The causes for the negativity of Facism, and Communism.

[astralis]

at the risk of thread derailment,

i'm always a bit surprised when people say something like "old-time democrat who is actually sane". it doesn't make sense if your sensibilities lean republican. prior to the late 60s democrats were built on the FDR model, ie hawkish on foreign policy but big government and proud.

from the late 60s-early 90s democrats were largely dovish, big government and sorta-kinda proud (although even LBJ big government doesn't hold a candle to FDR big government).

after clinton, democrats largely split into two camps, one moderate/centrist on both issues and one leaning towards the old dovish/big government. the intervening result is that the policies dems push for tend to be center-left.

so from a republican standpoint, the most sane democrats was clinton and his New Democrats. if you value foreign policy hawkishness the last real hardcore hawk was kennedy/LBJ.

[zraver]

z,



well, missed the boat in developing a real communist movement. note that communism only became fullblown in france, germany, and russia after years of war (well, france only after 1...go figure). even the Commune wasn't outright communism, although it was pretty close.

i don't think we were -that- close during the Gilded Age; even the riots of the 1890s (caused by a very severe depression) couldn't hold a candle to what europe was undergoing internally at the time. but it does show what happens when the gap between the rich and the poor increase.

We had pitched battles between labor and capatralist including the use of bombers and machine guns. The reasons I outlined above and likely geogrpahical seperation between the parties prevented a uniying idelogiy and then a leader from developing.

in the US case, communism has never been a particularly popular ideology; when it comes to more extreme ideologies the US tends to swing towards anarchism and isolationist libertarianism.

Communism (pre-Bolshevik) or forms of it were very popular, they were simply not organized or unified. You had isolate rural groups who didn't talk to each other let aong the groups in the cities.

meh, i don't think that's going to happen. US structural debt is relatively simple (not easy...two different things) to solve. it doesn't require anything like the austerity which ireland or even the UK is currently undergoing...and neither of those countries seems to be on the verge of collapsing.

Its not the debt itself but what it represents- an inflation bomb. If the dollar collpases prices for basic nessecities are going to sky rocket. Pay $20 for a loaf of bread and your cutting at oine of the central tenets of America- full bellies for most.

case in point, revert tax rates to clinton levels and immediately up the SS/medicare qualification dates ~4 years and age-index. reduce the benefits by about 10-15%.

Reducing benefits won't fly and would hurt more than it helps. Better to freeze the levels so people can at least plan.

the only way i see what you envision happening is if there is a complete collapse in the global financial system COMBINED with a major war. ie if suddenly china, japan, india, and the EU collapsed tomorrow and we had a limited nuclear exchange with russia, then...maybe.

A collapse of the dollar would trigger it.

[astralis]

zraver,

We had pitched battles between labor and capatralist including the use of bombers and machine guns.

bombers??? i know about machine guns used by Rockefeller but i'm not aware of bombers.

Communism (pre-Bolshevik) or forms of it were very popular, they were simply not organized or unified. You had isolate rural groups who didn't talk to each other let aong the groups in the cities.

i think the 1890s-1910s were the most agitated time, but even then the US groups didn't really buy into communism. see the failure of the IWA in the US.

Its not the debt itself but what it represents- an inflation bomb. If the dollar collpases prices for basic nessecities are going to sky rocket. Pay $20 for a loaf of bread and your cutting at oine of the central tenets of America- full bellies for most.

not really. a catastrophic 20% fall in the dollar computes to approximately a 1-1.2% increase in inflation. hyperinflation won't happen unless the global financial system itself completely collapses. that would require the BRICs collapsing as well, and the last financial crisis, bad as it was, barely touched the most important part of the BRICs, the I and the C.

of course, if that happens i don't think we'll need to worry about inflation, we'll probably need to fear the prospect of some sort of world war.

Better to freeze the levels so people can at least plan.

that'd work too. like i said, relatively modest adjustments to the tax code and SS/medicare is more than enough to solve the debt problem (not crisis).

[gunnut]

at the risk of thread derailment,

i'm always a bit surprised when people say something like "old-time democrat who is actually sane". it doesn't make sense if your sensibilities lean republican. prior to the late 60s democrats were built on the FDR model, ie hawkish on foreign policy but big government and proud.

Isn't that what republicans are today? It is definitely more sane than the weirdos we have on the left coast or NYC.

from the late 60s-early 90s democrats were largely dovish, big government and sorta-kinda proud (although even LBJ big government doesn't hold a candle to FDR big government).

These are the loons.

after clinton, democrats largely split into two camps, one moderate/centrist on both issues and one leaning towards the old dovish/big government. the intervening result is that the policies dems push for tend to be center-left.

Where were those sensible democrats during the health care debate? Did we have a debate?

so from a republican standpoint, the most sane democrats was clinton and his New Democrats. if you value foreign policy hawkishness the last real hardcore hawk was kennedy/LBJ.

I wouldn't know...I'm a democrat...

[zraver]

zraver,



bombers??? i know about machine guns used by Rockefeller but i'm not aware of bombers.

Battle of Blair Mountain.

i think the 1890s-1910s were the most agitated time, but even then the US groups didn't really buy into communism. see the failure of the IWA in the US.

Then why so many communist like groups? We got lucky in that there wasn;t really an "internationale" in the US so the groups never unified.

not really. a catastrophic 20% fall in the dollar computes to approximately a 1-1.2% increase in inflation. hyperinflation won't happen unless the global financial system itself completely collapses.

we are on the verge hyper-inflation now. Food and fuel prices are expected to be up sharply next year. This is going to blunt any recovery and put a lot of pressure on the government and fed to print yet more money. We are out of actual borrowers, now the fed and treasury are simply swapping obligations and creating money out of thin air. The public has no money to buy debt and we are no longer an attractive haven for sovereign wealth funds. The failure to lay out and adopt a competent economic and fiscal policy has turn US debt in to junk bonds. The treasury is now trying to sell inflation adjusted bonds and the debt-GDP ratio has swung past where it can be brought back in line thanks to an aging population and shrinking economy.

We both know that the economy is not growing fast enough to create the jobs for new workers (despite our aging population) let alone put the out of work back to work. This isn't really growth but decline. The GDP may not be shrinking, but the number of slice sin the pie is going up and no new filling is being added.

Unless the US begins to pursue a fair trade policy in order to create jobs we are sunk.



of course, if that happens i don't think we'll need to worry about inflation, we'll probably need to fear the prospect of some sort of world war.

that'd work too. like i said, relatively modest adjustments to the tax code and SS/medicare is more than enough to solve the debt problem (not crisis).

Its a crisis

[isim]

Of course communism is an economic system! It governs supply (from each according to his ability) and demand (to each according to his need).

You give your seat on bus or subway to older people and pregnats for respect or because they need it more than you need. it is not economy. you can apply same mentality to everything.

And who are you to tell me that I don't "need" an off-road vehicle when I live in the city? I need it to haul my jet-skis for the trip to the lake and my guns for the trip to the desert. I guess you want to tell me that I don't "need" jet-skis and don't "need" guns. You're right. I don't "need" any of these things. I want them. They're fun. I'm willing to part with a part of my production to acquire frivolous objects. What's wrong with that?

"Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants."

[Albany Rifles]

I am firmly in the FDR/Truman mold...I learned it from my Dad. Same as my brothers. The other thing we all learned was the value of public service...which goes to that model as well.

Gunnut, I would disagree that that model is today's GOP....maybe 1980s but not today. Today has gone too far right. Nelson Rockefeller could not survive in today's GOP....it chased out Lincoln Chaffee. When Colin Powell gets excoriated by members of his own party, well that party has gotten too extreme. Hell, Bill Buckley may have a hard time today and I rememebr when he was a conservative's conservative!

I am not saying the Democrats do not have their fair share of extremists.

[astralis]

zraver,

Battle of Blair Mountain.

thanks. for aerial recon, i see, not actual bombing.

Then why so many communist like groups? We got lucky in that there wasn;t really an "internationale" in the US so the groups never unified.

as far i see, it was split between anarchist, socialist, and quasi-communist movements; nothing like the communist movement in france, for instance. by the 20s this was largely gone as there was a massive red scare.

we are on the verge hyper-inflation now. Food and fuel prices are expected to be up sharply next year. This is going to blunt any recovery and put a lot of pressure on the government and fed to print yet more money. We are out of actual borrowers, now the fed and treasury are simply swapping obligations and creating money out of thin air. The public has no money to buy debt and we are no longer an attractive haven for sovereign wealth funds. The failure to lay out and adopt a competent economic and fiscal policy has turn US debt in to junk bonds. The treasury is now trying to sell inflation adjusted bonds and the debt-GDP ratio has swung past where it can be brought back in line thanks to an aging population and shrinking economy.

eh...no, we're not.

let's do a bet. if by dec 2011 our inflation rate has been consistently (over, say, a 3-4 month period) and significantly higher than today's, then i'll gift you a box of butter cookies (which should be worth quite a bit more then...). by significantly, let's peg it at 5%, approximately 4.5x today's value (but something we've gone through as recently as june 2008, and not really high by world standards).

Its a crisis

no it's not; if it were, we'd see it in exploding long-term interest rates. well...we'll see.

[astralis]

gunnut,

Isn't that what republicans are today? It is definitely more sane than the weirdos we have on the left coast or NYC.

not really. republicans like to talk small-government but they certainly don't govern as small-government. they're like...closeted democrats

Where were those sensible democrats during the health care debate? Did we have a debate?

if we had 60 democrats of the FDR school, we wouldn't be talking about an individual mandate with private insurers; we'd have a single-payer system.

that's the difference between then and now.

[zraver]

gunnut,
not really. republicans like to talk small-government but they certainly don't govern as small-government. they're like...closeted democrats

You speak the truth. Both parties want to control how people live.

if we had 60 democrats of the FDR school, we wouldn't be talking about an individual mandate with private insurers; we'd have a single-payer system.

that's the difference between then and now.

But no public sector unions, which might be worth it.

eh...no, we're not.

let's do a bet. if by dec 2011 our inflation rate has been consistently (over, say, a 3-4 month period) and significantly higher than today's, then i'll gift you a box of butter cookies (which should be worth quite a bit more then...). by significantly, let's peg it at 5%, approximately 4.5x today's value (but something we've gone through as recently as june 2008, and not really high by world standards).

We jumped 2% Oct to November and added almost another full point Nov to December ending the deflationary cycle we were in. TIPS yields are starting scare people because of QE2. Hell the treasury can't even find lenders anymore and is doing highly questionable deals with the federal reserve....

[Sidney]

As has been pointed out, the main failing of Marxism as an economic model is its disregard for the innate human drive to personal profit. Its failure as a societal model stems from the fact that it is actually a form of racism, or perhaps pseudo-racism. The final nail in the coffin is the absence of free thought, severely curtailing innovation. This trait is shared with fascism.

Marxism defines two classes, the capitalists and the proletariat and assigns to them innate (often opposing) qualities. This makes these "classes" identifiable as distinct races. Of course these classes, or races, do not exist as postulated. That is why the dictatorship of the proletariat fails. When an individual, or group of individuals, hold absolute power, they are by definition no longer proletarians. However, the racist idea of Karl Marx was that the innate qualities of the proletariat would remain in the individuals once in absolute power. Of course it doesn't work out this way, and communism inevitably degenerated into the greatest oppression of the workers the world has ever seen.

Marxism is not nearly dead. It has mutated into multiple forms of neo-marxism. As opposed to neo-fascism, which is very much a fringe phenomenon today, neo-marxism wields enormous influence in the world. Examples include feminism, which is nothing more than marxism in new clothes, only instead of capitalists and proletarians we have the racist ingredient of western/white males on the one hand and women and everybody else on the other. Another example is millenalist environmentalism, the Venus project etc - easily identifiable as marxism. Lastly, everything originating with the Frankfurt school, which is a lot.

The reason marxism failed to gain hold in western civilization is the resilience and flexibility of western culture, which allowed society to adapt in a way that made reasonable quality of life a possibility for all in an industrial society. Russia was a rigid, medieval society, unable to flex away from oppression.

The overarching goal of neo-marxists today (starting with the Frankfurt school) is to destroy the flexibility of western culture, thus paving the way for a dictatorship.

[gunnut]

You give your seat on bus or subway to older people and pregnats for respect or because they need it more than you need. it is not economy. you can apply same mentality to everything.

Is there a law that tells me to give up my seat?

Your example is poor and has nothing to do with need.

Where are you? What do you do for a living? How much money do you pay? How much taxes do you pay?

Answer these questions and we can debate about communism/socialism.

"Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants."

That makes no sense.

[Double Edge]

I'm a registered democrat...

Why ?

You could be a republican going by your posts. Might not be perfect but it would be closer.

Unless, there's some hidden benefits

[gunnut]

Why ?

You could be a republican going by your posts. Might not be perfect but it would be closer.

Unless, there's some hidden benefits

I registered to vote when I became a citizen. I was young and stupid so I chose democrats. Once upon a time, I believed in "progressive taxation" along with this "social contract" thing. Then I started working in the private sector...

I remained registered as a democrat because I get "voting suggestions" mailed to me by the democrat party at every single election. I just vote opposite to those "suggestions" and so far it's pretty safe.;)

Of course I don't agree with most of what the republicans have to say. I'm more of a conservative libertarian. It's just that the republicans have more in common with me than the democrats, so I sometimes vote for republicans.

[AdityaMookerjee]

Every action, is justified, but does every result, justify every action? The west has in the past, disregarded this suggestion, because no one it seems, remembers the merits or demerits of this statement, for very long. It is said, "Those who forget history, are condemned to repeat it." We have been repeating history, since history was first written. We cannot act according to right and wrong, because right and wrong are not known to us, perhaps they are known only to God. Every unilateral, and group, act taken in the singular, or group interest, is against the interest of groups who loose to the interest of these sections. How do we do what is in the universal interest?