Paul Krugman hits the nail on the head

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

When historians look back at 2008-10, what will puzzle them most, I believe, is the strange triumph of failed ideas. Free-market fundamentalists have been wrong about everything — yet they now dominate the political scene more thoroughly than ever.

How did that happen? How, after runaway banks brought the economy to its knees, did we end up with Ron Paul, who says “I don’t think we need regulators,” about to take over a key House panel overseeing the Fed? How, after the experiences of the Clinton and Bush administrations — the first raised taxes and presided over spectacular job growth; the second cut taxes and presided over anemic growth even before the crisis — did we end up with bipartisan agreement on even more tax cuts? .......

The free-market fundamentalists have been as wrong about events abroad as they have about events in America — and suffered equally few consequences. “Ireland,” declared (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article733821.ece) George Osborne in 2006, “stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking.” Whoops. But Mr. Osborne is now Britain’s top economic official.

And in his new position, he’s setting out to emulate the austerity policies Ireland implemented after its bubble burst. After all, conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic spent much of the past year hailing Irish austerity as a resounding success. “The Irish approach worked in 1987-89 — and it’s working now,” declared (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11881) Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute last June. Whoops, again............

President Obama, by contrast, has consistently tried to reach across the aisle by lending cover to right-wing myths. He has praised Reagan for restoring American dynamism (when was the last time you heard a Republican praising F.D.R.?), adopted G.O.P. rhetoric about the need for the government to tighten its belt even in the face of recession, offered symbolic freezes on spending and federal wages.

None of this stopped the right from denouncing him as a socialist. But it helped empower bad ideas, in ways that can do quite immediate harm. Right now Mr. Obama is hailing the tax-cut deal as a boost to the economy — but Republicans are already talking about spending cuts that would offset any positive effects from the deal. And how effectively can he oppose these demands, when he himself has embraced the rhetoric of belt-tightening?

Yes, politics is the art of the possible. We all understand the need to deal
with one’s political enemies. But it’s one thing to make deals to advance your goals; it’s another to open the door to zombie ideas. When you do that, the zombies end up eating your brain — and quite possibly your economy too.




http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/opinion/20krugman.html?src=me&ref=general

Couldn't have said it better myself.

No matter how many times the rights "voodoo" or "supply side" or "trickle down" economic policies get shot down by glorious failure they come back from the dead.

The largest contributor to the popularity of these policies of late (despite being the principle factors behind the bubble and its burst) is the fact that the President failed to rectify the core issues. Instead, as Krugman says, he tried to make a deal with the followers of a mindless ideology, who, despite getting everything they wanted still went on screaming socialist! over his mild keynsian policies (I apologize to Keynes for disrespecting his work by comparing him to the Pres.)

Zombies is the best way to describe the resurgent right in my opinion. Their policies completely and utterly failed. Deregulating banks, cutting taxes, not investing in infrastructure, the mantra about balancing the budget (haha), and on and on and on with sooooo much bs that has been proven to fail to deliver in the long run.

[Dean]

they wanted still went on screaming socialist! over his mild keynsian policies (I apologize to Keynes for disrespecting his work by comparing him to the Pres.)
More accurate: Cherry-picked Keynesian policies.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Thank you, I'm going to start using that phrase.

It's fitting, I don't think Keynes ever suggested freezing the wages of govt workers in a recession. Unlike our communist President.

[Demogorgon]

It is pretty incredible what is happening. The reason of course is that the right have the media power to convince large sections of the public that they are right even when they are proven disastrously wrong. When they make a particularly spectacular mess they are in trouble, there is no power on earth or in heaven that will save the Irish Government for instance, but the new one will continue the same policies so the right will still get its way after a dressing down by the electorate.

The tragedy is, returning to the American context, that once these policies fail yet again, they will simply claim that it was "left wing" policies that caused the new disaster and manage to get even more of what they want as a result.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is pretty incredible what is happening. The reason of course is that the right have the media power to convince large sections of the public that they are right even when they are proven disastrously wrong. When they make a particularly spectacular mess they are in trouble, there is no power on earth or in heaven that will save the Irish Government for instance, but the new one will continue the same policies so the right will still get its way after a dressing down by the electorate.

The tragedy is, returning to the American context, that once these policies fail yet again, they will simply claim that it was "left wing" policies that caused the new disaster and manage to get even more of what they want as a result.

What do you think it's going to take for the ruling classes to break this vile habit of theirs?

[Demogorgon]

What do you think it's going to take for the ruling classes to break this vile habit of theirs?
They are hardly going to give it up of their own accord. Sometimes in the short to medium run they are forced to stop doing it for a while, but they always return to it at the first opportunity. The reason is the formidable power of the media to bring about the false consciousness that allows them to get away with it. It is extremely depressing and not something I see any easy or quick solution to. Only the end of capitalism could bring it to a permanent halt, but the same false consciousness protects the ruling classes from that. It may be that our only real hope is to catch one of the windows of opportunity I mentioned where they have had to temporarily stop this and people are most open to alternatives.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The tragedy is, returning to the American context, that once these policies fail yet again, they will simply claim that it was "left wing" policies that caused the new disaster and manage to get even more of what they want as a result.

Exactly! More and more I feel that words like 'socialist' and 'communist' and, now, 'liberal' or 'progressive' are simply being turned into words which mean 'failure,' even if that failure is due to right wing policies (just like, in the US at least, words like 'freedom' and 'liberty' have become nothing more than 'in corporate americas best ineterests'). It's disturbing how many people have an opinion and how little many (but far from all) people have researched the issue. It's like, despite their conservative fundamentals being majorly at fault, it just reinforced those right wing viewpoints for many people.

Anyways, I don't feel qualified to comment on Ireland, though they seem in a world of hurt.

[RGacky3]

I don't think that will happen a second time, it will crash a second time, but when it does, its gonna be a shake up close to what hapened in the 1960s and 1930s.

[Dimentio]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/opinion/20krugman.html?src=me&ref=general

Couldn't have said it better myself.

No matter how many times the rights "voodoo" or "supply side" or "trickle down" economic policies get shot down by glorious failure they come back from the dead.

The largest contributor to the popularity of these policies of late (despite being the principle factors behind the bubble and its burst) is the fact that the President failed to rectify the core issues. Instead, as Krugman says, he tried to make a deal with the followers of a mindless ideology, who, despite getting everything they wanted still went on screaming socialist! over his mild keynsian policies (I apologize to Keynes for disrespecting his work by comparing him to the Pres.)

Zombies is the best way to describe the resurgent right in my opinion. Their policies completely and utterly failed. Deregulating banks, cutting taxes, not investing in infrastructure, the mantra about balancing the budget (haha), and on and on and on with sooooo much bs that has been proven to fail to deliver in the long run.

Because they are the only ones perceived as legitimate. The hegemony is faltering, but there is no counter-current strong enough to establish a competing grand narrative. The alternative globalisation movement does only have criticism but are too cowardly to actually put forth an alternative. The only ones who at the moment possess alternative grand narratives which are actually attracting people are radical islamists, neo-nationalists and zeitgeisters. The first-mentioned have obviously no chance to win power in western countries, the second have the ability to win power but no solutions at all, and the third group could be described as the most successful brand of utopian socialism yet defined, and conclusively do not have any way to win power at all.

In the 2020's and 2030's, capitalism will start to crumble. By 2070, capitalism will be dead, most likely replaced by neo-feudalism/warlordism (like Somalia, but on a more or less global scale).

[RGacky3]

The only ones who at the moment possess alternative grand narratives which are actually attracting people are radical islamists, neo-nationalists and zeitgeisters.

Thats not true at all, those are just the ones that get press covorage.

[Dimentio]

So tell me then, whom apart from the mainstream parties which are indirectly governed by market-friendly think tanks, business operatives and the neoliberal hegemony are able to provide a vision for how society should be administrated? The IWW? The various small marxist parties? The euro-communists? Most of these groups are failing to reach outside of their core membership base and thus unable to rule society.

[RGacky3]

you talking about the world or the United States,

Well considering most of the United States is progressive, I'd say there are many groups, you have unemployed groups, you have unions, you have peace movements, you have squatting in your own home movements, solidarity movements, and so forth.

In the world the list is too large to to go over.

Numerically progressives outweigh the tea partiers by a lot, the reason tea partiers get noticed is the right with press.

thinking about politics as group A with one vision and group B with another and see who wins is not the way to look at it, you have pressure groups trying to pull public policy in different directions, trying to find a group to "rule" is much less important than trying to make society more democratic.

[Dimentio]

you talking about the world or the United States,

Well considering most of the United States is progressive, I'd say there are many groups, you have unemployed groups, you have unions, you have peace movements, you have squatting in your own home movements, solidarity movements, and so forth.


Yes yes yes, they are social groups.

But is there any political grouping which could appeal to them and put forth an alternative to capitalism which actually A) is an alternative, B) will work, and C) actually win power?

[CornetJoyce]

you talking about the world or the United States,

Well considering most of the United States is progressive


"and by the way—do you know of a party that is not a progressive party?
I don't.
Do you know of any man or woman in this country who will confess himself or
herself a reactionary? I don't.
Rockefeller is a progressive. So is Morgan. So are all the rest of them progressive" - Gene Debs

[RGacky3]

But is there any political grouping which could appeal to them and put forth an alternative to capitalism which actually A) is an alternative, B) will work, and C) actually win power?

As in a political party? Not really, but political parties rarely get things done, social groups get them done. Political parties are not really that important in my opinion, they mainly respond to pressure, they can be helpful sure, but they arn't and should'nt be at the forfront of movements.


"and by the way—do you know of a party that is not a progressive party?
I don't.
Do you know of any man or woman in this country who will confess himself or
herself a reactionary? I don't.
Rockefeller is a progressive. So is Morgan. So are all the rest of them progressive" - Gene Debs

Based on polls that poll on specific issues, not the word "progressive."

[Dimentio]

As in a political party? Not really, but political parties rarely get things done, social groups get them done. Political parties are not really that important in my opinion, they mainly respond to pressure, they can be helpful sure, but they arn't and should'nt be at the forfront of movements.

Political movements then? Or "movements"? Is there any alternative to capitalism which has growing support amongst the masses? The only one which comes to my mind begins with "Z".

[ckaihatsu]

Because they are the only ones perceived as legitimate. The hegemony is faltering, but there is no counter-current strong enough to establish a competing grand narrative. The alternative globalisation movement does only have criticism but are too cowardly to actually put forth an alternative. The only ones who at the moment possess alternative grand narratives which are actually attracting people are radical islamists, neo-nationalists and zeitgeisters. The first-mentioned have obviously no chance to win power in western countries, the second have the ability to win power but no solutions at all, and the third group could be described as the most successful brand of utopian socialism yet defined, and conclusively do not have any way to win power at all.


I don't think we should get too hung up on having an overarching, storyline-like "narrative" as a vehicle for our politics. Really politics resembles -- or should resemble -- more of a *scientific endeavor*, rather than a *literary work*. Neither politics or life is humane enough to obligingly conform to a neat-and-tidy storyline, so we shouldn't be attempting to contrive one for either, either.





Because of the disempowering, de-personalizing social reality resulting from the world's ubiquitous market-determined society, the average person who does *not* rebel or try to revolutionize social relations is trapped in the default consciousness of trying to "fit into" the existing structure of towering, neo-aristocratic power relations.

This default consciousness will largely resemble the religious mindset / belief in predestination, wherein one is so soundly disempowered that the external world is as a solid-walled fishbowl, utterly depriving the individual of the least bit of agency in their own lives, the lives of others, or of any impact on the greater society. It's no wonder that postmodernism has become the "ceiling" of this fishbowl for our contemporary masses, with even *language* itself seen as constraining, down to reality-constricting narratives limited to sheer passive individual experience, at most hoped to be expressed in purely subjective narratives, no longer a human-wielded tool for one's activity in society.


I've attached an illustration of a continuum that extends from the humanities side of things -- including narratives -- over to the technological side of things, which has no concern with narratives.


Humanities Technology Chart 2.0

http://postimage.org/image/1d4ldatxg/

[RGacky3]

Political movements then? Or "movements"? Is there any alternative to capitalism which has growing support amongst the masses?

Well all over latin America socialism is making a major comeback, African socialism is still strong.

In the US and Europe there are tons of anti-ruling class movements, are they putting forth a world visision? Or an alternative society? Not really, but thats not really important, there are a shit load of trotskyite groups that do that and don't accomplish and thing, I'm more interested in working to get change rather than trying to come up with models.

[Publius]

Once people get the idea in their heads that the "free market" isn't just some economic policy, but rather some moral or normative imperative, then it becomes almost impossible convince them otherwise, no matter what happens.

Once the free market is equated with freedom itself, and its antithesis is equated with slavery and Fascism and Stalinism, then the debate is pretty much over already. What could you say to someone to get them to prefer totalitarianism over freedom? Well, nothing.

Of course none of that is true, but free market ideology has such emotion appeal to Americans, I can't really see how it can broken. The rich have, of course, indoctrinated people into thinking that whatever they (the rich) say is good is good. And wouldn't you know it, what is good is being rich!

Leftism has been so effectively demonized that I just don't see how a genuine leftist movement can emerge. People's reaction to these failures of capitalism is to just blame the government (which, in their defense, isn't entirely inaccurate -- the government is another tool of the ruling class, more often than not), and say the solution is MORE free market economics.

People blame the latest financial crisis on "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac" because Republicans ***** about it them on TV and say those organizations caused the financial crisis. Of course it's not true, but where do people hear the real truth?

"The government forced these poor investment banks to take on risky mortgages, the banks didn't want to do it!"

The biggest problem I see is that when, or rather if, these free market delusions are broken in the public consciousness, what will take their place? I hope some form of leftism. But I really doubt it.

[RGacky3]

but free market ideology has such emotion appeal to Americans, I can't really see how it can broken. The rich have, of course, indoctrinated people into thinking that whatever they (the rich) say is good is good. And wouldn't you know it, what is good is being rich!


Look at almost any type of propeganda in history and you see a common thread, the "free" market, is exactly the same as the "Socialist" Soviet Union, both words were very appealing to the constituents as having moral value, so the ruling class uses it dispite it being totally disattached from reality.


Leftism has been so effectively demonized that I just don't see how a genuine leftist movement can emerge. People's reaction to these failures of capitalism is to just blame the government (which, in their defense, isn't entirely inaccurate -- the government is another tool of the ruling class, more often than not), and say the solution is MORE free market economics.


Except that what your describing is not the case, your talking about the tea party movement and Fox New's vision of america, which is essencially astro turf, they show a couple videos of protests and try make it look like everyone in the US is a right winger.

If you look at poll after poll after poll on the actual issues and attitudes, you'll see that the people are mostly progressive economically.

The conventional wisdom through the media states the opposite, and go back to any propeganda system and you'll see the same situation, if you watched soviet media you'd think everyone was pro-state and for the communist party, and if you were a dissident in thought you'd think YOU were wierd.


People blame the latest financial crisis on "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac" because Republicans ***** about it them on TV and say those organizations caused the financial crisis. Of course it's not true, but where do people hear the real truth?

"The government forced these poor investment banks to take on risky mortgages, the banks didn't want to do it!"

The biggest problem I see is that when, or rather if, these free market delusions are broken in the public consciousness, what will take their place? I hope some form of leftism. But I really doubt it.

Your right, about the media and TV, but polls and statistics show real American values, now specific things might change with semantics (which is why the right wing ALWAYS uses funny semantics, i.e. not a PUBLIC option, a GOVERNMENT option), of coarse if you lie to people they opinion might change, not because they think differently than before, but because they have the wrong facts, just like in the Soviet Union everyone based everything with the information they got.

THankfully this is starting to slowly change thanks to the internet and alternative media, and also thankfully, people are still smarter than the ruling class is good at propeganda.

[Publius]

Look at almost any type of propeganda in history and you see a common thread, the "free" market, is exactly the same as the "Socialist" Soviet Union, both words were very appealing to the constituents as having moral value, so the ruling class uses it dispite it being totally disattached from reality.

Of course.

"Free market" in this sense really means "government subsidies for businesses and the rich", but of course it isn't marketed like that.

And it's the marketing that matters here.



Except that what your describing is not the case, your talking about the tea party movement and Fox New's vision of america, which is essencially astro turf, they show a couple videos of protests and try make it look like everyone in the US is a right winger.

Not everyone in the US is a Tea Partier. But a movement like the Tea Party wouldn't even be taken seriously in a country without seriously fucked up right-wing tendencies.

The kinds of national debates we have (Obama's citizenship, "death panels", etc.) are almost entirely fabricated by this right wing extreme.

Of course they don't represent the entire country, but they frame the entire political debate in terms they prefer.



If you look at poll after poll after poll on the actual issues and attitudes, you'll see that the people are mostly progressive economically.

If the people actually were progressive, we'd have a progressive government.

We are, still, a representative democracy, so if enough people voted for progressives, progressives would win, or at least be a sizable minority.

Of course this is just demonstrably false. This tells me that when push comes to shove, the average American isn't that progressive.



The conventional wisdom through the media states the opposite, and go back to any propeganda system and you'll see the same situation, if you watched soviet media you'd think everyone was pro-state and for the communist party, and if you were a dissident in thought you'd think YOU were wierd.

But the US isn't Soviet Russia. People like Bernie Sanders get elected. If the US were a progressive country with progressive citizens, there would be dozens of Bernie Sanders in Congress. Instead there are like 5.



Your right, about the media and TV, but polls and statistics show real American values, now specific things might change with semantics (which is why the right wing ALWAYS uses funny semantics, i.e. not a PUBLIC option, a GOVERNMENT option),

Yes.

"Death tax", "climate change", etc.

The Right Wing is much better at these emotional appeals. And these things WORK.



of coarse if you lie to people they opinion might change, not because they think differently than before, but because they have the wrong facts, just like in the Soviet Union everyone based everything with the information they got.

So the American people are progressives, but don't support government run health care because it will mandate death panels and take away old people's Medicare?

I find this hard to believe. How could a genuine progressive be fooled by such obvious nonsense?

If Americans were genuinely progressive, progressive propaganda should be MORE effective on them, not less, meaning left wing distortions would sway public opinion more than Fox News' lies.

But of course that's just false.

The American people SAY they're "progressive" in certain ways then get talked out of it by the right wing extreme.



THankfully this is starting to slowly change thanks to the internet and alternative media, and also thankfully, people are still smarter than the ruling class is good at propeganda.

I don't think either of these things are true.

I don't think our political climate is getting better. I think it's getting worse. And not slowly.

[IcarusAngel]

I agree with Publius on this, except I'd add I don't think it's just that Americans are just too heavily propgandized to see there are better alternatives, that the good ideas are just reversed into bad ideas. I'm not sure what the "good alternatives" are: "anarchism," "Leninism"? I'm not sure what the former entails, and the latter would probably be even worse. "Leftism" is even more vague. And the benefits of say, Keynesian economics versus that of neoclassical, are quite hard to understand. There has to be better communications mechanisms.

[Robert]

I don't think it's just that Americans are just too heavily propgandized to see there are better alternatives, that the good ideas are just reversed into bad ideas. I'm not sure what the "good alternatives" are: "anarchism," "Leninism"? I'm not sure what the former entails, and the latter would probably be even worse. "Leftism" is even more vague. And the benefits of say, Keynesian economics versus that of neoclassical, are quite hard to understand. There has to be better communications mechanisms. Icarus, you are usually much clearer than this. If you aren't sure by now what the good alternatives to capitalism are (I'm not either), then what difference does it make what "communications mechanisms" are available to disseminate them?

And what "communications mechanisms" do you have in mind? You presumably mean alternatives to Fox, CNN and NBC (?), but Bernie Sanders appears on all three networks with some regularity and is allowed to speak his mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tah83oOIMd0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38M9vfg4TPE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkuSzhNKvHw

Then there is C-SPAN. I guess it's expensive to receive.

[Die Neue Zeit]

By 2070, capitalism will be dead, most likely replaced by neo-feudalism/warlordism (like Somalia, but on a more or less global scale).

Should that barbaric and anti-political point come about, some form of Socialism From Above with Socialist Primitive Accumulation and all the Red Terror that goes with it would have to be necessary, and the political agency/"subject" would be focused more on economic reconstruction (more micro-managed than Stalin's) than working class emancipation. I don't want to see that happen.

[RGacky3]

Of course.

"Free market" in this sense really means "government subsidies for businesses and the rich", but of course it isn't marketed like that.

And it's the marketing that matters here.


sure, but the whole idea that the "market" can be free is also just propeganda.


If the people actually were progressive, we'd have a progressive government.

We are, still, a representative democracy, so if enough people voted for progressives, progressives would win, or at least be a sizable minority.

Of course this is just demonstrably false. This tells me that when push comes to shove, the average American isn't that progressive.


I sizable part of the government IS progressive, in name, so is Obama, in name, but they don't act like that because the representative democracy is far outweighed by corporate influence.

70% wanted public healthcare, we don't have it, why? Corporate influence.

THe Majority wants us out of both wars, why arnt we? Industrial-military complex.

THe majority wants to get tough on the banks, why arn't we? THe financial industry influence.

Judging public opinion by public policy makes no sense, you judge public opinion by public polls, statistics and so on.

You judge corporate opinion or monied lobby opinion by public policy.

Politicians work for who pay them.


But the US isn't Soviet Russia. People like Bernie Sanders get elected. If the US were a progressive country with progressive citizens, there would be dozens of Bernie Sanders in Congress. Instead there are like 5.


Your fogetting the elephant in the room, i.e. corporate influence.


So the American people are progressives, but don't support government run health care because it will mandate death panels and take away old people's Medicare?

I find this hard to believe. How could a genuine progressive be fooled by such obvious nonsense?

If Americans were genuinely progressive, progressive propaganda should be MORE effective on them, not less, meaning left wing distortions would sway public opinion more than Fox News' lies.

But of course that's just false.

The American people SAY they're "progressive" in certain ways then get talked out of it by the right wing extreme.


What progressive propeganda? What left wing distortions? Where are they?

They DID support the public option, ALL THE WAY THROUGH, even after the propeganda, which dropped the public opinion just a bit, it was still overwhelmingly popular.

Its just that the government does'nt follow public opinion, they serve Capitalists.

[Demogorgon]

If the people actually were progressive, we'd have a progressive government.

We are, still, a representative democracy, so if enough people voted for progressives, progressives would win, or at least be a sizable minority.

Of course this is just demonstrably false. This tells me that when push comes to shove, the average American isn't that progressive.

But the US isn't Soviet Russia. People like Bernie Sanders get elected. If the US were a progressive country with progressive citizens, there would be dozens of Bernie Sanders in Congress. Instead there are like 5.

It is a lot more complicated than this. In the first instance of course, the way elections are conducted in America makes it easy to keep inconvenient individuals in Congress to a minimum. When you elect through single member districts you can draw them up to maximise the likelihood of gaining a favourable result. If America used a more democratic electoral system the number of progressives in Congress would increase, even without a marked change in people's political preferences.

On top of this of course is the fact that elections are heavily conducted on the basis of personality and voters are not adequately informed of what political positions they are really voting for. This of course is before we even go into the fact that most elections are won and lost when it comes to fundraising and that is a competition not fought on the basis of universal and equal suffrage.

Real power of course comes from the ability to set the political agenda and even more through the ability to convince people to adopt views in opposition to their interests. The former is pretty obvious and the right wing are very good at it in America, they triumph at defining the "talking points". The latter power however is more subtle, and it is the reason why there is a discrepancy between what people say they believe and how they vote. Ask someone what they think and they'll tell you, but by the time a vote comes along there is plenty of time to convince them otherwise and get them to vote on different lines.

To a large extent this can be done by getting them to focus on a few narrow issues where it is easiest to convince them of the right wing position. You are never going to convince most people for instance that huge subsidies for companies that are kind enough to donate to political campaigns is a good idea, but you can shift the focus on to other matters where it is easiest to fool people. The implications of immigration restriction, strict law and order and the death penalty, tax cuts for the rich, reducing welfare and so forth are the precise opposite of what many people think they are but because it is relatively easy to trick people there, that is where the emphasis is kept.

If you look over here at Europe much of the same savage right wing policies that will only make things worse are being pursued here also, but they are being sold differently. People are being told they are a necessary evil and in some cases almost no attempt is being made to reconcile the public to them, it being simply impossible. In Ireland for instance, the ruling classes are sacrificing Fianna Fail itself, long their most reliable political instrument in order to get the policies they want. There is nothing whatsoever they can do to win an election on the platform of these economic policies, but they will achieve them anyway.

But why is it that in Europe these policies are often being enacted through blatantly undemocratic means rather than with the passive consent of the people as in America? It is not because Americans are less intelligent nor is it because they are "naturally" more right wing, that sort of thing is hardly an ethnic trait, it is simply because the resources the American right can bring to bare in convincing people to vote against their interests are so formidable.

[Publius]

sure, but the whole idea that the "market" can be free is also just propeganda.

Of course.



I sizable part of the government IS progressive, in name, so is Obama, in name, but they don't act like that because the representative democracy is far outweighed by corporate influence.

I certainly understand that our government is largely ruled by corporate interests. I take that to be absolute proof that it is in no way "progressive".



70% wanted public healthcare, we don't have it, why? Corporate influence.

The poll number shifted radically against health care reform as it was happening.

If America were progressive, why did the radical right wing have such a huge victory this last election?



THe Majority wants us out of both wars, why arnt we? Industrial-military complex.

The majority might SAY it wants these things, but unless it actually takes actions (even just voting for progressive candidates) who can make these things happen, it's just talk.

I don't care what Americans say, I care what they do.



THe majority wants to get tough on the banks, why arn't we? THe financial industry influence.

Judging public opinion by public policy makes no sense, you judge public opinion by public polls, statistics and so on.

To the contrary.

If America were a progressive country, it would have a progressive government a la Sweden or Denmark.

Do they not have corporations in those countries?

They do. But the public itself has power sufficient to combat their influence.



You judge corporate opinion or monied lobby opinion by public policy.

No progressive could be fooled by corporate lobbying.

Senators and such can be BOUGHT, but a progressive who supports public health care isn't going to be fooled by Wal Mart telling them government health care will lead to death panels.

That's just crazy.



Politicians work for who pay them.

But there are some politicans like Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold (who lost last election -- some progressive country we are!) and so on.

If our country were 60% progressive, or whatever, it's just a demographic fact that we'd have nearly half our politicians be progressive.



Your fogetting the elephant in the room, i.e. corporate influence.

Of course THERE IS corporate influence that rules our politics. That's my point: if our country were progressive, it wouldn't. Progressives wouldn't stand for it. We'd have publically funded elections in a progressive country, for instance. We'd have instance run off voting.



What progressive propeganda? What left wing distortions? Where are they?

That's my point. We need such propaganda.



They DID support the public option, ALL THE WAY THROUGH, even after the propeganda, which dropped the public opinion just a bit, it was still overwhelmingly popular.

And I bet in response to this failure, the public went and elected even more progressive politicans in order to secure what they REALLY wanted all along: single payer health care.

That's what happened, right?

Oh wait, no, the hugely progressive American voter decided to vote overwhelmingly for the most conservative and vile politicians this country has produced since the post-Civil War era.

What an odd thing to do.

Either that or the progressives just didn't vote, which doesn't make much sense either.



Its just that the government does'nt follow public opinion, they serve Capitalists.

Of course they DO. But they WOULDN'T if we were a progressive country.

That's the point.

I place the blame for these disasters squarely at the feet of the American people, who are too stupid and too feckless to do what dozens of other countries around the world have done in recent history.

[Publius]

It is a lot more complicated than this. In the first instance of course, the way elections are conducted in America makes it easy to keep inconvenient individuals in Congress to a minimum. When you elect through single member districts you can draw them up to maximise the likelihood of gaining a favourable result. If America used a more democratic electoral system the number of progressives in Congress would increase, even without a marked change in people's political preferences.

True, but according to RGacky something like 60% of people are progressives. That's just mathematically impossible even given our electoral system. Unless 120 million progressives all live in Berkeley or something, the math just doesn't bear out his assertion.

I think it's just a myth of the Left that Americans are "really" progressive, and we just need to tap into that. I think Americans are really regressive, and they're going to get the government they deserve.



On top of this of course is the fact that elections are heavily conducted on the basis of personality and voters are not adequately informed of what political positions they are really voting for. This of course is before we even go into the fact that most elections are won and lost when it comes to fundraising and that is a competition not fought on the basis of universal and equal suffrage.

Sure. But this is a point about voters being ignorant and gullible, not being progressive. It just doesn't make sense: how could a voter who is genuinely concerned with issues like ending the wars and providing for universal health care coverage be fooled by a half-wit like Sarah Palin?

It just strains credulity.



Real power of course comes from the ability to set the political agenda and even more through the ability to convince people to adopt views in opposition to their interests. The former is pretty obvious and the right wing are very good at it in America, they triumph at defining the "talking points". The latter power however is more subtle, and it is the reason why there is a discrepancy between what people say they believe and how they vote. Ask someone what they think and they'll tell you, but by the time a vote comes along there is plenty of time to convince them otherwise and get them to vote on different lines.

Exactly.

But what this tells me is people don't really believe what they say they believe.



To a large extent this can be done by getting them to focus on a few narrow issues where it is easiest to convince them of the right wing position. You are never going to convince most people for instance that huge subsidies for companies that are kind enough to donate to political campaigns is a good idea, but you can shift the focus on to other matters where it is easiest to fool people. The implications of immigration restriction, strict law and order and the death penalty, tax cuts for the rich, reducing welfare and so forth are the precise opposite of what many people think they are but because it is relatively easy to trick people there, that is where the emphasis is kept.

I can't imagine any progressive, no matter how ignorant, who could be fooled into thinking those things you listed are a good idea.

I can, however, easily see how the average American believes them.

What conclusion am I to draw here?



If you look over here at Europe much of the same savage right wing policies that will only make things worse are being pursued here also, but they are being sold differently. People are being told they are a necessary evil and in some cases almost no attempt is being made to reconcile the public to them, it being simply impossible. In Ireland for instance, the ruling classes are sacrificing Fianna Fail itself, long their most reliable political instrument in order to get the policies they want. There is nothing whatsoever they can do to win an election on the platform of these economic policies, but they will achieve them anyway.

The savage right wing policies that are being pursued over there now are just typical American life. Politics as usual since at least Reagan.



But why is it that in Europe these policies are often being enacted through blatantly undemocratic means rather than with the passive consent of the people as in America? It is not because Americans are less intelligent nor is it because they are "naturally" more right wing, that sort of thing is hardly an ethnic trait, it is simply because the resources the American right can bring to bare in convincing people to vote against their interests are so formidable.

I think the answers do lie in America's political history and its culture. I don't know if you're American, or where you grew up in America, but there are vast swathes of the country that ARE ignorant and ARE naturally right wing. I grew up in one. I suspect, to some extent, that leftists views about America are based on a vast ignorance of this subset of the American population.

I bet these polls that show that people support government health care and some such don't reach very many people in rural Ohio, at least as much as they reach people in cities.

[Demogorgon]

True, but according to RGacky something like 60% of people are progressives. That's just mathematically impossible even given our electoral system. Unless 120 million progressives all live in Berkeley or something, the math just doesn't bear out his assertion.

Or it could be that the electoral system is preventing decent candidates from even running. Single member districts don't just distort the results, they also make it harder for candidates outside of the accepted positions to run, or at least be taken seriously, particularly in rigid two party systems.


I think it's just a myth of the Left that Americans are "really" progressive, and we just need to tap into that. I think Americans are really regressive, and they're going to get the government they deserve.

No, unlike RGacky I don't think a majority right here and now is progressive in particular political positions held, I do however believe that they are not all right wing by nature. The right wing spin machine would hardly bother committing all the resources it does if people naturally agreed with it anyway.


Sure. But this is a point about voters being ignorant and gullible, not being progressive. It just doesn't make sense: how could a voter who is genuinely concerned with issues like ending the wars and providing for universal health care coverage be fooled by a half-wit like Sarah Palin?

It just strains credulity.

It does and if I didn't see it happen I would agree with you. To take an anecdotal example, I had my Aunt over a few months ago, she obviously knows Universal Healthcare is a good thing given she has joint British Citizenship and gets all her medical treatment done over here when she can possibly manage it, and was against the Iraq war, yet she thinks Sarah Palin is the best thing since sliced bread. Now if she was an isolated example I would just write it off as the eccentricity that seems to run in my family but she isn't and bizarre as it is to me vast numbers of people are misled this way.


Exactly.

But what this tells me is people don't really believe what they say they believe.

Not really, what it says to me is that people answer a general question in the way that seems right to them, but when they come to vote they are subject to incredibly intense propaganda campaigns.

To use a non-American example, in France Sarkozy's policies are unpopular and I don't just mean people don't like them when they see them in action, much of what he was on record as believing flew in the face of public opinion yet the people voted for him anyway. These days his poll ratings are abysmal but don't write off a comeback, people could still vote for him again despite manifestly disliking his policies. And in this case it isn't just opinion polls showing disapproval of him, at the regional elections the voters gave his party a horrendous beating, but still he retains a serious chance of reelection. How can this sort of thing be explained unless people can be persuaded to vote a different way than what they actually believe?

In this example I have deliberately using a country where the propaganda offensive is somewhat milder than in America, the French media landscape is too chaotic to pull off what happens in America, yet still these voters are readily tricked, what hope to voters who have access to less information have?


I can't imagine any progressive, no matter how ignorant, who could be fooled into thinking those things you listed are a good idea.

I can, however, easily see how the average American believes them.

What conclusion am I to draw here?

Again I don't think these people have fully formed progressive opinions, I think, if I may be frank, that there is severe false-consciousness at play, but I think people's core attitudes are much more open than you believe. Give a person false information and play to the desire for an "easy solution" and you can easily mislead a lot of people.

That incidentally is another trick popular with the right, to take the example of law and order, everybody except a few Wolfie Smiths here (well done to people who spots the reference) wants a low crime rate so somebody claiming they can reduce it by being "tough", giving harsh sentences, executing criminals and whatever is going to sound appealing. Leaving aside the immorality of doing that, it is also a many-times proven fact that it does not work, the most common outcome being rising crime, yet the response is often "we aren't being tough enough", why do people keep buying that? The reason is that it promises simple solutions, the actual policies needed to reduce crime are complicated and take a long time to work, as such they have much less on the surface appeal. People aren't going for the disproven authoritarian approach because they are naturally nasty people but because it is natural to look for an easy way out.

That is how the far-right has become markedly more successful lately, it sees complicated problems and tells people that they can be easily solved, and that simply sounds better than someone saying the issue is very complicated and needs a lot of work to fix.


The savage right wing policies that are being pursued over there now are just typical American life. Politics as usual since at least Reagan.

They are a fact of life in Europe too. The ruling classes want these policies so they enact them, getting people to support them is the next step, they aren't enacted through popular pressure.


I think the answers do lie in America's political history and its culture. I don't know if you're American, or where you grew up in America, but there are vast swathes of the country that ARE ignorant and ARE naturally right wing. I grew up in one. I suspect, to some extent, that leftists views about America are based on a vast ignorance of this subset of the American population.

I bet these polls that show that people support government health care and some such don't reach very many people in rural Ohio, at least as much as they reach people in cities.I'm not American, but I am familiar with the country. I have to say though that there is a major tendency to think America is somehow a case apart from the rest of the world, it really isn't. People living in the back of beyond having political views from the stone age is true much of the world over.

Political history and culture play a big part but the real trick comes in how it is spun. Think of the stupid appeals to the "founding fathers". Leaving aside the fact that it doesn't actually matter one jot what people from the eighteenth century would think about current issues, it is also incredibly anachronistic to try to apply things said and done then to things happening now. Yet it is done constantly, that isn't because culture naturally causes it, it is because it is a really effective way to spin history. False consciousness again.

[RGacky3]

True, but according to RGacky something like 60% of people are progressives. That's just mathematically impossible even given our electoral system. Unless 120 million progressives all live in Berkeley or something, the math just doesn't bear out his assertion.

I think it's just a myth of the Left that Americans are "really" progressive, and we just need to tap into that. I think Americans are really regressive, and they're going to get the government they deserve.


Look at voter turnout, its tiny, also look at corporate lobbies. Jeez man, you gotta be dumb if you ignore that stuff. Most people don't vote, and politicians don't lsiten to voters anyway.

Look at voter turnout, look at lobbies, elections are the worst way to look at public opinoin.

Public opinion polls are way more accurate.

[ckaihatsu]

Public opinion polls are way more accurate.


That's why right-wingers always diss them...(!)

[RGacky3]

The poll number shifted radically against health care reform as it was happening.

If America were progressive, why did the radical right wing have such a huge victory this last election?



BECAUSE IT ONLY HAD THE MANDATE AND NOT THE PUBLIC OPTION YOU MORON, that was not public healthcare.


I think the answers do lie in America's political history and its culture. I don't know if you're American, or where you grew up in America, but there are vast swathes of the country that ARE ignorant and ARE naturally right wing. I grew up in one. I suspect, to some extent, that leftists views about America are based on a vast ignorance of this subset of the American population.

I bet these polls that show that people support government health care and some such don't reach very many people in rural Ohio, at least as much as they reach people in cities.

No one is naturally right wing, maybe ignorant people are more succeptable to propeganda (which is why the most furvent maoists supporters were usually uneducated) but no one is "naturally" right wing.

Polls are done by phone and different method, and the pools are carefully selected to get a realistic picture.


The majority might SAY it wants these things, but unless it actually takes actions (even just voting for progressive candidates) who can make these things happen, it's just talk.

I don't care what Americans say, I care what they do.


Americans don't have the power to pull out of those wars, because America is'nt a democracy.

THATS WHY MOST OF THEM DON'T VOTE.


To the contrary.

If America were a progressive country, it would have a progressive government a la Sweden or Denmark.

Do they not have corporations in those countries?

They do. But the public itself has power sufficient to combat their influence.


Those countries have protections that prevent money from ruling their countries, also those countries corporations are many many times less powerful than AMerican corporatsion, also those countries started out with social democratic reforms early before corporate power becmae strong.

The US is not a democracy, a progressive government is'nt an option, we have 2 options, a liberal corporatist government or a conservative corporatist government, given those options most people don't vote.


No progressive could be fooled by corporate lobbying.

Senators and such can be BOUGHT, but a progressive who supports public health care isn't going to be fooled by Wal Mart telling them government health care will lead to death panels.

That's just crazy.


Public policy is determined by senators and the such, no regular people.


But there are some politicans like Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold (who lost last election -- some progressive country we are!) and so on.

If our country were 60% progressive, or whatever, it's just a demographic fact that we'd have nearly half our politicians be progressive.


Look how much money was thrown into getting rid of Russ, also look at the voter turnout.

As far as your second point, I've explained it over and over again, corporate influence (which is huge), low voter turnout, and both parties being beholdent to the corporations.

Of coarse, even a broken clock is right twice a day.


That's my point: if our country were progressive, it wouldn't. Progressives wouldn't stand for it. We'd have publically funded elections in a progressive country, for instance. We'd have instance run off voting.



Except thats never an option, progressives don't have that choice electorally.


That's my point. We need such propaganda.


start donating.


Oh wait, no, the hugely progressive American voter decided to vote overwhelmingly for the most conservative and vile politicians this country has produced since the post-Civil War era.

What an odd thing to do.

Either that or the progressives just didn't vote, which doesn't make much sense either.



There are facts and the facts are voter turnout dropped significantly, and it definately makes sense, democrats won't do anything progressive niether will republicans, so your time is better spent elsewhere.


But they WOULDN'T if we were a progressive country.

That's the point.

I place the blame for these disasters squarely at the feet of the American people, who are too stupid and too feckless to do what dozens of other countries around the world have done in recent history.

Your an idiot, look at the context, the US is THE world power, the corporate powers here dwarf the corporate powers in the rest of the world, our labor movement was crushed with violence, Europe came out of world war 1 and 2 and build social democracy from that.

Your solution is voting more progressive, that does'nt work, its never worked, because thats not an option and corpoate powers maker sure its never an option, so blaiming the "people" is just proof if your ignorance, you seam to buy the line that all it takes is to vote for a progressive, we did that, corporate AMerica still won.

Poeple for the most part don't vote, and even when they do, the politicnas work for corporations anyway, so your idiotic stance of not looking at public opinoin polls and statistics and instead looking at election results is about as intelligent as judging public opinion in the USSR by election results.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Why is everyone on Krugman's dick? Guys just bourgeious.

[RGacky3]

Why is everyone on Krugman's dick? Guys just bourgeious.


Because he's smart, intelligent people don't judge people or ideas based on whether they are "bourgeious" or not, we judge them based on if they make sense, I don't give a shit if Prince Charles makes an intelligent analysis of the economy, if it makes sense it makes sense.

[Demogorgon]

Why is everyone on Krugman's dick? Guys just bourgeious.Because we can know a good analysis when we see it and don't need to play childish games of writing something off based on simplistic views of the source?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Because he's smart, intelligent people don't judge people or ideas based on whether they are "bourgeious" or not, we judge them based on if they make sense, I don't give a shit if Prince Charles makes an intelligent analysis of the economy, if it makes sense it makes sense.

Well clearly he is "smart" in some sense. So are most academics.

However, your last phrase "if it makes sense it makes sense" is somewhat confusing - do you think a bourgeois liberals analysis of the economy right now makes sense? How can you maintain that you are an anarchist, then?

I've been reading OI a bit recently, and I think you've been talking to libertarians for too long. A bunch of you seem to confuse anyone hawking the line that "left" capitalists at the moment, are, views are in concert with the lefts to some degree.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Because we can know a good analysis when we see it and don't need to play childish games of writing something off based on simplistic views of the source?

And this "good analysis" is that market fundamentalist ideas have returned, despite failing in the past and that "President" Obama needs to stop compromising with republicans.

Well blow me, what a stunning analysis. Thats not something any leftist could of told you, at all. Or something that is said just about daily on this forum by ordinary posters?

And out of this entire thread so far nobody has pointed out the inadequacy of krugman's implied (since we all know what they are) solutions to our economic problems.

[ckaihatsu]

Well clearly he is "smart" in some sense. So are most academics.

However, your last phrase "if it makes sense it makes sense" is somewhat confusing - do you think a bourgeois liberals analysis of the economy right now makes sense? [...]

I've been reading OI a bit recently, and I think you've been talking to libertarians for too long. A bunch of you seem to confuse anyone hawking the line that "left" capitalists at the moment, are, views are in concert with the lefts to some degree.


The thing with thinking / analysis is that *anyone* can make some insightful and correct descriptions for a particular, limited situation -- it doesn't mean that they'll *always* get it right, or that they *want* to see the overall big picture as it really is, since that requires greater degrees of abstraction and sustained commitment, with definite political implications.

*This* situation falls under the domain of accuracy-and-precision, akin to hitting a bulls-eye target -- someone making a few disconnected attempts may be fairly 'accurate', at least hitting within the target, but they won't necessarily be *precise*, or systematic, overall since they may not be so motivated to be so attentive and focused.


http://www.spcforexcel.com/files/images/accpre.gif
http://www.who.int/entity/hac/techguidance/tools/disrupted_sectors/accuracy_precision.gif

[RGacky3]

do you think a bourgeois liberals analysis of the economy right now makes sense? How can you maintain that you are an anarchist, then?


Makes sense in the context of their discussion, obviously as an anarchist and a socialist we want to widen the discussion to outside Capitalism and alternatives to Capitalism.

However what Paul Krugman is saying makes absolute sense given the context and subject of which he's talking about.

[Demogorgon]

And this "good analysis" is that market fundamentalist ideas have returned, despite failing in the past and that "President" Obama needs to stop compromising with republicans.

Well blow me, what a stunning analysis. Thats not something any leftist could of told you, at all. Or something that is said just about daily on this forum by ordinary posters?

And out of this entire thread so far nobody has pointed out the inadequacy of krugman's implied (since we all know what they are) solutions to our economic problems.Krugman's solution is Keynesian economic policies and expanded social welfare, but we aren't talking about what he thinks should be done, we are talking about how he analyses what is going on now.

It may well be that others have pointed out what he wrote, I certainly have, on every possible occasion as it happens, but he has phrased it very well and if you are familiar with his work generally, it ties in well with quite a lot of what he is saying.

Now it may not be more-revolutionary-than-thou to quote a mainstream source who is not a socialist, but in my experience most people aren't terribly convinced by having obscure socialist literature thrown in their faces. I want to convince people, not comfort myself that I have a superior view to them.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Michael Hudson makes better political and economic critiques than the Bastard Keynesian Krugman ever did.

[RGacky3]

then make a new thread about one of his analysis' rather than trying to start some sort of pointless economist war, its like comparing apples and oranges.