Forum Post: Liberal, Social, Conservative, Progressive, Republican, Democrat
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 27, 2011, 7:11 a.m. EST by JoeTheFarmer
(2654)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I find that most people are confused about the meaning of these terms. Often I see posts where people believe that liberal is the opposite of conservative or the Republican and conservative are the same thing.
Conservative vs Progressive
- A Conservative is disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions and is marked by moderation or caution.
- A progressive is more open to moderate change of political existing views, conditions, or institutions and is comfortable with aggressive change.
Liberalism, Socialism, Communism
- Liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.
- Socialism advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
- Communism takes state or collective control one step further where the actual goods are collectively owned and there is no private property.
Right vs Left wing
They relate to conservative and progressive groups within an organization. For example union can have a right and left wing.
There is a conservative wing in the Democratic Party and a Progressive wing in the Republican Party. If you look at his policies, George Bush was a progressive.
Republican Vs Democrat - These are both political parties
Since when did we replace the term Capitalism with Liberalism?
Today it's referred to as "classic liberalism" as the modern form is anything but.
So classic liberalism got hi-hacked by liberals and became more socialistic in nature?
The closest political philosophy to classical liberalism is libertarianism today.
I'm a bit left of center, so I'll pass on pure libertarianism.
You read that on CATO.
They do lie a lot, you know.
this guy is way off base - this is from chomsky - Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits, in the classic formulation. Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist, with whatever suffering and injustice that it entails, as long as it is possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an infinite garbage can. At this stage of history either one of two things is possible. Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity, sympathy and concern for others, or alternatively there will be no destiny for anyone to control. As long as some specialized class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves. But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole, and by now that means the global community. The question is whether privileged elite should dominate mass communication and should use this power as they tell us they must -- namely to impose necessary illusions, to manipulate and deceive the stupid majority and remove them from the public arena. The question in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured; they may well be essential to survival. .......................The political policies that are called conservative these days would appall any genuine conservative, if there were one around to be appalled. For example, the central policy of the Reagan Administration - which was supposed to be conservative - was to build up a powerful state. The state grew in power more under Reagan than in any peacetime period, even if you just measure it by state expenditures. The state intervention in the economy vastly increased. That's what the Pentagon system is, in fact; it's the creation of a state-guaranteed market and subsidy system for high-technology production. There was a commitment under the Reagan Administration to protect this more powerful state from the public, which is regarded as the domestic enemy. Take the resort to clandestine operations in foreign policy: that means the creation of a powerful central state immune from public inspection. Or take the increased efforts at censorship and other forms of control. All of these are called "conservatism," but they're the very opposite of conservatism. Whatever the term means, it involves a concern for Enlightenment values of individual rights and freedoms against powerful external authorities such as the state, a dominant Church, and so on. That kind of conservatism no one even remembers anymore.
There are no conservatives in the United States. The United States does not have a conservative tradition. The people who call themselves conservatives, like the Heritage Foundation or Gingrich, are believers in -- are radical statists. They believe in a powerful state, but a welfare state for the rich.
Everything Chomsky said is spot on. Left ideas appeal more to me than the right. The ideas proposed from that side seem convenient for accruing power rather than based on rational thinking.
Jeffrey Friedman argues that natural law libertarianism's justification for the primacy of property is incoherent: if...the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights (62), the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should... also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism... The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual's 'right to do wrong.~wiki
Capitalism is an economic system. Liberalism is a political ideology.
Capitalism fits well with liberalism because private ownership and protection of private property is a liberal idea.
Liberalism is broader in that covers freedom in general including speech and religion. Liberalism promotes limiting governments reach into our personal lives in that people should have freedom to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
another one for you - Personally I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions in the society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level -- there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy.
People lets get this straight. Capitalism is a economic system in which investments, production, distribution of common goods are controlled by private individuals or a group of individuals (Corporations). This is in contrast with other systems such as Socialism and Communism where the government controls the things listed above. Second we live in a Representative Democracy which means we elect officials who make decisions on our behalf. Straight Democracy does not work for example ancient Greece. Now there are always issues when an economic system tries to influence a political system and vise versa. Which is why we need to separate government's control on the economy and the economy's control over the Government. In conclusion Capitalism is not "Economic Facism". It is the greatest economic system we have to date there is no other better system out there. Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system before. But it is not perfect as nothing in this world is, there will always be people who are left behind and the economy will go up and down, that is unavoidable (anyone who tells you otherwise is living in a fairy tale). Communism does not work, look at Soviet Russia, it collapsed because it could not sustain itself. China does not have a Communist economy it is pure Capitalism. Greece is Socialist and because of that they have put the world on the edge of an Economic Disaster. People are talking about a Democracy economy which I have no idea what that is and no one has been able to elaborate on it so I cannot pass Judgement on it.
If anyone would like to debate this I would be more than happy to. I only ask that we refrain from sweeping accusations, profanity, and other inappropriate behavior.
God bless all of you and God bless America
Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system - no way my friend - fossil fuels are responsible for our wealth - read this and think about it!......The energy density in oil is just incredible. One 42-gallon barrel of oil…
…the energy you get from that is the equivalent of 25,000 man-hours of labor. That would be 12 people who did nothing but work for you all year long. Everything they did was for you, and the energy they would expend in that full year is the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil. ......... i notice you did not respond to the central point by chomsky that you cannot have democracy and capitalism - here is what madison thought - The constitutional system was originally designed “to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority,” in the words of the leading framer, James Madison. Political power, he explained, must be in the hands of “the wealth of the nation,” men who can be trusted to “secure the permanent interests of the country”—the rights of the propertied—and to defend these interests against the “leveling spirit” of the general public. If the public were allowed to participate freely in elections, Madison warned his colleagues, their “leveling spirit” might lead to measures to improve the conditions of those who “labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings.” Agrarian reform was the primary threat that Madison perceived; by now, it is much broader.
there is much you do not understand here - let's start with this - Property rights are not like other rights, contrary to what Madison and a lot of modern political theory says. If I have the right to free speech, it doesn't interfere with your right to free speech. But if I have property, that interferes with your right to have that property, you don't have it, I have it. So the right to property is very different from the right to freedom of speech. This is often put very misleadingly about rights of property; property has no right. But if we just make sense out of this, maybe there is a right to property, one could debate that, but it's very different from other rights.
Actually I do understand.
I did not say they were not different. The difference is one is a Natural Right and the other is a Civil Right.
Freedom of speech is a natural right or inalienable right and property rights are civil or legal rights.
Our founders created the first ten amendments us to be sure that the government would not take away natural rights and fundamental civil rights we would be secure in our property. The founders were very concerned with property rights because of the abuses of the British before the revolution when they quartered soldiers in people's homes and confiscated their property.
Guess I was confusing a Liberal with Liberalism. The terms are so similar I thought they were related.
another one for you - Personally I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions in the society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level -- there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy.
I've always found it ironic to live in a free country and go to work for a dictator everyday, so I get what you mean.
wage slavery - look at the debates in the 1850's - those that owned the slaves said we treat our workers better than you treat yours since we own ours and you just rent yours - some truth to that!
Noted it in my file for research. Thanks again.
They are related but people misuse them all the time. A liberal traditionally means someone who believe in liberalism (liberty, freedom, limited government). Since the term has been misused so often we now call that person a "classical liberal".
wage slavery - now there is something to discuss! In the United States, the political system is a very marginal affair. There are two parties, so-called, but they're really factions of the same party, the Business Party. Both represent some range of business interests. In fact, they can change their positions 180 degrees, and nobody even notices. In the 1984 election, for example, there was actually an issue, which often there isn't. The issue was Keynesian growth versus fiscal conservatism. The Republicans were the party of Keynesian growth: big spending, deficits, and so on. The Democrats were the party of fiscal conservatism: watch the money supply, worry about the deficits, et cetera. Now, I didn't see a single comment pointing out that the two parties had completely reversed their traditional positions. Traditionally, the Democrats are the party of Keynesian growth, and the Republicans the party of fiscal conservatism. So doesn't it strike you that something must have happened? Well, actually, it makes sense. Both parties are essentially the same party. The only question is how coalitions of investors have shifted around on tactical issues now and then. As they do, the parties shift to opposite positions, within a narrow spectrum.
Thomas Jefferson, the leading Enlightenment figure in the United States, along with Benjamin Franklin, who took exactly the same view, argued that dependence will lead to "subservience and venality", and will "suffocate[s] the germs of virtue". And remember, by dependence he meant wage labor, which was considered an abomination under classical liberal principles.
Neither party is about fiscal conservatism. They are both big spenders. Once in office they believe it is their job to "bring home the bacon" to their districts.
"When people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"
-- Benjamin Franklin
another one for you - Personally I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions in the society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level -- there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy.
If you are talking about Direct Democracy am am against that idea. There are too many cases where minorities have lost out under that type of system.
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”
To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation.
Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan.
let's not lecture too much on what you think the term means since it has a meaning defined by it's founder -The Italian dictator Benito Mussolini defined fascism as the merger of the State and the Corporation. It is that social system in which the interests of the State and the corporations merge together This is the quintessential characteristic of a fascist state. Contrary to popular belief the defining characteristic of a fascist state is not a charismatic leader.In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism. ...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism;After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....
...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....
...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State.... Fascism (play /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] It advocates the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and family policy (such as eugenics).[3][4] This state is led by a supreme leader who exercises a dictatorship over the fascist movement, the government and other state
That's what I said. Fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer
this is not socialism in any way - The Italian dictator Benito Mussolini defined fascism as the merger of the State and the Corporation. It is that social system in which the interests of the State and the corporations merge together - the state and the corporation are both the opposite of socialism - unless you are thinking the soviet system was socialist - it was not - it was a state capitalist system - corporations under fascism were privately held
Definition of Socialism
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
From Princeton University http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism
Others http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
Karl Marx considered socialism an interim step towards communism where the actual goods and not just their production are owned in common.
collective or governmental ownership -Karl Marx considered socialism an interim step towards communism where the actual goods and not just their production are owned in common. - correct - corporate ownership is not collective ownership (it could be but rarely has been) - the corporations in germany and italy remained in private hands. also there is a difference between the government and the state so do not confuse the two
Why does your post not have a reply link?
What is true socialism?
I am talking from a economic system and both socialism and fascism have strong government control over industry and the economy whereas liberalism tends to less government control and free markets.
The fascists were left wingers since they sought extensive political reform. The National Socialist Workers Party came to power because of the WWI debt and the monetary policies of the Weimar Republic that devalued the dollar. They took over industries and created things like the Volkswagen "people's car" They took over other companies like Krupps. They also nationalized transportation and banks. They even nationalized the Deutsche Bank, you know where OWS NYGC holds their meetings.
In the case of the fascists and the socialists the national interest was expanding their control over other countries. The Nazis tried to take over western Europe and later the USSR tried to take over Eastern Europe.
no idea about the reply link - genghis khan sought extensive reform - that does not mean he is a left winger! you are turning the definitions on their head - henry ford was not a socialist nor fdr or the state dept - they all liked the fascists as long as they went at the soviets. The National Fascist Party of Benito Mussolini came to power in Italy in 1922, at the end of a period of social unrest. Working class activism was at a high point, militant trade unions were organizing increasingly frequent strikes to demand workers' rights, and the Italian Socialist Party was making significant electoral gains. This caused widespread fear among Italian business circles and part of the middle class, who believed that a communist revolution was imminent. With the traditional right-wing parties appearing incapable of dealing with the situation, King Victor Emmanuel III turned to the young Fascist movement, which he considered to hold a hardline right-wing orientation by violently suppressing strikes, and appointed Benito Mussolini prime minister. Soon after his rise to power, Mussolini defined his economic stance by saying: "The [Fascist] government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy."[16] - the following shows that the fascio did not symbolize people but power - The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, "bundle, (political) group," but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. - this does show that they were authoritarian and not liberals - "Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."
_Benito MussoliniFascists particularly loathed the social theories of the French Revolution and its slogan: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity."
* Liberty from oppressive government intervention in the daily lives of its citizens, from illicit searches and seizures, from enforced religious values, from intimidation and arrest for dissenters; and liberty to cast a vote in a system in which the majority ruled but the minority retained certain inalienable rights.
* Equality in the sense of civic equality, egalitarianism, the notion that while people differ, they all should stand equal in the eyes of the law.
* Fraternity in the sense of the brotherhood of mankind. That all women and men, the old and the young, the infirm and the healthy, the rich and the poor, share a spark of humanity that must be cherished on a level above that of the law, and that binds us all together in a manner that continuously re-affirms and celebrates life.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism#ixzz1hqn2gJUy
You are missing the point
Under socialism the corporations are owned by the state, state run banks, state run energy, state run agriculture, state run transportation, state run auto industry...
Under fascism the corporations are private but must work for the national interest. Also, fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography.
seems to me that this is your main point and it is absolutely incorrect - In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. - the fascists used the term socialist as cover but they were anything but - which is why fdr and the state dept and the industrialists (henry ford - that big lefty!) liked them - they broke unions and made the country a good place for investment - the opposite of true socialism. you seem to want to make the fascists some sort of lefties and that is for sure incorrect! if the terms mean anything the right stands for the wealthy classes and the left for the unwashed masses - now the right would not like to frame it that way but in essence that is it and you will have a tough time showing anything different! by the way i think the state is the wrong term - in socialism the government or the people own the means of production but the state is usually defined as the institutions of violence and repression - the army and the police. thus allende had control of the gov't in chile but not the state and that was his undoing! the next question is what is the national interest - the is no national interest - only competing interests - if the dollar is strong it hurts exports and helps imports - who do you want to help is always the question and it is always framed by those in power as the NATIONAL INTEREST!
This has been an informative post. Thanks.
last one for now - the farmer is a fool or a tool - hard to know which one - wage slavery is an interesting topic to research! In the United States, the political system is a very marginal affair. There are two parties, so-called, but they're really factions of the same party, the Business Party. Both represent some range of business interests. In fact, they can change their positions 180 degrees, and nobody even notices. In the 1984 election, for example, there was actually an issue, which often there isn't. The issue was Keynesian growth versus fiscal conservatism. The Republicans were the party of Keynesian growth: big spending, deficits, and so on. The Democrats were the party of fiscal conservatism: watch the money supply, worry about the deficits, et cetera. Now, I didn't see a single comment pointing out that the two parties had completely reversed their traditional positions. Traditionally, the Democrats are the party of Keynesian growth, and the Republicans the party of fiscal conservatism. So doesn't it strike you that something must have happened? Well, actually, it makes sense. Both parties are essentially the same party. The only question is how coalitions of investors have shifted around on tactical issues now and then. As they do, the parties shift to opposite positions, within a narrow spectrum.
Thomas Jefferson, the leading Enlightenment figure in the United States, along with Benjamin Franklin, who took exactly the same view, argued that dependence will lead to "subservience and venality", and will "suffocate[s] the germs of virtue". And remember, by dependence he meant wage labor, which was considered an abomination under classical liberal principles.
"The Money Party' is another way I've heard it described. Somebody else said so thin you could slide a piece of paper between the two parties.
Gotta run right now. I'll make a point to do some reading on wage slavery. and Chomsky. Thanks
Liberalism goes back to the enlightenment. If you don't know that, your understanding of politics is as rudimentary as fans rooting for football teams. Just keeping it real...
Just Curious, Did someone say liberalism did not go back to the enlightenment?
It was in fact the writings of Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes influenced out Libertarian founding fathers.
Learn something new everyday....
My understanding of American history is that the Constitution was, and is, a contract between the Liberals, capitalists from Virginia, and the religious, Puritans from Plymouth Rock. The names change but the values stay the same.
The constitution is a document that lays out the form of government and has nothing to do with religion, Puritans, or capitalists. The constitution has little if nothing to do with values.
The first ten amendments constitute the Bill of Rights. Some people consider them "values" but they are really just protections. Every one of them deals with limiting the power of the federal government.
Wow, that is what's wrong with people who think they know everything; they are the most close minded people there are, case in point your ability to tell me shit I learned in my first year in college. I know what the Constitution is, but i also know the social arrangements that existed during that era. A capitalist like a Puritan is just a name given to people with a world view. The Virginia tobacco plantations in James town are today's modern day capitalists. The people leaving London because of religious persecution are modern day Christians. What liberals teach in college is the liberal perspective. What Christian colleges teach in their universities is the Christian perspective. Do you honestly believe these guys could have formed a Union without a contract. Also, to go a step further, why do you believe that London does not have a constitution? Could it be that their society is more homogeneous than ours. If we were all liberals, we would not need no bloody Constitution because we would all be on the same page and the laws would codify the sameness. this is the view I get from reading the Founders' books, not the federalist papers which is purely political jargon, but their other books that depict the times and the culture the constitution was signed in. It is a compact between religious folks and the decedents of the first tobacco growers, in my opinion, which is based on my studies. As far as i'm concerned and am most perturbed about, is that last section that deals with the religious litmus test has been uncodified and violated.
Are you sure you went to college? If you did, either you were not paying attention, you had bad professors, or you forgot what you learned.
Your post made it sound like the constitution was about Puritans and the folks in Jamestown who arrived in the early 1600s. By 1789, almost 200 years later, there were 13 colonies made up of Methodists, Quakers, Atheists, Protestants, Catholics, Lutherans and many others. They were farmers, blacksmiths, silversmiths, doctors, lawyers, printers, shipbuilders, etc.They were setting up a government after winning their independence. Sure it is a contract but is is all about the branches of government and the role of the federal government and the states in the union.
By the way London is a city and not a country. It dates back at least to the year 121 AD. London is part of the United Kingdom (UK) DOES have a constitution.
To make a statement "If we were all liberals" makes no sense because we are not all liberals. Even if we were all liberals we would need a constitution and a government. There is a difference between limited government and no government
If you want to get and idea of what the constitution is about you may want to read the writings of James Madison. Also, founders took most of their ideas from Jaques Rousseau, John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes.
lets say that we are having social problems today, what a coincidence we are. Would it be ignorant of me to go to the gilded age and review my history to today and come up with a theory on how we got here. No, It wouldn't. In fact, i believe i'd have a better understanding than the person who just researched this era and wanted to know what was wrong. It is the same logic that people brighter than me and you use to get a historic perspective. After all, how did Marx come up with is historical analysis. He researched history and pontificated about its implications. That is how out of the box thinking is done. Do you really believe a lot changed from 1492 to 1776. do you think that all the differnt perspectives came together and started singing kum by ya. No, there is nothing new under the sun and the same factions that we see today are the same beefs that took place back then. but if you want to debate semantics, we can? I believe history is just one big roller coaster that goes up and down, round and round. Also, I have two of the three books you suggest I read. Rousseau is the best. Thomas Pain is my second best. What can I say, I like the social deviants and the eccentrics. Thomas Hobbes, on the other hand, was just a scared little bitch who hated change. Maybe it had to do with his social status. John Locke and the social contract is my bases for my Constitutional Hypothesis. though I find contention with Locke's rationalization of stealing the Indian's land because we were better stewards. But, hay you can't win them all.
"Do you really believe a lot changed from 1492 to 1776?"
Yes I do. In fact I believe a lot changed from 1607 to 1789 which are the years we were talking about.
History was never my favorite subject. Thanks for the info.
Republican: An individual who believes that the white male Christian God should be the only object of worship on the planet, that power and wealth should remain in the hands of 1% of the world's population while the remaining 99% starve, that health care should be privatized so the poor can't afford basic medication, that a rape victim living on welfare should be forced to care for a baby she didn't even ask for, and that America is the only real country on Earth while all those other countries they read about are just fakes invented by communists ... er, terrorists.
Democrat: A Republican in disguise.
Libertarian: Someone who wants to take America back to the way it was in the 1800s, regardless of how much the world has changed since then. Libertarians have a serious hard-on for "free markets" (unregulated capitalism), believing that the "Invisible Hand" will erase poverty and create a utopia instead of what actually happens when you let companies do whatever they want (The Great Depression, The Savings and Loan Crisis, The Dot Com Bubble, The Housing Bubble, ENRON, WorldCom, Union Carbide, Long-Term Capital Management, Tyco, The Second Great Depression, Bernie Madoff, etc., etc., etc.,. etc., ...).
Independent: A former Democrat or Republican who changed party for political expediency. The illusion of "none of the above".
Hi Uncomonsense, Good post. Best Regards, Nevada
I'll vote for that.
Might want to do some reading since you don't seem to understand what a Libertarian wants. I would trust the "Invisible Hand" much more then several hundred elected officials working in DC as it isn't trying to remain in power, it just is. As for unregulated? not true at all. Regulation is fine as long as it doesn't start getting into the details of how something should be done. I have no problem with limiting the pollution output of cars or power plants, what I object to is setting up a system for trading carbon credits. This is just a cover for making a few people rich setting up the system and not really limiting pollution.
Supplysider, you either have all the chips, meaning you have millions of dollars, or you are clueless about human nature. Are you going to trust a company to do the right thing, such as, dump toxic waste in an approved place, when his or her bottom line dictates it is more profitable to dump it in your drinking water? I, honestly, believe you are a working class slob hopped up on free market fundamentals. Your hard-on for the government has blinded you to the fact that the invisible hand of the market is no better than the hand of God, both fairy-tales to dazzle and rouse the rabble. If the government fell tomorrow, the power vacuum would be filled and incorporated by the new year. Also, you can take the hokey supply side pseudo science and hang it next to the Laffer Curve in the box labeled epic failure. Reagan and his idiocy are dead, thank goodness. New logic dictates unregulated capitalism is no better than an over reaching Nanny state, both are poisons to be played off one another for the common good. Giving either one of them carte blanche authority is to give your freedom to a king.
I have greater faith in corporation to do the right thing, when backed by legal enforcements of the law. What I have NO faith in is the government doing the right thing, with no oversight whatsoever, and please don't say elections. Politicians have figured out how to buy 50.1% of the vote with handouts to various groups, and no I don't mean only welfare. I understand human nature very well and do not implicitly trust corporation to always do the right thing. You seem to forget that there is still the enforcement of laws on companies. If they dump toxic waste they would be forced to pay to clean it up and repair the damage.
Reagan failed, as most Presidents do, because he did not reign in the spending power of congress as he should have. Cutting taxes and shrinking the size of the government is the only way out of this mess. We have the largest sized federal bureaucracy ever, would you make the claim that we are better off today then we have ever been? I wouldn't.
Oh, and I am neither, but almost the first. I have an engineering degree and two Masters and am doing pretty well in the saving department, being about 3/4 of the way to a million by age 50.
Well, I guess I'll give you the most ultimate social lesson of your life. Because you are such an autonomous individual and your only allegiance is to your bottom line, I'm going to fight my damnedest to ensure my bloated Gov't eats more of your lunch. After all, the fact that you got so much lunch, and you bitch over the gov't eating some of your lunch, I feel it is my duty to re-appropriate your lunch for the common good. Who knows, maybe without so much lunch you will be a little humbler with the lunch you have. Good luck with all that lunch; I hope you don't choke on it. I'd hate to have my health care premium go up because your dumb ass choked, got sent to the hospital, and cut into my health care provider's profits.
I never said my only allegiance was to my bottom line. I give to various charitable organization, both time and money. As far as taking more of my lunch, you will need to stop all the social engineering going on by the Fed. I max out my 401K saving every year, $22K this year, utilize the education credits for one of my college age kids, among many others. I drive a Prius and have Solar arrays on my roof, oh, by the way, thank you for paying a portion of the cost, I would never have gotten them without tax-payer support. I take advantage of whatever legal means there are to deprive the Fed of my earnings, and if you succeed at going after some, I will simply change tactics or stop working so much and live off my savings.
The fact that you connive and scheme to subvert the tax code proves where your allegiance lies. Let me guess you supported a think tank/ lobby to put those loopholes in the tax code. After all, ain't that how you supply siders work, suck the social safety net dry, then get up in your old age and fight to leave the rest of us at the mercy of the market. You realize that to leave us reliant on the exorbitantly high cost court system for economic justice is to leave the working poor at the mercy of plantation owners. Can you say Jim crow 2.0?
That's it, when all else fails resort to racism.
I don't connive or scheme to subvert anything, tax breaks for education, energy efficiency, saving for retirement, mortgage interest were all put in place to engineer a certain behavior. What is wrong with my performing that behavior? If they all went away, I would have no problem with it, as long as all the rest of the federal programs go with it? Next you will tell me I hate the poor and uneducated, but since when are those supposed to be federal programs? I would argue that they are meant to enslave the American people, get them hooked on all these safety net programs and you have guaranteed a loyal following.
The progressives are the ones that want to put the poor back on the plantations. Socially engineer the conditions and the solutions to keep "them" in their places. Americans have always been good at over coming adversity, but over the past 60-80 years there has been too much "Mothering" of the American people, allegedly for their own good.
[Removed]
Don't forget to petition the Justice Department to start prosecuting the economic criminals. There has to be accountability.
This is why we are here this is why you are needed.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/inside-job-documentary/
Share, circulate, educate, inspire.
See also people from all walks of life, from all over the political map "not" supporting a party or leader or group of leaders but "supporting an Ideal".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Bgqt1YYko
The National Fascist Party of Benito Mussolini came to power in Italy in 1922, at the end of a period of social unrest. Working class activism was at a high point, militant trade unions were organizing increasingly frequent strikes to demand workers' rights, and the Italian Socialist Party was making significant electoral gains. This caused widespread fear among Italian business circles and part of the middle class, who believed that a communist revolution was imminent. With the traditional right-wing parties appearing incapable of dealing with the situation, King Victor Emmanuel III turned to the young Fascist movement, which he considered to hold a hardline right-wing orientation by violently suppressing strikes, and appointed Benito Mussolini prime minister. Soon after his rise to power, Mussolini defined his economic stance by saying: "The [Fascist] government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy."
I understand the Wikipedia has a wealth of information but since anyone can post it there I prefer not to use it as a source.
The other information you posted was originally from marxist.org and came from a movement in Europe seeking to spread communism over fascism.
You cannot deny that socialism, communism and fascism all advocate strong government control over the production and distribution of goods and services. How that marriage exists differs in all three but the tight connection exists.
do not agree at all - this first from my boy noam (since no one can really argue with him!) - "Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation. As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, "this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie," but can only be "realized by the workers themselves being master over production." Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism" ... ... the full (well not really full) explanation follows in a bit. you are mixing systems - economic and political - you can have a socialist democracy or an authoritarian capitalist system. you say that tight connection exists in all three - which communist system are you talking about - you can't be thinking the soviets - here again is my boy noam - "When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction. ..It is also worth noting the great appeal of Leninist doctrine to the modern intelligentsia in periods of conflict and upheaval. This doctrine affords the 'radical intellectuals' the right to hold State power and to impose the harsh rule of the 'Red Bureaucracy,' the 'new class,' in the terms of Bakunin's prescient analysis a century ago. As in the Bonapartist State denounced by Marx, they become the 'State priests,' and "parasitical excrescence upon civil society" that rules it with an iron hand.
In periods when there is little challenge to State capitalist institutions, the same fundamental commitments lead the 'new class' to serve as State managers and ideologists, "beating the people with the people's stick," in Bakunin's words. It is small wonder that intellectuals find the transition from 'revolutionary Communism' to 'celebration of the West' such an easy one, replaying a script that has evolved from tragedy to farce over the past half century. In essence, all that has changed is the assessment of where power lies. Lenin¹s dictum that "socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people," who must of course trust the benevolence of their leaders, expresses the perversion of 'socialism' to the needs of the State priests, and allows us to comprehend the rapid transition between positions that superficially seem diametric opposites, but in fact are quite close.
The terminology of political and social discourse is vague and imprecise, and constantly debased by the contributions of ideologists of one or another stripe. Still, these terms have at least some residue of meaning. Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation. As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, "this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie," but can only be "realized by the workers themselves being master over production." Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances. But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.
I can deny it. Fascism led to massive privatization and fascist regimes had generally low taxes. They thought they were free is a good start. The german economy had the same kind of government controls any other country at war has for german businesses, even often less, as they didn't gear up for a full war economy until 1942 when they realized the soviet union was not, in fact, keeling over and dying on sight of their virile aryan supermen.
Austrian fascism even adopted austrian economics. Fascism is capitalism in decay, end of.
You are mixing up ownership with control. I never said that businesses were not private under fascism. In fact if you actually read what I wrote I said the exact opposite.
For example while banks remained private they were subservient to the German Military Bank Commissariat.
While automakers were private they were told what to produce under the authority of the Society for the Preparation of the German Volkswagen.
You can best see the socialist like leaning of the National Socialist Workers Party (NAZI) in their charter called the "25 Points" (especially 11, 14, 15, 16, 21, and 25)
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm
Except all these military authorities had to do with gearing up for war, all capitalist countries have that degree of control.
I would also note that many of the 25 points were cribbled from capitalist policies so it's not particularly interesting.
In my earlier post I stated that Fascism is Socialism with a CAPITALIST veneer.
Creating the volkswagen" or "people's car", state run of health care, and many of the other things had nothing to do with gearing up for the war. Yes many things did
Except it's not socialist.
The Volkswagen was only created AFTER the war. German healthcare was not state run but largely privatized, the public healthcare system was created by the SDP in the 20s. Just like the "socialist" and "trains run on time" policies of the italian fascists were the result of the socialist policies of the socialist party of italy, which Mussolini progressively dismantled.
I never said it was socialist, I said it was fascist. I am not going to explain it again.
As for the cars, I never said anything about the company. The Volkswagens were commissioned by Hitler and made by Porsche before and all through the war.
http://people.westminstercollege.edu/staff/bknorr/graphics/present38.jpg
[Removed]
These are catagorizations that don't in any way reflect the complexities of the real world. What's your point, other than to muddy people's thinking with passe' and inadaquate "definitions".
My point is that people often confuse party and political ideology. Many seem to think that just because someone is a republican that means they are conservative and that conservative means small government.
George W Bush increased the size and scope of government with the creation of the Patriot Act, TARP, TSA, No Child Left Behind, Medicare prescription Drug Benefit the largest entitlement program created since LBJ, and more regulations than any other president in history including Sarbanes-Oxley.
I agree with what you say about Bush, but Republicans haven't been "conservatives" by any definition of the word in over thirty years.
Agree, maybe after the repeal of ObamaCare and the other programs created under this president, we can get to work dumping the rest of these stupid laws.
The problem with over simplifications is that they are over simplifications. For one thing the discussion at the beginning of this thread completely excludes anarchism, which has been an extremely significant tendency in OWS from the beginning.
Also, to reduce socialism to government control of the means of production would mean that the pyramids were a socialist project which is not a position that any competent scholar of whom I am aware would take. It would also mean that the post office was a socialist institution, which is not a position that the founding fathers, who made provisions for the Post Office in the Constitution, would make.
Socialism has always been about democratic control and social ownership of the means of production. Exactly what social ownership means is a complicated question. In some situations where the state is extremely democratic it might mean statification, though for most socialists statification is a choice of last resort and not the center piece of their vision.
Speaking only for myself, I have been a social activist for nearly 50 years and in that time I have encountered hundreds of socialists in half a dozen different social movements. In no case was I ever primarily moved by abstract notions of a future socialist society. What did move me was that activists who were democratic socialists were the bravest, most self assured, most selfless and empathetic, most articulate, most politically coherent and had the greatest personal and political integrity of anyone I had ever met. And in terms of their political coherence it was not about abstract notions of the future or baseless demands. On the contrary it was socialists and other democratic radicals who, in my personal experience, had the best and most practical ideas regarding where the movement should go next on a tactical and strategic basis.
Liberalism has pretty much lost its meaning for nearly a century now. If both Jefferson and FDR can both be considered liberals then the term is without any particular meaning as the first was anti-statist and the latter remarkably statist.
Classical liberalism is much more akin to what is called libertarianism today whereas the so-called liberalism of FDR is probably best characterized as progressivism in which the state is viewed as a positive force that can be deployed on behalf of popular needs (or for that matter, unpopular needs, like for example, propping up failing banks).
There is a difference between a government run program, as social program, and socialism as a political system.
You can have government run public works projects in a capitalist system. The interstate highway system is a good example of that.
You can have social programs in a capitalist system. Social Security, unemployment, Medicare, and Welfare are examples of this. Wanting more of these programs does not mean you are a necessarily a socialist.
The definition of a socialist system is that the government controls the means of production of goods and services, Under such a system the government controls the banks steel mills, oil production, agriculture...
Putting the postal system under government control is closer to socialism than the examples above however because private couriers exist it is not a truly socialist system. It was actually created before the constitution by the continental congress because it was the only way to communicate and they needed to be sure messages were not intercepted. Now there are private postal companies like UPS, DHL, and FedEx that get the job done more efficiently than the USPS.
Macro economic courses puts the pyramid in the same boat as the gov't paying people to dig a ditch, then paying other people to fill the ditch, which is kinda socialistic. no?
That strikes me as an extremely reactionary distortion of my experience of what socialism is, but then my experience with socialism has to do with meeting actual human beings who openly considered themselves socialists, not with some ideology in a book. In my experience the socialists that I met were less interested in some abstract future society than in the here and now and not will digging ditches or filling them up, no matter who sponsored such projects. What they were interested in was building a mass culture of opposition to the status quo on whatever slender reeds were available to do that,
Well, If they would have known American history and the knee jerk, negative response the word socialist has on us, they would have had the for sight to call themselves Progressives. At least that is what smart people of a bygone era did. Whether you respect the capitalist or not, you should learn from his advertising and branding knowledge. I am all about helping the working class, but I am also a strategical thinker and a pragmatist, who uses his words wisely. no?
In ten years in the 1930s and 1940s nearly 3 million people passed through the Communist Party, yet it was like trying to find a needle in a haystack to find anyone who would actually admit to ever having been a Communist. When questioned, it was always "nobody here but us progressives." This was not an entirely dishonest answer as most of the time their actual politics were indistinguishable from progressivism,
Radicals in OWS have taken a very different political approach, They are completely open about their politics and their political influences and feel to do otherwise would be disingenuous and dishonest.
I would not characterize lying about who you are or what you are or denying who you are or what you are as using one's words wisely.
The fact is there was a mass culture of opposition in the US, a group of people who did not deny their politics or mischaracterize them. That was during the peak years of the Socialist Party in the first two decades of the last century which was brutally smashed by the Justice Department for its opposition to America's entry into World War I.
I got that memo too, and I fully understand your assertion. But my view is that you have to make concessions to survive in a republic and taking the extreme view never made anyone any friends. Look at the libertarians and their crusade, they have opted to use the nuclear option and their opposition is dead set on any of their views ever seeing the light of day. Even though I believe their view on social regulation conforms to my preferences, I will not swallow their whole pill.
Nobody is further from an anarchist than a labor bureaucrat. Yet OWS, strongly and openly influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition, reached out to the labor movement in the earliest days of the occupation and as a result built an alliance between sections of organized labor and the radical intelligentcia the likes of which have not been seen since the 1940s, and they did this without hiding, masking or obfuscating their actual thinking in any way. Their outreach was an act of solidarity and they asked nothing for it in return. There are at least a dozen other stories like that regarding successful outreach on the part of the most radical sectors of OWS and no successful success stories on the part of more moderate tendencies in OWS of which I am aware.
That, it strikes me, is a pretty dramatic demonstration of effective compromise. That is, in doing outreach the OWS radicals did not in any way compromise their own values or point of view, but neither did they ask those to whom they were reaching out to compromise their values or view point.
What compromise was necessary between the OWS radical ptb and organized labor?
I see their coming together as a mutually beneficial natural alliance. OWS started out as a direct action movement. Organized labor was born of direct action.
I don't see this as any great OWS success story. Each is using the other for their own purposes, and the other doesn't mind being used. It's not so much "success", as it is symbiotic.
The press covered the protests at Madison, which was occupied.
It was precisely beneficial to both OWS and sections of organized labor to find some commonality, but it was by no means obvious nor automatic. If anything it was rather astonishing. After all virtually all of organized labor has been rather openly hostile to the radical left since the 1940s. In some instances this has been openly expressed by unionized workers actually beating up radical organizers and demonstrators. So, the alliance between OWS and sections (not all) of organized labor is a real breakthrough.
The compromise on the part of OWS to me is that while they have not abandoned their radical vision, they do not demand that others share that vision in order to reach out and act in solidarity with them.
I would tend to agree that OWS is not a particular success story, but that is because it is so new, so it's hard to tell whether it will be a success or not. It is, after all, only weeks old and not especially fair to measure against movements that have decades and even several lifetimes of experience behind them.
But viewed from the perspective of its so far very short life OWS has been enormously successful. Virtually within days of when the occupation of Zuccotti began it exploded not simply into a national movement, but into an international movement and there are occupations all over the world that developed directly in solidarity with OWS.
Its alliance with organized labor is definitely modest, but also quite dramatic when viewed in the context of the hostility that existed between organized labor and radical ideas and movements prior to OWS.
OWS has also reached out successfully to other sectors of society: to student debtors, to the environmental movement, to sections of the religious community, to the homeless, to people being foreclosed and evicted, to the stop stop and frisk movement and to other sectors of society. About the only sector of society that OWS has yet to enjoy significant success with is the genteel and unorganized middle class, but that's a lot to ask of such a new movement. After all the genteel middle class has not especially demonstrated that anyone can successfully organize it so far.
I will say that in my personal experience, spending a day at an occupation is a life changing experience for most people, even for people with genteel and middle class sensibilities, which is why I recommend it as the single most important supportive thing that anyone can do for the movement.
I would like to see OWS ptb reach out and embrace the 99%Decl group. If not embrace, at least allow them to work peacefully as a Working Group within OWS. Instead of treating them with hostility. Now, that would be a compromise!
Instead, all I see, is OWS ptb continually using the OWS ptb brand of "authority" against the 99% Decl group. For all the OWS ptb and anarchist theories against "authority", they certainly have no problem using their style of authority against the 99%Decl group. Why is that?? Seems like a huge double standard to me. What has 99%Decl done that is so offensive to OWS ptb? Have they hurt anybody with their thoughts, ideas or actions? I don't think so. I think they should be granted as much respect as any other Working Group in OWS.
Most all of the other sectors you mention that OWS has reached out to - I see that as no different than organized labor. It's no big successful outreach when you are reaching out to poor, disenfrachised vulnerable people. Who among that group would not accept a helping hand. Wonderful, yes. Successful outreach, not so much.
I think that it will be a challenge for OWS to reach the mainstream middle class. If they could manage that challenge, I would consider calling that a success. I don't think this is at all possible though. Which is why I don't think this movement will be able to grow into anything substantial.
Mainstream, middle class realizes that leadership and organization are important elements for a successful political movement. ie, The Tea Party. And OWS does not have those characteristics. The mainstream middle class can see this is pretty much a mess of a movement. I don't blame them for not signing on. You blame the "genteel middle class" as if they cannot be successfully organized. I see the opposite. I blame OWS ptb for not being properly organized.
Speaking of compromise, I think it has been the supporters of the 99D that have been much less willing to compromise than OWS. 99D supporters tend to present their proposal on a "take it or leave it basis, without revision, and please take it, and if you don't take it you are being irresponsible."
I've never seen any other proposal to a GA ever presented in that way. Virtually always they are subject to extensive debate and open to all kinds of revisions and amendments. That is simply not the case with the supporters of the 99D.
Upon rejecting the 99D the Philly GA presented many concrete objections to the 99D, none of which were open to discussion, revision or compromise on the part of supporters of the 99D.
Personally, for example, I think a national GA might be a very good idea, but beyond that I don't find much agreement with the 99D proposal.
I actually think there might be a lot of room for a serious discussion if we started from the premise of trying to organize a national GA and left virtually every other aspect of the proposal up for discussion, compromise, revision and amendment, but that is not the case. There are certain aspects of the 99D which are essentially viewed by its supporters as non-negotiable.
To take just one, the 99D calls on delegates to be adult citizens. To me this is contrary to the values of OWS in which minors and noncitizens have always played a crucial role. Now, it is not a matter of whether we agree about this or not. The question to me is, is it a proper issue for debate, discussion, compromise, revision and amendment? Supporters of the 99D think not.
I could go over the entire document on a line by line basis and raise specific objections to many of its clauses, but the example above should be sufficient to make my overall point which is that every other document that has ever been submitted to a GA has always been in its entireity subject to debate, compromise, revision and amendment and that is not the case with the 99D, Therein lies the problem,
99%Decl has a plan to move forward in order to achieve results through government. I don't see anything objectionable in their plan. I would rather see an imperfect plan move forward, than endless circles and no plan at all.
OWS goes in circles and goes no where. The endless consensus building, debates, discussions, compromises, revisions, amendments are a hinderance. Not a help. I think it is better to lay the groundwork of a plan and move forward with it. There is nothing to say that adjustments can't be made along the way. The important thing is to keep the ball moving forward. Rather than going in endless circles.
I don't subscribe to the principles that the GA is based upon. I don't believe that direct democracy is effective. In fact, I think the very idea is non-sensical.
I'm glad 99%Decl is moving forward in spite of subjecting themselves to this nonsense. Rather than get bogged down in endless debate to go around in circles. For what purpose? To justify the existance of the PhillyGA or NYCGA? To justify the nonsense of direct democracy?
If anarchy theory fundamentally rejects authority, why does OWS ptb work so hard at imposing their rules and their brand of authority against 99%Decl? It makes no sense.
Why not just let them alone to do what they want to do so long as they aren't hurting anyone? They aren't trying to take anything away from OWS. They have repeatedly said, they want to work along side OWS.
There has been no successful outreach by OWS. OWS shows no signs of compromise. There are certain things that each group, OWS ptb and 99%Decl, will not compromise on. The main difference is that 99%Decl has a plan to move forward to make change working with government. OWS ptb has no plan other than to keep its direct democracy in existance.
Well I personally find a lot that is extremely objectionable in the 99D as do many GAs, starting with the fact that very large sections of it are presented as non-negotiable. Really, about the only thing in the 99D that I don't find objectionable is the notion of a national GA, though, the way the 99D chooses to organized it and especially their unwillingness to compromise on the way they choose to organize it is what I find most objectionable.
I guess we have to differ on whether or not OWS is moving forward. I'm frankly astonished at people's expectations of a movement that is barely weeks old. Some people act like they expect OWS to act like a movement with decades or even several lifetimes of experience behind it when it is barely in its infancy.
With that in mind, I think the growth of OWS is nothing short of astonishing. It's hard to find social movements in history that have grown so explosively. Literally within days after the occupation began it was a world wide movement. It reached out successfully to sections of organized labor, creating the first alliance between organized labor and the left intelligentcia since the 1940s. It has built alliances with sections of organized religion, with the debtor class, with the homeless, with the stop stop and frisk movement, with the foreclosed, with environmentalists and with other social sectors. I think that is pretty spectacular for such a new movement.
I too am skeptical of notions of direct democracy. That said OWS is really at the cutting edge of social change. For it, everything is up for grabs and it is bound to make mistakes being on the frontier of nearly everything. In many ways OWS is not comparable to any social movement in living memory, all of which had very specific and concrete goals like voting rights or ending a particular war. To find anything comparable to OWS I think you have to go back to the Socialist Party at its peak during the first two decades of the last century or perhaps the Populists during the latter part of the 19th century in terms of the comprehensiveness of their vision and their radical approach to social change.
I don't think that OWS has been particular harsh or dogmatic toward the 99D and if supporters of OWS were more willing to compromise I suspect they would get a more favorable audience.
Well, I stand corrected, and I wish you the best. Also, If there is anything I can do to help, let me know.
People with busy schedules and a little spare change tend to throw money at something they support. My feeling is that nearly everyone has two days off a week and nearly everyone lives within at least a couple of hundred miles of the nearest occupation or GA. I personally think that the greatest contribution that anyone could make to the movement is to take one week end out of their busy lives and visit the closest occupation or GA. After that, if they are too far away to attend that occupation or GA on a fairly regular basis (say, at least, twice a month), then I would suggest that they organize a GA in their community, Call you friends, Set up a web page. If you build it they will come. If you are still having trouble ask for help from the closest GA or occupation They will gladly send someone to help, though you may have to pay transportation and room and board.
If you are really isolated or homebound you might think about setting up an internet based GA based on some kind of commonality.
Good run down. In political science courses, they called Bush a communnitarian, Where as conservatives value old school free markets and social policing, libertarians believe in no social policing and no market controls and liberals believe in free markets and little social policing, George is said to have believed in little to no controls on markets, that is until they fail--lol-- and strict social policing, which fits right in line with his believing he was the decider. Progressives in my opinion don't want to control the market nor handy cap the police they just don't want those two institutions to exploit the worker or over step their bounds. But it is also not wise to label oneself any of these factions because they, like any brand, can, through mergers and acquisitions, be bought out and reformulated. I'd call him a centrist.
In terms of the much broader European political spectrum, virtually all Republican and Democratic politicians are very, very conservative, though not quite fascist. In terms of that considerably broader spectrum the differences between elected American Republican and Democratic politicians is so narrow that it would be difficult to insert a piece of paper between them,
that makes sense and is funny.
Progressive means accepting of quick change. Conservatives want slow change. These are not absolutes. There is a scale between the two extremes and people are comfortable somewhere on that line. A moderate would be somewhere in the middle.
Change can be in any direction towards liberal (less government control) or socialist (more government control)
There are progressives and conservatives within OWS. Some want a quick total change and others want a moderate change and slow planned execution.
They want changes to the same things and generally in the same direction but it is the speed and degree of change that makes them progressive or conservative.
I buy that. To put it in greater perspective, it seems that the young, for the most part, are progressive and the old are conservative, which in the scheme of things makes the old wiser, go figure.
Independent?
Independent?
Is that what you are describing? I was just trying to put a name to a face.
Your definitions of communism and socialism are partly erroneous, private property in their definitions only implies ownership of the means of production (farms, factories, mines), not of everything. That said I'm glad you included collective, as it also includes cooperatives and communes :p
Actually under communism there is no private property.
In fact just last month (Nov 2011) Cuba announced that real estate can now be privately owned for the first time in more than 40 years. They are moving away from communism.
Yes, that's what I said. A lot of people love to argue that the clothes on their back constitute private property.
Also, Cuba is not moving away from communism, but from socialism. No so-called communist state has ever claimed to be communism, for a good reason: communism is stateless.
That is true. The stateless Communist final stage is a Utopian fantasy that will never exist. Not if humans have anything to do with it.
Because believing that a system based on bosses and states working out is not utopian fantasy?
Both have existed, after all. And I'd say there's more convincing evidence for the former.
The closest thing to a communist society was probably the Plymouth Plantation of the Pilgrims. They decided it did not work well so they switched to private ownership and stronger government.
I am not aware of any other communist societies.
This is why we are here this is why you are needed.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/inside-job-documentary/
Share, circulate, educate, inspire.
I almost thought you were going to make sense, and then you stated, "Bush was a progressive".
He was nothing of the sort.
No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D, Ownership Society, etc.
Wars for sake of expanding control.
TARP.
Yes, he was a progressive.
Idiotic extremism, does not, a progressive make.
An extreme "conservative" would best be described as a "regressive".
Mr. P., should also be described this way.
Conservatism = regressivism.
As usual, you're going in the wrong direction.
I always had a gripe with Doctor Strange Paul being a Libertarian and a Christian. It kinda makes me think he is false flagin'. A Libertarian is a liberal step child, where as a Christian is the liberal's antithesis, IMO. Can you say oxymoron?
Can you say Christian Reconstructionist?
There is a thread on his ties to that movement.
Mr. P is a lie personified.
Usually it does. These bombing campaigns and bailouts Obama has done are dangerous precedents to be set.
Misdirection, won't help your argument.
In fact, it hurts it.
Well, if you think war is good for the world, keep moving along with the globalists. I dont. And neither do a lot of those that are fighting them.
War is good for the oil corporations.
Where is there an actual war going on?
Occupations and world police actions don't count, though the oil corporations profit there too.
Not to mention those foreign corporations that illegally support our military, like Halliburton.
I should have clarified, I meant George H W Bush.
Progressive does not mean liberal and it does not mean socialist. It means you are accepting to aggressive change. GHW wanted to change things quickly. He wanted a New World Order in which democracy was spread around the world. He negotiated a treaty on global emissions. He worked on the creation of NAFTA and signed it. He cut defense spending.
Don't get me wrong, GW was pretty progressive as well. His dad was more progressive.
There's no way in hell you're going to define me.
There's NOTHING progressive about either Bush.
Neoliberalism is pure libertarian.
Obfuscation, is the libertarians bread and butter.
The problem is you do not understand what progressive means.
George W wanted to privatize Social Security. That is a very progressive idea. Since Social Security is 21% of the federal budget I would say that idea is progressive in a big way.
Privatizing anything, is the libertarian dream.
Wallstreet's wanted to have it for decades.
Libertarians are VERY extreme, but they are in no way, shape or form progressive.
You still do not understand what progressive means.
I sure don't understand your recently invented description.
What's next?
War is peace?
Freedom is slavery?
Ignorance is bliss?
I did not make the definitions up.
A Conservative is disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions and is marked by moderation or caution.
A progressive is more open to moderate change of political existing views, conditions, or institutions and is comfortable with aggressive change.
The Republican party was born out of the progressive element of the Whig Party. There was a split in the Whig party between those that wanted change vs those that were conservatives. The split actually ended the party. The conservatives left to join the Democrat Party and the progressives formed the Republican Party headed by Abraham Lincoln. Their differences were so great that it lead to the Civil War.
OIC.
You copied from someone who made it up.
http://waprogparty.org/
http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2011/05/progressiveparty.html
http://progparty.org/
Just a quick look, but I don't see anything that supports privatizing anything.
Too bad the republicans are so darn regressive these days.
I leaned the meaning of these words in college.
It is not that hard to see in the root of the words. Progress which means "advancing of moving forward" is the root of progressive while Conserve which means "to keep constant" is the root of the word conservative.
The links you posted are to state political parties like the Oregon Progressive Party that call themselves progressive. Sure they are progressive because they want to change, move forward.
You are missing the difference between a political party and what the word progressive actually means (comfortable with aggressive change).
I guess the best way to put it together is this: To want to change the status quot is progressive however not all change is progress.
So wanting to privatize Social Security is progressive because it has not been private for over 50 years. Wanting to keep it the same is preserving the status quo. I did not say it was a good idea to privatize it or that the Oregon Progressive Party would want to.
I guess they missed teaching you the meaning of the word regressive.
Going backwards is regressive. Going forwards is progressive.
Conservatives and libertarians are regressive.
Mr. P is perhaps the most regressive of them all.
He is an anachronism.
I know what regression is. And by the way not all change is progress just because YOU believe it is.
What I find interesting here is that a lot of people here deal in absolutes. You are either a conservative or a liberal. "If you don't agree with Everything I do you must be a libertarian or a conservative". Perhaps we could call it labeling people or being judgmental. The funny thing is that when I go onto a conservative slanted sight I am called a liberal or a progressive.
You see I am not any of those things. I look at one issue at a time. I have voted for Republicans and Democrats at federal, state, and local levels. I look at how the candidates vote and their voting records which I believe is more important than their political party.
So, for you it's "foward into the past.
Voting records are misleading. Just look at Mr. Ps.
I vote for people that work towards moving forwards.
It's been a long time since a republican did that.
Voting is a judgement call. Sorry, but it is.
I judge all current republican candidates as regressives.
There is no question. They simply are.
Never listen to Rush so I cannot comment on him. I get the feeling he is a right wing establishment GOP hack based on what I have heard about him. Kinda like a right wing Howard Stern. Am I right?
Why do your posts not have a reply link?
One doesn't have to actually listen to Rush.
His lying, rhetoric has permeated the system.
Kind of like methane in your well water.
The reply link thing has been a problem here for a while.
I have no idea why it disappears, on some posts.
The smoke only lets in the truth you want to let in and filters any other truths.
"Teabaggers raised my taxes, for a corporate tax cut" no taxes have been raised or cut by teabaggers - SMOKE
"Republicans are doing everything they can to demonize unions" A few republicans in the mid West did this.
"Republicans created the Patriot Act, The largest agency in history." The Patriot Act is not an agency. Only one Senator voted against it in 2001 Senator Russ Feingold
Republicans started the attack on the Magna Carta. -SMOKE
TARP was extortion, perpetrated by wallstreet banks. Democtats - 241 Yea - 19 Nay Republicans - 10 Yea - 156 Nay -SMOKE
Republicans are saying NO to anything that will bring us forward. SMOKEY GENERALITY
Republicans want to privatize SS. Many feel this is better than letting congress steal the money for other things and then telling us there is no money when we hit 67.
Republicans need ALEC to write legislation. Your glasses filter out the Commonwealth Fund and Center for American Progress
Republicans put on dog and pony shows instead of debates. Harry Reid tabled six jobs bills this year passed by the House and did not even bring them up for debate in the Senate - SMOKE
"Republicans started those "wars", that aren't really wars." Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R House passed 420 Ayes - 1 Nay
"Republicans put us under contract to the likes of Haliburton, who is a foreign entity." Halliburton is an oil company was founded in 1919. The Democrats were in control of congress from 1945 to 1995 and 2006-2010 and held the senate in 2001-2002 as well. Halliburton was contracted to put out the fires in IRAQ that Saddam set because they are the company that could do it. Should we have let them just burn?
I could go on,but that should be telling in itself. And expose more of your smokey vision Go for it!
Pretty good imitation of the Limbaugh show.
You needed more name calling though.
PS: Limbaugh only rarely says anything that's 100% true.
You see the world through smoke glazed glasses my friend!
Nope. Brand new ones.
I have optical insurance.
Thanks to a union contract.
You better check yours.
I can shoot a sharp picture with a manual lens on an SLR too.
Sharp as a tack.
Todays republicans are regressive.
You are a fool if you think Democrats are any different. They sure have you fooled.
You believe what you want....
Teabaggers raised my taxes, for a corporate tax cut.
Republicans are doing everything they can to demonize unions.
Republicans created the Patriot Act, The largest agency in history.
Republicans started the attack on the Magna Carta.
TARP was extortion, perpetrated by wallstreet banks.
Republicans are saying NO to anything that will bring us forward.
Republicans want to privatize SS.
Republicans need ALEC to write legislation.
Republicans put on dog and pony shows instead of debates.
Republicans started those "wars", that aren't really wars.
Republicans put us under contract to the likes of Haliburton, who is a foreign entity.
I could go on,but that should be telling in itself.
Very good and most liberals are classified as progressives. I'm glad we all know the basics now.
That one guy doesn't get it.
I always did.
Some just come here to be contrary.
Who said I was for something that was forward into the past?
How can voting records be misleading. They are an indication of how they will vote going FORWARD.
If you mean RonPaul, I never voted for Mr P.
I really don't see a Republican candidate that I like. what makes you think I would vote for any of them? I really do not like Obama either. I do like the house is republican and the Senate is Democrat. It is harder for them to do as much damage that way. Sometimes I believe the less they get done the better.
Voting records are more like insider trading records.
Sounds like republican thinking to me.
The country needs to move forwards, away from the Bush legacy, and republicans say no to everything that can.
Except stuff like NDAA, and TSA crap.
Yepperz, republican thinking.
Regressive thinking.
[Removed]
that is a bunch of nonsense.