The disease of Liberalism

[iain]

slippin in with the mofo's!

[JayB]

Dr_Flash_Amazing said:

gohawks said:

Dr_Flash_Amazing said:

Up the Hammer and Sickle! Smash the corporate bourgeoisie! Equality for all!

 

Paraphrase of DFA: I'm a lazy worthless piece of shit. I don't care if other people work harder than I do to raise their families. They all owe me a cut!

 

You should be in the mob DFA. Or better yet, start a union.

 

Fuck are you on about, mate? Beauty of socialism is that everyone works hard, and everyone gets a cut.

 

And what does organized crime have to do with everyone getting their fair share? Organized crime has more in common with your glorious capitalist system wherein the wealthy elite bully and intimidate others into doing their bidding.

 

As for your apparent disdain for the labor union, you must be keen on a seven day, 80-plus hour work week in an unsafe, unhealthy environment, while you watch the meager pittance you're earning get funneled right back to the company to pay for your food (which you're forced to buy at the company store) and housing (i.e. your squalid single room with no plumbing or heat in a company-owned slum). Guess you DO believe in hard work.

 

Have fun licking those corporate boots, hooker. DFA's off to tend the garden and help Ivan and Alexander make some bread for tonight's dinner!

 

Funny thing is that organized labor has been one of the most persistently anticommunist organizations in the US for the duration of the 20th century, from Samuel Gompers to George Meany. Look these guys up on Google and learn why that was.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

JayB said:

 

 

Funny thing is that organized labor has been one of the most persistently anticommunist organizations in the US for the duration of the 20th century, from Samuel Gompers to George Meany. Look these guys up on Google and learn why that was.

 

Supercilious pedant.

[gohawks]

I'm no labor expert, but I do remember reading some crap in the GMAT reading comprehension section about how labor unions tried awfully hard to avoid the wrath of McCarthyism.

[Dru]

probably had somet5hing to do with the fact that the international communist movement was mainly led by europeans and the american union members, like most americans, will only be part of an international movement if they can run it.

[JayB]

Dru said:

probably had somet5hing to do with the fact that the international communist movement was mainly led by europeans and the american union members, like most americans, will only be part of an international movement if they can run it.

 

What they saw in Europe was middle class intellectuals taking over the labor movement for their own benefit, and doing relatively little to actually improve the lot of the workers. Most of the socialist intellectual leaders actually opposed or scoffed at legislative measures designed to improve pay and working conditions, arguing that supporting such measures would make the working class too comfortable to rebel. American labor leaders, Gompers in particular, had little interest in serving as canon fodder on behalf people who had never spent a day working with their hands, or being trapped in perpetual servitude to them while living in a totalitarian state supposedly being run for the benefit of the workers. They concluded that if they actually wanted to make things better for the workers, the best way to do so was to focus on small, incremental improvements in working conditions, pay, and the like under the protections that the constitution afforded.

[JayB]

Dr_Flash_Amazing said:

JayB said:

 

 

Funny thing is that organized labor has been one of the most persistently anticommunist organizations in the US for the duration of the 20th century, from Samuel Gompers to George Meany. Look these guys up on Google and learn why that was.

 

Supercilious pedant.

 

Guilty as charged. Now hit that search button on Google and do some reading.

[gohawks]

JayB said:

Dru said:

probably had somet5hing to do with the fact that the international communist movement was mainly led by europeans and the american union members, like most americans, will only be part of an international movement if they can run it.

 

What they saw in Europe was middle class intellectuals taking over the labor movement for their own benefit, and doing relatively little to actually improve the lot of the workers. Most of the socialist intellectual leaders actually opposed or scoffed at legislative measures designed to improve pay and working conditions, arguing that supporting such measures would make the working class too comfortable to rebel. American labor leaders, Gompers in particular, had little interest in serving as canon fodder on behalf people who had never spent a day working with their hands, or being trapped in perpetual servitude to them while living in a totalitarian state supposedly being run for the benefit of the workers. They concluded that if they actually wanted to make things better for the workers, the best way to do so was to focus on small, incremental improvements in working conditions, pay, and the like under the protections that the constitution afforded.

 

Gosh, that's even more boring than the reading comprehension on the GMAT

[j_b]

learning about labor history from JayB is equivalent to wanting to sport climb and taking lessons from Dwayner

[JayB]

j_b said:

learning about labor history from JayB is equivalent to wanting to sport climb and taking lessons from Dwayner

 

The critical difference being that whether or not one likes sport-climbing is a matter of personal opinion, while American organized labor's antipathy to collectivist ideologies and the regimes that enforced them is a matter of fact.

[Dru]

they were pretty friendly to sacco, vanzetti, alexander berkman, emma goldman etc., of course that was before mccarthyism, or maybe you don't consider anarchism to be collectivism, i'm not sure

 

 

[j_b]

ask dwayner if he thinks that saying 'sport climbing sucks' is a matter of fact.

[Beck]

WOW! I left the house this AM with a couple of hopeful "keep the thread alive"

posts, and come back from work (where I enjoy a liberally guaranteed wage and perks like overtime- (whoops! the republican party just cancelled that out for about 45% of american workers)

 

actually, gohawks and jb,

 

dr jay post is a rich historical post about the foundations of labor in America. If you do work in this country, I think his post is a great discourse on the development of organized labor and the resistance to engage the socialist model while determining this country's approach to big business.

 

the failure of the socialist model is evident in this country. But we are one of the few suppossed 'free market' democracies in the world. There is so much tarriffing, taxing, subsidying, exempting, and penalting, that this is not what I would construe as a free economic model,

 

but there are many examples of successful socialist countries all over the world that have better rates of child literacy, or health care, for instance. Higher taxes, but universal health care, better care of elderly, control of weaponry that makes our country the most dangerous to live in! despite all the war all over the world, a persons chance in america of being a victim of deadly violence is so much greater per capita here, than in almost all the countries in the world...

 

 

it is a confusing paradox. Liberals would be against gun control, if people could be entrusted to own them responsibly, like they do in Switzerland. lots less murder there, even though-

 

Every male occupied household in Switzerland has a gun. EVERY household, unless you have done time as a contientious objector or work at the post office as such, a CO, you serve in the swiss military-

 

 

now, THAT'S what I call a well regulated militia!!! (second amendment- a liberal document, not a conservative one)

 

 

my fifty cents...

 

 

[allthumbs]

Beck said:

despite all the war all over the world, a persons chance in america of being a victim of deadly violence is so much greater per capita here, than in almost all the countries in the world...

Hi Beck I think that is a perfect example of why this is a great country to live in. Just the fact that we aren't regulated to death makes us a much more interesting and pro-active society. My .02

-trask

[JayB]

Beck said:

but there are many examples of successful socialist countries all over the world that have better rates of child literacy, or health care, for instance. Higher taxes, but universal health care, better care of elderly, control of weaponry that makes our country the most dangerous to live in! despite all the war all over the world, a persons chance in america of being a victim of deadly violence is so much greater per capita here, than in almost all the countries in the world...

 

Beck:

 

My only objection to your post is that there are currently no examples of successful Socialist countries anywhere in the world, unless you consider North Korea a success. Every instance in which the government haas attempted to organize the economy in a manner that is consistent with Socialism in the true historical sense, by nationalizing major industries, abolishing private property, and the like have either aborted the experiment shortly after its inception or suffered decades of want and privation before conceding the point that the operation of the market is necessary for any economy to function. For examples of short lived experiments in true Socialism, take a look at how the British economy faired in the first few years of the Attlee administration, or what happened in the early 80's under Mitterand in France. It took all of a couple of years for both economies to go into a steep nosedive, and for each of these administrations to renounce the Socialist economic model in practice, though they retained the rhetoric. There are indeed quite a number of nations that are rhetorically committed to Socialism, but they are capitalist in practice in that they rely upon the markets to sustain their economies and to generate the tax revenue that funds their social services. Capitalism in which tax revenues are spent on social services is still capitalism, no matter how much lip-service the government or the citizens pay to Socialist ideals.

 

 

[EWolfe]

Ratboy said:

gohawks said:How else did the highest taxed state in the country with the largest GDP have a deficit?

 

Bush's buddies at Enron manipulatiing the electricity market had just a bit to do with it.

 

Also, the High Tech Crash was a big blow to California. The state never saved any money during the boom years, and instead developed a spending pattern similar to that of the now-bust dot-commers.

[gohawks]

Exactly. They spent all their money on the bull shit liberal projects I mentioned before. The only good that came out of it are they saved those damned from the butterflies.

[JayB]

MisterE said:

Ratboy said:

gohawks said:How else did the highest taxed state in the country with the largest GDP have a deficit?

 

Bush's buddies at Enron manipulatiing the electricity market had just a bit to do with it.

 

Also, the High Tech Crash was a big blow to California. The state never saved any money during the boom years, and instead developed a spending pattern similar to that of the now-bust dot-commers.

 

California could not have prevented the dot-com bust, but their electrical woes are entirely of their own making. In countries that proceeded with deregulation of electricity in a rational manner, as England did, there have been no such problems. In California, however, they elected to deregulate wholesale prices while keeping a cap on retail rates. The transparent idiocy of this policy should have been evident to anyone able to count to 5, as it crippled the price mechanism necessary to govern supply and demand in an open market. As soon as the wholesale rates that the utilities had to pay for power rose above the maximum rates that they could charge their consumers, they had no choice but to operate at a loss. Eventually some of the major utilities stopped paying the folks who sold them the power, at which point many of them either refused to sell them anymore, or were forced to cease operation for a lack of revenues, further reducing the supply of power available on the market and driving prices ever higher. If they had lifted the cap on retail prices, demand would have declined immediately as consumers reduced their consumption, and producers would have scrambled to bring more capacity online in response to the increased demand in the short term, and built additional generating capacity in the long term. Since they had no assurance that they would be paid for the power they generated in either case, they sensibly declined to do either. The administration in California further compounded their errors by signing long term contracts with power companies that obligate Californians to pay much more than the market rate for years to come. They are currently paying above market prices for quite a bit of electricity that they are not using, and selling it back to the market at a significant loss. They could have secured guaranteed prices for power at a much lower cost by hiring a summer intern from Stanford's MBA program to use sock-puppets and cartoons to explain both the concept and the use of futures contracts to protect oneself from major price swings in critical commodities, but apparently they neglected to do so. The bottom line is that the folks in Sacremento responsible for managing California's electrical market and supplies were utterly inept, and they are attempting to exculpate themselves by chanting the word "Enron" over and over. Apparently it's working on some people.

[Ratboy]

You guys are pretty intelligent and articulate for a bunch of climbers.

[j_b]

dr jay post is a rich historical post about the foundations of labor in America.

 

this is essentially not true. through the 30's, although the afl leadship (gompers) was indeed anti-'collectivist', the labor movement was not so. then came the 2nd wwar, then mccarthysm. check out 'a people history of the us' by zinn for further reference.

[Dru]

 

[JayB]

j_b said:

dr jay post is a rich historical post about the foundations of labor in America.

 

this is essentially not true. through the 30's, although the afl leadship (gompers) was indeed anti-'collectivist', the labor movement was not so. then came the 2nd wwar, then mccarthysm. check out 'a people history of the us' by zinn for further reference.

 

Gompers died in 1924. William Green took over thereafter, and George Meany replaced him in 1955. If the members wanted a Socialist at the helm, they would have elected one, no?

 

Meany fought communism, and communists, because he knew full well how the workers had fared under communist regimes. He was protecting American workers by crusading against both. He had sense enough to realize that collective bargaining with corporations in a democratic country is tough, but attempting to do the same with totalitarian regimes is both impossible and deadly.

[Fairweather]

How about this analogy?

 

pure capitalism = unroped solo climbing. Your govt belay is non-existent-but he will be there to scrape up your ugly pile at the base of the rock if you fall. No second chances...dont fuck up! These climbers are the best.

 

American capitalism = roped, belayed climbing. You don't want to take a long leader fall, but if you do, your government belayer won't let you get too banged up. ...you'll still have to finish the climb though! These are good strong independent, but not stupid, climbers.

 

Socialism = top rope. Don't worry about falling too much. Your govt belayer almost never fails to hold a fall. These climbers usually stick with what's comfortable. Eventually....they get fat and buy an RV.

 

 

Communism = no climbing allowed, except that which glorifies the collective and it's recently appointed totalitarian dictator. All expeditions must have a political officer present. Any climber that expresses or displays any independent thought or ideas will be sent "home" (by railcar) to mine gold, diamonds and uranium in sub-freezing temperatures.

[Beck]

...my posts don't favor one political model over aanother, but if you look at cuba, Jayb, a 'socialist' country facing blockades and embargos by a big brother nearby, has a BETTER literacy and less child birth deaths than the US-

 

 

huh? plus, look at the success of 'socialist' minded countries like the netherlands, or finland...

 

'socialist' is one of those terms that was reworked a hundred years ago to equate with the progression of communism,

 

yet, social notions by government or populace isn't inherently bad...

just taxing... some countries have no homeless except in the case of non compliant mentally ill, in this country we have dual income households living in shelters in san jose because the cost of housing is too high...

 

where is a non engaging, liberal approach (that is more republican than democrat) going to lead us?

big business, not individual rights, is the current status quo of focus in Washington. And it is astonishingly liberal, from both sides of the aisle..but it certainly does not favor the rights of the individual, as the liberal founding documents of our country lead us to believe...

 

its the era of American 'big business' liberalism...

 

 

[j_b]

Gompers died in 1924. William Green took over thereafter, and George Meany replaced him in 1955. If the members wanted a Socialist at the helm, they would have elected one, no?

 

this may be, but then this is certainly a different statement than your earlier posts on this topic (organized labor versus afl members, not electing versus being anti, etc ...). essentially, the same way the statement "sport climbing is less committing than trad climbing" is completely different from saying "sport climbing sucks".

 

note that some history book will say "gwb was elected by americans", which many of his contemporaries would object to in many more ways than one.

 

also note that i am not an ideologue either.