Right-wingers and the hypocrisy of small government

[Loony Le Fist]

This may be a question that is US-centric, but I don't understand how come right-wingers trust government where they are least accountable? Who is more likely to abuse citizens: a census worker, or a police officer. A welfare social service worker, or an nsa agent? It just seems that positions that would give people the authority to detain and imprison others would be least likely to be all that accountable.

[Derendscools]

This may be a question that is US-centric, but I don't understand how come right-wingers trust government where they are least accountable? Who is more likely to abuse citizens: a census worker, or a police officer. A welfare social service worker, or an nsa agent? It just seems that positions that would give people the authority to detain and imprison others would be least likely to be all that accountable.

Because right wingers want to keep the statues quo,or maybe they have a, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear mentality.

[Ares1214]

It's a matter of opinion of who in the government is the most trustworthy. The general concept is more along the lines that the government is generally wasteful, inefficient, and abusive of its resources and power, so the more limited it is, the better.

[Schumpeter]

A) Right and left wingers both support the existence of a police force, there is no divergence in policy here.

B) 'Small goverment' right wingers do not support the NSA, infact they are highly critical of the NSA.

C) Not all the right wing is 'small government' orientated.

[liberlict]

A) Right and left wingers both support the existence of a police force, there is no divergence in policy here.

.

No actually most communists view the police as ignorant soldiers for the bourgeois.

[Schumpeter]

No actually most communists view the police as ignorant soldiers for the bourgeois.

They like the police, they just prefer to keep them a secret.

[liberlict]

Well yeah. There must be quite the moral dilemma when someone robs their house given their sympathy for criminals.

[#FF0000]

B) 'Small goverment' right wingers do not support the NSA, infact they are highly critical of the NSA.

In the US, "small government" rhetoric is ubiquitous for the right, but much of the right is also all for massive, bloated defense projects and subsidies for this or that industry, or the government legislating morality.

That isn't to say there aren't right wing folks who are more consistent, but I'd say more right-wingers (at least in the Republican party) are the type to preach small government while advocating for things that fly in the face of that.

[Marxaveli]

They like the police, they just prefer to keep them a secret.

Spreading nonsense like this accomplishes nothing.

Anyways, most right-wingers actually LIKE big government. After all, the state is an instrument of class oppression, and the stronger that state is the more secure the ruling class' position is. "Libertarians" are the stark exception to this, but libertarianism is just a form of right-wing hipsterism anyway so it matters not.

[PhoenixAsh]

The initial assertion Schumpeter made is correct.

Leftwingers (of the US spectrum...see OP) are just as much invested in maintaining and expanding police and SecServices as the rightwingers are. There is no real difference between dems and reps.

Of all communist and revolutionary factions the only ones depending on a state apparatus are the vanguardists and the ones advocating a prolonged DP....which necessitates the consolidation of police and/or security forces. So he isn't wrong there either.

All other factions however...reject any notion of police forces outside of a democratized militia or community initiatives.

****

Rightwingers are also selective in what is government and what is not. Usually they are opposed to bureaucracy rather than government...and military and police fall outside that spectrum. They are also opposed to government as it intervenes with economy. So when they say we need smaller government they usually mean we need less bureaucracy and less departments that check, less departments that provide social security, or perform other functions which restrict or limit trade, industry or freedom of businesses.

They do not mean to make government as small as possible outside of that scope.

[Marxaveli]

So, expand government when it comes to military power (needed to spread and protect global capital) and police forces (to protect capital locally while keeping "the palace" safe from the peasants), but cut out social programs that help the poor cause hey, profits and free trade are more important than ones livelihood. How fucking convenient the "small government" argument works for this logic.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think these questions are framed in a way as if it's about an ideological view of "government" in general when it really isn't. Liberals and conservatives largely agree ideologically on government and it's role, just not the specifics: both think government is necessary to maintain order (they mean this abstractly most of the time, not the real order of capitalist relations, but some ideal "order").

In the us, anti-"big government" sentiment isn't about government as much as it is about social order: specifically gains from past reforms through struggle (both labor, but much more sharply from the civil rights era) and Keynesian reformism.

In the u.s. For various specific reasons major reforms were won at the federal level and the language around "free choice" and "local autonomy" used by the right arose out of fights to maintain racially segregated housing (organized by housing interests with appeals to white supremacy to create a "base"), oppose school integration, etc. you can see a pretty direct line between segregationist arguments and rand and Ron Paul type politics today with them advocating the business owners have the "right" not to serve black people or hire lgbtq.

So who are the government villains of the right: census workers because the census might actually reflect changing demographics that would reduce the ability of local gerrymandered fiefdoms to be free to pass whatever things help whatever local economic interests dominate. Social workers, welfare offices, any programs that might help poor people have a modicum of stability. So the government to them is still about maintaining order... Just one of white supremacy, freedom for business, and reduced access to even the limited levers of popular pressure on business/governance that exist in the u.s.

[liberlict]

So, expand government when it comes to military power (needed to spread and protect global capital) and police forces (to protect capital locally while keeping "the palace" safe from the peasants), but cut out social programs that help the poor cause hey, profits and free trade are more important than ones livelihood. How fucking convenient the "small government" argument works for this logic.

I think this is a good point. Communists hate the state, so why do they want to make it bigger?

[Loony Le Fist]

I think this is a good point. Communists hate the state, so why do they want to make it bigger?

It depends on what you mean by "bigger". If by bigger you mean having more authoritarian control over people through police and military forces, than no. If by bigger you mean providing more social services, like trash pickup, education, healthcare, food, mail services; then according to that definition, perhaps. But at the same time (speaking for myself) I want to bring more democracy and accountability to the state. Democracy needs to "trickle-up" from the people, not downward from the head of state. I don't want a bigger state--I want a more decentralized and democratized state.

The problem with the right-wing is that they want to make the state bigger when it comes to military and police forces. Then they want to remove democratic control and accountability from them. That's not small government--that's tyranny. Not only that, they want to assert control over the body of women, sexual orientation and other types of non-sense. Again, not small government. Additionally they want to have unaccountable microtyrannies running rampant exploiting people with no democratic controls. We spend most of our day at work--so why don't the people have democratic control over where they spend the most time?

A government that provides more social services doesn't automatically mean a government that is more authoritarian. This is a false dichotomy that is often brought up as an objection by right-wingers. There are conceptions of a state that is both capable of providing lots of basic services for the people, while at the same time being accountable, decentralized, and non-authoritarian.

[Marxaveli]

I think this is a good point. Communists hate the state, so why do they want to make it bigger?

Simple answer: We don't.

[liberlict]

It depends on what you mean by "bigger". If by bigger you mean having more authoritarian control over people through police and military forces, than no. If by bigger you mean providing more social services, like trash pickup, education, healthcare, food, mail services; then according to that definition, perhaps. But at the same time (speaking for myself) I want to bring more democracy and accountability to the state. Democracy needs to "trickle-up" from the people, not downward from the head of state. I don't want a bigger state--I want a more decentralized and democratized state.

The problem with the right-wing is that they want to make the state bigger when it comes to military and police forces. Then they want to remove democratic control and accountability from them. That's not small government--that's tyranny. Not only that, they want to assert control over the body of women, sexual orientation and other types of non-sense. Again, not small government. Additionally they want to have unaccountable microtyrannies running rampant exploiting people with no democratic controls. We spend most of our day at work--so why don't the people have democratic control over where they spend the most time?



Not all of the right want to increase military funding. The libertarian right doesn't want to support any state services---especially military.


A government that provides more social services doesn't automatically mean a government that is more authoritarian. This is a false dichotomy that is often brought up as an objection by right-wingers. There are conceptions of a state that is both capable of providing lots of basic services for the people, while at the same time being accountable, decentralized, and non-authoritarian.

Perhaps, but increasing taxation rates makes the state bigger, no matter where the money goes. I've never met a communist who complained about taxation. Maybe this is because their hatred of successful corporations distracts them from swelling bureaucracys.

[Loony Le Fist]

Not all of the right want to increase military funding. The libertarian right doesn't want to support any state services---especially military.


Point taken.



Perhaps, but increasing taxation rates makes the state bigger, no matter where the money goes.


That depends on how you define a "bigger state". See my previous post.



I've never met a communist who complained about taxation. Maybe this is because their hatred of successful corporations distracts them from swelling bureaucracys.

Well for me (I can't speak for others) it's more about democratic control of workplaces. I don't want unsuccessful enterprises, I just want them to be worker controlled. I'm for worker control of the place where one spends the most time and where decisions affect them the most. If democracy is a value, then we need to have some democracy over the decisions that affect us most acutely, namely at work. This isn't about hating success, it's about bringing democracy, and that success, to the most people. It's a bit of a straw man to claim that communists hate success.

[Alan OldStudent]

.... I've never met a communist who complained about taxation....

Hello Citizen Liberlict,

Allow me to (re)introduce myself :grin:. Actually, I've enjoyed reading your contributions, despite our differences of opinions.

As it happens, I'm a communist who complains about taxes. I just made out a big (for me) check to the US Government for my federal taxes (called "income tax" in the USA, similar to Inland Revenue in the UK).

I'm always kvetching about having to finance US imperialism and bail out the capitalists, and I don't like it. I did it only because the law requires it.
http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/S_soapbox.gif

I didn't mind paying my property tax so much, as it goes mainly to the schools and upkeep of city and county services. I support our first responders and the education of the youth.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not all of the right want to increase military funding. The libertarian right doesn't want to support any state services---especially military.well mainstream ones do support police and military... So their "anti-government" stance is just anti Keynesianism, a question of what functions should be the priority of the government. The more extreme liberts who do oppose the military and police as government organizations also tend to not support these state services, they just prefer it to be privatized... To preserve the function, just take out the government nature of it.


I've never met a communist who complained about taxation. lol, have you ever met a communist? Taxation is just who pays for what and it's always a question of priorities (that is, within the capitalist states we all have to live in and deal with as a reality). Communists complain about regressive taxes, and higher fees (which are put on public services BECAUSE of tax cuts in other areas and therefore become a tax on the poor in the form of more education costs, more bridge tolls, higher bus fares, etc). The conservatives mush all taxes together as if they are the same in order to attract people squeezed by regressive taxation to support more "tax cuts" which ultimately go to the taxes on the rich. It's a scam.


Maybe this is because their hatred of successful corporations distracts them from swelling bureaucracys.they are not opposed, they are linked. In fact, Marx talked about it and how while government beurocracies will often cross specific business interests or will seek to preserve the beurocratic structure, their interests are linked to the overall interests of all business and can't be separated (I think this link is almost a literal one in the u.s. Where most high up appointed beurocrats are former CEOs and appointees in high government positions then go into high positions in companies after their government appointment ends).


The bureaucracy is the state formalism of civil society. It is the state's consciousness, the state's will, the state's power, as a Corporation. (The universal interest can behave vis-a-vis the particular only as a particular so long as the particular behaves vis-a vis the universal as a universal. The bureaucracy must thus defend the imaginary universality of particular interest, i.e., the Corporation mind, in order to defend the imaginary particularity of the universal interests, i.e., its own mind. The state must be Corporation so long as the Corporation wishes to be state.) Being the state's consciousness, will, and power as a Corporation, the bureaucracy is thus a particular, closed society within the state. The bureaucracy wills the Corporation as an imaginary power. To be sure, the individual Corporation also has this will for its particular interest in opposition to the bureaucracy, but it wills the bureaucracy against the other Corporation, against the other particular interest. The bureaucracy as the completed Corporation therefore wins the day over the Corporation which is like incomplete bureaucracy. It reduces the Corporation to an appearance, or wishes to do so, but wishes this appearance to I exist and to believe in its own existence. The Corporation is civil society's attempt to become state; but the bureaucracy is the state which has really made itself into civil society.

[liberlict]

well mainstream ones do support police and military... So their "anti-government" stance is just anti Keynesianism, a question of what functions should be the priority of the government. The more extreme liberts who do oppose the military and police as government organizations also tend to not support these state services, they just prefer it to be privatized... To preserve the function, just take out the government nature of it.

lol, have you ever met a communist? Taxation is just who pays for what and it's always a question of priorities (that is, within the capitalist states we all have to live in and deal with as a reality). Communists complain about regressive taxes, and higher fees (which are put on public services BECAUSE of tax cuts in other areas and therefore become a tax on the poor in the form of more education costs, more bridge tolls, higher bus fares, etc). The conservatives mush all taxes together as if they are the same in order to attract people squeezed by regressive taxation to support more "tax cuts" which ultimately go to the taxes on the rich. It's a scam.

they are not opposed, they are linked. In fact, Marx talked about it and how while government beurocracies will often cross specific business interests or will seek to preserve the beurocratic structure, their interests are linked to the overall interests of all business and can't be separated (I think this link is almost a literal one in the u.s. Where most high up appointed beurocrats are former CEOs and appointees in high government positions then go into high positions in companies after their government appointment ends).

Good points all, but would you actually vote for a party that stood for slashing taxes? My impression is that communists view such policies as 'right-wing'.

[Loony Le Fist]

Good points all, but would you actually vote for a party that stood for slashing taxes? My impression is that communists view such policies as 'right-wing'.

Sadly voting doesn't work all that well. There is a lot of corruption in the system. That said, if it furthers the revolution of worker ownership I'm all for it. If someone is truly for changes to the system to empower workers, and give them greater protections to strike, and liberate themselves, I could care less if they want to lower taxes at the same time. But I think has to be considered who politicians most often lower taxes for. Poor people pay considerably more in taxes as a percent of income than any other groups when you include excise taxes like VATs and sales taxes. Chart follows.


http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-11tax-f2.jpg

[liberlict]

Sadly voting doesn't work all that well. There is a lot of corruption in the system. That said, if it furthers the revolution of worker ownership I'm all for it. If someone is truly for changes to the system to empower workers, and give them greater protections to strike, and liberate themselves, I could care less if they want to lower taxes at the same time. But I think has to be considered who politicians most often lower taxes for. Poor people pay considerably more in taxes as a percent of income than any other groups when you include excise taxes like VATs and sales taxes. Chart follows.


http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-11tax-f2.jpg


Thanks.

What would a taxation policy to empower workers look like? In the context of a bipartisan system I mean.

[Loony Le Fist]

Thanks.

What would a taxation policy to empower workers look like? In the context of a bipartisan system I mean.

Well everyone seems to have their own ideas on here. My biggest problem with money has to do with opulence. If a company reinvests in their company to hire more workers, why should they be penalized through taxation? Why should a company that is worker owned and managed pay any penalty for reinvesting in it's people? The idea is to keep as much money to pay workers in these cooperatives as possible.

Some have suggested a tax on private property. But I think we have to be careful not to penalize a worker owned cooperatives. My proposed solution is a type of sales tax imposed on new goods excluding food and used goods. This would be coupled by a guaranteed base income (GBI) for every citizen. While it seems regressive, the GBI would offset the tax payed for families living modestly. Therefore it would only penalize people that try to live opulently. Additionally it would capture money from sources currently untaxed like those that can be deducted like entertainment expenses (stock brokers, for example, are known to go out for escorts and strip clubs); and also illicit sources. This would also make welfare programs like food stamps superfluous.

While it sounds similar to FairTax in the US, I believe the base sustenance must be higher in order to provide the base starting line for everyone. I also think there has to be massive investment in all kids of infastructure that I won't go into here. Contrary to many of those that subscribe to Marxist theory, let's just say I reject metalism and a few other things. I happen to be a neo-chartalist.

These changes, I believe, would work towards empowering workers and granting them the same flexibility that companies have in their human resource decisions. After all, it is nice to know that there is a safety net and you can change occupations at will. However this has to be coupled with increased protection from union busting and even incentives for creating worker owned cooperatives. The idea is to encourage workers to not be afraid to stand up and speak out against bad conditions. See my post on post-capitalism for more information about my position. I know it might not be considered particularly popular here on RevLeft. Keep in mind that my ideas are rather US centric.

The next steps are moving forward with an economy centered around use value instead of exchange value. And that will come via other means. Education and a change of social values around consumption will have to occur before these steps can happen. My only desire now, is to facilitate the revolution for workers.