Politics Left vs. Right: Political Discussion

[bossel]

I guess they would be way past socialists on the scale, having nationalized industry and outlawed private property. I'm not up on Marx, but did communism preclude a dynastic party dictatorship (of the slightly unbalanced?)

Aha, we're narrowing it down to a Marxian form of Socialism.
I would say it does preclude a dynasty. AFAIK, Marx wanted the dictatorship of the proletariat. I doubt, that a dynasty (or a party dictatorship which involves almost solely professional politicians) can be called proletarian.

 

[No-name]

I was an English major, not political science. So it's not my area of expertise.
but...What you might call proletarian before you hand them the reigns and what you would call proletarian after may be two different things. (per Orwell's Animal Farm) and Orwell was a socialist. So how could you assure that power once given would never be missused?

I don't think totalitarianism is exclusively left. Nor is barbarism, stupidity and ineptitude.

 

[bossel]

I was an English major, not political science. So it's not my area of expertise.

Just like me, my minor is history.
But when someone, as in the case of Censport, tries to frighten people by telling how bad "Socialism" is, they should know what they talk about. Obviously that's quite often not the case.
You don't need to be a major in political science to inform yourself.

So how could you assure that power once given would never be missused?

Good question. Probably impossible. That's why I'd prefer a powerless (IE Libertarian) society. Sadly that probably wouldn't work either. Therefore a democracy with a few basic powers would probably be the best solution.

Proletariat should be easy enough to define: the working class.

Or as M-W puts it (#2 is the classical Marx view, I think):
1 : the lowest social or economic class of a community
2 : the laboring class; especially : the class of industrial workers who lack their own means of production and hence sell their labor to live

 

[No-name]

The guys that wrote our constitution took a lot of pain to divide power between different independent branches, and between states and the federal government, and to make representatives accountable through elections.

 

[bossel]

The guys that wrote our constitution took a lot of pain to divide power between different independent branches, and between states and the federal government, and to make representatives accountable through elections.

Maybe not enough pain that they took. It seems, as if there are enough loopholes for the government to exploit. Even in the US misuse of power is not impossible.

 

[No-name]

Well, they didn't invent, nor could they forsee: the Department of Homeland Security, the Emergency Powers Act, political parties, Political Action Committees, Campaign Contributions, the Electronic media...

My sloppy point should have been, It is a good idea to divide power and provide checks and balances. A democratic republic with adequate civil liberty protection could be structured, rules can be written...Can these ensure that socialism will be missued? What could be the harm in nationalizing the larger more important industries? or providing health care? Perscription drugs? Utilities? Housing? Building a transportation network? Could we do this without destroying capitolism's consumer responsiveness and self/greed motivation? Do we need the promise of profit to get to work, to pour on the creativity and entreprenuerial spirit?

Too tired to think...

 

[Censport]

But when someone, as in the case of Censport, tries to frighten people by telling how bad "Socialism" is, they should know what they talk about. Obviously that's quite often not the case.

Oh now, play nice. I've yet to point out that you sound like a Self-appointed Expert on Everything, so let's not start.

Besides, I don't try to frighten anyone. I try to warn. You are responsible for your own reaction.

I can't remember who it was, but a couple thousand years ago someone pointed out that democracy can only last so long, because at some point people will figure out that they can vote themselves into the treasury.

Clearly, Socialism is the most vunerable system to such abuse.

A democratic republic with adequate civil liberty protection could be structured, rules can be written...Can these ensure that socialism will be missued?

I've yet to see anything that can keep Socialism from being abused. Bossel...?

I don't think totalitarianism is exclusively left. Nor is barbarism, stupidity and ineptitude.

Agreed. Which was my earlier point about fascism. It is a tool that can be used by any faction. You forgot to list corruption, or were you including that in ineptitude?

 

[No-name]

You forgot to list corruption, or were you including that in ineptitude?

LOL...I don't know how I forgot that one, I've visited Mexico enough to know better.

Random thoughts:
Los Angeles just rewrote the city charter a few years ago. It used to be this "progressive era" document that gave very little effective power to the executive (mayoral) branch.

LA County has in recent years abandoned the idea of universal health car for its residents (not that they ever met that goal, but there is an inscription above the doors of USC/County General Hospital stating it.)

In CA, we like our initiative/referendum powers- lots and lots of propositions, recalling a governor...Schwarzenegger has threatened to bypass the legislature and go directly to the people if they don't get somethings done. Maybe we need a national power of referendum?

I don't really get the Reganesque idea of the wealth creating wealth. The sweat and ideas and raw creative energy of workers and entrepreneurs, the consumption of mass products by legions of consumers with disposable income, and the synergy of international trade have more to do with driving the economy than one rich guy and his Guatamalan house keeper.

What's our next topic? Censport suggested Media.

 

[bossel]

My sloppy point should have been, It is a good idea to divide power and provide checks and balances. A democratic republic with adequate civil liberty protection could be structured, rules can be written...

Yep, I fully agree. Problem is, in a democracy rules can be rewritten, democracy can be voted away. There is no perfect political system (& probably never will be).

Do we need the promise of profit to get to work, to pour on the creativity and entreprenuerial spirit?

Obviously that's the way human society works.

Oh now, play nice. I've yet to point out that you sound like a Self-appointed Expert on Everything, so let's not start.

Playing nice, hmm? If I sound to you like that, it only shows that you have no clue of what I talked about. I said everybody can know this stuff, you only need to look things up. To quote myself: "You don't need to be a major in political science to inform yourself."

Besides, I don't try to frighten anyone. I try to warn.

Warn people of Socialism by pointing at things (in this case collectivist hair styles) that have nothing to do with it? Wow!

I've yet to see anything that can keep Socialism from being abused. Bossel...?

Socialism is a theory (edit: Or better: a whole bunch of theories), not more. I've yet to see it realised somewhere. Just because people tell you theirs is the only true Socialism, doesn't mean that it is Socialism at all.

 

[Censport]

Warn people of Socialism by pointing at things (in this case collectivist hair styles) that have nothing to do with it? Wow!

Socialism is a theory, not more. I've yet to see it realised somewhere. Just because people tell you theirs is the only true Socialism, doesn't mean that it is Socialism at all.

There is no spoon? You're almost right. Socialism only works in theory. It's when someone tries to practice Socialism that problems arise.

I use examples such as Tenncare to warn people about Socialism. That example of collectivist hair style warns of the elitism and hypocrisy (look at Kim Jong Il's hair) that is often the result of over-centralized systems. It was also supposed to be funny. Sorry if you took it personally.

 

[No-name]

Capitolism is only a theory too. It only seems to work with constant tweaking, adjustments to keep the game going and vigilant checks on social safety nets, worker safety, and environmental protection. You can't actually let anyone win, or even get too many of the chips or the game is over.

 

[bossel]

There is no spoon? You're almost right. Socialism only works in theory. It's when someone tries to practice Socialism that problems arise.

I'm not aware that any country practiced socialism yet (you'll find socialist features in pretty much all countries, but does that make those countries socialist? Nope.). Not that I think it would work, anyway.

I use examples such as Tenncare to warn people about Socialism.

If those examples have nothing to do with socialism your warnings are useless. You only show that you have no idea of what you're talking about.

Capitolism is only a theory too. It only seems to work with constant tweaking, adjustments to keep the game going and vigilant checks on social safety nets, worker safety, and environmental protection. You can't actually let anyone win, or even get too many of the chips or the game is over.

& again I have to agree with you. Just like any pure form of socialism pure capitalism most probably wouldn't work.

 

[No-name]

Bossel, we in the US look at the European welfare states with their lenient property and drug laws, high taxes and huge social benefit programs, controls on industry and business... both left and right here are puzzled. In your estimation does it work? What are the trade-offs? What can we learn from you?

 

[Censport]

If those examples have nothing to do with socialism your warnings are useless. You only show that you have no idea of what you're talking about.

And you just showed that have no idea about Tenncare. If you're going to participate in a thread about American issues, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with them before being condescending to new posters.

Since you use a sliding scale of relativism, how do you describe countries? If countries can't be described as Socialist, Communist or Capitalist, how should we refer to them? Are you capable of defining anything, or do you prefer to remain ambiguous?

Finally, are you going to bring anything to this thread besides personal attacks and the defense of Socialism?

 

[bossel]

Bossel, we in the US look at the European welfare states with their lenient property and drug laws, high taxes and huge social benefit programs, controls on industry and business... both left and right here are puzzled. In your estimation does it work? What are the trade-offs? What can we learn from you?

Lenient drug laws? Maybe in comparison to the US, but depending on the country you're in, they can be quite strict. It all depends, really.
Anyway, most Western European systems seem to work quite well. There are problems, of course, but nothing yet which could threaten the systems as such. The only major problem I could foresee lies in the pension system. Some populations are aging rapidly, which means the system has to be reformed drastically in the near future.

I wouldn't dare to say what the US could learn from Europe, that's up to the US citizens to decide.
Eg. I'd see one advantage for the EU in that there is not such a problem with "working poor" as in the US, but as it seems even many of those "working poor" don't favour a system change (watched some reports about this stuff, don't know if the stated opinions are representative). That's democracy for you.

And you just showed that have no idea about Tenncare.

& you just showed again that you don't really read what I write. To quote myself again: "If those examples have nothing to do with socialism your warnings are useless." I hope, you know what the word "if" means. I didn't talk of Tenncare.
If you warn people of socialism by using NK as an example, then that is like crying "Beware of the weasel!" while there is a wolf in the woods.

& of course I don't have much of an idea what Tenncare is (other than that it some form of state-assisted health care). Therefore enlighten me: what makes it so socialist, which form of socialism does it belong to & in how far could it be exemplary for socialism in general (maybe even with some quotes from Marx, Engels or some other major socialist philosopher proposing such a system)?

Since you use a sliding scale of relativism, how do you describe countries? If countries can't be described as Socialist, Communist or Capitalist, how should we refer to them? Are you capable of defining anything, or do you prefer to remain ambiguous?

There are lots of definitions possible, because there is no pure system anywhere on the world (at least none that I'm aware of). There are socialist features in the US & there are capitalist features in NK. That's mankind for you: ambiguity.

Finally, are you going to bring anything to this thread besides personal attacks and the defense of Socialism?

Defence of socialism? Hmm, that almost asks for a personal attack, but I'll try to keep it civil: Obviously you have problems understanding me (or problems with your reading ability [Oh, damn it! Just couldn't refrain from that.]). kashii:

 

[No-name]

Well that liberal media just reported that the liberal CIA says that the war in Iraq increases our risk of terrorist attack.

 

[No-name]

11/18/04 - MEDIA BIAS: MAJOR NEWS NETWORKS FARE POORLY ACROSS PARTY LINES - DEMS LIKE CNN & PBS, REPS LOVE FOX

PollingPoint respondents follow public affairs very closely. You?ve formed some clear opinions about news networks and their respective anchors ? here?s what you?ve told us about the good, the bad and the just plain entertaining.

When asked what news network you dislike the most, your answers seemed to split among party lines. Perhaps explained by the falsified documents scandal during the presidential election, Republicans particularly dislike CBS. Among television news sources, over six in ten Republicans said CBS did the worst job in covering the news. Democrats felt most strongly about FOX news - 85 percent said FOX did the worst job covering the news among major networks.

From http://www.pollingpoint.com/results_111804.html

Censport check out www.affunnystan.com

from http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm#Backliberalmedia:
(Censport, you can skip the article- which seeks to prove that the media has a conservative/corporate bias, skim down to the stats and footnotes. That is where the real meat is.)
Summary:
The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues. Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news. On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits -- who do engage in noisy editorializing -- leans heavily to the right. The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal.

Total Number of Think Tank Citations in Major Newspapers, Radio
and TV transcripts: (23)

Conservative 7792
Centrist 6361
Progressive 1152

 

[Censport]

There's some good points in that article. It doesn't cover journalists who step outside the boundaries of ethics (Mapes, Rather, Gross), or how news organizations decide what topics they'll cover and what angle they'll play them from. Of course, it never asked the inevitable question of how 85% of Democrats could say Fox News did the worst job of covering news since 85% of Democrats don't watch Fox News, or the same for Republicans and CBS. I am surprised that the percentages were higher for Democrats than Republicans, considering where the scandals occur.

I remember the Fairness Doctrine. It was so fair, that it applied to radio but not newsprint, allowing The New York Times to spiral out of control. Of course, there are some on my side of the political fence who refer to it as the 'anti-free-speech-doctrine'. And they have their points. Equal time during a campaign is fine, but free speech otherwise.

Also, I remember how Nixon used the Fairness Doctrine for damage control. Just imagine what might've happened had there been true free speech (like today) on the radio back then!

Speaking of liberal talk radio, what do you know about this new guy? I rarely watch O'Reilly (he makes my skin crawl) but I watched that interview the other night. He sounds like a moderate, but he might be the voice you guys need. Personally, I'd like to see liberals have a place in talk radio (you own the tax-funded news outlet, NPR). The Left needs to learn how to be competitive in the marketplace of ideas again. Anti-Bush, anti-GOP and anti-corporate slogans only go so far. We conservatives have been able to talk so much amongst ourselves (not protest chants, but really heated debates) that we've defined our arguments and have effectively won in the arena of ideas. Now if we could just win in the arena of policy... *ahem*

Also, I want to see the Left have a place in talk radio so they'll stop trying to destroy or discredit the medium as they've tried before. Maybe this new guy will set the pace, as Al Franken and Jeanine Garafalo don't seem to be catching on.

But that brings us back to our old question of how the DNC is going to stop hemmoraging voters. You said before that there's a certain fringe faction you guys need to stop appealing to, as they wouldn't vote Republican anyway. Well, I disagree with one point in that. They won't vote Republican, but they will vote Green. Remember 2000? Gore (frickin' Gore, of all people!) wasn't Lefty enough to suit the far-Left BANANA enviromentalists/anti-capitalists, so they voted for Nader in droves. Nader, whose sole chant is anti-corporation. Well, American corporations, anyway. He could've taken VW to task for the Beetle, which was more dangerous than the Corvair it handily outsold, but there was no political advantage in going after a company outside the U.S. Evidence once again that the 'anti-establishment' movement was an anti-American movement.

Ah, there I go again... talking about cars.

So you guys do have to appease the far-Left fringe wackos to some extent, as they can split the party if all of their demands aren't met. That's the thing about the fringe of any political party or idealogy; they're not very good at negotiating. But what you do to secure their vote can endanger the votes of your moderates. The GOP doesn't have that problem (right now), as the bulk of its voting block agree on the agenda and fringe groups are at a minimum. (Is Pat Buchanan a fringe group? Oh, who cares, he'll always vote for himself.) Which I think supports my contention that the average American is conservative (opposite of your belief). Whether it's TV, movies or public schools, we've always been taught that liberals are the nice guys who are concerned about the environment, poor people, etc., and that conservatives are greedy rich corporate executives, which is why so many people think of themselves as Democrats without ever comparing the issues.

As for the current trend of media buyouts, I think it's fair to say that it disturbs everyone, regardless of politics. Nobody is in favor of monopolies (unless it's their monopoly) and it looks like we're headed to there. At some point, we'll see the federal government step in because, as we all know, only the federal government can have a monopoly in America.

 

[No-name]

I think the actual "bias" of the media is not best defined by the left-right politcal axis.
They want viewers and readers and they don't want to offend sponsors. This created journalism that is:
- event centered or commonly called "bang-bang" rather than process centered. Also makes news disaster and crime centered.
- scandal centered. If they have dirt they will run it.
- crisis centered. Panicky toned... Storm watch 2005! Team coverage at 11! If it is not a crisis why buy a paper? Why watch?
- Image centered. If they have a good clip, run it over and over.
- Celebrity centered. Ben and J-Lo are still apart? OH MY God!
- Dumbed down. If we can't cover it in 30 seconds or on three pages, leave it out.
- Coporate friendly. (See 60 minutes and Big Tabacco in "The Insider")
- Homogeneous. Everybody reports nearly the same stories in the same order.
- Local centered. No need to report on things too far away.
- Big city centered. Where most of the big outlets are, so are the reporters and camera men.
- Filled with filler. Cutsie human interest, flavor of the week stuff.

They sell it. We buy it.

Hey Censport, check out that Al-Quida thread. I'm actually feeling pretty right wing today.

 

[No-name]

Michael Moore's books and movies appealed to a wide audience not only for their point of view, but because they are good entertainment. Rush isn't popular just because he is right (wing) but because he is good at what he does. Al Franken hasn't figured out how to do what he does, maintain high quality and be funny. People won't listen to his spiel just because he is Al Franken. Right now, people will buy political talk, books and TV, from either side-- but only if it isn't boring (are you listening Al Gore?).