The End of Liberalism

[PoliticalChic]

In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”

Ahhhh La Boheme and Les Miserables. Children of the Revolution, one and all.

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong!

I always submit too soon... so, EDIT.

Exactly. But that is because of two things. It denies the advances of technology in it's ability to improve the lives of people everywhere by making the ability to meet needs as well as luxuries easier to attain. Secondly it assumes all capitalists is without ethics, morals or desires to improve the lives of their fellow man. Capitalism is separate from morality and ethics, for it is an economic system.

This is why I can say I am an "Ethical Capitalist".

That being said, until we had gone through many years of improvement, experience taught Marx and other socialists that what they HAD experienced under the Robber Barons and caprice of old world Elitism (both nobility and new industrialist) this was nothing more than a continuation of the same systems borne out in Feudalist society.

"...experience taught Marx and other socialists that what they HAD experienced under the Robber Barons and caprice of old world Elitism (both nobility and new industrialist).."

There is a dearth of truth in this sentence.

Marx never had such an experience. He piggy-backed the childish utopianism that I explained in a previous post.

His doctrine is simply a reversal of 'thou shalt not covet..."

Let me add some more history:

1. As far back as 1890, English Marxist Eduard Bernstein began to observe the positive effects of capitalism on living standards, and that the reality was that the numbers of the rich were growing more rapidly than those of the poor, while the vast majority was falling into a category that socialism didn’t anticipate, the middle class.

2. Becoming aware that the moral argument for socialism was wrong, and that capitalism actually benefitted society and served the common good, did Bernstein abandon his ideology? No, he did not. He merely changed his tactics. While still favoring the expropriation of capitalists, socialists now plod on through the use of political mechanisms rather than revolution.

3. So, it seems that, even when shown the error in one’s thinking, it is difficult to abandon a lifelong ideology, especially if one has always felt that the alternative is tainted with evil. But to hold on to an entrenched dogma that is demonstrably false is to abandon all pretense of objectivity. Lacking in intellectual humility, these individuals cling to a faith, a false religion.

4. Most intellectuals today are aware of what communism, socialism, totalitarianism, or any central command-and-control doctrine has done in Russia, under Mao’s reign of terror, or Cuba or other grotesque examples. Yet great numbers of them will use every excuse to avoid attributing the problems to their economic systems. Even a superficial comparison of North and South Korea, East and West Germany before the Berlin Wall fell, Hong Kong and Mainland China before reforms, or Cuba and other countries in Latin America, demonstrate that free economies are superior at promoting the common good. And yet the mystification continues. Socialist true believers have the power to cloud their own minds.

5. Older socialists dreamed of a world in which all classes would share in the fruits of the world. Yet when a permutation of this emerges, it is resented if it represents capitalism. An institution beyond the imaginings of socialists of old: Wal-Mart. Within Wal-Mart we see a cornucopia of goods designed to improve human well-being, at prices that make them affordable for all. Millions of jobs are created, and prosperity is spread throughout areas where it was sorely needed. An entity owned by share-holders, people of mostly moderate incomes who have invested their savings, worker-capitalists.
Ibid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

First, I agree with you that the Bible was perverted by some on both sides, the John C. Calhouns and the John Browns, on both sides of the conflict.

Second, you did not respond so I am supposing that you agree the Civil Rights was a fight of North v. South, of ideology, more than of party affiliation.

Third, the change today is tempered change. We the People have the right to ratify or reject that change through the election of representatives, which how a constitutional republic operates. Once Ben Nelson and Joe Liebermann come on board, the UHC fight is over forever. And, yes, they will be on board by Tuesday.

Fourth, let me respons that "governmental regulation of unhibited corporatism is a necessary fact of modern society." This is not the definiton of Mussolini that I am using. I agree with you that the "government's job [is] to regulate and moderate the free market and protect those from fraud, abuse and other evils well documented with uncontrolled capitalism."

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Marxism wasn't written as an attack on capitalism. It ws a response to German backwardness.

 

[midcan5]

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

If there is one person, or maybe two who countered this concentration of wealth, it was FDR and LBJ; Reagan, Clinton, and Bush helped bring it back.


Wealth Distribution

The Growing Divide | United for a Fair Economy

 

[Big Fitz]

* From apathy to dependence

This is what we're struggling with right now. Many are trying to push back towards this:

* From liberty to abundance

The question is, can we succeed? I think the Roman empire did this push on a few occasions or at least abbreviated the first 3 steps without truly hitting bondage. But that's based on a layman's understanding of their slow collapse.

 

[Big Fitz]

Second, you did not respond so I am supposing that you agree the Civil Rights was a fight of North v. South, of ideology, more than of party affiliation.

I'm not convinced it was a regional/geographical issue. It may have had some elements to it, but largely, I think it was ideology and party affiliation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, was asked earlier "[I}nan interview with FrontPageMag's Bill Steigerwald, . . .. whether capitalism and Christianity were natural enemies. Sirico responded that, 'I don’t think capitalism is a natural enemy of Christianity. Capitalism is really an inadequate word; it only describes one dimension of what is really human freedom and choice in the economic sphere. Choice is morally neutral. It’s the chooser who can be moral or immoral, not the ability to make the choice'". Steigerwald, Bill. "Christ, Christmas, and Capitalism." FrontPageMagazine.com. 26 December 2006.

Whether choice is a neutral behavior or not, it has moral consequences. Sirico failed to nuance that capitalism is also a dimension in which corporatists can destroy human freedom and choice of others, to destroy the opportunity for a quality of life.

That is why government, elected by the We the People, has the moral and ethical obligation to regulate corporatism and business in the modern world.

"... corporatists can destroy human freedom and choice of others, to destroy the opportunity for a quality of life."

Ah, my friend, while I must compliment the writng of your post, you are the winner in the category of Unintentional Humor.

After a century of butchery by the left, 100 million killed as a result of totalist philosophies you actually have either the ignorance, or the unmitigated gall to refer to "destroy human freedom and choice of others, to destroy the opportunity for a quality of life" in connection with capitalism.



"Few would deny any longer that communism--Marxism-Leninism and its variants--meant in practice bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal gulags and forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and show trials, and genocide. It is also widely known that as a result millions of innocent people have been murdered in cold blood.

With this understood, the Soviet Union appears the greatest megamurderer of all, apparently killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto. Communist China up to 1987, but mainly from 1949 through the cultural revolution, which alone may have seen over 1,000,000 murdered, is the second worst megamurderer. Then there are the lesser megamurderers, such as North Korea and Tito's Yugoslavia. "

MURDER BY COMMUNISM


Pick up a book once in a while.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Second, you did not respond so I am supposing that you agree the Civil Rights was a fight of North v. South, of ideology, more than of party affiliation.

I'm not convinced it was a regional/geographical issue. It may have had some elements to it, but largely, I think it was ideology and party affiliation.

Ideology was certainly a part of it, and it was partly party affiliation in that JFK was forced to then LBJ willingly embraced civil rights legislation and forced his party to adopt it against strong southern dissent. Southern republicans, although their numbers were much smaller than their Democratic counterparts in the South, overwhelmingly resisted it as well.

Both parties can congratulate themselves for their principled stands despite the cowardly resistance by elected members in both parties.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Political Chic draws a red herring with any reference to the atrocities of fascism and Marxism while ignoring the very real fact that unregulated capitalism has led at times to the terrible degradation of the working and poor classes in society. She draws a false comparssion to avoid recognizing the terrible atrocities produced by unregulated capitalism throughout the world since the 2nd Industrial Revolution.
Marxism and unregulated free market forces are both the enemies of mankind. Any good Republican recognizes this fact.

 

[Big Fitz]

Political Chic draws a red herring with any reference to the atrocities of fascism and Marxism while ignoring the very real fact that unregulated capitalism has led at times to the terrible degradation of the working and poor classes in society.

And yet socialism consistantly ignores the fact that we haven't had unregulated capitalism in this nation since the 1890's when the Sherman Anti-Trust Act went into play. Combine with that, that the contributions of technology and the rise of 'consumerism' has benefitted both supplier AND consumers in all 'classes'.

Also to consider, capitalism has discovered the vast wealth and opportunity to be made in making 'cheap luxuries'. There is massive benefit for allowing as large a segment of the population access to the best society has to offer. Every business wants the largest marketshare in the largest market possible. They will fight to continue this. There is less money to be made in the oppression of the masses. Capitalism has been learning that since the late 1940's. Collectivism on the other hand... not so much.

Then again, classes are outdated IMHO in a place where capital and labor are highly mobile and there are no enforced restrictions from moving from one strata to another. 18th century thinking on the other hand has become hallmark for Corporatists everywhere with the rich vs. the poor.

The era of Identity Politics may not be over yet, but the whole structure of what Identities are, is rapidly shifting. This is the paradigm shift that many on the right (most notably Glenn Beck) are referring to.

To wit; I had a long and very good conversation with someone who described himself as a democrat. He held as strong of conservative ideals as I did except in a few areas of social politics. The Battleground Poll has just come out with it's most recent findings that 64% of Americans identify themselves as "Conservative". This has been growing since the late 90's and the last few years have been showing even more rapid increases. This latest poll is up 2% over the last one.

Conservatism and Liberalism... Capitalism and Collectivism have become decoupled from the social groups labeling themselves Democrat and Republican. They've quickly begun to devolve into social clubs of no more relevance than College Alumni organizations. All money and gladhanding for social capital. The faster either party catches on to the shift, the better chance they have to save themselves from obsolescence. As it stands right now, neither party has figured that out.

And to those who won't... good riddance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Second, you did not respond so I am supposing that you agree the Civil Rights was a fight of North v. South, of ideology, more than of party affiliation.

I'm not convinced it was a regional/geographical issue. It may have had some elements to it, but largely, I think it was ideology and party affiliation.

And why did the bi-partisan group that opposed civil rights legislation in the 50's and 60's call itself the CONSERVATIVE COALITION?

...again...

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have not had at times the type of regulation of capitalism that has been needed since the 1880s. Otherwise, we would not have had the horrible experiences of 1893, 1929, 2007. All of those eras non-regulation or overly de-regulation. The American people are going to be punishing Big Business for a very long time through Congress. Small business is going to catch its share as well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chic draws a red herring with any reference to the atrocities of fascism and Marxism while ignoring the very real fact that unregulated capitalism has led at times to the terrible degradation of the working and poor classes in society. She draws a false comparssion to avoid recognizing the terrible atrocities produced by unregulated capitalism throughout the world since the 2nd Industrial Revolution.
Marxism and unregulated free market forces are both the enemies of mankind. Any good Republican recognizes this fact.

One hundred million.

One hundred million.

Wow, you will go to any lengths to avoid reality.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Political Chic draws a red herring with any reference to the atrocities of fascism and Marxism while ignoring the very real fact that unregulated capitalism has led at times to the terrible degradation of the working and poor classes in society. She draws a false comparssion to avoid recognizing the terrible atrocities produced by unregulated capitalism throughout the world since the 2nd Industrial Revolution.
Marxism and unregulated free market forces are both the enemies of mankind. Any good Republican recognizes this fact.

qft

Remind me to rep ya again when I can

 

[JakeStarkey]

Political Chic, marxism and fascism were horrible. But your red herring stinks. Regulation of free market forces is neither marxism or facism, and the lack of such regulation harms the working family and the cultural structure of our society. Why do you avoid that truth?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, was asked earlier "[I}nan interview with FrontPageMag's Bill Steigerwald, . . .. whether capitalism and Christianity were natural enemies. Sirico responded that, 'I don’t think capitalism is a natural enemy of Christianity. Capitalism is really an inadequate word; it only describes one dimension of what is really human freedom and choice in the economic sphere. Choice is morally neutral. It’s the chooser who can be moral or immoral, not the ability to make the choice'". Steigerwald, Bill. "Christ, Christmas, and Capitalism." FrontPageMagazine.com. 26 December 2006.

Whether choice is a neutral behavior or not, it has moral consequences. Sirico failed to nuance that capitalism is also a dimension in which corporatists can destroy human freedom and choice of others, to destroy the opportunity for a quality of life.

That is why government, elected by the We the People, has the moral and ethical obligation to regulate corporatism and business in the modern world.

"... corporatists can destroy human freedom and choice of others, to destroy the opportunity for a quality of life."

Ah, my friend, while I must compliment the writng of your post, you are the winner in the category of Unintentional Humor.

After a century of butchery by the left, 100 million killed as a result of totalist philosophies you actually have either the ignorance, or the unmitigated gall to refer to "destroy human freedom and choice of others, to destroy the opportunity for a quality of life" in connection with capitalism.



"Few would deny any longer that communism--Marxism-Leninism and its variants--meant in practice bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal gulags and forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and show trials, and genocide. It is also widely known that as a result millions of innocent people have been murdered in cold blood.

With this understood, the Soviet Union appears the greatest megamurderer of all, apparently killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto. Communist China up to 1987, but mainly from 1949 through the cultural revolution, which alone may have seen over 1,000,000 murdered, is the second worst megamurderer. Then there are the lesser megamurderers, such as North Korea and Tito's Yugoslavia. "

MURDER BY COMMUNISM


Pick up a book once in a while.

Nice strawman.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chic draws a red herring with any reference to the atrocities of fascism and Marxism while ignoring the very real fact that unregulated capitalism has led at times to the terrible degradation of the working and poor classes in society. She draws a false comparssion to avoid recognizing the terrible atrocities produced by unregulated capitalism throughout the world since the 2nd Industrial Revolution.
Marxism and unregulated free market forces are both the enemies of mankind. Any good Republican recognizes this fact.

I have as one of my hobbies, reading. You must try it some time.

And a book that I am adding to my 'wishlist' is Last Exit to Utopia: The Survival of Socialism in a Post-Soviet Era, by Jean-Francois Revel, (Encounter, 300 pp., $23.95)

From a review of same:
'Revel tried to explain this utopian yearning through Rousseau’s influential doctrine: man was inherently good, society bad. Therefore, as Rousseau had it, reforming society—starting with the suppression of private property—would allow man’s fundamentally good nature to shine forth. Another source of the utopian fantasy, he believed, came from the European Catholic canon: good intentions count most.

He wondered why educated scholars would elevate utopian fantasy above reality? The failures of the Soviet Union, its mass cruelties, had been known in the West since the 1930s: André Gide had denounced them in his book, Return from the USSR. Scholars and journalists in the West did not need to wait for Solzhenitsyn to learn about the existence of the Gulag. Yet these truths had little consequence. Leftist intellectuals rationalized any bad news by explaining that the Soviet Union did not practice “real socialism.”'

I'm guessing that I'll probably read it before you do.

 

[Big Fitz]

Second, you did not respond so I am supposing that you agree the Civil Rights was a fight of North v. South, of ideology, more than of party affiliation.

I'm not convinced it was a regional/geographical issue. It may have had some elements to it, but largely, I think it was ideology and party affiliation.

And why did the bi-partisan group that opposed civil rights legislation in the 50's and 60's call itself the CONSERVATIVE COALITION?

...again...

The could have called themselves the Kumquat Brigade. That wouldn't make them all Kumquats. Racism is devoid of party affiliation. But it is odd that the strongest racists now seem to be professing liberalism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ftiz, that is merely your unsupported opinion. You want to talk about Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott among others. Your strawman argument just burned up.

 

[Big Fitz]

We have not had at times the type of regulation of capitalism that has been needed since the 1880s. Otherwise, we would not have had the horrible experiences of 1893, 1929, 2007.

The Panic of 1893 was the result of bad economic policy coupled with no regulation, rampant monopolization, trusts and manipulation of the market by very arrogant power players. In this we agree regulation was lacking and needed. It helped bring about some reforms to the banking and finance system. Now we don't have many Jay Goulds, J.P. Morgans, Rockafellers, and other captains of industry who can on a whim destroy whole sections of industry by watering stock or selling short for huge profits.

The Stock Market Crash of 1929 was ultimately brought about by holes in safe trading practices that brought about the stronger regulations that went, without problem till 2007. A bubble brought on by over-enthusiasm and easy purchasing of stock on margin combined with over-leveraging brought about a massive collapse. This of course was then made far worse by the protectionist Tariffs and Keynesian economic policy of government programs and spending by the FDR administration. It took a world war to snap us out.

The current financial collapse more accurately set in 2008 to present was brought about by rampant corruption and collusion between government regulators and greedy profiteers and exacerbated by horrid governmental policies that have interfered with proper market function... aka OVER-regulation and inconsistent application thereof.

You try but you fail to blame the Free Market for the machinations of bad government. How're those sweetheart loans going for Chris Dodd and Barney Fwank? Jamie Gorelick profiteer much from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Corruption in government? Nooooooo... couldn't be. Goldman Sachs being too close to the government causing conflicts of interest? Preposterous! Never happen >cough< Bear Stearns >cough<