Tea Partiers Are Boiling Mad About What?

Greed Guised as Ideology

It is capitalism at its finest.

— Tea Partier Kim Lefner quoted in Boiling Mad, p. 149.

It is claimed that18-30 percent of Americans are Tea Party movement supporters. Many people have conceptions about who the Tea Partiers are and what their motivations are.

Writer Kate Zernike examines the origins and coalescing that led to the current incarnation of the Tea Party movement in her book, Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America. She says the Tea party movement is difficult to pin down “… it had a different shape and texture depending on what was in front of you.”

Zernike explains that Tea Partiers are conservatives who despise the Left but seek to exploit the organizing techniques of liberals. Supporting the Tea Party movement is the right-wing media. The Tea Partiers reward Fox News with their viewership.

The Tea Party movement is predominantly White, older, with a higher formal education, and is better off than the average population. Within the movement, there are “fringe elements,” some many people would find quite repugnant.


Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America
By Kate Zernike
Publisher: Times Books,
September 2010
Hardcover: 256 pages
ISBN: 978-0-8050-9348-3
ISBN10: 0-8050-9348-6


Contradictions Abound

Although TP views are very libertarian and focused on individual rights, there is a contradiction when it comes to issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

They are staunch defenders of individual rights but not when applied to certain others.

Zernicke effectively reveals the split personality of TPers. She quotes 62-year-old Tea Party supporter Jodine White: “I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.”

Is it up to the individual to provide in the case of retirement, loss of job, loss of health, or is it up to the government? What does it matter who runs social security? Privatized Social Security will be run for profit and will be more costly than a government-run Social Security monopoly. One way or another people will pay for security.

The TPers claim to focus on economic matters: deploring a burgeoning government and out-of-control spending. Yet why do the so well-off TPers claim to want to focus on economic issues?

Zernike runs through the gamut of TP characters: they are opposed to rewarding “losers” – like those with foreclosed homes — and encouraging bad behavior; a heavy dose of Christianity runs through the movement; they are opposed to financial institute bailouts, health care, and are anti-union (hence anti-labor).

Their grievance against public assistance is that it can be “debilitating.”

Debilitating? How about living under a bridge, scrounging through dumpsters for a bite, looking for work but having no money to print or send resumes, no bus fare for trip to interview, etc.?

Does the complaint that some people abuse the social safety net mean that the vast majority of people needing social services should be deprived?

The argument is futile because it can also be applied to capitalists who cheat the system. By the same reasoning should not capitalism also be abolished?

Adherence to Tea Party Ideals

How fidel is the TP movement to being leaderless, and how fidel is the TP movement to its professed ideals?

Zernicke questions the prominence of old school Republicans within the TP movement. Of Dick Armey, a major figure in the “Republican Revolution” in 1994, she notes that the TP movement did not seem inclined to ask why he [Armey], as a member of the House leadership, had not been able to stop the expansion of big government and the runaway spending …”?

And then there is the fact that big government and deficit budgets ballooned during the GW Bush years, especially compared to the Clinton years. Where were the TP protestors during the Bush years asks Zernike.

The TP Movement’s Dark Side

“Race,” writes Zernike, “certainly played some part in the [TP movement] opposition to Obama—or in creating the sense that he was Not One of Us.” Zernike has written an even-handed account of the TP movement, providing an account without injecting much bias. The use the word race and not racism is evidence of her even-handed account.

However, Zernicke notes critics responses to the TP signs demanding TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK: “’Back where?’ Presumably to a time when no black man would dare run for president.”

The xenophobia of the Tea Partiers is also apparent in their opposition to “illegal immigration” (the concept of immigrants being illegal is not one I agree with).

The Sacrosanctity of the Constitution

Zernike writes that the TPers are “largely libertarian and marked by a purist and ‘originalist’ view of the Constitution.”

The TPers want smaller government, but funding the military is as big government as government gets … and it flies in the face of the TPers’s declared adherence to the Constitution and their revered “founding fathers.”

Zernike wonders about the coherence of TP thought; for example, “… the fact that any meaningful cuts in the deficit would require deep cuts in programs that most Americans, and most Tea Partiers, supported: the military, Medicare.”

Although some libertarians, like Republican congressman Ron Paul, eschew wars waged abroad by American fighters, few TPers have identified war an issue of concern. And 57% of TPers had a favorable view of the “war president” and deficit spender GW Bush.1

The man said to be the major architect of the Constitution, James Madison, warned: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

What is with the sacrosanctity of the Constitution to the Tea Partiers? What is with the unquestioning reverence for the so-called founding fathers?

Why should a society 300+ years later be beholden to words scribed by men from another era? Were these men perfect, gifted with otherworldly prescience, and representative of the entirety of society? If so, why were there no women, no Original Peoples, no Black people among their ranks? Why were the Original Peoples referred to as “merciless Indian savages” by the “founding fathers”?2 Why did the “founding fathers” participate in the greatest genocide in human history? How right and forward thinking were the “founding fathers” who were slave owners? Would the United States be better off as a misogynistic, classist society that the founding fathers established when only male land owners were permitted to vote? That is what the “purist and ‘originalist’” adherence to the Constitution of the “founding fathers” entails.

Antediluvian

The TPers rue the New Deal and support its dismantlement. Yet, that dismantlement led to the collapse of the financial sector that required a whopping government – socialism for the wealthy – bailout. Just another example of paradoxes the TP movement cannot grapple with.

Zernike elaborates on the TPers dislike of government: “It wasn’t that tea partiers wanted no government, it was a question of which government would be in charge, and they believed it should be the states.”

The author addressed this throwback of the TPers: “To talk about states’ rights in the way some Tea Partiers did was to pretend that the twentieth century and the latter half of the nineteenth had never happened, that the country had not rejected this doctrine over and over.”

Zernike explains what equal rights means for TPers. She cites John Birch defender W. Cleon Skousen who postulated “Equal rights, not equal things.”

Did not Original Peoples have an equal right to their land and the things on that land as the Europeans had to their land across the Atlantic Ocean?

Did not Africans have an equal right to freedom as did European men?

Nonetheless, TPers push for a “rewind” to the beginnings of the Constitution.

If a rewind is to take place, why not go to the earlier stages of the Constitution (a constitution that had its origins in the Kaianere’kó:wa of the Haudenosaunee3 ) when the Original Peoples lived in relative ecological harmony on the land … a rewind to a time before Africans were colonized and sold into slavery?

TPer Jared Taylor, is quoted by Zernike: “We the people are now facing ‘progressives’ whose agenda violates the Constitution.”

“We the people” is a jargon term that TPers like to toss out with seemingly little thought as to what it means. Because for TPers, it seems to mean that Tea Partiers solely are “We the people.” Are “progressives” not people?

One can only wonder about what drives many people to join the TP movement. Zernike tells of Don and Diana Reimer, two of the “losers” whose house mortgage was foreclosed in 2008. They joined their detractors and pledged allegiance to a country whose system saw them dispossessed.

How to understand this illogic?

Zernike lays out the story of the Tea Party movement from its roots to its current manifestation, its ideology, its contradictions, its followers, in an easy-to-read fashion. Readers are left to draw their own conclusions.

I cannot help but conclude that the professed TP ideal of individualism is nothing but greed guised in unsound, incoherent mumbo-jumbo. The TPers, by and large, are doing better than most economically, and they want to preserve this situation. It does not matter that other “losers” find themselves in dire straits. Furthermore, why should TPers help others and contribute to their debilitation?

It seems that TPers are in need of both a brain and a heart.

  1. See Boiling Mad‘s appendix containing the results of a New York Times/CBS News Poll of Tea Party Supporters. []
  2. As written by John Hancock and agreed to by the signers of the Declaration of Independence. []
  3. Kanatiyosh, “The Influence of the Great Law of Peace On The United States Constitution: An Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Perspective,” Me & U, 23 June 1999: 1-4. []
Kim Petersen is an independent writer and former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. Twitter: @kimpetersen. Read other articles by Kim.

67 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. mary said on November 13th, 2010 at 9:01am #

    Tenniel got it right.

    http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illustration/tenniel/alice/7.1.html

  2. hayate said on November 13th, 2010 at 10:59am #

    “Tea Partiers Are Boiling Mad About What?”

    A price increase for viagra?
    ;D

  3. Deadbeat said on November 13th, 2010 at 8:34pm #

    The TPers rue the New Deal and support its dismantlement. Yet, that dismantlement led to the collapse of the financial sector that required a whopping government – socialism for the wealthy – bailout. Just another example of paradoxes the TP movement cannot grapple with.

    If there is any grappling to do it is with the purging of Marxist ideas from the Left. socialism for the wealthy is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. What we had was Keynesianism for the wealthy. The purpose of the public spending is to maintain the DEMAND of the wealthy. To continue the inflation of assets prices and the transfer of wealth from the masses to the few. This is NOT Socialism for anybody but is State Capitalism (some have define this as Fascism or Plutocracy).

    I think it high time that we get away from adopting the ideas and language of our foes and defend the very ideas and terminologies that will provide people with clear thinking, answers, and direction.

    We need to differentiate Keynesianism of the Liberals and Social Democrats and that of Socialism.

  4. Hue Longer said on November 13th, 2010 at 9:26pm #

    DB,

    I agree with you on the war of meanings…It’s why labels are dangerous to adopt to begin with

  5. Deadbeat said on November 13th, 2010 at 9:55pm #

    Hue Longer writes …

    I agree with you on the war of meanings…It’s why labels are dangerous to adopt to begin with

    I disagree. The problem has to do with INDOCTRINATION which going back to gene’s article is a form of COERCION. One of the first thing that oppressed people must do is disavow the language of their oppressors. Because via language is how us humans communicate and develop ideas.

    Clearly it is in the ruling classes interest to control our thinking. Remember how “dangerous” is was for slaves to even learn to read. Clearly it was in the ruling classes interest especially the Liberals to co-opt the language of Socialism in the 1930’s and 1940’s and to DISTORT it. Keynesianism helped to do just that.

    People today and this goes to the heart of Kim’s article regarding the Tea Party believes that government spending equates to Socialism or that the Welfare State is Socialism.

    The purpose of my critique is that in this crisis of Capitalism there is an opportunity to set the record straight. One such person is Richard Wolff. I highly recommend listening to his lectures that you can easily find on You Tube or Fora TV.

    Labels as you call them are descriptors — shorthands — nothing more. But it is in the ruling classes interest to distort and pervert language in order to sow confusion and to control us. RECLAIMING our language and our labels are the first steps of the liberation of the working class.

    I hope this explains it.

  6. Kim Petersen said on November 13th, 2010 at 11:19pm #

    Deadbeat is correct that socialism for the wealthy is not socialism.

    Socialism for the wealthy is an intentional oxymoron meant to highlight the absurdity of capital being distributed from the working classes to the capitalists.

    Keynesianism — while a more accurate descriptor — is still not entirely accurate, as government spending was meant to stabilize prices and create employment, not bailout banks.

  7. wizardx said on November 14th, 2010 at 2:21am #

    Every aspect of the description of Tea Partyers in this article is described in Bob Altemeyer’s research on Right Wing Authoritarian personality style. See his free online book The Authoritarians describing how RWAs behave and you will see the TP in all of it. Some 10 percent of people have this and another 20-25 percent have it but dormant until the jack-boots start marching and then they join in too and seek control over everyone and everything. Fear, control, seeking strong leaders, compartmentalised thinking, leaders-followers dynamic, ethnocentrism, ‘dim and reactionary’ are halllmarks. People need to understand how quickly these damaged people can turn and inflict venom on everyone else. Authoritarian Personality is what we are looking at.

  8. wizardx said on November 14th, 2010 at 2:28am #

    “One can only wonder about what drives many people to join the TP movement. Zernike tells of Don and Diana Reimer, two of the “losers” whose house mortgage was foreclosed in 2008. They joined their detractors and pledged allegiance to a country whose system saw them dispossessed.” Answer: Right Wing Authoritarianism (authoritarian followers do anything to empower their leaders even when the leaders are psychopaathic conmen)

  9. Don Hawkins said on November 14th, 2010 at 4:08am #

    (authoritarian followers do anything to empower their leaders even when the leaders are psychopaathic conmen) you probably have an airtight case on that although the followers still don’t see the man/woman behind the curtain. It is somewhat amazing to watch once you know how just a few can control so many with nothing more than light’s, camera, bullshit.

  10. Don Hawkins said on November 14th, 2010 at 7:06am #

    It was the best of times it was the worst of times and in old twenty ten what Dickens’ wrote to somewhat explain what we now see would be giving credit to in a mad world only the mad are sane. Can we agree that TV has a very large effect on this whole mind control part you know even if there is such a thing. We have the Discovery Channel, The History Channel, The fair and Balanced Channel, Where the truth matters Channel and let’s not forget the Comedy Channel. How about the Protest Channel heck let’s go with it. And now to our reporter’s in New York City on the water front at the Goldman Sach’s building. Ladies and gentleman as you see at least one hundred thousand people on the street in front of the glass building and what is that they are saying? profit, profit, profit, wait something seems to be coming from the top floor oh my God hot wax people are running, I can’t watch this back to the station. We now go to Fox New’s in New York City Fred what’s going on there? Well Bob the street’s are blocked thousand’s with what appear’s to be bag’s of shit being dumped in an orderly fashion in front of Fox New’s. Wait someone coming out of the building, it’s Beck and Hannity there’s Bill is that Ted Nugget, look the top floor who is that can you hear that quacking sound look there’s Huckabee with a band there starting to sing Born In The USA ok back to the station. We go now to the Nations Capital hello Jon what’s going on there? This is amazing two million people in front of the Capital in one voice singing tomorrow tomorrow it’s only a day away. What is that being put on top of the Capital? Is that what I think it is a noise generators? People are now falling to the ground covering there ear’s can you hear me at the station I can’t hear I can’t hear. Jon seems to be having technical difficulties we now go to West Virginia where our man on the scene is watching another mountain top going bye bye. This is Lawrence outside a Massey coal mine and what appears to be workers from the mine all chanting Massey Massey Massey there is another group of protesters look’s like seven people no eight and the highway patrol seem to be taking them away. Back to the station and now a word from our sponsor. This new handy dandy plastic thing that can work miracles and can fix almost anything can be yours for the low low price of three easy payment’s of $39.95 plus shipping and handling call call now. Lawrence how’s that protest in West Virginia well Bob it really never got started. Jon can you hear me Jon Earth to Jon. Sorry folk’s still no word out of the Capital.

  11. Hue Longer said on November 14th, 2010 at 7:45am #

    DB,

    As I’ve already stated I agree that “socialism for the wealthy” has nothing to do with socialism (and accepts the planted distaste for the word). Next time someone asks you if you are a socialist however, I doubt you’d be comfortable saying yes to the “shorthand” and leaving it at that. Taking the language back from the oppressors sounds nice but the vast majority of everyone accepts a bastardized definition of a word after it has been hijacked and misused for a hundred years. It is in the end a word, capable of changing meaning with or without propaganda. I cringe when people misuse “theory” but I also understand that due to popular mis-use, it really does have another meaning (a redundant unnecessary one, lol). How about “Liberal”? You and I know what it means but those on the right bastardizing it to equate to “Socialist” want actual liberals to distance themselves from socialists, so now they won’t call themselves liberals (though they like the cred of being the lefter choice, har!). I’m not saying this is groovy or should be tolerated but until we decide upon meanings in a future educated society- free from constant mind warfare, I think one should be careful of wearing the label. I wonder how many people complained about Hitler’s use of the word? In closing, the Albatross was once a real lucky bird to see but a couple hundred years after a guy wrote a popular poem, the memory of transatlantic sailors finding these birds lucky has vanished and it has become a gloomy metaphor. Good luck changing that

  12. Max Shields said on November 14th, 2010 at 9:24am #

    Thanks Hue. DB argues in imponderables. “Taking language back from the oppressor…” is just another way of let’s not solve anything, let’s talk about a billion ways to avoid and endless obfiscate through hidden meanings and handshakes…as we march to the grave.

    It’s a petty discussion around meanings of socialism as if that hasn’t been so corrupted as to be meaningless for any real change of human direction.

    Let it go DB and those of you who think you’re being “radical” with using this overplayed and totally meaningless word that solves nothing.

  13. rosemarie jackowski said on November 14th, 2010 at 9:43am #

    My bumper sticker says …
    ‘SOCIALISM – THE RADICAL IDEA OF SHARING’.

  14. Max Shields said on November 14th, 2010 at 10:11am #

    Has that created change in your community?

  15. Hue Longer said on November 14th, 2010 at 10:16am #

    I like the sticker and it looks like a noble effort to take the planted, unexplained negative connotation out of the word. I don’t have a problem with anyone trying to hold onto the word’s meaning either but no bumper is big enough to properly describe or educate

  16. Hue Longer said on November 14th, 2010 at 10:21am #

    hence, I’d never tell someone I was a socialist

  17. hayate said on November 14th, 2010 at 11:27am #

    Max Shields said on November 14th, 2010 at 9:24am

    One sees a lot of that routine from zionists. IE:

    “I’m a leftist and I’m on your side, but I prefer attacking leftists rather than rightwingers and I make damn sure my attacks will turn the conversation into one of an exchange of personal attacks and snide comments rather than any thing worthwhile. I specialise in disrupting conversations, not adding intelligent material to them.”

  18. hayate said on November 14th, 2010 at 11:31am #

    Max Shields said on November 14th, 2010 at 10:11am #

    “Has that created change in your community?”

    That is incredibly petty and childish and adds nothing.

  19. hayate said on November 14th, 2010 at 11:33am #

    Hue Longer said on November 14th, 2010 at 7:45am

    “Next time someone asks you if you are a socialist however, I doubt you’d be comfortable saying yes to the “shorthand” and leaving it at that.”

    I usually tell them I’m a communist.

  20. Deadbeat said on November 14th, 2010 at 12:02pm #

    Kim writes …

    Keynesianism — while a more accurate descriptor — is still not entirely accurate, as government spending was meant to stabilize prices and create employment, not bailout banks.

    Keynesianism is about using government spending to stabilize Capitalism by maintaining demand. Bailing out the banks does exactly that. It stabilizes the banks and encourages the demand of the wealthy (asset prices). The key aspect of Keynesianism is to stabilize Capitalist crisis.

    My point is that as “dissidents” we should highlight the policy makers desire to stabilize Capitalism (Keynesianism) over the transformation of the economic system to Socialism. This also sets apart “dissidents” from Liberals like Arianna Huffington, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz, etc.

    Working people like that of the Tea Party are extremely confused about what Socialism is. As “dissidents” our first responsibility is to EDUCATE or fellow potentials comrades. That means the first thing we should do is refrain from using the language of the ruling class and to RECLAIM the “labels” that it has long distorted.

  21. Don Hawkins said on November 14th, 2010 at 12:04pm #

    My above comment from this morning let’s see the Protest Channel could go to the front of CNN a few thousand gathered all saying in a loud clear voice we want the truth not a fashion show then maybe a few busses show up tea partygoers and Fred say’s this could get ugly. That protest in West Virginia at the coal mine maybe Fred say’s wait a convoy of black SUV’s is now driving up to the mine. Someone in a Black limo just got out is that Mr. Blackenship what the heck are they doing now. Ladies and gentleman it appears they are setting up a target can anybody see what that say’s? What, cap and trade bill and now they are shooting the bill. Well there goes the last of the protesters all eight of them in a highway patrol car. The possibilities are endless as not only do they make it very easy with nothing more than mindless bullshit just the truth and knowledge on a basic level should do.

  22. Max Shields said on November 14th, 2010 at 12:10pm #

    hayate said on November 14th, 2010 at 11:27am #

    Pity I’m not a zionist.

  23. Max Shields said on November 14th, 2010 at 12:12pm #

    hayate said on November 14th, 2010 at 11:31am #

    What, exactly, is petty or childish about wondering if a bumper sticker had any effect?

  24. Max Shields said on November 14th, 2010 at 12:15pm #

    DB “Liberals like Arianna Huffington, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz, etc.”
    While I agree that this cast of characters do not represent anything approximating transformation, certainly nothing to match the problem at hand, socialism is hardly the antidote.

    One can push for a more cooperative and sharing world without declaring themselves a “Socialist”; and perhaps achieve more.

  25. rosemarie jackowski said on November 14th, 2010 at 12:33pm #

    No, my bumper sticker has not changed or enlightened anyone here. Sometimes in the past, I have identified myself as a ‘”Peoplist” as opposed to a “Capitalist”. Sometimes I still use the word “Anti-capitalist” to explain my position. That does not frighten people like the “S” word does.

    Now I have come to believe that all socialists should be willing to say that they are proud to be socialists. The time to come out of closet is now !

  26. Max Shields said on November 14th, 2010 at 1:07pm #

    3bancan said on November 14th, 2010 at 12:54pm #

    I take it you’re calling me a liar. So what have I posted that gives you the right to call me something I say I’m not?

  27. Max Shields said on November 14th, 2010 at 1:11pm #

    rosemarie jackowski said on November 14th, 2010 at 12:33pm #

    I respect your right to call yourself and to have others call you whatever you wish.

    I think Hue’s point is that these labels begin to fog our vision; if I might paraphrase. I happen to agree with that.

  28. Don Hawkins said on November 14th, 2010 at 1:44pm #

    If we wish to make a try it will take an enormous effort and the talking point’s of the tea party mere child’s play. War somewhat on hold, the economic system sorry not in it’s present form what we see and hear on the MSM a thing of the past what I just called mindless bullshit as just on the off chance so far it is mindless. Go to James Hansen’s web page and at the very top of the page you will see Updating the climate science. Click on that then go down to global temperatures that was just updated as of 11/12. Take a look and my first thought was oh crap. The push is on and a great example is this new movie “Cool It” old Bjorn Lomborg who was just on Fox New’s pushing the movie hint, hint, hint I think Brian Howard put it well.

    I went into the film with an open mind, but then I realized that Lomborg is like the outsiders who sweep in during election season and claim that the incumbents have it all wrong, even though what they’re actually proposing is either more of the same, or stuff that’s still half-baked. Challenging the status quo is essential, but so is getting your facts straight. Brian Clark Howard

    Yes the tea party was a clever move from the few and I did the math again two years who will gain power and if so more clever and mindless much more on the way only as a start and all done dressed for the occasion where in a mad world only the mad are sane. Here’s a few more words from Brian Howard

    In the church films, the narrator was cast as an intelligent outsider who questioned the powerful “establishment” of scientists, academics and educators, all of whom were foisting on the public the doctrine of evolution. In Cool It, Lomborg is cast as the brainy Dane who dares to question mainstream environmentalism.

    For one thing, it’s a bit laughable to cast environmentalists as the establishment, when they’re largely the outsiders looking in global power plays made by multinational corporations, governments beholden to entrenched fossil fuel interests and international agencies like the IMF and World Bank. Brian Howard

    “Cool It”, The Brainy Dane Who Dares To Question Multinational Corporations on what to do next sir.

    So far not looking real good for the home team.

  29. Deadbeat said on November 14th, 2010 at 2:56pm #

    Max Shield writes …
    While I agree that this cast of characters do not represent anything approximating transformation, certainly nothing to match the problem at hand, socialism is hardly the antidote. One can push for a more cooperative and sharing world without declaring themselves a “Socialist”; and perhaps achieve more.

    I really don’t care what Max Shields chooses to call himself. However over the past two years he hasn’t presented ideas that can be considered Socialists anyway. They’ve been reformist ideas that will only mitigate the systems rough edges but are not transformative whatsoever. For example his advocacy of “localism” or the Henry George “land tax”.

    The focus of my critique is with the DISTORTION of Socialism. There are more complete definitions but Socialism entails economic democracy, participation, eliminates all forms of exploitation and profits; eliminates the need for money; is cooperative.

    However in order to get to that point EDUCATION is the most radical and revolutionary action of all.

    Therefore how Socialism is described is critical in that education process. Those who oppose Socialism will clearly aim to DISTORT it in order to “coerce” working people to turn away from the very ideas that will help them and advance overall human progress.

    The problem with the Left has been its unwillingness to DEFEND its own ideas and principles (Kim wrote an excellent article about this BTW). This failure to defend its ideas is why the ruling class labels and distortions bleed into the Left’s own vernacular.

    Why use the term “Socialism for the rich” and not “Keynesianism for the rich”. Why use terms that favor Liberals and disparages the Left? That is my point.

    This Capitalist crisis provides an opportunity to set the record straight. In addition, failing to explain Keynesianism provide an opportunity for Liberals to resell their failed policy. We are now getting the refrain “jobs, jobs, jobs” but what good is a “job” (an explotative relationship) when there nothing but “debt, debt, debt”. We need to educate workers why the solutions offered by Liberals won’t work this time. The level of societal debt is extremely exploitative allowing the rich to gain even more of the surplus. Increasing the debt level just to create “jobs” is unsustainable.

    Thus, Kim is incorrect when is says that “Keynesianism for the rich” is not accurate. The policy is to use government spending to stabilize the system by bailout the banks so that the banks would lend to the private sector in order to create jobs. Therefore it is completely Keynesian.

    What we needed to understand is that the ruling class is at a crossroad. They’ve gourd the “golden goose” (the middle class). They’ve worked 30 years to transform Keynesian economics into unsustainable debt-based spending. Keynesian economics was doomed to fail because Capitalism is unmanageable and unsustainable. Therefore their only real solution now is austerity.

    As “dissidents” the last thing we should do is adopt the language and phraseology of the ruling class to disparage a key solution to Capitalism. The language we use is critical to how we convey ideas. The first thing we must do is DEFEND our own ideas and principles.

  30. Deadbeat said on November 14th, 2010 at 3:00pm #

    rosemarie jackowski writes…

    Now I have come to believe that all socialists should be willing to say that they are proud to be socialists. The time to come out of closet is now !

    I totally agree with Rosemarie. It is time for the Left to defend it ideas and principles by standing up for them.

  31. Deadbeat said on November 14th, 2010 at 3:06pm #

    Hue Longer writes …

    I doubt you’d be comfortable saying yes to the “shorthand” and leaving it at that. Taking the language back from the oppressors sounds nice but the vast majority of everyone accepts a bastardized definition of a word after it has been hijacked and misused for a hundred years.

    Isn’t ironic Hue that you’ve spend countless keystrokes criticizing me of my use of language but don’t have the spine to confront ruling class distortions.

  32. Max Shields said on November 14th, 2010 at 4:31pm #

    Deadbeat, You right I don’t call myself a Socialist. In fact I think the whole Mainstream media duopoly notion of right/left is a hoax that does more to hinder change than almost any other single narrative.

    You Deadbeat have bought into it. You think there’s a left and a right. And that those “liberals” you mentioned are some sort of left. And that the “real” left are socialists. Ok, you can believe that but as I say it’s a hoax that stiffles change.

  33. Hue Longer said on November 14th, 2010 at 4:41pm #

    DB,

    if you don’t listen to me, what chance do I have of getting the ruling class to? Besides, confronting them does little good as there is nothing I can teach them…you on the other hand?

    Again, I am all for holding onto the meanings of words but do understand that that’s what they are and unfortunately anyone can use “socialist” without understanding it. I’m agreeing with you more than you understand which is also why I’m for your idea of educating.

  34. Jonas Rand said on November 14th, 2010 at 5:38pm #

    I do think the term “socialist” should be reclaimed rather than just clinging to something like “progressive” to simply become accepted in the mainstream, or accepting liberal ideas so that one would be considered distinct from “those radical socialists”. It is wrong that it has become an obscenity in the establishment media. However, if someone does not want to define themselves as a socialist, that is their right and I respect it. We all agree that education and analysis is necessary, as it is. Also, change, as I think Max Shields was trying to argue, does not come about through defining oneself as a socialist or not. If he does not want to call himself a socialist, then good for him, but…the relevance?

    As an aside, Deadbeat, what is the problem regarding Georgism, and how is it incompatible with socialism? Is it the requirement of a state to collect a tax or expropriate land? I’m not sure I fully understand it, but as I comprehend it, George advocated the public reclamation of land for use in the commons or other shared/public use of land. A tax would be imposed, so that money collected from it can be used to improve society or for public improvement.

  35. Max Shields said on November 14th, 2010 at 6:39pm #

    You are right Jonas, Henry George represents something very important in terms of redistribution. He focuses on what he saw as the essential need: to socialize the land; all of nature. He was explicit in not including capital or human made assets.

    I don’t consider myself a Georgist in the same sense that I don’t consider myself a socialist. If one believes that human nature is immutable than understanding human nature is absolutely essential if change is to occur. If one believes that the human condition is an emergent force than a different approach to change must be undertaken.

    History shows when people revolt. With time there is a concentration of power and wealth. Ther is no permanent condition that assures some sort of utopian living arrangement.

    So, if Deadbeat thinks I’m a reformist that is because change, for me, is a dynamic that has no clear one-size fits all solutions. It must be undertaken with a whole host of considerations – not least of which are unintended consequences and the paradoxes that seem to breed everytime one challenges the status quo.

    Less than that seems fool-hardy and naive.

  36. hayate said on November 14th, 2010 at 9:16pm #

    Deadbeat said on November 14th, 2010 at 2:56pm

    Well said. If one controls the meaning of terms and determines how people will interpret them, one controls the discourse. If one controls the discourse, then there will be no meaningful dissent there. That’s the whole point of the zionist hasbara machine, btw, and why zionism, inc. puts so much effort into controlling the discourse from ALL sources. About socialism, americans have been brainwashed so thoroughly about it, they have no clue what it is, just that it’s “bad” and they fear/hate it. This is a good example of what happens when one loses/cedes control of the discourse. If one lets them get away with it and chooses new terms, then the ziofascists/fascists simply propagandise the new terms as “evul” and it’s round and round the merry-go-round and one has lost already. It’s rather futile to assert one’s views when the opposition sets the terms. Taking back the terms is the first step in regaining control of one’s own discourse so that one can then begin opening a few eyes to the problem.

  37. Deadbeat said on November 15th, 2010 at 3:28am #

    @Jonas Rand

    The Henry George debate has been hashed and rehashed over the past two – three years here on DV. What occurs is that Max disappears for a while and then pretends that the Henry George matter hasn’t been discusses and then the recycle his argument — repeat and rinse all over again. Take a lesson from hayate…

    If one controls the discourse, then there will be no meaningful dissent there. That’s the whole point of the zionist hasbara machine, btw, and why zionism, inc. puts so much effort into controlling the discourse from ALL sources.

    It’s too late in the night for me to rehash the Henry George arguments. Essentially George was a reformist. He was kind of like a precursor to Ralph Nader. He did inspire people and help people with awareness of the worst aspects of Capitalism but his solutions in the end was flawed and reformist. He even garnered the support of Capitalist because they knew his ideas were reformist. If you do your own research on the Internet you’ll find critiques of Henry George written by Marx, Engels, De Leon, and other Marxist of the day which provides context, critiques and analysis of George’s ideas.

    If it was obvious why George’s land tax was flawed in the late 1800’s it should be even more clearer why it cannot work in 2010. I’ll give you Goldman Sachs as a simple example. How much land do they consume? Not much. How much money do they make — too much. A land tax on Goldman Sachs would be less re distributive than current corporate taxes rates. (BTW Max has argued against the progressive income tax). A land tax sounds good but it still considers land to be a commodity that can be taxed. That is not transformative at all. We need to eliminate the monetary notion that nature (land) can be bought, sold, and taxed. Max’s advocacy keeps these Capitalist relations intact.

    Also Max has a tendency to advocate “localism”. This is a cute sounding phase out of the “Liberal” ecology “movement” but is anachronistic for the realities of 2010 and is rather anti-socialist since we need a world-wide movement and scale to end Capitalism.

    What Max has does is exactly as hayate explains in his comment — alter the discourse. My argument is not about competing economic system to Socialism. That is another debate in and of itself. So I don’t give a hoot how Max labels himself. My argument is about the misrepresentation of Socialism. As I have stated and shown many times on DV, Max Sheilds arguments are reformist and his agenda is to divert attention from Socialist ideas. So I don’t and cannot take him seriously in a discussion that seeks to properly present and defend Socialism.

    This abandonment by the Left to its principles is why you have this vacuum with charlatans rushing in to fill it.

  38. Max Shields said on November 15th, 2010 at 7:13am #

    Deadbeat Jonas Rand raised the Henry George topic, not I.

    For Deadbeat and hayate and a few others here, only they know the way, and all others are some form of zionists. They come here to oppress any other opinions which are clearly dissident opinions.

    They do not confront their community and the world at large with their “ideas”. Certainly I do not control the dominant narrative; yet they chose to use me anyone who might question their dogma.

    By the way, there has been no refutation of HG based on some “flaw”. God show me any writer who has laid out his analysis and I’ll show you flaws. But within those flaws, for the discerning reader, there may be important contributions to consider. HG has that to offer. Since DB has never implemented a single community program I suspect he is the last one who should be speaking about flawed proposals.

  39. Max Shields said on November 15th, 2010 at 8:55am #

    Since Marx was more concerned about a threat to his thesis by someone who had garnered the enthusiastic embrace by people of “socialist” and “non-socialist” persuasions. Of particular note was Sun Yat-sen to George Bernard Shaw who represent a non-monolithic spectrum of thinking and action.

    Attempting to poke holes in the support he had from all areas of the public just demonstrates how weak one’s arguments are. Arguments based on the extent to which Einstein or Martin Luther King supported HG’s ideas as part of the solution vs Marxism are trite. Neither Einstein nor MLK refuted in any way one for the other as they used HG as an important example that lives on in notions of community land trusts that were instrumental to black farmers who needed land.

    Marx later took up the land issue. But remember this issue of land and rent and accessibility pre-dates HG. Look into the French Physiocrats of the 17th and 18th centuries. George was the single most powerful voice of his time to promote this by taking a fresh approach to understanding the root causes of wealth and poverty. He was financially poor but extremely passionate about his discoveries; and eloquent both as a speaker and writer in espousing his ideas. His ideas are the opposite of arcane.

    I am not a Georgist or any “ist”.

  40. bobo said on November 15th, 2010 at 9:22am #

    It’s so tiresome for me to read Max Shields’s rehearse about Herry George. The critique of Georgism is plentiful on the internet. I wont repeat it again since Max Shields will shift the discourse (like he did) to something else.

    I just want to point about that Max Shields’s claim that Einstein supported Herry George as a part of solution is absolutely false

    Here’s the quote of Einstein on Herry George:

    “In the suggested cure of the nationalization of the land and natural resources I see more of a problem than a solution. For example, is land the property of the community but the house there on private property? In any case, it is of utmost importance that the nature of the evil is clearly demonstrated. Therefore alone, it would be important, if the book would encounter the proper attention.”

    Einstein while extravagantly praised George did not think land tax as ultimate solution.

  41. bobo said on November 15th, 2010 at 9:24am #

    I am not a Georgist or any “ist”.

    Think of nihilism

  42. Max Shields said on November 15th, 2010 at 10:35am #

    Now who in the hell is bobo? Appropriate “name” tho. (Deadbeat and his little friend dane continue to change their names to inflate their numbers.)

    First, bobo I did not say Einstein thought land value tax was the ultimate solution. This is the kind of “debate” that isn’t a DEBATE.

    Since you can find just about anything your little heart desires on the internet, I would suggest your sources need to be identified to determine their credibility. Those who find HG’s proposal problematic and fight it tooth and nail are large corporate land and resource “owners”. Should I put you bobo in that elitist category?

  43. bobo said on November 15th, 2010 at 11:04am #

    As i said debating with Max Shields is wasting time. he is very shifty. Here’s what Max Shields wrote:

    “Arguments based on the extent to which Einstein or Martin Luther King supported HG’s ideas as part of the solution vs Marxism are trite.”

    Here Max Shields tried to interject Einstein’s credential using argument from authority (Einstein, MLK) to elevate his own creditability of Herry George.

    Whenever someone pointed out his logical fallacy, Max Shields starts using ad hominem to discredit his critic.

  44. bobo said on November 15th, 2010 at 11:06am #

    Deadbeat worte:

    “I’ll give you Goldman Sachs as a simple example. How much land do they consume? Not much. How much money do they make — too much. A land tax on Goldman Sachs would be less re distributive than current corporate taxes rates. (BTW Max has argued against the progressive income tax). ”
    ——————-

    Max Shields,

    How do you respond to this ? You just ignore it don’t you ?

  45. Max Shields said on November 15th, 2010 at 11:07am #

    bobo I’m sorry for your affliction on the comprehension pathology you suffer from. Perhaps you should bring it to a physician rather than spread it here. Just a suggestion.

  46. Max Shields said on November 15th, 2010 at 11:12am #

    Ok light weight bobo (Deadbeat). Let’s see home mortgages having maybe a little to do with land…with sub-prime with Goldman Sacks et al. Just a little.

  47. bobo said on November 15th, 2010 at 11:13am #

    Max Shields wrote:

    “Those who find HG’s proposal problematic and fight it tooth and nail are large corporate land and resource “owners”. Should I put you bobo in that elitist category?”
    ——————————–

    Absolutely wrong ! The Randian libertarian is most sturdy supporter of Georgism, they are at Henry George School in New York. Pay homage to your Master, Max.

  48. bobo said on November 15th, 2010 at 11:20am #

    I am not Deadbeat! You can ask the admin to verify. Just pathetic!

    Max Shields wrote:

    “Ok light weight bobo (Deadbeat). Let’s see home mortgages having maybe a little to do with land…with sub-prime with Goldman Sacks et al. Just a little.”

    Why we had sub-prime mortgages at the first place? Read New York Time, Krugman called for housing bubble in his column right after bot-com bubble busted. Then why we had dot-com bubble ? wage stagnate…? Georgism has no answer.

  49. Max Shields said on November 15th, 2010 at 11:59am #

    The reason why I thought you were Deadbeat (aside from your desire to pile on a topic for which you have absolutely no understanding of) is that I never recall your chiming in before, and yet you address my post as if we have had a long running “debate” on this with me. So my apologies to Deadbeat.

    That said, I don’t adhere to Krugman’s views as a general rule (who is much closer to neoclassical economists in his assertions which is not where HG or Marx for that matter come from) to get an understanding of the fundamentals of speculative markets I think you should understand George before you attempt to critique with your un-acknolwedged sources from the internet.

    When the Hob Goblin neoclassical economists come down to EARTH they realize that all economics is land based (Joseph Stiglitz and Michael Hudson are two who come to mind). (And by land, dear bobo, I mean all of nature). Granted there are all kinds of speculative schemes but all are rooted to the land in one way or another since nothing we do economically can be done, i.e., there is NO economy without these natural resources. I’m sure you understand this.

    But just in case you are willing to be educated: Mason Gaffney (Professor of Economics, University of California) http://www.masongaffney.org/ and take a look at his essays – The Great Crash of 2008 for an analysis of how land figures in.

    None of this, for the discerning mind, is black and white. I am not a religious person on matters of economics. But a bit of an open mind, research beyond an internet disagreement here or there, does the body and mind good.

  50. Don Hawkins said on November 15th, 2010 at 1:18pm #

    In a land far away in time past when the first human figured out with the use of face paint maybe some bone’s and mumbo jumbo he could make other human’s do work then take the fruit of there labor’s make it his own while paying them a small wage and health care well that would be the witch doctor the same person and drink wine/orange chicken with a few close friends. Look how far we have come in just the last 150 thousand years.

  51. Jonas Rand said on November 15th, 2010 at 1:35pm #

    I cannot comment on Georgism, because I have never read a word by Henry George. I have heard that he was both a blathering hack and a great philosopher, but have not made my own determination about his ideas. However it is true that fictional capital would not be addressed by the land tax. In my opinion, Nader would be better as president than either a democrat or a republican. One cannot expect anything more than a reformer in presidential politics.

    Bobo came out of nowhere, and I have to question how and why he came here. I suspect that there’s been a little multiple account usage (sock puppetry) here (no, I don’t think he’s Deadbeat, there’s something more…irrational about his writing style).

    Localism seems like a good idea, and I feel there is nothing wrong with it. Green politics and the environmentalist movement has only proven a cop-out when it sells out to corporate power and the mainstream (the oxymoronic travesty that is “green capitalism”) or when it is infiltrated by ZPG type lunatics (see John Tanton’s attempts to infiltrate the Sierra Club).

  52. hayate said on November 15th, 2010 at 1:42pm #

    And the wind-ups continue their gangbanging:

    Jonas Rand said on November 15th, 2010 at 1:35pm

    “Bobo came out of nowhere, and I have to question how and why he came here. I suspect that there’s been a little multiple account usage (sock puppetry) here (no, I don’t think he’s Deadbeat, there’s something more…irrational about his writing style). ”

    The things operate as teams.

  53. Jonas Rand said on November 15th, 2010 at 2:42pm #

    “The things operate as teams. ”

    Yes, I’m sure you do!

  54. Max Shields said on November 15th, 2010 at 2:48pm #

    Jonas,

    See my post above and the link to Mason Gaffney. His write up on the 2008 crash deals directly with the underlying causes. It is true that there is a high speculative financial market that creates wealth out of what appears to be thin air. But beneath all of this are bubbles that Gaffney argues are created from land speculation.

    You may be familiar with Peter Victor and Herman Daly and the ecological economics of zero growth. These “green” economists acknowledge HG. No one looks at HG as the ultimate solutions to a human-based economy. He has made a valuable contribution.

  55. bobo said on November 15th, 2010 at 3:12pm #

    Some of you are so fearful and conspiracy-mongering. It is typical American. I am not American and i don’t live in America. My native native tongue is not english so it may irritating i guess. I did participate this forum over a year. If your search DV’s archive there was a thread i participated and it was similar to this thread. Since my understanding is limited to some basic concept of political economics (sophomoric i admit) i dont participate in other topics.

    Second, i got my screen name from a famous Italian football player (soccer in American). His name is Christian Vieri and his nickname was bobo (means bull in italian). American don’t watch football do you? thus you associate it with wrong meaning.

    –> Your “sock puppetry” accusation is entirely unfounded.
    ————————-
    Third, I did read Mason Gaffney. When Max charged me with “absolutely no understanding” and tell me to read….author, It is a common tactic deployed when he have essentially nothing to say. (I can counterpoise that Max does not know anything about Marxism. )

    Max Shields continues to assert that there is no convincing critique of herry Gorge. that is incorrect. Micheal Hudson did a critique but sympathetic of George that in fact demolish George and Georgism at least in it primitive form. You can search on internet.
    Here the outline:

    (1) his refusal to join with other reformers to link his proposals with theirs, or to absorb theirs into his own campaign;

    (2) his singular focus on ground rent to the exclusion of other forms of monopoly income, such as that of the railroads, oil and mining trusts;

    (3) his almost unconditional support of capital, even against labor;

    (4) his economic individualism rejecting a strong role for government;

    (5) his opposition to public ownership or subsidy of basic infrastructure;

    (6) his refusal to acknowledge interest bearing debt as the twin form of rentier income alongside ground rent;

    (7) the scant emphasis he placed on urban land and owner occupied land;

    (8) his endorsement of the Democratic Party’s free trade platform;

    (9) his rejection of an academic platform to elaborate rent theory;

    (10) the narrowness of his theorizing beyond the land question;

    (11) the alliance of his followers with the right wing of the political spectrum; and

    (12) the hope that full taxation of ground rent could be achieved gradually rather than requiring a radical confrontation involving a struggle over control of government.

    It is good to be open minded to any sensible theory. But Georgism is flaw. Ironically, Max never open his mind about it. This is my last post.

  56. Max Shields said on November 15th, 2010 at 3:40pm #

    bobo, yah I’m just full of “tactics”. I try to present a case…and you and Deadbeat and his minion call it all a tactic. Incredulous!!

    And then, like the “gang of 3 or 4” you are, you completely redirect what I presented to your own “narrow” agenda. I have repeatedly stated HG is NOT, NOT, NOT the ultimate solution. There is NO ultimate solution short of death and annihilation of the human species. Above I have introduced two more economists – Daly and Victor and before that 2 other Michael Hudson and Joseph Stiglitz. Hudson’s critique WAS NOT of HG. It was the failure of the movement that followed to successfully implement some form of land rent/tax. Hudson proposed land value capture for parts of the collapsed Soviet Union. Gorbachev embraced, but had no power to implement; and so the oligarchy stole the Russion natural wealth creating instant poverty and massive wealth for a few…

    How many times must I repeat. Nowhere do you find fault with HG’s proposal…or Mason Gaffney’s essay. Instead you use bits of superficial “evidence” from internet mining to make you “case”. Calling it a weak case is an incredible understatement.

    What is true, bobo is you are another DV poster using yet another nom de plume.

  57. bobo said on November 15th, 2010 at 3:48pm #

    So hypocritical! First you said there is no critique. Now i am bring you a definitive critique! you start to shift the discourse to “find fault with HG’s proposal…or Mason Gaffney’s essay”.

    Let anyone read Micheal Hudson’s critique judge it merit. You are denial, Max. you’re denial!!!!

  58. bobo said on November 15th, 2010 at 3:52pm #

    Here’s the 46 pages essay of Micheal Hudson’s extensive critique of Herry George and Georgism
    michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/0801GeorgesCritics.pdf

  59. Max Shields said on November 15th, 2010 at 4:40pm #

    I’ve read it long ago. Do you want the thousands of critiques on Marx and Marxism and Socialism and Communism for us all to compare and see who has the most critiques out there? (I think I know who would win that.)

    I’ve already explained Hudson’s general position. I wouldn’t have used Hudson if he wasn’t a proponent of land rent. His critique doesn’t come from an opposition point of view, to the contrary.

  60. Max Shields said on November 15th, 2010 at 4:42pm #

    bobo, to your post under mine. Citing Hudson’s critique is NOT a critique by YOU. (Of course you understand the difference…right? Nothing hypocritical there.)

  61. Max Shields said on November 15th, 2010 at 4:47pm #

    Here is an article/interview of Hudson in Counterpunch regarding post-Soviet economy.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/schaefer02272004.html

  62. Max Shields said on November 15th, 2010 at 4:50pm #

    And bobo, here is a brief statement of where Hudson stands. He is proposes the use of land rent, but finds the political movement lackluster. And provides a remedy. I agree. His critique, again, is not against land value tax, but the means to achieve it have been less than stellar.
    http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/hudson-michael_theory-of-rent-needs-theory-of-history.html

  63. Max Shields said on November 15th, 2010 at 5:17pm #

    Kim, the citicism of the TP is interesting. The problem, it seems, is just how much of a distraction that “movement” is. Is it a real “movement”? Is it a set up with deep pockets behind it and created by MSM? Are we taking the bait? Is there someone behind the curtain?

    I think we live under a grand illusion. There are levers of power. There is a nation at “war” killing civilians who are not at “war”. The triggers are in New Mexico. We have a “movement” which is a fabrication, the embodiment of an ideology to serve as the front line of a neo-fascist movement that is owned by a collaborative of powers.

    There is no TP. There is no there there. No more than there was an progressive anti-war Obama. There is just a massive marketing blitz we try to decipher like “Who Killed JR/Cock Robin/JFK.

  64. Deadbeat said on November 15th, 2010 at 8:24pm #

    Thanks bobo for your participation.

    Max writes …

    bobo, yah I’m just full of “tactics”. I try to present a case…and you and Deadbeat and his minion call it all a tactic. Incredulous!!

    It’s the same rehash of the lame case that has been shown to be contradictory. Here’s Mason Gaffney’s from his paper Oil and Gas Leasing: a Study in Pseudo-Socialism

    I. WHAT IS SOCIALISM?
    “Socialism,” in common usage, is a Protean word, slippery and shifting. Many use it without defining it, whether from innocence, negligence, or cunning. These many include not just the vulgar, but most economists: semantic care is weak in the traditions of the profession.
    “Rigorous” model-builders today are among the offenders: the premium is on gilding the superstructure, neglecting the foundation. Indeed, foundations are not even needed for models that float in outer space, vouching for and communing mainly with each other. Those who do define Socialism, explicitly or implicitly, use the word for different things. A major difference, treated here, is between Managerial Socialism (who decides) and Distributive Socialism (who gets). These may overlap, but are independent of each other and often conflict. For example, Riverside, CA, owns its own electric utility (on whose Board I sit, losing battles). This is Managerial Socialism, municipal style. Its traditional rate structure includes large elements of cross-subsidy, mainly taking from the lower middles for the rich, tempered by crumbs thrown to the very poor. The same is true of our water system, and of most municipally owned and managed utilities around the nation. Water and sewer service are common examples of Managerial Socialism (from which the mnemonic “sewer socialism”). They have little in common with Distributive Socialism.

    So Gaffney creates a strawman, a distortion of Socialism, and then proceeds to base his ideas on this fallacious strawman. Rather than understand and clearly define Socialism he DISTORTS it in order to promote his ideas. If his ideas are so strong then why does he need to distort Socialism. This is what Max consistently does here on DV when the topic of Socialism arises. (As an aside I do miss T42’s participation here he too provided lively critiques of Max’s fallacious rhetoric).

    Notice how Gaffney disparages Socialism for the Keynesian economics of Liberalism and Social Democrats as “Managerial Socialism”. Therefore, I once again have to return to the basis of my critique of Kim’s misuse of “Socialism for the rich”. Because the Left has yielded so much ground it has allowed the phase so often repeated by the Right, the mainstream, and the Liberal classes, to become an unconscious INDOCTRINATION of the disparagement of Socialism.

    This is what happens when the Left itself adopts the ruling class discourse and phraseology. It opens the door for pseudo-Left charlatans whose aim it is to maintain the exploitative relationship of Capitalism by wrapping it up under various guises. This is really no different from the Tea Party’s Ron and Rand Paul who today claim that the system is “corporatism” not Capitalism.

    This is the battlefield of ideas that the LEFT has chosen to abandon to the detriment of all.

  65. Max Shields said on November 16th, 2010 at 3:14pm #

    Deadbeat says: “It’s the same rehash of the lame case…”
    Typical non-starter by Deadbeat.

    What Gaffney DOES, Deadbeat, is something you NEVER do. He actually defines what he is talking about.

    Try it some time.

  66. bozh said on November 16th, 2010 at 3:45pm #

    if we’d abandon the labels socialism and fascism and supplanted them with egalitarianism and inegalitarianism as either changing-developing to their final completion: ideally [not utopian] egalitarian and perfectly or ideally inegalitarian, arguments wld stop, i assert.

    so, the only thing we wld need to study wld be whether u.s society is headed for a more egalitarian or more inegalitarian society.
    facts show or prove that no strongly an inegalitarian society is headed anywhere but to ever greater inequality.

    and which maybe labeled state, capitalism, etc.; while egalitarianism or adequate equality is labeled communism or socialism.
    clever? not really. but in u.s it works almost perfectly. so, why not use the prestidigitation? tnx

  67. bozh said on November 16th, 2010 at 6:48pm #

    socialism does not exist yet. asocialism or inegalitarianism, in all degrees, existed for at least 8k yrs.
    it seems to that 99.99999% of world’s people are highly asocialistic. thus talking about communism or socialism is premature. comparing non-existing entity with an existing one, brings us only confusion.

    i propose we start thinking from proposition of being able to simply cut dwn on supremacy and difference in earnings.
    obviously rich or ‘educated’ people look dwn on us; i.e., deem selves superior.
    this is real and one can change only what is extant.
    so supremacy an evil and vitiating phenomenon must be pared dwn first.

    to be able to do that we have to have a party with just such a platform. and once that is done, we will see if people are just happy with that. if so, let it be!
    but we all know, appetite comes with eating.
    so, surely, people wld ask for more and more till they achieve what swiss have achieved and may achieve even more.

    and supremacists just cannot bear to lose their status of numero uno! with new party, things wld most likely get ugly, deadly, etc.
    but if that is not done, supremacists can only grow stronger.

    it seems to me that now ?all these sites appear invaded by supremacists. some of them are posters with an assigned task to perform.
    the aim seems to flood these sites with an abundance of theories, proposals, vague language that’s impossible to decypher.

    i really have not read more than one piece from an avowed socialist or a writer who condemns supremacism. where are they? are the banned from most sites? tnx