The Ultra rich getting richer

[Bonam]

Absolutely, and this point--which I take as an obvious given--doesn't alter one bit of anything I've said.

First of all, that "others would do it too" (a reasonable speculation based on history) doesn't justify our doing it, at all.

Second, your response is rather different from blueblood's; where you see hard work, ingenuity, and so on as part of the story, for him it's the explanation entire, and so acheives the status of myth.

Yes well my positions are generally my own. Anyway, I agree that it doesn't "justify" it in the sense that you mean, but what it does mean is that while the West may have some ugly history, that history in no way takes away from the accomplishments and successes that have been achieved.

I was talking of two specific situations: First, Suharto's extrajudicial killing of hundreds of thousands of Indonesians in '65....in which he was offered help by US intelligence for many of the targets. Lists of names, and so on.

But second, and more to the point (lest the first one get bogged down on debates about "communist subversives" and so on) was the invasion of East Timor.

The ongoing oppression and murders--in which possibly a third of the population was wiped out--could not have occurred without Western aid. The US and UK, primarily, made the massacres materially possible. Indonesia couldn't have done it without them.

Now...how are the East Timorese more responsible for the Western-backed state terrorism conducted against them than are the terrorist backers themselves?

Sounds to me like the most responsible party for the invasion of East Timor would be the invaders themselves, the Indonesians, no?

I find that a strange formulation, frankly.

For an experiment, try telling people that the victims of 9/11 are more responsible for the terrorist attacks than are the Islamists.

9/11 was an isolated event. If planes kept crashing into American skyscrapers on a daily basis, however, then after a few days certainly it would be people's own decision to take the risk of entering such a building. Anyway, the "Islamists" are directly responsible for 9/11, they are the people that crashed the planes into the buildings. The same cannot be said for Western powers in East Timor. They merely supported an ally, Indonesia. Blaming the supporters of Indonesia for the invasion of East Timor would be like blaming the supporters of the Islamists for 9/11... so if you want to blame the West as a whole for East Timor, I guess you must also blame the Muslim world as whole for 9/11? After all, various governments, groups, and individuals throughout the middle-east supported the terrorists, just as you say some western governments and organizations supported Suharto.

I appreciate your willingess not to ignore the matter, and your reasonableness and civility is again exposed. But the facts are a little off here; maybe I wasn't clear, which would explain the confusion, and why it appears I'm being harsher with the West than seems proportional:

I'm not talking about a Rwanda, where we looked away,

Speaking of Rwanda, that reminds me of Africa and other places that are not East Timor. These places also have terrible conditions, and even if you can lay the blame for East Timor at the feet of the West, you cannot use that explanation for all the world's hellholes. That was after all the point we were originally debating, people being able to lift themselves out of poverty through their own "strength" of character. The fact that a few specific regions have undergone war, invasions, and genocides which may perhaps be partially blamed on the West is kind of tangential to this.

Can we justify support for state terrorism and mass murder in such situations?

I certainly don't think so; and for those who do--justify terrorism, I mean, and on a scale that makes Hamas look like zero threat at all--well, clearly that changes the paradigm of all terrorism debates, doesn't it? Terrorism isn't bad, not even massive state terrorism; it can be justified; and it can be justified even when there is no clear threat.

Wow, it changes the whole measure of the debates on terrorism. Illegal invasions, mass murder (including machete killings, just to clarify the horror, not that I suppose it makes much difference to the dead) and state terrorism are not wrong in and of themselves. It's all about the context.

I'm not willing to lower myself to that level, personally.

This is a valid issue to debate but is somewhat unrelated to this topic.

Well, if they had the means, I guess they could have militarily attacked the terrorist supporters. I get the feeling that would not go down with much applause around here.

If conditions were as bad as you say they were and they had the capability to fight back, they should have done so, whether it would have gone with "much applause around here" or not. Fighting to secure one's survival is of greater importance than pleasing forum posters on the other side of the world.

[Pliny]

I have read a little Adam Smith, and I thought the invisible hand was the hand that helped society at large, when people worked towards their own self-interest.

What's the hand that helped society at large?

The invisible hand is, of course, invisible. It doesn't actually exist. But it will be the sum of all acting individually, with individual interests, and in order for them to gain or meet their interests or aspirations, it is necessary others contribute to each others success and accomplishment and a society is created out of a mutual co-operation that occurs naturally. No one says there won't be struggles or conflicts of interest but in such a society fraud and criminality would meet initially with ostracization as a minimum, meaning one would have to restore his reputation and integrity in order to participate. More severely retribution and atonement for damages would be demanded before participation would be restored. Punishment, seems to be all that justice or society concerns itself with today - not that a man can restore his reputation or integrity. It seems the punishment has to fit the crime. But indeed, crime would be minimal if all were co-operating toward their own success by contributing to everyone elses.

[Pliny]

Sheer dishonesty. The countries that have achieved the best balance between socialism and capitalism are without exception the ones that have thrived.

It's only been about 7 decades and they look pretty shaky, especially Europe and the progessivism of socialism sees us not far behind. The US is probably the only country that can still do something about their socialist progression.

How about you name a single country you would like to live in today that doesnt have a pretty healthy balance of both? Better yet... move there, and send back monthly reports.

Seriously... its easy for you go and experience what its like to live outside of Europe, North American, NewZealand, and Australia (the hybrid capitalist/welfare state countries). Go try it out!

The US has about the least amount of socialism or tyranny in the world. We in Canada or Australia have passed the point where we even recognize anything is out of control. Once the US falls, and they are in that struggle now, our rate of progression will quickly increase to meet Europe's level of socialism and from there it is an easy step to the usurpation of national sovereignty and a turn toward global governance. Our kindergartens are preparing the next generation to be global citizens, caring for the environment.

And stop trying to compare Russia to Europe as if thats an example that proves mixed economies dont work

I am not comparing them. They are examples of how total government doesn't work, be it fascism or communism. What proves that your concept of a mixed economy doesn't work is it's longevity.

The first real adoption of socialist concepts occurred in Germany under the Kaiser. It wasn't long before WWI came along and destroyed Germany for the first time, then it was destroyed the second time under Hitler's socialist regime. Italy's socialist regime was also destroyed. Russia collapsed internally and economically.

What you call mixed economies are really progressive governments that bow to the demands of the democratic process where voters vote themselves entitlements. Over time they cannot economically sustain themselves. It is a very short lived society after that. Revolution to a tyrannical form of government occurs or a restoration to a non-interventionist form of government comes about. People with some concept of freedom will choose the latter. People already in chains will choose the former because they as individuals have been subdued already and can only act in the aggregate as a mass, they have no concept of the danger of that to themselves and besides the cause is more important than they are.

[dre]

It's only been about 7 decades and they look pretty shaky, especially Europe and the progessivism of socialism sees us not far behind. The US is probably the only country that can still do something about their socialist progression.

The US has about the least amount of socialism or tyranny in the world. We in Canada or Australia have passed the point where we even recognize anything is out of control. Once the US falls, and they are in that struggle now, our rate of progression will quickly increase to meet Europe's level of socialism and from there it is an easy step to the usurpation of national sovereignty and a turn toward global governance. Our kindergartens are preparing the next generation to be global citizens, caring for the environment.

I am not comparing them. They are examples of how total government doesn't work, be it fascism or communism. What proves that your concept of a mixed economy doesn't work is it's longevity.

The first real adoption of socialist concepts occurred in Germany under the Kaiser. It wasn't long before WWI came along and destroyed Germany for the first time, then it was destroyed the second time under Hitler's socialist regime. Italy's socialist regime was also destroyed. Russia collapsed internally and economically.

What you call mixed economies are really progressive governments that bow to the demands of the democratic process where voters vote themselves entitlements. Over time they cannot economically sustain themselves. It is a very short lived society after that. Revolution to a tyrannical form of government occurs or a restoration to a non-interventionist form of government comes about. People with some concept of freedom will choose the latter. People already in chains will choose the former because they as individuals have been subdued already and can only act in the aggregate as a mass, they have no concept of the danger of that to themselves and besides the cause is more important than they are.

The US has about the least amount of socialism or tyranny in the world. We in Canada or Australia have passed the point where we even recognize anything is out of control.

Thats an urban legend. The US spends about 80% if its federal budget on socialism, and socialized defense. It has some of the biggest entitlement programs in the world.

It's only been about 7 decades and they look pretty shaky, especially Europe and the progessivism of socialism sees us not far behind. The US is probably the only country that can still do something about their socialist progression.

There is no real progressive trend. Canada is LESS socialist now than it was 30 years ago not now, and more and more stuff is being privatized all the time. When I was a kid we had a national railroad, we a highways department that also ran all the ferries, forest lands were ran by the crown etc.

The US has the least tyranny? COUGH COUGH. Maybe if youre not one of the millions in people in prison for minor crimes.

Edited December 20, 2010 by dre

[Pliny]

First of all,we do not have pure Capitalism,and that's a good thing.Pure Capitalism is an extreme,just like pure Marxism or pure Fascism.We've seen throughout history what extreme's do to entire populations.Generally,it's never very good...

What is pure capitalism in your view?

Secondly,it seems to be your contention that during the industrial era,business owners ripped off their workforces because they could get away with it.And becuase of this,labour was unproductive,and the ownership class magically(through Adam Smith's Invisible Hand) gave these people better wages,benefit plans,40 hour work weeks,paid vacation etc out of some sort of entrepreneurial epiphany...

That's complete and total BS...

None of that was given willingly.

Better read the history of Hersheyville, Pennsylvania. And Ford. Henry Ford gave his workers unprecedented compensation.

Working people sacrificed their livlyhoods and lives long before the great wave of unionization,during,and,after that wave.On many occassions,this was done simply for union recognition.I suggest you look up the Stelco strike in Hamilton,Ontario of 1946.You'll find out about the benevolence of the Steel Company of Canada,and what it thought of its workforce.

Would that be the Maude Barlow account of what happened?

That has nothing to do with this "invisible hand' at all...It's got to do with regular people coming back from the 2nd World War,fighting for the human rights of others,and,returning home to find out they had very little in their places of work.Adam Smith had very little to do with it.

As you say, we don't have pure capitalism and we didn't then. But we must find out what you mean by "pure capitalism". My idea of it is that it is about making money with money. I would call foreign exchange trading a form of "pure capitalism". Or investing and receiving dividends or interest on your investment. These are forms of pure capitalism in my view. Now we have never had a society where everyone lives on making money with money and I don't think that would work either. So we have never had a society of pure capitalism and doubt we ever will.

There has to be an exchange of goods and services in a capitalist society in order for it to create any wealth. Actually some people do live as pure capitalists. They invest their money and live on the returns, they are often called pensioners. They are also investors in business. But business has to occur for both of these "pure capitalists" to realize a return.

As for what's gone on since the electoral success of neoliberal governments under Reagan and Thatcher,it's called neoliberal economics.It's called playing high standard of living jurisdictions against low standard of living jurisdictions by paying for access to politicians.It's an attempt,and sadly a very successful one,at driving the standard of living down in those higher jurisdictions and slightly raising the standard of living in lower ones,to ratchet up global corporate profits.

That's got nothing to do with any invisible hand...

Right. Any govenrenmt intervention has nothing to do with the invisible hand. Although the "trickle down effect" was sort of supposed to be an effect of the invisible hand.

But no one plays high and low living standards against each other better than labour or socially democratic parties.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Thats an urban legend. The US spends about 80% if its federal budget on socialism, and socialized defense. It has some of the biggest entitlement programs in the world.

Defense is not a socialist concept unless it is exclusively for the protection of the government.

To be sure, governments today do spend most of their budgets on socialism. The US isn't different.

The fight in the US is to cut Federal spending and entitlements. If they lose it they will get Obamacare and a national banking system, similar to Canada's and a further progression of socialism. Here, in Canada, we are past that and just continue to vote for more entitlements. Europe is rioting because it can't pay for it's entitlements and that's the next step for us.

There is no real progressive trend. Canada is LESS socialist now than it was 30 years ago not now, and more and more stuff is being privatized all the time. When I was a kid we had a national railroad, we a highways department that also ran all the ferries, forest lands were ran by the crown etc.

It is true that the Canadian government has privatized CN rail. The highways department and the forests are still publicly managed. Forest lands are still run by the government. If they are not privately owned they are publicly managed.

I will say that the Canadian government has not been that progressive but I would attribute that to our close relationship to the US and most Canadians today would prefer to align with Europe than the US politically. It's not a speedy process. It is a process.

I suppose you might say that we have become more fascist? And I view fascism as a form of socialism.

It is in the amount of social engineering, be it left or right that I see socialism and I don't see that decreasing.

The US has the least tyranny? COUGH COUGH. Maybe if you're not one of the millions in people in prison for minor crimes.

Yes, it does have the least government tyranny. What do we do with people who commit minor crimes? Blame the government for locking up people with minor crimes? Give those guilty of minor crimes a slap on the wrist and allow them on the streets to continue committing minor crimes?

As in any free country, the citizens will demand the laws be changed. That's what we are doing and that is what Americans are doing. I think the Americans are more successful at such things than we are.

If anything we follow the lead of the Americans only because of their influence upon us. We would be following Europe's lead today if most Canadians had their way and demanding more entitlements from government. The US is a good influence upon our society in that respect.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Pliny

[dre]

---

Edited December 20, 2010 by dre

[maple_leafs182]

Defense is not a socialist concept unless it is exclusively for the protection of the government.

What, how is exclusive protection for the government a socialist concept?

To be sure, governments today do spend most of their budgets on socialism. The US isn't different.

The fight in the US is to cut Federal spending and entitlements. If they lose it they will get Obamacare and a national banking system, similar to Canada's and a further progression of socialism. Here, in Canada, we are past that and just continue to vote for more entitlements. Europe is rioting because it can't pay for it's entitlements and that's the next step for us.

I think that is the next step for America, then us.

I suppose you might say that we have become more fascist? And I view fascism as a form of socialism.

Socialism is the belief that we are social beings, some say it is the workers movement, it's a belief that production should be publicly controlled. Fascism is the merger of corporate and political powers, it is a form of authoritarianism, it is not the same as socialism.

Personally I am socialist, that being said I don't believe socialist programs really work with our current economic system.

Yes, it does have the least government tyranny. What do we do with people who commit minor crimes? Blame the government for locking up people with minor crimes? Give those guilty of minor crimes a slap on the wrist and allow them on the streets to continue committing minor crimes?

The U.S. government takes rights away from their citizens all the time, they tap phone lines and track there citizens without warrants, they send their troops to war without a deceleration of war from congress, America is full of tyranny.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The U.S. government takes rights away from their citizens all the time, they tap phone lines and track there citizens without warrants, they send their troops to war without a deceleration of war from congress, America is full of tyranny.

Please stop inventing rights for Americans that do not exist.....from Canada.

[dre]

Defense is not a socialist concept unless it is exclusively for the protection of the government.

To be sure, governments today do spend most of their budgets on socialism. The US isn't different.

The fight in the US is to cut Federal spending and entitlements. If they lose it they will get Obamacare and a national banking system, similar to Canada's and a further progression of socialism. Here, in Canada, we are past that and just continue to vote for more entitlements. Europe is rioting because it can't pay for it's entitlements and that's the next step for us.

It is true that the Canadian government has privatized CN rail. The highways department and the forests are still publicly managed. Forest lands are still run by the government. If they are not privately owned they are publicly managed.

I will say that the Canadian government has not been that progressive but I would attribute that to our close relationship to the US and most Canadians today would prefer to align with Europe than the US politically. It's not a speedy process. It is a process.

I suppose you might say that we have become more fascist? And I view fascism as a form of socialism.

It is in the amount of social engineering, be it left or right that I see socialism and I don't see that decreasing.

Yes, it does have the least government tyranny. What do we do with people who commit minor crimes? Blame the government for locking up people with minor crimes? Give those guilty of minor crimes a slap on the wrist and allow them on the streets to continue committing minor crimes?

As in any free country, the citizens will demand the laws be changed. That's what we are doing and that is what Americans are doing. I think the Americans are more successful at such things than we are.

If anything we follow the lead of the Americans only because of their influence upon us. We would be following Europe's lead today if most Canadians had their way and demanding more entitlements from government. The US is a good influence upon our society in that respect.

Defense is not a socialist concept unless it is exclusively for the protection of the government.

It absolutely IS socialist concept. Its a collective program for the common good funded by taxation. The concept is really similar to healthcare actually except one protects you from diseases, the other protects you from preditors. Youd have to privatize the military to see what a non-socialist version looked like.

We would be following Europe's lead today if most Canadians had their way and demanding more entitlements from government. The US is a good influence upon our society in that respect.

This US has created its largest entitlement in modern history, and created the largest new department in modern history all in the last few years, and its done the whole thing with borrowed money.

Are you maybe thinking about the 50's or something?

I suppose you might say that we have become more fascist? And I view fascism as a form of socialism.

What??? Why on earth would you view fascism as a form of socialism? Its almost the exact opposite. In one case society is organized around the private owners of production, and in the other there IS no private owners of production. One is based on a corporatist economy, the other is not.

[M.Dancer]

What??? Why on earth would you view fascism as a form of socialism? Its almost the exact opposite. In one case society is organized around the private owners of production, and in the other there IS no private owners of production. One is based on a corporatist economy, the other is not.

Fascism and socialism are far more copmplex than the two opposites you cite. There are far more commonalities than not.

Fascism is based on corporatism, which has nothing to do with business corporations.

Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is a system of economic, political, or social organization that views a community as a body based upon organic social solidarity and functional distinction and roles among individuals.[1][2] The term corporatism is based on the Latin word "corpus" meaning "body".[2] Formal corporatist models are based upon the contract of corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, scientific, or religious affiliations, into a collective body

Corporatism has been utilized by many ideologies across the political spectrum, including: absolutism, capitalism, conservatism, fascism, liberalism, progressivism, reactionism, social democracy, socialism, and syndicalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Fascism's theory of economic corporatism involved the management of sectors of the economy via government or privately controlled organizations (corporations). Each trade union or employer corporation would, in theory, represent its professional concerns, especially through negotiation of labor contracts and the like. This approach, it was theorized, could result in harmony amongst social classes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism

In other words, like the socialists are want to say, a mixed economy...

[dre]

Fascism and socialism are far more copmplex than the two opposites you cite. There are far more commonalities than not.

Fascism is based on corporatism, which has nothing to do with business corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism

In other words, like the socialists are want to say, a mixed economy...

None of that changes the fact the statement I was responding to is wrong. Fascism is no more a "form of socialism" than it is a "form of capitalism". Its actually a rejection of BOTH of those concepts... a "third way".

Problem is its one of the most misused words in all of history. Its generally just something tossed at political opponents or opposing ideologies by people that dont understand it, and thats exactly what Pliny was doing.

Edited December 21, 2010 by dre

[eyeball]

Fascism and socialism are far more copmplex than the two opposites you cite. There are far more commonalities than not.

Fascism is based on corporatism, which has nothing to do with business corporations.

Fascism is based on a handful of wealthy powerful people pulling the strings, usually through their business corporations - to limit their exposure to liability, personal responsibility etc etc.

[M.Dancer]

None of that changes the fact the statement I was responding to is wrong.

I did not say your statement was wrong, I implied it was simplistic.

Fascism is no more a "form of socialism" than it is a "form of capitalism". Its actually a rejection of BOTH of those concepts... a "third way".

Yet it holds many of the same basic principles of socialism, namely, the superiority of the collective over the individual.

Problem is its one of the most misused words in all of history. Its generally just something tossed at political opponents or opposing ideologies by people that dont understand it, and thats exactly what Pliny was doing.

I wasn't following what Pliny wrote.

[eyeball]

Yet it holds many of the same basic principles of socialism, namely, the superiority of the collective over the individual.

No, it holds the same principle of power, namely, the superiority of the wealthy over everyone else.

[Zachary Young]

I think fascism and socialism are actually fairly similar, they are both subsets of collectivism. They are both radical left wing ideologies. In terms of economic definitions fascism is the merging of state and corporate interests and socialism is state ownership of the means of production. Both fascism and socialism exist in varying degrees in Ontario and in Canada.

[Moonlight Graham]

I think fascism and socialism are actually fairly similar, they are both subsets of collectivism. They are both radical left wing ideologies.

fascism is considered an far right-wing ideology.

[M.Dancer]

fascism is considered an far right-wing ideology.

Not universally. It is however, considered an authoritarian ideology, much like pure socialism needs to be...

[dre]

I think fascism and socialism are actually fairly similar, they are both subsets of collectivism. They are both radical left wing ideologies. In terms of economic definitions fascism is the merging of state and corporate interests and socialism is state ownership of the means of production. Both fascism and socialism exist in varying degrees in Ontario and in Canada.

I think fascism and socialism are actually fairly similar, they are both subsets of collectivism.

So is democracy, and so are modern social democracies. Communist parties believed that western social democracies were the fascists.

They are both radical left wing ideologies.

No thats a revisionist view that didnt exist until the last few decades, and is the product of the phenomenon I mentioned earlier which is using the terms "Nazi" and "Fascist" to describe virtually any political opponent or opposing ideology. Its been called the most misused word in the english lexicon in history. This guy speaks a bit about the phenomenon.

Fascism is a form of government that was popular between 1919 and 1945, but became taboo after the Holocaust and the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945. Since 1945, few groups have applied the term to themselves. The term "fascism" has become a universal epithet for anything bad. In 2005, scholar Richard Griffiths stated that the term fascism is the most "misused, and over-used term of our times."

Which is exactly why you consider fascism a left wing ideology... Sort of the same reason war protesters labelled George Bush a fascist.

Edited December 22, 2010 by dre

[maple_leafs182]

Not universally. It is however, considered an authoritarian ideology, much like pure socialism needs to be...

Pure socialism isn't authoritarian.

[M.Dancer]

Pure socialism isn't authoritarian.

So you think individuals will willingly and gladly give up their property and rights?

[dre]

So you think individuals will willingly and gladly give up their property and rights?

People will end up having to give up their property and rights at either end of the scale. Small wonder then that no successful societies using pure socialism or pure capitalism exist.

[eyeball]

So you think individuals will willingly and gladly give up their property and rights?

That's a really funny question coming from someone who's perfectly content to let the government treat them like a mushroom.

It's where you cross the line and authorize the state to treat everyone else the same way that it stops being funny. That's pure authoritarianism and people like you thrive under dictatorships no matter what wing they try to fly with.

[M.Dancer]

That's a really funny question coming from someone who's perfectly content to let the government treat them like a mushroom.

It's where you cross the line and authorize the state to treat everyone else the same way that it stops being funny. That's pure authoritarianism and people like you thrive under dictatorships no matter what wing they try to fly with.

Stopped taking your meds again?

[M.Dancer]

People will end up having to give up their property and rights at either end of the scale. Small wonder then that no successful societies using pure socialism or pure capitalism exist.

People surrender their property rights under capitalism?