Dems and GOP are fun to bash, but so are Libertarians...

[FireIceTalon]

Since there are plenty of articles already that bash Democrats and Republicans, as well as their radical counterparts, Communists and Fascists. Yep, it's Libertarianisms turn to go under the hatchet. Sorry Kandrathe.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politic...page=0%2C0

[Taem]

I don't really see anything new there. Lots of circular logic and innuendo with very little burden of proof. I like how the author tries to make the claim that our current recession is caused by the rich wanting to make sure there are enough unemployed around to keep people from starting unions and asking for more work-place rights. Yeah... Blame it on "the man." FireIceTalon, no offence, but you still aren't bringing anything new to the table. This article is less about Libertarian bashing and more anti-Capitalism, and if you try and correlate the Libertarian party with being the creator and instigator of Capitalism, even though Capitalism runs in ALL parties, I'll go murder a kitten.

Edit: In retrospect, I’m not even sure why I’m bothering to reply to this thread. Oh well, the damage is done.

[Archon_Wing]

This summarizes the majority of things written by political pundits. It's amazing that people of all ideologies can write the same kind of thoughtless rhetoric that is almost the same thing as long as you put in the correct issue/person to bash in the fill in the blank line.

Attack people, avoid issue, pretend to be special.

Well, I am too, but I don't claim to know some hidden truth. Yea, sure, I guess it's the "cool" thing to be because people are incapable of avoiding bandwagons and both the popular options are out. And.... ? This isn't unique to any particular party.

>.>

Attempting to group people into an ideological singularity is not only dishonest, but also why we have so many fucking problems right now. It's so easy to bash a wide group of people if you assemble them into neat little strawmen.

I'll leave you with this, if you hate the ruling elites so much...

Divide and Conquer. Our two ruling parties have done so perfectly, letting our countrypeople tear at each other into two camps, convinced that the other side is an evil that must be eliminated since they hate America, while they do absolutely nothing but spew the same empty promises and garbage they have for the last fucking 10 years or so all in an effort to get you to feel good about yourself as you stick that scantron into that box and feel good about yourself for the next 15 seconds. Meanwhile, as you bash all that disagree with you, feel free to entertain yourself with the latest in banal celebrity gossip and whether [insert group here] is contributing to the moral decline of traditional values while ignoring the actual issues at hand here. And honestly, I don't even know what to do, except to stop viewing my fellow citizens as enemies.

And I guess, my sig comes into play here for once.

[FireIceTalon]

I don't really see anything new there. Lots of circular logic and innuendo with very little burden of proof. I like how the author tries to make the claim that our current recession is caused by the rich wanting to make sure there are enough unemployed around to keep people from starting unions and asking for more work-place rights. Yeah... Blame it on "the man." FireIceTalon, no offence, but you still aren't bringing anything new to the table. This article is less about Libertarian bashing and more anti-Capitalism, and if you try and correlate the Libertarian party with being the creator and instigator of Capitalism, even though Capitalism runs in ALL parties, I'll go murder a kitten.

Edit: In retrospect, I’m not even sure why I’m bothering to reply to this thread. Oh well, the damage is done.

Ah, hello Taem. Long time

Well...I think you kind of misunderstood the purpose of the article, even if the authors views of Capitalism are probably similar to my own. It pokes fun at Libertarians (which is most of them) who swear Capitalism can save everything and everyone while being 'left' on social issues, to make it look like they appeal to both sides of the isle but the fact of the matter is they are very much a right winged party like the other two, that gives the ILLUSION to appeal to the left (though ironically there is no true 'leftist' party in the USA currently that has any meaningful political power). Libertarians like Ron Paul always claim to be anti-war, but Capitalism by its very nature will always lead to war, and in fact, IT arguably NEEDS war. War is, afterall, big business - for oil and steel corporations, bankers, and politicians that are in kahootz with said corporations - imperialism and global hegemony come with the territory. It's just funny that Libertarians preach so much about free, unbridled Capitalism (as if there is a difference between that and so-called 'crony' capitalism, lmao - ALL capitalism is crony!), but want the USA to withdraw from policing the world - you cannot have it both ways - unless you are Somalia of course, which needs no commenting on. And for a party that claims to be leftist on social issues, they want to uphold an oppressive and volatile economic system that curtails democracy - both politically and socially - for historically marginalized groups of people (namely minorities, gays/lesbians, women, the poor, etc). Thus the purpose is defeated, but trying to explain that to them is like pounding your head against a brick wall. Its a party for the ruling class to try and appeal to the common man. Thankfully, there are a few people (like myself) who know better. So all the preaching they do about "freedom and self-determination" in system that is a plutocracy is null. Don't believe me? Go read their platform on their official website - they want virtually almost EVERYTHING (except the police force, military, and infrastructure) to be privatized.

Not that the GOP doesn't want this either, but at least they are consistent, in being conservative on both economic and social issues. Libertarians, however, want to be fiscally conservative and socially leftist - which is a complete contradiction. Again, you cannot have it both ways. But I view most social issues as being somewhat more trivial anyways because social conservatives will NEVER get Hollywood to censor its movies, rap musicians to be more "morally responsible" with their lyrics, evolution to not be taught in schools/religion to be taught as science, a constitutional amendment for prohibiting abortion, and so on. None of these things will EVER happen. They know this is a lost cause for them, and the only reason they push it so much is to distract the masses from the real issue by which politics was birthed from: class inequality and economics. This is where the Libertarian party comes in. They say, "hey look lefties, we agree with you on social issues!!" all the while trying to stay loyal to their conservative foundations by drinking the Capitalism kool-aid. But all that ends up happening really, in the political world, is that they end up being marginalized and disliked by both sides instead, and they end up appealing to only a very particular voting populace. The far Right (whether its Tea Party nationalists, power-transition realists/Neo-Cons, or even more traditional conservatives along the lines of Barry Goldwater) despises them for wanting to be in favor of gay marriage, being pro-choice or cutting military spending' and Leftists (be it standard Liberal Democrats, Social Democrats, Fabian Socialists, or my radical brethren: Marxists and Anarchists) reject them for being too Neo-Liberal, economically. Basically, their party and its entire platform is just......laughable, to put it nicely. Not that the GOP or the Dems are really any better, and even the U.S. Socialist Party isn't revolutionary enough for my liking, but again at least these groups are consistent, even if I cant stand either of them. I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he truly stands, even if he's wrong, than one who pretends to be something that he really isn't.

I would agree that calling the current recession being caused by the rich wanting to curtail workers movements and labor unions is probably a bit of a stretch, but that isn't the point of the article anyways, which was to point out how the Libertarian Party wants to appear that it represents the common man. But when it's all said and done, it is for corporate interests just like our other two major parties. And besides, we don't need a recession to accomplish reducing workers rights and the decline of unions, Capitalism itself does a fine enough job of doing that whether it's in a recession or not - recessions are merely a symptom that occurs as a result of Capitalism's countless contradictions and flaws. A recession is not a financial crisis. Capitalist ITSELF IS the crisis. Nor is there any such thing as a "free market" or an "invisible hand" - they are socially constructed myths. But this article isn't about my views of Capitalism - I have made well clear these views in the past, if my avatar isn't enough. It is about the hypocrisy and downright stupidly utopian philosophy of the Libertarian Party, that they think they can solve the worlds problems while keeping Capitalism intact, or by making society even more Capitalist, while reducing the size of government - a complete joke. Government is a byproduct of Capitalism and class antagonist systems in general, and is necessary to keep Capitalism alive (exception: Somalia, which uses a military force to keep their wonderful Capitalist utopia intact). The party is a corporate tool from the ruling class to deceive the working class in yet another way - nothing more, nothing less. Sadly, it works wonders on the average person, who is usually far less intellectually astute than you or I.

The article, minus a couple rhetorical jabs, is pretty much on point: Libertarians are a conservative and reactionary party designed to appeal and get younger, more liberal citizens to move to the right on the political scale, and from realizing their economic interests by tapping in on irrelevant social issues and culture wars, just in a different way than the Republican propaganda machine does (a la Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and the rest of the moronic neo-con trolls). Working as intended. Ill quote Imperius here and say, "You cannot hide from me, no matter what form you choose to wear. Let your true selves be revealed, conservatives".

[kandrathe]

Sorry Kandrathe.

Apology accepted.

Brought to you by Connor Kilpatrick -- editor of "Jacobin magazine". That is Jacobin as defined -- "In modern American politics, the term Jacobin is often used to describe extremists of any party who demand ideological purity."

In this case, extreme left. Would you tolerate a blow hard like Rush Limbaugh defining the socialist movement? Why should I care what Connor Kilpatrick or Bhaskar Sunkara think about Libertarians. It was written to titillate their readership, so they could remain smugly superior. When you are young, and in college its cool to love Che, wear a beret, and read radical french leftist poetry all in the hopes of impressing your potential Friday night date. Wake me up when they've grown up enough to discuss the merits of Republican Democracy, or the potential issues of six decades of our central bankers funding a war machine on debt and inflation.

There are aspects of certain factions within what is defined as broadly accepted as Libertarian with which I am queasy (e.g. NORML, or Lew Rockwell.) Just as I'm sure many Democrats, or Republicans would have issues with certain groups sharing their big tent. Maybe the Progressives vs New Democrats, or Neocons versus Reaganites.

But... what Archon said here really resonated. This is about attacking and dividing.

[Archon_Wing]

It pokes fun at Libertarians (which is most of them) who swear Capitalism can save everything and everyone while being 'left' on social issues, to make it look like they appeal to both sides of the isle but the fact of the matter is they are very much a right winged party like the other two, that gives the ILLUSION to appeal to the left (though ironically there is no true 'leftist' party in the USA currently that has any meaningful political power).

Well, that can be a valid interpretation. If you want to go look at a worldwide view, then yes, American politics tends to yield to the "right" for any party. "Democrat" would still be considered fairly rightish. But this comes down to the lack of variety and single mindedness, and people are waking up to said issues. Knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Libertarians like Ron Paul always claim to be anti-war, but Capitalism by its very nature will always lead to war, and in fact, IT arguably NEEDS war. War is, afterall, big business - for oil and steel corporations, bankers, and politicians that are in kahootz with said corporations - imperialism and global hegemony come with the territory. It's just funny that Libertarians preach so much about free, unbridled Capitalism (as if there is a difference between that and so-called 'crony' capitalism, lmao - ALL capitalism is crony!), but want the USA to withdraw from policing the world - you cannot have it both ways - unless you are Somalia of course, which needs no commenting on.

War is profitable? Hard to say that when it's the core source of money leaking out of the country. People always love to refer to World War II and that great burst of patriotism and industrial era wars, but the business of war, while profitable to some, isn't really that beautiful on the profit margins. When you had conscripts to draft and toss into the fray, and the nature of the factory style economy, then yes, you could say there were many who could provide a war and the profit.

However, we just need to look at Vietnam and beyond (You think this war would work if they started conscripting today?) and see that war tends to be pretty damned wasteful and its not that easy to just toss in a war and watch the profits come in.

Nah, war isn't profitable. It's an excellent diversionary tool for politicians still; I'll give you that.

Oil, you ask? Well, it was certainly really profitable for some people. But that's rather specific.

And what does this have to do with the US policing the world? The modern means of exploitation do not have to require force. It's in fact, a pretty messy way. A better way is to by law, force the limitation of a service or product that is vital to be extremely limited and force people to buy them at the highest prices of which they can't afford and thus dependent on it. You know, like, the world's largest drug cartel the health care industry.

And for a party that claims to be leftist on social issues, they want to uphold an oppressive and volatile economic system that curtails democracy - both politically and socially - for historically marginalized groups of people (namely minorities, gays/lesbians, women, the poor, etc). Thus the purpose is defeated, but trying to explain that to them is like pounding your head against a brick wall.

That hasn't much do to with capitalism. It does not require capitalism to abuse coercion and force. Capitalism is merely a means and tool of the society but if the underlying society sees it fit to marginalize those that are different from them, then it becomes a pretty efficient way. But that's more of a reflection of the problem, and not the cause.

So all the preaching they do about "freedom and self-determination" in system that is a plutocracy is null. Don't believe me? Go read their platform on their official website - they want virtually almost EVERYTHING (except the police force, military, and infrastructure) to be privatized.

So what's wrong with that, in and of itself? The government isn't always the best provider of certain services.

Thankfully, there are a few people (like myself) who know better.

No.

I'm sure everyone that walks out of their first class of a social science in college thinks of that, but unfortunately, this in itself is its own chains. You are still in the well with the rest of us, and looking down on the rest of us who are also stuck on it is counterproductive.

Feel free to question the world around you, feel free to be disappointed in those that won't listen to you, but never, ever, consider yourself some part of an exclusive group of wisdom. That just never leads to anything good and will keep you from finding out the truth just from stagnation. And that, as I've mentioned above, is exactly what certain folks want. We already have a political system which both sides delves in absolutes, already. Everyone knows better, while those of privilege and power are just laughing their ass off as the country burns.

Change only happens with unity. Someone, of which you are most likely a huge fan of, wrote that as the closer to their book.

[FireIceTalon]

Well, that can be a valid interpretation. If you want to go look at a worldwide view, then yes, American politics tends to yield to the "right" for any party. "Democrat" would still be considered fairly rightish. But this comes down to the lack of variety and single mindedness, and people are waking up to said issues. Knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Knowledge is only dangerous for the ruling class. Because an educated populace, after all, is a dangerous populace, because they have the potential to be a threat to the status quo. Some say ignorance is bliss, but if it's between ignorance and knowledge, I'm going with knowledge all the way - for me personally at least. I don't think it is any coincidence that anti-intellectualism is rampant in American society.

War is profitable? Hard to say that when it's the core source of money leaking out of the country. People always love to refer to World War II and that great burst of patriotism and industrial era wars, but the business of war, while profitable to some, isn't really that beautiful on the profit margins. When you had conscripts to draft and toss into the fray, and the nature of the factory style economy, then yes, you could say there were many who could provide a war and the profit.

I guess my post wasn't clear, or I made it sound like I agree with and justify it (war). LOL, I'm a Communist, dude. I despise war for any/all reasons. My post was saying that it was profitable for the few, which it is. But certainly not for the many. I think we actually agree here, unless I'm missing something.

And what does this have to do with the US policing the world? The modern means of exploitation do not have to require force. It's in fact, a pretty messy way. A better way is to by law, force the limitation of a service or product that is vital to be extremely limited and force people to buy them at the highest prices of which they can't afford and thus dependent on it. You know, like, the world's largest drug cartel the health care industry.

Nah, it does actually require force, and demonstrably so. There are only two reasons why Capitalism has lasted as long as it has....

1. It exists through deceit. We are told that it is the best system we can possibly have from as early as middle school, and they pound that into the publics heads non-stop. Of course the masses swallow whats spoon fed to them without critically thinking about it.

2. It does indeed exist through State Force, as US Imperialism and our constant wars, policing of the world, and trying to westernize everyone else has demonstrably proven. Not to mention our police force, court and legal system, etc. All these things are Superstructures or parts of Superstructures that exist and function to legitimize the rules that keep the Base (Capitalism) in place.

If these two things disappear, Capitalism goes bye-bye.

That hasn't much do to with capitalism. It does not require capitalism to abuse coercion and force. Capitalism is merely a means and tool of the society but if the underlying society sees it fit to marginalize those that are different from them, then it becomes a pretty efficient way. But that's more of a reflection of the problem, and not the cause.

Uh, No. It actually has almost everything to do with it. The reason is, those who control society economically (meaning those who control the means to production) also control it socially and politically. Class inequality has been the fundamental division through every society in history, but it leads to the other social divisions I mentioned in my prior post. That's because, quite simply, most of Western society has historically been controlled by a certain demographic: wealthy, white, straight, religious males. Chattel slavery may not be legal anymore (in most advanced nations anyway), but it doesn't need to be when the elites have a new and more effective way of ruling everyone else: through economic exploitation and alienation, and social autonomy. No doubt, minorities, women, gays, and the less fortunate economically have long been oppressed groups - but only through state force, which exists to prop up Capitalist system that creates the TRUE fundamental division in society: class. And indeed, people are divided more by class than by anything else. While eliminating racism, xenophobia, sexism, and the like is impossible to do entirely, we feel that these issues would become much more trivialized in a Communist society than they are under the current system.

So what's wrong with that, in and of itself? The government isn't always the best provider of certain services.

It should be fairly obvious by my avatar, and if you have read any of my other posts in past political threads, that the word "Privatized" is a dirty word in my and all Marxists vocabulary - we don't want a small elite few deciding who gets what, because there is no genuine democracy in that. Nor do we want "the government" to provide all services, because there is no genuine democracy in that either. What we do want, in fact, is to do away with the State entirely (eventually) along with the Capitalist mode of production - from the bottom up. The State is a tool by and for the ruling class to keep Capitalism intact. We want a CLASSLESS/STATELESS society, where the means of production and all goods (besides personal items of course) and services are PUBLIC ownership - especially things as essential as education and healthcare, food, shelter, and clothing.

America and the former Soviet Union are two sides of the same coin - only difference is one uses so-called "free market" Capitalism to oppress its working class, the other used State Capitalism under the plutocratic Stalinist (which has NOTHING to do with Communism or Socialism) regime to do so. As a classical Marxist, I deplore both of them. One is more demonized than the other, but both equally suck as far as I'm concerned.

No.

I'm sure everyone that walks out of their first class of a social science in college thinks of that, but unfortunately, this in itself is its own chains. You are still in the well with the rest of us, and looking down on the rest of us who are also stuck on it is counterproductive.

Feel free to question the world around you, feel free to be disappointed in those that won't listen to you, but never, ever, consider yourself some part of an exclusive group of wisdom. That just never leads to anything good and will keep you from finding out the truth just from stagnation. And that, as I've mentioned above, is exactly what certain folks want. We already have a political system which both sides delves in absolutes, already. Everyone knows better, while those of privilege and power are just laughing their ass off as the country burns.

Change only happens with unity. Someone, of which you are most likely a huge fan of, wrote that as the closer to their book.

I assume you are talking about Marx, who stated "workers of the world unite" at the end of the Manifesto. Indeed I am very much a Marx enthusiast obviously, though a lot of my thinking also is heavily influenced from other leftists/progressive thinkers, from like Rosa Luxemburg to Chomsky and Howard Zinn, Malcolm X, and so on. Be as it may, Marx himself would tell you this:

As long as we have a Capitalist system, or any system of class antagonisms, we will never have unity. Period. And thinking that we can have unity, peace, all the while keeping Capitalism propped up, is basically Utopian Socialism - which Marxism rejects.

As for me being in any sort of chains or being trapped by a form of thought control, hardly. I simply have CLASS consciousness, though of course, it wasn't always this way. It took not one social science class, but several, in addition to self-education and my own research, to finally understand it - it didn't just happen over night. And even though my views are pretty much written in stone, that doesn't mean I still dont learn. I am still in the middle of my education, and learning constantly - and I probably will be long after I am finished. That being said...most people do not have have class consciousness, they have false consciousness. The latter is an easy thing to garner, because there is so much propaganda, distortion of facts, historical revisionism, and myths propagated through years of anti-Communist rhetoric, as well as culture wars to hide the real issues, that achieving class consciousness is far from being an easy thing to do. Especially in times of crisis, where reactionary ideals become very attractive (even though it was reactionary ideals that were the source of the problem to begin with). It is much easier to blame another group of individuals for our problems than it is to critically analyze the shortcomings of the Capitalist system. People want immediate solutions to very complex problems, and it simply doesn't work that way. Agree or disagree all you like, but no, none of us are wearing any chains actually - except for the Capitalist chains that force me or anyone else who doesn't have any ownership in the means to production to sell our labor to some Bourgeois scum that will keep 95% of the value produced by it, for themselves - NOW THOSE are the fundamental chains that are dividing us. And I want to help break them. But people need to start realizing their true economic and class interests, and focus less on trivial bullshit like who someone marries, what a pregnant woman does with her body, religion, or somehow believing their country and culture is superior to another (its not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be!). Not to mention even more trivial bullshit like who won the latest episode of American Idol or whether or not Lindsey Lohan likes licking other women's private parts.

Indeed, the rulers are laughing their ass off as THE WORLD burns (as a Communist, I am an Internationalist - America, nor any other nation, doesn't come first - the WHOLE world does). And it really depresses me to see it - because I know we can do much better. So we agree that there is a lack of unity. Where we may not agree is the cause of that lack of unity, or how to obtain it? For my part, I believe class consciousness and a classless/stateless society, free of exploitation, economic insecurity, war, poverty and despair is the only answer.

It may sound like I am just some radical that thinks he knows better than everyone else, and that I am not trying to help the situation. That isn't my intent, although having class consciousness is certainly a particular awareness of circumstances that one either has, or doesn't have. However, it is important to note that the Marxist perspective is not grounded in idealism, it is grounded in materialism....meaning, we look at historical, material facts and conditions within a given society, and we use them to see what went/is wrong and why, and also use them to look for solutions to the problems. Mainstream perspectives such as Realism, Liberalism, and Identity constructs are grounded in Idealism and identify the causes and effects of conflicts very differently from Marxism, and from one another. Realism focuses on power, Liberalism on cooperation and institutions, and Identity on a particular agenda or ideology (such as democracy, religion or culture). Critical Theory is the methodology used by modern Marxists, and it relies purely on scientific analysis with given facts rather than Idealism, although many classical Marxists don't like CT but thats irrelevant for this discussion.

[shoju]

Cheering because some political writer wrote an article poking at a political party that they completely disagree with (and pandering to their readers), is like cheering when an infant takes a dump in a diaper. Both were expected. Neither, contained anything new or interesting, and they both sort of smelled.

[kandrathe]

Nah, war isn't profitable. It's an excellent diversionary tool for politicians still; I'll give you that.

Mmmm. More than that I think. Chaos and unpredictability are unprofitable, and a motivation for capitalists to support a war. Peaceful resolution (a political resolution) is more profitable, and the most desirable outcome. In WWII, the preponderance of people in the US wanted to stay out of Europe's war. It wasn't until the publicity of the Germans sinking many US ships, some of which were passenger ships, that turned the tide of US opinion to support declaring war. Even then, we didn't declare war upon Germany until December 11th, 1941, 4 days after Pearl Harbor. This was over three years after Britain and France had declared war on Germany in response to the invasion of Poland.

In Iraq, for example, Saddam created uncertainty, and so he became a liability for the west. Were it possible to unseat Saddam, and have Iraq return into "the fold of peaceful (predictable) nations", then the war would not have been supported by capitalists. There may be some (evil) capitalists who look for any opportunity to deplete US ordinance stockpiles in the hopes of rebuilding them. Anyone who thinks destroying the infrastructure of Iraq was done to create opportunity hasn't read or understood the simplest fundamentals of economics (Smith, Bastiat et. al.). These evil capitalists are most assuredly Keynesians. Nobody wants to invest in Venezula (not even the Venezulans) for fear of what Chavez will do with their "capital". And, as much as RR wants to demagogue it, capital is just the accumulated value of labor and property. Most people accumulate their wealth into their homes.

In the US, in both the Republican and Democratic parties, there are a preponderance of hawkish (neocons) who tend to wield our war machine whimsically at times. This is the danger of a standing army; you pay billions for the capability and so you are prone to use it when you can to justify its existence. If you had less power, you'd be more likely to negotiate a peaceful compromise. Now, we don't have to compromise, and it often shows in our belligerent and brutish approach to foreign policy.

An objective look at the Clinton, Bush, Obama long term strategy on Iraq and Afghanistan would be that the west (led by the US) seeks to use our military and economic power to transform parts of the middle east (it matters not which countries) into western friendly enclaves, and due to that pressure the others would need to conform to that changing political dynamic. Iraq and Afghanistan are well suited for this purpose; They are well positioned geographically to influence the region, they had a relatively weak military (compared to Pakistan, or Iran), Iraq was semi-secular already, Afghanistan's culture was in disarray after the Soviets and Taliban, and they weren't the lightening rods that Saudi Arabia (Mecca, Medina) would have been. From a capitalist point of view, this is a long term investment seeking to transform them into a more peaceful and prosperous region, much as was rebuilding Europe after WWII. I'm not a supporter of the strategy, just observing what they've said and done. I'm in favor of the outcome, but I'm not keen on risking our capital to make it happen.

What we face now in the world are a myriad of petty despots, who convince their military to stand behind them. We still pretty much have the same amount of power required to face off the Soviet Empire. The Libertarian position is that we should return to a position of defending the US, and get our military out of police operations (e.g. interdicting narcotics). That would cut military spending by a third to half over time, and create stability by transferring the defense of our allies to our allies. And... the bottom line is that the government should not be using US tax money to fund investment in foreign infrastructure.

So what's wrong with that, in and of itself? The government isn't always the best provider of certain services.

Want an example? Amtrak. Would you pay for a $16 hamburger, reheated in a microwave? There is very little reason why the operation of the trains shouldn't be privatized. Amtrak is an anachronism to the antiquated labor rules within the rail industry. The same rules that when cleared away by Pres. Carter, made trucking more viable for most long haul transportation in the US.

[Jester]

These evil capitalists are most assuredly Keynesians.

Do you have even the smallest shred of evidence for this proposition? Or are you simply reasoning "They share a belief with Hazlitt's strawman of Keynesians, therefore they are Keynesians"?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

These evil capitalists are most assuredly Keynesians.

Do you have even the smallest shred of evidence for this proposition? Or are you simply reasoning "They share a belief with Hazlitt's strawman of Keynesians, therefore they are Keynesians"?

Nope. I was just seeing if you were awake. Apparently, yes.

[FireIceTalon]

The Keynesian vs supply-side debate is funny to me. I don't like either one, since they are both Capitalism.

Oh, and btw Kandrathe, I don't read much poetry in general (let alone radical French poetry), nor do I wear a beret or Che tee-shirts. I have very mixed views regarding the Argentinian revolutonary. You are right on the young part (relatively speaking), and the college part

[kandrathe]

The Keynesian vs supply-side debate is funny to me. I don't like either one, since they are both Capitalism.

Obviously. Keynes died in 1946, the Chicago school began in the 1950's. I'm more of a Hayek fan. I'm not so keen on the monetarist parts of Friedman, but he wrote much I can agree with. You might want to read them, even if you disagree. At least you'll be better informed with that to which you object.

From wiki "Chicago macroeconomic theory rejected Keynesianism in favor of monetarism until the mid-1970s, when it turned to new classical macroeconomics heavily based on the concept of rational expectations. The freshwater-saltwater distinction is largely antiquated today, as the two traditions have heavily incorporated ideas from each other. Specifically, New Keynesian economics was developed as a response to new classical economics, electing to incorporate the insight of rational expectations without giving up the traditional Keynesian focus on imperfect competition and sticky wages."

Oh, and btw Kandrathe, I don't read much poetry in general (let alone radical French poetry), nor do I wear a beret or Che tee-shirts. I have very mixed views regarding the Argentinian revolutonary. You are right on the young part (relatively speaking), and the college part

That is sad. Poetry, like other arts, helps to make life more beautiful. Try out some Langston Hughes, or Christopher Cauldwell. I think you'll like them.

[LochnarITB]

I'm more of a Hayek fan.

HUGE fan! The table dance in From Dusk Till Dawn alone made the movie worth a ticket/rental.

[kandrathe]

I'm more of a Hayek fan.

HUGE fan! The table dance in From Dusk Till Dawn alone made the movie worth a ticket/rental.

Salma vs Friedrich.

[LochnarITB]

I'm more of a Hayek fan.

HUGE fan! The table dance in From Dusk Till Dawn alone made the movie worth a ticket/rental.

Salma vs Friedrich.

Once again I am gobsmacked by the bits that can be mined from the interwebz.

[FireIceTalon]

Pretty strange comparison to me, it seems so out of the blue. It would be like putting Robert De Niro (one of my favorite actors) up against Rosa Luxemburg (one of the WWI era classical Marxists who notoriously opposed Bolshevism, and one of the main figures who influenced my political and social thought)....apples with apples, oranges with oranges.

[Hammerskjold]

Pretty strange comparison to me, it seems so out of the blue. It would be like putting Robert De Niro (one of my favorite actors) up against Rosa Luxemburg (one of the WWI era classical Marxists who notoriously opposed Bolshevism, and one of the main figures who influenced my political and social thought)....apples with apples, oranges with oranges.

Wow. Srsly? No, really? Wow.

Look at the last names, Hayek, and Hayek.

Maybe look at this Marx instead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groucho_Marx
for some clue. Don't worry comrade, he's a commie too, therefore it's safe to read. After all his name is also Marx.

[DeeBye]

Maybe look at this Marx instead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groucho_Marx
for some clue. Don't worry comrade, he's a commie too, therefore it's safe to read. After all his name is also Marx.

One of that particular Marx's habits was that he always smoked a large cigar. I'm pretty sure that large cigars like that are only made in Cuba, which is of course Ground Zero for communism in the western hemisphere.

[eppie]

One of that particular Marx's habits was that he always smoked a large cigar. I'm pretty sure that large cigars like that are only made in Cuba, which is of course Ground Zero for communism in the western hemisphere.

No it isn't. In the US there used to be a pretty big communist movement in the times that there were practically no labour laws and when unions were coming up. Of course these movements have been succesfully eradicated by capitalist hawks. This was all long before times of Che guevara and castro.

These are parts of western history that (obviously) don't get a lot of attention in history books.
Another good example is Italy in WW2, where the resistance (partizans) were largely comprised of communists. After the the US (+allies) liberated italy they have been waging a short (few day) war in the trieste area i believe, where the partigiani were in charge out of fear of too much communist influence.
In Italy, as in the biggest part of western europe, communists who were the largest part of the resistance movement in many countries, have subsequently effectively been kept out of power by capitalist forces. Which led to the strange, sad situation that people who were in the restistance against the fascist germans and collaborators were discriminated againts, and many people who had leading roles in the nazi movement were after WW2 still in leading roles in society.

A similar thing could also be seen in Russia after the collapse of the wall. Many billionaire oil barons used to be pretty important in the communist party during the cold war period as well.