That's an open-minded view. I'm American AND a Socialist. Am I ignorant as well?
Printable View
That's an open-minded view. I'm American AND a Socialist. Am I ignorant as well?
How many economics classes have you taken?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hill
Frankly, I am not sure what angst you are tempering here Virgil. I may have just said deconstructing the American Dream is de classe, but by the same token, that doesn't mean it hasn't been exclusionary. I experience bigotry on a daily basis, day in and day out, as a disabled American, and I don't always keep the anger that generates bottled in. With my intelligence I should have been a professor or a political appointee--instead I struggle to survive and keep my sanity in my own little microcosm. If you don't know what it is like to be shut out from matriculated success, I'd think twice before getting upset.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
May I have my saying as an outsider (and not even close to north hemisphere).
American Dream (or the democratic idealism, Emerson, Franklin, etc,etc,etc,etc) is admirable. The capacity of moving foward, supearation, socialization (not socialism) is amazing. Certainly is a key factor to build such strong nation. I may laugh the international views (the notion to put all rabitts in the same bags is too tempting for America, but that is not part of their dream, rather something inherited by english imperialism) and of course...
Have any of you guys be present in those arguments (mostly online) about communism. Someone will came and say "it was nice, good but only in theory". Everytime I see it I wonder :"Gosh, someone is telling me that an ideal is flawed while applied on reality.", so is democracy (the whole bit about equality, sure is manipulated, because equality of potential is different of equality of results) or capitalism. So, is America. The answer to the old world wasnt perfect, but well... it worked the best way possible for quite sometime. Perhaps it explains the american capacity to seek new tendencies and at sametime some need to return to europe. But , right now, pointing to a dream that was about "New", 200 years after, is just too easy. Of course it is dated.
Two or three, three if you count AP Government which covered economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Dated in the literary tradition of realism and modernism JCamilo, yes, I agree, and today it may even be in a bit of trouble, but the US seems to have the capacity for reinvention--and there are things that bind even a pomo like DeLillo to our heritage, which isn't that old, though technology may have speeded up how and why powers rise and fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
And if you're still a socialist, then God bless you, you live in a utopian dream. No credible economist today believes in socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hill
I also would add some criticism from the philosophical point of view (and those are already dated)and yes, capacity of reinvention exists and it is necessary, probally to create something anew and this happens. I am not apocalyptic in form.
Only if you are using socialism as synounimous to marxism. If you use socialism as opposite to liberalism (and not capitalism), then you have just a doctorine with heavy governamental intervention, control and participation on economy (and the actual crise we have is a crise of liberalism, so, in a few years, universities of the world will be popping with opposers to liberalism). Fact is, Brazil, China and a few raising economies are never very liberal, so I would not be so quick to dismiss economists that claim to be socialists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Well I have taken economic classes, for one, and I don't feel anymore authority to speak on such subject other by somewhat ignorant matters of opinion. Also, I'm not sure why you are drilling this "economic class" rhetoric, as the fact that in your environment economic knowledge revolves around very capitalistic dogmas has a lot to do with a matter of national ideology. My point is that socialism is not necessarily an unworkable system as some make of it, it's practical existence failures have more to do with the political aspect than the economic one. One example I could take to illustrate my point is Cuba, while it is not wonderland, it fares better than many of it's neighbors and that, despite American embargo (which is the most ironic measure ever taken as it did nothing else than strengthen socialistic dogmas on the island, unlike say, China). Note that I am not socialist by any means, but my rejection of this system is based on philosophical basis more than economical ones but nor am I a "capitalist". Seeing such economic notions as a dichotomy is almost necessarily wrong. Both have shown their flaws and the healthiest economies have been the ones that could accept as just measure of both poles according to the current realities. And this means that the leading ideology of the USA of capitalism at all price, as a solution for everything is wrong, and has proved that it was wrong recently. Ironically the nation which was the most progressive, and therefore could the most live up to this notion of "American Dream" has become one of the most conservative, and instead of living to the principles of it's founders and it's successes (imagination, creativity, progressiveness), has tried to maintain these successes in a fixed state and this fixation is the death of "American Dreams", as such notion takes place in nation that are changing, that are growing, not those that take a fixed form.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
But, in the end, the "American Dream" has really always been not much else than a popular slogan of nationalistic pride that has been applied to different shifting situations along the history of the country.
And now I feel like I've been rambling very much, and too lazy to reread and correct.
Without making an apology of socialism, we live in a capitalistic world, and economists are taught what current dogmas there is. Those same economists you talk of are partly responsible for a worldwide economic crisis, whose least affected parts were those with healthy measures of interventionism, and whose cure were interventionist measures. Soviet economists were pretty well driven on socialism too. But I'm not getting further into that, and besides, unless shown otherwise, you are just as ignorant as anyone on the subject of economics. Besides, I've seen American senators and bidding VPs (ahem) know less than me in economics... so where are is this all going? Nowhere, really. Economy is so complex in theory already, that to pretend one can know it's practical application well-enough is quixotic at best. How much time, mistakes, experiences, tries, etc. did it take us to come to a form that is yet so imperfect and messy of capitalism that one could claim to be able to plan anything about economy? It's a wild, wild jungle there, and he who can cut the branches better does not necessarily know the shortest way out.Quote:
No credible economist today believes in socialism.
:lol: You're 17 years old. When you grow up, son, and live in the real world, come back and talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Hill
Ahem, how many have you seen? I live here and I've only met one in person. How many times have you been here and seen one? And frankly what does that have to do with anything? I'm talking economics not politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
This thread is degenerating. Let's get it back on subject. I have no desire to talk this issue. Let the economists of the world that advise all the politicians of every country work their course. None of your counties are socialist. Obviously there is a reason for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Brazil is socialist, have been in last 14 years. Two different presidents claimed to be socialists and never denied it. One from a former Social-Democratic party (altough called a betrayer for following a liberal agenda to sync wiht the world's economy) and the other from a former communist-marxism party that moved to the center when got the power.
Can we return to the literary argument please? I have never taken economics, but even I know that there is no pure methodology for the distribution of resources. I believe in markets, but I also believe in regulatory safeguards, and a socialist safety net.
Virgil--socialism exists in the US (yes, take a few deep breaths); it is a lousy and punishing system, however. I have been in the trenches, and this is not the place to lock horns about it.
Which world? Keynes replaced Smith, and in the American view Freedman seems to have replaced Keynes. Who is to say that someone won't come along and replace Freedman in the American view?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Honestly, you use socialist as a derogatory term - I take it as a compliment. Capitalism has failed in the past, (and perhaps present, though I don't want to break board rules by going there), and undoubtedly if it exists much longer, will fail again.
There is an inherent sense of fear in, I would say, the States, and to a lesser extent parts of Canada, especially the West by my reckoning, to anything that is deemed to "left" as a sense of prolonged fear that the communists are still out there to get America. Socialism isn't an "evil force" but a system, just as capitalism is. One could argue the benefits, by looking at the growth of capitalist economies, whereas one could look at the opposite, and check into the living standards and standard of life in countries like Iceland, Norway Sweden, or France.
Most countries today seem to be pushing towards a centre between capitalism and socialism. It isn't such a black and white argument as you suggest. People may like to pay lower taxes, but people also like to not have to pay medical bills, or to rely on the goodwill of insurance companies.
Capitalism hasn't been without its critics - neither has socialism for that matter. The point is, the concept of capitalism good, socialism bad is rather close minded and silly.
Do I really need to see them? Economics is not about seeing people, commentaries by people are much more instructive about it than a sight of them... And how can you not realize that economical ideology goes though politics? Do you think politics and economy are two separate animals? they're siamese twins at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
And was it the same reason for half the world being communist a few years ago? This is just base rhetoric. If everyone jumped off a bridge, then there would probably be a good reason for it?Quote:
None of your counties are socialist. Obviously there is a reason for that.
No they are not. What any politican says in a campaign is absolutely meaningless. And how can you measure anyone from a 20 second news clip. You're not even in this country to see all the news. Are you saying you see more news of Americans than Americans? I find it completely odd that people from outside the US think they know more about the US than Americans. Very odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
There are currently ten coutries world wide that claim to be socialist, and one of them is China that is moving away from socialism as fast as it can. Perhaps the economic consensus is wrong, but that's the economic consensus today of goverments that are on the right and on the left.Quote:
And was it the same reason for half the world being communist a few years ago? This is just base rhetoric. If everyone jumped off a bridge, then there would probably be a good reason for it?
Capitalism grants an economic crash every 40 years, with a promise of it bouncing back and a promise of the money the corporations have trickling down to us. So what if I'm seventeen? I make income, I hold a job.
Countries don't fall into one category or another so easy. For instance, Canada traditionally has had a rather central economy. We have 4 political parties, with a minority government, each with its own platform. By the American standard, 3/4 of our parties are "left leaning", with one being pushing towards the center, whereas by the European standard the leftest party is just a little left of the center, whereas the rest are central, or towards the right.
But lets get beyond that. You guys have income tax, you guys have just planned a stimulus package greater than half of our economies annual GDP. You guys take money out of your economy and into your governments. How Capitalist is that? Or perhaps the American government isn't the best budgeter?
American capitalism is capitalism for suckers by my reckoning. Perhaps in the beginning it was true capitalism, but it hasn't been since the New Plan in the depression. It is a Keynesian economy, that in recent years has headed to a more right wing stance, but has none-the-less kept up its taxation.
Let's get beyond this nonsense. I don't come to lit net to talk about economics.
I don't watch clips, I prefer to read, what politicians say, and what analysts say. Although for the last year I haven't been following it half as much...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Well, believe me, we have plenty of news from America here, and I like to think that I'm better informed that the average American. And being informed is not only about interior politics, but also of the general picture of the world, as, as astonishing as it might sound, America is in the world.Quote:
You're not even in this country to see all the news. Are you saying you see more news of Americans than Americans?
First, I don't see anything wrong about the notion that someone from outside the USA can know more than the majority of Americans (American could be here replaced by many other nations or concepts). Secondly, I have not argued that I know more than American, and your so-called superior knowledge that you've been pushing sophistically since the beginning has been nothing else than that - sophisms, and poor ones too. Did you have any economic classes? You're ignorant! I know better! How can you think you know better than Americans?, etc. A bit of substance please.Quote:
I find it completely odd that people from outside the US think they know more about the US than Americans. Very odd.
Yes, so? You just repeated what I previously said was nonsense as an argument. Do I need to repeat it again, so you can repeat it again, etc.?Quote:
There are currently ten coutries world wide that claim to be socialist, and one of them is China that is moving away from socialism as fast as it can. Perhaps the economic consensus is wrong, but that's the economic consensus today of goverments that are on the right and on the left.
As you wish, but you've been repeating this, but continued to argue at the same time, it's one or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
JBI, that's the most accurate and insightful thing I've ever seen you write regarding America. That comment is well informed and intelligently expressed. Normally, you just spout anti-American propaganda, but that was excellently put. I have just one correction to make. The man's name is spelled Milton Friedman, with an i. He is an exceptionally bright gentleman, but his theories are not without their own flaws. I've been able to spot a few errors in the things he says without being a professional economist. For instance, his stance in support of school vouchers illustrates either an ignorance of educational practices or an ideological blindness to the facts. Either way, we've had Friedman for several decades now and it's time for him to be updated.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Forgive my lack of familiarity with Canadian politics, but hasn't your soon to be ex-Prime Minister Stephen Harper said similar things (to what is said in the States) about the Liberal Party and the secessionists having strong socialist/communist tendencies? What I heard, or thought I heard from him, was strongly negative in that regard. From what I can tell, Canada's largest party is the Conservative Party which shares a number of platform issues with our own Republican Party in the United States. I'm hesitant to speak without a surer grasp of your political history, but I'm confident that most of the evils and abuses you attribute to my country are the fraternal twins of your own. Also, any outliers or dissimilarities could possibly be attributed more to a lack of opportunity than a difference of national character. You yourself seem to be a proud liberal socialist, but I wonder how indicative you are of the general population. Does your experience generalize, or are you exceptional? I have the feeling, just a feeling, that there are some very patriotic Canadians for whom capitalism is a revered totem and liberal is still a dirty word.
Well, the conservative party as we know it now, is a rather recent addition to the political scene (the previous conservative party was different, the current one is mostly formed with the most conservative basis of the first one). Now the main party has been for years the Liberal party, but they've been going through some troubles and scandals recently which led to huge losses in popularity (coupled with a current leader that is not very popular). Notice that the political ideology spectrum in Canada shifts a lot from west to east. West is more conservative, going more and more liberal to the east, and Quebec generally voting firstly Bloc Quebecois and then Liberals. Quebec is generally more to the left than the rest of Canada too but slowly getting back to the "Canadian center", which is something like Ontario. You could say that there's Ontario which is center (the Canadian average, in a way), the to it's left it's right, and to it's right it's left hehe.
The rhetoric that has been tossed around in Parliament this past week is actually regarded by academics covering it as showing the influence of American culture and media on the Canadian public. The current prime minister's arguments actually fit closer with American politics, which by means of having the same television networks more or less, Canadians are exposed to at such a high amount. So when he says "You didn't elect this guy to be prime minister" people don't realize that Canadians don't actually elect Prime ministers, but elect regional candidates, as is common with Westminster Parliamentary Systems. But of course, as conflict theory goes, The Right Wing party has more money, and reaches wider audiences, and has the power of big business backing them. As a result, we get a large amount of coverage and advertisement exposure to the bull****, and it transfers out into an altering of the perceptions of the uneducated, or of the greedy, who take this opportunity as a way to preach Agenda.
And what it really comes down it, is an anti-left sentiment, and a very typical anti-French sentiment, which usually attaches itself to these sorts of governments, since confederation (I think if one would accuse John A. MacDonald of being an Anglocentrist, one wouldn't be too far off).
But what it really comes down to is the effect of American political exposure reeducating a population which didn't have the proper exposure to the nature of Canadian politics to begin with (I think more towards the higher age brackets), and seem to not know history.
Either way though, the whole coalition crisis as it is beginning to be called is over, as the governor General acted rather controversially, and prorogued government for two months.
Though I would agree with Etienne's diagram of the political spectrum, though historically Manitoba and Saskatchewan were more left than they seem today. Alberta though, I consider to be the Texas of Canada (take that however you want). And French Canada has been more left leaning, though provincially they have elected for two majority government terms, and are projected to re-elect a more central government.
The history of Canada though makes politics rather strange to someone who doesn't really know it - especially the politics of Quebec. Recent politics are also obscured by the American influences that have seeped into our culture, and into our government, by means of free-trade and television broadcasting.
oops! this has gone waay off topic, and some people forgot that discussion of current politricks is not allowed :)