Why the left is losing the war.

Iwant Liberty wrote:

On a related note, are there any folks here who share my view that government is never beneficial for the common man?

I think the common man appreciates government that provides:

- public health care

- public education

- student loans

- public pensions

- social housing

- R & D

- the judicial system

- the police

- basic infrastructure like roads, mass transit, electricity, water works, etc...

- public spaces and public parks

- public libraries

- public information

- consumer protection

- minimum wages

- labour standards

- union rights

- progressive taxation

- minimum wages

- poverty reduction

- equality of opportunity

- democracy where the rights of the "common man" are equal to the rights of the "rich man"

Iwant Liberty wrote:

  What have governments brought us in the last century or two (or three or four)

See #42. It's worth re-reading.

The problem as I see it is that people look at governments like the US or Canada, say that they are doing things I don't like, and in many cases most people don't like, and therefore all government is bad and we need to get rid of them all! But these are not democratic governments - they are a kind of partially democratic government at best, the result of hundreds of years of struggle by our ancestors to put some control on the god-kings, and the others since then who have thought they had the right to some kind of absolute rule of "their" kingdoms. The struggle is far from over, and indeed has taken some large steps backwards since the 70s and the ascent of neocon-ism

The thing is, even now, that these governments are stopped from doing even worse things because of that small democratic influence we still exert - we do have the power to cause them considerable grief if we get riled enough, as the apparently completely helpless peasants of the French Revolution demonstrated, so they must take steps to try to keep us quiet, to make us believe their rule is 'democratic' which, of course, it is anything but - I've done a small essay if anyone is interested demonstrating how phony even our great Canadian 'democracy' is - The Democracy Scam http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box03-democracy.html .

If we just join the anti-government crowd and let them reduce the role of government even more - it's not going to be the stuff we *don't* like that gets lessened, it's going to be the things we *do* like that get lessened - as we are seeing today, with cuts to health care, spending on education, generally programs that look after 'we the people' in some way. And they stuff we don't like - they'll just ramp it up, with even less constraints on what they do.

What we need to do is get *more* democracy in our governments, maybe even dreaming some day of some kind of *full* democracy, where government becomes, really, what it is meant to be, when talked of by social democrats, at least - government of, by and for the people. Currently, to make the distinction clear, we have government of, by and for the wealthy elite in our society, with a few democratic voices allowed to speak and even get listened to a bit - but never actually changing anything the Big Voices want done.

So for me at least, this is the fight I see - to get the pretend-democracy out of our government, and establish a real democracy. It's not 'government' that is bad - but 'false democratic government run by people we don't like doing things we do not want done'. There's a big difference - but we do very much *need* a government of, by and for the people to present a united front against the small number of powerful, ruthless predators in any human society who will take over if given a chance - and rule by these people is very unpleasant, as history demonstrates in far too many examples. There are a few people in Canada who believe things differently than I do - but I am very sure that if we ever had *real* democracy here, with citizens all across Canada insisting on their democratic right to talk about every important issue nationally, look for and find in most cases some kind of agreeable consensus, the best path for us all ('greatest good for the greatest number' sort of thing), and accept the right of the majority in cases where consensus cannot be reached (or, to put it another way, to have no more 'rule of the minority'). Currently, we aren't even close to that - and agitating to get rid of government, or reduce its power, is going backwards.

In my opinion. 

ygtbk wrote:

Fidel wrote:

And just look where NATO is today. They've expanded into Eastern Europe and Central Asia in surrounding their former cold war adversaries. The US is the only superpower now with nuclear weapons on foreign soil and roaming the seven seas. The US Military still maintains anywhere from 700 to 1000 foreign military and other air bases, communications installations etc in foreign countries and spending on all things military at a rate of 50% of all other countries on earth combined. And this is supposedly to protect America and Europe from a cold war threat that doesn't exist anymore. There can be no legitimate purpose for nuclear weapons.

I don't support the national security state. However, I'm not sure that we'll all feel safer when China achieves military parity with the United States. Unilateral disarmament is suicide. Arms-reduction treaties have had some effect and we can hope that they will continue to yield reductions in the stockpiles of the nuclear nations.

What would you think to corrupt politicians and bureaucrats selling nuclear weapons secrets to the highest bidder while their own government claims to be interested in reduction?

http://larryflynt.com/?p=693

What would you say if China or SCO countries were to conduct war games and put on a show of military might [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20517]with Central American countries in the Gulf of Mexico?[/url]

j.m. wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

von Hayek wrote "The Road to Serfdom" as a warning that totalitarianism (whether labelled as fascism or communism) was a threat to liberty. The book is not about taxes, regardless of what Jeffrey Sachs says - read it for yourself. The subsequent history of the 20th and 21st centuries has, I think, proved that von Hayek's warning was prescient.

Not really, but nice revisionism.

 

Quote:

Interviewer wrote:

In your book "The Road to Serfdom" you said that it is possible to have economic freedom without political freedom but that political freedom will never be possible without economic freedom. Is this not to posit the economy as the most decisive factor in countries' lives? Does this not limit or reduce everything that makes us human to economic value?

von Hayek wrote:

It is very simple: a country can have a proper political life only if the economic system allows its people to survive. Not counting, of course, with the ever-growing problem of population growth. Very well, people need to survive. And I am convinced that it is only in the free market, following the competitive market order, that all these people can be kept alive. It is precisely the policies of the left that attempt to impede those economic mechanisms that for me are the only ones that can give us everything we need. In the West, in particular, access by the masses to a certain degree of well-being has been the result of the general rise in a country's wealth, not of so-called "social justice". "Social justice" has rather prevented the elimination of poverty. The interference of the powers that be in the mechanisms of the market has succeeded only in provoking greater injustices in the form of new privileges in favour of particular interests. Let me remind you that democracy needs the broom of strong governments. Unfortunately, democracies are at times allowing governments too much power. This is why I am very careful to distinguish between "limited democracies" and "unlimited democracies". And obviously my choice is for limited democracies. 

Who likes dictators? (kinda)

Quote:

Interviewer wrote:

What opinion, in your view, should we have of dictatorships?

von Hayek wrote:

Well, I would say that, as long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression ? and this is valid for South America - is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government. And during this transition it may be necessary to maintain certain dictatorial powers, not as something permanent, but as a temporary arrangement.

Taken from: http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=121

---

If the quotes are lost on some (despite their clarity) may I remind you that this interview was done in Chile in 1981. Gee, I wonder what Hayek was doing in Chile in the 1980s...

You do know that "The Road To Serfdom" was written in the 1940s, not the 1980s, right? Have you read it?

The point about economic liberty being a precondition of political liberty is pretty obvious. In the extreme case, if there is no employer but the State, then anyone with unpopular political opinions is in trouble. So his warnings about limited vs. unlimited democracies seem pretty relevant to, say, Venezuela, although he obviously didn't have Chavez specifically in mind when he made them.

With respect to Chile, his predicted transformation from dictatorship to democracy has in fact occurred:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/17/is_the_pinochet_era_final_over

"a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period"

For a guy in favour of freedom, he sure sounsd like a good Bolshevik.

ygtbk wrote:

With respect to Chile, his predicted transformation from dictatorship to democracy has in fact occurred:

The problem is his theoretical works conveniently never talk about the transition including murdering thousands of the best and brightest left wing activists, exiling the ones who could escape and terrorizing the rest of the population until it accepts that there is no system except the American imperial way.

I hate people glorifying the murder of Chileans in the name of democracy.  That 9/11 was good for them and their country is a lie and brutal revision of the pain and suffering inflicted on the Chilean people.

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

"Why the left is losing the war?"

Because the right has the power, means and media to besot the public. I bet the tories will get their majority and I bet that in 20 years there will be no difference between Canadians and Americans when it comes to political unculture and iliteracy.

We aren't losing any wars.

RosaL wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

The point about economic liberty being a precondition of political liberty is pretty obvious.

 

I think so, too. That's the historical materialist view and part of the reason I'm a marxist.

Just like Rosa Luxemburg.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

In Canada today I think the left is losing the war because it is not understanding what the war is about.....

all the way to the end, is the most depressing thing i've read this week - because i think it's true. I had not thought of it that way: had believed that we took our eye off the ball some time ago, but not that we'd lost track of the damn thing altogether. Suddenly, a lot of information that's been there in plain sight makes sense.

But, hey, there's always total economic collapse!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/map/2008/#208

I was looking at this map. The results are interesting and quick if anyone wants a peek.

A lot of con seats are at risk if they don't achieve close to 38% I was surprised at the size of the majorities in sask. 70+ in some of them.  But many of them they got by just a few hundred votes. As long as the ABC camp doesn't diminish each other too much we could see some interesting election results. 30 seats could easily move with only 3% swings.

No wonder they are in constant campaign mode. I didn't know how much they were hanging on by their fingertips in certain areas.

I'm a big fan of the ABL movement myself.

They've gloried in the fact that Canada has a political double redundancy in the Tory and Liberal parties while third parties are kept on the outside looking in. But since 1993 or so they've been gradually losing political capital with Canadian voters. The time has come for the NDP to no longer wage the battle for democracy on those two fronts. We have to take down that party of pretenders to the left wing throne. And they are only pretenders. The electoral system is rotten. The two old line parties are rotten.

"All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door." - Galbraith

Fidel wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

The point about economic liberty being a precondition of political liberty is pretty obvious. In the extreme case, if there is no employer but the State, then anyone with unpopular political opinions is in trouble. So his warnings about limited vs. unlimited democracies seem pretty relevant to, say, Venezuela, although he obviously didn't have Chavez specifically in mind when he made them.

With respect to Chile, his predicted transformation from dictatorship to democracy has in fact occurred:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/17/is_the_pinochet_era_final_over

Greg Palast wrote:

For nearly a century, copper has meant Chile and Chile copper. University of Montana metals expert Dr. Janet Finn notes, "It's absurd to describe a nation as a miracle of free enterprise when the engine of the economy remains in government hands." Copper has provided 30% to 70% of the nation's export earnings. This is the hard currency which has built today's Chile, the proceeds from the mines seized from Anaconda and Kennecott in 1973 - [url=http://www.gregpalast.com/tinker-bell-pinochet-and-the-fairy-tale-miracl...'s posthumous gift to his nation.[/url]

Hmm, some free market miracle. The dictatorship was totally unnecessary as well as a net loss to the country in terms of loss of life and liberty as well as a loss economically by 1985. NeoCons used Chile as a the ersatz genesis fable for their own neoliberal revolutions of the 1990s. When it was over his peers said that Friedman's economic theories and democracy are incompatible. Palast was a student of finance at the University of Chicago. Milton Friedman was one of his profs.

Let's hope the 33 make it home.

Another contradiction of the free-market discourse in practice. Let's remember neoliberalism for the legacies it has left us (death, unsustainable outcomes, wild markets, interventionist strategies, etc.) and not its ideals or the potentially dangerous situation it used to justify the project.  This will hopefully put a thought bullet (unlike the ones Pinochet used) in liberal market apologists' heads.

A fan does not have to be a participant--

I don't know One blood sucker is as bad as the other in my books. I would rather have the cons disperse and us deal with the libs as the rightwing party it would be a slower killing of the body. I don't think we will survive a con majority.

Though at the same time I recognize that a con majority would at least hold them responsible for all the crap they foist onto the canadian people.* But for some weird reason I can only see canadians turning to the libs to be the safety blanket they miss. I think our best shot is sharing a minority. I don't see the cons giving us that chance ever.

The libs are weary for one reason they saw what we did to peterson in ontario. Then the libs infiltrater destroyed us from within, thank you Rae. So Rae is well aware of how an NDP Lib minority could turn out.

* The reason the cons haven't worn much is because the libs vote with them or are complicit with their crimes. Then we get the whole-all politicians are the same nonsense-thanks again media 'A' holes. Yes I have an axe to grind with the media. I just think back to when Jack had an announcement and he was standing in front of a heater when it was -30 in montreal or something. What did they report, his announcement or the fact the NDP leader was using a heater. Take 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count. Mind you I think the announcement was environmental so it did look odd and someone should have figured it out. Maybe Brad Levigne.

Still that was the biggest news that covered us during that election. Oh maybe the jabs at Haprers blue sweater-which was fine once, but Layton should have laid off after the first time or two. Sounds petty otherwise.

There is no room for a left wing party in a two party system. In Canada over and over the left party has morphed into the liberal party to attract the centrist voter because a social democratic or socialist ideology is never going to poll above about 40% of the population.

There can't even be a convincing facade of democracy unless we get proportional representation and we send a larger mix of politicians to the house.  We need to supplant the Liberals not drive a stake through their hearts.  And if we ever get close to power push for PR ass the main objective. Canada needs its left liberal party and its social democratic party and a green party and the conservatives and the bloc etc etc etc. Two party states are really just one party states with a nice facade.

What I love about people who rail against "central planning" is they seem to have no problem with Wall street hedge funds trying to control the entire globe's economy for the benefit of Wall street hedge funds. Central control to skim off the cream and absolutely no planning except for deciding which tax haven to use to to hide the money.

JKR wrote:

A Canadian Parliament that resembled the Canadian population? What a radical concept!

Hmm, is that the right path? I'm reminded of something John Dewey once said:

"Politics is the shadow cast on society by Big Business"

I find it absurd when I read comments from the philosophical purists on this site claiming that they can "never, ever work strategically with the Liberals" when the logical thing to do is for NDPers to hold their noses and partner with them (and the Greens) for a single election on ONE condition only: the implementation of PR. After that 4 year period is up, every party can go back to business as usual, but now on a much fairer playing ground. Otherwise, one or the other -- Whigs or Tories  -- will rule exactly as they like ad nauseum, regardless, so why not get something from them that can be useful to true progressives in the meantime? I say hit them when they're weakest - which is exactly what position the Liberals are in at the moment. Let's hope they stay that way until they buckle under in desperation for multi-party support and mutual cooperation.

Fidel wrote:

JKR wrote:

But what is the alternative? A dictatorship of the proletariat? We saw how that turned out in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China.

And can we imagine what life would have been like in Asia with Hitler, Chiang Kai-shek, Franco and Mussolini running the show on behalf of capitalists and fascists in bed together?  I shudder at the thought.

Hitler, Chiang Kai-shek, Franco, Mussolini, Stalin, and Mao would all have been against fair voting. They would have much preferred FPTP.

emjayvan wrote:

Hmm, is that the right path? I'm reminded of something John Dewey once said:

"Politics is the shadow cast on society by Big Business"

But what is the alternative? A dictatorship of the proletariat? We saw how that turned out in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China.

I'd much rather go the social democratic route of countries like Sweden, Finland, Norway,Denmark and the Netherlands with their electoral systems that provide fair results that allow even the far right representation in parliaments.

[/quote]

I think what John Dewey and many anarchists are saying is that politics itself is a corrupting force. We've seen it at work again and again on the left. The Labour Party under Tony Blair was an abomination and is pretty much a black hole that sucked a lot of the energy out of the left.

We live in relatively free societies, such that people on the left can take initiatives at the grassroots level to organize and build alternative ways of approaching the conditions of work, hierarchy, and interpersonal relations. I think those wanting real change can and should channel their energies towards these goals rather than imagining that some tinkering with the electoral system, or attempts to stop the NDP from sliding to the so-called 'respectable' centre of politics, will somehow usher in a more decent world.

As a tactic, I fully understand people who work and vote for parties of the left like the NDP. That party is somewhat more responsive to the needs of the poor and oppressed than the Liberals or Conservatives. I have always voted NDP. However, politics is ultimately a game run by the ruling classes. If/when the NDP moves up in the polls, then there will be more and more voices from the top saying we must be 'pragmatic' and 'realistic' if we're to win that game. It's the nature of the beast.

I should have included the complete John Dewey's quote which reads:

"Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business and the attentuation of the shadow will not change the substance."