied history before 1940. Why don't you check colonial africa, south america, north america, or asia as run under the western colonialist empires. Go ahead. I'll wait.
So, basically, while your facts are correct, your conclusions aren't.
The vast majority of the people that died during the cultural revolution died to the failures of implemented collectivist farming and the slow rehabilitation that that system received. Don't tell me that my facts are correct but my conclusions are wrong when you've managed to strike out on both counts please. Stalinist Soviet Governance was not communism. It did not function like communism, it was not run like communism. It was a collectivist industrial totalitarianism with a strong police state. You are drawing conclusions from a scant two cases and claiming that these are the nature of communism. That is foolish. That is not marxist communism, nor was it from the start. You blame communism for totalitarianism when you should be blaming totalitarianism for itself. Saddam was a president in a capitalist system and managed to kill millions of his own people (With a far cry from the populations of either china or russia). America was a firmly capitalist colony and state when it systematically committed genocide on the natives of south America, and colonial africa was a collection of massive slave states existing for the pure profit of their respective states. The congolese live in a "Democracy", funny how well it's going for them. You have yet to actually attempt to combat communism as a form of governance or argue against any of the ideals laid out by marx or other philosophers. You've pointed to a failure rate, which while significant, is erroneous.
Communism doesn't have a history of near total failure because the people who try to implement it are bad people... On the contrary, it has a history of near total failure because it's an awful, awful system, and only bad people are stupid and damaged enough to think it will work.
Communism has a historical failure rate because in 100% of cases it was instituted in a destitute and economically dead country after a bloody revolution. Quite a few people died in the American and french revolutions too you know. One hundred years of trials and tribulations later it turned out to be a success. Chinas "communist" (they are still not communist, they are dictatorial beuracracies with direct state control of many forms of private enterprise) economy is on track to rival most western nations in real purchasing power within 40 years. India with all it's lovely and ludicrously corrupt and beuracratic free state democratic controls is lagging far behind.
Kilkrazy wrote:Name a country that hasn't had a bloodbath.
As state policy?
You'd be hard-pressed to find one that hadn't had bloodbath as a state policy. The USA? Check. Australia? Check. Most of Asia? Check. Most of Europe? Check. Most of Africa? Check.
This isn't a trait of communist societies, it's a trait of human societies.
Not their own citizens, but whatever, I don't give a gak. If you like it, I strongly suggest you diligently work for your nation to become communist.
Frazzled wrote:How do you think the communist state has to form? It needs a dictatorship. That comes from Marx himself.
No, that's Leninism, not Marxism. When Marx speaks of the dictatorship of the proletariat he using it in a sense which is akin to the tyranny of the majority postulated by Plato; ie. it is not to be thought of as one man with absolute control. Instead, the phrase denotes nothing more than the fact that ultimate authority will be vested in the proletariat. It isn't a literal dictatorship in the sense that you're using the word. In fact, it cannot be by the very definition of 'dictatorship'. If that's what you believe Marx was saying, then you don't understand Marx.
As I said much earlier, Marxist communism has the potential to share a great deal with democratic political theory when considering political methodology; its simply the economic methodology which differs. Indeed, Marx praised the Paris Commune for its use of universal suffrage in determining its leadership.
Frazzled wrote:
It never evolves beyond the wholesale killing stage. People who believe otherwise are kidding themselves or willfully ignorant.
Yes, that's what happened with Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maoism. There has never been a Marxist state, because Karl Marx never explicitly described how such a state would form. In fact, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maosim are all attempts to fill in the gap between Marx's general ideas and the practical act of revolution and governance.
ShumaGorath wrote:It did not function like communism, it was not run like communism.
There's this as well. Communism is the end result of a transitional process involving the dictatorship of the proletariat. Moreover, the only places in which something approximating a dictatorship of the proletariat has existed have been democratic nations.
I take it you've never studied history before 1940.
So standard with you. Now this is me politely receiving your standard ad hominem and requesting that you stop saying crap like this to me, at least. It does nothing for me, except make me dislike you, and quite frankly, I thought Inglourius Basterds was a great film, so I WANT to like you.
If you disagree, just state your point. No need for the categorical dismissal of everything the other person has said due to obviously inferior schooling.
Why don't you check colonial africa, south america, north america, or asia as run under the western colonialist empires.
None of which resulted in 100 million deaths alone, and probably not even combined. Communism caused a loss of life on a scale unlike anything we've seen before.
As I also already mentioned, and Frazz alluded to, it is unusual in terms of the inward direction of the violence. Human societies coming into conflict and lives being lost is as old as human societies. The systematic destruction of ones own populace on a massive scale for the purpose of terror and demographic reshuffle is new to Communism.
Stalinist Soviet Governance was not communism.
This is a common defense of Communism, and it's wrong. You can't say "anything that's not good isn't communism." The fact is Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc. all these cats were trying to implement Communism, they were talking about it, they all were students of Marx.
The fact that what happened wasn't what Marx described, doesn't mean it's not "Communism." On the contrary, what it means is that what Communism is "supposed" to be, and what it actually turns out to be, are different things.
Let's say I come up with a political system called "Anarchosweetness." The way it works, is there are no rules and then everyone lives happily ever after. Ok, so first, no rules. Then chaos and death ensue. Oh, well that's not Anarchosweetness, see, cause in Anarchosweetness, everyone lives happily ever after! I win!
You don't get to write the outcome into what you're doing, and then disavow the results if you fail. If you fail, you fail. And if EVERYONE who tries to do this thing fails, then the very nature of that thing is one of failure.
You are drawing conclusions from a scant two cases and claiming that these are the nature of communism.
Yeah, if it was 2 out of 120, with the other 118 being great successes. Trouble is, it's 2 out of about 7, and 7 out of 7 were dismal failures.
Chinas "communist" (they are still not communist, they are dictatorial beuracracies with direct state control of many forms of private enterprise) economy is on track to rival most western nations in real purchasing power within 40 years. India with all it's lovely and ludicrously corrupt and beuracratic free state democratic controls is lagging far behind.
More of this "if it's not awesome it's not Communism" stuff. The Chinese are Communist. They're not "dictatorial."
They're the only even marginally successful implementation, and that's after 60 million dead, and then eventually creating pockets of free enterprise in order to overcome the inherant weaknesses of Communism.
That said, you're right, the Chinese are doing very well for themselves. But here's a prediction: within 40 years they won't be Communist anymore, because as soon as you actually bring prosperity to a population, they lose interest in living like sheep. Even the Chinese.
Communism is the end result of a transitional process involving the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Well, that's how Marx felt it would come about. That's not what it is. I'll defer to wikipedia:
Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.
That's how I've been viewing it all along, because I read that long ago, and considered it valid. As has been pointed out, you could certainly have a democratic process to manage the operation of the state. But, you could also have a dictatorship, or a system of Soviets, or whatever.
It's all still Communism.
If you've got a classless system of communal ownership, that's Communism. All other details are specific forms of Communism, but still Communism. Just because the leadership is dictatorial or brutal, that doesn't make it not Communism.
Now, clearly, nowhere in that definition does it say "kill off 60 million people." So that's not part of the definition. But when it happens every friggin time, I'd say it's only the most ideologically zealous that don't accept that there's a pattern, and ask why that pattern is so consistent.
As I've said, I think there's a massive danger to the destruction of respect for the individual, and I think Communism seeks to explicitly do just that. That's why the result is mass death.
Phryxis wrote:The systematic destruction of ones own populace on a massive scale for the purpose of terror and demographic reshuffle is new to Communism.
Fascism did the same concurrently.
Phryxis wrote:
This is a common defense of Communism, and it's wrong. You can't say "anything that's not good isn't communism." The fact is Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc. all these cats were trying to implement Communism, they were talking about it, they all were students of Marx.
That's true, but Marx would not have called any of those states communist. Indeed, none of those states would have called themselves communist. They would have called themselves proletarian dictatorships, though they would be wrong to do so.
Phryxis wrote:
The fact that what happened wasn't what Marx described, doesn't mean it's not "Communism." On the contrary, what it means is that what Communism is "supposed" to be, and what it actually turns out to be, are different things.
Strictly speaking, it means that the transition from a dictatorship of the proletariat to a stateless, post-scarcity society (what Marx would call Communism) cannot be accomplished by force alone, if at all. It looks like you two are hung up on a terminological dispute in which one is arguing from a position regarding communism as defined by Marx, and the other arguing from a position of communism as defined by the Parties formed (ostensibly) in the pursuit of Marx's communism.
Phryxis wrote:
Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.
That's how I've been viewing it all along, because I read that long ago, and considered it valid. As has been pointed out, you could certainly have a democratic process to manage the operation of the state. But, you could also have a dictatorship, or a system of Soviets, or whatever.
It's all still Communism.
If a state exists, then it isn't a classless system. Marx makes a distinction between communism, and the transitional state which precedes it. There has never been a communist nation in the sense that 'communist' refers to a classless society in which property is commonly controlled. However, there have been communist nations in the sense that they have been controlled by social movements that advocated the creation of the former example.
How did this get turned into a debate about whether certain outcomes in a communist state are inevitable or not? What does a comment about unemployment checks and the OPs opinion of that comment have to do with communism?
To drag this kicking and screaming back on topic....While I think the idea that you can make a blanket statement that unemployment checks are the fastest way to create jobs is ridiculous, I don't understand why it is an issue anyhow. I never thought that the point of unemployment was to stimulate the economy, rather, I thought it was about providing for living expenses while someone is trying to find a job.
Then you'd be well aware that Marx' dictatorship of the proletariat didn't use the commonly understood meaning of dictatorship, but used it to refer to any kind of revolutionary government that had the majority support of the population. You would be aware that Marx gave little detail of the actual form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but did recommend the Paris Commune as a decent model, and that the Paris Commune fairly closely matched the modern idea of direct democracy.
Which would make your earlier comment nonsensical. But you've read Marx, so you'd know that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Not their own citizens, but whatever, I don't give a gak. If you like it, I strongly suggest you diligently work for your nation to become communist.
See, now you've gone and forgotten what discussion is about again. This thread has become a discussion of communism, more specifically what's wrong with communism. You've come in and said a few things about why you think communism is bad, and other posters have pointed out that they think you're in error.
That doesn't mean they like communism, or that they want to reform their nation under communist ideals. It just means that they think your reasons for criticising communism are wrong. From there, in a discussion, you would recognise concede some points, clarify or substantiate others, and criticise the points of other posters if necessary. However, you just tried to pretend the other posters like communism - that isn't discussion, that's poo-flinging.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Wait you think something on the OT reaches the level of a debate? That explains a lot.
Well, I was enjoying my conversation phryxis.
But yes, OT threads rarely reach the level of debate. You're not helping that.
On the other hand, I'm not sure the Nazis felt it was "their own populace." In their estimation the Jews were an external enemy, and they were killing them regardless of nationality.
Still, motivation is only part of the equation, and you're right. I had considered the "final solution" as I described above, and thus didn't include it. I was lumping it in with the numerous genicides that have taken place throughout history.
In that respect, I still think the Communist internal purges are somewhat unique. I'm not aware of situations where such ruthless re-orgnization took place along those sorts of lines. Certain religious or ethnic groups are targetted, but never before has a huge cross section of the population been "discarded" as happenend under Mao.
This is the "human being as property/resource of the state" thing that seems endemic to all large scale Communist implementations we've seen.
Indeed, none of those states would have called themselves communist.
They tended most often to say "socialist" and I've never really understood why that appealed to them.
It looks like you two are hung up on a terminological dispute in which one is arguing from a position regarding communism as defined by Marx, and the other arguing from a position of communism as defined by the Parties formed (ostensibly) in the pursuit of Marx's communism.
Absolutely the case. I have no problem with discussing what Marx hoped Communism would be, and on that subject it seems as if Shuma is well informed.
The problem I have is when people pretend that Marx's hopes and dreams have any bearing on reality. Marx had a path and result that he felt Communism would take and result in. Turns out, in real life when people try to do Communism you get horror.
Honestly, if it REALLY matters to people, we can say that Stalin/Mao/Castro/Pol Pot didn't actually do Communism. All I'm saying is that every time it's been tried, it's resulted in horror. I would suggest that we should not try it any more, and anybody that suggests we should is not to be trusted.
So, I've been saying "Communism always goes badly." If people object to that, but can accept "trying to get to Communism always goes badly," then I can accept that too.
I'm not here to rally more hatred on Stalin/Mao/Castro/Pol Pot. I think everyone knows just what inhuman scum these people are. What I'm more interested in is living in a world where we have the sense to never try Communism ever again.
I get very nervous when I see people trying to defend Communism, as if defending it is going to benefit us in any way. I get VERY nervous when I hear about self-proclaimed Marxists in Obama's sphere of influence, and people he works with favorably quoting Mao. To me it's a bit terrifying that the ideas of Marx/Mao and others haven't been completely dismissed as viable options.
If a state exists, then it isn't a classless system.
I don't follow.
However, there have been communist nations in the sense that they have been controlled by social movements that advocated the creation of the former example.
Again, this goes back to my previous point... If it Communism never materialized in a fashion that fits your definition, then so be it. I just don't want to walk down that road. Whether people get to the end of it or not, the ditches get filled with bodies along the way.
Phryxis wrote:Ok, I agree. I'm just not counting "nationalism" as a form of government. I mean, as far as causing great death, how about "intolerance" or "greed" or "hatred" or other more basic impulses? Clearly they're present in virtually every death.
So, to be clear (because I wasn't) I'm saying that Communism is the political system responsible for the most death in human history, and it did it a comparitively brief period of time, albeit at a time when there was a lot more people around to kill.
Well, then I'd say 'nationalist governments' because that describes the WWII governments of Germany and Japan, and that's a whole load of people dead right there. You could then add in most, if not all, of the major participants in WWI, then go on to describe how nationalism played a major role in colonialism, and you'd have accounted for a whole lot of dead people.
To me it's strange to say this... On the theoretical level, I can see the argument, and understand why you make it... But then there's reality, and it doesn't agree with you.
Clearly extremism is almost always bad. Extreme laissez faire would be bad, as is Communism. The problem is that Communism has a good 100 million bodies to its credit, and laissez faire capitalism does not. Furthermore, laissez faire capitalism has evolved into what the first world is today. Communism has evolved into collapse, Cuba and China.
But as I said before, we don't have a straight capitalist system. We have a capitalist system moderated by social policy. The extremes of capitalism and socialism are very bad, but elements of each, moderated by the other, are good.
Compared to fascism, which is always bad. Do you see my point now?
So, I'm not saying the Nazis were GOOD by any stretch. They were horrible. But they did oversee a huge boom in the German economy, and while it certainly was financed by debt, that's the same thing that the US did at the same basic time, and we came out of it with a huge period of prosperity.
Sure, Keynesian economics are solid. Which is why it blows my mind when people keep going on about how deficit spending can't stimulate the economy. But stimulus spending is achievable by any government, and the rest of fascism is so abhorrent I really don't see the value in picking out that trivial element as something achieved by one fascist government, given other fascist governments achieved no similar success.
More importantly, the USSR industrialised incredibly over a few short decades, and they weren't just stimuluating existing capacity, they were reforming their economy. A planned economy can actually be used to industrialise an agricultural economy very quickly.
It's all by degrees. In Soviet Russia, they tell you where to live, where to work, what to think, what to wear. In the US they just tell you that you have to wear SOMETHING, and if you're at the beach, barely even that.
Umm, they didn't people where to work or what to wear in Soviet Russia. You're right that the level of government control was substantially greater, but it wasn't like you describe.
Take a look at the death of Alexander II. The lunacy of communism had already infected the Russian populace, and even when leadership attempted to give the people a better life, they just HAD to have their idiot revolution. Still, this gives a picture of just how "brutal and repressive" the monarchy was. They were looking to create a parliament, democratic reforms, etc. All Communism did was halt that progress, assure that something a hundred times worse would come about, and would last for a good 50 years and 30 million dead.
Except there really wasn't a revolution, the Bolsheviks had no general support. It was a coup, basically, that only survived because Lenin and Trotsky ran a skillful defence, and the collected forces of the Whites were disorganised and generally incompetent.
In Cuba and in China they had something closer to revolutions, but they were based more on the unpopularity of their governments than a genuine support for Communism. It's actually one of the biggest issues with Communism, Marx assumes the proletariat itself will rise up and embrace Communism, but the theory really has no truck with them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:That's a good point, technically it did.
On the other hand, I'm not sure the Nazis felt it was "their own populace." In their estimation the Jews were an external enemy, and they were killing them regardless of nationality.
The first targets of the Nazis were the communists and labour activists. And yeah, everyone finds a reason to make their scapegoats an 'external enemy' before sending them to the camps. To Stalin, the 'counter-revolutionaries' were as external as the Jews were to the Nazis.
This is the "human being as property/resource of the state" thing that seems endemic to all large scale Communist implementations we've seen.
The materialism of communism tends to lead to making people a resource. Fittingly, as per the argument I've been making in this thread, people as a resource is also a feature of extreme capitalist societies.
Which is my point, really, any government led by ideology first and practicality second is going to end up dehumanising it's population, and that will likely get a pile of people killed.
They tended most often to say "socialist" and I've never really understood why that appealed to them.
The socialist state is the stepping stone on the way to the communist state. The actual communist state is basically a classless utopia. By remaining socialist their governments could say 'alright it sucks now but just wait and we'll get to utopia!'
Honestly, if it REALLY matters to people, we can say that Stalin/Mao/Castro/Pol Pot didn't actually do Communism. All I'm saying is that every time it's been tried, it's resulted in horror. I would suggest that we should not try it any more, and anybody that suggests we should is not to be trusted.
Sort of, but if we were to genuinely follow Marx then we wouldn't be arguing for group action or revolution or any of that stuff. To Marx, the end of capitalism was an inevitability based on the essential nature of communism, just as mercantilism had inevitably led to capitalism.
Note that the communist states of the USSR, China and the rest were not capitalist beforehand. It's a big problem with Marx' predictions that the no capitalist society shifted to a socialist state. The release valve for the extremes of capitalism was not a move to a dictatorship of the proletariat, instead it was moderated socialist reform.
If a state exists, then it isn't a classless system.
Marx saw nations and nationalism as a product of class tension. The final communist state is international.
Right, but I'm saying that "nationalism" is not a form of government. It's more of an attribute of a nation. Any nation of any form of government could still be "nationalist" in temperment.
So it's clearly an aggressive posture, and you're accurate that it's present in many, many losses of life, but so are other adjectives like "aggressive," "imperialist," or just "human."
Compared to fascism, which is always bad. Do you see my point now?
I think I saw it all along... Immoderation is bad, right? I was simply trying to say that immoderate capitalism is still much, much better than immoderated socialism (Communism).
given other fascist governments achieved no similar success.
Spain was fascist for many years after WWII, wasn't it? Until the death of Franco in the 1970s? I'm not really familliar enough with Spanish history, but I was under the impression that it was certainly a better existance than contemporaries in China or the USSR.
Honestly I'm not very happy with the definitions I read for Fascism, nor with my understanding of it. I feel much more comfortable with my understanding of Communism, and the basic definitions of it.
It seems like "Communism" is defined in a pretty simple, clear way, and then has many specific implementations and views. By comparison, the definitions of Fascism seem to be "what Hitler and Mussolini did."
Regardless, you seem very convinced of the surpassing awfulness of Fascism, but based on my reading, I view it as being fairly similar to Communism in general evilness, and actually better in terms of outcomes for its citizens.
From what I've seen, I'd rather the nation I was living in turned to Fascism than Communism. Of course, I'd prefer that neither happened.
Umm, they didn't people where to work or what to wear in Soviet Russia.
Well, maybe not what to wear, but certainly where to work, no? That's the whole behavior of the managed economy/society. If they didn't tell you where to work, then why wouldn't everyone decide to be a state artist or chocolate taster, or whatever?
I'm far more familliar with China than Russia in this respect, and while China is much, much more open now, it was not as recently as 20 years ago. You go through school, they decide what you're good at, they assign you a job. There was some choice, for example, you might decide to join the military, or not, but they pretty much gave you an assignment, which would include location and job. Also, while China didn't necessarily tell you what to wear, it certainly seemed to end up with a very uniform dress code.
Phryxis wrote:
In that respect, I still think the Communist internal purges are somewhat unique. I'm not aware of situations where such ruthless re-orgnization took place along those sorts of lines. Certain religious or ethnic groups are targetted, but never before has a huge cross section of the population been "discarded" as happenend under Mao.
Well, one thing which is unique to communism is its propensity to look at class as more important than race, nationality, or anything else really. Unfortunately, only communists really see the world in terms of class identity, so a lot of their actions in purging demographics appear as though they are self-inflicted, when the communist may not see it that way.
Additionally, I think the communist focus on class did a great deal to expand the number of people who were susceptible to their purges. It let them find opponents and targets where they didn't necessarily exist simply because the notion of broad class identity was an entirely manufactured concept.
Phryxis wrote:
They tended most often to say "socialist" and I've never really understood why that appealed to them.
Marx considered socialism to be to be essential to the transition to communism, so it fits with the rhetoric.
Phryxis wrote:
The problem I have is when people pretend that Marx's hopes and dreams have any bearing on reality. Marx had a path and result that he felt Communism would take and result in. Turns out, in real life when people try to do Communism you get horror.
Yeah, and it seems that Marx at least had some inkling of that. After all, there's a reason he never really described what the proletarian revolution would be like.
Phryxis wrote:
If people object to that, but can accept "trying to get to Communism always goes badly," then I can accept that too.
What communists always seem to forget is that pretty much every single author after Marx identified post-scarcity as the point at which the proletariat could 'revolt'. And, really, that makes perfect sense. The worker's paradise is one where his labor is his to control because he isn't required to exert himself in the course of mere survival. Of course, that just leaves us to ponder what will bring about the end of scarcity, and whether or not its even something that can come about.
Phryxis wrote:
I get VERY nervous when I hear about self-proclaimed Marxists in Obama's sphere of influence, and people he works with favorably quoting Mao. To me it's a bit terrifying that the ideas of Marx/Mao and others haven't been completely dismissed as viable options.
Well, its hard to entirely dismiss Marx as he is the father of materialist social science, so he's always going to have some influence. To me he's just like any other thinker, he had some good ideas and some bad ones. Unfortunately, his bad ideas were the ones that were readily leveraged by more practical men.
Phryxis wrote:
doma wrote:
If a state exists, then it isn't a classless system.
I don't follow.
Marx's understanding of class was equal parts economic and social. The economic element, the relation to the means of production, was to be equal when considering all member of the commune. If there is a state present to control the means of production, then someone will necessarily have a distinctly different relationship to them when compared to those not in the state. Similarly, people that are part of the state will not have the same social relationship to other members of the commune as people who are not members of the state.
Phryxis wrote:It's as I said earlier, eventually the theories have to be discarded, and you have to look at the actual events. You have to say "ok, we KNOW Communism is a horrible mass killing failure when implemented immediately following a violent revolution in a dead economic system or doesn't lead to massive death and killing but is still only implemented immediately following a violent revolution in a dead economic system. Why?"
Fixed, mostly.
You're looking at and judging the worth and end result of a given economic system when it's only ever been tried out in exactly one kind of political environment, and when that implementation is not, in fact, said economic ystem by definition. Much as the government of any country likes to claim that it is the people, they are not. State owned property is not commonly owned.
sebster wrote:
Marx saw nations and nationalism as a product of class tension. The final communist state is international.
I'm using 'state' in the sense that it is juxtaposed with 'nation'. As I understand it, the final communist 'state' does not actually have a state at all, or at least nothing that would appear comparable to the states we have today.
Phryxis wrote:Right, but I'm saying that "nationalism" is not a form of government. It's more of an attribute of a nation. Any nation of any form of government could still be "nationalist" in temperment.
Communist is also an attribute.
I think I saw it all along... Immoderation is bad, right? I was simply trying to say that immoderate capitalism is still much, much better than immoderated socialism (Communism).
Maybe. Around 20 million Indians would disagree.
Spain was fascist for many years after WWII, wasn't it? Until the death of Franco in the 1970s? I'm not really familliar enough with Spanish history, but I was under the impression that it was certainly a better existance than contemporaries in China or the USSR.
Yeah, up until the 70s. They never managed anything like the economic growth of Nazi Germany. Nor did Mussolini's Italy, nor did Pinochet's Chile. It's fair to say the economic recovery of Hitler's Germany is not indicative of a feature of fascism.
And yeah, it was better than living in Russia in the 30s. It probably wasn't any better than living in Russia in the 70s, or Cuba today. Once Stalin and his ultra-paranoia were removed Communist Russia more or less settled down into being just another oppressive one party state.
Honestly I'm not very happy with the definitions I read for Fascism, nor with my understanding of it. I feel much more comfortable with my understanding of Communism, and the basic definitions of it.
It seems like "Communism" is defined in a pretty simple, clear way, and then has many specific implementations and views. By comparison, the definitions of Fascism seem to be "what Hitler and Mussolini did."
Fascism is a much harder thing to define than communism.
From what I've seen, I'd rather the nation I was living in turned to Fascism than Communism. Of course, I'd prefer that neither happened.
I read a fellow one time comment that if a country turned to communism, it's citizens should be afraid. If a country turned to fascism it's citizens and the citizens in surrounding countries should be afraid. It seems fairly apt to me.
Well, maybe not what to wear, but certainly where to work, no? That's the whole behavior of the managed economy/society. If they didn't tell you where to work, then why wouldn't everyone decide to be a state artist or chocolate taster, or whatever?
Well, the state owned the means of production so they determined what jobs existed. But the individual citizen wasn't simply told he was to be a doctor or a mechanic, that was determined through schooling, family and choice much the same as anywhere else. Well, and more than a little nepotism.
I'm far more familliar with China than Russia in this respect, and while China is much, much more open now, it was not as recently as 20 years ago. You go through school, they decide what you're good at, they assign you a job. There was some choice, for example, you might decide to join the military, or not, but they pretty much gave you an assignment, which would include location and job. Also, while China didn't necessarily tell you what to wear, it certainly seemed to end up with a very uniform dress code.
Sure, but that's as much a legacy of Confucianism as anything else.
While the Communiusm tangent is entertaining it is OT.
Stimulate:
1.To rouse to activity or heightened action, as by spurring or goading; excite. See synonyms at provoke.
2.To increase temporarily the activity of (a body organ or part).
3.To excite or invigorate (a person, for example) with a stimulant.
In no way does an unemployment check do any of these. It only allows current expedenditures to continue (i.e. Food, rent payment, etc.) It doesn't foster any true growth, it just subsidizes exsistence. A $220 weekly check (or however small it is) doesn't excatly make the unemployed go out and buy anything more than they need.
I will quote Richard A. Ponser concerning tax cuts:
"Windfalls (tax rebates) are to a large extent saved rather than spent. Windfalls are what economists call "transitory" income, as distinct from "permanent"income. If taxes are cut in circumstances that lead people to believe the cut will be permanent, they infer that their permanent income has risen and that they can adjust their standard of living upward-which means spending more. But if the increase in income is transitory, they will have to retrench when the money runs out-a painful adjustment."
Getting off people's backs will help get our country back on track. Tax cuts are reviled because the evil rich might get to keep more of their money, that is an unfortunate collectivist idea that makes good behavior (being productive) a sin, and make being poor and dependent of government virtuous. I know that their are lots of tough situations out there, but punishing the people that are the biggest producers is the wrong thing to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: P.S. - Fascism and Communism are heads from the same Hydra. Collectivist ideals that can never be truly achieved no matter how many times they are tried.
They always lead to suffering and loss of liberty. I don't want anyone to work for my benefit, nor should I work for anyone else's benefit. I want to be productive for my own gains and no one else's. I can't do that in our quasi fascistic USA now (which it has been since the 1880's)
Stormrider wrote:
[b]2.To increase temporarily the activity of (a body organ or part).
Stormrider wrote:
In no way does an unemployment check do any of these. It only allows current expedenditures to continue (i.e. Food, rent payment, etc.) It doesn't foster any true growth, it just subsidizes exsistence. A $220 weekly check (or however small it is) doesn't excatly make the unemployed go out and buy anything more than they need.
If we accept that someone receiving unemployment benefits is spending money that they would otherwise not, then it isn't hard to see how the above definition applies.
It seems as though you're conflating growth with with job creation or stimulus, and that's foolish. I'm also unsure as to why you're discussing stimulus, when that wasn't a part of Pelosi's comment.
Stormrider wrote:
I will quote Richard A. Ponser concerning tax cuts:
"Windfalls (tax rebates) are to a large extent saved rather than spent. Windfalls are what economists call "transitory" income, as distinct from "permanent"income. If taxes are cut in circumstances that lead people to believe the cut will be permanent, they infer that their permanent income has risen and that they can adjust their standard of living upward-which means spending more. But if the increase in income is transitory, they will have to retrench when the money runs out-a painful adjustment."
I think we needed the Keynesian stimulus (the $787 billion in tax cuts, benefits increases, and public works), although it could have been better designed; and the stress tests, a distant cousin of FDR's bank holiday (during which bank examiners examined the books of the banks and allowed only those adjudged solvent to reopen), apparently have assisted the major banks to obtain additional capital.
Moreover, it is entirely possible that a regular 'windfall' could be perceived as expected income. Just as its possible for a protracted tax cut to be perceived as an incentive to save.
Stormrider wrote:
Tax cuts are reviled because the evil rich might get to keep more of their money, that is an unfortunate collectivist idea that makes good behavior (being productive) a sin, and make being poor and dependent of government virtuous.
If an ideal society is one in which no one benefits from the effort of other, why is it good for people to act productively?
Stormrider wrote:
P.S. - Fascism and Communism are heads from the same Hydra. Collectivist ideals that can never be truly achieved no matter how many times they are tried.
They always lead to suffering and loss of liberty. I don't want anyone to work for my benefit, nor should I work for anyone else's benefit. I want to be productive for my own gains and no one else's. I can't do that in our quasi fascistic USA now (which it has been since the 1880's)
Society, even capitalist society, is based on the concept of working for the benefit of yourself and others. Without the concept of mutually beneficial associations there is little reason to form towns, corporations, or even nations. It even becomes difficult to understand why you would bother with something as basic as reproduction.
I don't like Leeches dogma. As for stimulus in the form of Un-Employment checks, it isn't creating new spending. It's merely replacing already accounted for spending. There's no real stimulus. If we were using stimulus money in the Keyensian way our recession would be over already. That Stimulus bill wasn't stimulus at all. It's a giant slush fund for projects that aren't appropriated for legitimately (which has been ignored for 90 years anyway).
As for perception of a tax rebate or cut. A rebate is a one time thing. Once the money is spent or squirreled away it's gone. A cut lasts much longer and could a permanent reduction in withholdings (if legislated correctly). And since Ponser was speaking in generalities, it's pretty irrelevant how it's percieved but to what it actually is. A cut will always boost consumer spending where as a rebate is a mixed bag.
As per my statement about Productivity. What was normal 150 years ago (having a job, making money, not breaking the law, taking care of your family, not being a government mooch) is not regarded by Politicians or the media as normal. They view every little group of people that have social discrepancies as a group to exploit. To keep them dependent on Government for all their solutions. They'll gladly use these groups to enact legislation that might have good intentions, but in the end hurts more people who aren't in any kind of dire straights since they get to foot the bill. That's what I oppose, a wholesale saddling of the entire nation to solve a problem that is regional in many cases. Let the state take care of it, not the Federal Government.
Look at the "Great Society" and "War On Poverty", those two programs were supposed to erase poverty and keep poor people & minorities from ever being in need. Look what they have done to the Black community, Black men have more incentive to not marry the mother of their kids so the mother can collect more dole from the Government. There's been trillions of dollars dumped into those programs and still nothing has changed. There's still the same underclass from the same demographics.
It is a good clip, NPR usually has interesting guests.
Anyway, I am not following what you are on about Stormrider. If you hate social programs, and think they do more harm then good, I disagree with you. It does seem like many programs have work left to be done, and they need to be run in a more fiscally responsible way. When I read someone who starts a post using terms like 'leeches', then goes on to suggest the 'media' is trying to force people to be lazy... I mean, that is just weird, man.
Welfare queens are an anomaly, and if you disagree with that I suggest doing a bit more research. Alternatively, your boots could simply be put on the ground for the moment, pulling yourself up through powers of levitation is limited by the effects of gravity. I believe the saying should be changed to "you can fly if you pull on your bootstraps enough".
Stormrider wrote:
As for stimulus in the form of Un-Employment checks, it isn't creating new spending. It's merely replacing already accounted for spending. There's no real stimulus.
Anything that serves to create demand through government spending is stimulus. If unemployment didn't exist, the demand it supports would not exist (as those collecting unemployment would have no individual income) therefore it is stimulus. The fact that it only comes into play in those conditions in which demand begins to fall is irrelevant.
Stormrider wrote:
If we were using stimulus money in the Keyensian way our recession would be over already. That Stimulus bill wasn't stimulus at all. It's a giant slush fund for projects that aren't appropriated for legitimately (which has been ignored for 90 years anyway).
Keynesians argue that deficit spending in periods of recession that feature persistently high unemployment minimizes the potential for the state to crowd the private sector out of the economy, and that the resultant accelerator effect would work to promote general economic growth. This deficit spending can come in the form of tax cuts, subsidies, public works programs, etc. but there is no specific Keynesian methodology of deficit spending outside the establishment of appropriate circumstances for its employ. All you're really saying is that the stimulus must not have been Keynesian because it hasn't performed to your expectations.
Also yes, it was stimulus, no economist in the world would ever claim it wasn't. They might claim that it wasn't administered effectively, or that it wasn't a good idea in the first place, but that doesn't change its fundamental nature.
Stormrider wrote:
As for perception of a tax rebate or cut. A rebate is a one time thing.
Rebates can occur in sequence, and in a way which can be anticipated; in fact that's pretty much the idea behind Friedman's negative income tax. Conversely, tax rates are relevant only in the periods (which can be anything from a short tax holiday to a decade) which they are relevant, there is nothing preventing the state from setting alternate tax rates in subsequent periods. The only thing that ensures the predictability of a given policy is the written language of the bill in which that policy laid down (and the willingness of politicians to avoid repealing or modifying said bill), everything else is little more than perception.
Stormrider wrote:
Once the money is spent or squirreled away it's gone.
This is true of all money, whether placed in the hands of consumers via tax cuts or rebates.
Stormrider wrote:
And since Ponser was speaking in generalities, it's pretty irrelevant how it's percieved but to what it actually is. A cut will always boost consumer spending where as a rebate is a mixed bag.
Any instance in which a given amount of currency is placed in the hands of consumer presents those consumer with the exact same set of choices. The only pertinent variable is the psychology surrounding future expectations, and that was the exact point Posner was making.
Stormrider wrote:
As per my statement about Productivity. What was normal 150 years ago (having a job, making money, not breaking the law, taking care of your family, not being a government mooch) is not regarded by Politicians or the media as normal. They view every little group of people that have social discrepancies as a group to exploit.
That's the nature of politics, as politics is the process by which groups of people make collective decisions.
Also, I'm not sure what political dialogue you're seeing, but I've not seen any indication that having a job is somehow unusual. Hell, most people in the US are employed; meaning that the most basic standard of normalcy (majority) indicates that employment is entirely normal. The same goes for everything in your list.
Stormrider wrote:
Look at the "Great Society" and "War On Poverty", those two programs were supposed to erase poverty and keep poor people & minorities from ever being in need. Look what they have done to the Black community, Black men have more incentive to not marry the mother of their kids so the mother can collect more dole from the Government. There's been trillions of dollars dumped into those programs and still nothing has changed. There's still the same underclass from the same demographics.
After the introduction of The War on Poverty the percentage of people below the poverty line fell from a variant range of 20-25% to 11-15%. You can argue that it didn't cause that drop, but then you have to account for it in an alternative manner; though I've not seen anything which can convincingly dismiss its role altogether.
I don't agree with the whole of the Great Society program, but its hard to argue that it hasn't affected the nation. After all, it included most of the relevant civil rights legislation, and Medicare/Medicaid. The latter of which I will grant has been mismanaged.
Here's a much better Democratic proposal for job-creation:
Alvin Greene wrote:Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That’s something that would create jobs.
So you see I think out of the box like that. It’s not something a typical person would bring up. That’s something that could happen, that makes sense. It’s not a joke.
Stormrider wrote:They always lead to suffering and loss of liberty. I don't want anyone to work for my benefit, nor should I work for anyone else's benefit. I want to be productive for my own gains and no one else's. I can't do that in our quasi fascistic USA now (which it has been since the 1880's)
Uh huh. Words have meaning, even words as loosely defined as fascism.
Oh, and the the myth of being wholly responsible for one’s own pay cheque is goofy. The modern economy is incredibly inter-connected, you can’t earn a decent wage without relying on the output of tens of thousands of people, who each in turn were only able to produce what they produced because of the inputs of tens of thousands of others. You get to work in a car that had countless people design and manufacture it, which was only possible because of the financing and organisation of a whole host of other people. You leave your car and walk into your building, and it’s the same story, thousands of people worked to make that building. You sit at your computer, same story again. Once your computer is on and your coffee is in your hand, then you start work as a single cog in a massive corporation, where the value of your work is dependant on the input of thousands of others in the company. The final product of that corporation, in turn, is dependant on the outputs of thousands of other companies. That’s the nature of the modern, sophisticated economy, and it is incredibly simplistic to take your pay cheque and assume ‘that’s what I produced, it is all mine by right’.
I don't like Leeches dogma.
Why does ‘leeches’ gets capitalised? Are they some formal, distinct group with subscriptions and weekly meetings and everything? If this is your first time at Leeches Club you have to Leech.
As for stimulus in the form of Un-Employment checks, it isn't creating new spending. It's merely replacing already accounted for spending.
That’s nonsense. The marginal spending habits of people at all manner of different incomes have been studied countless times, and nothing like your claim above has ever been observed. You don’t just get to make things up to suit your ideology, reality doesn’t work that way.
There's no real stimulus. If we were using stimulus money in the Keyensian way our recession would be over already.
Again, that’s nonsense. Stimulus spending doesn’t just end a recession, attempting to spend enough to completely remove a cyclical downturn would fraught with danger, and very likely to overheat the economy. A stimulus program is aimed to reduce the downturn.
That Stimulus bill wasn't stimulus at all. It's a giant slush fund for projects that aren't appropriated for legitimately (which has been ignored for 90 years anyway).
There are legitimate complaints that the funds could have been allocated more effectively. Certainly the tax cuts were of dubious value.
As for perception of a tax rebate or cut. A rebate is a one time thing. Once the money is spent or squirreled away it's gone. A cut lasts much longer and could a permanent reduction in withholdings (if legislated correctly). And since Ponser was speaking in generalities, it's pretty irrelevant how it's percieved but to what it actually is. A cut will always boost consumer spending where as a rebate is a mixed bag.
No, again, that’s nonsense. The benefit of a rebate is that it gets money into the hands of consumers very quickly, they in turn spend the money, this is the quickest way to stimulate demand. This is offset by it having a lower stimulus effect that other forms of spending, most notably infrastructure – however infrastructure spending takes a long time to prepare.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:Welfare queens are an anomaly, and if you disagree with that I suggest doing a bit more research. Alternatively, your boots could simply be put on the ground for the moment, pulling yourself up through powers of levitation is limited by the effects of gravity. I believe the saying should be changed to "you can fly if you pull on your bootstraps enough".
That bootstraps thing has always puzzled me. Okay, people say that the poor can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps… but you can’t actually pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
I mean, the US has the lowest rate of social mobility of any developed country, but even there it isn’t impossible to move from the lowest percentiles to a higher status. Its certainly a lot more likely than it is to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
My guess is the phrase came into existence as an exaggerated way to denote that a person had an especially large amount of grit, and so was able to do lift himself up in a way that may have been thought of as impossible. "Ole Billy there was born to a poor coal miner, but he pulled himself up by his bootstraps and became the CEO of Coal Inc in two years!"
So when people are using the phrase, they are suggesting doing the impossible, because Ole Billy did it.
I take it as a phrase used to cover up the lack of understanding and compassion an individual might have. We will breed a race of Rambos any time now, I swear! It is just taking longer than we thought.
To suggest that the impossible is indeed possible, your experiment is going to involve a feth-ton of Icarus' related results. At some point the ocean will fill up with hobos that thought they could fly, and we will all die from disease. Disease from Hobos, killing you. Terrible thought, really.
Along with having way too many dead hobos on our hands. Just can't have it, we need other options. Seriously.
Phryxis wrote:No question, all the places that have turned to Communism were pretty brutal places to begin with. But that brings two points to mind:
First, Communism is so transparently controlling, oppressive and dictatorial, that only people who are already in that situation will even consider it.
Second, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that Communism turned brutal, repressive countries into INSANELY brutal and repressive countries. The Tsars weren't the kindest and gentlest people, but they were looking to change and modernize even as the revolutionaries murdered them. And then the body count increased by several orders of magnitude in short order.
Take a look at the death of Alexander II. The lunacy of communism had already infected the Russian populace, and even when leadership attempted to give the people a better life, they just HAD to have their idiot revolution. Still, this gives a picture of just how "brutal and repressive" the monarchy was. They were looking to create a parliament, democratic reforms, etc. All Communism did was halt that progress, assure that something a hundred times worse would come about, and would last for a good 50 years and 30 million dead.
So, basically, while your facts are correct, your conclusions aren't. Communism doesn't have a history of near total failure because the people who try to implement it are bad people... On the contrary, it has a history of near total failure because it's an awful, awful system, and only bad people are stupid and damaged enough to think it will work.
I'm not sure how I missed this before. Can someone explain to me why people assume that the communism by nature is dictatorial? It seems to be the main point of disagreement, given that I have no such premises in mind when I think of communism; it's an economics system, not a political system. It can be directly democratic (and this seems to me to be the most favoured form of government by communists locally, though this is largely statistically irrelevant), a representative democracy, a totalitarian regime, a dictatorship...
It has, historically, been not a nice system to live under because the few governments who were attempting to run it were not nice governments. This would have been true no matter what kind of economy they had in place. It does not follow that because a dictatorship or totalitarian regime attempts communism that all who attempt communism will become, or are, dictatorships or totalitarian regimes.
sebster wrote:Okay, people say that the poor can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps… but you can’t actually pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
More importantly, what if I don't have bootstraps, or boots for that matter?
Maybe we stop calling it the welfare state, and start calling it the public cobbler.
Can someone explain to me why people assume that the communism by nature is dictatorial?
When I said it was "dictatorial" I didn't mean in the sense of a decisionmaking process, I meant more in terms of the fact that it just dictates everything.
In a Capitalist Democracy, an individual might decide to start a cookie company. Everyone might think that's a bad idea, and not going to work, but so long as it's done by the book, the individual can live his cookie dream.
In a Communist Democracy, even if 49.9% of the people want a cookie factory, if they're out voted, there will be no cookie factory. It's dictated by the vote that no cookie factory will be made.
All that said, the reason people tend to assume it has to be a dictatorship is because that's what it's always been. That would fit into the "theory is nice, but reality is reality" category.
Phryxis wrote:In a Capitalist Democracy, an individual might decide to start a cookie company. Everyone might think that's a bad idea, and not going to work, but so long as it's done by the book, the individual can live his cookie dream.
Actually, an interesting point that can be made is in a capitalist system there is usually nothing stopping the formation of a cookie company collectively owned by its employees. And, in fact, there are worker-owned co-ops in the United States right now. It calls into question the socialist claims of the model being more efficient, given that they never seem to become very prevalent.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The UK stock market shows that companies owned by their employees are about 10% more efficient/productive than companies which aren't.
The whole argument about executive pay and bonuses is to do with aligning the interests of the owners and the management.
Kilkrazy wrote:The UK stock market shows that companies owned by their employees are about 10% more efficient/productive than companies which aren't.
By "companies owned by their employees", do you mean companies owned 100% by their employees, split equally among them? Or do you mean something that doesn't fit the socialist model of equal ownership of the means of production by the working class, and is hence irrelevant to my point?
A company that gives stock to its executives isn't a worker's co-op by any stretch of the imagination, nor is a company that gives 80% of its employees 20% of its stock.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I'm not sure how I missed this before. Can someone explain to me why people assume that the communism by nature is dictatorial?
Thing is, it does tend to work out that communist regimes end up as totalitarian states. Now, I agree with you that it isn't enough for critics to assume some kind of absolute relationship between the two, because a communist system can theoretically exist as part of a democracy (that communists rarely pick up much of the vote is a whole other issue). But for those arguing for a communist system, I don't think it's really good enough to ignore the historical record, to gain some kind of credibility the communists need to study why past communist systems failed, and how future models can be different. They have failed to do that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Phryxis wrote:In a Capitalist Democracy, an individual might decide to start a cookie company. Everyone might think that's a bad idea, and not going to work, but so long as it's done by the book, the individual can live his cookie dream.
Actually, an interesting point that can be made is in a capitalist system there is usually nothing stopping the formation of a cookie company collectively owned by its employees. And, in fact, there are worker-owned co-ops in the United States right. It calls into question the socialist claims of the model being more efficient, given that they never seem to become very prevalent.
Yeah this. At the end of the day the most damning thing against communism is that very few people actually take it up for themselves. On a societal level it is almost always imposed by a minority, normally drawn from the bourgeousie, on the assumption that it's what the proletariat want. Meanwhile there seems to be little if any interest for it among the proles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:The UK stock market shows that companies owned by their employees are about 10% more efficient/productive than companies which aren't.
The whole argument about executive pay and bonuses is to do with aligning the interests of the owners and the management.
What does that tell us about capitalism?
That its theories are frequently used by self-motivated individuals to justify taking as much as they can from the trough.
Kilkrazy wrote:The UK stock market shows that companies owned by their employees are about 10% more efficient/productive than companies which aren't.
By "companies owned by their employees", do you mean companies owned 100% by their employees, split equally among them? Or do you mean something that doesn't fit the socialist model of equal ownership of the means of production by the working class, and is hence irrelevant to my point?
Any point I may make which contradicts your position is naturally irrelevant.
I said a worker-owned co-op, you cited one good example and then went off about executive compensation schemes and minor perks that have nothing to do with socialist/syndicalist theory. Those are irrelevant, what the socialists advocate is equal, universal ownership by the company's employees, and that's what a worker-owned co-op consists of.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now, don't get me wrong, it's not that I have a particular dislike for worker's co-ops. I'm happy with any form of organization they go with, and it's nice to see that the John Lewis Partnership is doing well. (I think I'd like to see more co-ops, although I think consumer-owned co-ops are going to fill more of a niche than worker-owned ones will.)
However, they are one of (if not the) best examples of the theory in action, and they're still only the third largest privately owned corporation in the UK, to say nothing of publicly owned corporations (the real competitor), or international rankings. They're also in a pretty favorable market niche, and they tie dividends to salary rather then distributing them equally (which, while certainly not invalidating their status as a co-op, is still a bit of a deference to capitalist ideas). And of course, they're an old company.
Overall, they're a good example of the idea done right, but they're also a demonstration of how the idea isn't catching on in the grand scheme of things. Thus, the socialist idea of transforming every corporation, in every industry, into a similar structure seems to be a poor one, especially given the promises they make regarding the outcomes (the end of unemployment, the end of the boom-bust cycle, the end of war, and so forth).
And if their revolution where ever to come, and they saw many people defect from their idea once implemented, then you would run into the secret police coming back to stop what they could only perceive as the "sabotage" of "reactionaries". In contrast, there are few capitalists I've met who mind people forming co-ops (and, in fact, many recognize that they will likely have valid roles in industry, though they are unlikely to dominate the field).
Orkeosaurus wrote:...they tie dividends to salary rather then distributing them equally (which, while certainly not invalidating their status as a co-op, is still a bit of a deference to capitalist ideas).
Actually, the idea that everyone gets the same pay in a communist society is a bit of a myth. There was no equal in any communist country. Doctors did, in fact, earn significantly more than janitors. It's just that it was more like 50% to 100% more, instead of 5 or 6 times as much.
I do agree with you, though, that such companies are rare, and for the most part they're getting rarer.
I actually know that most socialists don't support universally equal pay, it was that dividends from ownership in the company scale in the same way that surprised me. Not that it doesn't make sense, when you think about it.
). Nor is practical to assume the victory over France was based on sensible policy, Hitler’s generals fell into a successful operation, and benefitted from a deeply incompetent French opposition.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO NOT LISTEN ! There are things man is not supposed to do.
[/
