• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Despite Government Threats California Votes For Sanity

Carole

Member
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
81
Reaction score
47
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
In yesterday's special election the voters of California rejected five of six propositions that were supposed to close the state's budget deficit but most likely would have only postponed the inevitable. Hard to believe but voters just did not want to pay more taxes to bail out years of their state government's irresponsible spending.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had pressed for passage of the propositions by saying without the proposed measures education and healthcare services would be drastically cut and inmates would be released from the state's prisons. Despite this fear mongering, the voters decided that their elected officials will have to govern within their means.

Or not.

At the very time the voters were saying a firm NO to the tax and spend policies that got the state into this mess, Mr. Schwarzenegger was in Washington D.C. He was there to celebrate President Obama's announcement of tough new national auto emissions and fuel-efficiency standards but I wonder if he was also laying the groundwork to ask for a taxpayer funded bailout for his state.

I hope the President and the Democrats in Congress are paying close attention to the financial disaster that is California. They need to realize their own obscene spending spree over the past few months is what leads to this kind of problem. And if the voters in the most liberal state in the country won't shut up and pay for it, you can bet the rest of the country won't either.
 
At the very time the voters were saying a firm NO to the tax and spend policies that got the state into this mess, Mr. Schwarzenegger was in Washington D.C. He was there to celebrate President Obama's announcement of tough new national auto emissions and fuel-efficiency standards but I wonder if he was also laying the groundwork to ask for a taxpayer funded bailout for his state.

Somebody sure is:

California Rejects Schwarzenegger?s Budget Measures

California Treasurer Bill Lockyer petitioned U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to arrange for the federal government to become a standby purchaser of the short-term loans in the event of default.
My question is this: Does the US government have the constitutional authority to foist the debt of California upon the other 49 states? A US government bailout of a California debt default would do exactly that.
 
Bravo Californians.

Perhaps it will finally give the state govt. the nerve to stand up to the public employees unions.
 
Bravo Californians.

Perhaps it will finally give the state govt. the nerve to stand up to the public employees unions.
One wonders if the unions have figured out which of their folk they need to throw overboard to keep the leaking lifeboat on the top of the water.
 
My question is this: Does the US government have the constitutional authority to foist the debt of California upon the other 49 states? A US government bailout of a California debt default would do exactly that.

Since when has the Constitution meant anything?

If you're going to talk Constitution, the Federal government wouldn't be six trillion bucks in debt to Communist China.

WTF, over?
 
I hope the President and the Democrats in Congress are paying close attention to the financial disaster that is California. They need to realize their own obscene spending spree over the past few months is what leads to this kind of problem. And if the voters in the most liberal state in the country won't shut up and pay for it, you can bet the rest of the country won't either.

A poor premise. It's more accurate to accuse rightists of usage of ultimately inefficient fiscal instruments, in light of Reagan's military Keynesianism. That said, as a consistent socialist, I'm willing to oppose liberals just as much as the next person. Their ability to ensure macroeconomic stability in the capitalist economy is problematic.
 
In yesterday's special election the voters of California rejected five of six propositions that were supposed to close the state's budget deficit but most likely would have only postponed the inevitable. Hard to believe but voters just did not want to pay more taxes to bail out years of their state government's irresponsible spending.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had pressed for passage of the propositions by saying without the proposed measures education and healthcare services would be drastically cut and inmates would be released from the state's prisons. Despite this fear mongering, the voters decided that their elected officials will have to govern within their means.

Or not.

At the very time the voters were saying a firm NO to the tax and spend policies that got the state into this mess, Mr. Schwarzenegger was in Washington D.C. He was there to celebrate President Obama's announcement of tough new national auto emissions and fuel-efficiency standards but I wonder if he was also laying the groundwork to ask for a taxpayer funded bailout for his state.

I hope the President and the Democrats in Congress are paying close attention to the financial disaster that is California. They need to realize their own obscene spending spree over the past few months is what leads to this kind of problem. And if the voters in the most liberal state in the country won't shut up and pay for it, you can bet the rest of the country won't either.

My 19 year old son is now a voter and he asked me why it was I would vote against all but ONE of these propositions if it put the Government into financial trouble and possible bankruptcy. Here is my response and view, my son ended up voting likewise:

I told him this; I am NOT voting for these propositions regardless of the consequences because it allows the politicians sponsoring them to AVOID making the HARD choices and gives them a pass by delaying the inevitable another year; drastic spending cuts or massive tax increases.

The issue is that the Liberals who infest the California legislature with their abject stupidity do not want to do what is necessary in an effort to avoid voter fallout just as the morons infesting the Federal Government. This is unacceptable.

They either have to CUT spending or, or RAISE taxes to pay for all their pet projects which they are desperately trying to protect and defend.

During Bush's Presidency we saw the incessant arguments from the Liberal media and Liberal politicians that Bush should do the HONEST thing and RAISE taxes to pay down the $200 billion deficit he had accumulated fighting two wars, dealing with 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina.

Let me repeat that; we saw never ending arguments from the Liberal media and Liberal politicians that Bush should do the HONEST thing and RAISE taxes to pay down the $200 billion deficit he had accumulated fighting two wars, dealing with 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina.

Suddenly, we are watching these very tax and spend Liberals desperately trying to avoid the inevitable to support their withering spending sprees; they know that raising EVERYONE's taxes, which is what will be required if they do not want to make drastic spending cuts, will cause a voter rebellion against them and cost them their jobs.

How ironic and hypocritical for Democrats to rant and rail about deficit spending under Bush and demand he raise taxes and yet now, defend the insane out of control spending we now see without ONE honest debate about how to pay for it.

I am all for Democrats RAISING taxes to pay for the SOCIALIST programs. I want them to be TRANSPARENT and HONEST about it and PAY-AS-THEY-GO; these are the issues they beat the Bush Administration on every freaking day for 8 years. I now want them to put their money where their BIG MOUTHS are and stand behind their LIBERAL agenda.

P.S. Over the previous five years leading to this $40 billion deficit the State had a 40% increase in revenues; and STILL these Liberal morons spent all of that and an additional $40 billion.

:2wave:
 
A poor premise. It's more accurate to accuse rightists of usage of ultimately inefficient fiscal instruments, in light of Reagan's military Keynesianism. That said, as a consistent socialist, I'm willing to oppose liberals just as much as the next person. Their ability to ensure macroeconomic stability in the capitalist economy is problematic.

I needed waders for this pile of illegible pile of Leftist bile. Using made up terminology doesn't make your uninformed rhetoric any more credible.

You are hardly a mere Socialist; a better description is Communist. It definitely defies logic that anyone in this day and age would still be prescribing to such a failed political philosophy. It requires either willful ignorance or the willful suspension of disbelief, OR, being massively ignorant of the historic record.

:roll:
 
I needed waders for this pile of illegible pile of Leftist bile. Using made up terminology doesn't make your uninformed rhetoric any more credible.

You are hardly a mere Socialist; a better description is Communist. It definitely defies logic that anyone in this day and age would still be prescribing to such a failed political philosophy. It requires either willful ignorance or the willful suspension of disbelief, OR, being massively ignorant of the historic record.

:roll:

too bad right wingers don't understand the terms communist, socialist, nor fascist. It's ridiculous when you guys spout off.

It's unfortunate that California cares little about its teachers, infrastructure, etc. I know Texas doesn't give a crap about it, that's for sure.
 
too bad right wingers don't understand the terms communist, socialist, nor fascist. It's ridiculous when you guys spout off.

And it is equally ironic when "Left Wingers" are called on their Communistic views that rail about the subtle differences between Socialist and Fascist.

Bottom line; all three are very similar in that they require a one party rule mentality and usurpation of freedoms, civil rights and to centralize control to the politicians. They are political ideals that lead to the loss of civil liberties and forcing mediocrity onto their citizens.

It's unfortunate that California cares little about its teachers, infrastructure, etc. I know Texas doesn't give a crap about it, that's for sure.

Do you have anything coherent and substantive to suggest that Californians like me don't care about infrastructure and teachers?

The only thing you have brought so far is hyper emotional leftist rhetoric; where's the beef dude? :roll:
 
In yesterday's special election the voters of California rejected five of six propositions that were supposed to close the state's budget deficit but most likely would have only postponed the inevitable. Hard to believe but voters just did not want to pay more taxes to bail out years of their state government's irresponsible spending.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had pressed for passage of the propositions by saying without the proposed measures education and healthcare services would be drastically cut and inmates would be released from the state's prisons. Despite this fear mongering, the voters decided that their elected officials will have to govern within their means.

Or not.

At the very time the voters were saying a firm NO to the tax and spend policies that got the state into this mess, Mr. Schwarzenegger was in Washington D.C. He was there to celebrate President Obama's announcement of tough new national auto emissions and fuel-efficiency standards but I wonder if he was also laying the groundwork to ask for a taxpayer funded bailout for his state.

I hope the President and the Democrats in Congress are paying close attention to the financial disaster that is California. They need to realize their own obscene spending spree over the past few months is what leads to this kind of problem. And if the voters in the most liberal state in the country won't shut up and pay for it, you can bet the rest of the country won't either.
as a noob, i suggest you read up on the Breaking News Rules
for one thing you posted no article content or a link to said article.
doubt they would give points because you are new, but i have been gigged for not including a link in Breaking News
 
Somebody sure is:

California Rejects Schwarzenegger?s Budget Measures

My question is this: Does the US government have the constitutional authority to foist the debt of California upon the other 49 states? A US government bailout of a California debt default would do exactly that.
Extremely insightful question; I see no provision in the Constitution that allows Congress to "transfer" such a debt. Of course the Constitution, which governs the Union, was never intended for such duties. We are a Union of Independent States with their own sovereignty.

However, in actual practice many similar debts are assumed (transferred) among the States through federal government programs in education, welfare, highway projects, etc....

Therefore, in the current climate it's unlikely to garner much of a protest from other states.
 
I needed waders for this pile of illegible pile of Leftist bile. Using made up terminology doesn't make your uninformed rhetoric any more credible.

Ventura, huh? That's probably far south enough to hear John and Ken babble. :lol:

But no..."macroeconomy" is not "made up terminology," and "macroeconomic" is thus not either, nor is "stability." :2wave:

You are hardly a mere Socialist; a better description is Communist. It definitely defies logic that anyone in this day and age would still be prescribing to such a failed political philosophy. It requires either willful ignorance or the willful suspension of disbelief, OR, being massively ignorant of the historic record.

:roll:

Actually, I'm a small 'c' communist. Specifically, I'm an anarcho-communist on the grounds of the inefficiency and authoritarian social structure of capitalism and the state. And without even further elaboration from you, it's already apparent that you're referring to the state capitalism of the USSR and related states, which anarchists and other libertarian socialists were the first to condemn and disavow. :roll:
 
as a noob, i suggest you read up on the Breaking News Rules
for one thing you posted no article content or a link to said article.
doubt they would give points because you are new, but i have been gigged for not including a link in Breaking News

aw, you're not a noob! don't be so modest.
 
Uh...that isn't from a news source, DJH. She presumably wrote it herself.
than it does not even belong in breaking news, now does it?
so more reason for teh OP to read the rules. that is why i suggested it
 
Oh, also...

And it is equally ironic when "Left Wingers" are called on their Communistic views that rail about the subtle differences between Socialist and Fascist.

Bottom line; all three are very similar in that they require a one party rule mentality and usurpation of freedoms, civil rights and to centralize control to the politicians. They are political ideals that lead to the loss of civil liberties and forcing mediocrity onto their citizens.

This is simply a flagrant abuse of political theory and economy. Fascism and socialism are rather distinct from each other, and in many cases, are outright conflicting ideologies. To consider the elements of fascist political and cultural ideology and economy, we might look at Umberto Eco's conception of "Eternal Fascism," or Zanden's Pareto and Fascism Reconsidered, for instance.

Firstly, as Zanden puts it, "[O]bedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along creative lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism." This is not consistent with the socialist principle of elimination of alienation as defined by Marx's The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Such elimination necessitates revolutionary class consciousness, which obviously conflicts with "obedience, discipline, faith, etc." Revolutionary class consciousness is also rather inconsistent with the "cult of tradition" identified by Eco as an integral tenet of Eternal Fascism. "[T]here can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."

From an insistence on revolutionary class consciousness comes opposition to class itself on the part of the socialist. This is egregiously contradictory to the elitism that constitutes a core tenet of fascism. As Eco writes, "[e]litism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism."

Fascism also has a necessarily anti-democratic nature. As Zanden notes, "the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions." Similarly, Eco writes that "the Leader, knowing his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler." This strongly conflicts with the participatory elements of socialism, as it necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. For instance, Noam Chomsky notes that libertarian socialism is "based on free voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control and with limited hierarchical structures, possibly none at all." Other forms of socialism are of course necessarily democratic at the very least.
 
Oh, also...

This is simply a flagrant abuse of political theory and economy. Fascism and socialism are rather distinct from each other, and in many cases, are outright conflicting ideologies. To consider the elements of fascist political and cultural ideology and economy, we might look at Umberto Eco's conception of "Eternal Fascism," or Zanden's Pareto and Fascism Reconsidered, for instance.

Firstly, as Zanden puts it, "[O]bedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along creative lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism." This is not consistent with the socialist principle of elimination of alienation as defined by Marx's The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Such elimination necessitates revolutionary class consciousness, which obviously conflicts with "obedience, discipline, faith, etc." Revolutionary class consciousness is also rather inconsistent with the "cult of tradition" identified by Eco as an integral tenet of Eternal Fascism. "[T]here can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."

From an insistence on revolutionary class consciousness comes opposition to class itself on the part of the socialist. This is egregiously contradictory to the elitism that constitutes a core tenet of fascism. As Eco writes, "[e]litism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism."

Fascism also has a necessarily anti-democratic nature. As Zanden notes, "the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions." Similarly, Eco writes that "the Leader, knowing his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler." This strongly conflicts with the participatory elements of socialism, as it necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. For instance, Noam Chomsky notes that libertarian socialism is "based on free voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control and with limited hierarchical structures, possibly none at all." Other forms of socialism are of course necessarily democratic at the very least.

I have seen many such treatises attempting to distance Fascism from Socialism but if we seperate the idealistic beliefs of either ideal and we look at BOTH in actual practice, we find little that differentiates the two.

Hitler’s Fascism was not that far off from Soviet Communism; both political ideals wanted to dominate the world; both were repressive SINGLE party regimes; both preached about the common man/woman citizen; both repressed religion and freedom of expression; both had vast secret services which intimidated their societies and prevented many from escaping their repression; the list is LONG and there are many other similarities.

The reason Capitalism trumps all other of man’s idealistic political endeavors and fantastical notions about what constitutes the ideal Government is the "human" factor.

On paper Communism looks terrific to some, it has NEVER appealed to me, but in actual practice the temptation to corrupt those ideals to elevate one's own economic conditions and power over his fellow man supersedes the desire to follow the ideology. In other words, human nature trumps the ideology; which is why Communism is such a failure.

Only Capitalism understands the desire and greed of man. Capitalism doesn't care if you are black or white, if you are rich or poor, whether you are man or woman or where you came from; it only cares about bringing two parties together in an agreement to exchange goods or services.

The founders of the United States realized that if the proper Democratic principles and laws were designed to take advantage of such a Capitalist idea, it had a chance for successfully creating a great and free society.

The most ironic thing I see today are people who denigrate this ideal and treat it as if it is some kind of evil. I blame this on the systems of education we see in the Western hemisphere which is infested by teachers who carry the dark seed of Socialism within them and attempt to plant/indoctrinate it into their students through their teachings.

But REALITY trumps idealism and the best friend we have is the historic record. It is the ONLY thing we can look at and point to the abject failure of all other ideologies. The USA form of Democracy is a shining beacon to the world for those who wish to truly free their societies and provide them with the tools for peaceful coexistence and prosperity.

The ONLY thing that can destroy that which has developed into the most diverse, powerful and free nation in the world is our own ignorance of what it is that makes it so great; it wasn't political correctedness and it certainly wasn't creation of a Government that is the people's nanny.

I am always amazed how easily the gullible, uninformed, uneducated are willing to give up their freedoms to some political ideal that promises nothing more than to take away choice and reduce everyone to the same mediocre outcomes. Then allowing these political leaders, who are only interested in maintaining their political power, to turn them into slaves working for more than six or even eight months of the year to send their paltry wages to this vast Government bureaucracy in the FALSE belief that ONLY a huge and vast Government can provide for man's well being when all along it is us as individuals given the freedom and legal framework to decide for ourselves what it is WE think is in our own best interests that can do it.

Right now thanks to a lack of education, but in many cases thanks TO a poor education, we are watching the United States become that which the founders feared the most; a Community Organizing States of America where the differences between the major political parties become blurred and where the citizens are actually gullible enough to want to believe that politicians can solve all their societal and economic needs. I rue the day that I should live long enough to see this occur. But at the pace we have recently seen, it might actually occur during my generation and not my children’s.

Unlike you I did not need to READ someone's ideas about what I believe in or cut and paste them here; these are my own thoughts based on my experience, knowledge of history and education which fortunately at the college level occurred when I was more mature and experienced so that I could put my lessons in context of REALITY.

Sorry for the treatise, but you asked for it. I close with this; show me ONE REAL instance where Communism has or is actually working better than the system we have in the United States. If we honestly look at Fascist regimes along side of Communist regimes in the historical sense, what we see is little difference in the real outcomes of both extremes.
 
Last edited:
I have seen many such treatises attempting to distance Fascism from Socialism but if we seperate the idealistic beliefs of either ideal and we look at BOTH in actual practice, we find little that differentiates the two.

An obvious falsity, inasmuch as deviation from the vastly divergent and contradictory ideological doctrines of fascism and socialism to such an extent that there would be "little that differentiates the two" would spawn a political order unworthy of the label of either fascism or socialism, or perhaps both. Moreover, the "ideal" of fascism is not one that the utopian progressive that you conceptualize the socialist as would value anyway, inasmuch as the nature of its implementation matched its stated ideal of totalitarianism, subjugation of minority groups, creation of an elite class, etc.

Hitler’s Fascism was not that far off from Soviet Communism; both political ideals wanted to dominate the world; both were repressive SINGLE party regimes; both preached about the common man/woman citizen; both repressed religion and freedom of expression; both had vast secret services which intimidated their societies and prevented many from escaping their repression; the list is LONG and there are many other similarities.

Already you commit error. I won't comment on your inaccurate allegation that Nazism was anti-religious in nature because it's not specifically relevant to the conflicts between socialism and fascism, but suffice to say that Hitler most certainly practiced and wished to implement a form of Christianity, even if it was what an individual like you would describe as corrupted.

As to the main point, there is absolutely no one with even the slightest conception of political economy or theory that would claim that the Soviet Union was "communist" in nature. Even the most die-hard Leninists and Stalinists would concede that the Soviet Union was a socialist "workers' state" that did not achieve communism. But more than that, legitimate socialists would recognize that the Soviet Union itself was not legitimately socialist in nature. The Soviet Union effectively imitated Western capitalism in that it concentrated political and economic power in the hands of a ruling class (the Bolshevik party elite), rather than instituting any legitimate form of "collective" ownership or management, thus creating a critical conflict with and divergence from socialism, in that collective ownership is a necessary element of socialism.

For instance, Noam Chomsky retains a similar objection, as elaborated on in The Soviet Union Versus Socialism. As he notes therein:

When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction...The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start. In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential. Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood. Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to "vigilant control from above," so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest. Before seizing State power, the Bolshevik leadership adopted much of the rhetoric of people who were engaged in the revolutionary struggle from below, but their true commitments were quite different. This was evident before and became crystal clear as they assumed State power in October 1917.

Of course, Chomsky's article was written in 1986, so you might be inclined to respond that socialists only rejected the Soviet Union once its numerous failures were apparent. (Thought that would still conflict with your claim that socialists ignore the failures of their ideology.) But this claim applies only to certain classes of socialists, and certainly cannot include all. You might mention failures of the Soviet Union when conversing with a Marxist-Leninist, for instance. (And I have many times.) But that approach will likely do you little good in a discussion with those who espouse more libertarian variants of socialism, such as anarchists.

Indeed, legitimate socialists identified the Soviet Union as anti-socialist once they became aware of its authoritarian and statist nature, which might serve as a response to your possible claim that socialists only condemned the Soviet Union once its failures became apparent. For instance, the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin recognized the authoritarian, anti-socialist nature of the Bolshevik regime immediately after the Russian Revolution. In a 1920 letter to Lenin he writes this:

Russia has already become a Soviet Republic only in name. The influx and taking over of the people by the 'party,' that is, predominantly the newcomers (the ideological communists are more in the urban centers), has already destroyed the influence and constructive energy of this promising institution - the soviets. At present, it is the party committees, not the soviets, who rule in Russia. And their organization suffers from the defects of bureaucratic organization. To move away from the current disorder, Russia must return to the creative genius of local forces which, as I see it, can be a factor in the creation of a new life.And the sooner that the necessity of this way is understood, the better. People will then be all the more likely to accept [new] social forms of life. If the present situation continues, the very word 'socialism' will turn into a curse. That is what happened to the conception of equality in France for forty years after the rule of the Jacobins.

Kropotkin quickly recognized the state capitalist nature of the Bolshevik regime and the calamities that socialism would later face if the Soviet Union was identified as "socialist." Hence, it is not only Chomsky, nor even only Kropotkin or other anarchists, but all legitimate socialists who recognize the state capitalist nature of the Soviet Union. Kropotkin's prediction has of course proved to be correct, which is why "socialism" and "communism" are merely considered to be synonymous with the state capitalism of the Leninists and Stalinists of the Soviet Union.

Indeed, it could be argued that anarchists recognized the imminent failure of authoritarian varieties of Marxism long before the establishment of the Soviet Union or the Bolshevik party, as evidenced by anarchist Mikhail Bakunin's observations that "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself" and "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick." (Bakunin was Marx's chief foe in the First International, later to be expelled along with the anarchist contingent, marking the beginning of the divide between Marxist and anarchist socialism).

Marx himself cannot be entirely blamed for the state capitalist legacy of the USSR, of course, but it's worth noting that anarchists predicted that authoritarian elements would be able to base themselves upon Marxist principles and tenets. For instance, Bakunin wrote this in his 1871 manuscript Statism and Anarchy:

Idealists of all kinds – metaphysicians, positivists, those who support the rule of science over life, doctrinaire revolutionists – all defend the idea of state and state power with equal eloquence, because they see in it, as a consequence of their own systems, the only salvation for society...This fiction of a pseudo-representative government serves to conceal the domination of the masses by a handful of privileged elite; an elite elected by hordes of people who are rounded up and do not know for whom or for what they vote. Upon this artificial and abstract expression of what they falsely imagine to be the will of the people and of which the real living people have not the least idea, they construct both the theory of statism as well as the theory of so-called revolutionary dictatorship.

The differences between revolutionary dictatorship and statism are superficial. Fundamentally they both represent the same principle of minority rule over the majority in the name of the alleged “stupidity” of the latter and the alleged “intelligence” of the former. Therefore they are both equally reactionary since both directly and inevitably must preserve and perpetuate the political and economic privileges of the ruling minority and the political and economic subjugation of the masses of the people.

Now it is clear why the dictatorial revolutionists, who aim to overthrow the existing powers and social structures in order to erect upon their ruins their own dictatorships, never were or will be the enemies of government, but, to the contrary, always will be the most ardent promoters of the government idea. They are the enemies only of contemporary governments, because they wish to replace them. They are the enemies of the present governmental structure, because it excludes the possibility of their dictatorship. At the same time they are the most devoted friends of governmental power. For if the revolution destroyed this power by actually freeing the masses, it would deprive this pseudo-revolutionary minority of any hope to harness the masses in order to make them the beneficiaries of their own government policy.

We have already expressed several times our deep aversion to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as a final ideal at least as the next immediate goal, the founding of a people’s state, which according to their interpretation will be nothing but “the proletariat elevated to the status of the governing class.”

Though many now lament the consequences of establishing "socialism," it is and always has been anarchists who were quick to predict the inevitable failure of the establishment of authoritarian social doctrines masquerading as "socialism," and accordingly, it was anarchists who were the first to be eliminated after the establishment of the state capitalist dictatorship. It's thus rather absurd to lecture libertarian socialists about the alleged failure of their doctrine, as so many unfortunately do, and all in all, my belief is that the anti-socialists' desperation to cling to the falsity that the Soviet Union or its state capitalist ideology was socialist reveals the fact that they have no other arguments against socialism to provide.
 
That said, your identification of Nazism and related forms of fascism as "socialism" is similarly inaccurate because of the aforementioned conflicts between fascism and socialism, most critically, the manner in which the authoritarian elements of fascism undermine the participatory elements of socialism. That said, the collusion of state and corporate power inherent in fascism illustrates its decidedly non-socialist nature. For example, consider the perspective of researchers Buccheim and Scherner in The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry.

Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.

This obviously illustrates a reality starkly different from the conception of Nazi Germany being "socialist" in nature. It's been remarked upon before (and deserves further mention), that rightists would not be quick to extend the same literal interpretation to the Soviet-controlled German "Democratic" Republic. There can be no basis for the inconsistency other than a cheap political point. Further elaboration on the nature of the collusion of state and corporate power under the Third Reich is provided by Ferguson and Voth in Betting on Hitler—The Value of Political Connections in Nazi Germany. Consider the abstract:

This paper examines the value of connections between German industry and the Nazi movement in early 1933. Drawing on previously unused contemporary sources about management and supervisory board composition and stock returns, we find that one out of seven firms, and a large proportion of the biggest companies, had substantive links with the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Firms supporting the Nazi movement experienced unusually high returns, outperforming unconnected ones by 5% to 8% between January and March 1933. These results are not driven by sectoral composition and are robust to alternative estimators and definitions of affiliation.

Establishment of the "socialist" label can be broadly described as a cheap means of capturing the benefits of raw worker militancy; however, the Nazi opposition to Marxism, anarchism, and forms of legitimate socialism is a well-established reality, and Ernst Rohm and the SA were of course the targets of the infamous Night of the Long Knives.

The reason Capitalism trumps all other of man’s idealistic political endeavors and fantastical notions about what constitutes the ideal Government is the "human" factor.

Nonsense! If anything, capitalism suffers from a brutal rhetorical deficiency in that its advocates routinely reduce the labor market to a mere collection of factors of production, not realizing that something so complex as human labor cannot be reduced to the status of a basic good to be exchanged. This results in a deficiency of understanding of labor economics and firm theory, which is why the terms dynamic monopsony, oligopsony, asymmetric information, and principal-agent problem probably mean nothing to you. Regardless, comprehension of these elements is necessary for an accurate understanding of capitalism.

On paper Communism looks terrific to some, it has NEVER appealed to me, but in actual practice the temptation to corrupt those ideals to elevate one's own economic conditions and power over his fellow man supersedes the desire to follow the ideology. In other words, human nature trumps the ideology; which is why Communism is such a failure.

This is low-brow, tiresome nonsense based on the crude assumption that socialism involves some abandonment of self-interest for the "good of the collective." Much of this business about socialism allegedly being incompatible with human nature was of course addressed a century ago in Kropotkin's Mutual Aid (the veracity of which was affirmed by no less an authority than the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould), but this is further complicated and perverted through your inaccurate references to state capitalism.

Only Capitalism understands the desire and greed of man. Capitalism doesn't care if you are black or white, if you are rich or poor, whether you are man or woman or where you came from; it only cares about bringing two parties together in an agreement to exchange goods or services.

Pro-capitalist approaches to human nature are also typically characterized by excessive reliance on the absurdity of rational choice theory, and the lunacy of that approach is captured in Linda McQuaig's quotation of Amartya Sen: "'Can you direct me to the railway station?' asks the stranger. 'Certainly,' says the local, pointing, in the opposite direction, towards the post office, 'and would you post this letter for me on your way?' 'Certainly,' says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing." (McQuaig, 2001)

Moreover, your apparent insinuation that "markets = capitalism" is just as inaccurate as your "government = socialism" misconception. Socialism is in fact able to facilitate more competitive market enterprise than capitalism through its elimination of wealth and market concentration.

The founders of the United States realized that if the proper Democratic principles and laws were designed to take advantage of such a Capitalist idea, it had a chance for successfully creating a great and free society.

The more libertarian of the founders of the United States would have likely been open socialists had they been aware of the consequences that industrialization would have on equality of opportunity, and thus the ability of individuals to govern themselves through democracy. Since they existed in an agrarian setting characterized by relative equality of opportunity (for upper class white land-owning males over 21, that is), they were unable to predict the profoundly anti-democratic socioeconomic order that early capitalism would spawn.

The most ironic thing I see today are people who denigrate this ideal and treat it as if it is some kind of evil. I blame this on the systems of education we see in the Western hemisphere which is infested by teachers who carry the dark seed of Socialism within them and attempt to plant/indoctrinate it into their students through their teachings.

There is no need to make any morality comment. The fact that capitalism's propensity towards market/wealth concentration undermines the establishment of more productive and efficient arrangements is reason enough to oppose it, though I've recently been attempting to emphasize its anti-libertarian nature in response to "libertarian" capitalists' attacks on socialism. This business about teachers carrying "the dark seed of socialism" is also apparently utter conspiracy theory; the public school system is an integral component of the capitalist mode of production, and it's been hypothesized by economists such as Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis that said system plays a role in instilling a subservience to hierarchy into youth in preparation for their entry into the capitalist workplace.

But REALITY trumps idealism and the best friend we have is the historic record. It is the ONLY thing we can look at and point to the abject failure of all other ideologies. The USA form of Democracy is a shining beacon to the world for those who wish to truly free their societies and provide them with the tools for peaceful coexistence and prosperity.

Not really. For one thing, you'd have to confront the unfortunate nonexistence of free markets throughout history. ;)

For another thing, you'd have to confront the reality that "political" democracy cannot be legitimately separated from economic democracy, and the economic order dominant in the U.S. is decidedly anti-democratic. Were the state of affairs involving an elite few having control over the resources that affected the daily lives of the vast majority manifested through the vessel of a state, it would be rightly recognized and condemned as authoritarian in nature. Why then should there be a difference when such a state of affairs exists in the economic realm, merely because this is not recognized as a *real* establishment of authoritarianism?
 
The ONLY thing that can destroy that which has developed into the most diverse, powerful and free nation in the world is our own ignorance of what it is that makes it so great; it wasn't political correctedness and it certainly wasn't creation of a Government that is the people's nanny.

That's similarly untrue. The government is an integral agent in the capitalist economy, as a means of providing macroeconomic stabilization, promoting growth through strategic trade policy that involves the protection of infant industries and thus the maximization of dynamic comparative advantage, the utilization of welfare state policies to maintain the physical and psychological efficiency of the working class, etc. The empirical literature on this matter certainly affirms this reality; for example, we could refer to Yu's A new perspective on the role of the government in economic development, the abstract of which notes that "the government possesses certain unique features that allow it to restrict competition, and provide stable and reliable conditions under which firms organise, compete, cooperate and exchange. The coordinating perspective is employed to re-examine the arguments for industrial policies regarding private investment decisions, market competition, diffusion of technologies and tariff protection on infant industries. This paper concludes that dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination policies explains the rapid economic growths in post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrialising economies." Later elaboration is provided by this:

[The government] possesses some unique features that distinguish it from the firm. Such features allows the government to regulate competition, reduce uncertainty and provide a relatively stable exchange environment. Specifically, in the area of industrial policy, the government can help private enterprises tackle uncertainty in the following ways: first, locating the focal point by initiating projects; providing assurance and guarantees to the large investment project; and facilitating the exchange of information; second, reducing excessive competition by granting exclusive rights; and third, facilitating learning and diffusion of technologies, and assisting infant industry firms to build up competence. The history of developmental success indicates that the market and the state are not opposed forms of social organisation, but interactively linked (Rodrik, 1997, p. 437). In the prospering and dynamic nations, public-private coordination tends to prevail. Dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination explain the successful economic performances in the post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrialising economies. It is their governments' consistent and coordinated attentiveness to the economic problems that differentiates the entrepreneurial states (Yu, 1997) from the predatory states (Boaz and Polak, 1997).

Unfortunately, with the advent of the "government = socialism" myth (a brutal distortion of political economy, as it were), few anti-socialists sufficiently familiar with empirical research to comment intelligently exist.

I am always amazed how easily the gullible, uninformed, uneducated are willing to give up their freedoms to some political ideal that promises nothing more than to take away choice and reduce everyone to the same mediocre outcomes. Then allowing these political leaders, who are only interested in maintaining their political power, to turn them into slaves working for more than six or even eight months of the year to send their paltry wages to this vast Government bureaucracy in the FALSE belief that ONLY a huge and vast Government can provide for man's well being when all along it is us as individuals given the freedom and legal framework to decide for ourselves what it is WE think is in our own best interests that can do it.

This is mere inanity. I advocate the abolition of the state; do I fall into your crude categorizations? What you don't seem to understand is that my anarchism enables me to oppose the state bureaucracy that robs the public of their right to self-governance far more strongly than you do, and by extension, capitalism, considering the aforementioned role of the state in the capitalist economy. Moreover, I'm also able to logically extend this principle to a realm which you ignorantly defend: the authoritarian and hierarchical internal structure of the firm that characterizes wage labor in the capitalist economy. As Bob Black notes:

The liberals and conservatives and Libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phoneys and hypocrites. . . You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or a monastery. . . A worker is a part-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called 'insubordination,' just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. . .The demeaning system of domination I've described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are 'free' is lying or stupid.

What he speaks of is a reality. Noam Chomsky notes this reality similarly astutely when he remarks that "[c]apitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level -- there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward."

Right now thanks to a lack of education, but in many cases thanks TO a poor education, we are watching the United States become that which the founders feared the most; a Community Organizing States of America where the differences between the major political parties become blurred and where the citizens are actually gullible enough to want to believe that politicians can solve all their societal and economic needs. I rue the day that I should live long enough to see this occur. But at the pace we have recently seen, it might actually occur during my generation and not my children’s.

This is merely redundant; I've addressed your misrepresentation of both the education system and the founders above.

Unlike you I did not need to READ someone's ideas about what I believe in or cut and paste them here; these are my own thoughts based on my experience, knowledge of history and education which fortunately at the college level occurred when I was more mature and experienced so that I could put my lessons in context of REALITY.

That's laughable. Your commentary is little more than the regurgitation of the standard rightist talking points easily found on the Heritage Foundation's website. Unfortunately, you have a very crude grasp of political theory and economy, and were thus unprepared to deal with libertarian socialism and the realities of its practical implementation.

Sorry for the treatise, but you asked for it. I close with this; show me ONE REAL instance where Communism has or is actually working better than the system we have in the United States. If we honestly look at Fascist regimes along side of Communist regimes in the historical sense, what we see is little difference in the real outcomes of both extremes.

Certainly. I'd refer to the Spanish Revolution --- that is, the social revolution that occurred during the Spanish Civil War. As noted by Gaston Leval:

In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

It is estimated that eight to ten million people were directly or indirectly affected by the Spanish anarchist collectives. Leval has estimated 1,700 agrarian collectives, with 400 for Aragon, (although other estimates have been above 500), 900 for Levant, 300 for Castile , 30 for Estremadura, 40 for Catalonia, and an unknown number for Andalusia. He estimates that all industries and transportation were collectivized in the urban areas of Catalonia, (and indeed, 75% of all of Catalonia was estimated to have been collectivized in some way), 70% of all industries in Levant, and an unknown percentage in Castile.

The victories and social and economic benefits promoted in the Spanish Revolution through the implementation of libertarian socialist ideals, such as the establishment of syndicalism, voluntary association, and workers self-management strongly suggests that anarchist and libertarian socialist theories and practices are of a practical nature.

Other broadly successful examples of libertarian socialism include the Paris Commune, the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Zapatista municipalities of Chiapas, the Israeli kibbutzim (which I saw ignored earlier in this thread), etc. Successes of democratic socialism may be found in the Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela, as well as through microeconomic analysis into the superior efficiency of worker-owned enterprises, since although they obviously do not and cannot constitute socialism by themselves, such data can be extrapolated to a prospective socialist economy.

There are other examples that can be referred to, such as Cuba and Titoist Yugoslavia, though I'm personally not of the opinion that they exemplify the libertarian social values that ought to be a critical component of any socialist revolution and political and economic order.

Regardless, it is undeniable that socialism has been been implemented successfully in the past, and empirical evidence has borne out the superior efficiency of participatory, collective management. Laissez-faire capitalism, on the other hand, has never been successfully implemented, and the shoddy forms of capitalism that exist cannot claim the same efficiency record as socialism, to say nothing of their deleterious social consequences.
 
Back
Top Bottom