Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Free Market Capitalism... for some...
Laissez-faire capitalism is as much a pipe dream as communism. Think of the two idealogies as opposite points on the economic spectrum. A totally free, unregulated, unrestricted government-free market system versus a totally controlled, regulated, and restricted government run market system.
Communism results in economic still birth. It leaves no room for creativity, growth, or individuality. Even if you had an ideal communist state, with democratic elections, a free press, with freedom of speech, the state has the final word. If it was a pure democracy, where all the citizens partake, and polls and votes are taken, eventually the government would give in to the will of the majority. In Soviet style communism, the state is/was a dictatorship of the proletariat. Communist bureaucrats brought down the Soviet Union due to the inability to plan a market effectively against a wealthy capitalist foe. The individual is a pawn to the collective state.
Laissez-faire capitalism is the opposite. No bureaucrats, no government regulations (including labor laws, minimum wages, environmental laws) no competition restrictions. The inevitable result, is one winner takes all. Think of it like the March Madness playoff grid. You'd start off with 64 businesses in an industry, they'd merge and compete, you'd end up with 32, then 16, then 8, then 4, 2, and one ultimate winner. Or maybe not, maybe you'd just have 2, or several companies that agree to divide up select regions and have regional monopolies. (Say, like cable tv.) The distinct difference of course is there would be no rules or restrictions save what the competitors agreed upon. (Unlike the March Madness basketball playoffs, where they teams play by NCAA collegiate rules regarding basketball. The losers are subject to the whims of the victors. The consumer is an after thought in a market controlled by one or a small few competitors.
Certainly, each example is a simplification of each ideology. Each has its strengths, and certainly each have their weaknesses. Adam Smith, considered the father of capitalism, was against laissez-faire capitalism due to the inequity it creates in society. Karl Marx did not believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat, that was Lenin's idea followed to the extreme by Josef Stalin.
So where does that leave us? If each extreme is bad, then something in the middle is probably better. Sort of like Goldilock's bowls of porridge, we are stuck with a system that's somewhere in the middle. Pro laissez-faire types call it "socialism," and are eager to dismantle government regulation at every turn.
The problem is what do the people in a society do when a business creates a sort of tyranny over a local populace? Even worse, what do the people do when the government enforces the local tyranny. It's happening now in Communist China, aka Mainland China, and has happened here in the US in our history. (circa the late 1800's and early 1900's.)
A government's role is to protect it's people to some degree, especially from foreign threats. In a free society, like the US, this does not sit well with laissez-faire capitalists. However, when they figure out that government can protect the business interests of US companies they don't object. Not to generalize, but libertarians and some Republicans adhere to the laissez-faire capitalist credos.
Why do I bring this up? Well, I've been reading stuff lately about prescription drugs. See, in the US drugs are very expensive. Its a burden, particularly to the elderly who are on fixed incomes. It also becomes a burden to the federal government which has to continue to pay the increased expense of drugs via Medicare. Republicans and Libertarians want to chuck the whole system all together due to the increased costs. From a dollars and cents point of view, this makes a certain amount of cents. However, from a humanitarian point of view, its sort of short sited, not to mention cold hearted.
In a market, competition is seen as a good thing. In fact, the more competition the better it is for consumers and for laborers. More competition means more suppliers to meet market demands. A market only bears so many slices of pie, so to speak. Each supplier in a market will compete with other suppliers to increase their market share and hence grab a bigger piece of the pie.
We go back to our March Madness bracket, we could see 64 slices of pie. A pretty small sliver for any one competitor. Imagine one competitor is very sucessful and grabs one quarter of the pie. Smaller competitors band together into bigger competitors to compete with the bigger competitor. We get to 4 main competitors each controlling one quarter of the pie.
Here's where governments need to take a part in the market system. The government needs to play referee and insure that competition exists. Knowing that without it, prices will dramatically rise and consumers will inevitably pay the higher costs, or whatever prices is asked by the supplier.
Creating pharmaceuticals is not like making hamburgers. The complexity and difficulty of creating new drugs, and producing drugs is an expensive undertaking. Certainly some companies do their own research, but others buy patents off of colleges or universities. Some may even sponsor colleges and universities to do the research for them at a low cost. Colleges and universities are usually state funded organizations. The knowledge they create should belong to the state.
Now drug creation is a science unto itself. It's a combination of sciences actually. The United States drug manufacturers do not have a monopoly on biochemical sciences. Canadian, British, German, or any scientist could create various drugs to treat various ailments. By introducing the possibility that America's elderly could purchase drugs from Canada, Britain, Germany or any other industrialized world, that would introduce competition into America's pharmaceutical industry. The drugs would have to pass inspection by the FDA. That's globalization. That's laissez-faire capitalism. Except... those proponents, particularly Republicans want to protect the regional monopoly that US drugs companies have over the US. This is protectionism. This is regulated and restricted capitalism. Kind of hypocritical, but it seems the loudest voices for fair trade and globalization are against letting competition in, even if it would benefit the fixed income elderly and save money on Medicare.
For example, George Bush just signed into law a confusing medical bill giving huge sums of money to pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies without necessarily guaranteeing that seniors will get lower medical bills. Confused? So are most people that signed it into legislation.
There's good and bad to our government's policies about pharmaceuticals. Its good they're protection American business interests. That in turn protects the profitability of the companies, and it protects those employed by the pharaceutical companies. It's bad because it allows a regional monopoly on the American market, which results in high prices.
What will prove interesting is when Canadian and Mexican, and even South American companies want to break into the American pharaceutical market. See, we've signed free trade agreements with those countries. See, if the US says no to Canadian pharmaceutical companies, they can go to the WTO and sue the pants off of the US. Same with Mexico. Groovy, huh? True story, I swear.
Free market capitalism and globalization will bite us in the butt. It may not happen in the near future, but it will happen. By legally taking government out of the business picture, we could be in for a harsh future. Its happening now, actually. The high standard of living Americans now enjoy is going to become a thing of the past if people don't wake up and get smart about basic economics.
Faith based economics, based in free market ideology, is dangerous in the wrong hands. Any good game needs rules. Economics is no different. Without an enforcer of the rules, and no rules all together, only disaster will result. Sure proponents say the competitors will make the rules that benefit the consumer. The question is, who decides what's best for the consumer in a profit driven system? Keep in mind, historically, when governments have taken a "hands-off" approach, depressions happen. The US has not had a depression for a couple generations now due to the government playing referee. Take away the referee, and I'd bet dollars to donuts we'd have a depression within a short period of time.
Human greed is a bad thing to put faith in, that's why regulation to some extent is necessary. The question is how much control and regulation is required. That's the difficult question. Ideally, I'd say the best amount is what lets a company be profitable and competitve offering the best deal to the consumer, but also protects the consumer from price gouging, monopolization, and poor quality of goods and services that can effect the welfare of individuals and localities. Its messy, but it would be best. The market is left to the mercy of an impartial judicial system, and to regulations that conform to a government standard of fair play. (Think of it like this, MLB vs. the NFL. The better system overall is the NFL. It creates a better playing field and its more fair to the owners, players, and fans (consumers.) They all profit. Baseball benefits a small amount of owners, and a small amount of fans. It's a great system if you're a Yankee fan for example, but stinks if you're the fan of a small market team like the Royals.)
Call me what you like, but in the market I'll stand up for the consumer (demand side) to get the best and fairest deal possible. If it means a CEO has to get by on a few million versus a few hundred million, that's the breaks. The real key is the quantity and quality of competition. The more fair and equitable it is for the competitors, the better it is for everyone. A system that taxes the top of the chain to provide for newcomers or smaller competitors at the bottom will provide the best competition.
It's got drawbacks, but it has advantages. In the long run it evens out, it keeps the market filled with new, fresh and innovative goods and services. A good example would be the movie industry. Hollywood is going to release a bunch of sequels (Spiderman 2, Shrek 2), remakes (The Stepford Wives), and movies based on tv-shows (Starsky and Hutch) rather than create new or original content. Imagine a system that allowed new competitors to try their hand at entertainment. The best stuff will sell the best.
Laissez-faire capitalism is as much a pipe dream as communism. Think of the two idealogies as opposite points on the economic spectrum. A totally free, unregulated, unrestricted government-free market system versus a totally controlled, regulated, and restricted government run market system.
Communism results in economic still birth. It leaves no room for creativity, growth, or individuality. Even if you had an ideal communist state, with democratic elections, a free press, with freedom of speech, the state has the final word. If it was a pure democracy, where all the citizens partake, and polls and votes are taken, eventually the government would give in to the will of the majority. In Soviet style communism, the state is/was a dictatorship of the proletariat. Communist bureaucrats brought down the Soviet Union due to the inability to plan a market effectively against a wealthy capitalist foe. The individual is a pawn to the collective state.
Laissez-faire capitalism is the opposite. No bureaucrats, no government regulations (including labor laws, minimum wages, environmental laws) no competition restrictions. The inevitable result, is one winner takes all. Think of it like the March Madness playoff grid. You'd start off with 64 businesses in an industry, they'd merge and compete, you'd end up with 32, then 16, then 8, then 4, 2, and one ultimate winner. Or maybe not, maybe you'd just have 2, or several companies that agree to divide up select regions and have regional monopolies. (Say, like cable tv.) The distinct difference of course is there would be no rules or restrictions save what the competitors agreed upon. (Unlike the March Madness basketball playoffs, where they teams play by NCAA collegiate rules regarding basketball. The losers are subject to the whims of the victors. The consumer is an after thought in a market controlled by one or a small few competitors.
Certainly, each example is a simplification of each ideology. Each has its strengths, and certainly each have their weaknesses. Adam Smith, considered the father of capitalism, was against laissez-faire capitalism due to the inequity it creates in society. Karl Marx did not believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat, that was Lenin's idea followed to the extreme by Josef Stalin.
So where does that leave us? If each extreme is bad, then something in the middle is probably better. Sort of like Goldilock's bowls of porridge, we are stuck with a system that's somewhere in the middle. Pro laissez-faire types call it "socialism," and are eager to dismantle government regulation at every turn.
The problem is what do the people in a society do when a business creates a sort of tyranny over a local populace? Even worse, what do the people do when the government enforces the local tyranny. It's happening now in Communist China, aka Mainland China, and has happened here in the US in our history. (circa the late 1800's and early 1900's.)
A government's role is to protect it's people to some degree, especially from foreign threats. In a free society, like the US, this does not sit well with laissez-faire capitalists. However, when they figure out that government can protect the business interests of US companies they don't object. Not to generalize, but libertarians and some Republicans adhere to the laissez-faire capitalist credos.
Why do I bring this up? Well, I've been reading stuff lately about prescription drugs. See, in the US drugs are very expensive. Its a burden, particularly to the elderly who are on fixed incomes. It also becomes a burden to the federal government which has to continue to pay the increased expense of drugs via Medicare. Republicans and Libertarians want to chuck the whole system all together due to the increased costs. From a dollars and cents point of view, this makes a certain amount of cents. However, from a humanitarian point of view, its sort of short sited, not to mention cold hearted.
In a market, competition is seen as a good thing. In fact, the more competition the better it is for consumers and for laborers. More competition means more suppliers to meet market demands. A market only bears so many slices of pie, so to speak. Each supplier in a market will compete with other suppliers to increase their market share and hence grab a bigger piece of the pie.
We go back to our March Madness bracket, we could see 64 slices of pie. A pretty small sliver for any one competitor. Imagine one competitor is very sucessful and grabs one quarter of the pie. Smaller competitors band together into bigger competitors to compete with the bigger competitor. We get to 4 main competitors each controlling one quarter of the pie.
Here's where governments need to take a part in the market system. The government needs to play referee and insure that competition exists. Knowing that without it, prices will dramatically rise and consumers will inevitably pay the higher costs, or whatever prices is asked by the supplier.
Creating pharmaceuticals is not like making hamburgers. The complexity and difficulty of creating new drugs, and producing drugs is an expensive undertaking. Certainly some companies do their own research, but others buy patents off of colleges or universities. Some may even sponsor colleges and universities to do the research for them at a low cost. Colleges and universities are usually state funded organizations. The knowledge they create should belong to the state.
Now drug creation is a science unto itself. It's a combination of sciences actually. The United States drug manufacturers do not have a monopoly on biochemical sciences. Canadian, British, German, or any scientist could create various drugs to treat various ailments. By introducing the possibility that America's elderly could purchase drugs from Canada, Britain, Germany or any other industrialized world, that would introduce competition into America's pharmaceutical industry. The drugs would have to pass inspection by the FDA. That's globalization. That's laissez-faire capitalism. Except... those proponents, particularly Republicans want to protect the regional monopoly that US drugs companies have over the US. This is protectionism. This is regulated and restricted capitalism. Kind of hypocritical, but it seems the loudest voices for fair trade and globalization are against letting competition in, even if it would benefit the fixed income elderly and save money on Medicare.
For example, George Bush just signed into law a confusing medical bill giving huge sums of money to pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies without necessarily guaranteeing that seniors will get lower medical bills. Confused? So are most people that signed it into legislation.
There's good and bad to our government's policies about pharmaceuticals. Its good they're protection American business interests. That in turn protects the profitability of the companies, and it protects those employed by the pharaceutical companies. It's bad because it allows a regional monopoly on the American market, which results in high prices.
What will prove interesting is when Canadian and Mexican, and even South American companies want to break into the American pharaceutical market. See, we've signed free trade agreements with those countries. See, if the US says no to Canadian pharmaceutical companies, they can go to the WTO and sue the pants off of the US. Same with Mexico. Groovy, huh? True story, I swear.
Free market capitalism and globalization will bite us in the butt. It may not happen in the near future, but it will happen. By legally taking government out of the business picture, we could be in for a harsh future. Its happening now, actually. The high standard of living Americans now enjoy is going to become a thing of the past if people don't wake up and get smart about basic economics.
Faith based economics, based in free market ideology, is dangerous in the wrong hands. Any good game needs rules. Economics is no different. Without an enforcer of the rules, and no rules all together, only disaster will result. Sure proponents say the competitors will make the rules that benefit the consumer. The question is, who decides what's best for the consumer in a profit driven system? Keep in mind, historically, when governments have taken a "hands-off" approach, depressions happen. The US has not had a depression for a couple generations now due to the government playing referee. Take away the referee, and I'd bet dollars to donuts we'd have a depression within a short period of time.
Human greed is a bad thing to put faith in, that's why regulation to some extent is necessary. The question is how much control and regulation is required. That's the difficult question. Ideally, I'd say the best amount is what lets a company be profitable and competitve offering the best deal to the consumer, but also protects the consumer from price gouging, monopolization, and poor quality of goods and services that can effect the welfare of individuals and localities. Its messy, but it would be best. The market is left to the mercy of an impartial judicial system, and to regulations that conform to a government standard of fair play. (Think of it like this, MLB vs. the NFL. The better system overall is the NFL. It creates a better playing field and its more fair to the owners, players, and fans (consumers.) They all profit. Baseball benefits a small amount of owners, and a small amount of fans. It's a great system if you're a Yankee fan for example, but stinks if you're the fan of a small market team like the Royals.)
Call me what you like, but in the market I'll stand up for the consumer (demand side) to get the best and fairest deal possible. If it means a CEO has to get by on a few million versus a few hundred million, that's the breaks. The real key is the quantity and quality of competition. The more fair and equitable it is for the competitors, the better it is for everyone. A system that taxes the top of the chain to provide for newcomers or smaller competitors at the bottom will provide the best competition.
It's got drawbacks, but it has advantages. In the long run it evens out, it keeps the market filled with new, fresh and innovative goods and services. A good example would be the movie industry. Hollywood is going to release a bunch of sequels (Spiderman 2, Shrek 2), remakes (The Stepford Wives), and movies based on tv-shows (Starsky and Hutch) rather than create new or original content. Imagine a system that allowed new competitors to try their hand at entertainment. The best stuff will sell the best.
Saturday, January 17, 2004
Just What is a Radical Leftist?
According to dictionary.com a radical is: "One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions." There were other definitions, but I'll take a leap and suggest that the definition advocating fundamental and revolutionary change is the one used for political purposes, say in the expression "radical leftist" or "radical conservative."
So, obviously a "leftist" is one whose political philosophies fall to the left side of the political spectrum, but what the heck does that mean? I went to askjeeves.com (also ask.com) and typed in "What is a leftist?" I got varied results. I clicked on the first link that was listed, Jay's Leftist and Progressive Internet Resources Directory (www.neravt.com/left/). According to Jay, a leftist must be "Good People around Planet Earth who are anti-War, anti-Imperialist, anti-Racist, anti-Sexist, and anti-Homophobic and who want to Fight Back and build together a Better World." Cool, but if you're anti-war why would you fight anything?
I looked at the subject links to the left (hm...) of his page. They included things like Anarchisms, atheism, community building stuff, corporate watchdogs, environmentalism, gay/queer sites, labor issues, liberation ideology and liberal religions, media watchdogs, did I mention socialism?
Back to Jeeves...Next was counterpunch.org, a leftist and liberal news website. I did see an ad for a book about anti-Semitism. The lead story was about Michael Moore slamming Kucinich and pulling support for Clark. On this one, I'd recommend you read the links to the left. (There's that left link thing again. Hmm... come to think of it Western culture reads from left to right? Could there be a conspiracy?)
Continuing the adventure, I clicked on the next link that Jeeves brought up for me. (I wonder if Jeeves is paid, or if he's working in sweatshop conditions?) In These Times was the next link. (inthesetimes.com) Its a pro-labor website. I gathered that from a quick scan of the story headings.
Next website was "The Progressive." Another magazine style website whose mission statement reads: "The mission of The Progressive is to be a journalistic voice for peace and social justice at home and abroad. The magazine, its affiliates, and its staff steadfastly oppose militarism, the concentration of power in corporate hands, the disenfranchisement of the citizenry, poverty, and prejudice in all its guises. We champion peace, social and economic justice, civil rights, civil liberties, human rights, a preserved environment, and a reinvigorated democracy." OK, sounds pretty cool. Who really would oppose peace and social justice?
A HA!!! A few links down I come across a socialist website. Those Pinkos!!! (www.socialism.com) Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter have proclaimed that the Democrats and liberals want to turn America into a commie state. Have I found proof!? No. They're just socialists. Seems socialists have a beef with capitalism. In fact the author of the site proclaims that "Capitalism stinks." Boy, that should make everyone tremble in their boots, huh? I scrolled down a bit, and found the authors definition of socialism... "Quite simply, it is public ownership of all major corporations—industry (manufacturing, services, and energy), banks and insurance companies, agribusiness, transportation, the media, schools and medical facilities. That doesn’t mean small businesses or individual belongings, but the giant enterprises that dominate the economy. These are privately owned, but their assets and profits have all been created by working people. In all fairness, they should belong to us!" So, in a nutshell socialism is having the government control the means of production without interfereing with day to day business of small businesses or individuals rights to private property. By the definition of radical, mentioned above, I'd say that socialism is radical in that its purpose would be to take away private ownership of industry, banks, agribusiness, media, schools, and other stuff.
So, the ultimate leftist fringe would probably be anarchists, right after communists. (Anarchists = everyone does as they please with no government interference. Communism = the government controls all goods and services and regulates and controls what each individual may possess or not possess, whereas the state acts as the sole provider for all goods and services.)
Who Cares? Why bring this crap up? Well, when the Limbaughs and Coulters start flinging the words "radical left, leftist, socialist, communist, left-wing, crazed, liberal, etc." around its easy to lump people that want social change and social justice in with people that want to turn the US into a collective state where the citizens act with a "hive-mind" mentality. In fact, they lump those words together so often, its to the point where most liberals and left leaning thinkers have been ostracized from public debate.
For example, right wing critics of Howard Dean call him part of the "radical wing" of the Democrat party. That's called red-baiting. See, critics are trying to paint Dean as a "commie." He's not a commie. How do we know this? Have you heard or read anything about him that states he wants to turn the major means of production over to the state? General Motors and Ford will be consumed by Uncle Sam? Microsoft will be absorbed in the government? Well, go to Dean's website and click on his economics under the "On the Issues" link to find out. Scroll to the bottom. There you'll find his sinister agenda; repeal Bush's tax cuts for the rich, give the money to universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans, balance the federal budget, create a fairer and simpler tax system, and assure that social security and medicare are well funded. Boy, that puts him right up there with Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. OK, so if Dean's a "radical left-winger" just what the heck do conservative/Republican critics think is a moderate left winger? I didn't read anything on Dean's site about creating a worker's utopia, or a collectivised system of economics, or about government taking over business, banks, farming, or coming into your house and snagging your tv, remote control, or your SUV. (Dean's site: www.deanforamerica.com)
Meh. So? Suppose we get rid of all the people that clamor for social change and justice? What if we just stifle them and put them in camps if they speak out? If there is nobody to speak out for social change or against social injustice how will a nation progress and become more free?
Here's the problem, stifling dissent does not work. It harbors anger, and frustration. It creates underground movements. It topples governments. Doesn't matter if you stifle lefties or righties. Either side gets agitated if they don't have a public forum to air their grievances, and have the ability to petition their government to make social changes and create social justice. (In fact, if you air radical groups on the left or right it turns more people off than you think. Take the KKK, radical militant Islam/Christianity, neo-Nazi groups, Stalinists, etc.) Now, when you try and pigeon-hole people as radicals when they are not radicals and you stifle their ability to join in public debate about public policies, you isolate more than a fringe group, you isolate a larger part of the population. That's not good or intelligent policy for a free and democratic society.
Seems our media, and the Bush administration have been doing a nasty job trying to quiet dissenters about his policies in Iraq, his environmental policies, his pro-corporate agenda, and so forth. This will create anger, and there will be more anger if the Dubster gets elected for the first time and serves a second term.
This is not to say that only conservatives or right-wingers stifle dissent, lefties do the same thing to. Take the issue of gun control. Its why Democrats lose in the South. Republicans play off the fears that Democrats will take away gun ownership rights. (The play off other fears too, but that's another blog.) The NRA is a huge supporter of the GOP, but a scant supporter for Democrats. Why? Democrats want to promote gun control laws to stop the spread of violent crimes in America. That's a good thing, right? Yes and no. Yes, it would stop things like drive by shootings, but how often do people that hunt deer go into neighborhoods and shoot up the area? The idea of gun control to some sounds like Big Brother, proto-fascist government. Use those fears in combination with fuzzy math about taxation policies (Reaganomics, voodoo economics, borrow and spend policies) and you get a bunch of Southerners to vote Republican.
Now, I'm generally not a big supporter of the GOP, and my political leaning is toward the left, but I would not want to have a society of just one party. I would not want to have just a Democrat nation, nor do I want just a Republican nation. (Heck I want more than two parties.) A one party state will lead to totalitarianism. You could take a radical left type government like Stalinist Russia or a radical right type government like Nazi Germany, and you will have lost freedom and justice for the people. Extremes on either left or right lead to less freedom for all. I'd be willing to take a leap and say that some Republicans would not want to live in a totally Republican controlled state. As a historical rule, Republicans are not big on social justice or social change. They only change things when the people get agitated and start marching in protest. (Come to think of it, Democrats kind of do the same thing.) Republicans tend to favor big business over all other aspects of society, and proclaim that whats good for big business is good for America. That does not always hold true.
I don't believe a truly free society can ever be created for humanity. Because people will have disagreements about how to do things. The best system, although far from perfect, is the system that attempts to incorporate the best possible solution for those in disagreement. Corporate CEO's, Wall Street Fat Cats, and millionaire celebrities have as much a right to speak as a poor immigrant farmer, an oppressed laborer, a single mother, or anyone in between. Our Founding Fathers picked the best system they could, a representative democratic government. Its worked for quite some time, and it will still work if the people stay involved and stay informed. We do best when we work together, we're at our worst when we fight with each other.
The Bush administration by stifling criticism, and following its own agenda with little to no debate is divisive. In his 2000 campaign, Bush proclaimed he was a "uniter, not a divider." Like many things in his promises and in his administration they don't hold up. I have read claims that say Bush is like Hitler. I don't think Bush would advocate worker camps for people that disagree with him (who knows if another terrorist attack happens), but he's not helping his cause by holding Americans in prison (Guantanamo Bay) with no access to a public trial or to a lawyer. (That sort of violates the Constitution which he swore to uphold. Another broken promise.) He didnt' help his case or make himself seem really reliable by pissing off our allies, and the rest of the world by invading Iraq on fleeting and scant evidence. It makes it worse when he and his policy makers are trying to change the tune about weapons of mass destruction. (In my opinion lying about the motivation for going to war is worse than getting a blow job.) His tax cuts which favor the upper 1% of the nation are not an immediate benefit to people currently out of work that want to work. (Seems a tax cut for the poor and middle class would have been a bit more prudent. You won't get that unless more tax cuts for the rich are approved, claims Dick Cheney.) Also, cutting huge amounts of taxes in a time of war is poor fiscal policy. Its like going on a shopping spree with your credit cards when you're unemployed. Makes me wonder if Bush actually went to classes when he got his MBA at Harvard.
So, when the media talks about an angry Howard Dean, keep in mind he's got things to be angry about, as do most Americans, and particularly Dean's supporters. When the Democrats talk about kicking the bum out of office that's not radical, that's American. The US was founded upon radical ideas. (the citizenry having free elections, Freedom of speech, freedom of public assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial and many others in the Bill of Rights.) Sure we need to beat terrorism. Those responsible for September 11th should be brought to justice, and those that support the terrorists need to be brought to justice as well. The key word is justice. Turning the US into a police state will not make the world or the US safe from terrorism. There are other ways to beat them, and its time to open the public forum for new ideas. Having secret tribunals and occassionally raising the terror alert from yellow to orange is not the best step to winning the war on terrorism. We're only going to win the fight against terrorism, when we work together. Let's show the world what is really great about America. Democracy, freedom, justice, liberty for all. Bombing people into submission is a bad PR move. The best way to beat those SOB's is to create a world that is free, democratic, allows individual self expression, and creates a truly just society.
Once those people that have lived in oppressive states get a taste of freedom and justice, I don't think they'll be eager to give it up.
I'll end this blog with a quote by Martin Luther King, "true peace is not the absence of violence, its the presence of justice." Think about that this MLK day.
- Peace.
According to dictionary.com a radical is: "One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions." There were other definitions, but I'll take a leap and suggest that the definition advocating fundamental and revolutionary change is the one used for political purposes, say in the expression "radical leftist" or "radical conservative."
So, obviously a "leftist" is one whose political philosophies fall to the left side of the political spectrum, but what the heck does that mean? I went to askjeeves.com (also ask.com) and typed in "What is a leftist?" I got varied results. I clicked on the first link that was listed, Jay's Leftist and Progressive Internet Resources Directory (www.neravt.com/left/). According to Jay, a leftist must be "Good People around Planet Earth who are anti-War, anti-Imperialist, anti-Racist, anti-Sexist, and anti-Homophobic and who want to Fight Back and build together a Better World." Cool, but if you're anti-war why would you fight anything?
I looked at the subject links to the left (hm...) of his page. They included things like Anarchisms, atheism, community building stuff, corporate watchdogs, environmentalism, gay/queer sites, labor issues, liberation ideology and liberal religions, media watchdogs, did I mention socialism?
Back to Jeeves...Next was counterpunch.org, a leftist and liberal news website. I did see an ad for a book about anti-Semitism. The lead story was about Michael Moore slamming Kucinich and pulling support for Clark. On this one, I'd recommend you read the links to the left. (There's that left link thing again. Hmm... come to think of it Western culture reads from left to right? Could there be a conspiracy?)
Continuing the adventure, I clicked on the next link that Jeeves brought up for me. (I wonder if Jeeves is paid, or if he's working in sweatshop conditions?) In These Times was the next link. (inthesetimes.com) Its a pro-labor website. I gathered that from a quick scan of the story headings.
Next website was "The Progressive." Another magazine style website whose mission statement reads: "The mission of The Progressive is to be a journalistic voice for peace and social justice at home and abroad. The magazine, its affiliates, and its staff steadfastly oppose militarism, the concentration of power in corporate hands, the disenfranchisement of the citizenry, poverty, and prejudice in all its guises. We champion peace, social and economic justice, civil rights, civil liberties, human rights, a preserved environment, and a reinvigorated democracy." OK, sounds pretty cool. Who really would oppose peace and social justice?
A HA!!! A few links down I come across a socialist website. Those Pinkos!!! (www.socialism.com) Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter have proclaimed that the Democrats and liberals want to turn America into a commie state. Have I found proof!? No. They're just socialists. Seems socialists have a beef with capitalism. In fact the author of the site proclaims that "Capitalism stinks." Boy, that should make everyone tremble in their boots, huh? I scrolled down a bit, and found the authors definition of socialism... "Quite simply, it is public ownership of all major corporations—industry (manufacturing, services, and energy), banks and insurance companies, agribusiness, transportation, the media, schools and medical facilities. That doesn’t mean small businesses or individual belongings, but the giant enterprises that dominate the economy. These are privately owned, but their assets and profits have all been created by working people. In all fairness, they should belong to us!" So, in a nutshell socialism is having the government control the means of production without interfereing with day to day business of small businesses or individuals rights to private property. By the definition of radical, mentioned above, I'd say that socialism is radical in that its purpose would be to take away private ownership of industry, banks, agribusiness, media, schools, and other stuff.
So, the ultimate leftist fringe would probably be anarchists, right after communists. (Anarchists = everyone does as they please with no government interference. Communism = the government controls all goods and services and regulates and controls what each individual may possess or not possess, whereas the state acts as the sole provider for all goods and services.)
Who Cares? Why bring this crap up? Well, when the Limbaughs and Coulters start flinging the words "radical left, leftist, socialist, communist, left-wing, crazed, liberal, etc." around its easy to lump people that want social change and social justice in with people that want to turn the US into a collective state where the citizens act with a "hive-mind" mentality. In fact, they lump those words together so often, its to the point where most liberals and left leaning thinkers have been ostracized from public debate.
For example, right wing critics of Howard Dean call him part of the "radical wing" of the Democrat party. That's called red-baiting. See, critics are trying to paint Dean as a "commie." He's not a commie. How do we know this? Have you heard or read anything about him that states he wants to turn the major means of production over to the state? General Motors and Ford will be consumed by Uncle Sam? Microsoft will be absorbed in the government? Well, go to Dean's website and click on his economics under the "On the Issues" link to find out. Scroll to the bottom. There you'll find his sinister agenda; repeal Bush's tax cuts for the rich, give the money to universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans, balance the federal budget, create a fairer and simpler tax system, and assure that social security and medicare are well funded. Boy, that puts him right up there with Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. OK, so if Dean's a "radical left-winger" just what the heck do conservative/Republican critics think is a moderate left winger? I didn't read anything on Dean's site about creating a worker's utopia, or a collectivised system of economics, or about government taking over business, banks, farming, or coming into your house and snagging your tv, remote control, or your SUV. (Dean's site: www.deanforamerica.com)
Meh. So? Suppose we get rid of all the people that clamor for social change and justice? What if we just stifle them and put them in camps if they speak out? If there is nobody to speak out for social change or against social injustice how will a nation progress and become more free?
Here's the problem, stifling dissent does not work. It harbors anger, and frustration. It creates underground movements. It topples governments. Doesn't matter if you stifle lefties or righties. Either side gets agitated if they don't have a public forum to air their grievances, and have the ability to petition their government to make social changes and create social justice. (In fact, if you air radical groups on the left or right it turns more people off than you think. Take the KKK, radical militant Islam/Christianity, neo-Nazi groups, Stalinists, etc.) Now, when you try and pigeon-hole people as radicals when they are not radicals and you stifle their ability to join in public debate about public policies, you isolate more than a fringe group, you isolate a larger part of the population. That's not good or intelligent policy for a free and democratic society.
Seems our media, and the Bush administration have been doing a nasty job trying to quiet dissenters about his policies in Iraq, his environmental policies, his pro-corporate agenda, and so forth. This will create anger, and there will be more anger if the Dubster gets elected for the first time and serves a second term.
This is not to say that only conservatives or right-wingers stifle dissent, lefties do the same thing to. Take the issue of gun control. Its why Democrats lose in the South. Republicans play off the fears that Democrats will take away gun ownership rights. (The play off other fears too, but that's another blog.) The NRA is a huge supporter of the GOP, but a scant supporter for Democrats. Why? Democrats want to promote gun control laws to stop the spread of violent crimes in America. That's a good thing, right? Yes and no. Yes, it would stop things like drive by shootings, but how often do people that hunt deer go into neighborhoods and shoot up the area? The idea of gun control to some sounds like Big Brother, proto-fascist government. Use those fears in combination with fuzzy math about taxation policies (Reaganomics, voodoo economics, borrow and spend policies) and you get a bunch of Southerners to vote Republican.
Now, I'm generally not a big supporter of the GOP, and my political leaning is toward the left, but I would not want to have a society of just one party. I would not want to have just a Democrat nation, nor do I want just a Republican nation. (Heck I want more than two parties.) A one party state will lead to totalitarianism. You could take a radical left type government like Stalinist Russia or a radical right type government like Nazi Germany, and you will have lost freedom and justice for the people. Extremes on either left or right lead to less freedom for all. I'd be willing to take a leap and say that some Republicans would not want to live in a totally Republican controlled state. As a historical rule, Republicans are not big on social justice or social change. They only change things when the people get agitated and start marching in protest. (Come to think of it, Democrats kind of do the same thing.) Republicans tend to favor big business over all other aspects of society, and proclaim that whats good for big business is good for America. That does not always hold true.
I don't believe a truly free society can ever be created for humanity. Because people will have disagreements about how to do things. The best system, although far from perfect, is the system that attempts to incorporate the best possible solution for those in disagreement. Corporate CEO's, Wall Street Fat Cats, and millionaire celebrities have as much a right to speak as a poor immigrant farmer, an oppressed laborer, a single mother, or anyone in between. Our Founding Fathers picked the best system they could, a representative democratic government. Its worked for quite some time, and it will still work if the people stay involved and stay informed. We do best when we work together, we're at our worst when we fight with each other.
The Bush administration by stifling criticism, and following its own agenda with little to no debate is divisive. In his 2000 campaign, Bush proclaimed he was a "uniter, not a divider." Like many things in his promises and in his administration they don't hold up. I have read claims that say Bush is like Hitler. I don't think Bush would advocate worker camps for people that disagree with him (who knows if another terrorist attack happens), but he's not helping his cause by holding Americans in prison (Guantanamo Bay) with no access to a public trial or to a lawyer. (That sort of violates the Constitution which he swore to uphold. Another broken promise.) He didnt' help his case or make himself seem really reliable by pissing off our allies, and the rest of the world by invading Iraq on fleeting and scant evidence. It makes it worse when he and his policy makers are trying to change the tune about weapons of mass destruction. (In my opinion lying about the motivation for going to war is worse than getting a blow job.) His tax cuts which favor the upper 1% of the nation are not an immediate benefit to people currently out of work that want to work. (Seems a tax cut for the poor and middle class would have been a bit more prudent. You won't get that unless more tax cuts for the rich are approved, claims Dick Cheney.) Also, cutting huge amounts of taxes in a time of war is poor fiscal policy. Its like going on a shopping spree with your credit cards when you're unemployed. Makes me wonder if Bush actually went to classes when he got his MBA at Harvard.
So, when the media talks about an angry Howard Dean, keep in mind he's got things to be angry about, as do most Americans, and particularly Dean's supporters. When the Democrats talk about kicking the bum out of office that's not radical, that's American. The US was founded upon radical ideas. (the citizenry having free elections, Freedom of speech, freedom of public assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial and many others in the Bill of Rights.) Sure we need to beat terrorism. Those responsible for September 11th should be brought to justice, and those that support the terrorists need to be brought to justice as well. The key word is justice. Turning the US into a police state will not make the world or the US safe from terrorism. There are other ways to beat them, and its time to open the public forum for new ideas. Having secret tribunals and occassionally raising the terror alert from yellow to orange is not the best step to winning the war on terrorism. We're only going to win the fight against terrorism, when we work together. Let's show the world what is really great about America. Democracy, freedom, justice, liberty for all. Bombing people into submission is a bad PR move. The best way to beat those SOB's is to create a world that is free, democratic, allows individual self expression, and creates a truly just society.
Once those people that have lived in oppressive states get a taste of freedom and justice, I don't think they'll be eager to give it up.
I'll end this blog with a quote by Martin Luther King, "true peace is not the absence of violence, its the presence of justice." Think about that this MLK day.
- Peace.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
Iraq, the next Cuba?
Recently, I was fishing around the internet and came across some news sites that were writing editorials about what really happened on 9/11. This brought about a further search about conspiracy theories, and this lead me to an organization I didn't know existed... The John Birch Society.
No, I'm not converting, nor am I going to make any comment about them. Draw your own conclusions about them at your own peril/benefit. Needless to say, they proclaimed that they were dedicated to smaller government, and adhering to the Constitution. Initially, they were founded in the 50's and were adamantly anti-Castro. Still are. They're very anti-communist too. In fact, the impression I gathered is they still feel there's a pro-commie agenda via the leftist liberal media. (For liberal media go to motherjones.com or workingforchange.com, or get nutty and look up sites for communists if you want leftist sites.)
Needless to say, the anti-Castro stuff got me thinking... Wasn't the guy before Castro a real villain himself. Yep. General Batista, one of histories notorious SOB's. (By the way I got info from this site, http://www.historyofcuba.com/cuba.htm) Seems Batista had a problem with democratic elections, additionally he was a brutal dictator and a consorter of American gangsters. Strange ally for a democratic country like the US, but its got roots as to why the US backed a dictator, and sort of shows the US's attitude toward Latin American countries in general during the 20th Century.
So, I dug a bit into the history of Cuban/American relations. (I'll be brief and summarize. Read the stuff on the site. Its fascinating.) In the 1890's, the media and politicians were chomping at the bit to expand the American empire. Cuba was prime real estate, but it was controlled by the Spanish. 1898 rolls around, the Maine was in Cuban waters, has an accident that causes it to blow up, the media blames Spain. BOOM!! War breaks out. The US wins, and boy were we eager to annex Cuba. We got Puerto Rico and the Phillipines to boot.
So, what did the US do? Set up a free and democratic nation? No. It set up a puppet government. Cubans did not want to be Americans, they wanted their independence. Americans, according to the media, wanted to annex Cuba. So, rather than annex it, the US sets up a puppet government with a US style constitution. Seems the Cubans didn't take to the US style very well, corrupt and US friendly. This pretty much stays the course until the 30's. The Cubans elect a radical "leftist," (Ramón Grau San Martín ) who does crazy things like set "up an 8-hour working day, establishes a Department of Labor, opens the university to the poor, grants peasants the right to the land they were farming, gives women the right to vote, and reduces electricity rates by 40 percent." Real crazy and sinister stuff like that. He didn't last long. (Keep the leftist stuff in mind.)
100 days later, he's ousted in a coup. Yep, Batista with help from a US gangster tosses that radical out of office. Batista sticks around, he's brutal, corrupt, and has no problem allowing US gangsters and businesses to run free in Cuba. He gets tossed out, then retakes Cubas government again in 1952, since he didn't win the free election that year. (See... he's got a problem with democracy, especially since the people didn't like him.) Still brutal and a corrupt tyrant. The people get sick of it and follow this crazy leftist named Castro with help of his brother and Che Guevarra. In 1959, Castro wins, Batista gets ousted for good, and well... Cuba is still controlled by Castro for better or worse. Can't say Castro was a good guy. He's a brutal leftist dictator. The simple lesson here is extremism is bad, doesn't matter if your left or right.
OK, so the US lost out with Cuba. The Cubans have had a bad century. How does this relate to Iraq, and the Middle East in particular?
Well, according to President Bush, at least for the moment (his policies shift like sand), a democratic government will be set up in Iraq this summer. (Believe it when you see it.) Say he follows through. The US pulls out the bulk of its troops, leaving only a base in Iraq just in case. Great. Bush looks like a foreign policy genius, right? No. Apparently, he's a poor student of history. When people live with tyrrany, they don't take to democracy like fish to water. Democracy takes time, and in the case of Iraq, it'll take a long time. You've got religious factions and ethnic factions that just don't click.
How long do you think a freely elected democratic government would last in Iraq? I'd say 100 days would be optimistic. The very policies the US used in Latin American throughout the late 19th Century and 20th Century will be used in the Middle East. Set up a US friendly, brutal dictator under the guise of democracy. When the government gets threatened use the "to preserver democracy in the Middle East" defense. You'll get the go from the media, and the American people to fight. The problem is, that people will only put up with oppression for so long. When the law fails the people, the people take the law into their own hands.
Is the US off to a good start in Iraq? We lied about why we needed to invade and go to war. We stifled opposition and dissent at home. We paraded Saddam around like a grungy mascot. How exactly does the US look on the world stage right now? Do we look like the shining beacon of freedom and democracy? We're fingerprinting foreigners coming into our country right now. We're doing strip searches with x-rays at airports. The infrastructure of the US is barely protected. The president is cutting taxes and borrowing from the treasury like crazy. Sound fiscal policy? Will foreign investors be geeked about having US dollars?
Things are looking grim, but it falls into the plan of conservatives and neo-conservatives. They want to take America back to the good old days of pre-New Deal America. Looks like they're going to win. The 21st Century is going to get messy, and the wealthy few will prosper while billions of people will pay the price. Crush any opposition by saying its "leftist, pro-communist, liberal, un-patriotic, and un-American."
I'll post more later.
Recently, I was fishing around the internet and came across some news sites that were writing editorials about what really happened on 9/11. This brought about a further search about conspiracy theories, and this lead me to an organization I didn't know existed... The John Birch Society.
No, I'm not converting, nor am I going to make any comment about them. Draw your own conclusions about them at your own peril/benefit. Needless to say, they proclaimed that they were dedicated to smaller government, and adhering to the Constitution. Initially, they were founded in the 50's and were adamantly anti-Castro. Still are. They're very anti-communist too. In fact, the impression I gathered is they still feel there's a pro-commie agenda via the leftist liberal media. (For liberal media go to motherjones.com or workingforchange.com, or get nutty and look up sites for communists if you want leftist sites.)
Needless to say, the anti-Castro stuff got me thinking... Wasn't the guy before Castro a real villain himself. Yep. General Batista, one of histories notorious SOB's. (By the way I got info from this site, http://www.historyofcuba.com/cuba.htm) Seems Batista had a problem with democratic elections, additionally he was a brutal dictator and a consorter of American gangsters. Strange ally for a democratic country like the US, but its got roots as to why the US backed a dictator, and sort of shows the US's attitude toward Latin American countries in general during the 20th Century.
So, I dug a bit into the history of Cuban/American relations. (I'll be brief and summarize. Read the stuff on the site. Its fascinating.) In the 1890's, the media and politicians were chomping at the bit to expand the American empire. Cuba was prime real estate, but it was controlled by the Spanish. 1898 rolls around, the Maine was in Cuban waters, has an accident that causes it to blow up, the media blames Spain. BOOM!! War breaks out. The US wins, and boy were we eager to annex Cuba. We got Puerto Rico and the Phillipines to boot.
So, what did the US do? Set up a free and democratic nation? No. It set up a puppet government. Cubans did not want to be Americans, they wanted their independence. Americans, according to the media, wanted to annex Cuba. So, rather than annex it, the US sets up a puppet government with a US style constitution. Seems the Cubans didn't take to the US style very well, corrupt and US friendly. This pretty much stays the course until the 30's. The Cubans elect a radical "leftist," (Ramón Grau San Martín ) who does crazy things like set "up an 8-hour working day, establishes a Department of Labor, opens the university to the poor, grants peasants the right to the land they were farming, gives women the right to vote, and reduces electricity rates by 40 percent." Real crazy and sinister stuff like that. He didn't last long. (Keep the leftist stuff in mind.)
100 days later, he's ousted in a coup. Yep, Batista with help from a US gangster tosses that radical out of office. Batista sticks around, he's brutal, corrupt, and has no problem allowing US gangsters and businesses to run free in Cuba. He gets tossed out, then retakes Cubas government again in 1952, since he didn't win the free election that year. (See... he's got a problem with democracy, especially since the people didn't like him.) Still brutal and a corrupt tyrant. The people get sick of it and follow this crazy leftist named Castro with help of his brother and Che Guevarra. In 1959, Castro wins, Batista gets ousted for good, and well... Cuba is still controlled by Castro for better or worse. Can't say Castro was a good guy. He's a brutal leftist dictator. The simple lesson here is extremism is bad, doesn't matter if your left or right.
OK, so the US lost out with Cuba. The Cubans have had a bad century. How does this relate to Iraq, and the Middle East in particular?
Well, according to President Bush, at least for the moment (his policies shift like sand), a democratic government will be set up in Iraq this summer. (Believe it when you see it.) Say he follows through. The US pulls out the bulk of its troops, leaving only a base in Iraq just in case. Great. Bush looks like a foreign policy genius, right? No. Apparently, he's a poor student of history. When people live with tyrrany, they don't take to democracy like fish to water. Democracy takes time, and in the case of Iraq, it'll take a long time. You've got religious factions and ethnic factions that just don't click.
How long do you think a freely elected democratic government would last in Iraq? I'd say 100 days would be optimistic. The very policies the US used in Latin American throughout the late 19th Century and 20th Century will be used in the Middle East. Set up a US friendly, brutal dictator under the guise of democracy. When the government gets threatened use the "to preserver democracy in the Middle East" defense. You'll get the go from the media, and the American people to fight. The problem is, that people will only put up with oppression for so long. When the law fails the people, the people take the law into their own hands.
Is the US off to a good start in Iraq? We lied about why we needed to invade and go to war. We stifled opposition and dissent at home. We paraded Saddam around like a grungy mascot. How exactly does the US look on the world stage right now? Do we look like the shining beacon of freedom and democracy? We're fingerprinting foreigners coming into our country right now. We're doing strip searches with x-rays at airports. The infrastructure of the US is barely protected. The president is cutting taxes and borrowing from the treasury like crazy. Sound fiscal policy? Will foreign investors be geeked about having US dollars?
Things are looking grim, but it falls into the plan of conservatives and neo-conservatives. They want to take America back to the good old days of pre-New Deal America. Looks like they're going to win. The 21st Century is going to get messy, and the wealthy few will prosper while billions of people will pay the price. Crush any opposition by saying its "leftist, pro-communist, liberal, un-patriotic, and un-American."
I'll post more later.
