Socialism has benefited every industrialized democracy on earth...except for America.
"The times, they are a-changin'"...…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Socialism has benefited every industrialized democracy on earth...except for America.
"The times, they are a-changin'"...…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments426 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos and zing -
For the moment, you're right - it is our dollars keeping them at bay.
But not so long ago, that wasn't the case, was it? It would be a grave mistake to think that can't be the case again.
And whatever you may say about China, such certainly doesn't apply to Russia.
Again, like it or not, it's on us.
427 - zingzing
the only reason we have this "power" or "responsibility" is because we've poured so much cash into it. if we can do it, anyone (within reason) can. i'd bet you that if the u.n. were in the position that we are in, a lot of americans would be screaming junk about a world government, etc. "the tyranny of the powerful," etc.
we aren't the world's protectors. we just keep things the way we want them. you may call it a "responsibility," but i'm not so sure it's even our "right."
428 - bliffle
Yes, we keep things the way we want them. It's a preemptive strategy: by volunteering to be the worlds policemen we are able to control police policy. It's a strategy we've been following for 60 years, at great cost. It works pretty good as long as we align our policies somewhat with general approval.
But policemen, seemingly, always make the same mistake: they think they can end crime Once And For All with some big push against "Mister Big", who is seen as the source of all evil. Once we get Mr. Big, the theory seems to go, crime will wither away.
But it never seems to work: knock off Mr. Big and a new volunteer jumps up to create an Evil Empire.
Maybe we should be satisfied with just confining crime, rather than eradicating it.
429 - Glenn Contrarian
zing -
No, you're wrong on that one. The reason why we became the 'arsenal of democracy' is because we're the only one that COULD. The Soviets might still have defeated Nazi Germany if we'd never joined in...but maybe they wouldn't have, either. The U.N. certainly didn't have the wherewithal to protect South Korea, and NOBODY else could have hoped to stand against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
We were the only one that COULD, and that's why we DID.
China seems to have gotten a clue about aggressive wars...but even in 2004 China was threatening war against Taiwan by 2008; and can anyone doubt that Russia is becoming like her old incarnation of the Soviet Union?
So SURE, zing, you can go bury your head in the sand, but this particular bleeding-heart liberal knows that we're the only one who can truly stand up to either China or Russia if push comes to shove.
430 - Christopher Rose
bliffle - Some people think that it would be a more productive, if less headline grabbing, approach if there was an effort to deal with the causes of crime rather than the symptoms.
As to Russia and China, sure a big stick is necessary but keeping meaningful lines of communication open is just as important.
431 - zingzing
but glenn, you must admit that we certainly gained by taking on the ussr. certainly, we were one of the most powerful nations in the world following ww1. and following ww2, the u.n. was either so young or so devastated by the war that of course they had no hope of taking on the ussr. we stepped in, and a battle between the u.s. and ussr produced two superpowers, who's arsenal and willingness to spend on military was unmatched around the world. europe faded into our spheres of influence on the east/west divide, while the rest of the world was either begging at one of our doorsteps or was left to rot.
now why did we bother with vietnam and korea, while leaving china alone? i don't really know, but if you had to choose your battles, i guess i can see the logic. and what of cuba and south america? why did we put so little effort into our own back yard?
i'm one to bet that yes, we did want to contain the ussr, but not for any humanitarian reason. we wanted our influence to spread so that our coffers would grow. and they did. and then we did nothing but spend the ussr into the grave, thereby becoming the only true superpower.
of course, life at the top unopposed led to some floundering, and that's where we find ourselves today, with an armed forced stretched to the breaking point by our hubris, hundreds of billions of dollars pissed into the wind, and with our stock in the world at an all-time low.
when we became this superpower, was there even a fax machine? even when we became the only superpower, was news and opinion so instant? today, communication makes this world a much smaller, more interconnected place. no one person or country has to get anything done by themselves. we can become a part of that world, with its shared responsibility, or we can continue down this path of unilateral gung-ho nonsense that has gotten us into this mess.
it makes sense for our economy, for our standing in the world and for the world itself. we aren't their masters. in fact, we're barely our own masters anymore. the nations of the world depend upon each other to get things done in nearly every sense.
so, no, i don't have my head in the sand. i took my head out of the sand and saw the changing tide. or something like that.
432 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris - "As to Russia and China, sure a big stick is necessary but keeping meaningful lines of communication open is just as important."
PRECISELY!
zing - Please excuse me - I think I may have sounded pompous but that wasn't my intention. I apologize.
Yes, we DID spend the Soviet Union into the dustbin of history...but is there any doubt that if we hadn't done so, if we hadn't built and maintained our military, that the Soviets wouldn't have decided to 'unify' Germany by force, and to continue westward from there?
And as you point out, the world is now much more interdependent than ever before - but this has not removed and will not remove the threat of aggressive war and tyranny. Even though it starting to look as if Russia's invasion of Georgia may very well have been Georgia's fault, it was still an invasion, an aggressive war. China's threat against Taiwan was only four years ago. Tensions are still mounting between Thailand and Malaysia. And then there's the small matter of protecting the flow of much of the world's oil supply coming through the Strait of Hormuz...not so far from the nuclear-armed states of Pakistan and India (who hate each other and fight the occasional war)...and let's not forget Shi'a Iran and their nuclear ambition next door to Sunni Pakistan and not far from Wahhabi-Sunni Saudi Arabia.
zing, as I've said several times, nature abhors a vacuum. If we pull back, who takes our place? And would the new power have America's best interests at heart?
Hey - I think we could cut the military budget by a full third, perhaps more - there's lots of major items we simply don't need (starting with my beloved carrier battle groups), whose missions can be accomplished by other means...but we must not abandon our forward-deployed posture.
433 - zingzing
"If we pull back, who takes our place?"
that, of course, would be the u.n., which we would be a part of. we just need to convince them that we aren't going to do it alone anymore. they're pissed off when we go off by ourselves, and they'll be pissed off by us entering the fold. but it's their choice, which is the only thing they'll like about it.
and we don't do it all at once... we (hopefully) can do this over a number of (peaceful?) years. announce our intention to do so, then slowly start cutting military funds for unnecessary items.
"And would the new power have America's best interests at heart?"
like hell they would. but america's best interests ride on the world's best interests these days. and if we fully integrate ourselves into that world, that statement will be even more true. sharing the risk of our world economy means that we will really all be in this together. like us, the rest of the world really doesn't give a shit if it doesn't hurt their wallet. so if our wallets are all interconnected, then so are our intentions.
and the world rings in true harmony.
mhmm. not even i believe that's totally true. but, it's certainly better than the crap we have now.
434 - Glenn Contrarian
zing -
"america's best interests ride on the world's best interests these days"
You and I are in full agreement on that one. I wish that the Republicans could get a clue and understand that, too.
And I could agree that if we told the U.N. that we're going to lower our military assistance to them, that the other nations MIGHT bulk up their own military might...but I doubt it.
zing, any fight by the U.N. becomes a war led by committee. Sure, there's always one leader, but the politics involved in holding it together must be hideous.
I believe that for our own sakes we must (among other things) slash the military budget...but we MUST not fritter away our ability to project (non-nuclear) power overseas now or in the future as long as America is a superpower...and this includes keeping many of our overseas bases.
Picture tomorrow's headlines: Vladimir Putin dissolves the Duma and resumes the presidency of Russia, and there is no apparent expiration date set on his presidency. He declares that (in addition to the missiles that are even NOW being placed close to the Polish border), he's going to rebuild their military to the level of professionalism it once knew.
Could even the potential combined might of the U.N. (without the U.S.) hope to stand against a truly resurgent Russia? How many would desert the U.N. to be on Russia's side? And do NOT underestimate the Russians - after all, it was the RUSSIANS that came up with stealth technology, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and a host of other weapons systems that we've since copied and improved upon.
So what's wiser - to stay on top, or to back down and hope that the other U.N. nations step up to the plate?
Sorry, zing, but as I keep saying, it's on us. We're the only one that can.
435 - zingzing
"Could even the potential combined might of the U.N. (without the U.S.) hope to stand against a truly resurgent Russia?"
when did we leave the u.n.?
and do you think russia's economy could support the type of buildup you're talking about?
"as long as America is a superpower..."
i see the end of that (or at least of us being the only one) coming really fast.
"So what's wiser - to stay on top, or to back down and hope that the other U.N. nations step up to the plate?"
for right now, i can see the logic of what you are saying. but the future is changing rapidly, and has been for some time. in a long term view, i (obviously) see the second option as the only logical choice.
"any fight by the U.N. becomes a war led by committee. Sure, there's always one leader, but the politics involved in holding it together must be hideous."
and what of the politics holding our unilateral decisions? it's hideous already. like i said earlier, the u.n. will only come together over money. let the world economy point the way.
436 - bliffle
I agree with Christopher: "Some people think that it would be a more productive, if less headline grabbing, approach if there was an effort to deal with the causes of crime rather than the symptoms.".
Probably we need both police and social reform. It just seems (to warriors) that warfare is cheaper and more conclusive, but the last 50 years it's becoming apparent that warfare continues forever. There is seldom a conclusive victorious end.
437 - STM
Glenn: "the nuclear-armed states of Pakistan and India (who hate each other and fight the occasional war)..."
Not much chance of that happening again in the immediate future. They've only recently started playing Test cricket against each other again, and that's WAY more important than war.
438 - Glenn Contrarian
STM -
When the U.S. and the Soviet Union played hockey in the '78 Olympics - was it in '78? - we hated each other. We played hockey...but our armed forces still played chicken, armed to the teeth and spoiling for a fight....
But I have to admit that cricket - like real football (not the American kind) - is certainly more important than shooting guns at each other.
Now if Bush, Cheney and Rove had understood that....
439 - STM
Seriously Glenn, it's quite true. You have to understand their passion for the game. It's insane. I've never seen anything like it. Every street corner on the subcontinent has a bunch of kids with a cricket bat, belting a ball around. We love the game here to the point where it can be all-consuming, but they take it to another level completely.
The fact they'd stopped playing against each other because of the ill feeling was one of the reasons that sparked a softening of their respective stances, because it brought them to their senses.
It was almost like, "Well, is this how far we've come?" Simply, they couldn't stand not playing cricket against each other.
Obviously, there's way, way, way, more to it than that .... but on the subcontinent, cricket is an issue of national importance.
Among the ordinary people, even more important than the global economy, the US election, nuclear weapons, etc.
440 - zingzing
glenn, that would be 1980. the miracle on ice. i've seen a couple of documentaries on it, and every time i watch one, i cry like a damn baby. dunno why. the end of purple rain has the same effect.
441 - Glenn Contrarian
STM -
Y'know, I think this might be one of those times that I am so unfamiliar with the overall picture - in this case, that of the effect of sports passions on a nation's international relations - that I will have to defer to you. If your other posts are any indication, you're straightforward and truthful. I hope you're right...and you may well be.
zing -
Doggone it - I should have known 1980! I can still remember the precise moment the news came over the airwaves and I yelled like a f***ing idiot with joy and pride. Of course, according to many I haven't changed since that moment.
442 - Cindy D
Glenn,
First two questions: 1) If you had no taxes, would you, personally, voluntarily support a military that could defend your country? 2) How does PBS work?
Here is Roderick T. Long's Funding Public Goods: Six Solutions
Also, I can't resist taking one more jab at you for that "farmers can't run the military" comment. If we can't have an IMAX, Broadway theatre, and Museums in an Anarchistic society....I'm outta there.
443 - Dr Dreadful
Glenn,
A lot of that has to be down to the general attitude of Americans towards international sport, i.e. you don't have one.
In your four major sports, any international representative competition pales in significance compared to your domestic championships (a prize to anyone who can name the current world champions - the actual world champions, not the Superbowl, NBA, World Series and Stanley Cup winners! - in American football*, basketball, baseball and ice hockey without looking them up).
The exception, of course, is the Olympics, but even there US national pride generally devolves into an I-don't-care-what-sport-it-is-let's-just-see-how-many-gold-medals-we-can-win gratificationfest. The fact that there are other nations competing too is by the by.
* Yes, there IS an American football world championship, despite the fact that no-one outside the US plays the sport with any degree of competence.
444 - zingzing
dread, you're overstating the case just a tad. in general, i'd bet the average briton couldn't name those champions, or even the world champions in a lot of the sports you people like either.
shit, i can only name the lastest superbowl champion because it's the new york team. i don't know who won the nba, or the stanley cup last year. had to think about the world series, and that was last month.
but i do know that spain is current world champ (and that the americans beat the shit out of everyone at the olympics) in basketball. dunno why i know that. baseball is japan. (maybe korea?) (no, it's japan.) (right?) hockey, i dunno. i'd bet it's someone from scandinavia or eastern europe. i had no idea they held a world football championship.
a lot of people do keep up with this stuff. i'd bet, however, that the percentage of (male) britons who pay attention to sport is much higher than the percentage of male americans. i like sports, but i'm one of the few that does so in the circles i run in.
445 - Dr Dreadful
No, zing, the average Brit could not name the world champions in those sports either. But I guarantee you that the average British sports fan will be able to tell you the current world champs in soccer (Italy) and rugby union (South Africa). Those are the only team sports that really matter; the others are much more limited-interest.
Fandom and needling between teams is just as important and intense (if not more so) than any over on this side of the pond; but all the rivalries go out the window when it comes to international matches. The greatest honor for a player is to represent your country: it means you're really, really good. The greatest achievement, period, in soccer is to win the World Cup.
i don't know who won the nba, or the stanley cup last year.
The current NBA champs are the Celtics. I don't know who won the Stanley Cup either. You know, for a supposedly major sport, hockey is incredibly difficult to watch on TV. I have to go to channel 176309 or something, and even then it's pay-per-view. I'm not crying, though. Much as I'd like to like hockey, I can't. I've been to watch our local minor league team a few times, and the game just doesn't engage me. It's odd: it should be an exciting sport, but it isn't.
but i do know that spain is current world champ (and that the americans beat the shit out of everyone at the olympics) in basketball.
Team USA finally realized at the last Olympics that they weren't going to automatically win gold just by showing up. If they continue with that attitude, Spain won't be world champs for long, either.
baseball is japan. (maybe korea?) (no, it's japan.) (right?)
Wrong. Japan won the inaugural World Baseball Classic, an MLB-sponsored tournament. It's not the official world championship. (Although because major league players take part, it probably will have more clout than the official one if it catches on.) The current holders of that title are, believe it or not, the United States.
hockey, i dunno. i'd bet it's someone from scandinavia or eastern europe.
Russia. Good call, but I'm surprised you didn't say Canada.
i had no idea they held a world football championship.
Neither did I until I looked it up while researching my previous comment. (Although I had suspected that there might be such a thing.) The USA are the current champs in that, too. Ironically, the last tournament (2007) was the first time they'd entered.
i'd bet, however, that the percentage of (male) britons who pay attention to sport is much higher than the percentage of male americans.
Jeez, zing, I doubt it. What I have observed, though, is that the percentage of women who watch sports seems to be higher over here than in Britain.
446 - zingzing
i always forget about canada.
447 - Cindy D
I can't name any champions in sports. I consider myself adequately educated (if only lucky) when I can match the name of a sports team correctly with the sport they play.
448 - Dr Dreadful
That in itself gets confusing, Cindy. When I hear a commentator mention 'the Cardinals', I have to stop and think 'wait - what sport is this? Are we talking about St Louis or Arizona'? And don't even get me started on 'the Giants'...
Just be thankful you're not in England, where about 80% of all soccer teams are 'United', 'Town' or 'City'...
449 - Cindy D
Dave,
(I have two comments for you, I'll break them up for the sake of sensibility. Sorry the length is necessary.)
First, that was some excellent fancy footwork. Well done.
You begin by saying a collectivist society which has implemented policy cannot be Anarchism in #330. You say: Cindy, what you describe in #317 is NOT anarchism...
You repeat this in various ways in #344: ...even if they were claiming to be anarchists, their collective ventures had effectively become a government even if they didn't choose to admit it., in #370: What I said is that when the collective begins to make policy it becomes a government and not anarchistic.
In #393:
Me: "You are basically saying here--a society with rules cannot be Anarchistic. What leads you to that conclusion? It's a wrong one."
You: Reading anarchist writers and studying the subject for years leads me to the conclusion and it's not wrong. The level of anarchism in a society is inversely proportional to the level of law and rules in the society. That's a basic tenet of anarchism. You can't just deny it away.
You tell me: Cindy, I'd submit that you're attempting to redefine anarchism...
You say what I am describing as Anarchism is: ...a period of pre-authoritarian populism.
In #400 I ask: "Okay, please show me the Anarchist writers who are using your definition."
Then in # 402:
You go on to show me that, in fact, all the Anarchists understood society needs laws. And you, almost by slight of hand (or word), reduce your assertion that laws cannot exist in Anarchistic society to something that might best be used as a philosophical opening line to a term paper: That the Anarchists have to solve the problem of "pure anarchy" and they overcome this through laws geared toward individual rights or those geared toward collective rights.
So, in all this discussion, I am to understand that you have been defending some theoretical abstraction about "pure anarchism" (best served by being an opening remark) rather than talking about the real world discourse of the Anarchists themselves.
The point is Dave, you've just done a nice run around. Anarchistic society, as I said, requires and exists with laws. All Anarchist thinkers--and I have read some of all those you listed there (more of some, less of others, except Stirner and Hayek) in addition to Kropotkin, Malatesta, some minor ones, as well as the contemporary thinkers like Chomsky and Murray Bookchin, etc.--and never did I read that Anarchism could not exist without laws.
You also say: What you're promoting is essentially a form of revolutionary anarchism called anarcho-syndicalism.
Yes, that is exactly correct. That is what I am doing. It's also called Libertarian Social_ism or simply, Anarchism.
On another point, I have to disagree about the Individualist Anarchists and their supposed natural progression into the ideas on anarcho-Capitalism.
I ran into a problem, when I tried to post to Clav about Individualist Anarchists. The problem was that I was reading an anarcho-Capitalist on the subject, which was equating the Individualists with the anarcho-Capitalists. My reading of Godwin, for example, and even Spooner makes me understand that they were not Capitalists. Those who wrote about markets, in no way meant what is meant by Capitalism. Godwin, for example, was against private property, he advocated the necessity of giving one's surplus to those in need. Spooner advocated an egalitarian society and was opposed to wage slavery.
That the anarcho-Capitalists have co-opted these Individualists, says more about their attempt to legitimize Capitalism under anarchy. That is ridiculous. Anarchists are historically anti-capitalist until you get directly to the anarcho-Capitalists and I do not consider them Anarchists.
So, regarding this comment you made:
Instead of collectivism it [Individualist Anarchism] ultimately embraces individual enterprise [and free (i.e. non-monopolized) markets, in some cases]
and market capitalism. That would be closer.450 - Cindy D
RE my #449 (correction)
make that:
--and never did I read that Anarchism could not exist with laws.
451 - Cindy D
Dave,
Here is my second comment.
RE # 402:
Regarding Spain's economy at the time of the Revolution in 1936, I don't have enough information to debate. But then again, neither do you. Your understanding is based on the idea--that would never happen with relatively free market Capitalism. It's not based on evidence. But my understanding is that Mercantilism was over in Spain by the 20th century.
Proliferation of superfluous jobs and businesses is fundamentally uncharacteristic of capitalism.
Tell that to the main street of every town in most of the counties surrounding and including mine over the last 35 years. There are constant struggles to maintain any kind of small shop. Yet they exist and are continually replaced, if only temporarily, until the capital of the owner runs out. It's part of the Shopping Mall and WalMart effect. I cannot imagine it is different all across the country.
RE # 375:
As far as Catalonia being radically different from what we have here, that's true. Anarchism has arisen in places (usually places with some history of people having accepted anarchist thought, like Paris, Spain, and Argentina) when there is a revolution in place or, in Argentina's case, when simply faced with the utter failure of Capitalism. However, the failure of Capitalism in Argentina is not so different from what will likely happen here if we head toward a second great depression. If owners start closing down factories I expect that the same model being used in Argentina will flourish here.
Anarchism seems to begin quite fairly. In Argentina, for example, the Capitalists abandon the factories leaving the workers with sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid labor. The Capitalists then try to sneak back into the factory and remove anything of value so they won't have to sell it to pay the workers back pay. The workers can go through the court to take over the factory based on the money they are owed. They can also negotiate directly with a reasonable owner.
By the way, in the Paris Commune when workers took over businesses they also were required to pay the owner. The same is true for Argentina, I read an article (can't find it) that suggested trouble for some businesses in Argentina that had not paid the owner.
As a pacifist, the idea of non-violent change appeals to me. I limit my help for the cause to sabotage and peaceful advocacy rather than violence. So, a natural failure of Capitalism is what I prefer to a revolution.
Anyway: so much for your theory of Anarchists unjustly ripping the means of production from the Capitalist's hands Dave.
452 - Dave Nalle
Cindy, I'm not going to respond to you point by point because your argument is essentially circular and pointless. I'm just going to make a couple of clear statements for you.
First, anarchism ceases to be anarchism when you impose a system of law. It becomes anarchism with some sort of hyphenated modifier or some different system altogether because laws imply a structure which is inherently non anarchic. Anarchism cannot BE anarchism in any pure sense in a system where structures exist which are larger or more enduring than immediate relationships between individuals. If you have collective agreements or systems of law, you may still have some anarchist ideas in your system, but it is no longer definable solely as anarchism.
never did I read that Anarchism could not exist with laws.
Start at the most basic level. Anarchism means 'without strucutre'. Laws exist to impose structure. Therefore laws are contrary to anarchism. A society may have anarchism as its gaol, but if it is practicing something else which is 80% some other structure and 20% anarchism then how can you define it as anarchism?
Proliferation of superfluous jobs and businesses is fundamentally uncharacteristic of capitalism.
Tell that to the main street of every town in most of the counties surrounding and including mine over the last 35 years. There are constant struggles to maintain any kind of small shop.
Exactly. Capitalism dictates that those superfluous businesses will be eliminated by the force of the market when there is more efficient competition.
Regarding Spain's economy at the time of the Revolution in 1936, I don't have enough information to debate. But then again, neither do you. Your understanding is based on the idea--that would never happen with relatively free market Capitalism. It's not based on evidence. But my understanding is that Mercantilism was over in Spain by the 20th century.
Except that I have read plenty of history on Spain and it had one of the most backwards economies in Europe, based on patronage and paternalism and anything but capitalist in character. It had been kept in a just post-medieval status deliberately by the monarchy through the end of the 19th century. It was the country in western Europe most similar economically to eastern European countries like Russia.
My reading of Godwin, for example, and even Spooner makes me understand that they were not Capitalists. Those who wrote about markets, in no way meant what is meant by Capitalism. Godwin, for example, was against private property, he advocated the necessity of giving one's surplus to those in need. Spooner advocated an egalitarian society and was opposed to wage slavery.
Capitalism does NOT mean wage slavery. Wage slavery is a product of social imbalances which are not created by capitalism. At heart, a capitalist society IS egalitarian. Who can you point to who was in favor of wage slavery except maybe David Ricardo?
As for Godwin, he believed in private property, but he believed that the established structures of property ownership were unfair and thought that property ought to be distributed based on ability to use it productively. Obviously he was highly influenced by the utilitarians.
I wonder if when you talk about capitalism you are thinking about the subset of capitalism which I'd call corporatism, where the accumulation of capital is distorted by the pooling of resources in the form of corporations? Corporate capitalism has proven to be very productive and competitive, but it can become a problem when government begins to act to serve and promote business rather than regulating it.
If owners start closing down factories I expect that the same model being used in Argentina will flourish here.
Chances are that if owners start shutting down factories it's because they cannot be run competitively and unless the factor making those factories unprofitable are eliminated (unions) no one will be able to reopen them.
And do stop talking about Argentina. Nothing which has ever happened in the Argentinian economy has EVER worked for any extended period of time. They just go from disaster to disaster.
Dave
453 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
Concerning what you said about the "general attitude of Americans towards international sport", that we simply don't have one.
Yes, you're right. America has focused so much on itself that it often simply doesn't acknowledge the rest of the world. This is one reason why we can't seem to learn the same lessons that ALL the rest of the industrialized democracies have learned about Universal Health Care.
When I was growing up, it was almost unthinkable that a REAL American might consider living in another country - after all, what could be the possible benefit in that?
But after joining the Navy and seeing the world, it became fairly obvious that America - as much as I love her and would still defend her to my dying breath - is not the best or safest or happiest place to live.
I mean, we're the only country where it's considered patriotic to only know how to speak one language! Good grief!
454 - Dr Dreadful
And do stop talking about Argentina. Nothing which has ever happened in the Argentinian economy has EVER worked for any extended period of time. They just go from disaster to disaster.
Except that Argentina, despite all its economic troubles, is now one of the most prosperous and stable countries in South America. They must be doing something right.
455 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy -
"1) If you had no taxes, would you, personally, voluntarily support a military that could defend your country? 2) How does PBS work?"
You're trying to get me to prove your point for you. Uh-uh. Old sayings become old sayings for a reason, Cindy - and here's one for you: "Nothing is as sure as death and taxes".
There are only two possibilities, Cindy - taxes...or voluntary contributions that are NOT required and NOT forced in any way, shape, or form. All else are pipe dreams - they might work on small scales, but NOT on a truly national scale.
And you're telling us that voluntary contributions would pay the hundreds of billions not only for defense, but hundreds of billions more for our national road system (Billions for pavement! Not one penny for a politician!), tens of billions for our schools...the list goes on.
And you REALLY think these sums can be raised through voluntary contributions? FYI, according to the Wikipedia, PBS gets 40-49% of its funding from...TAXES!
NOTHING is as sure as death and taxes, Cindy. Sorry, but THAT is reality.
456 - Dr Dreadful
Correction to my #445:
I forgot about cricket, although the World Cup in that sport is not as important as the annual Test Match series between the major cricket-playing nations. Nevertheless, the average Brit who's up on his or her sports should be able to tell you that the current world champions are - surprise, surprise - Australia.
And to my #448:
Actually, it's more like 40%. I tallied them up (yes, I really am that tragic). Of the 92 senior professional football clubs in England (what you'd call major league), 28 of them don't have second names - they just go by the name of the town or suburb they represent (except for one, which is named after the place of work of those who founded it, and another which bears the name of a now-defunct Victorian theme park). There are 14 Citys (should that be Cities?), 13 Uniteds, 11 Towns, 4 Rovers, 3 Athletics, 3 Countys, 3 Wanderers, 2 Albions and 11 assorted others.
457 - Cindy D
Dave,
My reasoning cannot be circular because it consisted of a single simple assertion, thus: All Anarchist thinkers through time hold that Anarchist society is not inconsistent with laws. Period. No circles.
You are apparently thinking of your own logic. Which runs around in circles discussing "pure anarchy" as a means of back-peddling to cover your earlier position. I cannot think of a single Anarchist who would run me around in these circles by telling me Anarchism (the political state thereof) cannot have laws. It has accepted precepts. I can only think of one person who is going to discount 250 years of accepted thought by suggesting a well-known philosophy ought best be first run through the dictionary definition, and then having done so, announce that isn't what it is. That person is you Dave.
Except that I have read plenty of history on Spain and it had one of the most backwards economies in Europe, based on patronage and paternalism and anything but capitalist in character. It had been kept in a just post-medieval status deliberately by the monarchy through the end of the 19th century.
Can you give me a reference? Because I have been reading and can find no such information.
Capitalism dictates that those superfluous businesses will be eliminated by the force of the market when there
is more efficient competitionare giant monopolies. Monopolies, for example, that would give Lysander Spooner a stroke!Capitalism does NOT mean wage slavery. Wage slavery is a product of social imbalances which are not created by capitalism. At heart, a capitalist society IS egalitarian.
What then are millions of United States citizens doing going to work unless it is for wages. Wage slavery is inherent in Capitalism.
Chances are that if owners start shutting down factories it's because they cannot be run competitively and unless the factor making those factories unprofitable are eliminated (unions) no one will be able to reopen them.
They are doing just that in Argentina.
I chose this quote last as it is a good sight to see you say anything even remotely like this.
I wonder if when you talk about capitalism you are thinking about the subset of capitalism which I'd call corporatism, where the accumulation of capital is distorted by the pooling of resources in the form of corporations? Corporate capitalism has proven to be very productive and competitive, but it can become a problem when government begins to act to serve and promote business rather than regulating it.
I am wondering what you mean when you speak of Capitalism.
It would be interesting to know.
For now, I am off overnight. If I made any mistakes I've no time to look.
458 - Cindy D
Glenn,
I'll get back tomorrow.
459 - Dave Nalle
Except that Argentina, despite all its economic troubles, is now one of the most prosperous and stable countries in South America. They must be doing something right.
Come again? They've been all over the news for leading the way into worldwide economic disaster. They're the country that just this evening confirmed that they actually are going to seize private pension funds as they previously discussed. Plus they're about to nationalize the airlines and I'm sure it will go on and on. Oh, and they're buddying up to the Chinese. All signs of a good, stable country, right?
Maybe you're confusing their political and economic situation with their success in soccer? Or maybe you confused Argentina with Brazil?
Dave
460 - Dr Dreadful
I'm just going by what I actually observed on the ground when I was there, Dave. Especially in comparison with Peru, where one gets the impression that there could be a revolution at any minute. There are armored cars stationed all around the main square in front of the presidential palace in Lima, which isn't something you'll see outside the Casa Rosada.
461 - Dave Nalle
I'll grant you that Peru isn't winning any prizes for lack of chaos, but they do have an active, ongoing rebellion in the country, which means security is likely to be heightened. Still, I'd take Brazil or Chile over Argentina any day.
Dave
462 - STM
Zing: "in general, i'd bet the average briton couldn't name those champions, or even the world champions in a lot of the sports you people like either".
Actually, as Doc well knows, most Britons know that they would get a pass on that question a lot of the time if they just wrote down "Australia" in the world champions category for a whole range of sports.
Hate blowing my own trumpet (well, not really :), but in this case I'm being serious for once.
I don't quite know why this is the case, but I suspect it's got a lot to do with a) the outdoors lifestyle and the desire of Australians to participate in sports rather than watch them, and b) an inbuilt genetic need to beat the Poms, which has since flowed out to a genetic inbuilt need to beat every other bastard, too.
I have to say, though, that our manic win-at-all-costs attitude does become tedious at times.
Even soccer is growing as a sport in this country after our showing at the last world cup, and belting the shit out of England in one of the Autumn-tour rugby Tests at Twickenham (world headquarters of evil) last week has brightened the sombre and shamed mood brought on by our recent cricket series loss to India.
Sporting defeats in this country bring on periods of national mourning. For a few days, anyhow, until we win at something else.
463 - Cindy D
Argentina is the poster child today for the problems inherent in completely implementing Chicago School style Capitalism. Along with the mistake of arbitrarily tying the currency to the U.S. currency.
It is an economic disaster. But it is bringing about the wonderful freedom and equality found only in Anarchism.
Stay tuned, you may yet get to see this first hand.
464 - Cindy D
If you're lucky!
465 - Clavos
Economically, Argentina has been a basket case beginning as far back as the first of the numerous Perón regimes, and it has nothing to do with economic schools of thought, Chicago or otherwise.
Though adored by the Argentine public, Juan Perón, and later, his wife, Evita, wrought mayhem on the country. The country still struggles with that legacy.
I did a lot of business in Argentina in the seventies, and the combination of red tape and corruption made it extremely difficult to get anything accomplished.
These days, I have a client in Buenos Aires who is in the finance business, and his tales of of the trials and tribulations he faces (mostly at the hands of the government) on a daily basis are truly impressive.
And it's a shame. I've traveled there a number of times -- it's easily one of the most (if not THE most) cultured and sophisticated countries in Latin America, and although its citizens are the butt of jokes in virtually every other LatAm country because of their perceived arrogance and hubris, they are actually a very warm and friendly people.
But its troubles, past and present are, as they are and have been throughout LatAm, the result of corruption and inept government/leadership.
As to the "pernicious" Chicago School: one of the strongest economies in LatAm is Chile's. It was structured in part under the tutelage of Milton Friedman, who was invited by a private foundation to lecture at the University of Chile in 1975. Contrary to popular myth, Friedman did not work for the Pinochet government, but he was a strong influence on a number of Chilean economists (many of whom studied in Chicago), and he was instrumental in designing the current Chilean economy.
466 - Dr Dreadful
For a 'basket case' of an economy, Argentina certainly doesn't seem to be driving too many of its people into penury.
I saw one slum in Buenos Aires, and it took up half a city block. In Rio and Saõ Paulo, they're everywhere. Same goes for Lima, which has South America's largest shanty town, Villa El Salvador, home to half a million people.
467 - Cindy D
RE: #455
Glenn,
Simply because you are happy living in a country that bullies and warmongers doesn't mean there is no other choice.
"1) If you had no taxes, would you, personally, voluntarily support a military that could defend your country?"
You're trying to get me to prove your point for you. Uh-uh. Old sayings become old sayings for a reason, Cindy - and here's one for you: "Nothing is as sure as death and taxes".
On the contrary, I am trying to get you to understand that people will pay for what they need. I will take the answer as a definitive yes. Yes you would voluntarily support a military.
Now Glenn, try to imagine yourself as being a human being among other human beings, a social creature, whose ideas and beliefs are not so different from your countrymen. Point: So will other people voluntarily give.
There are only two possibilities, Cindy - taxes...or voluntary contributions that are NOT required and NOT forced in any way, shape, or form. All else are pipe dreams...
But, I presented other choices in Long's 6 ways. One of my favorites:
COCA-COLA: WE DEFEND AMERICA!
But alas, Glenn says there are only two...he says this with nothing more than expelled hot air, but who am I to argue...he is a self-proclaimed expert. He doesn't need any proof.
And you're telling us that voluntary contributions would pay the hundreds of billions not only for defense...
What is China's defense budget for a population 4 times our size? You simply can't use our current budget. Why do we need such a big budget when we won't be the world police?
...but hundreds of billions more for our national road system (Billions for pavement! Not one penny for a politician!), tens of billions for our schools...the list goes on.
What is your point? No one will want roads and schools? Look at all the money saved on not paying salaries to politicians.
And you REALLY think these sums can be raised through voluntary contributions? FYI, according to the Wikipedia, PBS gets 40-49% of its funding from...TAXES!
Right, I remember now actually having to do some work because Bush wanted to cut that.
NOTHING is as sure as death and taxes, Cindy. Sorry, but THAT is reality.
Glenn, I am currently learning some things about the Cold War from Gore Vidal. Some other things I am reading are suggesting we caused most of the problems to begin with. I'll get back to you.
Simply because you are stubborn Glenn and you like an authoritarian society and being the police (being very bad cops at that who end up damaging other countries) of the world-read here being able to crow about being the "super power" of the world as if we are in some football league, doesn't mean nothing else will work.
It may mean that you personally won't like it. Too bad. Ten thousand children in this country go to bed hungry every night. That is because people like you can't get over being the king of the hill.
468 - Dr Dreadful
What 'whole range' of sports, Stan? Cricket, rugby league (probably... have they played the final yet? Isn't it Australia v. thirteen ants?), and... what else?
For a sport-crazy nation where every third person is an Olympic medallist, your haul of championships is pretty desultory right now.
469 - STM
I said most of the time, Doc, not ths year.
A few years back some pommy journo wrote a story about it.
It was: rugby, rugby league (which means beating your mob and the kiwis, which is no mean feat), cricket, netball, women's hockey, men's hockey, women's surfing, men's surfing, a whole bunch of swimming titles, lifesaving, etc etc
This list was published in 2007, and the writer expressed concern that we were losing the plot because it wasn't that impressive compared to the list that could have been compiled in 2003. Now you'd have to factor in some more gold medallists from the Beijing Games, take some away and the whole thing will be different now.
(To be honest, I couldn't give a rat's as long as we've got some rugby silverware in the cabinet. And right now all we've got is bragging rights over England. I get really sick of how insane this country is about sport, but since you asked, the list foloows)
Australian cricket team - Test and one-day internationals
Australian rugby league team - from 2000 world cup
Opals - women’s basketball
Libby Lenton - 50m freestyle, 100m freestyle, 100m butterfly
Leisel Jones - 100m breaststroke, 200m breaststroke
Jessicah Schipper - 200m butterfly
Australian women - 4--100m freestyle
Australian women - 4--100m medley relay
Australian men - 4--100m medley relay
Casey Stoner - motorcycle GP
Jana Rawlinson - women’s 400m hurdles
Nathan Deakes - 50km walk
Kate Bates - women’s point race cycling
Anna Meares - 500m time trial cycling
Sam Hill - men’s downhill mountain bike
Tom Slingsby - Laser class sailing
Nathan Wilmot and Malcolm Page - men’s 470 sailing
Drew Ginn and Duncan Free - coxless pairs rowing
Amber Halliday and Marguerite Houston - lightweight double sculls rowing
Anthony Mundine - WBA super middleweight
Michael Katsidis - WBO interim lightweight
Sharon Anyos - WBC women’s featherweight
Layne Beachley - women’s surfing
Mick Fanning - men's surfing
Damien King - men's bodyboarding
Dale Begg-Smith - dual moguls skiing
Torah Bright - superpipe snowboarding
Kurt Fearnley - wheelchair marathon
470 - Dr Dreadful
Bloody hell, Stan - the ants beat you!
471 - Cindy D
RE # 465
Clav,
Economically, Argentina has been a basket case beginning as far back as the first of the numerous Perón regimes, and it has nothing to do with economic schools of thought, Chicago or otherwise.
Though adored by the Argentine public, Juan Perón, and later, his wife, Evita, wrought mayhem on the country. The country still struggles with that legacy.
As much as you would like to blame the problem on Peron, it isn't in accord with history.
From the late 19th century to 1929 Argentina became one of the ten richest nations in the world. The economic downturn was at the Great Depression at about 1930. Peron inherited a problematic economy and failed to improve on it. He didn't cause the problem as he was first elected in 1946 (16 years later).
I am going to skip ahead to where the Argentine economy again improved under a military dictatorship from 1966 to 1973. "Though repressive, this new regime continued to encourage domestic development and invested record amounts into public works; during those years the economy grew strongly and income poverty declined to 7% by 1975, still a record low."1 Peron returned from exile was elected in 1973 and then died in 1974, Isabel Peron succeeded him and led weakly until the right-wing, military dictatorship called the National Reorganization Process took control from 1976 until 1983. This heinous military junta engaged in a persecution of its citizens through violence, torture, and genocide--known as the Dirty War.
Argentina had experienced economic improvement 1966-1975 then. The current problems leading to the 2001 crash of the Argentine economy begin right here in 1976 with the National Reorganization Process and continue under the Menem presidency, which I support below.
General Jorge Rafael "Videla, who had led the military junta, appointed José Alfredo Martínez de Hoz as Minister of Economy, charged with stabilizing it and privatizing state-owned companies, along what would later be known as neoliberal lines."2 You see, the attitude of the U.S. to these bastards is summed up here in what Kissinger said to the junta:
"Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed. I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed the better… "2
"Many of the military leaders that took part in the Dirty War were trained in the U.S.-financed School of the Americas."1
The Junta began borrowing huge sums from the IMF incurring enormous interest. The IMF encouraged massive borrowing by the private sector. This would create a situation where the IMF and U.S. neoliberalism policy would dominate Argentina's fiscal policy. More than 400,000 Argentinian businesses went bankrupt by 1983. Democracy was restored in 1983. The debt grew and in 1989 inflation reached 5000% for the year. Prices would increase in good in a single day. Menem became president in 1989.
"Menem...[reinstituted] a plan, aligned on the neoliberal Washington consensus, of trade liberalisation, labor deregulation and privatisation of state companies..."3 Under Menem's presidency, the Argentine peso was pegged the to the U.S. dollar instead of the currency of its trading partners, like Brazil. This gave Argentina a drastically overvalued currency and a lot of buying power worldwide. Brazil, meantime, devalued its own currency. Argentina's exports dwindled to nothing as result of being too expensive. It's imports from Brazil, for example, increased astronomically.
This article, What Latin America Owes to the "Chicago Boys", was written in 1997 and crowed about the great benefits the Chicago School economics brought to Argentina. The crowing was typical of the view neoliberals held of Argentina's new U.S. style capitalist economy , it turns out to have been a bit premature.
Argentina was the model for U.S. neoliberal success, until it all collapsed in the economic crisis of 1999-2002. This whole thing led to a situation of 20% unemployment with 40% of the population living below the poverty line. The wealthy lost confidence and began a run on the banks in 2001, removing their money from Argentina. Citibank trucked out its money illegally in the dead of night. Argentina defaulted on the IMF loan in 2002. By October 2002, 57% of the population was living below the poverty line.
With the Capitalists out of the picture Argentina has been steadily improving. It repaid the IMF loans early and in full in 2006.
Headline Oct. 7, 2008 (Press TV):
Brazil, Argentina abandon US dollar
Brazil and Argentina have launched a new payment system in their bilateral trade, doing away with the US dollar as a medium of exchange.
Hey look: Headline Oct. 28, 2008 (RIA Novosti, Russia):
PM Putin suggests Russia, China ditch dollar in trade deals
Anybody know what happens to a currency nobody wants?
References:
1) Argentina - Wikipedia
2) National Reorganization Process - Wikipedia
3) Argentine economic crisis (1999"2002) - Wikipedia
Juan Perón - Wikipedia
Carlos Menem - Wikipedia
Argentine Currency Board - Wikipedia
Washington Consensus - Wikipedia
Dirty War - Wikipedia
Other References:
Argentina: Sheer Neoliberal Lunacy
The Take Klein Lewis Productions
Profile: Carlos Menem - BBC
472 - Cindy D
Okay Clav, There is my rebuttal. I am out again tonight.
473 - Dave Nalle
So let me see if I've got this straight. In the entire history of Argentinian economic mismanagement, they experimented with a few superficial aspects of chicago-style economics for a few years, and that brief experiment is responsible for all their problems and somehow justifies the current rape of the middle class and workers being practiced by pseudosocia|ists?
Oh, and Cindy likes dictators. Got it.
474 - Cindy D
Dave,
...entire history of Argentinian economic mismanagement...
I think I began by pointing out that Argentina was one of the ten richest countries in the world from about 1880 to about 1930. So, what the hell are you talking about?
Next: Just because the economy improved when one batch of dictators was in there, doesn't mean I like dictators. The point there was that the economy was already improved when Peron took his final office and was not sunk by Peron managing to stay alive for a year.
They did not experiment with a few superficial aspects of chicago-style economics for a few years. I wrote that they began implementing these practices from 1976 with the Military Junta (National Reorganization Process). The IMF has admitted its complicity dave. Surely, if they can do that, you can acknowledge it.
"It was in 2001, twenty-four years later, that Argentina erupted in protest against IMF-prescribed austerity measures and then proceeded to force out five presidents in only three weeks." (link)
Beginning in 1989 Menem implemented what has been called whole-hog "Cowboy Capitalism". Argentina, for having so thoroughly followed the guidance of neoliberalism, became the poster child in praise of Chicago School economic theory.
475 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy D -
1. I do NOT like an 'authoritarian society' - far from it! DID YOU NOT READ the original post? 'Goldilocks freedom' - neither too much nor too little.
2. I do NOT like having to be the "world's policeman" - but we're stuck with it.
3. I AM stubborn...when history and the available facts back me up. That's why, even though I am a bleeding-heart liberal, I support nuclear power and the end of the tenure system for teachers. That's why, even though I am what many would call a fundamentalist Christian (often I DO go to Church every day of the week and twice on Sunday), I strongly support gay marriage and total equal rights for GLBT...even though these are strictly verboten by the Church of which I am a true member, and I will never leave the Church. Never, period.
Cindy, I truly try to be objective in all things. Historical fact, proper statistics, the good and bad lessons experienced by other nations, other peoples - THESE are what I use to formulate my opinions.
What I see with you is that you're taking a proposition, searching for facts to support that proposition...and ignoring the wealth of historical and current evidence that is against your proposition.
I'm sorry, but you and I will have to agree to disagree. You're quite intelligent, but let us discuss other things on which we might find more common ground.