Alan Greenspan declares the failure of free-booting capitalism.

Joseph Stiglitz fights for more jobs and relief for the unemployed.

Paul Krugman advocates the nationalization of the banks.

Jon Stewart takes on Wall Street.

The Corporate Mass Media reports on tent cities for the foreclosed.

Putin and Medvedev point out the hypocrisy of the "new" U.S. Foreign Policy.

European conservatives threaten War Crimes prosecutions of the Bush Administration.

Where the fuck is the Left?

While the criticism of the current - dismal - state of society is left to infamous reactionaries, irrelevant technicians, corporate anomalies, arbitrary entertainers, and foreign politicians, where is "the Left"? Where is that political movement whose sole reason for existence is to raise the banner of the fightback precisely at this moment... arguably, whose entire existence is predicated solely on their actions at such moments?

The question is asked without distinction. Left Democrats, Left Independents, Left Radicals... Labor Unions and mass organizations and the CBC and anyone else who would remotely identify with "the Left" - where are they?

Where is the Left?

Where is it? It is standing in defense of the government, that's where it is. It is entrenched in opposition to a political party which is already split fragmented and irrelevant. And through that continued "loyalty and opposition", it has already assured its own irrelevance.

Is that too harsh? What then does "the Left" say to the rising tide of anger and misery, 650 thousand unemployed per month and tens of thousands of foreclosures... two wars without end and endless deprivation? It counsels patience, understanding of the government's "problems", education on political realities and distractions without purpose.

This is the real legacy of the "Obama Movement"... of incrementalism and electoralism and bankruptcy without limits.

Jobs, Food, Housing, Health, Peace, Justice - all is forgotten.
Don't bother me... I'm waitin' on Obama.

And if things continue to get worse, all is not lost. Perhaps "we" might "win" an even bigger majority in the 2010 elections and then... watch out.

This government is not "our" government, just as the last twenty have not been. Unilateral disarmament in the face of intensified class war is not an option. Policy dicing in the shadow of depression is not possible. Patience in the face of naked Empire is not forgivable.

Which side are you on?

Nice, to the point.

I don't suppose you have any intention to place this bit of potential 'flamebait' elsewhere? Do you?

Whoooooosh.... that is the sound of it flying right over their heads. Yesterday I suggested to them that they stop fixating on religion (intentionally used to divide - and yes spelled it out that clearly like speaking to my five year old)... and maybe we could talk about economics a little. That was too much for them. They told me to go find an economics board. *sigh*

So I went back to reading about Cuba. Imbeciles.

Nice, to the point.

I don't suppose you have any intention to place this bit of potential 'flamebait' elsewhere? Do you?




Just playin' with how to say the increasingly obvious... Yes, I have a home for it but it needs to be even simpler. I wasn't thinkin' about DU. Langston Hughes got me "thinking", as Mike would say.

Whoooooosh.... that is the sound of it flying right over their heads. Yesterday I suggested to them that they stop fixating on religion (intentionally used to divide - and yes spelled it out that clearly like speaking to my five year old)... and maybe we could talk about economics a little. That was too much for them. They told me to go find an economics board. *sigh*

So I went back to reading about Cuba. Imbeciles.


Economics has a way of defying denial.

Outstanding post.

What left? I have not seen that for the longest time, the left as a group as opposed to individual groups of leftists who carry forward.

The left that came from unions is on the back shelf awaiting a remainder sale. With 10% unionized, what kind of left can we expect there?

The intellectual left got tenure and joined the micro movements writing articles that no one reads and conducting research that simply doesn't matter.

The media left isn't really leftist at all. Katrina van den Heuvel has a certain charm but only a sideshow platform on occasion. It's more as an advanced scout for the "dominance" wing of the "wait till 2010 etc." If her shtick works, others can borrow it. If not, no loss.

Stiglitz, Krugman, Stewart, and the trial advocates in Europe are all making sense and advocating for positions that represent wha tthe left is to me. The fact that they're doing it shows true intellectual honesty and care for their fellow man. Greenspan and the temporary sanity from corporate media are simply positioning. However, who would have ever done that 2 - 5 - 10 years ago.

The collapse of the system, and it is DOA , frees up the creative energies of the people at all levels. Geez, even Frances Fukiyama bailed on the insane right a couple of years ago.

These are great times and they'll get better.

Here's a clip from an article to accompany your most excellent of bits. Tidy it up and we should then send it around as a question to the apologists and a challenge to others who may wish to get off the train wreck and climb aboard a place of meaning and sanity.

We still need a good thread of how "The Left" in the good old US of A was clubbed, co-opted and otherwise assassinated. Seems all the offices are closed down these days.

___________________________________________________________

http://www.blackagendareport.com/images/stories/129/obama_right_turn.jpg

Ford answers Linda Burnham's recent assault on the non-Obamite Left, whom she sneeringly refers to as victims of "Left ‘anticipatory disillusionment'" and assorted other "psycho-babble." Burnham sets up Left straw men, to knock them down, all in an attempt to justify her cohort's capitulation to Power. "One great tragedy of the current episode," writes Ford, "is that the [economic] crisis occurred at a moment when the remnants of the Left and Black movements in the U.S. have been neutralized by imperialism's Black champion." Hilariously, Burnham credits Obama with having "wrenched the Democratic Party out of the clammy grip of Clintonian centrism" when, in actuality, "Obama's government IS Clintonian. And the new president is as skilled and ruthless a triangulator as Bill ever was."


‘Left’ Obamites Prefer Kool-Aid to Struggle

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

“Burnham’s definition of ‘motion’ does not involve confronting Power, but rather, attaching oneself to it.”

Lots of folks on the left, it is now apparent, no longer seek anything more than to bask in the sunshine of Barack Obama’s smile. No matter how much national treasure their champion transfers to the bankster class, and despite his exceeding George W. Bush in military spending, so-called progressives for Obama continue to celebrate their imagined emergence as players in the national political saga. Having in practice foresworn resistance to Power, they relish in bashing the non-Obamite Left.

In tone and substance, Linda Burnham’s recent, widely circulated piece, “Notes on an Orientation to the Obama Presidency” is several cuts above last summer’s vicious rant by Amiri Baraka, “The Parade of Anti-Obama Rascals.” But both assaults on Left critics of Obama are based on the same false assumptions and willful illogic, and although no one can trump Baraka in argumentative foul play and sheer nastiness, Burnham’s article is nonetheless littered with sneers at those who “are stranded on Dogma Beach…flipping out over every appointment and policy move [Obama] makes.”

<snip>

Burnham’s method is to invent straw men and then place words and thoughts in their fictitious mouths and brains. Certainly, we at Black Agenda Report were anything but “confused” by either Obama’s political conduct or his extraordinary popularity, having placed the young upstart under intense scrutiny beginning in the early Summer of 2003, while he was still a low-ranked candidate for the Democratic senatorial nomination in Illinois. His phenomenal talents, hitched to a transparently corporatist, imperial worldview – and a practiced dishonesty about his rightist alliances – made Obama a person worth watching. The BAR team, then operating out of Black Commentator, had Obama pegged as a potential vector of confusion in Black and progressive ranks long before his worldwide debut at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. And we were right. It is in Burnham’s political neighborhood that confusion reigns, not ours.


Burnham claims that many on the Left “were taken by surprise at how wide and deep ran the current for change.” Either she’s talking about herself, or she hangs around a very cloistered crowd. Or, more likely, Burnham is conflating the word “change” with “Obama” – an effect of drinking too much Kool-Aid. In either case, none of it applies to folks like us at BAR – and there are a number of others on the Left – who more than five years ago understood both Obama’s mass appeal and the mass desire for real change, and feared that one would thwart the other.




Burnham outlines what she says is the “active conversation on the left about what can be expected of an Obama administration and what the orientation of the left should be towards it.” We will have to take her word for it, although her mischaracterization of Left Obama critics (certainly those at BAR) makes us less than confident that the “conversation” is as she describes. Below are the “two conflicting views” on Obama, on the Left:

"First, that Obama represents a substantial, principally positive political shift and that, while the left should criticize and resist policies that pull away from the interests of working people, its main orientation should be to actively engage with the political motion that’s underway.

My note: Big OUCH!! here

"Second, that Obama is, in essence, just another steward of capitalism, more attractive than most, but not an agent of fundamental change. He should be regarded with caution and is bound to disappoint. The basic orientation is to criticize every move the administration makes and to remain disengaged from mainstream politics."

The first viewpoint is no doubt held by Burnham. It is essentially mooted by the reality that most Left Obamites only weakly “criticize” and virtually never “resist” Obama’s rightist policies and appointments in the crucial military and economic arenas – which was, first, the fear and, later, the main complaint of the non-Obamite Left. The Obama Effect is to neutralize Blacks and the Left (Blacks being the main electoral base of the American Left) by capturing their enthusiasm for Obama’s own corporate purposes. Obama and his Democratic Leadership Council allies (and their corporate masters) monopolize the “motion,” all the while shutting out even mildly Left voices (as in the recent White House Forum on Health, from which single payer health care advocates were initially barred). Blacks and the Left have not been in any kind of effective forward “motion” since Election Day. As we shall see, Burnham’s definition of “motion” does not involve confronting Power, but rather, attaching oneself to it.

<snip>

Those elements that refuse to make demands of Power ought to stop calling themselves part of the Left. Unless the Left is in power, it is a contradiction in terms.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/%E2%80%98left%E2%80%99-obamites-prefer-kool-aid-struggle#comments

The Obama Effect is to neutralize Blacks and the Left (Blacks being the main electoral Mic of the American Left) by capturing their enthusiasm for Obama’s own corporate purposes.

To those paying attention the Trojan horse was completely outed when he neglected to include single-payer health care advocates at his little insurance summit. Overall, however, Obama has been effective in keeping the masses calm.

At least so far. When GM is forced to declare bankruptcy we'll see how well it still works. Michigan can't take much more, and one would hope people would march down to Chicago to do their protesting.

Very soon after Kerry lost, I started hearing from Obama people. They made no secret of their plans - elect a "moderate" candidate to head off what they saw as the otherwise inevitable emergence and ascendancy of the Left. I think it is important to know that the Obama movement was consciously and intentionally created to stop the Left, not the right. The people around Obama were confident that Democrats would sweep into power regardless of who the candidate was. The goal for them was to make sure that it didn't become a left wing movement. Of course they are in a bind now, because the "third way" Democrat approach is going to fail miserably on the face of the crisis. They got there too late to prop things back up and re-create the 90's.

Very soon after Kerry lost, I started hearing from Obama people. They made no secret of their plans - elect a "moderate" candidate to head off what they saw as the otherwise inevitable emergence and ascendancy of the Left. I think it is important to know that the Obama movement was consciously and intentionally created to stop the Left, not the right. The people around Obama were confident that Democrats would sweep into power regardless of who the candidate was. The goal for them was to make sure that it didn't become a left wing movement. Of course they are in a bind now, because the "third way" Democrat approach is going to fail miserably on the face of the crisis. They got there too late to prop things back up and re-create the 90's.


I have to agree with this sentiment. The issues are becoming much too real to "spin", "frame", or dice in the usual way. In many ways, the success of such diversions is a mark of specific moments in history... Our friend Obama is being overtaken by events and the tools can say anything they want.

It's all happening so fast, as things do, nowadays. Anax, you have mentioned several times that we have been put in a position 50 years before Lenin. I strongly suspect, given the way that these modern times seem to compress that things could develop much more swiftly, say 5-10 years, though it would be a mess. I don't think, given the environmental/resource situation, that we have the leisure to put thing off 'until the time is right'.

It's all happening so fast, as things do, nowadays. Anax, you have mentioned several times that we have been put in a position 50 years before Lenin. I strongly suspect, given the way that these modern times seem to compress that things could develop much more swiftly, say 5-10 years, though it would be a mess. I don't think, given the environmental/resource situation, that we have the leisure to put thing off 'until the time is right'.


I would never advocate putting things off. The only issue is that we don't control time. History is funny. Sometimes a decade is like a second and other times a decade is born by a moment. The only caution is that need or desire are as useless as willing gravity.

Yes, the Obama campaigners definitely want the left out of their picture - that's crystal clear now. I wonder though if it really matters. I guess it does if they shut down conversations. But a good argument could be made that the fix is in from the start. Most populated areas have the diabold machines and there are many ways to play with them. I'm no longer convinced at all that we have "free and fair" elections.

Yes, the Obama campaigners definitely want the left out of their picture - that's crystal clear now. I wonder though if it really matters. I guess it does if they shut down conversations. But a good argument could be made that the fix is in from the start. Most populated areas have the diabold machines and there are many ways to play with them. I'm no longer convinced at all that we have "free and fair" elections.




It is getting easier and easier to knock down the arguments of the liberals - the arguments are getting more absurd and frantic - and easier and easier to talk socialism to the everyday people. There is a very thin line of people blocking the path (but as anax points out, there is no Left to smash through that line.) The people in that thin line are under siege and teetering, hoping against hope that something happens to put some wind in their sails - some miracle. Things are spinning out of control quickly.

I feel like Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville. He had 'em skeered and on the run, but he couldn't rally the troops to press the advantage (and bag Hooker's army and win the war?) He rode out ahead, but no one followed, and when he was returning to the Confederate lines in the growing darkness his own pickets shot him thinking it was Union troops counter-attacking.

So, who is Lee?

http://www.mikelynaugh.com/Lee-Jackson/thumbnails/IMG_2766.jpg
Wyman Pk in Baltimore, near JHU.

It is getting easier and easier to knock down the arguments of the liberals - the arguments are getting more absurd and frantic - and easier and easier to talk socialism to the everyday people. There is a very thin line of people blocking the path (but as anax points out, there is no Left to smash through that line.) The people in that thin line are under siege and teetering, hoping against hope that something happens to put some wind in their sails - some miracle. Things are spinning out of control quickly.

Yup, they are "waitin' on Obama" as he methodically takes each issue and turns it upside down while declaring "I'm a new democrat!". Hmmm, the new facist kind?

The ironic thing is that the "wingnut" republicans are ready to go. They are ready to fight (at least in Texas). Strange times indeed.

So, who is Lee?

http://www.mikelynaugh.com/Lee-Jackson/thumbnails/IMG_2766.jpg
Wyman Pk in Baltimore, near JHU.


well if face time on tv is any indication its..

..Newt Gingrich haha

Since Rush is Jefferson Davis..

I am going to steal your post anax, if I may.

I am going to steal your post anax, if I may.


Sure... Modify it if you like. I am not completely happy with the thing.

I am going to steal your post anax, if I may.


Sure... Modify it if you like. I am not completely happy with the thing.



It is close. SW posted a similar rant so I tossed yours into the mix.

Man, I try my best not to get too irritated with those people. "Democratic Party Activist" - WTF is that? It could be anything. And a good number of those people are hurtin'... or are from workin' class backgrounds... so I count to ten and then count to ten again... but, fuck me...

"I can't do nothin'... I just sit on the web..." Well, MF, use that - go to the masses, use what you've learned. Three quarters of households have computers in the U.S. The whole "your children will be retarded if you don't have a box" movement has assured that. But, of all of the labor unions still left out there, all the towns that are hurtin' or abandoned, there is almost nothing in the way of digital discussion/debate/muckraking/organization in any of them. Use what you have learned. Take it to the masses...

No way...

"But I don't want no violence..." Fuck what you want. It ain't about you. That's how you got here in the first place. Do the work, STFU, and learn some humility...

I just don't get this DU shit... It looks like America, but it isn't.

I am going to steal your post anax, if I may.


Sure... Modify it if you like. I am not completely happy with the thing.



It is close. SW posted a similar rant so I tossed yours into the mix.


it might be the percocets, but whats SW?

Here is her rant: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5262077&mesg_id=5262077

Man, I try my best not to get too irritated with those people. "Democratic Party Activist" - WTF is that? It could be anything. And a good number of those people are hurtin'... or are from workin' class backgrounds... so I count to ten and then count to ten again... but, fuck me...

"I can't do nothin'... I just sit on the web..." Well, MF, use that - go to the masses, use what you've learned. Three quarters of households have computers in the U.S. The whole "your children will be retarded if you don't have a box" movement has assured that. But, of all of the labor unions still left out there, all the towns that are hurtin' or abandoned, there is almost nothing in the way of digital discussion/debate/muckraking/organization in any of them. Use what you have learned. Take it to the masses...

No way...

"But I don't want no violence..." Fuck what you want. It ain't about you. That's how you got here in the first place. Do the work, STFU, and learn some humility...

I just don't get this DU shit... It looks like America, but it isn't.



How? Tell me the fuck how to do that when I've got a job and a family and no money - which means that I can't travel or sit around at home all day doing whatever the fuck I want. My time is not mine from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., and after that my husband and sister-in-law have a claim on it.

Maybe instead of sitting around on the net yourselves and criticizing and insulting other people, you should take your shit to the masses. Tell those of us who don't know shit about organizing or educating people how to do it.

How is sitting here whining about DU doing anything to help further your cause? Not that I don't understand the need to whine about DU - I've read so much classist capitalist bullshit on there today that any progress I had made towards not absolutely hating the humans who let this system go on disappeared. But as far as I can tell that's pretty much all you guys do - that and sit around and wank about Marx. Because you know the people who used to come through my drive-thru and make me read the menu to them because they couldn't read really care about the intricacies of Marxist theory.

And coming here doesn't really help. I know what the fuck is wrong with DU. What I want to know is what can I do within my sphere of influence and with my particular abilities to help bring about social change.

I guess it's more fun to point fingers and insult people than it is to give people the tools they need to do what you insult them for not doing.

Man, I try my best not to get too irritated with those people. "Democratic Party Activist" - WTF is that? It could be anything. And a good number of those people are hurtin'... or are from workin' class backgrounds... so I count to ten and then count to ten again... but, fuck me...

"I can't do nothin'... I just sit on the web..." Well, MF, use that - go to the masses, use what you've learned. Three quarters of households have computers in the U.S. The whole "your children will be retarded if you don't have a box" movement has assured that. But, of all of the labor unions still left out there, all the towns that are hurtin' or abandoned, there is almost nothing in the way of digital discussion/debate/muckraking/organization in any of them. Use what you have learned. Take it to the masses...

No way...

"But I don't want no violence..." Fuck what you want. It ain't about you. That's how you got here in the first place. Do the work, STFU, and learn some humility...

I just don't get this DU shit... It looks like America, but it isn't.



How? Tell me the fuck how to do that when I've got a job and a family and no money - which means that I can't travel or sit around at home all day doing whatever the fuck I want. My time is not mine from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., and after that my husband and sister-in-law have a claim on it.

Maybe instead of sitting around on the net yourselves and criticizing and insulting other people, you should take your shit to the masses. Tell those of us who don't know shit about organizing or educating people how to do it.

How is sitting here whining about DU doing anything to help further your cause? Not that I don't understand the need to whine about DU - I've read so much classist capitalist bullshit on there today that any progress I had made towards not absolutely hating the humans who let this system go on disappeared. But as far as I can tell that's pretty much all you guys do - that and sit around and wank about Marx. Because you know the people who used to come through my drive-thru and make me read the menu to them because they couldn't read really care about the intricacies of Marxist theory.

And coming here doesn't really help. I know what the fuck is wrong with DU. What I want to know is what can I do within my sphere of influence and with my particular abilities to help bring about social change.

I guess it's more fun to point fingers and insult people than it is to give people the tools they need to do what you insult them for not doing.


Just one question...

What are you doing right at this moment (other than blowin' steam which you seem to do well)?

How? Tell me the fuck how to do that when I've got a job and a family and no money - which means that I can't travel or sit around at home all day doing whatever the fuck I want. My time is not mine from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., and after that my husband and sister-in-law have a claim on it.

Maybe instead of sitting around on the net yourselves and criticizing and insulting other people, you should take your shit to the masses. Tell those of us who don't know shit about organizing or educating people how to do it.

How is sitting here whining about DU doing anything to help further your cause? Not that I don't understand the need to whine about DU - I've read so much classist capitalist bullshit on there today that any progress I had made towards not absolutely hating the humans who let this system go on disappeared. But as far as I can tell that's pretty much all you guys do - that and sit around and wank about Marx. Because you know the people who used to come through my drive-thru and make me read the menu to them because they couldn't read really care about the intricacies of Marxist theory.

And coming here doesn't really help. I know what the fuck is wrong with DU. What I want to know is what can I do within my sphere of influence and with my particular abilities to help bring about social change.

I guess it's more fun to point fingers and insult people than it is to give people the tools they need to do what you insult them for not doing.


Hey MM. Lots of stuff there in your post to talk about. Not sure if you want to or not, but I am always up for it. Maybe we could make it into a new thread?

I am not particularly interested in "the intricacies of Marxist theory" myself.

Talking and writing IS doing something, by the way. It is the mostly all that politics is, and is the most powerful thing we could do.

Also, I am not sitting around. I type standing up. (OK that part I made up lol)

I don't have a "cause" I am selling or promoting myself. Can't speak for the others.

As you should know, I talk to everyday people all of the time, and often post about that. What I say us of value and relevance to everyone I talk to, and I mostly do not talk to other intellectuals.

Love to talk about what we can do do - "within my sphere of influence and with my particular abilities to help bring about social change" as you say.

Accusing us of whining and pointing fingers and insulting people - that isn't helpful. But I am interested in that because it comes up so often.

So, I ask you - are you serious? Do you want to discuss this? Do you want to talk about what we can do? I am always ready for that.

If you need to get some of this anger out of your system, I am willing to listen.

Talking is one of the best things we can do, at least to start. I talk to people in my suburban area all the time. Other parents, neighbors, people who work in the neighborhood...

A good example is just last week I had to help a guy jump start his car (well he did the work I just provided the emergency kit - lol) & of course his first comment was "thank you - not many people will help others anymore". I responded "yeah, times are kind of tough now aren't they", and we talked a bit about the economy, work being slow, Obama, etc... He was just a young guy who was working on the garage door opener for a neighbor and couldn't get his truck started when he was ready to leave. But a few minutes talking to him can turn into him talking about it to his friends or family later.

And I sure don't bring up Marx, not here in Texas, I'm liable to get shot ;) ... but believe me the republicans here sure are talking about the economy. It's hard to go anywhere these days and not find people talking about it.

I was thinking about it some more, about the actual real live working class people I know and their internet habits.

None of them have the internet at home. When my brother comes to visit, he gets on my computer and looks at sites for whatever shiny new toy he wants to buy. When my mother comes and/or calls me and wants me to use the net for her, she goes to the website of the company she works for, the North Carolina Employment Security Commission site, and looks up air and train fares.

My niece is calling the whole family and trying to get someone to be her internet bitch - to go to an IM site and enter in responses for her with the 30 or so guys she's flirting with.

My husband works at the library. Lots of working class people go there to get a couple of hours on the internet. He says that they mostly use that time for Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. And they're not looking up video blogs of people lecturing about socialism on YouTube.

My in-laws are more into the net and have more cognitive abilities. So you know what they do with their internet time?

Read webcomics and the blogs of their favorite authors and watch TV online - my SIL loves The Daily Show and is always talking about random "journalists" that I know nothing about. It's like having a 15 year old DU poster in the house. Oh, and they talk to their friends on Facebook.

I guess that's a place to start. Check into Facebook and see how it works.

I was thinking about it some more, about the actual real live working class people I know and their internet habits.

None of them have the internet at home. When my brother comes to visit, he gets on my computer and looks at sites for whatever shiny new toy he wants to buy. When my mother comes and/or calls me and wants me to use the net for her, she goes to the website of the company she works for, the North Carolina Employment Security Commission site, and looks up air and train fares.

My niece is calling the whole family and trying to get someone to be her internet bitch - to go to an IM site and enter in responses for her with the 30 or so guys she's flirting with.

My husband works at the library. Lots of working class people go there to get a couple of hours on the internet. He says that they mostly use that time for Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. And they're not looking up video blogs of people lecturing about socialism on YouTube.

My in-laws are more into the net and have more cognitive abilities. So you know what they do with their internet time?

Read webcomics and the blogs of their favorite authors and watch TV online - my SIL loves The Daily Show and is always talking about random "journalists" that I know nothing about. It's like having a 15 year old DU poster in the house. Oh, and they talk to their friends on Facebook.

I guess that's a place to start. Check into Facebook and see how it works.


You know Medley, I've thought about those venues, don't know that much about them, it all seems vapid. Do people talk of anything of substance?

I'm on facebook and myspace and mostly play there, you know keep up with old friends. But every now & then I find a way to speak out without scaring people :)

For instance during the Republic window labor strike someone put a support thread on fb. I joined the page & when you do that all your friends see it. I noticed that a couple of my more cool friends went ahead and joined the page in support too. I've got some really conservative religious friends I've made along the way too, and sometimes I'm surprised when they are more progressive on some issues than I might expect.

The computer thing is funny. People who are homeless aren't going to have computers obviously, but more and more people have them these days than not. My mom, who is still working at McDonalds, probably has a little more computer equipment than some because she did inherit a little $$ when she & her siblings sold the family farm. She spends her time on crochet forums and reading news. Most of the FB and myspace folks are probably under 50, but I tend to see quite a few people on discussion forums who are older.

Facebook v MySpace - a class divide (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/26/usa.news)

Facebook v MySpace - a class divide (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/26/usa.news)


hey squid

seen this article before, interesting to note that the dynamics have changed significantly -- in some ways -- since the article appeared.

i'm not "cool" personally so i don't use them but like everyone i know does. it is definitely more of an age gap now than anything else

It is an "age gap". The stats are 80% of households have computers and 75% are on the web (it is not a perfect overlap and the low estimates are 70% and 65%). The average time spent on the web is 3 hours per day (high estimate) and 12 hours per week (low estimate) - a number that begins to rival TV. More than social class, age defines usage with only 35% of those above 65 on the web and nearly 100% of those under 18.

The single highest usage used to go to porn but that changed 5 years ago. Today it is 'chat' with social networking, political discussion, and all sorts of other stuff. Believe it or not, political discussion is one of the biggest categories (although what that encompasses isn't totally clear).

SocIndy should be a hotbed of political discussion. It isn't.

I have heard all of the arguments over the last couple of years - this is the way it is, there is nothing we can do etc. I usually give up debating it with people.

I am now on two closed boards that are hotbeds of discussion, and where none of the reasons and excuses here (and at OET, DU, P4C, ProgressiveIndependent) are an issue.

So I know that it can be done, I am convinced that the time is right for a strong socialist discussion, and I know that the excuses are not legitimate.

SocIndy is a subset of Tinoire's place, which is a subset of DU which is a subset of a subset and on and on - more and more on the margin, and fewer and fewer people. But there is no reason for that to be the case - some reductive rather than additive process goes on, a distillation, a purification.

On the other hand, attempts to broaden participation results in nightmares like OET. But that is because the few are intimidating the general membership and red-bating to sabotage any left wing discussion.

So there are three groups. We leftists, the right wing disruptors, and then the rest of the people, the majority of the people. Rather than effectively stop the disruption, we wind up alienating all of the casual users, treating them as though they were with the disruptors.

Why are we letting the right wingers win? Why aren't we fighting back?

I am now on two closed boards that are hotbeds of discussion, and where none of the reasons and excuses here (and at OET, DU, P4C, ProgressiveIndependent) are an issue.

So I know that it can be done, I am convinced that the time is right for a strong socialist discussion, and I know that the excuses are not legitimate.


On closed boards though you pick your participants by definition. How can that experience be generalized to the web at large? Still, I'd be interested in hearing about what you do at those sites to facilitate the discussion.

On closed boards though you pick your participants by definition. How can that experience be generalized to the web at large? Still, I'd be interested in hearing about what you do at those sites to facilitate the discussion.




No, closed board is not the reason. "Closing" a board is just a strategy for achieving the goal. But first and foremost there must be a commitment to the goal, regardless of what strategy is used to achieve it.

All boards are closed one way or another, so long as they ban people under certain conditions.

What I mean to say is that "closed" is an effect not a cause. Also, there is more to it, because that does not necessarily mean smaller membership to close a board. It has more to do with protecting the project, and the majority of members, from the few who would make a mess, and that attracts more people, not fewer, because people want to be in that environment and want to participate freely and not be looking over their shoulder or fighting off attacks and talking points all of the time.

On closed boards though you pick your participants by definition. How can that experience be generalized to the web at large? Still, I'd be interested in hearing about what you do at those sites to facilitate the discussion.




No, closed board is not the reason. "Closing" a board is just a strategy for achieving the goal. But first and foremost there must be a commitment to the goal, regardless of what strategy is used to achieve it.

All boards are closed one way or another, so long as they ban people under certain conditions.

What I mean to say is that "closed" is an effect not a cause. Also, there is more to it, because that does not necessarily mean smaller membership to close a board. It has more to do with protecting the project, and the majority of members, from the few who would make a mess, and that attracts more people, not fewer, because people want to be in that environment and want to participate freely and not be looking over their shoulder or fighting off attacks and talking points all of the time.




Gotta agree with this Mike. We've lived it I'd say.

Just gotta say on the "Where to go with the discussion" front that personally I get a WTF? moment when it gets into the Facebook-Myspace yada yada stuff.

Why the hell aren't people doing this sort of talking every day in the infinite and myriad ways where openings are presented.

Hey I must have 17 of these per day (on average) and very few of them are pre-conditioned or arranged. It's got to be "in the blood" and introduced into every situation you can imagine. The internet should not be considered as a primary source IMHO of agitation.

You gotta feel uncomfortable some of the time and you will definitely make others feel that way at times just as you will be surprised at where you find allies. But get crackin' on the streets of your town.

It's in the air. People are hungry.

Why the hell aren't people doing this sort of talking every day in the infinite and myriad ways where openings are presented.


This is a mystery to me. Why the resistance to even discussing how to use the Internet more effectively? To talking about why the discussion here is so stilted - stuffed and mounted - irrelevant, powerless.

Why are 90% of the things we could be talking about and the people we could be talking to excluded?

Why when I try to talk about this will I inevitably be attacked?

People will say oh it is this, oh it is that, oh it is the way people are, oh it is the nature of Internet boards, oh I understand what you are saying Mike and I agree with you it it just isn't possible but should you ever get it going, well hey then I will be right there, and on and on and on.

No it isn't any of that. It is us. That is where the problem is. But that cannot be discussed.

Thinking about this...

What are some of the features of a group that work? By "works" I mean that it expands and grows, that it is interesting, that it has an effect on people's lives, that things are achieved.

1. There is a clearly stated and agreed upon purpose

2. Everyone is welcomed, and no one is beat up on for not being up to speed or saying the wrong thing. People feel free to say what is on their mind.

3. There is a clear understanding about what disruption is - people can identify it and agree about it - and it isn't tolerated. (In political circles endless arguments ensue about this with people claiming that this negates the statement above in my point number two. Of course in political circles similar endless and absurd arguments happen on every subject related to organizing.)

4. People act as though they were friends - try to establish friendships. I tried to raise this point here and elsewhere back over a year ago, and it was met with derision. Yet where other than in these online political discussion groups do people act like such complete assholes and so aggressively resist treating each other decently and as as human beings? How can anything ever be accomplished, how can any successful organizing ever happen, how can any solidarity be built through dueling talking points so long as that is true?

5. People have a commitment to the group, and don't stay aloof and bolt or blow the place up - or threaten to - when things don't go their way.

Those are some of the things I see.

Yeah, that makes sense. I have to say I like talking to people in my neighborhood much better than most anyone on DU. Like I was telling Misty in one of the threads, I talk to people in my day to day. Even when I want to avoid it (like I did in a lunch yesterday because of the people I was with), it comes up anyway. So then I talked.

I'll tell you something, some of the richer folk out there are scared shitless. Not that they will be attacked by "the masses" but because they don't know what to do. They've never seen the economy so bad, they are scared about the future. Yesterday the topic was Geithner. Everyone's talking about him and noone likes him. Except democratic party loyalists.

Yeah, that makes sense. I have to say I like talking to people in my neighborhood much better than most anyone on DU. Like I was telling Misty in one of the threads, I talk to people in my day to day. Even when I want to avoid it (like I did in a lunch yesterday because of the people I was with), it comes up anyway. So then I talked.

I'll tell you something, some of the richer folk out there are scared shitless. Not that they will be attacked by "the masses" but because they don't know what to do. They've never seen the economy so bad, they are scared about the future. Yesterday the topic was Geithner. Everyone's talking about him and noone likes him. Except democratic party loyalists.


Now what is the barrier that we run into here, that I never run into offline? (I do run into something similar at meetings of the Dem party and liberal orgs, but nowhere else.)

Ideally, we should all be "fosterites". But most of us cannot, for various compelling and not so compelling reasons. So we must do the best we can within our circumstances, and we must be open to expanding those circumstances whenever possible.

If I had the courage of my conviction I should get a car and start driving, as I am limited in the amount of 'talk' that I can do by my peculiar lifestyle. But then I think, "where would I go?", this is after all Spartanburg Co. Well, I'm sure there's someplace, yet here I am. So I'll yack it up with anybody who feels like talking, mostly just fanning an existent fire, rarely drawing back a nub and losing a customer.

Though most people have internet access I am doubtful about it being effective on a mass scale. It is the way people use the internet that is the hindrance. Porn, shopping and chat are the major uses, and I may be accused of being a crotchety old fart but the face book/my space stuff just seems frivolously juvenile, devoid of content. I can see it useful in building cadre. Are we cadre? Time will tell, I guess.

Ideally, we should all be "fosterites". But most of us cannot, for various compelling and not so compelling reasons. So we must do the best we can within our circumstances, and we must be open to expanding those circumstances whenever possible.

If I had the courage of my conviction I should get a car and start driving, as I am limited in the amount of 'talk' that I can do by my peculiar lifestyle. But then I think, "where would I go?", this is after all Spartanburg Co. Well, I'm sure there's someplace, yet here I am. So I'll yack it up with anybody who feels like talking, mostly just fanning an existent fire, rarely drawing back a nub and losing a customer.

Though most people have internet access I am doubtful about it being effective on a mass scale. It is the way people use the internet that is the hindrance. Porn, shopping and chat are the major uses, and I may be accused of being a crotchety old fart but the face book/my space stuff just seems frivolously juvenile, devoid of content. I can see it useful in building cadre. Are we cadre? Time will tell, I guess.


On every subject except politics, people use the Internet effectively.

No, I don't think it is something about the Internet. I am convinced that it is something about us (people interested in politics in general.)

I had it happen recently at the music forum I go to. Normally we can all talk about anything. Wide variety of political and religious views. We have one pro-Obama person who can shut down conversation occasionally, but even that is not too bad. The thing that turned our political thread toxic was the Israel/Gaza discussion. We had several people post who were sympathetic to the Palestinians and two pro-Israel people effectively shut down all discussion through a series of nasty posts, attacking others through personal messages, and the like. It got too hostile and now only one or two even post on the topic anymore. Everyone avoids it because those 2 individuals have been members forever and they are well-liked by many.

I had it happen recently at the music forum I go to. Normally we can all talk about anything. Wide variety of political and religious views. We have one pro-Obama person who can shut down conversation occasionally, but even that is not too bad. The thing that turned our political thread toxic was the Israel/Gaza discussion. We had several people post who were sympathetic to the Palestinians and two pro-Israel people effectively shut down all discussion through a series of nasty posts, attacking others through personal messages, and the like. It got too hostile and now only one or two even post on the topic anymore. Everyone avoids it because those 2 individuals have been members forever and they are well-liked by many.


Interesting. One or two is sufficient. I think there were only a couple at OET instigating all of the problems. A couple of people were enough to blow peoplesing to smithereens.

If there were no exceptions to this, then I might agree that it was the nature of Internet boards blah blah. But I have seen places where this doesn't happen.

Still I don't think that always thinking in terms of keeping people out is the answer, because that results in there only being 5 people left and a lot of accusations and scapegoating. The disruptors are often good at using that to target others. DU is one big mess of people accusing each other of being disruptors, hoping to get the mods attention and get their adversaries banned. Since no one knows what the grounds for banning are, not what the purpose of the board is, there is total chaos.

At OET, things broke down in the arguments over the purpose of the board. There was one person there who did not want this to be clear and swayed the other mods and the membership. I fought like a tiger, so they resorted to the worse character assassination I have ever seen online. That is a classic example of one disruptor successfully controlling the admin. I resisted that, and so even though I was a founder and admin I had to go, whatever it took. One person held the whole group hostage, and most caved.

Of course then we have the example of the tyrannical admin which led to us being here in the first place.

The task is to prevent disruptors from running things, and doing that in such a way that more people participate, not fewer.

At OET, things broke down in the arguments over the purpose of the board. There was one person there who did not want this to be clear and swayed the other mods and the membership. I fought like a tiger, so they resorted to the worse character assassination I have ever seen online. That is a classic example of one disruptor successfully controlling the admin. I resisted that, and so even though I was a founder and admin I had to go, whatever it took. One person held the whole group hostage, and most caved.

That was a nightmare. The crazy thing, though, and the thing that prolonged the agony is that said disruptor was mostly silent. Except for occasional swipes out on the board at people he didn't like (which gave me a clue eventually). In fact at one point he resigned, I thought he was gone, and yet apparently he was still there. And working for Mr. O on the side - just to let Anax know he is not imagining things. Toxic.

That was a nightmare. The crazy thing, though, and the thing that prolonged the agony is that said disruptor was mostly silent.


Ah see we don't know what was happening by pm.

Yeah, just like my music board. Once I got one of their pms I knew what they were up to. This is why it's much easier to talk to folks in the neighborhood. :)

The computer has it's place but some of the best discussions I have are at small boards or just in conversation with someone on facebook or somewhere. Like minds tend to find each other, in virtual life just like real life.

I may be accused of being a crotchety old fart but the face book/my space stuff just seems frivolously juvenile, devoid of content.
there's no reason why you can't be a crotchety old fart & 100% right.

the worst thing about facebook is when you get a friend request from a boss. when that happens, it's time to deactivate the account! sorry boss!

The topic as I understand it on this thread just so people know what the hell I am talking about -

Where is the Left?

What about the Internet?

A couple of years ago, blasting away at people was the right way to go because they were so rigid in their ideas, and you had to do that to defend yourself in any case.

Now I think there are all sorts of people at loose ends and ready to re-think things.

Were it not for the handful of ever-more frantic and aggressive people at DU, all sorts of left wing discussions would be happening. The smallest number of people are active on DU now then I have seen in 5 years. They want to talk, but every thread is dominated by the handful of assholes who now have run of the place.

I am acting on the assumption here that there is something worthwhile to do with the Internet. I never could understand the people who say the Internet is all a waste of time and nothing can be accomplished with it, and then spend all of their time on it. That is less about their assessment of the Internet, and more about their unwillingness to stand up to the bullies. They keep coming back as though they thought something worthwhile could be done on the boards, even though they then deny that. Some sort of reluctance to take a stand of any kind there, not an ambiguity about the Internet. It is is not as though massive organizing or intense political discussions are happening offline.

In 2001, when George W. Bush took office, a Pew Research Center poll showed that 74% of Americans received most of their national and international news through television, 45% through newspapers, and only a paltry 13% through the internet (Observant readers may have noticed that those percentages add up to more than 100%. All I can say is, poll respondents must have been given the option of indicating more than one choice). By 2004, when George Bush “won” his second presidential election, the situation was somewhat better, but not a whole lot. Those who said they received most of their news through the Internet had risen from 13% in 2001 to 24% in 2004. But by 2008, the Internet had surpassed newspapers as the second most common source of news, and it lost out to television only by 70% to 40%. Here is a graphic demonstration:

http://people-press.org/reports/images/479-1.gif

In 2001, when George W. Bush took office, a Pew Research Center poll showed that 74% of Americans received most of their national and international news through television, 45% through newspapers, and only a paltry 13% through the internet (Observant readers may have noticed that those percentages add up to more than 100%. All I can say is, poll respondents must have been given the option of indicating more than one choice). By 2004, when George Bush “won” his second presidential election, the situation was somewhat better, but not a whole lot. Those who said they received most of their news through the Internet had risen from 13% in 2001 to 24% in 2004. But by 2008, the Internet had surpassed newspapers as the second most common source of news, and it lost out to television only by 70% to 40%. Here is a graphic demonstration:

http://people-press.org/reports/images/479-1.gif


Dunno, Mike. Perhaps it's a regional or class thing but my experience locally is much like that of MedleyMisty.

Maybe age and class. My mom, working class warrior, is all over the computer for her crochet patterns, chatting, genealogy, etc... but she freaks out at dinner time and has to turn on the tv for the 6:00 news. My five year old looked at her strangely and said "what is grandma doing". In our house teevee is for cartoons, tennis, and wii. Pure entertainment. I think the kids believe it is one of their toys. Whenever we need information of any sort: news, weather, or to call a plumber - we go to the internet.

Dunno, Mike. Perhaps it's a regional or class thing but my experience locally is much like that of MedleyMisty.


Well, that was not my point exactly.

If you are saying that everyday people are not on the Internet, so therefore hanging around here is a waste of time, and we are all living in a fantasy world when we think that anything we do makes any difference then I don't agree.

Here is what I see - no matter what anyone proposes, the response is a variation on "it is all impossible." All suggestions are met with long discussions about all of the barriers and reasons why nothing will ever work.

We lament the fact that those sheeple are only seeking entertainment, but then all of the political boards are set up mostly to support people being entertained by them. The way we entertain ourselves is by talking about how stupid everyone else is, and how they are only interested on entertaining themselves.

Maybe age and class. My mom, working class warrior, is all over the computer for her crochet patterns, chatting, genealogy, etc... but she freaks out at dinner time and has to turn on the tv for the 6:00 news. My five year old looked at her strangely and said "what is grandma doing". In our house teevee is for cartoons, tennis, and wii. Pure entertainment. I think the kids believe it is one of their toys. Whenever we need information of any sort: news, weather, or to call a plumber - we go to the internet.


There is nothing political happening online that is interesting for most people. The political boards are all designed as very esoteric form of entertainment, as a hobby for the few, and aimed at only those who see politics as entertainment and as a hobby - that limits the number of people who are interested. Politics is boring and miserable as a hobby. It is a hobby that only the relatively upscale and gentrified enjoy.

The age and class thing doesn't matter.

Back to the topic -

"SocIndy should be a hotbed of political discussion. It isn't."

It can happen. I have seen it. It isn't happening now.

A hotbed of political discussion is valuable in and of itself - it doesn't need to "do something" or "go somewhere." It will naturally lead to things being done. Nothing else will.

This is true on line and off, so it isn't about the Internet. If anything the Internet is the best venue we have.

It isn't about age or class - those are some sort of marketing concepts.

We are doing something to block and prevent it.

Nothing of the sort, I hate to think I'm wasting my time here, tho' I wonder about DU.

Not saying impossible, just that I don't see how and I'm anything but omniscient.

There's a lot to be said for your 3rd paragraph, and that is perhaps why the doubtfulness of effectiveness.

We are doing something to block and prevent it.

You've obviously been thinking about this. What do you think is the problem?

You've obviously been thinking about this. What do you think is the problem?


Not sure yet.

I think there are a number of problems in the way we think about it. Periodically I make attempts to understand it and get a discussion going about it. It usually doesn't go well lol. That suggests that there is something people are hanging on to.

Back to the topic -

"SocIndy should be a hotbed of political discussion. It isn't."

It can happen. I have seen it. It isn't happening now.

A hotbed of political discussion is valuable in and of itself - it doesn't need to "do something" or "go somewhere." It will naturally lead to things being done. Nothing else will.

This is true on line and off, so it isn't about the Internet. If anything the Internet is the best venue we have.

It isn't about age or class - those are some sort of marketing concepts.

We are doing something to block and prevent it.


I'll tell you what I observed here from my participation several months ago.

1) Too much focus on academic aspects of socialism -- the socialist variant of policy wonkery

2) Too little tolerance for those who don't see socialism as a religion of sorts

3) Too little tolerance for hard questions

I got shouted down for asking legitimate questions that arise when I consider trying to implement a socialist system in America.

If you can't deal with hard questions and instead assume the questioner is here only to destroy things, you're not going to have vibrant, useful discussion. Implementing socialism in America requires persuading and converting people who are not the least bit interested in it right now. I know people who might be reached, if some of the tough questions can be tackled sufficiently.

I guess, however, there's always going to be some "socialists" with the view that you're going to have to murder people who stand in your way, and for those "socialists" there's room to plan on murdering anyone who isn't already converted to socialism. That's the only reason I can see someone wanting to deflect or ignore tough questions from the skeptics... to assume the skeptics will just be killed.

I don't have any time for a "socialism" that is really a form of purge-oriented mass murder.

So you need to ask yourselves whether you want to get people on-board with your agenda, or whether you just want to have a small group of inner circle residents who will direct the murder of dissidents.

I was going to offer to help, but I see you've managed to nail yourself to that cross all by your lonesome..

http://barrydean.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/christ-on-the-cross.jpg

Back to the topic -

"SocIndy should be a hotbed of political discussion. It isn't."

It can happen. I have seen it. It isn't happening now.

A hotbed of political discussion is valuable in and of itself - it doesn't need to "do something" or "go somewhere." It will naturally lead to things being done. Nothing else will.

This is true on line and off, so it isn't about the Internet. If anything the Internet is the best venue we have.

It isn't about age or class - those are some sort of marketing concepts.

We are doing something to block and prevent it.


I'll tell you what I observed here from my participation several months ago.

1) Too much focus on academic aspects of socialism -- the socialist variant of policy wonkery

2) Too little tolerance for those who don't see socialism as a religion of sorts

3) Too little tolerance for hard questions

I got shouted down for asking legitimate questions that arise when I consider trying to implement a socialist system in America.

If you can't deal with hard questions and instead assume the questioner is here only to destroy things, you're not going to have vibrant, useful discussion. Implementing socialism in America requires persuading and converting people who are not the least bit interested in it right now. I know people who might be reached, if some of the tough questions can be tackled sufficiently.

I guess, however, there's always going to be some "socialists" with the view that you're going to have to murder people who stand in your way, and for those "socialists" there's room to plan on murdering anyone who isn't already converted to socialism. That's the only reason I can see someone wanting to deflect or ignore tough questions from the skeptics... to assume the skeptics will just be killed.

I don't have any time for a "socialism" that is really a form of purge-oriented mass murder.

So you need to ask yourselves whether you want to get people on-board with your agenda, or whether you just want to have a small group of inner circle residents who will direct the murder of dissidents.


Ah, Monsieur Le Pyre... so nice to see you again.

The Kid, though sharp as a tack, is momentarily hors de combat and stuck (temporarily) within his own body. I will be happy to discuss hard questions as both of us have time and if you will be so kind as to take them one at a time. Taking them all at once or as they occur to you would not conducive to discussion.

I should warn you that I don't feel the slightest need to get people on my agenda. I think they get there all on their own, regardless of what I do. With that caution, and with your promise that you're not "looking for love in all the wrong places", what would you like to talk about?

1) Too much focus on academic aspects of socialism -- the socialist variant of policy wonkery

2) Too little tolerance for those who don't see socialism as a religion of sorts

3) Too little tolerance for hard questions


Yes and no. Certainly there is a perception of too much focus on academic aspects, intolerance for those who don't see socialism as a religion, and too little tolerance for hard questions.

And there is some evidence that supports those perceptions.

I am absolutely certain - as certain as I could be about anything - that I resist no hard questions, and avoid no discussions - almost to a fault.

I am certain that I am extremely tolerant of people who disagree with me, and certainly do not see or demand that others see socialism as a religion. Again, almost to a fault.

I don't care about the academic aspects of socialism especially, and certainly do not focus on that or insist that others do.

However I am frequently accused of doing those three things.

Up until a few months ago, I never declared myself to "be a socialist" because people's brains shut down when you say that. "Oh well you are a socialist..." is said to dismiss what you are saying.

Since I did start declaring myself to "be" a socialist, there has been a ten-fold increase in the accusations against me that are listed in your post, although I am saying the same things I always said.

That strongly suggests that the word "socialism" means academic, religious zeal, and intolerance in people's minds, and once they "know" that you "are" a socialist, they start seeing those things there when they did not before that.

So now what?

Another mystery, while we are at it...

How come I can talk socialism to Republican voting farmers, and while I get some resistance I never hear these complaints - academic, religious fervor and intolerance - that are so common from liberals?

Here is my hunch.

Almost all intellectuals in the country with an interest in politics are steeped in liberalism, and liberalism itself is academic, religious, and intolerant. That leads to two things. First, liberals project the attitudes of liberalism onto anyone they identify as "being" a socialist. Secondly, some treat their new found socialism as a replacement for liberalism - same tune with new words - and preach and lecture and are intolerant of others. Those two then reinforce one another.

Ah, Monsieur Le Pyre... so nice to see you again.

The Kid, though sharp as a tack, is momentarily hors de combat and stuck (temporarily) within his own body. I will be happy to discuss hard questions as both of us have time and if you will be so kind as to take them one at a time. Taking them all at once or as they occur to you would not conducive to discussion.

I should warn you that I don't feel the slightest need to get people on my agenda. I think they get there all on their own, regardless of what I do. With that caution, and with your promise that you're not "looking for love in all the wrong places", what would you like to talk about?

I'm all for addressing the tough questions, but this guy isn't just disingenuous hes a white-eyed nut who came back solely to martyr himself -- if we can't convince him, our fallback is not just to kill him but become architects of mass murderer. That would be insulting if it weren't so stupid.

Besides, his premise is something like: 'socialism isn't supposed to be a sect..so why aren't you socialists trying to construct a separate sect?'

What are the "academic" aspects of socialism exactly? How are those parts separated from the activities of socialists and the struggle for socialism ? The more I've delved into it, and as you say I've had alot of time on my hands, the more the distinction escapes me.

m pyre, voice of the voiceless, champion of the dispossessed & all-around lover of justice, is concerned about radicals potentially leaving bourgie white amerikkkans in the lurch.

Well I am just going to plow ahead. Nothing to lose.

One group of liberals says "our beliefs about liberalism were all wrong. So let's hold classes and learn the one true doctrine of socialism now, and let's attack anyone who has not embraced the one true doctrine so that we will not backslide and be contaminated by those false views we used to hold. Take no prisoners! Give no quarter!"

The other groups of liberals says "hey just because I am not as knowledgeable, or as much of a true believer in socialism as you are, or ask a few questions, that does not mean that I am an evil person as you are trying to claim that I am. You are never going to persuade people to your views if you keep going about things this way."

Blah blah blah blah I have been listening to that same debate for 40 years, and it will never get anywhere. It is impossible to referee, too.

Yeah it is a problem. Tell me about it. We spend all of our time on that debate. What a waste.

Just over the last month or so I have an inbox full of whiny and mean-spirited complaints because I am not refereeing things to people's satisfaction - I am not supervising the fight between the kids on the back seat. That is then presented as evidence to support their parting shots - that I will never succeed at what I am "trying to do," that everything I am doing is all fucked up, and on and on.

"Daddy, daddy, he hit me first!" "She looked at me funny!"

There is some sort of derangement among liberal intellectuals. I think people are suffering from house Negro-ism.

m pyre, voice of the voiceless, champion of the dispossessed & all-around lover of justice, is concerned about radicals potentially leaving bourgie white amerikkkans in the lurch.


Hey squid. Let's say that is true. How about we discuss that and get it resolved once and for all?

By the way - here is where I stand. I spend very little time with bourgie white amerikkkans, and that has been true for 40 years. As far as I am concerned, we could leave ALL of them behind - 10% of the population. That could not be worse than endlessly catering to them, and then listening to all of the complaints about how we are not indulging them enough.

That might sound harsh. But when will it be time to grow up and stop obsessing over our personal sensitivities?

At the same time, from a tactical standpoint, it is a bad idea, and it is destroying the possibility of reaching more people to have true-believer zealots jumping all over the perceived heretics at the drop of a hat.

And the endless petty feuding about who is more righteous - who is and who is not a true "voice of the voiceless, champion of the dispossessed & all-around lover of justice" let me say this:

We all suck and are about as fucking useless as tits on a boar, so could we please get the fuck over that?

We have a long, long way to go. The game is afoot. We have a massive contribution to make of we could get over ourselves. We have not scratched the surface. We have not even gotten started.

Find a way to contribute and get busy. Chlamor has. Anax has. Mary has.


...

m pyre, voice of the voiceless, champion of the dispossessed & all-around lover of justice, is concerned about radicals potentially leaving bourgie white amerikkkans in the lurch.


Hey squid. Let's say that is true. How about we discuss that and get it resolved once and for all?

By the way - here is where I stand. I spend very little time with bourgie white amerikkkans, and that has been true for 40 years. As far as I am concerned, we could leave ALL of them behind - 10% of the population. That could not be worse than endlessly catering to them, and then listening to all of the complaints about how we are not indulging them enough.

That might sound harsh. But when will it be time to grow up and stop obsessing over our personal sensitivities?

At the same time, from a tactical standpoint, it is a bad idea, and it is destroying the possibility of reaching more people to have true-believer zealots jumping all over the perceived heretics at the drop of a hat.

And the endless petty feuding about who is more righteous - who is and who is not a true "voice of the voiceless, champion of the dispossessed & all-around lover of justice" let me say this:

We all suck and are about as fucking useless as tits on a boar, so could we please get the fuck over that?

We have a long, long way to go. The game is afoot. We have a massive contribution to make of we could get over ourselves. We have not scratched the surface. We have not even gotten started.

Find a way to contribute and get busy. Chlamor has. Anax has. Mary has.


...


Mike, I can't tell if you legitimately took his comment wrongly or just used it as a convenient jumping off point. The squid's comment is spot on.

Whatever it may be worth otherwise, I don't see how your post pertains to what VS said at all

Mike, I can't tell if you legitimately took his comment wrongly or just used it as a convenient jumping off point. The squid's comment is spot on.

Whatever it may be worth otherwise, I don't see how your post pertains to what VS said at all


I answered as though I thought it were serious. To do otherwise would have been to take sides.

Mike, I can't tell if you legitimately took his comment wrongly or just used it as a convenient jumping off point. The squid's comment is spot on.

Whatever it may be worth otherwise, I don't see how your post pertains to what VS said at all


I answered as though I thought it were serious. To do otherwise would have been to take sides.


hmm..to me the Squid is making the obvious point that M Pyre was obsessed with whether or not gentrified whites with "moderate" political views (like himself) would be welcomed into the "movement" or not. I don't think it was any kind of "meta-commentary" past that.

look. like anax said, this isn't some marketing campaign. nobody's tryng to carve out a niche in public opinion. discussion is generally good, education is always good, but discussion without education is not necessarily constructive. of course discussion can serve as a powerful teaching tool, but people have to check their own prejudices & bad faith at the door first before any progress can be made. m pyre isn't doing himself any favors by smearing posters here as "wonks" or dogmatists or glorifiers of political violence, when they are anything but!

also seeing you post "bougie white amerikkkans" gave me a really funny feeling inside.

kid has me figured out.

I'm still mortified that I'm apologizing for the Kid bein' absent and he comes chargin' out like he had two arms... Feelin' better?

I'm still mortified that I'm apologizing for the Kid bein' absent and he comes chargin' out like he had two arms... Feelin' better?




Infintiely. I am still recuperating, but have had both arms back for a little while..having some rotator cuff problems now is the biggest issue that. Trying to find the right orthotic brace for where I am at recovery-wise, but it is mainly a palliative now.

I'm still mortified that I'm apologizing for the Kid bein' absent and he comes chargin' out like he had two arms... Feelin' better?




Infintiely. I am still recuperating, but have had both arms back for a little while..having some rotator cuff problems now is the biggest issue that. Trying to find the right orthotic brace for where I am at recovery-wise, but it is mainly a palliative now.


Merely a flesh wound.

http://www.linustechtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/monty-python-black-knight.bmp

How Many Democrats Will Stand Up to Obama's Bloated Military Budget and $75 Billion More in War Spending?

Obama wants billions more for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars on top of a US military budget that already surpasses Bush-era spending by $21 billion. Where is the resistance?

by Jeremy Scahill

Much of the media attention this week on President Obama's new military budget has put forward a false narrative wherein Obama is somehow taking his socialist/pacifist sledgehammer to the Pentagon's war machine and blasting it to smithereens. Republicans have charged that Obama is endangering the country's security, while the Democratic leadership has hailed it as the dawn of a new era in responsible spending priorities. Part of this narrative portrays Defense Secretary Robert Gates as standing up to the war industry, particularly military contractors.

The reality is that all of this is false.

Here is an undeniable fact: Obama is substantially increasing US military spending, by at least $21 billion from Bush-era levels, including a significant ratcheting up of Afghanistan war spending, as well as more money for unmanned attack drones, which are increasingly being used in attacks on Pakistan. (David Swanson over at AfterDowningStreet.org does a great job of breaking down some of the media coverage of this issue across the political spectrum).

Obama's budget of $534 billion to the Department of Defense "represents roughly a 4-percent increase over the $513 billion allocated to the Pentagon in FY2009 under the Bush administration, and $6.7 billion more than the outgoing administration's projections for FY 2010," bragged Lawrence Korb, author of the Center for American Progress' report supporting Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan, in an article called, " Obama's Defense Budget Is on Target."

Obama and his neoliberal think tankers clearly didn't think much of Rep. Barney Frank's call earlier this year to cut military spending by 25% to pay for urgently needed social programs and economic aid to struggling Americans. "To accomplish his goals of expanding health care and other important quality of life services without ballooning the deficit," Frank said, Obama needed to reduce military spending. "If we do not get military spending under control, we will not be able to respond to important domestic needs." Well, not only is overall military spending on the rise, but Obama is about to ask for billions more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a "supplemental" spending bill, the type which were staples in Bush's campaign to mask of the full military budget and total cost of the wars. Obama could seek the funding as early as Thursday.

Now, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that we may actually see some spine coming from Congress in standing up to Obama's request for this additional $75.5 billion in war funds. The WSJ characterized the situation as one of "raising tensions" between Obama and some lawmakers opposed to the wars. It should be noted off-the-bat that the Congresspeople speaking out are, predictably, members of the usual suspects club and the Democratic leadership is probably at this moment sharing cocktails in the backroom with McCain and McConnell, but, nonetheless, it is worth examining what is being said:

"I can't imagine any way I'd vote for it," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat and leader in the 77-member congressional Progressive Caucus. It would be her first major break with this White House.

Ms. Woolsey fears the president's plan for Iraq would leave behind a big occupation force. She is also concerned about the planned escalation in Afghanistan. "I don't think we should be going there," she said.

Similar sentiments echo across the House. Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) said he fears Afghanistan could become a quagmire. "I just have this sinking feeling that we're getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end," he said.

Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) dismissed Mr. Obama's plans as "embarrassingly naive," and suggested that the president is being led astray by those around him. "He's the smartest man in American politics today," Rep. Conyers said. "But he occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances."

Obama has vowed to break with the Bush-era tradition of seeking such supplementals to fund the war, saying that beginning in 2010 he will fund the wars as part of his overall budget. The anti-war caucus of Democrats is unlikely to have enough votes to block it given the increasingly overt pro-war nature of the Democratic leadership. And, as the WSJ notes, the funding bills are likely to pass "since many Republicans will support them."

An interesting point nestled half-way through the WSJ piece illustrates a point some antiwar activists have been making since Obama's election-he is likely to win increased support from Democratic lawmakers for wars they may not have supported when Bush was in power:

The president argues that Afghanistan has been neglected, allowing al Qaeda to regroup and exposing the U.S. to new dangers.

Rep. John Larson (D., Conn.) suggests Democrats may be less inclined to joust with the current White House on the issue than they were with former President George W. Bush. "We have somebody that Democrats feel will level with them," said Mr. Larson, the House's fourth-ranking Democrat.

This truly is one of the most important trends to watch with the Obama presidency, particularly as it relates to war policy. Obama is in a position to greatly advance the interests of empire, precisely because he is able to build much wider support for policies that are essentially a continuation of those implemented by Bush.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/09-5

Really glad to hear about your recovery, Kid!!

Thought I'd share this email just FYI...
seems to fit with the discussion...

Poll: Just 53% Favor Capitalism Over Socialism
by Craig Brown

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.
Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.
Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.
There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.
The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism (from me: what kind of poll expects true results if they don't define the terms?)
It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a "free-market economy" attracts substantially more support than "capitalism" may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.
Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.
Fifteen percent (15%) of Americans say they prefer a government-managed economy, similar to the 20% support for socialism. Just 14% believe the federal government would do a better job running auto companies, and even fewer believe government would do a better job running financial firms.
Most Americans today hold views that can generally be defined as populist while only seven percent (7%) share the elitist views of the Political Class.

The bolds are mine. on edit: cross posted with Chlamor's two posts above...

I'm still mortified that I'm apologizing for the Kid bein' absent and he comes chargin' out like he had two arms... Feelin' better?




Infintiely. I am still recuperating, but have had both arms back for a little while..having some rotator cuff problems now is the biggest issue that. Trying to find the right orthotic brace for where I am at recovery-wise, but it is mainly a palliative now.


Merely a flesh wound.

http://www.linustechtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/monty-python-black-knight.bmp


Watch it he might bleed on you!

How Many Democrats Will Stand Up to Obama's Bloated Military Budget and $75 Billion More in War Spending?

Obama wants billions more for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars on top of a US military budget that already surpasses Bush-era spending by $21 billion. Where is the resistance?

by Jeremy Scahill



The basic formula is fewer battleships and more Redcoats. The channel fleet can't sail to Mosul or Kabul. F-22's can't be "stealthy" if the "insurgents" couldn't see them in the first place... whether they were F-22s or F-4s.

In truth, aside from its scale, this is the first Colonial War budget since the end of the Soviet Union. It is built for use, not for show (i.e. intimidatin' the heathens).

Really glad to hear about your recovery, Kid!!

Thought I'd share this email just FYI...
seems to fit with the discussion...

Poll: Just 53% Favor Capitalism Over Socialism
by Craig Brown

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.
Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.
Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.
There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.
The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism (from me: what kind of poll expects true results if they don't define the terms?)
It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a "free-market economy" attracts substantially more support than "capitalism" may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.
Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.
Fifteen percent (15%) of Americans say they prefer a government-managed economy, similar to the 20% support for socialism. Just 14% believe the federal government would do a better job running auto companies, and even fewer believe government would do a better job running financial firms.
Most Americans today hold views that can generally be defined as populist while only seven percent (7%) share the elitist views of the Political Class.

The bolds are mine. on edit: cross posted with Chlamor's two posts above...


You need to put this up on DU for the "America is not Left" crowd.

This poll was commisioned by Mike just to prove his point that "America is ready; it's the 'Left' that isn't ready".

hmm..to me the Squid is making the obvious point that M Pyre was obsessed with whether or not gentrified whites with "moderate" political views (like himself) would be welcomed into the "movement" or not. I don't think it was any kind of "meta-commentary" past that.


Yep.

Really glad to hear about your recovery, Kid!!

Thought I'd share this email just FYI...
seems to fit with the discussion...

Poll: Just 53% Favor Capitalism Over Socialism
by Craig Brown

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.
Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.
Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.
There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.
The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism (from me: what kind of poll expects true results if they don't define the terms?)
It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a "free-market economy" attracts substantially more support than "capitalism" may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.
Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.
Fifteen percent (15%) of Americans say they prefer a government-managed economy, similar to the 20% support for socialism. Just 14% believe the federal government would do a better job running auto companies, and even fewer believe government would do a better job running financial firms.
Most Americans today hold views that can generally be defined as populist while only seven percent (7%) share the elitist views of the Political Class.

The bolds are mine. on edit: cross posted with Chlamor's two posts above...


Damn.

Half the people are commies now.

You need to put this up on DU for the "America is not Left" crowd.

This poll was commisioned by Mike just to prove his point that "America is ready; it's the 'Left' that isn't ready".



Hi Anax, I'm waiting for the link (there wasn't one included in the email) but I think I will post it, if I get that! I was remembering a poll from when Kucinich was running that asked people about different stances without naming any candidate or political party. Overwhelmingly the people selected the socialist stances. The person who sent this to me is 25, and he was using it as a point that the term "socialism" still scares many over 35...maybe he's right...a cold war lingering fear thing...

on edit: here's a link, I googled the title, duh, forget about doing that too often:

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2009/04/09

Still will have to wait until later to post, gotta split for a bit and like to be there when post a DU thread, my ego can't handle when they sink!! ;)

The person who sent this to me is 25, and he was using it as a point that the term "socialism" still scares many over 35...maybe he's right...a cold war lingering fear thing...

The flaw is in not defining the terms (or in using the terms at all). If you just spelled out positions without using the scary words like "socialism" I wonder if the numbers would be higher? Where did all the hippies go? I guess they traded in their bell-bottoms for McMansions and Minivans.

The person who sent this to me is 25, and he was using it as a point that the term "socialism" still scares many over 35...maybe he's right...a cold war lingering fear thing...

The flaw is in not defining the terms (or in using the terms at all). If you just spelled out positions without using the scary words like "socialism" I wonder if the numbers would be higher? Where did all the hippies go? I guess they traded in their bell-bottoms for McMansions and Minivans.


Hi TBF! that was my point in mentioning the Kucinich poll, when polled on the positions/issues, people invariably voted far more left than the candidates they supported! Far more left.

I remember in the 80's when the term Yuppie came into popular usage, there was the term Huppie for just those hippies you are referring to. I think many hippies did retain their principles however.

The basic formula is fewer battleships and more Redcoats.



What else are they gonna do with all these young unemployed ? Give 'em some "red coats"!!! >:(

How Many Democrats Will Stand Up to Obama's Bloated Military Budget and $75 Billion More in War Spending?

Obama wants billions more for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars on top of a US military budget that already surpasses Bush-era spending by $21 billion. Where is the resistance?

by Jeremy Scahill



The basic formula is fewer battleships and more Redcoats. The channel fleet can't sail to Mosul or Kabul. F-22's can't be "stealthy" if the "insurgents" couldn't see them in the first place... whether they were F-22s or F-4s.

In truth, aside from its scale, this is the first Colonial War budget since the end of the Soviet Union. It is built for use, not for show (i.e. intimidatin' the heathens).




Can't forget the new batch of 'littoral combat ships', gunboats for 21st century gunboat diplomacy.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_LCS_Lockheed_Concept_Cutaway_lg.jpg

The person who sent this to me is 25, and he was using it as a point that the term "socialism" still scares many over 35...maybe he's right...a cold war lingering fear thing...

The flaw is in not defining the terms (or in using the terms at all). If you just spelled out positions without using the scary words like "socialism" I wonder if the numbers would be higher? Where did all the hippies go? I guess they traded in their bell-bottoms for McMansions and Minivans.


Hi TBF! that was my point in mentioning the Kucinich poll, when polled on the positions/issues, people invariably voted far more left than the candidates they supported! Far more left.

I remember in the 80's when the term Yuppie came into popular usage, there was the term Huppie for just those hippies you are referring to. I think many hippies did retain their principles however.


To a large degree where you started is where you end up. Most of those from the 'burbs went back home to 'the American Dream. For us city kids and the country kids there was less reason to conform. All generally speaking, of course.

Really glad to hear about your recovery, Kid!!

Thought I'd share this email just FYI...
seems to fit with the discussion...

Poll: Just 53% Favor Capitalism Over Socialism
by Craig Brown

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.
Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.
Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.
There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.
The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism (from me: what kind of poll expects true results if they don't define the terms?)
It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a "free-market economy" attracts substantially more support than "capitalism" may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.
Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.
Fifteen percent (15%) of Americans say they prefer a government-managed economy, similar to the 20% support for socialism. Just 14% believe the federal government would do a better job running auto companies, and even fewer believe government would do a better job running financial firms.
Most Americans today hold views that can generally be defined as populist while only seven percent (7%) share the elitist views of the Political Class.

The bolds are mine. on edit: cross posted with Chlamor's two posts above...


This is so interesting...and imo it demonstrates why the need for the 'academic' or 'theoretical' discussion of socialism in particular and economic/political theory in general, is so goddamn important. Maybe not in the form that we do it here (can I say 'we' when I have so few posts? heh) but clearly, if all of these self-identified dems favor socialism over capitalism then there is a serious misunderstanding going on...like the idea of some sort of blend between capitalism and socialism being ideal. Wtf? They are opposed systems. They cannot be blended. If they are blended, then they are neither capitalism nor socialism.

While these poll results are intriguing, I don't know what they ~really~ mean - as chopped liver points out, the terms aren't explained..."Socialism" is losing meaning and that isn't helpful. Openness to some vague concept of socialism seems to be a good sign though.

Which is worse, "Socialism" the boogeyman, or "socialism" the stolen word to be re-defined by economic behavioralists?

Really glad to hear about your recovery, Kid!!

Thought I'd share this email just FYI...
seems to fit with the discussion...

Poll: Just 53% Favor Capitalism Over Socialism
by Craig Brown

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.
Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.
Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.
There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.
The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism (from me: what kind of poll expects true results if they don't define the terms?)
It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a "free-market economy" attracts substantially more support than "capitalism" may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.
Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.
Fifteen percent (15%) of Americans say they prefer a government-managed economy, similar to the 20% support for socialism. Just 14% believe the federal government would do a better job running auto companies, and even fewer believe government would do a better job running financial firms.
Most Americans today hold views that can generally be defined as populist while only seven percent (7%) share the elitist views of the Political Class.

The bolds are mine. on edit: cross posted with Chlamor's two posts above...


This is so interesting...and imo it demonstrates why the need for the 'academic' or 'theoretical' discussion of socialism in particular and economic/political theory in general, is so goddamn important. Maybe not in the form that we do it here (can I say 'we' when I have so few posts? heh) but clearly, if all of these self-identified dems favor socialism over capitalism then there is a serious misunderstanding going on...like the idea of some sort of blend between capitalism and socialism being ideal. Wtf? They are opposed systems. They cannot be blended. If they are blended, then they are neither capitalism nor socialism.

While these poll results are intriguing, I don't know what they ~really~ mean - as chopped liver points out, the terms aren't explained..."Socialism" is losing meaning and that isn't helpful. Openness to some vague concept of socialism seems to be a good sign though.

Which is worse, "Socialism" the boogeyman, or "socialism" the stolen word to be re-defined by economic behavioralists?


Hi meganmonkey! I would think the "stolen word" would certainly be worse, boogeymen can be made friendly. But I'm thinking when talking to "lay" people we should define socialism in terms they could relate to, at least to start. I myself am still a total idiot when it comes to being able to discuss theoretical socialism. At this critical time, and in short discussions, I'd opt for the wisdom of socialism vs. the knowledge? As in, everybody's needs being taken care of vs. the wherewithal of what this entails? make sense?

Mary -

Started a thread here -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5426255&mesg_id=5426255

Mary -

Started a thread here -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5426255&mesg_id=5426255


Thanks Mike!! pick up the ball anytime, nice addition on the religion stuff too!!

That was a great post, Mike.

The part about religion - not sure I see that the same way. I have a feeling the churches may be holding back at this point because it's not in their interest to move forward. One thing Obama has done is acknowledge non-believers. The religious may not want him focusing on religion because it may not go in their favor. With the right type of person in office, like a Palin or Huckabee, they may well decide it's time to integrate religion into politics again because laws favorable to them (prayers in the public schools, vouchers, etc...) would be more likely to be passed.

That was a great post, Mike.

The part about religion - not sure I see that the same way. I have a feeling the churches may be holding back at this point because it's not in their interest to move forward. One thing Obama has done is acknowledge non-believers. The religious may not want him focusing on religion because it may not go in their favor. With the right type of person in office, like a Palin or Huckabee, they may well decide it's time to integrate religion into politics again because laws favorable to them (prayers in the public schools, vouchers, etc...) would be more likely to be passed.


I think the religious right movement has played itself out. Time to start worrying about the New Age liberals - that is the next great tent revival awakening and true believer insanity. Obama is much better at this then Falwell and Robertson ever were.

Well that is certainly true. Obama actually reminds me of the new self-help type preachers. We've got one down here in Houston named Joel Osteen and they are about the same age. His "religious" program is the top-watched in the US and the church itself is in the Rocket's old arena.

Well that is certainly true. Obama actually reminds me of the new self-help type preachers. We've got one down here in Houston named Joel Osteen and they are about the same age. His "religious" program is the top-watched in the US and the church itself is in the Rocket's old arena.




Joel Osteen is os over-the-top I always have a lingering doubt if its for real..

His profits are for real, his church was bringing in over $50 million/per yr in 2005 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/28/eveningnews/main704903.shtml), and his last book advance (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/business/media/15book.html) was reportedly $13 million. And he doesn't have to pay taxes. Nice work if you can get it.

Since I did start declaring myself to "be" a socialist, there has been a ten-fold increase in the accusations against me that are listed in your post, although I am saying the same things I always said.

That strongly suggests that the word "socialism" means academic, religious zeal, and intolerance in people's minds, and once they "know" that you "are" a socialist, they start seeing those things there when they did not before that.

So now what?


Thanks, Mike. Seems you understand my points. Kid, I don't count... Kid has problems with me and it seems Kid can't read my posts as coming from anyone but whomever he imagines as his mortal enemy. I guess he needs an enemy more than he needs to see his form of society implemented. What a loss.

So you ask, Now what?

Well that's what this forum should be about, if the point is to try to realize some socialised society distinct from the one Americans now suffer under.

I haven't ever said that I have the answers, and since I don't look to lord power over others, I don't want to be in that position. I am more familiar with problem identification and root-cause discernment. I am not an outgoing person, and I don't like most humans I meet. So I'm not the type to work on "organizing."

My point is that if you want to encourage more people to seriously entertain the ideas resident in socialism, you have to overcome the hurdle that Mike just described.

And,

behave a whole lot less like The Mighty Kid, who loves to hear himself talk, especially when he imagines himself shouting down his mortal enemies.

I think the religious right movement has played itself out. Time to start worrying about the New Age liberals - that is the next great tent revival awakening and true believer insanity. Obama is much better at this then Falwell and Robertson ever were.


Yep. The "religious right" wasn't ever a movement of any real momentum. The whole point of that "movement" being given mainstream infotainment attention is and was to give the libwul pwoggies a demon they could hate. In other words, to perpetuate tribalistic partisan distraction.

If the "religious right" really had power in America, McCain's nomination of Sarah Palin would have cinched the noose and foiled Obama's and the Donkle's chances at POTUS 2008.

Since I did start declaring myself to "be" a socialist, there has been a ten-fold increase in the accusations against me that are listed in your post, although I am saying the same things I always said.

That strongly suggests that the word "socialism" means academic, religious zeal, and intolerance in people's minds, and once they "know" that you "are" a socialist, they start seeing those things there when they did not before that.

So now what?


Thanks, Mike. Seems you understand my points. Kid, I don't count... Kid has problems with me and it seems Kid can't read my posts as coming from anyone but whomever he imagines as his mortal enemy. I guess he needs an enemy more than he needs to see his form of society implemented. What a loss.

So you ask, Now what?

Well that's what this forum should be about, if the point is to try to realize some socialised society distinct from the one Americans now suffer under.

I haven't ever said that I have the answers, and since I don't look to lord power over others, I don't want to be in that position. I am more familiar with problem identification and root-cause discernment. I am not an outgoing person, and I don't like most humans I meet. So I'm not the type to work on "organizing."

My point is that if you want to encourage more people to seriously entertain the ideas resident in socialism, you have to overcome the hurdle that Mike just described.

And,

behave a whole lot less like The Mighty Kid, who loves to hear himself talk, especially when he imagines himself shouting down his mortal enemies.




Hey mpyre, Kid's passionate (and doesn't need my defense)...some say we dislike the traits in others that we most dislike in ourselves or those traits we would most like to attain, but can't seem to? a gift for you? (no offense intended here, just an observation)

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:X4Lsnq0u0-DM0M:http://www.lakewoodconferences.com/direct/dbimage/50285586/Framed_Mirror.jpg

Thanks, Mike. Seems you understand my points. Kid, I don't count... Kid has problems with me and it seems Kid can't read my posts as coming from anyone but whomever he imagines as his mortal enemy. I guess he needs an enemy more than he needs to see his form of society implemented. What a loss.

My suggestion - given 100 times to 100 different people - never mind the kid.

No one is trying to "see their form of society implemented." Can you not see how insulting that is? Can you not see that the statement is not politically neutral, that it is oppositional, but disguised as something else?

For 40 years I have heard the same arguments. "Oh if only they would be nice, then everything would be fine. Don't get me wrong, I agree with many of their goals, but the way they are going about it is wrong."


Well that's what this forum should be about, if the point is to try to realize some socialised society distinct from the one Americans now suffer under.

Until and unless you are willing to see that you may be - many, many do this - trying to force the conversation into a certain direction there will always be conflict.


My point is that if you want to encourage more people to seriously entertain the ideas resident in socialism, you have to overcome the hurdle that Mike just described.

No, the sales and marketing model is not an appropriate one to apply here. I am not running for office, not selling product, and not trying to be a guru.

It never never never never never works to "encourage more people to seriously entertain the ideas."


behave a whole lot less like The Mighty Kid, who loves to hear himself talk, especially when he imagines himself shouting down his mortal enemies.

What you are describing is the problem, not a solution to anything. One wealthy person donates money to charity, and we are supposed to let all wealthy people off the hook. One socialist misbehaves, in the view of a gentrified "reasonable" liberal, and we are supposed to bring everything to a screeching halt and worry about the delicate sensibilities of one offended person. My experiences tells me that this is like trying to fill a bottomless pit. Let's say we ban the kid. Then we will be hearing complaints about chlamor, or anax, or myself. Until and unless we neuter the place and turn it into some sort of upscale tea party, there will always be complaints.

As I mentioned, every single person over the years demanding that everyone play nice has delivered a vicious parting shot at me on their way out when they couldn't bend me to their will, mistreating me infinitely worse than anything the kid or anyone else ever did to them.

Yep. The "religious right" wasn't ever a movement of any real momentum. The whole point of that "movement" being given mainstream infotainment attention is and was to give the libwul pwoggies a demon they could hate. In other words, to perpetuate tribalistic partisan distraction.

If the "religious right" really had power in America, McCain's nomination of Sarah Palin would have cinched the noose and foiled Obama's and the Donkle's chances at POTUS 2008.


The religious right is not, and never was, about religion. It has always been an extreme right wing political movement disguised as religion.

The liberals beat the drum about the fundies, because that gives them an opportunity to express contempt toward their inferiors without being called on for defending and promoting aristocratic ideas, and it makes it seem as though there are significant differences between the two parties and provides cover for them to push liberalism and the Democratic party to the right.

As I mentioned, every single person over the years demanding that everyone play nice has delivered a vicious parting shot at me on their way out when they couldn't bend me to their will, mistreating me infinitely worse than anything the kid or anyone else ever did to them.

I didn't realized I was the source of such consternation for you ;)

I didn't realized I was the source of such consternation for you ;)


You owe me big time dude.

I didn't realized I was the source of such consternation for you ;)


You owe me big time dude.


no kidding..funny thing is I've literally *never* gotten an angry or snarky PM (EDIT: except from anaxarchos ;))

no kidding..funny thing is I've literally *never* gotten an angry or snarky PM (EDIT: except from anaxarchos ;))


Geez, I get one a day.

I didn't realized I was the source of such consternation for you ;)


You owe me big time dude.


no kidding..funny thing is I've literally *never* gotten an angry or snarky PM (EDIT: except from anaxarchos ;))



Half of the the people on this board have gotten nasty PMs from me... What can I say? Knowledge brings responsibility. If you know some shit, then you owe some shit...

It's just the truth.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Drill_sergeant_screams.jpg/496px-Drill_sergeant_screams.jpg

Really glad to hear about your recovery, Kid!!

Thought I'd share this email just FYI...
seems to fit with the discussion...

Poll: Just 53% Favor Capitalism Over Socialism
by Craig Brown

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.
Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.
Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.
There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.
The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism (from me: what kind of poll expects true results if they don't define the terms?)
It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a "free-market economy" attracts substantially more support than "capitalism" may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.
Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.
Fifteen percent (15%) of Americans say they prefer a government-managed economy, similar to the 20% support for socialism. Just 14% believe the federal government would do a better job running auto companies, and even fewer believe government would do a better job running financial firms.
Most Americans today hold views that can generally be defined as populist while only seven percent (7%) share the elitist views of the Political Class.

The bolds are mine. on edit: cross posted with Chlamor's two posts above...


You need to put this up on DU for the "America is not Left" crowd.

This poll was commisioned by Mike just to prove his point that "America is ready; it's the 'Left' that isn't ready".



Here's a NYT blog on the same poll, must have made some rounds, lots of non-reasoning going on here, open it for discussion and others to edit. Wonder if this caused so much internet action that some thought it needed defusing? Does indicate a need for stronger definitions for the general public? Pages of comments at the link.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/weekend-opinionator-a-different-sort-of-red-america/

[quote]Weekend Opinionator: A Different Sort of Red America
By Tobin Harshaw

Perhaps the most telling line in the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of “socialism” is this one: “The range of application of the term is broad.” That’s something to bear in mind as we consider a much-discussed poll, released by Rasmussen on Thursday, that found that “Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.” For the record, here is the primary O.E.D. definition:

A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy.

As for Rasmussen’s definition, well, there isn’t one: “The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism.”

‘Socialism’ rises in the polls — but do Americans even know what it means?

But the pollsters did point out an anomaly: “It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a ‘free-market economy’ attracts substantially more support than ‘capitalism’ may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.”

So, has the nation really drifted that far to the left, or are we simply struggling with our semantics? Plenty of folks in the blogosphere were happy to answer that question.

Steve Benen, the Political Animal, is pleased, but also sees a shifting in the lexicon.

In terms of interpreting these results, the numbers certainly aren’t what I expected, and it’s hard to know why respondents answered as they did. Perhaps “capitalism” lost some of its appeal when our economy collapsed. Maybe a lot of people heard the media connect Obama and “socialism,” and since they like the president, they figure socialism can’t be that bad. In a similar vein, if right-wing blowhards like Limbaugh keep screaming that socialism is manifestly evil, there may be some who assume the economic model must have merit.

But I was especially intrigued by the 27% who weren’t sure which was better. Talk about a sign of the times — more than one in four aren’t quite sure whether capitalism or socialism is the superior system.

Mark Thompson at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen feels his fellow conservatives have nobody to blame but themselves. “When you falsely complain that every single thing your opponents try to do is socialism and absurdly hold your bloviating, unpopular selves up as bastions of capitalism, you probably shouldn’t be surprised when people start thinking socialism doesn’t look so bad, and capitalism doesn’t look so good,” he writes. “Let the record also reflect that I, personally, remain firmly with the 53 percent; I just don’t blame the other 47 percent for thinking otherwise.”

Matt Yglesias of Think Progress feels that times have changed enough that “socialism” is “good branding”:

The whole idea is that we should put society first rather than capital, or money. That sounds good! But in the United States we never had a Socialist Party so “socialism” was primarily associated with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which was not at all good. But to people under 30, there’s less of that old resonance. And saying that Obama, who’s popular, is a “socialist” may simply tend to make people have warmer feelings toward the word “socialism.”

The New Republic’s John Judis seems to think the poll’s younger respondents have a better fix on things than the O.E.D.:

According to the poll, 53 percent of Americans think capitalism is preferable to socialism, while 20 percent say socialism is preferable. And among those trustworthy adults under thirty, 37 percent prefer capitalism, 33

percent socialism, and 30 percent are weighing the alternatives. What, you might ask, does this all mean? I don’t think it’s a vote for Soviet-style socialism. While Cold War conservatives did their best to identify socialism, and European social democracy, with Soviet or Cuban communism, the identification doesn’t seem to have survived the Cold War itself.

Instead, what those 30 percent of under-thirties probably mean by “socialism” is a much greater degree of government–and public–control of private corporations and of the market. That would put the United States closer, say, to Sweden, France, or Germany, but would not put it anywhere near the old Soviet Union, which tried to abolish the market itself. Most of all, I imagine, it’s an expression of extreme disillusionment with the magic of the market as preached by Republicans and some Democrats as well.

It’s also, I think, not an incorrect understanding of socialism. As a political philosophy, socialism predated Marx as any reader of “The Communist Manifesto” or of “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific” is aware. In America, too, there were Christian socialists like Walter Rauschenbusch, who was an important influence on Martin Luther King, and prairie socialists in Kansas or Oklahoma who never envisioned giving up their farms for socialism. The point that runs through all these many varieties was not collectivism, but instead the subjection of large banks and businesses to social priorities: “people before profits,” as Bill Clinton said in 1992. And that’s what those 20 percent of Americans in the Rasmussen Poll seem to be opting for.

McQ at QandO, however, sees this youthful exuberance as little more than naïveté:

As you’ll note, the older someone is, the more likely they are to understand what socialism is and how it is inferior to captialism. The under 30 crowd, with no wisdom and little practical experience outside of academia - not to mention having not yet [completely] traded their utopian fantasies for the best practical system which has been shown to work - have a large group who either believe socialism is better or just aren’t with it enough to have an opinion.

Once past 30, and having put a few years under their belt in the real world, suddenly the utopian scales begin to fall from their eyes and they have a bit of an epiphany. As for those over 40 being so strongly for capitalism, most of them remember the old USSR and how well socialism worked there.

While Dr. Steven Taylor at PoliBlog thinks we should ignore the whole thing: “Given that it is manifestly clear from recent political rhetoric that people in general have no idea what an appropriate definition of either of these terms is, it is impossible to ably interpret these results. Further, if we assume that part of the question did include the issue of which is ‘better’ we would have to know what that meant to the respondents as well. ‘Better’ at doing what?”

Others on the right, however, are alarmed. TigerHawk blames the tax code:

The percentage who approve of capitalism in this poll (53%) is very close to the percentage of the population that pays (or belongs to a family that pays) any federal income tax (as of 2006, 59%). Indeed, since the top 50% paid more than 97% of all federal income collected in 2006, it is safe to say that the proportion who support capitalism, as opposed to socialism, is almost identical in size to the percentage of Americans who earn enough actual income to pay material income taxes. While the correlation between the two groups is not perfect — no doubt there are Hollywood types, professors, and United States Representatives who both pay income taxes and profess to be socialists — it is almost certainly high. Again, it should not surprise us that the beneficiaries of socialism would support it, and the people who pay for it would prefer a system that allows them to keep more of what they produce.

And, as Kathy at Comments From Left Field points out, steveegg at Sister Toldjah blames the schools: “The worse news is that those under 30 are almost evenly divided, with 37% saying capitalism is better, 33% saying socialism is better, and 30% unsure of what they think. It is not a coincidence that the radicals of the late 1960s were entering the decision-level positions of the education establishment 30 years ago.”

Susan Duclos of Wake Up America, however, urges her compatriots to see the glass as 53 percent full:

Rasmussen headlines with “Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism.”

In that results piece it shows that 53 percent of American’s prefer capitalism over socialism, with only 20 percent thinking socialism is preferable and 27 percent that are not sure what they believe.

Amazing they would headline with the word “just” in there when it clearly shows the majority, 53 percent, favors capitalism with a 33 percent different between the two opposite ends of the spectrum.

I don’t even count the “unsure” totals because even if you divide it straight down the middle you still have 33 percent more favoring capitalism …

Many think 53 percent is not a large enough number, but considering socialism only gets a solid 20 percent support, I say the numbers are very good indeed and people shouldn’t focus on those who are “unsure” because when capitalism is called “free market economy” that 53 percent rises considerably to 70 percent.

Dr. Helen Smith, a.k.a. Mrs. Instapundit, manages to agree with both Duclos and steveegg: “Frankly, I am amazed that so many people think that capitalism is better. That’s a good sign. Also, I wonder if most Americans, especially the younger ones could even give an adequate definition of socialism and capitalism. Perhaps they just hear the buzzword, Socialism, and say that is better, like some kind of trained parrot. No surprise there, with what they learn in many schools.”

But Jesse Taylor at Pandagon thinks that while education is a red herring, one of the right’s favorite events of the last half-century actually kicked off the trend:

What element of modern primary and secondary pedagogy over the past, say, 20 years has led our youth to believe that socialism is awesome? Actually, nothing. The real secret is that the Berlin Wall fell, which paved the way for conservatives to call everything Democrats have proposed in the interim socialism (this isn’t to say that they weren’t doing that before, but it became much easier for them to say it without the Giant Socialist Enemy Beast forcing us to duck and cover under our desks every day). I came up in a world where “socialism” was defined in popular parlance as “liberalism”. Bill Clinton, effectively a liberal Republican, was a socialist. Barack Obama, a moderate Democrat, is a socialist. There’s an actual socialist in the Senate, and yet all the Democrats in the Senate (except Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh)? Socialists.

The main people responsible for the embrace of “socialism” are the pro-capitalist conservatives who’ve so diluted its meaning that it’s okay to embrace socialism, because the majority party in the country and our tremendously popular president are socialists.

So, amid all this partisan bickering and sophistic solipsism, enter the éminence grise of Marxist historians. Writing at The Guardian (and commenting on a real crisis rather than a methodically questionable poll), Eric Hobsbawm raises a question: “Socialism has failed. Now capitalism is bankrupt. So what comes next?”

The basic idea that dominated economics and politics in the last century has patently disappeared down the plughole of history. This was the way of thinking about modern industrial economies, or for that matter any economies, in terms of two mutually exclusive opposites: capitalism or socialism.

We have lived throu

gh two practical attempts to realise these in their pure form: the centrally state-planned economies of the Soviet type and the totally unrestricted and uncontrolled free-market capitalist economy. The first broke down in the 1980s, and the European communist political systems with it. The second is breaking down before our eyes in the greatest crisis of global capitalism since the 1930s …

Impotence therefore faces both those who believe in what amounts to a pure, stateless, market capitalism, a sort of international bourgeois anarchism, and those who believe in a planned socialism uncontaminated by private profit-seeking. Both are bankrupt. The future, like the present and the past, belongs to mixed economies in which public and private are braided together in one way or another. But how? That is the problem for everybody today, but especially for people on the left.

Nobody seriously thinks of returning to the socialist systems of the Soviet type - not only because of their political faults, but also because of the increasing sluggishness and inefficiency of their economies - though this should not lead us to underestimate their impressive social and educational achievements. On the other hand, until the global free market imploded last year, even the social-democratic or other moderate left parties in the rich countries of northern capitalism and Australasia had committed themselves more and more to the success of free-market capitalism. Indeed, between the fall of the USSR and now I can think of no such party or leader denouncing capitalism as unacceptable. None were more committed to it than New Labour. In their economic policies both Tony Blair and (until October 2008) Gordon Brown could be described without real exaggeration as Thatcher in trousers. The same is true of the Democratic party in the US.

Well, that’s not very cheery. And why is it a problem primarily for the left?

You may say that’s all over now. We’re free to return to the mixed economy. The old toolbox of Labour is available again - everything up to nationalisation - so let’s just go and use the tools once again, which Labour should never have put away. But that suggests we know what to do with them. We don’t. For one thing, we don’t know how to overcome the present crisis. None of the world’s governments, central banks or international financial institutions know: they are all like a blind man trying to get out of a maze by tapping the walls with different kinds of sticks in the hope of finding the way out. For another, we underestimate how addicted governments and decision-makers still are to the free-market snorts that have made them feel so good for decades …

A progressive policy needs more than just a bigger break with the economic and moral assumptions of the past 30 years. It needs a return to the conviction that economic growth and the affluence it brings is a means and not an end.

Lovely thought, that, but it does bring up the question of what “end” we’re looking for, and we’re hardly likely to find social consensus there — call it a contradiction of Marxism. In any case, Barbara O’Brien of the Mahablog anticipates a few other criticisms Hobsbawm is likely to engender and attempts to nip them in the bud.

The True Believers of both sides will argue no, no, no, pure Marxism/Free Market Capitalism has never been tried. But “pure” anything has never been tried. That’s the reality of our human condition. Any endeavor that requires human input is never pure. It will suffer some degree of corruption. Put together people, money, and power, and corruption is a certainty. That’s why any workable, sustainable model factors in corruption and makes some provision to keep it to a minimum.

That’s what the Marxists and the Ayn Rand culties cannot understand… There has to be a way to reign in the power, to diffuse it, to oversee it and make it accountable to other power. That’s one reason the public and private sector need each other — to keep each other semi-honest.

Nicholas John Mead has similar predictions on how Hobsbawm will be received: “Many of the comments that follow his piece however take issue with his assertion that socialism has failed. The communist brand of ’socialism’ practiced in Russia wasn’t socialism at all - more a vicious state centralised authoritarianism that had little to do with true socialist ideals. The same could be said however for the type of neo-liberal capitalism we have today which has strayed so far from the principles and ideals of pure capitalism as outlined by founders such as Adam Smith that it’s almost unfair to say that capitalism has failed also.”

Another British blogger, Karl Naylor, thinks Britain might be primed for the revolution.

In many ways, Britain under New Labour has been a feeble old body politic artificially hooked up to a life support machine through the injection of capital, migrants, indeed of life from elsewhere whilst its internal organs have started to pack up.

The cosmetic changes after 1997 did nothing to reform what had been going wrong with Britain: relying on London as the dynamo sucking international capital and injecting it back out across the rest of a lame deindustrialised candyfloss economy and listless acres of legoland …

The way in which Britain has deluded itself that even if it is not an economic and political powerhouse of the global economy it can be a Global Player, with Lilliputan figures like [Foreign Secretary David] Miliband ‘positively’ demanding NATO expansion into Eastern Europe in the face of Big Bully Russia.

Where New Labour commissars, Liberal mandarins and the British Council have desperately sought to emphasise that Britain’s “cultural power” makes it fit to strut about on the World Stage and pontificate about how great it is and why the world should buy into its stupid universe of pop royalty dreck and BBC costume dramas.

The harder the crash, the better it might be for Britain. It might finally wake up to the reality of its shrunken economy, decaying political system, and overextended strategical posture and try to live within its means, as well as to just stop pontificating about the superiority of its supposedly higher ‘values’.

And O’Brien, for her part, thinks that liberals in the United States might be in a stronger position than their British counterparts.

Hobsbawm talks about recent British history, New Labour and Thatcherism. But similar things go on here (is it the almost-common language?). Our Right has effectively taken itself out of the conversation (even though it won’t shut up) because it can’t let go of its old ideologies and aphorisms that don’t work any more. I’m not sure if what passes for a “Left” here is fully cognizant of the new reality, either.

But unlike the Right, the current Left has no one economic model that we all put on an altar and worship. At least some among us are looking hard at the current reality and thinking through solutions that might work in the real world, as opposed to solutions that make good sound bites and look good on a bumper sticker.

So there you have it: the worse the crash the better off we are, good riddance to the altar of free-market capitalism, and we’re now following blind men in mazes. The stock market may be rallying, but it doesn’t seem helping us shape the economy, or the socio-economic ideologies of tomorrow.

————–

Here's a NYT blog on the same poll, must have made some rounds, lots of non-reasoning going on here, open it for discussion and others to edit. Wonder if this caused so much internet action that some thought it needed defusing? Does indicate a need for stronger definitions for the general public? Pages of comments at the link.



Puttin' the toothpaste back in the tube. Personally, I don't want any "definitions". This political term, like all others, will define itself in the current context. This is the ever helpfull Times and the charitable readership trying to help in "understanding" that definition.

Puttin' the toothpaste back in the tube. Personally, I don't want any "definitions". This political term, like all others, will define itself in the current context. This is the ever helpfull Times and the charitable readership trying to help in "understanding" that definition.




That will save a lot of work.

Here's a NYT blog on the same poll, must have made some rounds, lots of non-reasoning going on here, open it for discussion and others to edit. Wonder if this caused so much internet action that some thought it needed defusing? Does indicate a need for stronger definitions for the general public? Pages of comments at the link.



Puttin' the toothpaste back in the tube. Personally, I don't want any "definitions". This political term, like all others, will define itself in the current context. This is the ever helpfull Times and the charitable readership trying to help in "understanding" that definition.




I don't want any of their "definitions" either, but I appreciate your clarifications any time...

Puttin' the toothpaste back in the tube. Personally, I don't want any "definitions". This political term, like all others, will define itself in the current context. This is the ever helpfull Times and the charitable readership trying to help in "understanding" that definition.




That will save a lot of work.


Call me clueless, and perhaps thats a really good reason for me to be choppedliver, but I really don't know what you mean here, Mike?

Call me clueless, and perhaps thats a really good reason for me to be choppedliver, but I really don't know what you mean here, Mike?


Well, I posted in support of BP in a thread, suggesting that people didn't know what he meant when he said "capitalism." The led us to a discussion about definitions. Then anax said, never mind the definitions, and I felt relieved because debating definitions with people is a big pain in the ass. If it is not necessary, that is good.

Here is the exchange -

A DUer: "we're really negotiating on how much socialism. we still employ western socialist safety net programs -- progressive taxation, etc. and more 'socialism' won't mean there are no wealthy. what the wealthy object to -- and manage through propaganda to get lots of americans to agree to -- is how much 'socialism' should the wealthy pay for"

BP: Beg to differ. Real socialism requires the absence of capitalism. Otherwise whatever regulation and social safety net is achieved will be rolled back by resurgent capital. That was the fate of 'trust-busting' and we are witnessing the same happening to the last shreds of the New Deal. When capital is defeated there will no longer be rich people because the source of their riches will have been returned to it's rightful owners, the workers. There is no compromise or regulation with capitalism, the mandate of 'growth' disallows it.

Me: We have to define capitalism. Most people cannot conceive of the absence of capitalism, because they don't know what capitalism is. Ten decades of relentless propaganda that has people convinced that capitalism is one of two "alternative systems" and that the other alternative is some sort of hellish nightmare, makes it difficult to discuss, as well.

So it is all my fault lol.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5426255#5429366

As you’ll note, the older someone is, the more likely they are to understand what socialism is and how it is inferior to captialism. The under 30 crowd, with no wisdom and little practical experience outside of academia - not to mention having not yet [completely] traded their utopian fantasies for the best practical system which has been shown to work - have a large group who either believe socialism is better or just aren’t with it enough to have an opinion.
that is the great fallacy, the wisdom of old men

It is one thing to have blindpig or Mike defining "Socialism" and quite another to have the New York Times or DU "decide" the issue...

Certainly, it is OK for Socialists to define their views. It is another thing to have those who are uniformly hostile to provide a "what they meant to say" moment.

As you’ll note, the older someone is, the more likely they are to understand what socialism is and how it is inferior to captialism. The under 30 crowd, with no wisdom and little practical experience outside of academia - not to mention having not yet [completely] traded their utopian fantasies for the best practical system which has been shown to work - have a large group who either believe socialism is better or just aren’t with it enough to have an opinion.
that is the great fallacy, the wisdom of old men



Thanks for pointing out one of the more ludicrous comments! Just in self defense, that was within the NYT blog (the quotes made it look like I said it!! Can't have the Masterly Kid saying anything!!! ;) )

McQ at QandO, however, sees this youthful exuberance as little more than naïveté:
As you’ll note, the older someone is, the more likely they are to understand what socialism is and how it is inferior to captialism....

And I would say its a fallacy regardless who says it!! and it certainly ain't wisdom...

It is one thing to have blindpig or Mike defining "Socialism" and quite another to have the New York Times or DU "decide" the issue...

Certainly, it is OK for Socialists to define their views. It is another thing to have those who are uniformly hostile to provide a "what they meant to say" moment.



One of the main reasons I posted the article was due to the crazy disparities of perceptions of both socialism and capitalism...I wouldn't feel confident to try to give a cogent definition of either: but I know what they ain't and the article is rife with what they ain't...