His argument is a little more than just 'please sir' FM, and so far we've yet to hear your all-inclusive alternative solution to everything.
I'm having trouble with my com again and taking it into the shop for a couple days, but hang in Populist, or just hang around; I'm interested in what you're trying to say as I'm sure others might be. No need to explain everything unless you reject everything else.
I am afraid that the word 'social democracy' has been sullied at home too, by those who call themselves such only to distingish themselves from 'the left' without entirely conceding their 'progressive' sheen. Personally I will never support Layton again until he starts showing interest in something more than gaining a few more seats. As if incrementalism can be applied successfully at the ballot box. I do believe that certain underlying concepts have proven useful before and could do again, with a few necessary adjustments to our altered and eroded political terrain and a lot more political engagement from everyone.
using this approach, when labour begins an argument with 'corporations, G20, please give us more jobs', it's lost.
guess what, debt is a reality that has to be addressed. so are all the other issues.
ideally we wouldn't have to talk about money at all, or jobs, but there are taxes and insurance and bills.
anyway,
from what i've seen of Ron Paul's writing, he's correct on excess debt, correct on the need to audit the Federal Reserve, but incorrect on eliminating public governance, and he's completely inconsistent in calling at the same time for more of a public audit but less public governance.
He's also insufficient in that his call to audit the Fed did not extend to all private banker transactions.
The House bill he supported left the Federal Reserve in charge of day to day self-regulation. Fox in Henhouse. He did not call for government/community -created money instead of banker rule, which would solve the debt problem fundamentally.
re: post 50-
add indicators like number of fish not covered in oil; preserved species; acreage of unlogged, unmined wilderness; real organics; ppm Co2 reduced; reduced levels of rape; reduced Big Brother; full community care in the event of theft/fire/accident to replace insurance; energy, water, and communications gifts/sharing to replace hydro, phone and water bills, etc.,
then fine, don't need to talk about money.
lots of people are already talking about Wellbeing [and related] Indices though.
doesn't negate the need to remove the ability of banks to create money. unless no one uses it, as Jesus recommended, but what do you do then with the louses who trade in Caesar's coin and employ armies?
His argument is a little more than just 'please sir' FM, and so far we've yet to hear your all-inclusive alternative solution to everything.
I'm having trouble with my com again and taking it into the shop for a couple days, but hang in Populist, or just hang around; I'm interested in what you're trying to say as I'm sure others might be. No need to explain everything unless you reject everything else.
I have discussed it at lenght on other threads. How much more is his argument from "please sir"? His argument is the same argument of the left as it has been since the Second World War. It is an argument in favour of a status quo, the post-war social contract, that has long since been abandoned. We are entering into a new era where workers will be reduced to a post-industrial equivalent of serfs. The old demand for more from our masters won't cut it any more than it did at the turn of the previous century when children still worked in coal mines.
ETA: For the record, I was looking for a good discussion here. Once my new friend went all hostile on me, well ... fairs fair.
Stop cynically covering every attempt at real change in North Amercica with a bucket of vague, defeatist cynical crap (which only deflates the North American left). Do Jack Layton and Dennis Kucinich look better covered in feces or something ? Focus in on hands-on, on-the-ground manifestations.
Such a bad temper. I suspect an inferiority complex.
What is self-defeating, and ultimately entirely defeating, is adopting the destructive capitalist model and claiming you're trying to reform it.
Focus in on hands-on, on-the-ground manifestations. I listed 7 (of many) social democracy sliders which can be cranked up WITHIN THE CURRENT IMPERFECT ECONOMIC/MONETARY SYSTEM to reform and change a capitalist/corporatist system. Compare Norway (Sweden, Finand, Denmark) vs. the US. Measure the societal differences, socio-economic statistics and indicators.
What you fail to grasp is that we live in a global system which "THE CURRENT IMPERFECT ECONOMIC/MONETARY SYSTEM" is rendering uninhabitable. This is critical. It does not matter if you live in Detroit or Stockholm if oil is in triple digits and the climate is suffocating one half the world and drowning the other half. So long as the emphasis is on deriving wealth through destruction of the biosphere, the majority of humans will be deeply impoverished and eventually human civilization and economic systems must collapse.
What you fail to grasp is that we live in a global system which "THE CURRENT IMPERFECT ECONOMIC/MONETARY SYSTEM" is rendering uninhabitable. This is critical. It does not matter if you live in Detroit or Stockholm if oil is in triple digits and the climate is suffocating one half the world and drowning the other half. So long as the emphasis is on deriving wealth through destruction of the biosphere, the majority of humans will be deeply impoverished and eventually human civilization and economic systems must collapse.
I am an enemy of your sweeping cynicism, not of you, and the tone isn't hostile, it's *animated*.
We'll have to just agree to disagree. I maintain that EVEN within the current system there is a vast difference in socio-economic manifestations which occur when turning the social democratic dials way up. You fundamentally state that without a total overhaul of the system it doesn't matter what you set the sliders/dials at.
IOW, you equate a 33% child poverty rate with a 3% child poverty rate and you see the US health care and educational systems as 'the same' as those in Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark simply because they operate within the same imperfect international monetary/economic system.
IOW, you are blind to the tangible efects social democracy induces, on the ground, in people's lives.
It's really that simple. You are blindly cynical, circular and dismissive. It's not hostility, it's dynamic truth.
Dynamic truth is it? Gosh I miss the rolly eyes. I suppose I should be grateful it is not hyper-something-or-the-other.
What I find fascinating is you can't even be intellectually honest enough, even to yourself, to admit when you're being hostile. Even if in a passive aggressive manner.
You say, "You fundamentally state that without a total overhaul of the system it doesn't matter what you set the sliders/dials at." I did? Where? Perhaps you could highlight for me where I said that as my dynamic truth meter says that's bullshit.
You say, "you equate a 33% child poverty rate with a 3% child poverty rate and you see the US health care and educational systems as 'the same' as those in Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark simply because they operate within the same imperfect international monetary/economic system."
Again, my dynamic truth meter says that's bullshit but my hyperallergenic motion detector says you're not really getting it. Here's the thing: Imagine you live on the edge of a pond. And imagine you get your water from that pond. Now imagine further that you have invested in a latrine system to ensure your waste doesn't contaminate the pond, but the guy on the other side of the pond defecates into it. No matter how clean you are, you're still drinking buddy's shit. It is a single system. Unless Denmark is self-sufficient in resources and gadgets, Denmark is still exploiting the natural wealth of another people and therefore denying them the benefits of those resources. And unless Denmark has developed a zero waste system, they are still a net contributor to the degradation of the commons, i.e. the biosphere. And cumulatively. that degradation will guarantee human suffering and poverty at a scale to which our generation in the West have had no experience but to which many of our generation in the global south is all too familiar.
You see, when you speak of social democracy and redistribution of wealth, you're speaking of a very narrow minority of people. You're not actually speaking of a solution to reduce poverty and suffering for all people on a global basis. Because to raise the standard of living for all 7 billion of us, to what we in the West are accustomed. would require what we don't have: 5 planet Earths. And in the process we are rendering uninhabitable the one we do have.
Your hostility causes you to accuse me of being blind to the "effects social democracy induces" when, in fact, your ideology blinds you to the inerent weaknesses and ultimate failure of any system that is dependent upon capitalist exploitation and liquidation of our natural world. There is no substitute for the benefits, social and economic, provided to us for free by nature. Your ideology also blinds you to simple realities of the nature of the beast you would embrace.
I just listened to a CBC report that said the wild fisheries are in collapse, and this year, for the first time in history, 50% of sea food will be produced by aquaculture. Our food supply falls further into the undemocratic control of private, for profit interests. That is the real hoarding of wealth and it is the forging of chains. You can't ever be free if you can't feed yourself and to depend on global capiatlsm to eat is truly slavery.
But it contans electrolytes.
For non-cynics ...
Solar panels and wind turbines are waiting on the sidelines for cynics to boycott the Libs and Cons and vote exclusively NDP & Green.
But the cynics are waiting on the sidelines for the Neocons and Neolibs to voluntarily crank up the social-democratic earthist slider. As if Bush & Harper would even consider doing such a thing.
BTW, as an aside, when discussing economics in a Libertarian forum a year ago, I had a Capitalist Fundamentalist say to me.. "you wan't the gov't to steal from the rich who are the good guys in our society, and give to the evil parasites."
Meanwhile, FM calls it begging.
A neutral scientist calls it justifiable wealth redistribution, to prevent mass death and suffering. Why sit on the sidelines, enabling the status-quo, and apathetically watch the body count go up ? These are human lives we're talking about.
Your hostility causes you to accuse me of being blind to the "effects social democracy induces" when, in fact, your ideology blinds you to the inerent weaknesses and ultimate failure of any system that is dependent upon capitalist exploitation and liquidation of our natural world. There is no substitute for the benefits, social and economic, provided to us for free by nature. Your ideology also blinds you to simple realities of the nature of the beast you would embrace.
I just listened to a CBC report that said the wild fisheries are in collapse, and this year, for the first time in history, 50% of sea food will be produced by aquaculture. Our food supply falls further into the undemocratic control of private, for profit interests. That is the real hoarding of wealth and it is the forging of chains. You can't ever be free if you can't feed yourself and to depend on global capiatlsm to eat is truly slavery.
What alternative, other then social democracy, could replace global capitalism?
What would it look like?
How can it be established within global capitalism?
Is social democracy a necessary step on the way to this alternative system or can this alternative be reached directly from the current system of global capitalism?
Personally I believe that in order to get to higher levels of social development, a high level of social democracy will have to be reached first within the current system.
I am afraid that the word 'social democracy' has been sullied at home too, by those who call themselves such only to distingish themselves from 'the left' without entirely conceding their 'progressive' sheen.
I (optimistically) don't think Layton = Tony Blair though.
We saw what Blair has done when in power. We haven't seen what Layton has done... he's never been given a chance.
Will he implement all of your progressive, cherished policies ? Some ? Most ? How can we hypothesize with zero evidence ?
Your hostility causes you to accuse me of being blind to the "effects social democracy induces" when, in fact, your ideology blinds you to the inerent weaknesses and ultimate failure of any system that is dependent upon capitalist exploitation and liquidation of our natural world. There is no substitute for the benefits, social and economic, provided to us for free by nature. Your ideology also blinds you to simple realities of the nature of the beast you would embrace.
I just listened to a CBC report that said the wild fisheries are in collapse, and this year, for the first time in history, 50% of sea food will be produced by aquaculture. Our food supply falls further into the undemocratic control of private, for profit interests. That is the real hoarding of wealth and it is the forging of chains. You can't ever be free if you can't feed yourself and to depend on global capiatlsm to eat is truly slavery.
What alternative, other then social democracy, could replace global capitalism?
What would it look like?
How can it be established within global capitalism?
Is social democracy a necessary step on the way to this alternative system or can this alternative be reached directly from the current system of global capitalism?
Personally I believe that in order to get to higher levels of social development, a high level of social democracy will have to be reached first within the current system.
Bingo !
When you form gov't, especially with a clear majority, you get hands on control over the economic, social and foreign policy dials & sliders.
When Denmark taxed their richest citizens income's at 59%, they ended up with a 3% poverty rate. Good slider setting by the Danes.
When Harper refused to follow Norway's lead (and nationalize 50% of the oil industry), he helped contribute to growing homelessness and poverty by NOT giving every Canadian citizen a share of the profits.
When Obama spoke about raising the taxes on the rich (in a Joe Clark kind of center-right way), the Capitalist Fundamentalists got angry. Obama's hand moved away from the dial and he hasn't went near it since.
Harper really enjoyed cranking up the tobacco industry grant slider though, while also dialing up the US drug war slider to 5.
The "Corporate Tax Rate" dial is looking irresistable to him right about now.
Bingo ! When you form gov't, especially with a clear majority, you get hands on control over the economic, social and foreign policy dials & sliders. When Denmark taxed their richest citizens income's at 59%, they ended up with a 3% poverty rate. Good slider setting by the Danes. When Harper refused to follow Norway's lead (and nationalize 50% of the oil industry), he helped contribute to growing homelessness and poverty by NOT giving every Canadian citizen a share of the profits. When Obama spoke about raising the taxes on the rich (in a Joe Clark kind of center-right way), the Capitalist Fundamentalists got angry. Obama's hand moved away from the dial and he hasn't went near it since. Harper really enjoyed cranking up the tobacco industry grant slider though, while also dialing up the US drug war slider to 5. The "Corporate Tax Rate" dial is looking irresistable to him right about now.Your hostility causes you to accuse me of being blind to the "effects social democracy induces" when, in fact, your ideology blinds you to the inerent weaknesses and ultimate failure of any system that is dependent upon capitalist exploitation and liquidation of our natural world. There is no substitute for the benefits, social and economic, provided to us for free by nature. Your ideology also blinds you to simple realities of the nature of the beast you would embrace.
I just listened to a CBC report that said the wild fisheries are in collapse, and this year, for the first time in history, 50% of sea food will be produced by aquaculture. Our food supply falls further into the undemocratic control of private, for profit interests. That is the real hoarding of wealth and it is the forging of chains. You can't ever be free if you can't feed yourself and to depend on global capiatlsm to eat is truly slavery.
What alternative, other then social democracy, could replace global capitalism?
What would it look like?
How can it be established within global capitalism?
Is social democracy a necessary step on the way to this alternative system or can this alternative be reached directly from the current system of global capitalism?
Personally I believe that in order to get to higher levels of social development, a high level of social democracy will have to be reached first within the current system.
Obama is in fact planning to raise taxes on the rich, by increasing the tax rate on dividends, increasing the top federal marginal rate to 39.6%, and applying a healthcare tax to investment income starting in 2013. State taxes are on top of this. So even in 2011, before the healthcare tax kicks in, the top marginal rate in a number of states could be over 55%. See:
I (optimistically) don't think Layton = Tony Blair though. We saw what Blair has done when in power. We haven't seen what Layton has done... he's never been given a chance. Will he implement all of your progressive, cherished policies ? Some ? Most ? How can we hypothesize with zero evidence ?I am afraid that the word 'social democracy' has been sullied at home too, by those who call themselves such only to distingish themselves from 'the left' without entirely conceding their 'progressive' sheen.
This is the first time I've read a babbler comparing Tony Blair with Jack Layton. They tend to stop there though when trying to imply that provincial NDPs have the same federal powers to tax and regulate as British national leaders.
Obama is in fact planning to raise taxes on the rich, by increasing the tax rate on dividends, increasing the top federal marginal rate to 39.6%, and applying a healthcare tax to investment income starting in 2013. State taxes are on top of this. So even in 2011, before the healthcare tax kicks in, the top marginal rate in a number of states could be over 55%. See:
We'll believe it when it's done, but as long as the vast majority of the revenue goes to the military-industrial-prison-pharmaceutical complex, it's more corporatist-capitalistic-Neo-Fascism than Humanitarian Democratic Socialism. In fact, Obama is straightjacketed from doing Kucinich policies by the authoritarian Neocon/Neolib monopoly.
When the US poor are healed, US homelessness ended, Universal health care & education implemented, foreign interventionism reduced, etc., THEN we can discuss the possibility of Obama being a socialist.
Until then, he's empowering the top 1% of US wealth hoarders who have 95% of the wealth. Crunch the numbers, drop the dogma, and realize it's not socialism until the wealth ratios change drastically.
I (optimistically) don't think Layton = Tony Blair though. We saw what Blair has done when in power. We haven't seen what Layton has done... he's never been given a chance. Will he implement all of your progressive, cherished policies ? Some ? Most ? How can we hypothesize with zero evidence ?I am afraid that the word 'social democracy' has been sullied at home too, by those who call themselves such only to distingish themselves from 'the left' without entirely conceding their 'progressive' sheen.
This is the first time I've read a babbler comparing Tony Blair with Jack Layton. They tend to stop there though when trying to imply that provincial NDPs have the same federal powers to tax and regulate as British national leaders.
I preemptively pulled that rabbit out of the hat by anticipating a rather pessimistic view of Layton which mirrors the "look at the rightwing Tony Blair 'Social Democrat' tarnish the SD label.
I think that if Canada could at least spend a little like England has on social housing, it would go some way toward reversing the rollbacks on our social democracy since the 1990s.
Your hostility causes you to accuse me of being blind to the "effects social democracy induces" when, in fact, your ideology blinds you to the inerent weaknesses and ultimate failure of any system that is dependent upon capitalist exploitation and liquidation of our natural world.
Nope, your blind, cynical apathy facilitates the overly capitalistic, undemocratic system whereby this entire continent is run by an untouchable Neocon/Neolib monopoly. Untouchable because you refuse to touch it and send progressives into the slider room to change things. Like a screaming toddler, you sit in the corner, pouting, absolutely demanding your idealistic, systemic overhaul be adopted or else.
Well, you've enabled 'or else'.
Congrats.
More social housing without Blair's faith-based, Christian Fundamentalist embrace of the Republican foreign policy / Bush doctrine ? Sure !
But without a tax hike on corporations and a tax hike on the incomes of Canada's megarich, there is no means to ensure the humanitarian right to ample shelter.
Nope, your blind, cynical apathy facilitates the overly capitalistic, undemocratic system whereby this entire continent is run by an untouchable Neocon/Neolib monopoly. Untouchable because you refuse to touch it and send progressives into the slider room to change things. Like a screaming toddler, you sit in the corner, pouting, absolutely demanding your idealistic, systemic overhaul be adopted or else. Well, you've enabled 'or else'. Congrats.Your hostility causes you to accuse me of being blind to the "effects social democracy induces" when, in fact, your ideology blinds you to the inerent weaknesses and ultimate failure of any system that is dependent upon capitalist exploitation and liquidation of our natural world.
You're such an angry little person, aren't you?
You're not even arguing substance any more as you've descending to a pre-teen. I suppose I've won this argument then. Thanks.
What alternative, other then social democracy, could replace global capitalism?
A form of eco-socialism that places human well-being at the centre of economic focus and that preserves the natural world as the only true source of human prosperity.
What would it look like?
It would inherently be intensely local.
How can it be established within global capitalism?
It can't. Global capitalism must be abandoned. We have no choice.
Is social democracy a necessary step on the way to this alternative system or can this alternative be reached directly from the current system of global capitalism?
Probably not. Not unless first social democracy also changes its perspective on what is wealth and what is required to sustain a human population.
When we speak of redistributing wealth, what are we really talking about? You will notice my angry friend avoids at all costs addressing issues of the global south, resource depletion, and global poverty. The reason is because if Western Imperialism was a pirate ship, social democrats are the deck hands arguing for a greater share of the plunder from the captain and his first mates. Social democracy does not actively seek to end the plunder nor to leave the wealth with those under whose feet it is found.
Social Democracy's 3rd way was deeply involved in the Iraqi resource war. Denmark sent troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
A truly socialistic society would seek to preserve for future generations the wealth we hold in common and that wealth is the Earth and what it provides us. Global capitalism is spoiling every river, is irreversibly altering the planet's systems. and will leave us with a planet that eventually will not support human civilization. My angry friend is content with that so long as global capitalism provides him with a greater share of the loot in order that he may have a big screen in every room and an iPhone in every pocket.
The reason my angry friend is so angry is because I'm right.
Since when is realism and reality based solutions inherently angry ? Kucinich, Sanders, Layton and May are waiting to get into the economic control room and turn up the social democratic dials and sliders. People like you prevent them from even entering the room. It's hands-off cynics like you, *absolutely* demanding a radical monetary system overhaul, who do measurable harm to the poor by permanently empowering the Neolib/Neocon monopoly in North America.
You can vote for the aforementioned 4 reformers AND advocate for an *eventual* systemic overhaul... don't you get that ???
Cynical absolutism is indeed a form of Fundamentalism.
Heh, heh. You still have not addressed a single substantial item.
So I'm personally preventing Kucinich, Sanders, Layton, and May from getting into the "economic control room" am I? I had no idea I was so powerful. Hold, on, I'm ordering an underling to bring me icecream.
Do you know what the was the single most harmful thing done to the poor in Western history? The fencing of the commons. The poor weren't so poor as when they could no longer water and graze their livestock. Suddenly, unable to feed themselves, they were forced to migrate to cities, where they were subjected to horrendous conditions, to become slaves for wages. Humans became commodities to feed industrialism.
This same process continues. Indigenous peoples, quite capable of feeding themselves, are evicted from their ancestral lands and herded into cities where they become commdified cheap labour and consumers. There is another thread on capitalism I had forgotten about but I had a post there linking two, I think, related stories:
One excellent article and one current news report that should be read in turn:
Quote:
The escalating processes of climate disruption, biotic impoverishment and toxification--which continue despite decades of warnings and earnest effort--are a severe indictment of capitalism. Capitalism as it is constituted today produces an economy and politics that are highly destructive to the environment. An unquestioning commitment to economic growth at any cost, powerful corporations whose overriding objective is to grow by generating profits (including profits from avoiding the environmental costs they create, from amassing deep subsidies and benefits from government and from continued deployment of technologies designed with little regard for the environment), markets that fail to recognize environmental costs unless corrected by government, government that is subservient to corporate interests and the growth imperative, rampant consumerism spurred by sophisticated advertising and marketing, economic activity so large in scale that it alters the fundamental biophysical operations of the planet--all combine to deliver an ever growing world economy that is undermining the ability of the planet to sustain life.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/146813/how_global_warming_and_capita...
Quote:
Research by the Canadian Index of Wellbeing suggests Canadians are increasingly sacrificing satisfying leisure time to attend to the pressing demands of work, childcare and looking after dependent seniors. A report issued by the Index on Tuesday says there is a need to strike a better balance.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/leisure-time-sacrificed-for...
The problem with democratic socialism is that it is as dependent on consumer capitalism for "wealth" generation, that is the converting of the living world to commodities, as is capitalism itself. In fact, it is entirely dependent upon capitalist institutions which also makes any gains temporary, at best, anyway. You may be insulting, stamp your feet, cry and shout, but it won't change the basic realities.
Either the left moves beyond the capitalist model or we perish with it.
So, there are at least 3 options.
1) Leave the Neonconservative/Neoliberal North American monopoly in place - 2 party permanence. Ignatieff, Harper, Obama and McCain get power.
2) Transform the policy priorities and socio-economic slider set with more progressive candidates and reduce the impact of Neocon/Neolib ideology and policy. Kucinich, Sanders, Layton and May get power.
3) Demand a total and immediate overhaul of the entire monetary, financial system (to what precisely ? The vague idealists don't really know but they're 100% sure it will work !).
If someone is obsessively an exclusive advocate for 3), and spouts prophet of doom and gloom rhetoric in equal intensity towards options 1) & 2), then they are by definition a frustrated mess. The degree to which progressives dismiss option 2) is the degree to which the Canadian and North American left remains a frustrated mess.
It's quite obvious that the likelihood of getting to 3) is greater by going from 2) rather than empowering centuries of 1).
"The current socialist Finnish education system is superior to the current capitalist American education system".
Cynical Fundamentalist : "It doesn't matter because it doesn't take place within MY IDEAL, radically overhauled, pro-earth economic system. We're all doomed !"
"There is much more Green technology funding and facilitization in more social-democratic Sweden and Germany than in Canada and the USA."
Cynical Fundamentalist : "It doesn't matter because it doesn't take place within MY IDEAL, radically overhauled, pro-earth economic system. We're all doomed !"
"Socialistic French Health Care is superior to American health care"
Cynical Fundamentalist : "It doesn't matter because it doesn't take place within MY IDEAL, radically overhauled, pro-earth economic system. We're all doomed !"
"Denmark has a much lower child poverty rate than Canada and the US".
Cynical Fundamentalist : "It doesn't matter because it doesn't take place within MY IDEAL, radically overhauled, pro-earth economic system. We're all doomed !"
"What if Canada bans coal-fired power plants ?"
Cynical Fundamentalist : "It doesn't matter because it doesn't take place within MY IDEAL, radically overhauled, pro-earth economic system. We're all doomed !"
"What if Canada funds and enables the transition to pure electric vehicles recharged by a solar strip on each person's home ?"
Cynical Fundamentalist : "It doesn't matter because it doesn't take place within MY IDEAL, radically overhauled, pro-earth economic system. We're all doomed !"
Eventually, the sheer absurdity of the blind, dismissive, hyper-cynical doom & gloom prophet's mindset shows itself.
What alternative, other then social democracy, could replace global capitalism?
A form of eco-socialism that places human well-being at the centre of economic focus and that preserves the natural world as the only true source of human prosperity.
What would it look like?
It would inherently be intensely local.
How can it be established within global capitalism?
It can't. Global capitalism must be abandoned. We have no choice.
People sometimes undertake the task of building a go-cart, later realizing they only had vague, idealistic notions and a fundamental desire rather than a sufficiently intricate sequential blueprint.
Many pro-earth anti-capitalists demand (and command) that an entirely new monetary engine be built based on what is merely a vague notion and not a concrete, mechanically interdependent PROVEN functional infrastructure/apparatus.
Even if one *assumes* their dreamy, idealistic NON-blueprint to be preferable and functional, one must ask : "can we instantaneously leap there from the current North American platform / political paradigm (which is an earth-smashing Neocon/Neolib 2-party monopoly) or would it be easier to transition to there from a more reformist North American platform / political paradigm run by pro-earth, social-democrat reformers ?". IOW, is significant reform more likely to be allowed by a team of Harper, Martin, Bush and Obama or by a team of Kucinich, Sanders, Layton and May ?
Obama is in fact planning to raise taxes on the rich, by increasing the tax rate on dividends, increasing the top federal marginal rate to 39.6%, and applying a healthcare tax to investment income starting in 2013. State taxes are on top of this. So even in 2011, before the healthcare tax kicks in, the top marginal rate in a number of states could be over 55%. See:
Some capitalists exaggerate the PUNITIVE income tax level they face under SOCIALIST BUSH and COMMUNIST Obama. The greed-game wealth hoarders lie for their own monetary benefit yet again.
By using all the loopholes (in the tax code written for industrial capitalists BY THEIR PALS), a multibillionaire can pay 20% or less.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Some capitalists exaggerate the PUNITIVE income tax level they face under SOCIALIST BUSH and COMMUNIST Obama. The greed-game wealth hoarders lie for their own monetary benefit yet again. By using all the loopholes (in the tax code written for industrial capitalists BY THEIR PALS), a multibillionaire can pay 20% or less. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.eceObama is in fact planning to raise taxes on the rich, by increasing the tax rate on dividends, increasing the top federal marginal rate to 39.6%, and applying a healthcare tax to investment income starting in 2013. State taxes are on top of this. So even in 2011, before the healthcare tax kicks in, the top marginal rate in a number of states could be over 55%. See:
I agree that lower tax rates for billionaires than for their cleaning staff make no sense. Warren Buffett should be very happy that dividends will be taxed as ordinary income starting in 2011, because his tax rate will more than double.
Really good post #76 lefty.
I agree that lower tax rates for billionaires than for their cleaning staff make no sense. Warren Buffett should be very happy that dividends will be taxed as ordinary income starting in 2011, because his tax rate will more than double.
Isn't it more than a little presumptuous to assume that all the loopholes will be closed ?
Also, you never addressed what this (possible) increased tax revenue would be going towards. The military, industry and debt reduction are the most likely recipients IMO. Only when Obama (and his team) greatly increases the wealth and well-being of the American poor, and provides universal health care & education will he be considered a progressive, let alone a socialist.
Really good post #76 lefty.
Thanks Fidel.
As you know, we have at our disposal some social democratic tools which could be used to reduce the damage to the earth and reduce wealth inequality, but cynical defeatists refuse to use or empower them.
Instead, many cynical defeatists want to fantastically jump from this current, very regressive Neoconservative/Neoliberal North American paradigm DIRECTLY into their pool of ambiguous & idealistic dreams. Why can't (or won't) they realize the social democrats in North America (people like Kucinich, Sanders and Layton who have worked their entire lives to reduce earth damage and wealth inequality) are the only available springboard ?
Here's an intelligent (although not entirely sympathetic) review of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, for those that don't want to read the whole book:
Isn't it more than a little presumptuous to assume that all the loopholes will be closed ? Also, you never addressed what this (possible) increased tax revenue would be going towards. The military, industry and debt reduction are the most likely recipients IMO. Only when Obama (and his team) greatly increases the wealth and well-being of the American poor, and provides universal health care & education will he be considered a progressive, let alone a socialist.I agree that lower tax rates for billionaires than for their cleaning staff make no sense. Warren Buffett should be very happy that dividends will be taxed as ordinary income starting in 2011, because his tax rate will more than double.
I didn't say that all loopholes would be closed, and I'm not concerned with whether Obama can legitimately be called a socialist. You claimed that Obama was not going to increase taxes. I have provided evidence that he plans to.
I never claimed he won't, just that he hasn't YET.
"When Obama spoke about raising the taxes on the rich (in a Joe Clark kind of center-right way), the Capitalist Fundamentalists got angry. Obama's hand moved away from the dial and he hasn't went near it since."
When the rate ACTUALLY increases AND all loopholes are closed, then report it as fact.
I never claimed he won't, just that he hasn't YET. "When Obama spoke about raising the taxes on the rich (in a Joe Clark kind of center-right way), the Capitalist Fundamentalists got angry. Obama's hand moved away from the dial and he hasn't went near it since." When the rate ACTUALLY increases AND all loopholes are closed, then report it as fact.
I truly don't expect that all the loopholes will ever be closed. The U.S. tax code and regulations run to more than 40,000 pages. On the other hand, I do think that rates will increase. I guess we'll talk in 2011.
And for a change of pace, an anarchist beating up (politely) on Nozick as too statist:
Anarchists generally say that property is theft not property is an inherent right. That is one of the key differences between anarchy and libertarianism.
Without ending the corporate veil libertarianism is logically inconsistent. After all corporations are nothing but creatures of the state that allow the rich to hide from the consequences of their actions. Limited companies are a good way of doing business if your aim is to shift the risks of your enterprise onto the public but it is hardly a basis for any kind of economic system that includes equality amongst citizens.
People sometimes undertake the task of building a go-cart, later realizing they only had vague, idealistic notions and a fundamental desire rather than a sufficiently intricate sequential blueprint. Many pro-earth anti-capitalists demand (and command) that an entirely new monetary engine be built based on what is merely a vague notion and not a concrete, mechanically interdependent PROVEN functional infrastructure/apparatus. Even if one *assumes* their dreamy, idealistic NON-blueprint to be preferable and functional, one must ask : "can we instantaneously leap there from the current North American platform / political paradigm (which is an earth-smashing Neocon/Neolib 2-party monopoly) or would it be easier to transition to there from a more reformist North American platform / political paradigm run by pro-earth, social-democrat reformers ?". IOW, is significant reform more likely to be allowed by a team of Harper, Martin, Bush and Obama or by a team of Kucinich, Sanders, Layton and May ?
Not only do you not address the substance of any arguments, you merely repeat talking points. Fidel, stricken with the same disease, does likewise. 'Nice post at #76," he says. But what did you say? You made vague accusations over vague details as though a message board provides the means to place meat on bones. As I said, you're intellectually dishonest. But best of all, your intellectual dishonesty also bristles with hypocrisy. Democratic socialism is as vague a notion as any. Its bona fides, or lack thereof, stretch from Anthony Crosland to Tony Blair to Jack Layton. And of those social democrats elected in the last two decades, what significant reform has been introduced by them? Haven't social democrats in Greece just imposed the dictates of the IMF on its population?
Here is some news for you:
The beginning of the social democratic slump dates back to the 1970s and has been confirmed in the following decades. More worryingly for these parties, it has intensified since 2000. To sum up, since the 1970s, social democracy has, on average, lost votes, each decade proving less profitable than the previous one: - 1.5% in the 1970s, - 0.6% in the 1980s, - 1.9% in the 1990s and - 2.6% in the 2000s. Between the 1950s-1960s and now, social democratic parties in northern Europe have lost about 20% of their votes.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/philippe-marliere/decline-of-europes-social...
Do you know why? Because social democracy can only deliver the vicious cuts dictated by capital as the consensus is pushed to the right by polictial, social, and economic elites. Social democracy can't, and doesn't, articulate an alternative to capitalism but an accomodation with it on capitalism's terms. Only blind idiots can't see that.
Meanwhile, you confuse monetary policy with the philosophy of wealth. Even so, Naomi Klein would argue, as she did in Shock Doctrine, that anyone who doesn't pay attention to monetary policy will fall victim to it instead, as did the post-Apartheid South African government.
You don't want to understand economics, nor philisophy, nor even the politics you espouse. You're merely capable of spouting a few statistics taken from the CIA Factbook or some other web site. In that sense, you are the mirror opposite of Tea Baggers and right wing useful idiots who only know that which they choose to believe as some sort of sectarian dogma. It is too bad.
A good argument between the proponents of two opposing perspectives could open the door to new ideas. Unfortunately your not capable of a good argument.
The reason why you are a frustrated mess is that you have bought into the fallacy of a false alternative.
"Either we get total, radical change or no change at all."
You are simply cognitively and intellectually incapable of comprehending the concept of *degree* of change. All you see is the radical, sweeping upheaval ... or *nothing*. Your mind's scope is too small, and is perpetually, conceptually bi-polar.
You spout a circular loop, based on cynical dimsissal of all evidence contrary to your dogma.
"Canada and the US allow vastly more pesticides on food than more socially democratic Scandinavia".
Cynical Fundamentalist : "It doesn't matter because it doesn't take place within MY IDEAL, radically overhauled, pro-earth economic system. We're all doomed !"
"In Europe and Scandinavia, every vote counts, as they have proportional repesentation. It creates much more individual voter impact than in Canada and the US where votes are lost in the disproportionate FPTP system".
Cynical Fundamentalist : "It doesn't matter because it doesn't take place within MY IDEAL, radically overhauled, pro-earth economic system. We're all doomed !"
If you had any comprehenisive powers whatsoever, you'd realize that change begets change and sometimes small, moderate or gradual change is better than no change at all.
I'll say it again for you, with hope you might actually understand it.
Change begets change, and sometimes small, moderate or gradual change is better than no change at all.
And in case you haven't figured it out, there has been absolutely zero change from the North American paradigm because too many individuals in the populace buy wholeheartedly into the either-or, sweeping dismissivity of a conceptually bi-polar false alternative.
Anarchists generally say that property is theft not property is an inherent right. That is one of the key differences between anarchy and libertarianism.
Without ending the corporate veil libertarianism is logically inconsistent. After all corporations are nothing but creatures of the state that allow the rich to hide from the consequences of their actions. Limited companies are a good way of doing business if your aim is to shift the risks of your enterprise onto the public but it is hardly a basis for any kind of economic system that includes equality amongst citizens.
Are you thinking of Proudhon, who said "property is theft", "property is impossible", "property is despotism" and "property is freedom"?
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon
Say you're a farmer, and you have (wait for it...) two cows. If a gang shows up and wants to take take your cows away, what is the anarchist response?
So you studiously ignored the central thrust of my point. So what do you think of the Corporate Veil in relation to a libertarian economy.
If you only want to play stupid hypotheticals I have one for you.
If a farmer has two cows and a corporation buys the farm next door and starts a polluting business what is the libertarian going to do?
So you studiously ignored the central thrust of my point. So what do you think of the Corporate Veil in relation to a libertarian economy.
If you only want to play stupid hypotheticals I have one for you.
If a farmer has two cows and a corporation buys the farm next door and starts a polluting business what is the libertarian going to do?
My question was meant seriously and was not intentionally stupid - please don't get hostile. If all property is theft, then I don't see the basis for complaining if someone steals your stuff, including your cows. But I'm sure that there's more too it than that, so please tell me.
The libertarian answer to your question is, obviously, that you sue the corporation - the Corporate Veil doesn't mean that the corporation has carte blanche to do what it wants. Look at BP - they're going to get sued big time. Whether conducting all business as partnerships would work better than the current corporate set-up is a good question. Lawyers do it and they seem to survive.
I guess you have no idea how corporations really work and what the Corporate Veil does for the rich. I will use the Vancouver Leaky Condo issue as an illustration. Builders in the 90's in the Lower Mainland started to cut corners to make higher profits. Many unsuspecting home buyers bought very shoddy houses but the problems were mostly concealed behind drywall when the homes were purchased. When those home owners tried to sue the corporations that built the homes and made the profits off of their shoddy construction they found out about the concept of the "shell" company. The condo projects each had a different numbered company so the real live people who profited while others lost their life savings did not have to pay for anything because their liability was only to the extent of the limited company. No money and no assets in the numbered companies of course means no justice for the suckers in the system. The rich people get to use $400 an hour legal talent against a family that has just been evicted from their home because they lost their life savings in a scam. But that is fair right? Now without the corporate veil the rich assholes who built all the shoddy homes would lose their wealth and be the ones reduced to poverty. I hope that helps you understand the problem with the corporate veil.
As for my "hostility," reading libertarians talk about anarchy is like listening to Rush talk about Obama being a socialist. Clearly one has to understand either anarchy or socialism before they can make intelligent comparisons. reading a bit more that a two sentence Wikki entry if you want to understand such a broad concept as anarchy. A new book from Black Rose Press called, "Emma Gldman, Still Dangerous" has a good 20 page introduction to the various strains of anarchy. I would suggest you try reading it to get a basic understanding of the principles most consider to be anarchistic.
http://blackrosebooks.com/products/view/EMMA+GOLDMAN,+Still+Dangerous/32437
I guess you have no idea how corporations really work and what the Corporate Veil does for the rich. I will use the Vancouver Leaky Condo issue as an illustration. Builders in the 90's in the Lower Mainland started to cut corners to make higher profits. Many unsuspecting home buyers bought very shoddy houses but the problems were mostly concealed behind drywall when the homes were purchased. When those home owners tried to sue the corporations that built the homes and made the profits off of their shoddy construction they found out about the concept of the "shell" company. The condo projects each had a different numbered company so the real live people who profited while others lost their life savings did not have to pay for anything because their liability was only to the extent of the limited company. No money and no assets in the numbered companies of course means no justice for the suckers in the system. The rich people get to use $400 an hour legal talent against a family that has just been evicted from their home because they lost their life savings in a scam. But that is fair right? Now without the corporate veil the rich assholes who built all the shoddy homes would lose their wealth and be the ones reduced to poverty. I hope that helps you understand the problem with the corporate veil.
As for my "hostility," reading libertarians talk about anarchy is like listening to Rush talk about Obama being a socialist. Clearly one has to understand either anarchy or socialism before they can make intelligent comparisons. reading a bit more that a two sentence Wikki entry if you want to understand such a broad concept as anarchy. A new book from Black Rose Press called, "Emma Gldman, Still Dangerous" has a good 20 page introduction to the various strains of anarchy. I would suggest you try reading it to get a basic understanding of the principles most consider to be anarchistic.
http://blackrosebooks.com/products/view/EMMA+GOLDMAN,+Still+Dangerous/32437
Thanks for the reference - I appreciate it. So I take it you're coming down pretty firmly on the side of conducting business as partnerships, so that the partners would each individually be liable for the actions of the partnership?
I am very much in favour of syndicates that are owned by the workers themselves. Most anarchist don't say there should not be a market economy. But unfortunately most people think that the terms, market economy and capitalism, are synonymous.
But in our current society partnerships at least would allow the rest of us recourse against humans, not a corporate boardroom filled with individuals who are playing dangerous games with other people money.
Oh and in answer to the first question the anarchist defence league would let the gang know that they should leave the area and move to stealing from the oppressors not the people. Look at the tent city in Vancouver during the Olympics. They of course had to struggle with things like security and strangely the activists used the anarchists not the police. Anarchy is a means for people to join together in community not to become individuals with only their self interest in the forefront. That is libertarianism in my view. Community versus individual. Anarchist believe in community, empathy and social justice and libertarians believe in the power of self interest to bring about wealth.
Since then, the Village has truly taken on its name and developed as a critical space of genuine community resistance. Every day and every evening two fires gather dozens of peoples to share stories, food, poetry, song, and conversation. In addition to residents of Tent Village, hundreds of DTES residents drop in for food, for a sanctuary from the street and into a space that is welcoming and free of unnecessary institutional rules and regulations. DTES residents and supporters alike seem to seamlessly and organically take shifts preparing and serving food, doing dishes, cleaning up the site, doing security, and lending an ear and mediating conflict as needed. (Listen to an interview with the incredible Dave Diewert.)
The Tent Village is deeply decentralized, no one person is really in an overall leadership position or understands the totality of the functioning of the Village. While this may seem disorganized and a weakness to some, this structure has really allowed the Village to flourish as individuals step-in and take responsibility for areas and undertake tasks they feel they are most capable for. Decisions that many of us, as original organizers, had made were quickly debated in a series of meetings involving the participation of all those involved in Tent Village in any way. As an example, our media policy was quickly altered from the Village being open to media to no cameras being allowed on-site as concerns about privacy arose within the first 24 hours. A sophisticated media protocol has developed since and is posted on the front gate. Plans to remain on-site were also extended to at least the end of the Olympic Games. Community agreements, under the leadership of DTES Elders and DTES Power to Women group, were drafted. These include: respect for all Tent City residents, no discrimination, a drug and alcohol free site though those who are under the influence are welcomed without judgement, no violence against other residents, and prioritizing decision-making by DTES residents, those who are homeless, and DTES Elders.
Autonomous committees have sprung up including organizing skill shares, a building crew, gardening committee, recycling and Green committee, and a committee to work on a newsletter entitled Tent Village Voice. Just in the past two weeks, two issues of Tent Village Voice have been released to bring forward the stories of Village residents; dozens of structures have been constructed to protect residents from the rain and provide a more comfortable living environment; a garden has sprouted at the entrance; and a series of workshops including guerrilla art, improv theatre, bike building, and knitting have taken place. Several groups and individuals have taken the initiative to organize evening concerts.
I am very much in favour of syndicates that are owned by the workers themselves. Most anarchist don't say there should not be a market economy. But unfortunately most people think that the terms, market economy and capitalism, are synonymous.
But in our current society partnerships at least would allow the rest of us recourse against humans, not a corporate boardroom filled with individuals who are playing dangerous games with other people money.
Oh and in answer to the first question the anarchist defence league would let the gang know that they should leave the area and move to stealing from the oppressors not the people. Look at the tent city in Vancouver during the Olympics. They of course had to struggle with things like security and strangely the activists used the anarchists not the police. Anarchy is a means for people to join together in community not to become individuals with only their self interest in the forefront. That is libertarianism in my view. Community versus individual. Anarchist believe in community, empathy and social justice and libertarians believe in the power of self interest to bring about wealth.
Since then, the Village has truly taken on its name and developed as a critical space of genuine community resistance. Every day and every evening two fires gather dozens of peoples to share stories, food, poetry, song, and conversation. In addition to residents of Tent Village, hundreds of DTES residents drop in for food, for a sanctuary from the street and into a space that is welcoming and free of unnecessary institutional rules and regulations. DTES residents and supporters alike seem to seamlessly and organically take shifts preparing and serving food, doing dishes, cleaning up the site, doing security, and lending an ear and mediating conflict as needed. (Listen to an interview with the incredible Dave Diewert.)
The Tent Village is deeply decentralized, no one person is really in an overall leadership position or understands the totality of the functioning of the Village. While this may seem disorganized and a weakness to some, this structure has really allowed the Village to flourish as individuals step-in and take responsibility for areas and undertake tasks they feel they are most capable for. Decisions that many of us, as original organizers, had made were quickly debated in a series of meetings involving the participation of all those involved in Tent Village in any way. As an example, our media policy was quickly altered from the Village being open to media to no cameras being allowed on-site as concerns about privacy arose within the first 24 hours. A sophisticated media protocol has developed since and is posted on the front gate. Plans to remain on-site were also extended to at least the end of the Olympic Games. Community agreements, under the leadership of DTES Elders and DTES Power to Women group, were drafted. These include: respect for all Tent City residents, no discrimination, a drug and alcohol free site though those who are under the influence are welcomed without judgement, no violence against other residents, and prioritizing decision-making by DTES residents, those who are homeless, and DTES Elders.
Autonomous committees have sprung up including organizing skill shares, a building crew, gardening committee, recycling and Green committee, and a committee to work on a newsletter entitled Tent Village Voice. Just in the past two weeks, two issues of Tent Village Voice have been released to bring forward the stories of Village residents; dozens of structures have been constructed to protect residents from the rain and provide a more comfortable living environment; a garden has sprouted at the entrance; and a series of workshops including guerrilla art, improv theatre, bike building, and knitting have taken place. Several groups and individuals have taken the initiative to organize evening concerts.
Thank-you. I think I understand your point of view better now.
Not only do you not address the substance of any arguments, you merely repeat talking points.
Just take a look at *yourself*. Your entire mode of operation in this forum is to discourage people from voting NDP simply because they won't instantly and permanently implement your *imagined*, radically overhauled, idealistically preferred monetary system which exists ONLY in your own mind as a collection of vague, presumptuous, hyper-simplistic notions.
You blindly and instinctively reject any and all evidence of the long and effective reign social democrats had in power in Scandinavia (as well as Northern Europe) and the verified reductions they brought about in wealth inequality. According to anti-NDP Frustrated Mess, they don't matter. You also categorically reject any and all evidence demonstrating the progress they have made in facilitating green technology. According to anti-NDP Frustrated Mess, they don't matter. You also reject evidence of Scandinavian health care and education as being far superior to the respective American manifestations. According to anti-NDP Frustrated Mess, none of it matters.
Apparently, you believe that small change, moderate change, or big change within an imperfect, NON-ideal system is to be categorically dismissed, rejected and ignored simply because it's not in the confines of your perfect, ideal, frustrated mess mind dreamworld.
Do you really think that social democracy in Scandinavia and Northern Europe would or has to be a permanent reign, or perfect in results ? Again, that's the insanity of your unmeasured, hyper-cynical, either-or, blind dismissivity. You continually promote the fallacy of either perfect, radical change or zero change.
Of COURSE the opposition to the social democrats would eventually regain power. That's how competitive representational democracy works. It's back and forth. It's a longterm chess match. A few mistakes or imperfections by the social democrats, and the rightwing message has a chance of being embraced by the populace. That just means the opportunity to rebound better, stronger and faster at a later time.
Every argument in favor of the NDP is rejected by you simply because you refuse to acknowledge any small, medium or large reductions in wealth inequalities as good. You also refuse to acknowledge any small, medium or large reductions in earth damage as good. Why ? Simply because it doesn't take place within your *imagined*, idealistic, radical systemic overhaul which does not exist, has not existed and yet you can show in every way how it's the perfect system. IOW, it's merely a figment of your imagination, and a very *childish* and *incomplete* one at that. It doesn't exist. Whereas the gains brought about by decades of social democratic gov't in Scandinavia DOES exist and when compared to the US, it is quite obvious that small, moderate or large change within an imperfect (yet *existing*) monetary system is FAR better than the no-change-at-all North American political monopoly of Neoconservatives & Neoliberals. A paradigm BTW which you support by default by repeatedly trying to convince people not to vote NDP.
Just take a look at *yourself*. Your entire mode of operation in this forum is to discourage people from voting NDP simply because they won't instantly and permanently implement your *imagined*, radically overhauled, idealistically preferred monetary system which exists ONLY in your own mind as a collection of vague, presumptuous, hyper-simplistic notions. You blindly and instinctively reject any and all evidence of the long and effective reign social democrats had in power in Scandinavia (as well as Northern Europe) and the verified reductions they brought about in wealth inequality. According to anti-NDP Frustrated Mess, they don't matter. You also categorically reject any and all evidence demonstrating the progress they have made in facilitating green technology. According to anti-NDP Frustrated Mess, they don't matter. You also reject evidence of Scandinavian health care and education as being far superior to the respective American manifestations. According to anti-NDP Frustrated Mess, none of it matters. Apparently, you believe that small change, moderate change, or big change within an imperfect, NON-ideal system is to be categorically dismissed, rejected and ignored simply because it's not in the confines of your perfect, ideal, frustrated mess mind dreamworld. Do you really think that social democracy in Scandinavia and Northern Europe would or has to be a permanent reign, or perfect in results ? Again, that's the insanity of your unmeasured, hyper-cynical, either-or, blind dismissivity. You continually promote the fallacy of either perfect, radical change or zero change. Of COURSE the opposition to the social democrats would eventually regain power. That's how competitive representational democracy works. It's back and forth. It's a longterm chess match. A few mistakes or imperfections by the social democrats, and the rightwing message has a chance of being embraced by the populace. That just means the opportunity to rebound better, stronger and faster at a later time. Every argument in favor of the NDP is rejected by you simply because you refuse to acknowledge any small, medium or large reductions in wealth inequalities as good. You also refuse to acknowledge any small, medium or large reductions in earth damage as good. Why ? Simply because it doesn't take place within your *imagined*, idealistic, radical systemic overhaul which does not exist, has not existed and yet you can show in every way how it's the perfect system. IOW, it's merely a figment of your imagination, and a very *childish* and *incomplete* one at that. It doesn't exist. Whereas the gains brought about by decades of social democratic gov't in Scandinavia DOES exist and when compared to the US, it is quite obvious that small, moderate or large change within an imperfect (yet *existing*) monetary system is FAR better than the no-change-at-all North American political monopoly of Neoconservatives & Neoliberals. A paradigm BTW which you support by default by repeatedly trying to convince people not to vote NDP.Not only do you not address the substance of any arguments, you merely repeat talking points.
I discouraged someone from voting NDP? Who? Where? You still lack intellectual honesty and you still don't know what you're talking about.
ETA: I hope you didn't spend a lot of time writing that for my benefit. Once I read the first invented bit of nonsense I just quit.
FM:
"The beginning of the social democratic slump dates back to the 1970s and has been confirmed in the following decades. More worryingly for these parties, it has intensified since 2000. To sum up, since the 1970s, social democracy has, on average, lost votes, each decade proving less profitable than the previous one: - 1.5% in the 1970s, - 0.6% in the 1980s, - 1.9% in the 1990s and - 2.6% in the 2000s. Between the 1950s-1960s and now, social democratic parties in northern Europe have lost about 20% of their votes.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/philippe-marliere/decline-of-europes-social...
Do you know why? Because social democracy can only deliver the vicious cuts dictated by capital as the consensus is pushed to the right by polictial, social, and economic elites. Social democracy can't, and doesn't, articulate an alternative to capitalism but an accomodation with it on capitalism's terms. Only blind idiots can't see that.
Meanwhile, you confuse monetary policy with the philosophy of wealth. Even so, Naomi Klein would argue, as she did in Shock Doctrine, that anyone who doesn't pay attention to monetary policy will fall victim to it instead, as did the post-Apartheid South African government."
You are right in pointing to the control wielded by finance capitalism since Naiomi's "boys from Chicago" took control of the economic levers, FM. But you fail to point out just where on the political spectrum that our salvation lies. Unfortunately, Naomi does not (I haven't seen it) refer to Robert Reich's Supercapitalism or any other source of mainstream American or Canadian political thinking (that I can see) that describes a way out of this bind...now that all workers have become dependent on a functiioning market for their Golden Years. Any thoughts on where that popular party would come from, meeting the very finely tuned understanding of the ..the average masses and attuned to the moral precepts of the critics?
Monbiot, for one, has said that trying to meet that delicate balance has been a losing game, and that where numbers count, social democracy should try the irrational approach of the Tea Partyers. While lying and obfuscating "like troopers."
