have you ever received help from a leftist organisation?

[danyboy27]

the question is simple, at a moment of your live or another did you received any kind of help from a leftist organization/group?

i never had that luck, you?

[ThorsMitersaw]

I generally do not like asking for help from others

[scarletghoul]

Does this include the basic workers rights that leftist groups have struggled for throughout history?

[RGacky3]

I have been offered help yes, but I did'nt take it. But the basic workers rights, yeah, many.

[ThorsMitersaw]

I really think workers rights are a thing that exist only as a result of corporatist society. Much of the 'new deal' was really just a way for big business to fuck its competitors out of the market. (As is usual with license, regulation, tax, etc). And another large part of them being a sort of counter balance ot states giving business interests so much bargaining power through the former. Eliminate the restrictions upon entry, the need for them goes away.

[IcarusAngel]

The New Deal WEAKENED the corporations grip on society for decades and even the gap between the rich and the poor started to decrease.

After Reaganism, corporatism increased again, with the majority of the government focusing on how to "work for" the corporations to get jobs, and thus we have recession after recession in the US.

Of course, workers' rights are a product of a capitalist society. Just like a "slaves' rights."

In truth, take away the government and you wouldn't have the corporations in the first place.

[Black Sheep]

Just to make it clear, leftist organizations aren't charity organizations.

[Pogue]

If you count unions, they gave me the weekend.

[ThorsMitersaw]

The New Deal WEAKENED the corporations grip on society for decades and even the gap between the rich and the poor started to decrease.

No. It didn't. The New Deal was a bad deal for small business and labor. It was a win for corporatism. this wikipedia article is not too unrevealing : (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Deal_and_corporatism)

And You can see Carson here for more: http://mutualist.blogspot.com/search?q=new+deal) To quote him from a certain post:


Rothbard's objection to this strategic orientation, according to Long, was


that the new left-right spectrum persistently misleads libertarian-minded thinkers into viewing governmental regulation as anti-big-business; and if our opponents are anti-business, what must we libertarians be but pro-big-business, defenders of what Ayn Rand in one of her pro-big-business moods (she did have other moods) called "America's Persecuted Minority"? The result is that governmental intervention on behalf of big business tends to become invisible, or at least unimportant, because our ideological blinders make it hard to take seriously. Who would want to restrict the free market on behalf of business interests? Not those left-wingers, because they're anti-business; and not us right-wingers, because we"re pro-free-market. It's hard to recognize the significance of pro-business legislation even when one officially sees and acknowledges it, if one has internalized a worldview that excludes such legislation from the list of major dangers.

To back this up, Long produces another quote from Rothbard:


Every element in the New Deal program: central planning, creation of a network of compulsory cartels for industry and agriculture, inflation and credit expansion, artificial raising of wage rates and promotion of unions within the overall monopoly structure, government regulation and ownership, all this had been anticipated and adumbrated during the previous two decades. And this program, with its privileging of various big business interests at the top of the collectivist heap, was in no sense reminiscent of socialism or leftism; there was nothing smacking of the egalitarian or the proletarian here. No, the kinship of this burgeoning collectivism was not at all with socialism-communism but with fascism, or socialism-of-the-right, a kinship which many big businessmen of the twenties expressed openly in their yearning for abandonment of a quasi-laissez-faire system for a collectivism which they could control…. Both left and right have been persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish and antibusiness.

One would really need look no further than the NRA for a damnation of the New (fascist) Deal.

[Bud Struggle]

If you count "Communist" China--sure. They give us inexpensive quality goods coupled with a market for US government bonds which finance the American way of life.

[IcarusAngel]

That article contains no facts whatsoever. The New Deal upped taxes on big corporations, whereas Mussolini, Hitler, etc., lowered the tax rate on corporations:



Taxes were increased for the general populace, but lowered or eliminated for the rich and big business. Inheritance taxes for the wealthy were greatly reduced or abolished. Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their business patrons by handing over to them publicly owned and perfectly solvent steel mills, power plants, banks, steamship companies ("privatization," it's called here). Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to refloat or subsidize heavy industry (corporate welfarism). Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations and assumed most of the risks and losses on investment. (Sounds like S&Ls, doesn't it?)


http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/M%20P/Parenti%20on%20Fascism.html

Parenti (Ph.D political science)

And small businesses did continue to grow, and there was more competition even among the major players.

Furthermore, the income of working families and working people increase:


real incomes of middle-class families have grown twice as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans, while the real incomes of working-poor families have grown six times as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans".

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/10-4


This is in contrast to the Libertarian-Capitalist policies of Reagan, etc., where wages (inflation adjusted) actually went DOWN, and the economy went through at least two recessions. Not to mention it layed the ground work for the current disasterous recession, where even large corporations like Linens & things, Circuit City, Bennigans, KB Toys have gone under.

Also, when we had laissez-faire capitalism, there were hardly any small businesses at all. Everything was either the super-rich, or the super-poor, hence the term "Gilded Age."

[IcarusAngel]

Every element in the New Deal program: central planning, creation of a network of compulsory cartels for industry and agriculture, inflation and credit expansion, artificial raising of wage rates and promotion of unions within the overall monopoly structure, government regulation and ownership, all this had been anticipated and adumbrated during the previous two decades. And this program, with its privileging of various big business interests at the top of the collectivist heap, was in no sense reminiscent of socialism or leftism; there was nothing smacking of the egalitarian or the proletarian here. No, the kinship of this burgeoning collectivism was not at all with socialism-communism but with fascism, or socialism-of-the-right, a kinship which many big businessmen of the twenties expressed openly in their yearning for abandonment of a quasi-laissez-faire system for a collectivism which they could control…. Both left and right have been persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish and antibusiness.


The guy is a crackpot.

This guy leaves out: rurual electrification, more control over the airlines industry and so on, which gave Americans the ability to travel easier (now look at what happens when it becomes more 'privatized'), scientific research (the 'intergalatic network' was thought up by someone who worked during FDR's time), and it also gave us regulations the repeal of which has put us in the current recession, like the Glass-Steagall Act.

The New Deal was the closet the US has ever come to any kind of economic justice - while it is true it wasn't anywhere close to being socialism or democratic control of resources, it was indeed at least social-democratic.

The difference between a "New Deal" program and a Libertarian, privatization plan, is a "New Deal" plan is more like UHC, whereas a "Libertarian" plan is more like America's current health care system.

[ThorsMitersaw]

That article contains no facts whatsoever. The New Deal upped taxes on big corporations, whereas Mussolini, Hitler, etc., lowered the tax rate on corporations:



http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/M%20P/Parenti%20on%20Fascism.html

Parenti (Ph.D political science)

And small businesses did continue to grow, and there was more competition even among the major players.

Furthermore, the income of working families and working people increase:



http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/10-4


This is in contrast to the Libertarian-Capitalist policies of Reagan, etc., where wages (inflation adjusted) actually went DOWN, and the economy went through at least two recessions. Not to mention it layed the ground work for the current disasterous recession, where even large corporations like Linens & things, Circuit City, Bennigans, KB Toys have gone under.

Also, when we had laissez-faire capitalism, there were hardly any small businesses at all. Everything was either the super-rich, or the super-poor, hence the term "Gilded Age."

A - I did not say that article was definitive. I only posted it there as a quick overview, as wikipedia is often used for

B - you obviously misunderstadn the purpose of taxes upon business. IE - you live under the illusion that they protect you from corporatism when in fact they enable it.

C - We never had laissez faire "capitalism". Unless of course by "laissez faire capitalism" you mean a situation in which economic freedom exists for a certain class of men and no others except to some degree that quells their belly aching... then hell yes. We are on the same boat.

D - Reagans policies were not libertarian. They in fact were highly criticized by laissez faire proponents. Especially so by Murray Rothbard. You fall into the same trap that some libertarians do, that republicans using the rhetoric somehow means their actual policies were laissez faire in practice or theory. They never were friendly to laissez faire and they never will be.

[IcarusAngel]

No, I'm looking at the FACTS. Working people were more empowered under administrations were corporations had high tax rates.

Furthermore, most of the things that the country was able to get done were done under administration with high tax rates on businesses, and regulation on them.

This is because when the country doesn't have to constantly step in to solve the failures of the free-market, they are able to work on serious issues like the environment etc. Some of the best environmental polices were done pre-Reagan, however, they constantly need to be updated, but they've gotten worse with Orwellian Bush acts.

Now we need to get the government to step in and solve yet another "crisis", the health care crisis, also caused by deregulated capitalism. The choices are UHC, or eliminating capitalism. Both are acceptable, but UHC is more "realistic."

Another fact is indeed America used to be more laissez-faire, and it was a diaster for America and led into the Great Depression (Coolidge). Murray Rothbard was not a mainstream economist even for his time and his ideas have been disproven by history.

Another fact: monopolies grew out of free-markets. Google monopolies and "The atlantic" magzine. Capitalism is slavery as it is; monopolies make it worse.

[ThorsMitersaw]

The guy is a crackpot.

perhaps you would like to explain your ad homs?


This guy leaves out: rurual electrification,

Oh you mean like the hoover damn? That spurred more inflation and flooded the homes of many people? You mean the robbing of others to supply corporate factories with new breeding grounds?


more control over the airlines industry and so on, which gave Americans the ability to travel easier (now look at what happens when it becomes more 'privatized')

The control of airways by the state is a good thing? Have you looked at NASA at ALL my friend? They are the biggest obstacle to true aero-space innovation in EXISTENCE. The subsidy of travel industry is AGAIN a plot of the big business elite who over produce and seek to socialize the costs of distribution upon the working class. Way to support corporatism without knowing it kid.


scientific research (the 'intergalatic network' was thought up by someone who worked during FDR's time),

Scientific research cant exist without governemtn subsidy and in no way will set up a funding mechanism which will end up serving the whims, desires, and interests of the ruling class. Nooooooo. Not at all. I am totally onboard with you here.

...


and it also gave us regulations the repeal of which has put us in the current recession, like the Glass-Steagall Act.

Uh oh. hang on... your defending the FDIC??? HAHAHAHAHAHA :lol::lol:


The New Deal was the closet the US has ever come to any kind of economic justice - while it is true it wasn't anywhere close to being socialism or democratic control of resources, it was indeed at least social-democratic.

Gross

[/QUOTE]The difference between a "New Deal" program and a Libertarian, privatization plan, is a "New Deal" plan is more like UHC, whereas a "Libertarian" plan is more like America's current health care system.[/QUOTE]

The libertarian plan to privatize in no way represents Americas regulated, controlled, licensed, bureaucratic nightmare. The health care system here is only preferable to a libertarian in that 2 floggings are more desirable than 3 or 4 or 5. Try this one on for size son:

How Government Solved the Health Care Crisis

Medical Insurance that Worked — Until Government "Fixed" It (http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l3.html)

[Il Medico]

Brain Moore was nice enough to serve the 'mentor' role for my senior project. Otherwise, no. My "profession" can't unionize, and there aren't really any leftist organizations in the area where I live.

[Bud Struggle]

Brain Moore Sounds like a smart guy. ;) :D

Seriously--the playwrite? Pretty cool.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Does the YMCA count?

[Jack]

Sounds like a smart guy. ;) :D

Seriously--the playwrite? Pretty cool.

SPUSA's 2008 presidential candidate.

[danyboy27]

i know leftist organisation arnt charity but in theory those guy represent a lot of poor or struggling people. i think it would be somehow normal that they would somehow support the poor. some groups did it in the past, from my knowledge the black panthers set up a lot of community and support group for drugs addicts and prepared food for the needy.

[ThorsMitersaw]

'Big business didn't grudgingly accept the New Deal; it designed the New Deal. I strongly recommend G. William Domhoff's work (especially The Power Elite and the State and The Higher Circles) on the role of GE's Gerard Swope and the Business Advisory Council in formulating FDR's economic agenda. The blueprint they originally came out with, the NIRA, was a classic example of the kind of corporatist economy that Klein refers to elsewhere. It might have come from the desk of Hjalmar Schacht in Nazi Germany: it essentially organized every major industry into a state-authorized and state-protected cartel, with the avowed purpose of restricting production and keeping up prices. In other words, had it been allowed to stand it would have done, successfully, exactly what the great trusts at the turn of the century had tried and failed to do, by private means.'

[IcarusAngel]

The Power Elite wasn't written by Domhoff, it was written by C. Wright Mills, who was a thinker like Huxley and who supported liberalism and Democracy over capitalism and fascism.

Of course, all actions by the state have some protections for corporations in them. Capitalism can only work through corporatism. But the Democratic version, which looks out for workers' interests, and just for the bottom line, is generally more efficient for workers and even the capitalists. The statistics speak for themselves: people generally had more control over resources, more involvement in the government, etc., after FDR than after Reagan and Coolidge.

If you don't like capitalism and the fact that it requires big government and elitism to succeed at all, you have to advocate socialism or an alternative system that advocates the overthrow of capitalism.

[IcarusAngel]

And by the way, does Domhoff support libertarian-capitalism (fascism)?

Or does he support something else? What are his solutions? You libertarians do a good job misrepresenting other people's work, in economics, but also in the social sciences more and more.

[ThorsMitersaw]

And by the way, does Domhoff support libertarian-capitalism (fascism)?

Or does he support something else? What are his solutions? You libertarians do a good job misrepresenting other people's work, in economics, but also in the social sciences more and more.

At this point I am going to end this conversation. It is clear to me at this point that you have no idea what a libertarian free market is if you are calling a free market proposed by libertarians fascist (especially when the primary libertarian criticism of the New Deal is that it was a fascist policy).

It is simply clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

oh and by the way... you can use the work of a man who has different political aims and not follow his political goals. Mises was a minarchist type, I am not. I disagree with Rothbard on certain matters of justice. Chomsky has written a lot of good ammunition for libertarian opposition to neo-mercantilism...

[IcarusAngel]

Fascism is when corporations have complete dominance over government and political systems.

Fascism is not simply: racism. Racism has been apparent in many political system. It is not about militarism: Militarism has been apparent in many other types of systems. It is not just about nationalism, although that indeed is a factor more than in most systems (the nation-state).

It is actually primarily economic, it succeeds as being an economic systems. "Fascism is capitalism in decline." If you look at Libertarians, the LP, there is a lot in common there: removing regulations of corporations; US constitution (nationalism); and so on.

Mises himself had a sympathy for fascism over socialism.

I agree that you can use the words of people you don't agree with all the way, but it's a bit hypocritical for Libertarians to call social democrats fascists on one hand, while praising their writings on another.