Awesome Tax debate [Archive]

Bud Struggle

25th August 2010, 03:09

Publius

25th August 2010, 03:34

Off topic/Sorry Gack /sigh/ But Publius, you are doing the EXACT same thing that the USA is doing in the Middle East--imposing curtural Imperialism.

So it's cultural imperialism when I import my values to another culture.

OK.

So what is it when Muslims come into France and import THEIR values into THAT (Englightenment) culture?

THE SAME FUCKING THING.

Oh, but it's only "cultural imperialism" when white people do it, right?

This doesn't even make any sense as a charge: France and the US are part of the same culture, broadly speaking.

How is France deciding what to do IN ITS OWN FUCKING COUNTRY "cultural imperialism"?

What the fuck are you even talking about?

:rolleyes:

It'd be cultural imperialism if we went into Afghanistan and made the Hijab illegal, I guess. Maybe.

But that's not even close to this case.

EDIT: And what do you MEAN the US is being "culturally imperialistic" in the Middle East?

Turkey is a democracy. Iran was a democracy, until we fucked it up.

I guess you think Muslim culture can't be democratic culture? Is that what you mean to say?

Because if it is, it's fucking bigoted and stupid.

And if it isn't what you mean, then tell me how the US is being "culturally" (as opposed to just normally) imperialistic in the Middle East? They've attempted to institute democracy, but there are lots of Muslim democracies.

Do they not count? Muslim people don't value freedom? Rights? Democracy? Is that what you mean?

Be honest here, tell me what you think Muslim culture is. You must have some opinion, or else you couldn't judge us to be changing it.

You want to control the Moslem behavior because it doesn't conform to YOUR standards of what you think is right.Yes, and I want to control murderers behavior and child molesters behavior and rapists behavior for exactly the same reason.

To be hones I don't think wearing the Hijab is right either--BIT IT IS NOT MY JOB to make people live their lives the way that I think is right.And it isn't the men's right in that society either, now is it?

Funny your your lofty ideals go out the window when discussing people from another culture.

In fact that's actually a rather bigoted view: Muslim people just don't know any better! Silly guys, with their sexism!

What you're saying is you don't think you can you can judge their culture, even though culture says they can do all kinds of things which you know are horrendously immoral INCLUDING and ESPECIALLY their habit of telling other people what kinds of things they can and cannot do.

What a brilliant position you've taken on this issue.

The Hijab should come off--but you I and the French or US or whatever government should not be the people to take it off of Moslem women--it only matters if they take it off themselves.And then get acid thrown in their face, or get murdered by their husband, or get raped.

And that takes a cultural change in society and that takes years--or even generations.I thought their culture was fine just the way it is, you cultural imperialist you.

Again, this issue has nothing to do with these prescripted Sociology 101 arguments you copied out of a multiculturalism textbook since THIS HAPPENED IN FRANCE, THE COUNTRY WHERE FUCKING VOLTAIRE WAS BORN.

Explain to me how it's "cultural imperialism" to enforce Western standards in Western countries?

I guess it's "cultural imperialism" when Iran bans popular music, right? And cultural imperialism is wrong, according to you, right?

OH SHIT, CONTRADICTION!

You've now judged the same culture you said earlier you didn't want to judge, because it too engages in "cultural imperialism", according to your lax and completely made up standards of what that constitutes.

But it in the end is the only way that is lasting and worthwhile.I bet you take the same stance towards socialism, too, right?

I bet that's how the civil rights movement won, not by changing laws and public policy, and protesting and fighting and dying but just by hoping that white people would stop being racist in 300 years.

Publius

25th August 2010, 03:36

The right to practice oppressive aspects of your culture.

The right to abuse women?

No thanks.

Ele'ill

25th August 2010, 03:38

The right to abuse women?

No thanks.

I was simplifying what your issue was.

I sort of did it for myself and to see if I'd get a reply to some extent.

Publius

25th August 2010, 03:46

I was simplifying what your issue was.

I sort of did it for myself and to see if I'd get a reply to some extent.

Clearly the principle you outlined is too broad. It'd be impossible to enforce something like that, even if we wanted to.

Nevertheless, it's clear that the right position to be on is anti-Hijab, not pro-Hijab. Obviously we can't go overboard here, say invading countries and changing their laws, but I don't see why instituting these sort of rules in Western countries is so bad.

In addition, I think everyone think about what their thoughts and feelings would be seeing a submissive Muslim woman wearing a Hijab and following her husband from 6 feet behind.

Ele'ill

25th August 2010, 04:09

Clearly the principle you outlined is too broad. It'd be impossible to enforce something like that, even if we wanted to.

Clearly I didn't outline any principle other than the one you stated.

Nevertheless, it's clear that the right position to be on is anti-Hijab, not pro-Hijab.

The issue is that in western culture sex and sexual imagery is sold. It is marketed towards demographics that don't even understand their own bodies yet. The opposite is extreme conservative cultures where oppressive submission is required.

Actually, both require the submission and acceptance of place- both of which are forced.

It's a clash of the same thing in different packaging.

Obviously we can't go overboard here, say invading countries and changing their laws, but I don't see why instituting these sort of rules in Western countries is so bad.

The reasons why the laws are made are as important as the laws themselves.

In addition, I think everyone think about what their thoughts and feelings would be seeing a submissive Muslim woman wearing a Hijab and following her husband from 6 feet behind.

No different than the scantly glad underage or barely of age clinging to her fuck buddy from inches away.

Different forms of the same monster- the intentions are the same- the 'rules' or social norms serve the same purpose.

Publius

25th August 2010, 04:37

Clearly I didn't outline any principle other than the one you stated.

I didn't state a principle, I stated a position on a particular issue.

You extrapolated a principle from that position. Of course applying that principle is complicated and messy, meaning it works differently in different cases.

The issue is that in western culture sex and sexual imagery is sold.

THAT'S the issue?

The issue with Muslim women being forced, under extreme duress and often threat of violence or death to disguise their own bodies, is REALLY the issue of Western exploitation of women as sex objects?

What a startling leap through time, space, and logic.

It is marketed towards demographics that don't even understand their own bodies yet.

I never advocated this situation.

It's not even necessarily one or the other. How about having a healthy attitude towards female sexuality?

The opposite is extreme conservative cultures where oppressive submission is required.

Actually, both require the submission and acceptance of place- both of which are forced.

It's a clash of the same thing in different packaging.

This is just fucking stupid.

Western culture's attitude towards women and fundamentalist Muslim attitude toward women are not "the same thing in different packaging".

That's like saying someone making an anti-Semitic joke is as bad as the Holocaust.

Pointing out bad aspects of one culture doesn't make it as bad as another unless it actually is that bad. And if you really think women have it as bad in the west as they do in, say, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan then you're just a moron.

The reasons why the laws are made are as important as the laws themselves.

The reason the law exists is to outlaw a backwards, sexist practice.

No different than the scantly glad underage or barely of age clinging to her fuck buddy from inches away.

Yeah, teenagers having sex or dressing provactively is as bad as how women were treated in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

I never thought, in any of our interactions or anything I've seen you post on this site that you were this fucking stupid.

I'm embarrassed for you if you really think that these are equally bad.

Different forms of the same monster- the intentions are the same- the 'rules' or social norms serve the same purpose.

:rolleyes:

Maxim magazine is as bad as female genital mutilation!

You heard it here first: "The 'rules or socialism norms serve the same purpose!".

Next.

Ele'ill

25th August 2010, 05:18

I didn't state a principle, I stated a position on a particular issue.

You extrapolated a principle from that position. Of course applying that principle is complicated and messy, meaning it works differently in different cases.

This sort of sounds like 'I didn't state a position, I stated a position' followed by 'blah blahblah blah blahblahblah blah'

How can you reply so fast with one hand?

THAT'S the issue?

No, that was part of my post. If you included the rest of my post in this quote you'd look like an idiot with that response.

The issue with Muslim women being forced, under extreme duress and often threat of violence or death to disguise their own bodies, is REALLY the issue of Western exploitation of women as sex objects?

How is this different than the indoctrination of young women into western culture?

What a startling leap through time, space, and logic.

I know, anything even resembling a partial agreement with your ideas screams inferior to you and would interfere with you mounting the nearest upright and sturdy object.

I never advocated this situation.

Where did I say that you did?

I was highlighting the western culture's equivalent.

It's not even necessarily one or the other. How about having a healthy attitude towards female sexuality?

This is exactly what I'm saying in short. I'm definitely not picking one over the other. I'm comparing the two and the reasons the laws or 'rules' are enforced.

This is just fucking stupid.

Western culture's attitude towards women and fundamentalist Muslim attitude toward women are not "the same thing in different packaging".

They both require submission by the female- In opposite extremes- and serve the same exact purpose.

That's like saying someone making an anti-Semitic joke is as bad as the Holocaust.

What?

Pointing out bad aspects of one culture doesn't make it as bad as another unless it actually is that bad. And if you really think women have it as bad in the west as they do in, say, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan then you're just a moron.

Women exposed to imagery that is directly targeted at them to act in a manner that is harmful to their personal well being is just as bad. Statistics aside- the people doing it wouldn't be making 70, 80, 150k a year as marketing execs if it wasn't the case.

The reason the law exists is to outlaw a backwards, sexist practice.

But backwards 'sexist practices' in your western culture are ok?

Yeah, teenagers having sex or dressing provactively is as bad as how women were treated in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

You're comparing two different things here. It's apples to pork fat.

Teenagers exposed to marketing over a period of time- if that marketing is against their best interest will affect them in a similar manner as wearing a veil etc.

How do you think women in western culture are treated growing up with no male or female role models exposed to pure media input? To be honest- they're 'prostitutes' without the ability to earn a living. They suffer greatly.

I never thought, in any of our interactions or anything I've seen you post on this site that you were this fucking stupid.

We haven't exchanged two words to each other over the last five years. Spare me the fake dramatic bullshit.

I'm embarrassed for you if you really think that these are equally bad.

They're equally as bad- they're not equally as direct.

:rolleyes:

Maxim magazine is as bad as female genital mutilation!

You heard it here first: "The 'rules or socialism norms serve the same purpose!".

Next.

Maxim magazine is as bad as wearing a veil.

The peripherals that follow- the continued exposure and indoctrination are what cause the issues.

GreenCommunism

25th August 2010, 06:17

The issue with Muslim women being forced, under extreme duress and often threat of violence or death to disguise their own bodies, is REALLY the issue of Western exploitation of women as sex objects?

you really should think twice about what you're advocating. what will happen in such a household where violence is used to force woman to comply to patriarchical rules? will the woman go outside without a burqa since it is now the law? or will she be forced to stay at home.

who will be arrested? who will pay the fine? will it be the family, or the woman herself?

also why do you ALWAYS assume all those woman are wearing it under threat of violence? unless you give me proof that a majority of those woman do for that reason rather than cultural background and sometime personal choice ( at least they can go shopping without make up)

also, there is some kind of assumptions that those rules were actually made so that men don't turn into rapist at the sight of a beautiful woman. this is not the case, the reason for those rules are that a woman's personality ought to be respected instead of her body, and this is pretty fucking feminist principle if you ask me. a woman being close to naked is not feminist, it never should be, it is when a woman choose to be that comes the issue of her right to be dressed that way, but so is wearing the burqa not patriarchy, it is often a symptom of it because many assume the woman is forced to wear it by men and yes it would be patriarchy in that case, but making it illegal is patriarchy as well. a woman has the right to choose in all circumstances, even if her ideas are fucked over by cultures.

Demogorgon

25th August 2010, 09:42

I think Publius may not realise what the Hijab is, it isn't a face covering, that is the Burqa, the Hijab is a scarf that covers part of the hair but leaves the face unobscured. France has restrictions on both. The Hijab isn't allowed in schools and such as of 2003 and as of recently a ban on the burqa-full stop-is being brought in. Is this an effort to liberate poor oppressed Muslim women? Let's see shall we.

The first thing that jumps out is that the burqua is almost non existent in France anyway. France has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe yet you can go years there without seeing anyone wearing one. They are remarkably rare, so why the sudden need to bring in a law banning them? Is it to protect those few women wearing them? It is unlikely because those who were wearing it out of choice will simply take it off, their choice removed, while those not wearing it out of choice will be even more oppressed as they will be prevented from leaving the house.

So why do it? Well the answer is that it all comes down to French electoral politics. Much the same as the current expulsion of the Roma (which aside from being hideously racist is also pointless as it is illegal to impose any kind of border control within the Schengen zone preventing them from returning and soon the transitional period for Romania will be over and they will have the right of permanent residence in France anyway) it is all about elections. You see in France during an election everybody runs in an "every man for himself" sort of way in the first round and then coalesce into blocks in the second round. The extreme right Front National have a worrying degree of support but obviously they can't win the Presidency and because their support is spread out, they can't win seats in the National Assembly either. So during the second round in elections they have nowhere to go but to the centre right. The UMP can piously say they won't have anything to do with the FN and happily take their votes anyway because they know that that is the only place to go.

However there has been a shift in this comfortable equation, the FN has realised it will have to get more tactical and Le Pen is talking about tactically voting for the left because while they will do many things anathema to the FN, they will also bring in proportional representation and the FN will then be able to win seats in Parliament in its own right. This is a nightmare scenario for the centre right, firstly because it means that they will lose support at the next election and also of course if PR does happen they will never have FN support in parliamentary elections again, plus of course they will lose all of their absurdly gerrymandered constituencies.

So what do they do? They have to make FN supporters think they don't need the FN after all. "No need to go through the horrid process of voting for a party you despise in order to get the electoral reform they need to get maybe a tenth of the seats in Parliament when you can easily get some of what you want simply by voting for us. We're like you really, we don't like these horrid foreigners either, we know they are different." So they start talking up the Burqa. Never mind it is not something that has manifested itself in French Islam, it is a scary image and if they talk about it enough they can associate it with French Muslims and make the public think of them as literally faceless. Moreover when the ban comes through, all of the many unveiled French Muslims who never dreamed of wearing the bloody thing in the first place now face suspicion that they would be covered it up if not for the law and the law has therefore worked. It is all about making it fair game to target Muslims because the UMP knows it needs FN votes at the next election if it is to prevent the Socialists coming to power and drafting a new constitution that removes their inbuilt advantage in elections.

So so much for it being about women's liberation, quite simply it is about associating all Muslim women with the burqa so as to drum up suspicion of them.

As for the Hijab which Publius so disdains, well let's not overreact there either. First of all it is not covering the face anyway as I say, and secondly, where patriarchal governments are not enforcing it, whether through law or more informal pressure, there does seem to be quite a lot of choice involved. Speaking from my own experience, my work means I am in constant contact with Muslims who have just come here, not established Scottish ones, and I would say about a third of them do wear the hijab. Of the two thirds that don't, many have come from countries where they were forced to do it (as of the last year or so, you can read that as Iran) and are very glad to remove it. I tend to find though that those who do wear it still are from countries where it was not enforced and they largely see it as a simple item of clothing. Indeed I have seen some alternate between wearing it and not wearing it as the mood takes them. Are we to sanction them for dressing in clothing typical to where they come from? Perhaps we should also tell them to stop wearing shirts decorated with flowery patterns?

If at any time I were faced with a woman whom it struck me was unhappy wearing the hijab but still doing so despite being in Scotland, I would raise the issue with those responsible for her welfare immediately, but that particular issue has not yet arisen. So as it stands, I am not about to start telling people how to dress.

RGacky3

25th August 2010, 10:00

Yeah, when I think of great ways of expressing freedom the first thing that comes to mind is a patriarchal tool inspired by sexist, dehumanizing, degrading, and misogynistic hatred of half of the world's population, codified into a "law" which in many countries, and even in some instances in the Western world, is enforced under penalty of death.

The only people who wear Hijabs as part of their daily practice are the only people who can't wear them freely.
You or I or any woman or man not brought up under the rule of sexist thugs could wear a ridiculous looking sheet all we wanted. But of course it doesn't mean anything in our society.
I'd love for you to explain to the women in Afghanistan who have had acid thrown into their faces how the Hijab is really about free speech, show them your enlightened Western multiculturalism then.

I think the problem in Afghanistan is the throwing of acid on their face. So let me get this straight, they FORCE people to wear the Hijab in Afghanistan, so western countries should BAN it???

So because a article of clothing is forced in one country, it should be banned in another, so the answer to one area restricting freedom, is to restrict freedom the otherway, you don't make any sense.

RGacky3, you should post more threads like this that start with a current times video debate- so long as they're about the same length as this video you posted.
Good info- easy to follow- both sides of the particular argument are debated.

I've been tryign to do stuff like that lately, but the marketeers either turn it into some rediculous debate about the free market or whatever, stalinists ignore it, unless its a direct discussion about the russian revolution or the soviet union, so its hard to get these ones going.

The right to abuse women?
No thanks.
__________________
So, if a women, in a free country without coercion (because that sot of coercion is criminal in the said country) CHOOSING to wear a religious article of clothing, is abusing herself, and its YOUR job (the governments) to stop her from doing that, and ban it.

To be hones I don't think wearing the Hijab is right either--BIT IT IS NOT MY JOB to make people live their lives the way that I think is right
Key point there.

So what is it when Muslims come into France and import THEIR values into THAT (Englightenment) culture?
THE SAME FUCKING THING.
Oh, but it's only "cultural imperialism" when white people do it, right?
This doesn't even make any sense as a charge: France and the US are part of the same culture, broadly speaking.
How is France deciding what to do IN ITS OWN FUCKING COUNTRY "cultural imperialism"?
What the fuck are you even talking about?
The Muslims in france arn't forcing French people to wear Hijabs you moron. Thats not imperialism, its imperialism if you force other people to conform to your own standards, the muslims are just wearing it themselves.

I guess you think Muslim culture can't be democratic culture? Is that what you mean to say?
Because if it is, it's fucking bigoted and stupid.
What are you talking about, no one is saying that. Your the one saying that Muslims should be Banned from wearing something, i.e. that they can't make their own desicions, which is bigoted.

And then get acid thrown in their face, or get murdered by their husband, or get raped.
The same people that do that are the some ones that will do it to wives that are unfaithful, so by your logic we should ban fidelity.

Explain to me how it's "cultural imperialism" to enforce Western standards in Western countries?
I guess it's "cultural imperialism" when Iran bans popular music, right? And cultural imperialism is wrong, according to you, right?

So would you support forcing Hispanics to learn english, or banning the spanish language, would you support say, banning the sombrero, hell why not just bann mosques.
Its cultural imperialism when you FORCE anyone out of their culture, whereever they are.
ALso, NO ONE IS DEFENDING IRANS BAN ON POPULAR MUSIC YOU MORON, thats wrong too.
BTW, you are an angry dude.

R.I.P. My poor thread, :(, another one bites the dust.

Demogorgon

25th August 2010, 10:22

R.I.P. My poor thread, :(, another one bites the dust.
I was actually going to give a reply to it last night and then decided to wait till today when I was more awake and of course it had blown up overnight and I ended up making the reply I did. So in recompense I will try to resurrect the original topic.

The key point I think is that wages change based on the amount of tax being levied and it is a very good point. I think when people look at how well off they are, they shouldn't simply look at their on paper salary, but rather at it after taxes and other required outgoings (rent, insurance etc). If higher taxes are being levied that are going towards paying for things that individuals would have to pay for themselves then while they are paying more in taxes, they have to pay a lower amount in other expenses and they're before tax wages or salary will likely rise in response to the changed economic circumstances. Sadly that is a bit of a subtle point and it is much easier for right wing politicians to claim that a simple tax cut will make people better off (even if it is paid for by indirect taxes rising), when this doesn't transpire, they simply claim another one will do the trick and so forth because, after all, who is going to vote against a tax cut? The trouble is it is actually making people poorer.

On a closely related note, this is a lot like how a shift to regressive indirect taxes like VAT or Sales Tax is justified. For someone who has a large amount of debt they need to pay off a shift from taxing income to taxing consumption is going to sound quite welcome because it means that the level of tax going onto the money spent paying off the debt will definitely fall. The fact that this tax shift could push up interest rates is often missed, even when it happens the connection isn't made. This is because the right in general has pulled off an amazing trick in convincing people to support things that will make them worse off. Look at the number of people, particularly in America, who think Unions are bad for them.

RGacky3

25th August 2010, 10:34

after all, who is going to vote against a tax cut? The trouble is it is actually making people poorer.

Actually, the majority of America is against keeping the Bush tax cuts, and well over 75% are against keeping them for the richest Americans, even a slight majority of republicans(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/20/bush-tax-cuts-less-than-o_n_688901.html, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/20/only-50-of-gop-supports-e_n_689326.html). So I would be careful about taking the mainstreem media or politicians as a guide to what Americans think, because generally the mainstream media and politicians are way to the right of the American people.

The problem with the tax concept is also the idea that the rich will take it out on the poor, what they're forgetting is that the rich will take it out on the poor ANYWAY, if it means a higher profit.

Publius

25th August 2010, 13:21

I think Publius may not realise what the Hijab is, it isn't a face covering, that is the Burqa, the Hijab is a scarf that covers part of the hair but leaves the face unobscured. France has restrictions on both. The Hijab isn't allowed in schools and such as of 2003 and as of recently a ban on the burqa-full stop-is being brought in. Is this an effort to liberate poor oppressed Muslim women? Let's see shall we.

You're right, but outlawing the Hijab certainly entails outlawing the Burqa as well, as you mention.

They're both sexist and degrading to women. Of course the Hijab is preferable to the Burqa but, as you mention, the Burqa is much prevalent in the west.

I wonder why?

The first thing that jumps out is that the burqua is almost non existent in France anyway.

Which might just have something to do with France's laws and culture.

France has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe yet you can go years there without seeing anyone wearing one. They are remarkably rare, so why the sudden need to bring in a law banning them? Is it to protect those few women wearing them? It is unlikely because those who were wearing it out of choice will simply take it off, their choice removed, while those not wearing it out of choice will be even more oppressed as they will be prevented from leaving the house.

This is true, or at least a concern.

A good reason for not banning Muslim women's dress would be if it hurt their status more than allowing it.

But notice that that's a different argument then saying that the veils/headscarfs/full body sheets represent some sort of freedom on the part of Muslim women. Perhaps in some instances it does, but in others it certainly doesn't.

So why do it? Well the answer is that it all comes down to French electoral politics. Much the same as the current expulsion of the Roma (which aside from being hideously racist is also pointless as it is illegal to impose any kind of border control within the Schengen zone preventing them from returning and soon the transitional period for Romania will be over and they will have the right of permanent residence in France anyway) it is all about elections. You see in France during an election everybody runs in an "every man for himself" sort of way in the first round and then coalesce into blocks in the second round. The extreme right Front National have a worrying degree of support but obviously they can't win the Presidency and because their support is spread out, they can't win seats in the National Assembly either. So during the second round in elections they have nowhere to go but to the centre right. The UMP can piously say they won't have anything to do with the FN and happily take their votes anyway because they know that that is the only place to go.

However there has been a shift in this comfortable equation, the FN has realised it will have to get more tactical and Le Pen is talking about tactically voting for the left because while they will do many things anathema to the FN, they will also bring in proportional representation and the FN will then be able to win seats in Parliament in its own right. This is a nightmare scenario for the centre right, firstly because it means that they will lose support at the next election and also of course if PR does happen they will never have FN support in parliamentary elections again, plus of course they will lose all of their absurdly gerrymandered constituencies.

So what do they do? They have to make FN supporters think they don't need the FN after all. "No need to go through the horrid process of voting for a party you despise in order to get the electoral reform they need to get maybe a tenth of the seats in Parliament when you can easily get some of what you want simply by voting for us. We're like you really, we don't like these horrid foreigners either, we know they are different." So they start talking up the Burqa. Never mind it is not something that has manifested itself in French Islam, it is a scary image and if they talk about it enough they can associate it with French Muslims and make the public think of them as literally faceless. Moreover when the ban comes through, all of the many unveiled French Muslims who never dreamed of wearing the bloody thing in the first place now face suspicion that they would be covered it up if not for the law and the law has therefore worked. It is all about making it fair game to target Muslims because the UMP knows it needs FN votes at the next election if it is to prevent the Socialists coming to power and drafting a new constitution that removes their inbuilt advantage in elections.

So so much for it being about women's liberation, quite simply it is about associating all Muslim women with the burqa so as to drum up suspicion of them.

As for the Hijab which Publius so disdains, well let's not overreact there either. First of all it is not covering the face anyway as I say, and secondly, where patriarchal governments are not enforcing it, whether through law or more informal pressure, there does seem to be quite a lot of choice involved. Speaking from my own experience, my work means I am in constant contact with Muslims who have just come here, not established Scottish ones, and I would say about a third of them do wear the hijab. Of the two thirds that don't, many have come from countries where they were forced to do it (as of the last year or so, you can read that as Iran) and are very glad to remove it. I tend to find though that those who do wear it still are from countries where it was not enforced and they largely see it as a simple item of clothing.[/quote]

This of course is an issue, namely that those who aren't really forced to wear a garment aren't in need of any legal protection.

I'd say that for those women it is an issue of their freedom

Indeed I have seen some alternate between wearing it and not wearing it as the mood takes them. Are we to sanction them for dressing in clothing typical to where they come from? Perhaps we should also tell them to stop wearing shirts decorated with flowery patterns?

My purpose in advocating these sort of restrictions would be to protect women.

If instances of the law serve to do the opposite then obviously the law shouldn't apply there.

Of course this brings up all kinds of issues about how you'd know when a women is or is no not being forced to do something against her will, but we have laws that enter this gray area already, eg. with children and neglectful or abusive parents.

If at any time I were faced with a woman whom it struck me was unhappy wearing the hijab but still doing so despite being in Scotland, I would raise the issue with those responsible for her welfare immediately, but that particular issue has not yet arisen. So as it stands, I am not about to start telling people how to dress.

OK.

That's a much more reasonable position than "how extremist Muslim cultures treat women is exactly as good as how people in the West treat women".

It's the latter attitude that I find particularly problematic.

Dean

25th August 2010, 13:21

Publius

25th August 2010, 13:27

also, there is some kind of assumptions that those rules were actually made so that men don't turn into rapist at the sight of a beautiful woman. this is not the case, the reason for those rules are that a woman's personality ought to be respected instead of her body, and this is pretty fucking feminist principle if you ask me. a woman being close to naked is not feminist, it never should be,

Wait a minute.

So women can't choose to wear revealing clothing?

How is that any different from my position, just in reverse?

it is when a woman choose to be that comes the issue of her right to be dressed that way, but so is wearing the burqa not patriarchy, it is often a symptom of it because many assume the woman is forced to wear it by men and yes it would be patriarchy in that case, but making it illegal is patriarchy as well. a woman has the right to choose in all circumstances, even if her ideas are fucked over by cultures.

I agree that women should be allowed to choose what they wear.

But doing something under the threat, or even just the implication, of violence certainly isn't free action.

Publius

25th August 2010, 13:45

This sort of sounds like 'I didn't state a position, I stated a position' followed by 'blah blahblah blah blahblahblah blah'

How can you reply so fast with one hand?

THAT'S SEXUAL HARASSMENT!

Quick, help, I'm being culturally imperialized by this lascivious Westerner!

No, that was part of my post. If you included the rest of my post in this quote you'd look like an idiot with that response.

I end up quoting everything you posted, and in fact anyone reading my post will have already seen your post and can go back to it and compare.

How is this different than the indoctrination of young women into western culture?

Women in Western culture are perfectly free to reject aspects of it they dislike.

I'd say most of the women who post on this forum do just that.

In some Muslim cultures women don't have that freedom.

That seems like a pretty basic difference to me. A woman can, in the West, be "brought up" on mainstream western culture, with its problematic attitude towards women and yet reject that without fear of reprise.

The same can't be said for Muslim women in certain countries or places.

Not to mention the huge differences in actual, practical legal and social rights. Women in the west are certainly more free now then they were 200 years ago.

I know, anything even resembling a partial agreement with your ideas screams inferior to you and would interfere with you mounting the nearest upright and sturdy object.

[quote]
Where did I say that you did?

It's awfully odd the criticize me for something I too think is wrong.

My critique of sexism is one culture doesn't mean I don't also have serious problem with sexism in other cultures.

Furthermore, it's important to note that Western culture's obsession with body image is not necessarily (or even mostly) directed at women.

Look at the covers of other magazines in the shelf, ones dedicated to wrestling, body building, etc. A huge emphasis is placed on male body image as well.

But I hardly think Western MALES are as bad off as fundamentalist Muslim women.

I was highlighting the western culture's equivalent.

But it isn't.

Men in the west are paraded with images of idealized men on television and in the media.

Is that just as bad?

This is exactly what I'm saying in short. I'm definitely not picking one over the other. I'm comparing the two and the reasons the laws or 'rules' are enforced.

But even in that context of two bad situations, one can still be preferable over another, especially from a socialist perspective.

They both require submission by the female- In opposite extremes- and serve the same exact purpose.

That's just false.

There is no "requirement" in Western culture for women to walk around half naked.

Some women do so, with varying degrees of choice in the matter, but very many women reject it.

You and I must have different definitions of "requirement".

What?

Just because two things are bad doesn't mean they're equally bad.

Women exposed to imagery that is directly targeted at them to act in a manner that is harmful to their personal well being is just as bad. Statistics aside- the people doing it wouldn't be making 70, 80, 150k a year as marketing execs if it wasn't the case.

Marketing execs target men too, just as much as they target women.

So now men are as bad off in Western society as women, I guess?

Who's superior? The reptilians?

But backwards 'sexist practices' in your western culture are ok?

Nope.

Here, how this for a proposal: we work to change or outlaw those too.

You're comparing two different things here. It's apples to pork fat.

Teenagers exposed to marketing over a period of time- if that marketing is against their best interest will affect them in a similar manner as wearing a veil etc.

Teenagers being lustful is hardly a result of media manipulation.

How do you think women in western culture are treated growing up with no male or female role models exposed to pure media input? To be honest- they're 'prostitutes' without the ability to earn a living. They suffer greatly.

I didn't realize all women in culture were so helpless and powerless.

I thought they could make their own choices and live their own lives, as indicated by the number of vegan/leftist/feminist/whatever women.

We haven't exchanged two words to each other over the last five years.

I somewhat doubt that.

Spare me the fake dramatic bullshit.

Saying Western culture's attitude towards women is as bad as the Taliban's or Wahabi's is a pretty ridiculous position.

They're equally as bad- they're not equally as direct.

I can't imagine they're equally bad. Do you think your girlfriend/girl friends would be as well off in a radical Muslim culture as they are here? As educated? As free? As autonomous?

Maybe you do, but then you're just factually wrong.

Maxim magazine is as bad as wearing a veil.

Whatever.

Publius

25th August 2010, 13:53

So would you support forcing Hispanics to learn english, or banning the spanish language, would you support say, banning the sombrero, hell why not just bann mosques.

Nope.

But that wouldn't be "cultural imperialism" since it's not imperialistic.

Do you what imperialism is?

Imperialism isn't making laws in your own country, however bad or racist those laws are.

Its cultural imperialism when you FORCE anyone out of their culture, whereever they are.

Even when it's not imperialism?

:rolleyes:

Cultural imperialism is taking aspects of your culture and using it to change/dominate another culture. The US does this all the time.

But outlawing sombreros wouldn't be an example of it, though it would be a horrible thing to do for other reasons.

ALso, NO ONE IS DEFENDING IRANS BAN ON POPULAR MUSIC YOU MORON, thats wrong too.

So you're attempting to use your values to judge another culture?

BTW, you are an angry dude.

I'm a strident writer. I'm not angry.

RGacky3

25th August 2010, 15:59

So you're attempting to use your values to judge another culture?

Wait what? Thats exactly what your doing by supporting banning the hijab.

Ele'ill

25th August 2010, 23:29

THAT'S SEXUAL HARASSMENT!

Quick, help, I'm being culturally imperialized by this lascivious Westerner!

I have no idea what sex you are.

Women in Western culture are perfectly free to reject aspects of it they dislike.

Like meth after the first dozen times? Like sex that they've learned gives them a self worth?

It's much more subtle- but it is equally as devastating.

Saying Western culture's attitude towards women is as bad as the Taliban's or Wahabi's is a pretty ridiculous position.

Did I take this position?

I can't imagine they're equally bad. Do you think your girlfriend/girl friends would be as well off in a radical Muslim culture as they are here? As educated? As free? As autonomous?

I'm not choosing one over the other. There are oppressive aspects of western culture that are the same or worse than in the east.

Maybe you do, but then you're just factually wrong.

Because drugs and gang bangin are a better life because we see them in our movies-

Because being as promiscuous as possible to maintain cool doesn't ruin lives.

It doesn't start with teenagers- it starts younger than that- it's media manipulation.

You're not read up on it and I accept this fact- have you thought about volunteering at a crisis intervention center or maybe a youth 'rescue' facility? I think it would be a great opportunity for you and that it would really open your eyes.

Publius

26th August 2010, 01:42

Wait what? Thats exactly what your doing by supporting banning the hijab.

I'm pointing out that in advocating what you did you're committing the same offense you accuse me of.

Publius

26th August 2010, 01:55

I have no idea what sex you are.

[quote]
Like meth after the first dozen times?

:rolleyes:

Like sex that they've learned gives them a self worth?

It's much more subtle- but it is equally as devastating.

Don't, you know, give any evidence of this or anything.

I guess I'll just take your word for it that women having sex is as bad as women having acid thrown in their faces or being stoned to death.

Because it's just such a reasonable statement.

Did I take this position?

Yep. Numerous times, including in the section I previously quoted, eg.

It's much more subtle- but it is equally as devastating.

"Equally devastating". Unless you think it's "equally devastating" but not "equally bad", which is just incoherent.

I'm not choosing one over the other. There are oppressive aspects of western culture that are the same or worse than in the east.

Finally.

Then they're not "equally devastating".

Because drugs and gang bangin are a better life because we see them in our movies-

Believe it or not, very few women in America are drug addicts or sex addicts, and those that are are usually not for "cultural" reasons (eg. Maxim magazine or the Twilight movies or whatever) but due to growing up in impoverished or abusive households.

Women who are meth addicts don't do it because they see all the cool speed freaks on MTV, because there aren't any.

Sexual issues, maybe. Our culture certainly has a perverse effect on sexual relations, but certainly a less perverse effect than cultures which engage in genital mutilation (including Jewish culture, I might add) or other means of denying female sexuality.

Because being as promiscuous as possible to maintain cool doesn't ruin lives.

Lots of things ruin lives.

Video games ruin lives in some instances, for example.

It doesn't start with teenagers- it starts younger than that- it's media manipulation.

You're not read up on it and I accept this fact- have you thought about volunteering at a crisis intervention center or maybe a youth 'rescue' facility? I think it would be a great opportunity for you and that it would really open your eyes.

I don't doubt for a second that what you say is true.

I'm just saying it isn't equivalent to what is standard practice in certain cultures.

We might have a hypersexualized culture, but a) the vast majority of women make a conscious effort not to live this way b) those that do often do so for reasons that go beyond "culture".

I take it you've worked in such facilities: tell me, were more of the women with severe problems there caused by what you'd term "western culture" or were they there due to specific issues with an abusive parent / friends / significant other, etc., often in their formative years?

I'm sure peer pressure is probably the most serious issue, which is obviously influenced by the culture, but that's a bit simplistic since not everyone gives into peer pressure, or receives the same peer pressure.

Anyway, one can be a sharp critic of veiling practices and be a sharp critic of Western hypersexual culture.

I'm a critic of both.

Ele'ill

26th August 2010, 02:32

"Equally devastating". Unless you think it's "equally devastating" but not "equally bad", which is just incoherent.

The act of throwing acid in someone's face because they won't adhere to cultural submission is abhorrent. We don't see that in the western world. Why? Because women that have grown up in the western world have the physical freedom to reject it without consequences that are that extreme.

What's the same is that there are the same amount of women accepting cultural submission in both cultures.

Agree?

Believe it or not, very few women in America are drug addicts or sex addicts, and those that are are usually not for "cultural" reasons (eg. Maxim magazine or the Twilight movies or whatever) but due to growing up in impoverished or abusive households.

The first sentence isn't true. There are a lot of female drug addicts. Just as many as there are male addicts.

They grow up without adequate role models. They're impressionable and succumb to media influence- or to media influenced peers.

Women who are meth addicts don't do it because they see all the cool speed freaks on MTV, because there aren't any.

No, they do it because they realize they could never be the breasts and asses on MTV and therefore resort to drugs- and excessive activities that give them the same self worth they see in the media but without the 'positive results' the media touts.

Lots of things ruin lives.

Video games ruin lives in some instances, for example.

It's several levels above everquest and world of war craft.

I don't doubt for a second that what you say is true.

I'm just saying it isn't equivalent to what is standard practice in certain cultures.

We might have a hypersexualized culture, but a) the vast majority of women make a conscious effort not to live this way b) those that do often do so for reasons that go beyond "culture".

The women (and men) that make these decisions are ghosts. They don't exist in statistics or on a poll somewhere. You only see them through directly interacting with these various community issues.

I take it you've worked in such facilities: tell me, were more of the women with severe problems there caused by what you'd term "western culture" or were they there due to specific issues with an abusive parent / friends / significant other, etc., often in their formative years?

This is a good question. Thanks for it. I'll touch on it briefly rather than writing an essay.

In the event that they do not have competent parents- they seek a life model. Media knows this and has very well paid people dedicated to tapping into insecurities, lack thereof's- etc..

It starts with a lack of parents- flows into what they see as a 'life-cool' and this is further influenced by similar peers.

It's interesting because a lot of foreign students have a different take on the world- although still troubled- it's obvious that western culture hasn't influenced them but has influenced their peers.

I'm sure peer pressure is probably the most serious issue, which is obviously influenced by the culture, but that's a bit simplistic since not everyone gives into peer pressure, or receives the same peer pressure.

This is true but there are so many markets.

Anyway, one can be a sharp critic of veiling practices and be a sharp critic of Western hypersexual culture.

I'm a critic of both.

I agree with you.

Peace on Earth

26th August 2010, 02:58

This thread is gone. :lol: Might as well throw in my two cents.

If you begin to ban any practices that are deemed oppressive, where does it end? Should we ban all revealing clothing, because the thought is that women only wear those outfits to satisfy the desires of men? Instead of a state imposing values, we should seek to end any and all oppression through reasoning and discussion. A blanket ban creates nothing but resentment.

RGacky3

26th August 2010, 09:26

I'm pointing out that in advocating what you did you're committing the same offense you accuse me of.

No, I'm not judging other cultures, if french people don't want to wear a hijab thats fine.

Agnapostate

26th August 2010, 09:31

RGacky3

26th August 2010, 10:22

Why are people supporting RGacky's typical reformist line, and why should anyone care about a politically liberal take on taxation? Liberals are far more anti-socialists than are rightists, since the macroeconomic stability controls focused on in the modern Keynesian approach and its derivatives are the most effective mechanisms of maintaining capitalism.

Its not reformism, I'm not saying that taxation is the answer, not even close, what I am saying is that when it comes to economics, more taxation does not mean less jobs, or less paid jobs, thats just a fact.

As far as your second proposition ... What part of LA are you from? I ask that because I wonder if you actually see what full on corporatism (i.e. the free market) does to peoples lives, so if your answer is let capitalism collapse, which means all the poor people suffer MORE and more, and hopefully that will turn into a revolution, then I've got to say that that is sociopathic.

Agnapostate

26th August 2010, 16:52

Its not reformism, I'm not saying that taxation is the answer, not even close, what I am saying is that when it comes to economics, more taxation does not mean less jobs, or less paid jobs, thats just a fact.

It's an attempt to justify taxation, and therefore constitutes reformist advocacy, in the line of general promotion of liberal democratic capitalism.

As far as your second proposition ... What part of LA are you from?

Why, Laurel Canyon, of course. Oh, wait, the barrio (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/may/19/00015/).

I ask that because I wonder if you actually see what full on corporatism (i.e. the free market) does to peoples lives, so if your answer is let capitalism collapse, which means all the poor people suffer MORE and more, and hopefully that will turn into a revolution, then I've got to say that that is sociopathic.

What "free market"? I'm certain that this claim has been refuted before, but an economic history of state regulation means perpetual nonexistence of any "free market."

GPDP

26th August 2010, 20:18

What "free market"? I'm certain that this claim has been refuted before, but an economic history of state regulation means perpetual nonexistence of any "free market."

Normally I like your posts, but you're just dancing around the issue here. You know exactly what he means, but chose to obfuscate the point by appealing to a more accurate definition of the free market a la political economy.

He means increased deregulation and privatization, austerity measures, and other such calamities that only serve to further impoverish and put working people in despair. But again, I'm sure you knew that.

Dean

26th August 2010, 21:56

What "free market"? I'm certain that this claim has been refuted before, but an economic history of state regulation means perpetual nonexistence of any "free market."
You're just redefining the term to meet your ideological prejudices. For instance, a better argument would be "in an ideal free market system, would the given phenomenon occur?".

Here, its not completely clear what the phenomenon is, because you didn't refute that corporatism is a free market phenomenon, nor did you specifically indicate that a "truly free market" would or would not harm individuals given its imposition.

Agnapostate

26th August 2010, 22:25

Normally I like your posts, but you're just dancing around the issue here. You know exactly what he means, but chose to obfuscate the point by appealing to a more accurate definition of the free market a la political economy.

He means increased deregulation and privatization, austerity measures, and other such calamities that only serve to further impoverish and put working people in despair. But again, I'm sure you knew that.

I've not seen common use of the word "corporatism" outside of pseudo-libertarian circles, since it's their euphemism for actually existing capitalism, as opposed to their utopian "free market" fantasy. Anyway, the agenda promoted by the OP is reformist, regardless of whatever euphemisms it might be disguised with. Institution of liberal-oriented policies is reformist strategy. I haven't even made a comment on its feasibility or desirability, but that is an accurate description of its nature. As to the issue of whether withdrawal of state intervention to spur the collapse of capitalism is desirable, I would think not, since there is a possibility of a rise of fascism rather than socialism.

You're just redefining the term to meet your ideological prejudices. For instance, a better argument would be "in an ideal free market system, would the given phenomenon occur?".

There's no matter of a "non-ideal" free market existing. The issue is the utter, perpetual nonexistence of any "free market" since the capitalist economic paradigm is dependent on government intervention for its continued existence.

Here, its not completely clear what the phenomenon is, because you didn't refute that corporatism is a free market phenomenon, nor did you specifically indicate that a "truly free market" would or would not harm individuals given its imposition.

I don't know what's meant by "corporatism," or if it's intended to mean rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism (as opposed to say, social or liberal democratic capitalism), but most certainly it is not a free market phenomenon, because the free market does not exist, and beyond that, cannot exist in the capitalist economy. The only state of affairs that might merit the term would be an arrangement that occurred in the market socialist economy.

Dean

27th August 2010, 01:08

There's no matter of a "non-ideal" free market existing. The issue is the utter, perpetual nonexistence of any "free market" since the capitalist economic paradigm is dependent on government intervention for its continued existence.

I don't know what's meant by "corporatism," or if it's intended to mean rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism (as opposed to say, social or liberal democratic capitalism), but most certainly it is not a free market phenomenon, because the free market does not exist, and beyond that, cannot exist in the capitalist economy. The only state of affairs that might merit the term would be an arrangement that occurred in the market socialist economy.

This is the same childish repetition I see perpetuated when leftists say "socialism has never existed" and proceed to characterize the socialist paradigm as somehow outside of the field of economic analysis.

If you want to follow the point and ignore our previous topic, what we should be asking is, "what is a market and what makes it free?" and "will further deregulation provide the social values we prefer?". The answer to the first one is that we live in an overbearingly market-based economy and deregulation makes it freer. The answer to the second is that deregulation has simply served the interests of the ruling class which has passed power down through each economic system.

Complete deregulation will lead to a class-oriented, violent propertarianism, which is what we have today. Shoving back at your opponents that "the free market has never existed" means fuck-all when we turn to our next model of inquiry: analysis of market systems.

If you have different conclusions for any of these questions I welcome them. But so far you have done nothing but to reject the notion of a "free market." How petty and useless.

RGacky3

27th August 2010, 15:37

It's an attempt to justify taxation, and therefore constitutes reformist advocacy, in the line of general promotion of liberal democratic capitalism.

So, I guess you'd prefer tax CUTS then right? I don't get what your arguing.

I've not seen common use of the word "corporatism" outside of pseudo-libertarian circles, since it's their euphemism for actually existing capitalism, as opposed to their utopian "free market" fantasy. Anyway, the agenda promoted by the OP is reformist, regardless of whatever euphemisms it might be disguised with. Institution of liberal-oriented policies is reformist strategy. I haven't even made a comment on its feasibility or desirability, but that is an accurate description of its nature. As to the issue of whether withdrawal of state intervention to spur the collapse of capitalism is desirable, I would think not, since there is a possibility of a rise of fascism rather than socialism.

I'm not promoting and agenda you moron, I'm saying one sort of policy has one outcome and another policy has another outcome.

I don't know what your arguing, right now your just spitting out words like "liberal" refering to just MENTIONING the effect of taxes vrs tax cuts.

Corporatism is a very widespread word and has been used since the early 1930s, your juts not paying attention.

The issue is the utter, perpetual nonexistence of any "free market" since the capitalist economic paradigm is dependent on government intervention for its continued existence.

Now your just playing with semantics.

But whats your point, is less taxation preferable too you? Because its not "reformist?"

Revolution starts with U

27th August 2010, 22:30

There was a time when both the free market and socialism existed in lock step, with each other; pre-history.
There were no laws against trading (not explicit anyway) and society was very much egalitarian with the economy being controlled from the bottom up.
Eh, maybe I am wrong, and I welcome criticism... just an idea I've been throwing around in my head.

RGacky3

28th August 2010, 14:43

Revolution starts with U

28th August 2010, 18:00

pre 6000BC
everywhere

Agnapostate

29th August 2010, 09:17

This is the same childish repetition I see perpetuated when leftists say "socialism has never existed" and proceed to characterize the socialist paradigm as somehow outside of the field of economic analysis.

I'm unaware of socialists making any such claim. Every tendency on this forum that I'm aware of claims implementation of their respective theories on some front, from what I've seen.

If you want to follow the point and ignore our previous topic, what we should be asking is, "what is a market and what makes it free?" and "will further deregulation provide the social values we prefer?". The answer to the first one is that we live in an overbearingly market-based economy and deregulation makes it freer. The answer to the second is that deregulation has simply served the interests of the ruling class which has passed power down through each economic system. Complete deregulation will lead to a class-oriented, violent propertarianism, which is what we have today. Shoving back at your opponents that "the free market has never existed" means fuck-all when we turn to our next model of inquiry: analysis of market systems.

If you have different conclusions for any of these questions I welcome them. But so far you have done nothing but to reject the notion of a "free market." How petty and useless.

You're simply wrong on this front; there's nothing near "complete deregulation." Capitalism has always been dependent on state support for its survival. The use of the term "free market" is utterly inapplicable because freedom is not a facet of the capitalist economic paradigm, and I will continue to reject the premise that the word "free" is an appropriate descriptive adjective of the state-regulated mixed markets that have always characterized capitalism. As defined by Ernesto Screpanti, "capitalism is an economic system in which surplus value is extracted in the production process by using wage labor and utilized in the circulation process to sustain capital accumulation." In my own view, formed by a general consensus summary of the majority of existing views, especially among radical economists, capitalism is an economic system characterized by the following three attributes:

1. Private ownership and management of the means of production and distribution. The means of production include natural productive resources and the capital goods employed to create consumer goods with said productive resources. The means of distribution are the mechanisms used for allocation of those resources. The phase of primitive accumulation of capital (physical capital and the financial "capital" used as a means of acquiring more capital), which was "written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire," culminated in the vastly unequal allocation of wealth and resources among the population, with a numerically small upper class of capitalists controlling the means of production and distribution that affect the day-to-day lives of the vast majority of the population.

2. Regulated market exchange as the primary mechanism of resource production and allocation. Production and distribution of goods and services is not cohesively coordinated by public planning, either de jure or de facto. While capitalism has traditionally been depicted as defined by decentralized individual planning that forms a beneficial social network through the design of an "invisible hand" in laissez-faire free markets, centralized authority has been an integral facet of the capitalist economy in several regards. Firstly, there is state regulatory structure intended to protect the exhaustion of mutually beneficial exchange, prevent the occurrence of force and fraud, and correct market failures such as generation of negative externalities, asymmetric information, excessive market concentration, and insufficient provision of public and merit goods. Secondly, most major industries are dominated by oligopolistic cooperation between a small number of powerful firms. Thirdly, the internal structure of orthodox capitalist firms are both de jure and de facto strictly hierarchical, with an authoritarian chain of command that would be condemned as dictatorial were it a government of a nation-state.

3. Hierarchical wage labor with surplus value extraction. Wage labor in the capitalist economy involves a hierarchical organization model. This is a necessary (though not sufficient) criterion of surplus value extraction. The extracted surplus value is subsequently utilized in the circulation process to sustain capital accumulation, to borrow Screpanti’s phrase. The natural tendency of capitalism is to exacerbate inequalities as a result, since preexisting differences in initial endowments determine placement in the hierarchical internal structure of the orthodox firm.

It's also not a matter of "propertarianism," because capitalism notably undermines property rights by depriving the working class of the product of their labor and perpetuating elitist ownership of the means of production.

So, I guess you'd prefer tax CUTS then right? I don't get what your arguing. I'm not promoting and agenda you moron, I'm saying one sort of policy has one outcome and another policy has another outcome.

I don't know what your arguing, right now your just spitting out words like "liberal" refering to just MENTIONING the effect of taxes vrs tax cuts.

Corporatism is a very widespread word and has been used since the early 1930s, your juts not paying attention.

Now your just playing with semantics.

But whats your point, is less taxation preferable too you? Because its not "reformist?"

Ignoring your incoherent misspellings, let’s make it clear enough: Employment of rhetoric and concrete strategies favored by defenders of liberal democratic capitalism is a reformist strategy, incompatible with aims of a violent revolution to enact public ownership of the means of production. That is just a descriptive observation on my part, nothing more, nothing less. It seems to have been falsely assumed that I’m stating this in order to denigrate, which is absurd, when anyone with knowledge of my thoughts on "what is to be done" is aware that I favor reformist strategies in politically stable affluent countries in which the climate is not amenable to insurrectionary tactics. I reject the revolution/evolution dichotomy, since I believe that each has its own respective place.

RGacky3

29th August 2010, 11:50

Employment of rhetoric and concrete strategies favored by defenders of liberal democratic capitalism is a reformist strategy, incompatible with aims of a violent revolution to enact public ownership of the means of production.

Why? Why is that incompatible?

It seems to have been falsely assumed that I’m stating this in order to denigrate, which is absurd, when anyone with knowledge of my thoughts on "what is to be done" is aware that I favor reformist strategies in politically stable affluent countries in which the climate is not amenable to insurrectionary tactics. I reject the revolution/evolution dichotomy, since I believe that each has its own respective place.

Soooo, whats the problem.

Dean

29th August 2010, 13:42

Secondly, most major industries are dominated by oligopolistic cooperation between a small number of powerful firms. Thirdly, the internal structure of orthodox capitalist firms are both de jure and de facto strictly hierarchical, with an authoritarian chain of command that would be condemned as dictatorial were it a government of a nation-state.

Despite your long post, this is the only point I contend with - though its worth noting that you also consider laissez-faire markets to be "free."

The problem is, redefining "free market" this way flies in the face of all contemporary academia and only serves as a semantics game to reclaim "free market" because, well they use the word "free," I gotta support it!

So, you're a mutualist or some other such "market anarchist" and you're going to redefine the term "free market" along those lines, then attack those of us who are using the traditional term. Yawn. Come back when you actually have a different or deeper theory to discuss - what you mention above is little more than standard marxist/socialist theory sprinkled with your own prejudice for a few propertarian-oriented terms.

RGacky3

30th August 2010, 18:19

pre 6000BC
everywhere

Evidence of that? I mean that there was a free market and socialism, or an organized economy.

Revolution starts with U

30th August 2010, 21:44

The concepts were not nearly as flushed out as they are now. But it would seem the feeling was the same. There was no state. There were markets and trading. There was near absolute equality. There were no economic heirarchys, only political. All production was maintained by the general populace without someone skimming off the top. All proceeds went to the general fund to go back to the community when necessary. I am not saying it was a capitalist socialism. Just that the feeling of both capitalism (free marketism I should say) and socialism (the feeling of society to benefit humans at large) were existent.
I am saying it had the feeling of both, not really the methodologies.
Like I said, could be wrong, welcome criticism. Its just a hypothesis I had been playing with.

Agnapostate

31st August 2010, 02:16

Why? Why is that incompatible?

One approach involves forcible expropriation of the means of production and armed defense of that state of affairs; the other involves gradual shift to reach the point of workers' ownership and management.

Soooo, whats the problem.

You tell me. I'm certainly not the one that sees the need to become abrasive pro-actively.

Despite your long post, this is the only point I contend with - though its worth noting that you also consider laissez-faire markets to be "free."

It was more of a caricature of the rightist position than anything else, but perhaps laissez-faire markets could be "free" if they'd earned the name. Since "laissez-faire" means "let it be," however, markets characterized by compulsive wage labor obviously would not do.

The problem is, redefining "free market" this way flies in the face of all contemporary academia and only serves as a semantics game to reclaim "free market" because, well they use the word "free," I gotta support it!

Academia is split on the use of the term "free market," with a significant number of economists accurately rejecting the premise that it has ever been a feature of economic history. This post also seems to be an argumentum ad populum, which is a mistake: What would "contemporary academia" define "socialism" as?

So, you're a mutualist or some other such "market anarchist" and you're going to redefine the term "free market" along those lines, then attack those of us who are using the traditional term. Yawn. Come back when you actually have a different or deeper theory to discuss - what you mention above is little more than standard marxist/socialist theory sprinkled with your own prejudice for a few propertarian-oriented terms.

My opposition to market socialism is along the lines of the criticisms articulated here (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/25/133.html). But at least another socialist tendency is worthy of the term "free market," in sharp contrast to capitalism.

RGacky3

31st August 2010, 10:00

One approach involves forcible expropriation of the means of production and armed defense of that state of affairs; the other involves gradual shift to reach the point of workers' ownership and management.

THe approaches are not mutually exclusive, you can take as much as you can within the system, and then take the rest once those are exausted, or do both at the same time. Also the more small gains that people are able to make the more opportunities are brought to light to make more gains.

This post also seems to be an argumentum ad populum, which is a mistake: What would "contemporary academia" define "socialism" as?

A definition is not an argument, its impossible to have an argument without definining what your talking about.

You tell me. I'm certainly not the one that sees the need to become abrasive pro-actively.

Theres no problem, I favor policies that help the working class and aparently so do you.

Dean

31st August 2010, 14:13

Academia is split on the use of the term "free market," with a significant number of economists accurately rejecting the premise that it has ever been a feature of economic history. This post also seems to be an argumentum ad populum, which is a mistake:
No, its not. You're attempting to redefine a term. I'm pointing out that I'm using the conventional definition, and therefore, that to postulate an "argument" by simply twisting the term someone else used is laughable.

In fact, you're way off base, and I don't think academia is "split" on whether or not to exclude capitalist economic organization from 'free-marketeerism' - in fact, they're often considered one in the same. Let's consult a dictionary:

free market

–noun an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.

What would "contemporary academia" define "socialism" as?
Let's see:

so·cial·ism

–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

My opposition to market socialism is along the lines of the criticisms articulated here (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/25/133.html). But at least another socialist tendency is worthy of the term "free market," in sharp contrast to capitalism.
It's incredibly frivolous to try to reclaim the term "free market," and its completely dishonest to then advocate specific reforms which fly in the face of prevalent market forces today.

Participatory economics are not free-marketeerism unless they don't serve to redistribute the assets of the ruling economic classes. That is almost universally understood in reference to the "free market" question, and if you want to redefine the term for your own usage, attacking someone else for conventially using the term is the wrong place for that.

I'd like for you to summarize or present your own views, as well, since we both know I'm not going to read a whole article just to have you say "well I don't agree with x" if/when I critique it.

RGacky3

31st August 2010, 16:33

R_P_A_S

31st August 2010, 17:46

Why is it that all the interesting threads that actually discuss new ideas get ignored (this one is a case in point)?

Because is not about cool communist with sick mustaches or beards.:laugh:

Comrade Anarchist

3rd September 2010, 02:56

Skooma Addict

3rd September 2010, 03:22

Comrade Anarchist

3rd September 2010, 04:02

If you do away with taxes, the government would collapse and there would be chaos.

Oh im sorry to have pushed the boundaries of reality with that statement haha. But i always thought that humanity had the ability to trade in a market without the government having to come in guns ablazing. But no to be serious, if people respect each others property then chaos ceases, obviously that isn't the case but if a property crime is committed then it can be dealt with via market processes. (I feel as if i've said this b4 haha)

#FF0000

3rd September 2010, 04:18

Oh im sorry to have pushed the boundaries of reality with that statement haha

You've been doing that with every statement since you joined

RGacky3

3rd September 2010, 09:08

But i always thought that humanity had the ability to trade in a market without the government having to come in guns ablazing. But no to be serious, if people respect each others property then chaos ceases, obviously that isn't the case but if a property crime is committed then it can be dealt with via market processes.

Sure, because if you need something, most people would rather just sell themselves as slaves to get it rather than just take it, and people would rather not have a say over the way things go.

Revolution starts with U

4th September 2010, 18:13

If we must have tax systems, progressive taxing is the ONLY and I repeat ONLY fair way to do it.
10% of 1000, and 10% of 1000000 are two vastly different things. It is the difference between having 900 left and 900000 left.
Or, people could just be less greedy, and we wouldnt need taxes at all (its only a tax if you don't agree to it).

Ele'ill

4th September 2010, 18:23

Or tax dollars could stop going towards wars that do not benefit me in any way shape or form.

This would solve quite a few problems.

Agnapostate

7th September 2010, 01:48

THe approaches are not mutually exclusive, you can take as much as you can within the system, and then take the rest once those are exausted, or do both at the same time. Also the more small gains that people are able to make the more opportunities are brought to light to make more gains.

So how is a referendum in favor of collectivization of the major industries at the core of the means of production that results in a peaceable transition to socialism consistent with a violent revolution in which armed workers seize those productive resources?

A definition is not an argument, its impossible to have an argument without definining what your talking about.

And I've done that.

Theres no problem, I favor policies that help the working class and aparently so do you.

At least, when I accept the best of a bad situation, I recognize it as such. You don't seem to. For example, did you ever consider the fact that universal healthcare would simply maintain the physical efficiency of the working class in the context of the capitalist economy?

No, its not. You're attempting to redefine a term. I'm pointing out that I'm using the conventional definition, and therefore, that to postulate an "argument" by simply twisting the term someone else used is laughable.

Which economic historians can you refer me to that believe the history of capitalist development is characterized by "free market" exchange, as opposed to statist controls? My view follows along the lines of that espoused by Ha-Joon Chang in Kicking Away the Ladder (http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm).

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the historical fact is that the rich countries did not develop on the basis of the policies and the institutions that they now recommend to, and often force upon, the developing countries. Unfortunately, this fact is little known these days because the “official historians” of capitalism have been very successful in re-writing its history.

Almost all of today’s rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.

In fact, if you're so enthralled with the opportunity to promote liberal and social democratic reformist policies, you would be well-advised to seize upon the fact that interventionism has always been the primary characteristic of the flourishing capitalist economy, and "free markets" are a historical non-reality, while emphasizing that the removal of certain regulations causes harm.

In fact, you're way off base, and I don't think academia is "split" on whether or not to exclude capitalist economic organization from 'free-marketeerism' - in fact, they're often considered one in the same. Let's consult a dictionary:

Thanks for proving the point; no economic circumstances free of regulation have ever even been approximated in the capitalist economy, because capitalism would collapse without state regulation and intervention. That's the basis for support of "letting the bad times roll" in an effort to bring about socialist insurrection among some comrades, though I personally think it would cause nationalization and the restoration of capitalism in a fascist climate that blamed ethnic minorities for the initial collapse. I cannot think of an economist who believes that capitalism has developed through "free market" organization as outlined in that definition, even radicals who speak of the "anarchy of production."

Let's see:

Ignoring your crude and politically unsophisticated dictionary definitions, a significant number of academics would consider the USSR and other Leninist states socialist despite the number of self-described socialists on this forum and in the world that dispute that. Many, particularly non-economists, would also regard Scandinavian social democratic capitalism as "socialist."

It's incredibly frivolous to try to reclaim the term "free market," and its completely dishonest to then advocate specific reforms which fly in the face of prevalent market forces today.

Why? The primary opponents I encounter are pseudo-libertarians and more dimwitted rightists whose entire axiomatic foundations are inconsistent with the specific policies that they advocate, since there's no "free market" in existence, so freedom-loving people are drawn to legitimate anarchism instead.

Participatory economics are not free-marketeerism unless they don't serve to redistribute the assets of the ruling economic classes. That is almost universally understood in reference to the "free market" question, and if you want to redefine the term for your own usage, attacking someone else for conventially using the term is the wrong place for that.

The anti-market socialist arguments in the article run along the lines of my own stance; I did not claim that participatory economics was a "free market" system.

I'd like for you to summarize or present your own views, as well, since we both know I'm not going to read a whole article just to have you say "well I don't agree with x" if/when I critique it.

In relevance to your statement, they're against market socialism and in favor of decentralized participatory planning, if not all the specific facets of ParEcon.

Yeah .... Again, how are they incompatible?

One involves massive social upheaval usually accompanied by violence and the other involves a gradual and incremental process of peaceable transition. They're polar opposites.

Progressive tax systems are unfair in that they steal more from some to give to others and that is stealing. A flat tax is just stupid b/c it would have to be low b/c then you would overtax the lower classes. But the solution to taxes is very simple, do away with them. They are nothing more than a form of robbery where in the state threatens you against your will to give them your money.

That implies that the current distribution of wealth is just, and since its foundations are in the aggression of primitive accumulation, it is not, and you are guilty of vulgar libertarianism for pretending that the foundations of modern wealth distribution are in the "free market." As I say, pseudo-libertarianism is an internally contradictory ideology.

RGacky3

7th September 2010, 09:26

So how is a referendum in favor of collectivization of the major industries at the core of the means of production that results in a peaceable transition to socialism consistent with a violent revolution in which armed workers seize those productive resources?

Its consistant because you can use both when appropriate, in situations where peaceful democratization of the economy is possible you do it that way, in situations where actual takeovers are nessesary you do it that way.

If in your eyes the ONLY appropriate strategy, is storming the barricades with guns, then your helplessly closeminded.

At least, when I accept the best of a bad situation, I recognize it as such. You don't seem to. For example, did you ever consider the fact that universal healthcare would simply maintain the physical efficiency of the working class in the context of the capitalist economy?

I do, do I have to end each post about social-democratic policies with something like "But of coarse abolishing capitalism would be better"? Just to please purists like you?

As far as universal healthcare, yeah so what? Its a step in the right direction, even if your being exploited, its good to be healthy and have access to healthcare.

But still I don't understand your point, is it that unless its total revolution getting rid of capitalism entirely you won't support it? Is it better for workers to be UNHEALTHY because the capitalists would not be able to exploit them? Or do you just want me to acnowladge that capitalism still exists?

One involves massive social upheaval usually accompanied by violence and the other involves a gradual and incremental process of peaceable transition. They're polar opposites.

Again, thats not explaining how they are mutuall exclusive, which they arn't, as explained in the beggining.

Dean

7th September 2010, 14:14

Ignoring your crude and politically unsophisticated dictionary definitions, a significant number of academics would consider the USSR and other Leninist states socialist despite the number of self-described socialists on this forum and in the world that dispute that. Many, particularly non-economists, would also regard Scandinavian social democratic capitalism as "socialist."
Oh yes, you get to ignore the definitions we've been using since '02 at RevLeft. Just because many people disagree with applying particular definitions to their own ideologies doesn't justify asserting their prejudices on others.

Why? The primary opponents I encounter are pseudo-libertarians and more dimwitted rightists whose entire axiomatic foundations are inconsistent with the specific policies that they advocate, since there's no "free market" in existence, so freedom-loving people are drawn to legitimate anarchism instead.
How revolutionary.

Skooma Addict

8th September 2010, 00:52

A revolution is putting all your eggs in one basket. In societies which are not completely and totally inhumane, revolutions are almost never a good idea.

Anti_Left

8th September 2010, 01:52

I wonder if the Socialists, Communists, Marxists, and Malcontents on this forum realize that without income & property taxes your utopian communities would be possible within the existing capitalist system. All you like-minded leftists could join together and take care of each other in commune style communities with no property rights where the "collective good" would dictate the distribution of resources within your little mini utopias. Of course rather than proving your concepts of societal structure on a small independant scale where you could suffer the consequences of your own lack of judgment, you would prefer to impose your ideas on the rest of us and ... spread the misery sort of speak..... thanks

#FF0000

8th September 2010, 01:55

I wonder if the Socialists, Communists, Marxists, and Malcontents on this forum realize that without income & property taxes your utopian communities would be possible within the existing capitalist system. All you like-minded leftists could join together and take care of each other in commune style communities with no property rights where the "collective good" would dictate the distribution of resources within your little mini utopias. Of course rather than proving your concepts of societal structure on a small independant scale where you could suffer the consequences of your own lack of judgment, you would prefer to impose your ideas on the rest of us and ... spread the misery sort of speak..... thanks

People do that already. Starting up a little commune within a capitalist system ain't socialism, so, yeah.

Revolution starts with U

8th September 2010, 02:01

I wonder if the Socialists, Communists, Marxists, and Malcontents on this forum realize that without income & property taxes your utopian communities would be possible within the existing capitalist system. All you like-minded leftists could join together and take care of each other in commune style communities with no property rights where the "collective good" would dictate the distribution of resources within your little mini utopias. Of course rather than proving your concepts of societal structure on a small independant scale where you could suffer the consequences of your own lack of judgment, you would prefer to impose your ideas on the rest of us and ... spread the misery sort of speak..... thanks

Um first, people do. And there communities do function quite well.
Im not going to argue the taxes with you, because our conclusions will be the same, but our understanding and methodology will be vastly different
<~~~real anarchist

Anti_Left

8th September 2010, 02:28

Um first, people do. And there communities do function quite well.
Im not going to argue the taxes with you, because our conclusions will be the same, but our understanding and methodology will be vastly different
<~~~real anarchist

The question here then is: If these communities are great and work so well why dont all you Socialists/Communists isolate yourselves and participate in these communities... No more problem, Lead by Example... Imagine a Revolution in which you actually won on the battlefield of ideas because people looked at a functioning (and burgeoning society no less) and said wow.. thats what we need, thats what I want, look at how they resolved most of the major problems facing advanced societies?

#FF0000

8th September 2010, 02:29

The question here then is: If these communities are great and work so well why dont all you Socialists/Communists isolate yourselves and participate in these communities...

Because you don't dismantle capitalism by going to a cloister.

No more problem, Lead by Example... Imagine a Revolution in which you actually won on the battlefield of ideas because people looked at a functioning (and burgeoning society no less) and said wow.. thats what we need, thats what I want, look at how they resolved most of the major problems facing advanced societies?

When has this ever, in history, happened?

Anti_Left

8th September 2010, 02:36

[QUOTE=The Best Mod In Revleft History;1858080]Because you don't dismantle capitalism by going to a cloister.QUOTE]

Why is it necessary to dismantle capitalism? What happened to diversty, tolerance and the big tent? Is there some reason that capitalism should not be permitted to exist?

#FF0000

8th September 2010, 03:13

Why is it necessary to dismantle capitalism? What happened to diversty, tolerance and the big tent? Is there some reason that capitalism should not be permitted to exist?

Because capitalism is a global system and socialism and capitalism just can't coexist. Same with Capitalism and feudalism, really. Diversity has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Dean

8th September 2010, 03:15

A revolution is putting all your eggs in one basket. In societies which are not completely and totally inhumane, revolutions are almost never a good idea.
Good old conservative wisdom... If only we had listened to you guys, we wouldn't have to worry about feudalism, capitalism and liberal democracy. Ted Kaczynski and those sweet caves are calling for you...

Anti_Left

8th September 2010, 04:25

Good old conservative wisdom... If only we had listened to you guys, we wouldn't have to worry about feudalism, capitalism and liberal democracy. Ted Kaczynski and those sweet caves are calling for you...

This is clearly enlightening.

But back on point... Capitalism hasn't always been necessarily global, the United States was largely isolationist up to good ole Woodrow Wilson. Capitalism achieves a global reach because people desire the benefits of capitalism. This is the same reason, in reality, that Socialism cannot coexist.... the vast majority of people when given a side by side comparison will choose capitalism.

While Corporatism & Socialism have increasingly infected the United States slowly over the past 100 years, now that the dirty little secret is out and people are going to be called to choose, Socialism will be stomped out and rejected by an increasingly informed public who will always choose the Liberty of free markets over the Tyranny of Administrators......

#FF0000

8th September 2010, 04:50

But back on point... Capitalism hasn't always been necessarily global, the United States was largely isolationist up to good ole Woodrow Wilson. Capitalism achieves a global reach because people desire the benefits of capitalism. This is the same reason, in reality, that Socialism cannot coexist.... the vast majority of people when given a side by side comparison will choose capitalism.

That's simply not true. There was never any vote on whether or not "the people" wanted capitalism. There is never such a vote when a new system is established. Meanwhile, the U.S. certainly played a role in expanding capitalism across the globe with Manifest Destiny and the westward expansion. There was also Commodore Perry's little trip to Japan in the 1850's, where the Japanese were asked to open their markets to American interests under threat of force. And beyond that, there were many, many incursions into Latin America to defend American Business interests in the region. See the pamphlet written by multple Medal Of Honor recipient Smedley Butler called "War is a Racket" for just a small list of these.

But even if we ignored the U.S. and took for granted that they were completely isolationist, Europe certainly was not. England, France, and the rising European powers were dividing up vast swaths of the earth to open new markets, and find more resources.

An interesting quote from Cecil Rhodes, a very wealthy British businessman at the time.

“I was in the East End of London (a working-class quarter) yesterday and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for ‘bread! bread!’ and on my way home I pondered over the scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism.... My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem, i.e., in order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced in the factories and mines. The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists."

While Corporatism & Socialism have increasingly infected the United States slowly over the past 100 years, now that the dirty little secret is out and people are going to be called to choose, Socialism will be stomped out and rejected by an increasingly informed public who will always choose the Liberty of free markets over the Tyranny of Administrators......

I can assure you, really, socialism hasn't had any sort of power in the U.S. for aaaaaages. You're mistaking Socialism for... I have no idea, really. Probably this "progressivism" thing you think we like so much.

anticap

8th September 2010, 06:57

I wonder if the Socialists, Communists, Marxists, and Malcontents on this forum realize that without income & property taxes your utopian communities would be possible within the existing capitalist system.

And why should capitalism be the default system, with dissenters relegated to islands or tiny pocket-communes?

All you like-minded leftists could join together and take care of each other in commune style communities with no property rights where the "collective good" would dictate the distribution of resources within your little mini utopias.

This friendly suggestion rests on the false premise that capitalists built civilization and that it is therefore their birthright, and anyone who disagrees with these creators of civilization should go live in caves or become subsistence farmers.

In actual fact, of course, the working class built civilization and everything it consists of. So let the capitalists take to the caves. They should feel at home there, since they tend to be conservative, and any true conservative would demand a return to the stone age (since to endorse anything beyond that is to endorse something that was at one time progressive).

Of course rather than proving your concepts of societal structure on a small independant scale where you could suffer the consequences of your own lack of judgment, you would prefer to impose your ideas on the rest of us and ... spread the misery sort of speak..... thanks

The capitalist mode of production hinges on a particular set of property norms, which must be enforced. We happen to know, thanks to the historical record, that these norms were imposed by violence. As Marx put it:

[T]he history of this ... is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm

But even had they been agreed to by mutual consent, and consecrated by holy contract, it would still remain true that enforcement would have to begin as soon as the agreement ended -- which it would do, as soon as a new generation grew up and began to question societal norms, as they always do.

Any way you slice it, capitalism hinges on violence. So don't come here talking about how we who resist such violence are ourselves imposing it. Defense is not aggression.

Why is it necessary to dismantle capitalism? What happened to diversty, tolerance and the big tent? Is there some reason that capitalism should not be permitted to exist?

I've already responded to this (briefly) in another thread.

RGacky3

8th September 2010, 10:06

Noooooooooooooo

Dean

8th September 2010, 12:52

This is clearly enlightening.

But back on point... Capitalism hasn't always been necessarily global, the United States was largely isolationist up to good ole Woodrow Wilson. Capitalism achieves a global reach because people desire the benefits of capitalism. This is the same reason, in reality, that Socialism cannot coexist.... the vast majority of people when given a side by side comparison will choose capitalism.

While Corporatism & Socialism have increasingly infected the United States slowly over the past 100 years, now that the dirty little secret is out and people are going to be called to choose, Socialism will be stomped out and rejected by an increasingly informed public who will always choose the Liberty of free markets over the Tyranny of Administrators......

Actually, any equitable shift in the distribution of wealth will always cause a locality to experience capital flight, since greater equality translates to decreased profits. Any reasonable capitalist enterprise will place its capital and financial investment wherever it provides for the best returns. Shifting production from capitalist (profit-oriented development) to social models will cause a very explicit reduction in the investment viability of the location. Since it is capitalist enterprises which control the means of production, their flight means less production for socialist economies.

In other words, socialist policies often fail in a capitalist economy because capitalism is still the overarching managerial system.

There are real reasons why things happen. Mystifying them as if they were a simple ideal case of "people will always choose X" only serves to discredit you, and implies that you aren't serious about understanding the economic reality of the systems we're discussing.

Revolution starts with U

8th September 2010, 16:43

If you think that America has at any point in her history been the glorious capitalism made up by LvMI (utopian capitalism), and also at the same time think America is/was the only nation with a capitalist economy, and therefore capitalism's trumpeteer... I am afraid you have a limited view of history. Your self-reinforcing views on the events of the past are flat out mistaken.
As has been pointed out, American capital expanded at the barrel of a gun, there was no mutually beneficial trade.
We built our industry on the backs of black slaves, took our land from the mother's of native children. We built our industry through warfare and coup after coup after coup in latin america.
My friend, sir anti-left (antidisestablishmentarian scum), what knowledge have you of how many peaceful democratic societies we have overthrown, only to instill a right-wing dictator, who we will in 20 years turn into our next boogeyman and overthrow again.
You have no idea what America is, locked in your little cave you call a mind. Go ride Ron Paul's dick some more, and continue to have no idea what your talking about.

RGacky3

8th September 2010, 18:21

While Corporatism & Socialism have increasingly infected the United States slowly over the past 100 years, now that the dirty little secret is out and people are going to be called to choose, Socialism will be stomped out and rejected by an increasingly informed public who will always choose the Liberty of free markets over the Tyranny of Administrators......

What socialism? Where? Where has democratic control been put on the economy, in the last 30 years the tiny slither of it that existed has been stripped away.

Corporatism, yeah, but thats just the natural outcome of capitalism.

NGNM85

10th September 2010, 06:02

Cenk hits another home run;
eTiJxalIVUA

RGacky3

10th September 2010, 10:48

I made a thread about that video :P.

NGNM85

11th September 2010, 06:23

I made a thread about that video :P.

I know! I was pissed you beat me to it.:mad:

Die Rote Fahne

11th September 2010, 07:05

Progressive tax systems are unfair in that they steal more from some to give to others and that is stealing. A flat tax is just stupid b/c it would have to be low b/c then you would overtax the lower classes. But the solution to taxes is very simple, do away with them. They are nothing more than a form of robbery where in the state threatens you against your will to give them your money.

How hypocritical of you to attack government "stealing", which goes toward things that need to be paid for (fire dept., police, roads, infrastructure, etc.), and not criticize the mass thievery that is capitalist exploitation of the working class.

Taxes are necessary in capitalist society to maintain it. In capitalist society the government has to get certain things done, and it does that through taxation.

Yes, I believe you should have the choice to not pay taxes, without the threat of arrest or criminal punishment. In return for this choice, you do not receive any public benefits, such as: use of the fire department, use of policing/the police service, the use of public roads and highways, the use of public parks, any government run utilities, the use of the sewage system, or anything else tax dollars pay for.

Fair trade-off, no? Why should you leech off of our tax dollars, use our roads and resources, if you are fully capable of paying your fair share but choose not to?

Agnapostate

13th September 2010, 22:49

Its consistant because you can use both when appropriate, in situations where peaceful democratization of the economy is possible you do it that way, in situations where actual takeovers are nessesary you do it that way.

If in your eyes the ONLY appropriate strategy, is storming the barricades with guns, then your helplessly closeminded.

Then you just validated the point; each represents a unique course of action appropriate to specific contextual circumstances. Since you were able to distinguish them to that extent, you've now agreed that they represent distinct strategies.

I do, do I have to end each post about social-democratic policies with something like "But of coarse abolishing capitalism would be better"? Just to please purists like you?

As far as universal healthcare, yeah so what? Its a step in the right direction, even if your being exploited, its good to be healthy and have access to healthcare.

And it will also perpetuate the existence of capitalism because material appeasements are intended to pacify the working class and prevent adoption of more radical ideologies.

But still I don't understand your point, is it that unless its total revolution getting rid of capitalism entirely you won't support it? Is it better for workers to be UNHEALTHY because the capitalists would not be able to exploit them? Or do you just want me to acnowladge that capitalism still exists?

Perhaps you did not read what I said about being a reformist in limited circumstances myself?

Again, thats not explaining how they are mutuall exclusive, which they arn't, as explained in the beggining.

You confirmed their mutual exclusivity yourself by acknowledging that there are radically different social conditions that will lead to the adoption of one strategy or the other.

Oh yes, you get to ignore the definitions we've been using since '02 at RevLeft. Just because many people disagree with applying particular definitions to their own ideologies doesn't justify asserting their prejudices on others.

How revolutionary.

There is nothing in this post that was a refutation of my own.

anticap

14th September 2010, 01:16

Yes, I believe you should have the choice to not pay taxes, without the threat of arrest or criminal punishment. In return for this choice, you do not receive any public benefits, such as: use of the fire department, use of policing/the police service, the use of public roads and highways, the use of public parks, any government run utilities, the use of the sewage system, or anything else tax dollars pay for.

Fair trade-off, no? Why should you leech off of our tax dollars, use our roads and resources, if you are fully capable of paying your fair share but choose not to?

Those who opted out would benefit just by living in the midst of those who didn't.

Example: suppose our urban Crusoe (an island unto himself) lived in a corrugated-aluminum shack in the middle of a typical modern residential neighborhood; he would benefit from the fact that the surrounding homes had modern sewage systems.

So it's impossible for our poor little "an"cap not to leach off the system. Thus the other payees are justified in forcing him to pay up. (He would argue that we should all live like him, and form a shanty-town reminiscent of the Third World).

(It goes without saying, of course, that the tax rate should be steeply graduated.)

Dean

14th September 2010, 04:17

There is nothing in this post that was a refutation of my own.

Yes there was; in particular, I was pointing out how absurd your entire tangent has been - you criticize our notion of a term and then proceed to redefine it (as I pointed out a number of posts back) to justify your position.

It's an incredibly weak non-argument that only serves to bring up your prejudices where they were not even part of the discussion.

RGacky3

14th September 2010, 09:59

Then you just validated the point; each represents a unique course of action appropriate to specific contextual circumstances. Since you were able to distinguish them to that extent, you've now agreed that they represent distinct strategies.

Yeah, but again, not incompatible, they are to distinct strategies, but they can work together.

And it will also perpetuate the existence of capitalism because material appeasements are intended to pacify the working class and prevent adoption of more radical ideologies.

Generally yeah, I agree, thats WHY the ruling class concedes them, grudgengly, and as then try to get rid of it as soon as they can.

But that does'nt mean that these things arn't positive, and that it won't actually make the working class want MORE.

Perhaps you did not read what I said about being a reformist in limited circumstances myself?

THen what are you arguing about?

You confirmed their mutual exclusivity yourself by acknowledging that there are radically different social conditions that will lead to the adoption of one strategy or the other.

They are not radically different, many times its revolutoinary activity that forces social-democratic change, hell its almost always revolutionary activity, and many times is social-democratic change that encourages the working class to want more.

Some times social-democratic change is impossible, like in a dictatorial country, in that case ONLY revolutionary activity would make sense, sometimes revolutoinary activity is impossible, sometimes you can do a little bit of both, sometimes syndcialism works better along with it.

Its not all black and white.

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 02:12

Taxes are necessary in capitalist society to maintain it.

Which is why I oppose taxation.

anticap

15th September 2010, 02:28

Which is why I oppose taxation.

If you abolished taxation with a snap of your fingers, class distinctions would remain, and the ruling class would continue to rule.

Which is why opposing taxation is shooting off-target.

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 04:04

If you abolished taxation with a snap of your fingers, class distinctions would remain, and the ruling class would continue to rule.

Which is why opposing taxation is shooting off-target.

Abolishing taxation gets rid of a lot. Not only do the laboring masses get to keep more of the measly amount given to them. It will also drastically reduce the amount of harm the government can cause. How will wars be funded without taxes? For example.

IcarusAngel

15th September 2010, 04:11

No civilization in history has existed without some form of taxation and record collecting. The idea that humans are more peaceful without taxes is false as the US was quite aggressive when it had low taxes on the rich - perhaps in someways even more aggressive to its own minorities and its neighbors.

Steven Pinker has proven that today's society is less violent than it was pre-civilization, that is you were more likely to fight pre-civilization than you are today.

Wars can be ended with a change of attitude and when people were fighting over worthless things like gold - it was not any more humane than today's fight over resources.

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 04:16

No civilization in history has existed without some form of taxation

I don't know about that. I've heard of a few examples. I'm not very well educated on the matter, though.

and record collecting.

Who said I wanted to abolish record keeping?

The idea that humans are more peaceful without taxes is false as the US was quite aggressive when it had low taxes on the rich - perhaps in someways even more aggressive to its own minorities and its neighbors.

Low taxes on the rich, maybe. I don't care about them. Screw them, in fact. Anyway, correlation =/= causation.

Steven Pinker has proven that today's society is less violent than it was pre-civilization, that is you were more likely to fight pre-civilization than you are today.

Really? That's an interesting fact but it certainly isn't directly relevant to what I said. That being said, the twentieth century was hell.

anticap

15th September 2010, 04:16

Abolishing taxation gets rid of a lot. Not only do the laboring masses get to keep more of the measly amount given to them. It will also drastically reduce the amount of harm the government can cause. How will wars be funded without taxes? For example.

You've missed my point. The target ought to be the cause of class distinction, which is the institution of bourgeois property.

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 04:18

You've missed my point.

Is your point that there are more important matters to be dealt with first? If so, I understand your position.

IcarusAngel

15th September 2010, 04:21

It isn't "irrelevant" and not all the deaths from the twentieth century were from conflict, which is what we were talking about, but famine caused by elite owners controlling too much property - exactly what market proponents want more of.

Anyway, leftists don't believe that taxes is the problem but the structure of society. Why would you kill your neighbor if you receive no benefit from it, if you could get those resources from the community if you so needed them? You would only be hurting yourself/loved ones to steal in a communist/socialist community. And so leftism basically teaches that workers should own the means of production and that they should get back what they put in. Free-markets, on the other hand, promote consolidation, centralization, etc., and so they always must be tempered by state action etc.

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 04:27

It isn't "irrelevant" and not all the deaths from the twentieth century were from conflict, which is what we were talking about, but famine caused by elite owners controlling too much property - exactly what market proponents want more of.

That's what the vast majority of market proponents want, whether they say it or not, yes. Not all.

Anyway, leftists don't believe that taxes is the problem but the structure of society.

Part of the structure of society is taxation.

Why would you kill your neighbor if you receive no benefit from it, if you could get those resources from the community if you so needed them? You would only be hurting yourself/loved ones to steal in a communist/socialist community.

Agreed.

And so leftism basically teaches that workers should own the means of production and that they should get back what they put in.

This is what would occur in a free market.

Free-markets, on the other hand, promote consolidation, centralization, etc., and so they always must be tempered by state action etc.

No. Free Markets lead to decentralized worker co-ops. The Capitalists need the government to protect their property claims so they can continue to exploit the workers who actually produce the value.

Left-Reasoning

15th September 2010, 04:33

If the rich had to pay for their own wars, there would be nearly as many.

Skooma Addict

15th September 2010, 04:43

IcarusAngel

15th September 2010, 04:44

If the rich had to pay for their own wars, there would be nearly as many.

The rich already do pay for the wars. They control 90% of the wealth and pay over 60% of the taxes. The rich also have a vested interest in war - since they want to put down worker run states or any states that even remotely look like worker run states in the third world, as it cuts into their profits. Hence, all the Chomsky documentation of the rich supporting wars in South America.

Profit itself may even take a backseat to stopping the poor from owning their own resources:

gXmxsSiSb5g

Anyway, Pinker has proved society is getting better. Chomsky has also remarked that the liberal values of the enlightenment that appear in the West are good and should be spread to the Islamic world (not by violence but by keeping the US from putting down progressive forces there and "intervening" in their country). There is no reason to doubt either of these statements - although pinker's seems incredible at first but he backs up his claims on a per capita basis - unless you have some contradictory evidence.

I think the way a lot of right-wingers view the world is that it is getting better for the workers [Note: I'm not saying that it actually is, but what right wingers believe], that the rich are losing their control, that the world is becoming more diverse and interconnected/intertwined, that the current nation-state is losing its power to a cooperative world government, and so they want to stop this interdependence and socialism for the "old way of things."

hGt6aQkUj1s

This is a very dangerous way of viewing the world and seems to be shared by many Austrians.