"The times, they are a-changin'"...
Everyone knows the iconic phrase from Bob Dylan's song on the 1964 album of the same name — but the times are always a-changin'. Again, we all know this.But not everyone sees which way the winds of change are blowing. Not everyone sees the tide irresistibly approaching. If one examines history, one will see that when it comes to politics, socialism has been expanding to every nation on the planet - sometimes in spurts and false starts, sometimes temporarily retreating, but socialism has been slowly increasing around the world since the nineteenth century as country after country has been finding that a social democracy is a better path to prosperity.The proof can be found in the fact that America no longer has the longest life expectancy in the world as we did in 1945; we're now 30th on the list. We no longer have the highest standard of living; we're now 12th on the list of countries listed on the Human Development Index.America is quickly being left behind technologically, as is evinced by the high-speed trains that are found in many countries (even in 'third-world' China), but only one - the not-so-speedy Acela - here in America. The world's premier scientific facility is not in America, but in CERN on the Swiss/French frontier. Our educational system is woefully underfunded - and kept that way by those who insist that it's merely a matter of 'spending the money wisely'. We are no longer the world's greatest creditor, but the world's greatest debtor. The only - repeat, ONLY - arena in which we truly lead the world is in military power.Right-wing ideologues would have us believe that the fiscal prosperity America needs can only be found in a deregulated free market - but even Alan Greenspan now admits the notion that a deregulated free market is self-correcting is faulty. Economic activity, like nearly all other forms of human interaction need some measure of regulation.America's health-care train wreck is a prime example of the failure of deregulation. HMO's, Big Pharma, and their primary political beneficiary, the Republican party, would have us believe we have the best health care in the world...and for those Americans who can afford it, they are right. However, for the vast majority of Americans who cannot afford it, we're left to legal haggling for our very lives with HMO's...or medical tourism, which I've personally found to be every bit as good as the medical care to which I have access stateside, but FAR cheaper. But the majority of Americans cannot afford the best health care, and cannot afford to travel overseas. This is how we have fallen to 30th place on the life expectancy list...behind Bosnia, Jordan, and the top twenty-seven, ALL of which have Universal Health Care.America's health care woes are not the major concern, but merely a symptom of the overall problem. Frankly, the problem is that we have too much individual freedom.Yes, I said we have too much individual freedom.As I make that statement I can just hear the cla-clack of millions of shotguns aiming in my direction...and rightfully so, if I were advocating an actual loss of our freedom. But I'm not, not at all! America is my home and let no one doubt my patriotism!Too much freedom is every bit as bad as too little. Aristotle advocated "Moderation in all things". If we have too little freedom, we of course have tyranny and great injustice. If we have too much freedom, we have anarchy and injustice. What America - indeed, all of mankind - needs, is 'Goldilocks freedom': not too much nor too little, but just enough to have the best balance between individual opportunity and social responsibility. Just for the sake of argument, let's refer to this as a kind of 'bell curve of freedom', with the far left leading to anarchy, and the far right leading to tyranny.And what could socialism have to do with 'Goldilocks freedom'?It's time to decriminalize the word. During the Cold War, America understandably equated 'socialism' with 'communism' because of the actual name of our enemy, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But the USSR has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Let us now dispassionately look once more at socialism, its history, and how it already applies to most of the free world.First of all, socialism is NOT communism. The two are not even closely related. Marx and Engels supported socialism, but only as a halfway point between capitalism and communism. Unfortunately for much of the world, their ideas evinced a lack of understanding of the human animal. Communism - true communism, as they envisioned it, is completely incompatible with the human psyche. It simply won't work.Conversely, anarchy - total freedom - is every bit as unacceptable to humanity. A group of people in an anarchic setting will organize. Some will take command, some will follow. Thus it has always been throughout human history.Now we enter the concept of social democracy...similar to that which is practiced by every industrialized democracy on the planet except for America. According to the Brittanica Online Encyclopedia:
After World War II, social-democratic parties came to power in several nations of western Europe—e.g., West Germany, Sweden, and Great Britain (in the Labour Party)—and laid the foundations for modern European social-welfare programs. With its ascendancy, social democracy changed gradually, most notably in West Germany. These changes generally reflected a moderation of the 19th-century socialist doctrine of wholesale nationalization of business and industry. Although the principles of the various social-democratic parties began to diverge somewhat, certain common fundamental principles emerged. In addition to abandoning violence and revolution as tools of social change, social democracy took a stand in opposition to totalitarianism. The Marxist view of democracy as a “bourgeois” facade for class rule was abandoned, and democracy was proclaimed essential for socialist ideals. Increasingly, social democracy adopted the goal of state regulation, but not state ownership, of business and industry as sufficient to further economic growth and equitable income. (emphasis added)
And this is precisely what the other industrialized democracies have found to be true: state regulation, but NOT state ownership, of business and industry are sufficient to economic growth and equitable income. Japan has Universal Health Care, but 85% of their hospitals are privately-owned.Health care is not the only symptom - look at how fuel prices have plummeted! The laws of supply and demand cannot account for the gas prices having fallen so far, so quickly. The deregulation of Big Oil - driven by the conservatives (remember the 'Enron loophole'?) and approved by Bill Clinton (a liberal in all but economic theory) - allowed oil speculation to run rampant.Most obvious is the result of the deregulation of the lending industry, which snowballed into the global economic crisis we're all enduring right now.This is not to say that government regulation is needed in all things. The single most crucial fact is that the Freedom of the Press must be free from all government interference. Most liberals do NOT like the 'Fairness Doctrine' - never mind that right-wing pundits are proclaiming that we're trying to bring it back. The 'Fairness Doctrine' - like communism - is simply not workable, not compatible with the human psyche. There is ONE government regulation that should apply to the press: the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Right now, only a few men control ninety percent of all radio stations...and this is a greater threat to freedom than any armed force outside our borders. Freedom of speech must above all be our most precious right, and when the news is controlled by few, tyranny cannot be far behind. The freedom of speech is the surest guarantor of freedom. It must not be compromised.In conclusion, the idea of social democracy is not a matter of limiting freedom, but of pragmatism, of finding the proper balance between individual freedoms and social responsibility. The proof is incontrovertible that we need Universal Health Care and greater regulation of our financial sector...and more freedom of our press.It is time to decriminalize the word socialism. Like all other concepts, socialism has its advantages and disadvantages. We should take advantage of the qualities of socialism that would benefit America and the American people, and discard that which would not. Moderation in all things...even with individual freedoms."The times, they are a-changin'" - and all the other industrialized democracies except for America adapted to the times by realizing that they best served their respective populations by proper governance and regulation, not by too little governance.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Reasonable regulation of business and industry is not socialism by any normal definition, unless the purpose of that regulation is to specifically to redistribute profits to establish some sort of artificial equity, or to require companies to do business in ways which are inherently unprofitable in order to produce some particular social outcome, such as regulating wages and prices or requiring certain levels of employment.
Various countries HAVE experimented with imposing socialism on businesses and have generally found the results to be disastrous. The best example of this is France's recent decision to abandon many of their socialist controls on business because of the harm they had done in making French businesses uncompetitive in the international marketplace.
Regulations for safety or to prevent fraud or exploitation of workers are all good things - even regulations against monopolies. They make sure that a business engages in legitimate and fair practices. Regulation to make businesses operate for reasons other than the profit of their owners or shareholders are always destructive.
Dave
2 - Lisa Solod Warren
How about regulations that prevent businesses from fraudulently gaining huge profits while bankrupting the countries, decimating the pension funds, screwing the little guy, and screwing the country?
Oh, and letting the guys who did all that walk with nice fat bonuses and golden parachutes?
How about regulations that prevent boards from paying people who do all that, even if they hired them in good faith? How about contracts that spell out that a person hired by a company cannot destroy a company and then walk away with the profits while everyone below him/her suffers?
Or is that socialism?
3 - Dave Nalle
I did specifically mention regulations against fraud, Lisa. Most of the things you describe I would consider acts of fraud. And as I said before reasonable regulation and holding people accountable for criminal activity is not socialism.
Why so hostile? You won the election. You can turn the hate meter down a few notches.
Dave
4 - bliffle
Without offering any justification, Dave avers:
"Regulation to make businesses operate for reasons other than the profit of their owners or shareholders are always destructive."
This is quite stupid on the face of it: we prohibit businesses from polluting our air and water (as best we are able, in the face of their hostility).
We prohibit businesses from making products that kill, maim or electrocute either clients or innocent third parties.
Historically, in the USA, most businesses (of a Certain Size) were actually operated for a wider range of stakeholders than just the owners. There was a concept of The Larger Community represented in The Board Of Directors. Usually, but not always, that Larger Community was the business community. But it was quite common to find, on the Boards of prominent companies, directors from various religions, banking, universities, etc. It was felt that this broadening served useful (but monetarily intangible) purposes to the company: broadening focus, enriching contacts, etc.
The big business story of the past 30 years has been the takeover of the boardroom by operating officers of the company, usually lead by the iron rule of the CEO. Thence, the company is operated for the benefit of the CEO and his cohort officers as they loot the companies riches. Witness GM.
If US capitalism is to survive we must revive the notion of wider stakeholder representation on the BoD, else the corporations just become killer Frankenstein monsters roving the countryside destroying all in their way in the pursuit of narrow self-interest.
Eventually the angry villagers will come with flaming torches and burn everything to the ground.
5 - Lisa Solod Warren
Dave, there is a huge difference between hate and anger.
6 - Tim325
Rahm Israel Emanuel officially accepted his appointment by Obama as Chief of Staff on November 6 2008. The Israeli press & media were beside themselves with applause and cheers.
Rahm Emanuel is a former investment banker who made millions on Wall Street. Emanuel's sponsor is the Zionist , Bruce Wasserstein, who is now the head of Lazard Banking.
Rahm Israel Emanuel is the son of an Israeli physician who was a gun runner for the Irgun, an Israeli terrorist group that murdered Arab civilians in Palestine between 1931 and 1948. Upon his son's appointment as Obama's Chief of Staff, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel ("Auerbach" was his original surname) had some choice slanderous words for the Arabs:
In an interview with Ma'ariv: "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."
The Ma'ariv article also
quoted Dr. Emanuel as saying that his son spends most summers visiting in Tel Aviv, and that he speaks Hebrew, but not fluently.
Emanuel, Clinton & Mossad.
7 - Christopher Rose
I'm sure our own pet zionist will be along shortly to explain how the appointment of Rahm Emanuel fits in with his end of time theory. Where are you, Ruvy?
8 - Ruvy
Hi there, Chris.
I'm just savoring how Tim325 keeps acting as if Zionists are criminals.
As for your comments, the only thing I really have to say is that Zionism is a dead horse. It's not dead because it didn't succeed but because it did. Now it's time for it to move over so that Redemption can take over and give you the royal kick in the butt you've been spoiling for.
If you have read my articles, you will see that this is a steady theme in them. That is, if you have kept a clear head reading them....
As for Rahm Emanuel, note that he doesn't speak fluent Hebrew, even though mommy and daddy worked their tails off to bring about a Hebrew-speaking country. Rahm Emanuel has bought into the American dream in both its best (he got rich) and its worst (he pushed that photo "hand-shake" between Rabin and Arafat) aspects. Like his boss, he has intervened in the affairs of the "old country" to its detriment.
I'll just let folks like Tim325 scald the NEW monkey coming to Washington and allow the peripatetic "progressives" to spread their hands in defense of the NEW monkey and his actions.
The stupid fools at Ma'ariv don't really want to talk about how Rahm Emanuel is nothing but an Oslo Criminal. But we in Israel already know - and the bad news gets around fast. Obama has his pet kike in place and already Tim325 is throwing brickbats at him for being a Zionist. How sweet.
Lesson kiddies. Jews get stuck in high places in America so that the beer-swilling idiots and Jew-haters in the States can throw rocks at them - while the goyim - like Obama - sneer and laugh in their sleeves.
9 - Lisa Solod Warren
Why do you keep calling Obama a monkey? It's so derogatory.
10 - Ruvy
But let's get back to the topic at hand. Glenn, I'm a syndicalist socialist. I'll try and explain what that means in simple English. It means that workers get together and form syndicates that they own that do the work that needs to be done. Collective dairies in the States or in Scandinavia are good examples of successful syndicalist socialist initiatives at work. The collective dairies succeed because membership is voluntary (unlike the Soviet kolkhoz).
State socialism is not a workable alternative. Over the long run it kills productivity because it kills the chief incentive to productivity - competition. But private firms run on a socialistic basis - socialism for the poor, in other words, instead of socialism for the rich, which is what big bailouts are - slow the creation of rich and poor classes and maintain a level of equality in society which is the best thing for a society to have.
Israel walked away from its syndicalist socialist roots when the Labor party corrupted the system by allowing kibbutzim and other collective enterprises here to take out loans that they couldn't pay. When the Labor party was ousted here in 1977, the banks and other creditors called in their teds and the kibbutzim started to either have to break the law and sell off land (at huge profits) or ditch their socialist ideas. They did exactly what the United States has done, they overspent themselves because their boys were at the till.
So now, in Israel, we have the worst of capitalism - unbrideled comptetition that kills what rights workers had here - combined with the socialistic regulation left over from the days of the Labor party. So, it'hard to make a living here.
But there were two big points you left out of your essay that need to be raised. After WWII, the European countries were able to adopt various varieties of socialistic structures because they were getting a free ride on defense. The US was paying the bill for them.
Just like sending a guy to Mars or the moon, it's all a matter of where the money comes from. The US was covering the Europeans' back in defense - so the Europeans had the extra cash to set up welfare states.
Finally, there is this point. The Europeans figured out that kids cost money, and they decided that they wanted money more than they wanted kids. And now, the piper's bill is coming due. All those Moslems raping European women are tolerated in Europe because the Europeans are suffering a severe labor shortage - they didn't have enough money gobbling rug rats! So, yeah, they have a higher standard of living - if they can stand their daughters and wives being raped by the "guest workers" they've imported.....
Ahh. I hear the muezzin calling the faithful to prayer, now.
11 - Ruvy
Lisa,
Why do you keep calling Obama a monkey? It's so derogatory.
Obama is not just any monkey . He is the NEW monkey - fresh with brand new bananas (like hope and change). The smelly OLD monkey - Bush (suddenly all those cartoons comparing Bush to a monkey aren't so funny any more, eh?) - is (hopefully) on his way out, so that he can write his memoirs and run some more businesses into the ground.
Who knows? Maybe you Americans will get lucky and Bush will become the CEO of Haliburton? With him at the thelm haliburton will be gone in not too long....
Get used to Obama being called a lot worse than "monkey", Lisa. When he can't deliver on the change, the hope will disappear. And then you and all the other progressives who pushed him on the world will only have a dirty monkey cage to clean. out.
The painful truth of the matter is that while I think a certain level of socialism would be great for the States if applied the right way, YOU CANNOT AFFORD IT ANYMORE. Go read my comment # 13. There is no USA to cover your backs. So you cannot afford to pay for a welfare state for those who truly need one.
You will not suddenly find the Chinese willing to hand your government money just because Obama is in the White House. You will not find the Arabs willing to give you oil - even if your government tries to stab us in the back even more than it has - just because Obama is in the White House. You can expect a lot of Americans to feel that they don't have to worry about their bills or mortgages anymore - and to be very disappointed when they discover that merely having Obama in the White House doesn't solve their problems or get the creditors off their backs. Bitterness will sweep the land. I know how that feels from personal experience.
At that point, "monkey" will not sound derogatory at all.
12 - Dawn
Ruvy are you three years old, or just completely clueless? Stop calling Obama a monkey when you know for a fact that is a known racial insult. Seriously, cut that shit out. Or do you have such a limited vocabulary?
So many morons around here it's almost unfathomable. I can't take people seriously when they act so incredibly stupid and juvenile.
13 - Jet
Amen Dawn
14 - Christopher Rose
Arch Conservative is having a compulsory holiday until 5 December, so his comments - and any responses to them - have been deleted.
15 - El Bicho
If Ruvy's people had been mocked and caricatured due in part to their appearance he might understand what you mean. Or not.
16 - Mark Schannon
Somewhere between Glen's article & Dave's initial comment lies the path (he so arrogantly proclaims.)
Bliffle took exceptions to Dave's comment, "Regulation to make businesses operate for reasons other than the profit of their owners or shareholders are always destructive." However, pollution, products that kill & maim, etc. can all be considered to be ultimately a bad thing for owners. Not sure if Dave agrees...it's the Milton Freedman school of economics vs. any sane & rational approach.
Most important, we have got to try to live without labels. I have no idea what a liberal or conservative is; nor do I know what a socialist is. Let's talk strategies & tactics: regulations that prevent secret financial instruments that make some rich while threatening the entire world economy; that force boards of directors to truly hold executives accountable for corporate governance; that create a level of transparency in all sectors of our society (not the bedroom, please) so that bullshit mortgages, credit card scammers, etc. are put out of business.
And regulations that force health insurance companies to do what they were initially supposed to do: spread the risk to maximize opportunity and minimize catastrophic cost. End the cherry picking of healthy, young people & pre-existing conditions.
(He blathers on and on.)
Glen's article makes lots of sense if you simply eliminate that horrible label, socialism.
Stop using labels. Start using words that having meaning.
(And Ruvy, come on, man, you know better. Calling Obama a monkey is like calling a Jew a kike--I can use that word, I'm Jewish--pick another "label.")
In Jameson Veritas
17 - Ruvy
Dawn,
Obama is a Jew-hating prick and I have no respect for him at all. He is a sleazy, lying, corrupt Chicago politician who slid himself past the lot of you and has you all fooled with his hypnotic rhetoric. In this aspect, he is no different from Adolph Hitler or Nimrod (look up the reference to Nimrod, Dawn - I didn't call Obama a Nazi).
He put up the misled kid of Etze"l fighters to be his the china doll who takes the rocks of the Jew-haters in your country (see comments #6 and 10) while he sits and laughs in his sleeve. Bush was no different in his tactics, and neither was Clinton. Jews get stuck up in front while the Protestant establishment laughs in the background and rakes in the money and power.
And Obama still has not laid in front of you a real live birth certificate. What is that lying scum hiding, anyway?
And let me remind you that Bush was called "monkey" all the time. And go back to the movie "Cabaret" to see which other group was called "monkey". You can go to the Qur'an and see that same group called the relatives of monkeys and pigs. And I have made my points clear here. If I wanted to do racial insults, I would not hide with lame shit like "monkey", Dawn. I'd come straight out with the full artillery.
I don't do racial insults. Go check through the several thousand comments I've posted here in three years. You know, people in glass houses don't throw stones, etc.
Go bother somebody else with the PC crap, Dawn.
18 - Ruvy
If Ruvy's people had been mocked and caricatured due in part to their appearance he might understand what you mean.
Uh huh. Tell this dumb Jew-boy more, el bicho. Google up anti-semitic artoons on google, and you'll get 250,000 places to go for them.
Try to remember I live in the ARAB WORLD, and see this shit all the time. Nobody gets PC with them and lives.
19 - Ruvy
Mark,
Glen's article makes lots of sense if you simply eliminate that horrible label, socialism.
Stop using labels. Start using words that having meaning.
In this case, socialism has plenty of meaning and needs to be clearly defined. Not because you Americans have the money to adopt the concepts, but because you need to clearly understand what it is you are talking about. Horrible label, Mark? I'm a socialist, and always have been. If there was a respectable socialist party to vote for in Israel, I'd be first on line to vote for it. There isn't.
20 - Lisa Solod Warren
Uh Ruvy, El Bicho was clearly and obviously being ironic.
I think it is more than time for you to simmer down a little....
21 - zingzing
ruvy, it would still be a lot better for the discussion if you didn't use a racially-charged term. if you're not being racist, which i don't think you are, then don't run around calling him a monkey. it would be like talking about building a fire with "faggots" in san francisco. sure, you may mean something quite different, but it's not going to make one damn difference to your audience, you still look like a dickhead. or not, in that example.
22 - Dawn
Ruvy, I will bother who ever I damn well please when they are being willfully ignorant, which you are. I wouldn't put up with you calling Bush a monkey either. I may not like his policies or his administration, but I respect him as the leader of my country.
You are NOT an American, nor are you living in the United States. If you don't like the way things are going in your neck of the woods, complain to YOUR leaders. As for Obama and your blanket accusations and assault on his character, you are WRONG. Period.
Also, give us all a break about his birthplace. Do you really think if he weren't a citizen of the United States we wouldn't have heard about it.
Cripes, grow the hell up. Also, take that boulder sized chip off your shoulder, it makes you look increasingly paranoid and creepy.
Obama is OUR president, for OUR country, NOT YOURS. Go bark up a tree that cares.
23 - Jet
Ruvy, you're doing the equivulent of throwing rocks at a bee hive. We're all gonna come out and sting you if you're not careful.
where is this "Holier than thou" attitude coming from?
24 - zingzing
jet: "where is this "Holier than thou" attitude coming from?"
um, the torah?
duh, jet, duh. smiley emoticon.
and ruvy, i don't see where you get obama being a "jew-hating prick," because he's proven several times that he's not. is it his name? meh.
25 - Clavos
I wouldn't put up with you calling Bush a monkey either. I may not like his policies or his administration, but I respect him as the leader of my country.
You shouldn't Dawn, he's not worthy of respect. He's the president of your country, but hardly a "leader."
Respect the office, not the man (unless it's earned).
I don't respect him at all; he lied himself into office, garnering votes (including mine) by promising things he had no intention of delivering (fiscal conservatism, e.g.).
But I agree, he shouldn't be called a monkey; he's not that high on the food chain.