Attention Forum Socialists

[Moonlight Graham]

When someone is weak intellectually, they start throwing out these overused labels/buzzwords to describe a policy/person/group or make an argument etc., often without even knowing the meaning of the terms they're using. They usually have something do with Nazi Germany/Hitler or something else now or once feared.

some of my favorites:

Calling someone:

- a Nazi

- a socialist

- a fascist

- a communist (you pinko commie!!)

- a terrorist

- comparing someone to Hitler (that's original!)

- the term "Islamofascist"...wtf???

Ugh...can we put a bullet to this thread now?

[JB Globe]

These are the products of your policies!

Greek bonds rated 'junk'

BBC

Spain downgraded as Europe debt crisis widens

AP

Europe debt crisis spreads to Portugal

AP

Britain confronts debt of Greek proportions

MSNBC

Enough is enough!!!! :angry:

You support taxes that go to Canada's socialized military.

You're a commie.

Why don't you just get out of our country and go have a geriatric tryst with Fidel?

[Pliny]

No I clearly said, I need regulating too. Everyone does.

I do believe however that the more we regulate the regulators, especially the ones nearest the top of the pyramid, the less regulation we'll need below. I'm counting on a trickle down effect of decency and honesty. Society may just need better examples to follow to better itself.

I see. Regulations will make us better people. We'll get punished if we aren't.

I am of the opinion that if we pay the full price for our own mistakes we will learn to not make mistakes - That's the way we learn to be decent and honest. We often don't understand or don't accept the reasoning behind regulations. You yourself have chastised regulations on products you sell or have sold. But if you want to live with regulations you have to live with regulations and follow them by the book. No thinking allowed.

[Pliny]

Frankly, you sound totally unschooled. Sorry.

Didn't understand that last bit, eh! You sound very schooled. Pity.

Sorry change is necessary. If people have a vote and want rational government it has to be understood.

It isn't going to be understood by the voting public if we continue to throw names around that are essentially meaningless in present and are only used as misunderstood pejoratives.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

I'm anything but a financial expert, but the blame it on Fannie and Freddie strategy is a red herring, since Fannie and Freddie were stuck assuming a lot of bad loans from other sources, and many of these mortgage contracts should have been considered fraudulent to start with, such as escalator mortgages and no-money-down mortgages. The mortgage lenders were parceling up their risky loans as mortgage securities, dumping the risk of a bad loan on to third parties. That is the key problem I think...if the lender still had the responsibility of collection, they would have been a lot more concerned about ensuring that the borrower could pay.

There was also the obvious implications from the way right wing media covered the story, that their blame-the-borrower strategy focused on race. Over and over again, Fox News made sure they featured stories of blacks going into foreclosure, in an attempt to cement the impression that Wall Street wasn't to blame, it was those blacks buying houses they weren't entitled to in the first place. Considering some of the other inflammatory racial rhetoric that accompanies the illegal immigration issue, I have to wonder if the right wing strategy is to keep their people loyal by appealing to white racial identity.

As soon as we abandon all forms of government, we end up with something like Somalia. A vacuum can't stay empty for long, and the divide between left and right has little to do with the size and scope of government; the defining line is what the role of government will be. A right wing big government wants lots of money for military spending and interfering with the sexual and lifestyle habits of the population. They may concede property rights, but on the other hand it's interesting to note that it was the right wing members of the Supreme Court who were responsible for adding to the power of Eminent Domain -- essentially giving private corporations the power to expropriate property for the public good! When it comes to the rights of the individual, the leaders of influence on the right are more concerned about the individual corporation than the individual citizen.

I agree entirely that the left and the right have contributed to the growth of government and you are arguing that the right grows government as much as the left. Yes, the right does infringe upon property rights as much as the left. The power of government needs to be downsized so both the left and the right are more inclined to listen to the populace but the populace has to understand they can't be voting themselves privilege and entitlement.

As for Fannie and Freddie;

Well, what would make hundred year old companies decide to just chuck all their knowledge of investment and risk away and start buying sub-prime mortgages? And not just one company but pretty much all of Wall Street. And how did government regulators allow this risky venture to occur.

What happened was, fly by night mortgage companies set up by government to allow "people to own their own home and live the American dream" handed out these mortgages. And the race card is your red herring on this because it wasn't only blacks that were negatively affected, many people were. Wall street collapsed but, interestingly enough, government came to the immediate rescue. Seems, being cynical, some politicians were heavily invested in there.

These fly by night mortgage companies sold their mortgages to government, Fannie and Freddie, and to Wall street, and when the market died closed up shop.

Wall street has itself to blame in debacle but government fanned the flames of the whole spectacle by creating the moral hazard in insuring all was well. Remember Barney Franks in 2006 - all was A-ok with Fannie and Freddie.

There was quite a bit of back and forth between Wall Street and government, with Goldman Sachs in particular, Paulsen, the Treasury secretary was at one time an executive at Goldman Sachs and there were a few other individuals that had ties with both government and Goldman Sachs. So why should government rescue Wall Street for their own myopic actions? They shouldn't because they are only delaying a further meltdown by keeping the rot.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Pliny

[eyeball]

I see. Regulations will make us better people. We'll get punished if we aren't.

I am of the opinion that if we pay the full price for our own mistakes we will learn to not make mistakes - That's the way we learn to be decent and honest. We often don't understand or don't accept the reasoning behind regulations. You yourself have chastised regulations on products you sell or have sold. But if you want to live with regulations you have to live with regulations and follow them by the book. No thinking allowed.

My mistake was trusting the system. You're right, lets get rid of it completely.

[Pliny]

My mistake was trusting the system. You're right, lets get rid of it completely.

I am not an anarchist but government's mandate must be limited to very few areas if it is going to be trusted with things like justice it can't be actively engaged in making everyone equal.

How about if we have regualtions that we can all understand and accept.

Am I stepping on lawyers toes now?

Edited May 6, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

53. They now have to raise it to 60. That, and government employees apparently can't lose their jobs, even if they never show up.

So they can essentially retire when they are hired?

[nicky10013]

Didn't understand that last bit, eh! You sound very schooled. Pity.

Sorry change is necessary. If people have a vote and want rational government it has to be understood.

It isn't going to be understood by the voting public if we continue to throw names around that are essentially meaningless in present and are only used as misunderstood pejoratives.

I understood what you were saying. It didn't make any sense but I understood what you were trying to say. As for the last part, I agree. However, you're clearly part of the problem. Perhaps people wouldn't be confused if people like you weren't attempting to define things which they have no business defining as they've no idea what concepts they're describing actually are.

[Pliny]

I understood what you were saying. It didn't make any sense but I understood what you were trying to say. As for the last part, I agree. However, you're clearly part of the problem. Perhaps people wouldn't be confused if people like you weren't attempting to define things which they have no business defining as they've no idea what concepts they're describing actually are.

Well, something new is clearly necessary. I do appreciate your input on this thread and your indulgence.

I am just offering my perspective.

As for political "science". Welll...

Let's take a look at the political spectrum and see what can be gleaned from it and do some comparisons with a true dichotomy.

As you probably know the origination of the political spectrum was in France during the 1700s. The socialists, the Libertarians, and anyone different than the Monarchists sat on the left side of Parliament and the Monarchists, who were basically the Conservatives, sat on the right. The conservatives were for maintaining, that is "conserving", the Monarchy and the extant governmental structure, the status quo.

Now, what we want is a political spectrum that is understandable.

The current one has total government on one side, Communism, socialism and on the other it has total government Fascism,Nazism and the like. Although these are supposed to be polar opposites they aren't. They are both about big government and the enforcement of society to act as a unit. they have their differences but by no means are polar opposites. A true dichotomy would be from no government to total government. Glenn Beck didn't have to explain this to me I had already discovered this in the seventies now I see it on his show. Progress, although slow, is being made.

It is important when trying to understand something that what one is learning has some practical application. In other words it is great to be able to use the information you are learning. Memorizing and regurgitating facts and figures is not of much use and if you do not formulate any thoughts regarding the subject then all you are doing is playing back facts and figures. Any study needs to have some practical application and one's input. Otherwise one can't tell the difference between what is valid and what is not so one just parrots information.

Of course, any study of Marx would have to include a look at Dialectical Materialism. And if we applied some of that we could see how Marx formulated a lot of what he termed Communism.

Let's apply it to the political spectrum. You need thesis, antithesis to arrive at a synthesis according to the theory.

So if we take the thesis as the left wing of the spectrum and the antithesis as the right then we come up with a synthesis. Let's see Socialism on the left and Fascism on the right what do we get as a synthesis? We get a mish-mash of total government, perhaps continuous revolutions. Is the opposite supposed to be in the centre?

But let's look at a true dichotomy, not a contrived synthesis and the positioning of thesis-antithesis to arrive at that synthesis.

The opposite of total government is anarchy. I don't think that point can be argued.

So when we start at anarchy as the thesis and total government as the antithesis we wind up with a synthesis somewhere in between those.

The extremes are not ideal. We have seen Communism, fascism both fail as experiments in total government and anarchy is not an option either. Funny that Communism, according to the theory, is supposed to end up in anarchy - once the classes have been eliminated and the class struggle is over. One thing that I think Marx was wrong on was that the classes would always be in a struggle against each other. He just never envisioned classes as being symbiotic in nature rather the upper classes were exploitive

of the lower classes.

So if you can see where this is taking us the political spectrum is purported to be a thesis-antithesis. Of course, to use dialectical materialism we extrapolate and arrive at a model of what the interactions of the two energies will bring. Then we can arrive at a synthesis we want to arrive at. So the two energies of Socialism/Communism and Fascism acting against each other will bring about some form of total government in it's synthesis.

This is Hegel and Marx's contribution to the political spectrum and one has to ask why it is the accepted model. We could say that academia is in confusion about the political spectrum and doesn't really know that it's use and getting people to hurl pejoratives at each other is bringing about the necessity for big government.

But I don't believe they are confused. I would be more inclined to think that they wish the public to remain confused to maintain an erudite academic position. This would not be unusual and occurs in many professions and trades.

So we have this political spectrum that basically crowds out small government and as we get more and more divided we come closer to a synthesis. The energies of both sides in proximity to each other creates clashes.

We can choose whatever we want as a thesis and an antithesis and arrive at the synthesis we wish. You work it backwards by postulating a synthesis and then using two opposing energies to bring it about.

So it didn't just take me a day to read up on this. I have been looking at it for at least thirty years. I am a bit slow.

But I'm not into parroting facts and figures. I want an understanding of the subject and I want to able to think with the information I have and formulate my own conclusions. In the process I have come across much information that holds no value, is outright false and falls short when practically applied.

Gotta go for now.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

"Republic" refers to a constitutional form of government and that is all.

I was referring to "The People's Republic of China." (And I was more interested in the "People's" part of the equation.

My point was that movements and governments can call themselves whatever they wish...that does not make their self-descriptions necessarily accurate or even meaningful.

[bloodyminded]

And when it's together with the word people's? Don't try to play dumb just to be right.

Thanks, smallc, I had thought the point to be quite obvious.

Edited May 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Pinochet was indeed a right wing brutal dictator. And as you say the difference between right and left is mostly in their economics.

Corporatism is a factor of right wing socialism.

Now Pinochet also had to deal with left wing socialists and didn't tolerate them. If we look at Chile now it is doing quite well economically. Cuba - the people are still pretty poor.

In order to establish any kind of "capitalist" economy Pinochet had to keep the barking dogs at bay. Left wing guerillas were not sitting idly by and were ready to overthrow him.

This is the second time (to my knowledge) that you have somewhat justified Pinochet (not his brutality itself, no, but his reasons).

But every tyrant, without exception, is met by hostile internal forces, usually violent...so that the tyrant feels compelled to use violence in return.

Why would you give Pinochet more justification than others?

The overwhelming majority of his victims were not left-wing guerillas.

[bloodyminded]

The opposite side of the spectrum is the individualist state, where the fundamental rights of the individual are supreme and the only role of government is to ensure that those rights are protected. No such states exist, but most Western nations lie somewhere along this spectrum between individualism and collectivism. The US constitution, for example, is written from the perspective of trying to set up something very close to a purely individualist state, but that ideal has taken on ever more elements of collectivism over time.

This is not so perfectly clear. Here is Madison himself (my bolding):

In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body.

Edited May 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Men with power are opportunistic and paranoid of those close to power, they will thus never adhere to a strict ideology and will make it up as they go along. The idea of an all powerful central authority in the form of a dictator or a Board of Directors inevitably turns to tyranny.

I'm inclined to agree; in fact, I have found Bertrand Russell's theories on "Power" to be quite illuminating.

But by this token, and using your own example: with the smallest government possible, and with private ownership being sacrosanct, what's to stop Business (which would be, and in some matters is now, less accountable than democratic or democratic-republic government) from ruling with impunity?

It would quite naturally occur, would it not?

[bloodyminded]

What happened was, fly by night mortgage companies set up by government to allow "people to own their own home and live the American dream" handed out these mortgages. And the race card is your red herring on this because it wasn't only blacks that were negatively affected, many people were.

It wasn't WIP's race card red herring; he was critiquing the race card red herring. But it wasn't African-Americans playing the race card; it was the ideological defenders of the banks who were doing so.

[Pliny]

It wasn't WIP's race card red herring; he was critiquing the race card red herring. But it wasn't African-Americans playing the race card; it was the ideological defenders of the banks who were doing so.

Was it?

[eyeball]

I am not an anarchist but government's mandate must be limited to very few areas if it is going to be trusted with things like justice it can't be actively engaged in making everyone equal.

How about if we have regualtions that we can all understand and accept.

Am I stepping on lawyers toes now?

It's more a principle than a law or regulation but do unto others as you'd have them do unto you works for me. I imagine that steps on a lot more toes though.

As for all these isms...there does not seem to be a single one in which human beings don't become corrupted by the power that is inevitably concentrated at the top of the systems they develop. Power is like kryptonite or plutonium. We have laws that are supposed to protect us from people who are exposed to it but a quick glance around the world and throughout time proves that just isn't sufficient. What we really need to do is better shield people from it directly. Oversight is the only thing I can think of that might do that. There will of course always be a few who insist on exposing themselves to it and we'll never be able to stop them all from doing that but surely we can help prevent so many from burning themselves and us once they finally burst into flames.

If on the other hand corruption is the necessary ingredient that's made our system the most successful in the world, apparently, we should just admit it and embrace it. Another simple ethic of reciprocity might be screw everyone before they screw you. So long as you don't forget the real Golden Rule which is don't get caught, you'll do just fine and presumably so will everyone else.

If you don't try to catch them in the act maybe they won't try to catch you. A nod here and a wink there seems to work for the ruling classes. Perhaps we should follow their example.

[Shady]

13 years of Labour rule and Britian has the worst debt ratio of any European country, other than Greece. Yay socialism!

[Pliny]

It's more a principle than a law or regulation but do unto others as you'd have them do unto you works for me. I imagine that steps on a lot more toes though.

That's a good principle.

As for all these isms...there does not seem to be a single one in which human beings don't become corrupted by the power that is inevitably concentrated at the top of the systems they develop. Power is like kryptonite or plutonium. We have laws that are supposed to protect us from people who are exposed to it but a quick glance around the world and throughout time proves that just isn't sufficient. What we really need to do is better shield people from it directly. Oversight is the only thing I can think of that might do that. There will of course always be a few who insist on exposing themselves to it and we'll never be able to stop them all from doing that but surely we can help prevent so many from burning themselves and us once they finally burst into flames.

Power controls others through economics and deadly force. Those are the two means used to create fear and maintain the reins of power. The only way that power can be resisted by the masses is also through economics and deadly force. Force is not something that society likes to engage in. It prefers mutual co-operation.

If that doesn't suffice force is resorted to.

I would suggest that there would be alot less wars and government if they didn't have licence to mortgage future generations by printing money to pay for those things. Of course, taking their privilege to create money on demand is something that would have to be true globally and people would have to understand that economically they have to live within their means. That doesn't infer they couldn't do anything outside their means. It means they need to be efficient and produce if they wish to advance themselves and their standard of living. Governments promise to do this but only production can improve living standards - government's role is supposed to keep things efficient by curtailing criminality.

If on the other hand corruption is the necessary ingredient that's made our system the most successful in the world, apparently, we should just admit it and embrace it. Another simple ethic of reciprocity might be screw everyone before they screw you. So long as you don't forget the real Golden Rule which is don't get caught, you'll do just fine and presumably so will everyone else.

If you don't try to catch them in the act maybe they won't try to catch you. A nod here and a wink there seems to work for the ruling classes. Perhaps we should follow their example.

This is a question of justice. In justice there must be a balance.

One has to often decide based upon the balance of good and evil not just on evil itself. Construction often requires a little destruction that may be unacceptable to some. When justice becomes corrupt though and unfair itself it in no way can determine what is for the good of all but it merely forces it's decisions on everyone making that claim.

[WIP]

As for Fannie and Freddie;

Well, what would make hundred year old companies decide to just chuck all their knowledge of investment and risk away and start buying sub-prime mortgages? And not just one company but pretty much all of Wall Street. And how did government regulators allow this risky venture to occur.

What happened was, fly by night mortgage companies set up by government to allow "people to own their own home and live the American dream" handed out these mortgages. And the race card is your red herring on this because it wasn't only blacks that were negatively affected, many people were. Wall street collapsed but, interestingly enough, government came to the immediate rescue. Seems, being cynical, some politicians were heavily invested in there.

These fly by night mortgage companies sold their mortgages to government, Fannie and Freddie, and to Wall street, and when the market died closed up shop.

No, it can't all be blamed on "fly by night" mortgage companies. Goldman and the foreign banks bought mortgage-backed securities because they were insured by AIG in a completely unregulated market of credit default swaps as collateral. No one had any incentive to ensure that the loans were paid because housing prices kept going up in an inflated market, and bad mortgages were insured by CDS contracts. The mortgage companies were allowed to write mortgages for any borrower, and face no risk since they were sold off as investments to third parties. And those third parties buying mortgage securities were insured by A.I.G.

And, once again after all of the blather about how great free enterprize is, and how well it works when free of government interference, they all go running to the government to bail them out. It's a shame that Wall STreet still controls Washington, so no real financial reform is possible, and another bubble and bust is just a matter of time.

[WIP]

Was it?

I believe there was an unmistakeable element of racism in the strategy of right wing media to blame the buyers rather than the sellers in the real estate meltdown. I still know a lot of fans of Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity, and they are able to connect the dots provided when Fox News makes sure that the majority being foreclosed are black. It's what they call dog whistle messaging, since they want to get the message across without being accused of racism.

I have no doubt that in the current immigration problem, the right is using the same tactic by insinuating that Latinos in general are an immigrant problem, rather than focus any attention on conservative media's financial backers who exploit illegal immigrants as cheap labor that cannot object to poor working standards. The real illegal immigration scandal is that powerful corporations have created a class of indentured servants who also drive down the wages and working conditions of other Americans.

[Michael Hardner]

I believe there was an unmistakeable element of racism in the strategy of right wing media to blame the buyers rather than the sellers in the real estate meltdown.

I've read posts where people accuse the government of forcing banks to accept risk without being allowed to account for it in pricing. This is the US where collusion regularly happens... somehow the government is supposed to have handcuffed financial companies against making a profit for some reason.

[Smallc]

13 years of Labour rule and Britian has the worst debt ratio of any European country, other than Greece. Yay socialism!

Yes, just like socialist America.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, just like socialist America.

...or communist Canada.