Quote from: Jackalope;234331This question makes no sense as written.

What did Marx predict would happen?  Compare his predictions with what actually happened.

Quote from: Jackalope;234331Unless, of course, you don't actually know what socialism is...which I've found is true of most right-wingers.

Well, why don't you tell me exactly what you mean by it, or point me to a page the explains what you mean by it.

Somehow I think Jackalope doesn't really know what socialism is and is not.


- Ed C.

Quote from: John Morrow;234353What did Marx predict would happen?  Compare his predictions with what actually happened.

The inability to predict the future does not imply an inability to recognize the present.  Marx's critique of capitalism was brilliant.  His solution, which he put far less thought into, was sketchy at best.

QuoteWell, why don't you tell me exactly what you mean by it, or point me to a page the explains what you mean by it.

I have always been partial to the definition given by William Morris in his essay "The Claim of Socialism":
   It is right and necessary that all men should have work to do which shall be worth doing, and be of itself pleasant to do; and which should be done under such conditions as would make it neither over-wearisome nor over-anxious.
Any political movement which embraces this core concept is at least partially socialist.

Quote from: Koltar;234355Somehow I think Jackalope doesn't really know what socialism is and is not.

Dude, you have not yet evidenced that you have the slightest understanding of anything.  You cannot even begin to formulate an intelligent response to my posts.

You are an idiot.  You have no place talking about anyone's lack of understanding until you have evidenced some of your own.

Quote from: gleichman;233990Among our convictions:

A) It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government(the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.


B) The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.


C) The century's most blatant force of satanic utopianism is communism. We consider "coexistence" with communism neither desirable nor possible, nor honorable; we find ourselves irrevocably at war with communism and shall oppose any substitute for victory.


D) The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so. In this cultural issue, we are, without reservations, on the side of excellence (rather than "newness") and of honest intellectual combat (rather than conformity).


E) The most alarming single danger to the American political system lies in the fact that an identifiable team of Fabian operators is bent on controlling both our major political parties(under the sanction of such fatuous and unreasoned slogans as "national unity," "middle-of-the-road," "progressivism," and "bipartisanship.") Clever intriguers are reshaping both parties in the image of Babbitt, gone Social-Democrat. When and where this political issue arises, we are, without reservations, on the side of the traditional two-party system that fights its feuds in public and honestly; and we shall advocate the restoration of the two-party system at all costs.


F) The competitive price system is indispensable to liberty and material progress. It is threatened not only by the growth of Big Brother government, but by the pressure of monopolies(including union monopolies. What is more, some labor unions have clearly identified themselves with doctrinaire socialist objectives. The characteristic problems of harassed business have gone unreported for years, with the result that the public has been taught to assume(almost instinctively) that conflicts between labor and management are generally traceable to greed and intransigence on the part of management. Sometimes they are; often they are not. NATIONAL REVIEW will explore and oppose the inroads upon the market economy caused by monopolies in general, and politically oriented unionism in particular; and it will tell the violated businessman's side of the story.


G) No superstition has more effectively bewitched America's Liberal elite than the fashionable concepts of world government, the United Nations, internationalism, international atomic pools, etc. Perhaps the most important and readily demonstrable lesson of history is that freedom goes hand in hand with a state of political decentralization, that remote government is irresponsible government. It would make greater sense to grant independence to each of our 50 states than to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a world organization.

Apologies if this has been covered upthread, I'm afraid I'm not keen to wade through the ludicrously polarised debate that Jackalope is interested in.

Brian, there's not a lot in the text above I have an issue with, despite my being significantly to your left.  Where I struggle to reconcile it with the Right as it currently seems to operate are the following two areas:

1.  Corporatism, which seems to run contrary to F.  The current administration has seen a fairly hefty push towards non-competitive tender awards and essentially to a corporation friendly legal and tax regime.  I struggle to square that with embracing the market, indeed part of why I support the Dems in a US context is they seem to me a more free market friendly party than the Republicans are now.  Do you see that as a concern (the growth of corporatism, not my notional voting habits).

2.  How is B reconciled with a desire to legislate for areas such as gay marriage or abortion (or violent video games for that matter)?  Generally, if a Conservative believes in the primacy of the individual as arbiter of what is best for them, why do so many seek to legislate for private behaviour?  How do Conservatives reconcile an objection to big government with a desire to legislate for social conduct?  It's a stance which seems essentially hypocritical to me, a fighting for the freedoms Conservatives agree with while prohibiting those they do not agree with, in that it seems to me the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is more which aspects of my life they wish government to control more than the role of government per se.

I would also note with D, that the pursuit of excellence should not, as it often seems to, translate into a fear of the new or a refusal to investigate any merits the new may have.  I think the Right frequently fails to recognise that not everything new is in fact without merit and can fall into a slightly mindless reactionary stance.  

By way of example, I looked at a new UK Magazine Standpoint recently, intended as a right of centre monthly journal.  It was pretty poor, mostly as it utterly failed to contain anything surprising or thought provoking, but among the dire articles was one where someone who hated West End musicals went to see two and decided that they had been right all along and they were dreadful, not at all like Opera.  As cultural coverage goes, it was pathetic, and it's notable that few Right wing journals seem to possess good culture sections even though many areas of culture are not necessarily left wing in approach (literature, classical music, jazz, I grant modern art is basically left wing as arguably is theatre).

Quote from: Koltar;234355Somehow I think Jackalope doesn't really know what socialism is and is not.

Most that champion it don't really. Or at least don't understand what happens when it's put to practice in the real world.

I'm rather amused that I nailed him correctly up front, not only that I was correct- but that he couldn't keep up the anarchist ruse for even one thread.

Quote from: Balbinus;2343811.  Corporatism, which seems to run contrary to F.  The current administration has seen a fairly hefty push towards non-competitive tender awards and essentially to a corporation friendly legal and tax regime.

Hard to comment unless I know the exact cases you're speaking of. I'll note the following points in the hope that they cover the general question you put forth:

1. The current adminstration isn't very Conservative as a whole and does tend to seek government answers to problems Conservatives don't consider a Federal Government issue.

2. Conservatives have in the past supported special consideration for certain types of companies.

The one that comes directly to mind is Newport News, the only ship yard the US has that is capable of building nuclear-powered ships for the Navy. Another that I recall is the requirement that the supplier of M-16s build their production plant here in the US.

Conservatives don't really like the idea of government support for anything, but do bow to the fact that certain bending of that rule is needed to allow private companies to exist enough so that Government contracts have people to bid on them.

But I need to express this is an exception. The Conservative reaction to the recent housing issues for example can be expressed as follows: "So people made bad decisions in taking loans, and loaners made bad decisions giving? It's not the Government's job to bail them out for bad decisions".

To the extent that the current administration violates these concepts- yes, I consider it concern. However I consider the Democratics to be even worse in this respect. So it's a lesser of two evils to me.

Quote from: Balbinus;2343812.  How is B reconciled with a desire to legislate for areas such as gay marriage or abortion (or violent video games for that matter)?  Generally, if a Conservative believes in the primacy of the individual as arbiter of what is best for them, why do so many seek to legislate for private behaviour?

The Conservative position in general is not that they seek to legislate for private behaviour, but rather are opposed at the Federal level to legislate required acceptance of behavior- preferring instead that such things be handled at the local level.

Nor can I say that they believe in the "primacy of the individual" as you phrase it. That is an stated article of some on the Left.

Conservatives are more interested in local control first. And then prefer traditional (i.e. tested with known outcomes) solutions at the local level, but will accept what the vote indicates.

So, to take but one example. They opposed court ordered gay-marriage. They oppose the forced expansion of gay-marriage by means of the Full Faith Clause to those states and areas that don't desire it (the reason for their support of a Federal Marriage Protection law).

Beyond that they are good with local governments allowing gay marriage in that they accept their right to do so. Many Conservatives (based upon the preferrence for traditional solutions) oppose gay marriage on merits, but that only indicates how they would vote if the question was put to them.

Quote from: Balbinus;234381I would also note with D, that the pursuit of excellence should not, as it often seems to, translate into a fear of the new or a refusal to investigate any merits the new may have.  I think the Right frequently fails to recognise that not everything new is in fact without merit and can fall into a slightly mindless reactionary stance.  

You go on to speak to matters of Art and the like. Conservatives are as interested in such things as anyone- but aren't prone to give them a prime place in what are effectively politically works. So you won't generally see them speaking about it. It's a split between public and private life for many I think. If one reads the "Corner" blog on NRO, you can see some of this. It's even low-browed at times, such as the BSG threads they get into. Star Trek however is weakly banned- but they did have a Star Trek month.

As for 'fear of the new' as a concept itself...

No so much fear, as viewed with distrust. Being new by and of itself does not make something worthwhile. This does not mean that it can't be investigated unless the investigation itself (or its means) is objectionable.

For example, forcible taking another's property in order to see if it can be put to better use is off limits. Which is what many Government (and thus tax supported) programs in effect do.

Hey Brian,

That's helpful, thanks.  I'll come back with examples if they strike me (I'm not at my freshest today), but actually I'm not sure I need to as your response was fairly clear to me on the corporatism issue.

On the localism front, would I be right that a Conservative would be happy with an outcome where say Wyoming chose to define in law marriage as being between a man and a woman while California say legalised gay marriage and made marriage a gender neutral condition?  On that basis, if I were in Wyoming and opposed to this notional new law, I could either move to California or exercise my democratic right to seek to persuade my local legislature to change the law, yes?  The Conservative would be fine with all that (though might choose to leave California), but would not be fine with a Federally mandated one size fits all solution?  On that front, I do have the impression some Conservatives would be fine with a one size fits all solution as long as it were there solution, but then nobody has a monopoly on occasional hypocrisy.

What happens in that scenario if a married gay couple from California go on holiday in Wyoming?  Would Wyoming have a right not to recognise a marriage deemed lawful in another state?  What if abortion were legal in Wyoming but not Utah, would Utah be entitled to prevent pregnant women going to Wyoming (an example that actually occurred with Ireland and the UK)?

Regarding the arts, state supervision of artistic content is as much mandated by the left as the right, possibly more so (Tipper Gore, Hilary), so I don't have further questions there.

I do struggle to see how your current administration is conservative on this analysis, it seems to me pro big government, hostile to State's rights and prone to taking people's money where it thinks it has a better use for it.  I grant the Dems might be worse (I don't yet have a firm view actually), but I'm not sure you have a Conservative option currently on offer.

Quote from: Balbinus;234470On the localism front, would I be right that a Conservative would be happy with an outcome where say Wyoming chose to define in law marriage as being between a man and a woman while California say legalised gay marriage and made marriage a gender neutral condition?

I wouldn't say happy, most from what I can tell oppose gay marriage on the merits. But they would be accepting.

Quote from: Balbinus;234470On that basis, if I were in Wyoming and opposed to this notional new law, I could either move to California or exercise my democratic right to seek to persuade my local legislature to change the law, yes? The Conservative would be fine with all that (though might choose to leave California), but would not be fine with a Federally mandated one size fits all solution?  

Correct.

Quote from: Balbinus;234470On that front, I do have the impression some Conservatives would be fine with a one size fits all solution as long as it were there solution, but then nobody has a monopoly on occasional hypocrisy.

I imagine there would be some low key "that wasn't the correct way of handling it" statements followed by silence and even private approval.

Some hypocrisy yes, Conservatives are human. But if there's to be a Federal requirement, one that sides with traditional values will always be considered better than one that didn't. The subject would then likely be dropped and attention turned to issues still in contention.

Quote from: Balbinus;234470What happens in that scenario if a married gay couple from California go on holiday in Wyoming?  Would Wyoming have a right not to recognise a marriage deemed lawful in another state?  What if abortion were legal in Wyoming but not Utah, would Utah be entitled to prevent pregnant women going to Wyoming (an example that actually occurred with Ireland and the UK)?

Wyoming and Utah could do what they wish for the most part (limited by the Bill of Rights). Not so sure about denying entry however, control of interstate movement may be subject to some Federal influence- I'd have to check.

Quote from: Balbinus;234470I do struggle to see how your current administration is conservative on this analysis, it seems to me pro big government, hostile to State's rights and prone to taking people's money where it thinks it has a better use for it.  I grant the Dems might be worse (I don't yet have a firm view actually), but I'm not sure you have a Conservative option currently on offer.

We don't seem to have an Conservative option currently. For all the success of Reagan era and the Conservative movement that started it, it hasn't seem to have stuck.

To be honest, Conservative thought is a hard sell. The other ideologies promise quick solutions while the Conservatives promise economic expansion in general (but not in specific) and the containing of the worse problems the world has to offer- but not all problems.

Quote from: gleichman;234486To be honest, Conservative thought is a hard sell. The other ideologies promise quick solutions while the Conservatives promise economic expansion in general (but not in specific) and the containing of the worse problems the world has to offer- but not all problems.

At risk of agreeing with you for a change Brian, solutions based on an assessment of the world we have are always a tougher sell than solutions based on an assessment of the world we'd like to have.  Telling people what they want to hear tends to be more popular than telling the truth.

You're fat because you eat too much.  Sometimes bad things happen and it really isn't anyone's fault.  Sometimes bad things happen and actually, it's your fault.  The government cannot make us a better species than we in fact are.  A bureaucrat living many miles away from you is unlikely to be a better judge of how best to spend your money than you are.  If you want higher public spending and lower taxes, you're probably an idiot, at the least you lack basic math skills.  If you choose to live on a flood plain, you may get flooded.  If you want your children not to play violent video games, maybe you should stop buying them for them.  

Anyway, thanks for your replies.  Oddly enough, I actually have few quibbles with them, were I an American I would favour greater States' rights, and would then swiftly relocate to a Coastal state (as would, of course, be my right).

Quote from: gleichman;234413I'm rather amused that I nailed him correctly up front, not only that I was correct- but that he couldn't keep up the anarchist ruse for even one thread.

Are you just totally deluded?

You were not correct, you have not "nailed me," and there is no "ruse."

You're just a self-deluding fuckwit.  That's all.

I suppose this is where I find out if I'm on Gliechman's ignore list or not.

So, can you name six conservatives in power currently?

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;234567I suppose this is where I find out if I'm on Gliechman's ignore list or not.

So, can you name six conservatives in power currently?

If I may, before he does that, I would like an explanation of how:

The Conservative reaction to the recent housing issues for example can be expressed as follows: "So people made bad decisions in taking loans, and loaners made bad decisions giving? It's not the Government's job to bail them out for bad decisions".

in light of massive bailouts for corporations, the above can be translated as anything except "Fuck the poor".

For a follow up, show how marketing and societal pressure has no impact whatsoever in promoting a culture of rotating debt.  Also, if you plan on bringing up the old 'save money for big purchases' canard, throw out a rough plan for saving up the $100,000+ it costs for a decent house these days.

I mean, this 'personal responsibility' bullshit stops dead right at the top two income quintiles.  Knock off the tortured rationalizations and just say "Fuck the poor" like the leaders of the Republican/Conservative party and have it done with.  Because when corporations need a 'bailout', the current administration comes running.  Well, assuming they haven't already granted them tens of billions in 'non-compete' contracts already.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;234567So, can you name six conservatives in power currently?

In Power? That makes it more difficult to say the least.


Not six off the top of my head, I really only follow the Presidential race in serious depth. And as I've said, there hasn't been a Conservative in office there since 1988.

Indeed, I feel Conservatives in general are in something of a wilderness time as far as actual power in Government. Add to that the old adage that Politics is the Art of the Possible, and one could find even a good Conservative in general is responsible for rather horrid individual votes.


So here's the best I can do:

From the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas is many ways foremost with Antonin Scalia trailing slightly. These came off the top my head.


The Senate and House are much more difficult for me, as I don't follow their careers with the same attention- and instead follow more the results of the total membership. Wrong of me, but I only have so much time.

So for individual snapshots I depend upon the ACU ratings. These have their limits often reflecting the compromise that is part of the job more than the individual's real ideas. And likely don't give enough weight to what I'd call key votes.

You can view the list yourself here: http://www.acuratings.org/

Quote from: StormBringer;234571in light of massive bailouts for corporations, the above can be translated as anything except "Fuck the poor".

If you go back to the quote you listed, you'd see that it included both the loaner as well as the loanee. It's it not "F*** the poor", it's "you live with your bad decisions no matter who you are".

Quote from: StormBringer;234571For a follow up, show how marketing and societal pressure has no impact whatsoever in promoting a culture of rotating debt.

I would guess that you StormBringer do not believe that marketing and culture pressure of TV/Music/Movies/RPGs promoting violence, sexual immorality, etc. affects people at all, but here you claim that it causes a culture of rotating debt.

Interesting.

In any case, you're asking me to prove a negative. I refuse to take the bait.