From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

[jtabeb]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

I prefer to take a third way when faced with such a predicament. Over time, after some study and practice in an area, I develop intutions on how things work. I cannot entirely explain these intuitions coherently, even to myself. When the intutions become strong enough in a particular discipline, I can begin to form opinions of the various popular ideologies that are well grounded in my intuitions, noticing parts of each that seem right or their essential flaws or contradictions. In some cases, I can then create new structures in a discipline, guided by my intuitions, that extend both the practice and the theory.



On your other comments, yes, health care and economic reforms are morally, socially and economically necessary.

.

1. Ditto and Yes.

I don't know how many ways we can keep agreeing, so I'm gonna stop know. (I think substantively, anyway. Nuance, maybe a little difference).

But you have the big picture and the whole sum of my objective in live is to make sure we are all looking at the big picture.:rolleyes:

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

I think the point is that we either have an "ideological" basis for our political discourse, or we have a pragmatic one.

It's not an either-or.

Rather what you describe is typical in situations where our "ideologies" are inadequate. Any one ideology will have deep flaws, so we make do with fragments of more primitive ideologies which seem grounded in various practical experiences, frequently expressed as stories and sayings handed down and passed around.

I prefer to take a third way when faced with such a predicament. Over time, after some study and practice in an area, I develop intutions on how things work. I cannot entirely explain these intuitions coherently, even to myself. When the intutions become strong enough in a particular discipline, I can begin to form opinions of the various popular ideologies that are well grounded in my intuitions, noticing parts of each that seem right or their essential flaws or contradictions. In some cases, I can then create new structures in a discipline, guided by my intuitions, that extend both the practice and the theory.

I don't just follow practical guidelines. I don't just (when my thinking is mature enough) follow a particular ideology.

Granted, in the particular instance of political discourse to which you refer, I am no Plato, Hobbes or Marx. I will stumble along for the rest of my years in this life with weak, ill-formed intutions into the political sphere. My "third-way" will be more crude than either of your choices, not more elevated ;).

On your other comments, yes, health care and economic reforms are morally, socially and economically necessary.

Sometimes the necessary doesn't happen, or only happens in too late, too ugly.

[VIT]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

Both parties do this and use this to avoid any ACTUAL resolution of the root causes and that what I (and I bet others) find so distasteful about political polarization these days.

Obama's greatest weakness in my book is his failure to address economic reform in an honest and straight forward manner has crippled his credibility in the health care arena.

Agree about not addressing the root causes. But this would mean to start a war against. It does not look he selected this path, at least as by now he is trying to solve problems peacefully. It just does not work sometimes. I see he will lose a popularity anyway, I would prefer this will be due to right actions vs not actions (motion is not an action). He would be probably the best person to do this still when we are not in deeper hole. Otherwise as a lot of people discussed in this thread next time choice might be much uglier.

I am very skeptical about any ability to change current things and the reason is where all these resources would come from ? Economy taxes are already high, income and productivity imbalance is high also and etc. The next what will happen is that taxes will be raised for those people/economy sectors who still has something so this will put a big bar on any recovery. Sure this would not be a financial sector since they get money for free already and there is nothing to tax there. So the only natural way is to reduce economy expenses including government but I can not remember this ever happened by will anytime in the history. Usually you go up and up on the cliff until you slip and make a freefall to the ground.

[jtabeb]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

Yes, a classic liberal, likely so, give or take.

In the context of what I quoted of my own words from 2002 above, "liberal" referred to the socialist big government mutant of that word.

I know.

I think the point is that we either have an "ideological" basis for our political discourse, or we have a pragmatic one.

I would prefer pragmatic, as I think it is more inclined to produce actual workable solution AND it also ensures that we HOPEFULLY actually address the root cause of the issue.

Ideological debates tend to ignore what ever evidence one party or the other doesn't like. The result is that the root cause is never addressed.

(like the drunk looking for his keys by the streetlamp when he lost then in the back alley behind the bar).

Both parties do this and use this to avoid any ACTUAL resolution of the root causes and that what I (and I bet others) find so distasteful about political polarization these days.

From my own perspective, health care reform is necessary both from a moral social justice stand point and a budgetary stand point.

This means we have damn good reasons for attempting to fix the health care system.

The same is EVEN more true of economic reform.
The social justice issue is even more important in this case than the budget. (and I am not talking about wealth redistibution.) What I am talking about in terms of economic reform is everything that Ron Paul has said (and much better than I could have).

Obama's greatest weakness in my book is his failure to address economic reform in an honest and straight forward manner has crippled his credibility in the health care arena.

It just goes to show that "honesty, really is the best policy". Even when it is not popular or if the nation doesn't want to hear it.

I think he would have much more credibility and acceptance had he not resorted to economic "make believe" about the Potempkin recovery.

This may end up being (honesty on the economy and the Fed) the straw that broke the back of his political popularity. Because ultimately, people can smell bullshit, even though the elites pretend otherwise.

I wish he would take an honest broker approach to financial reform. But so far I have been disappointed.

This failure to "tell it like it is" in economics has crippled his credibility not just in terms of health care, but all the other policies that he has or will propose.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

Are you a "liberal"? I am.

Yes, a classic liberal, likely so, give or take.

In the context of what I quoted of my own words from 2002 above, "liberal" referred to the socialist big government mutant of that word.

[jtabeb]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

Ah, ok. That makes sense.

As I wrote back in August of 2002, still visible on the web at http://www.freerepublic.com/~thepythoniccow/:

Are you a "liberal"? I am.

(here is a test to see, don't balk, read it and see if this fits your political persuasion).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

I don't like labels per say. Esp today when most don't have a good enough understanding of the definitions at play (present company excluded, of course).

BTW, this used to be what was once called a "Republican", a very great stretch in today's environment if you ask me.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

Only as the goup of disaffected likely to be targeted. (The "patsy" group, if you will)
...
Make sense?

Ah, ok. That makes sense.

As I wrote back in August of 2002, still visible on the web at http://www.freerepublic.com/~thepythoniccow/:

Liberalism is a ploy by a few would be tyrants to gain the support of the masses by convincing them to work for some purpose, any purpose, that is not to one's own damn good, not subject to common sense.

If you're working for the obvious benefit of yourself, your family and your neighbors, doing something you can observe the benefits and costs of, and experience the results of, then you are the enemy of liberals. For you are in control of your own life.

If you can be persuaded, out of guilt or fear or whatever, to work to save the starving children in a faraway land (but not the kid next door), or the environment (but not the tree in your backyard) or the victims of genocide or the homeless or the elderly (in the abstract - not your actual mother) or world peace or whatever, then you are in the control of the spinmeisters who establish these "goals". They can get you to do anything, just by spinning it right.

For a few, such as Dr. Livingston or Mother Theresa, such faraway ills are immediate and personal, and something to be directly addressed from personal awareness. God bless them.

But do-gooders from a distance are a dangerous fuel for the liberal mischief of tyrants.

[jtabeb]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

The "Christian" part doesn't make much sense to me. To the extent that Christians support such fascist tyranny, they are being used, just as so many others are used, in my view.

If I lived in an Islamic Middle Eastern country that was going through a more tyrannical phase, it would worry me substantially that I am in no way Islamic. But presently living in America, it worries me not at all whether I have the "proper" religion, other than perhaps it's a good idea not to be too outspoken for the occassional religion that gets scapegoated now and then, such as Islam after 9/11. But even then, the danger is far less than say for a Jew in Germany in 1940, or even a Japanese descendent in America in 1943.

So, no, your mention of "Christian" in your explanation doesn't make sense to me.

Only as the goup of disaffected likely to be targeted. (The "patsy" group, if you will)

Stong collective identity, common morals, etc.

This is not "blame the christians", it's pointing out the group that is likely to be targeted by such efforts.

Very similar to fascist buisness interests in the '30s during the great depression.

If my remembrance of history is correct. The exact polarization that we are seeing today is very similar to what we saw at that time.

I'm not blaming the rape victem here, just pointing out who would be targeted as a "vehicle" to acheive these goals by a different group.

(The health care industry using the conservative right as a foil for healthcare reform, for example). Do they agree with the principles of the conservative right? Hell no. But it does acheive an objective of theirs, preserving the status quo.

The point is people end up THINKING that they serving their are serving their own agenda, when in reality they end up serving the agenda of another group, without being aware. "used" is an approprate term here, I think.

Make sense?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

A religious theocratic movement in the United States would much more likely use a political means of obtaining power, as a means of then being able to implement their agenda (which is just as radical in scope as the the Jihaddi movement). Of course the religious bases are completely different (Islamic vs Christian).

...

Did, that make sense?

The "Christian" part doesn't make much sense to me. To the extent that Christians support such fascist tyranny, they are being used, just as so many others are used, in my view.

If I lived in an Islamic Middle Eastern country that was going through a more tyrannical phase, it would worry me substantially that I am in no way Islamic. But presently living in America, it worries me not at all whether I have the "proper" religion, other than perhaps it's a good idea not to be too outspoken for the occassional religion that gets scapegoated now and then, such as Islam after 9/11. But even then, the danger is far less than say for a Jew in Germany in 1940, or even a Japanese descendent in America in 1943.

So, no, your mention of "Christian" in your explanation doesn't make sense to me.

[jtabeb]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

What precisely IS a fascist form of government?

The so-called fascist governments were able to rally relatively large segments of their population to wage war against the combined forces of the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and later the United States - political entities that controlled the vast majority of the world.

Truly, what does our corporate dominated democracy have to do with those nations?

I really am perplexed at all this talk of fascism. Fascist governments rose in direct response to the London-New York international banking powers that wrecked havoc on the world in the post-WWI era. If anything, the rise of fascism should give everyone pause as to how quickly the world can change as a result of corrupt banking practices.

We all talk about how this is the Second Great Depression. If that is so, then we should not discount the very real possibility desperate people will accept yet another Caesar to force rapid "change".

It's not Obama, but what COMES AFTER that is the source of my fears.

This type of political movement (see below)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=112683449

(Listen to the interview when it becomes available)

could possibly use the protection of corporate speech and the unlimited source of funds that this represents as a spring board to capturing the presidency or a majority of the congress. At which point they would be able to implement their radical agenda. Which is a totalitarian, non-constitutional religious theocracy.

You know the same thing we are fighting against the Islamic Jihaddi movement.

It's basically the same threat.

But the Jihaddi movement uses violence to achieve governmental power, and then implements their radical agenda.

A religious theocratic movement in the United States would much more likely use a political means of obtaining power, as a means of then being able to implement their agenda (which is just as radical in scope as the the Jihaddi movement). Of course the religious bases are completely different (Islamic vs Christian).

But in summary, Achieving governmental power as the means to then be able to implement a radical agenda are the same for both groups. (As I said, the means to initially achieve governmental power are different, as are the religious bases, but the overriding goal is the same).

Anyway, hope that clears up the issues I see as posing a major threat to our governance.

Did, that make sense?

V/R

JT

[kartius919]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

He points to Caesar as almost a nostalgia for the beginning of the Roman Empire. I could easily point to Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc in which wide spread warfare was the prescription for the debilitated economy. Of course it only worked so far until you run out of easy prey. Then there is just death by lead or starvation.

[ricket]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

Well, that's sad then, because by your actions, you are allowing "THEM" to win.

If they are easily persuaded by obvious lies, then does that not make them quite a liability when it comes to warfare?

[*T*]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

Fascist governments rose in direct response to the London-New York international banking powers that wrecked havoc on the world in the post-WWI era. If anything, the rise of fascism should give everyone pause as to how quickly the world can change as a result of corrupt banking practices.

We all talk about how this is the Second Great Depression. If that is so, then we should not discount the very real possibility desperate people will accept yet another Caesar to force rapid "change".

It's rare I agree with Serge Tomiko, but take heed of this. I think the 'Caesar' point is also jtabeb's point. We are at risk of a 'strong leader'.

[*T*]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

ACORN controls JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. ACORN decides who gets the bailouts and who doesn't.[/COLOR]

This is illustrating a fascist / corporatist system, not Marxism.

[doom&gloom]

Re: From a (semi) Free Country to a Marxist Autocracy?

No, I will not do a google search. I do not watch Fox (nor any TV). I will not attempt the futile task of persuading you to watch Fox.

I will only request that you don't suggest to newcomers that your views represents this sites views. Some here may agree with you, some not. I know for a fact at least one who doesn't agree -- myself.

Thanks, and have a good day.

i'm with ya, and i DO watch Fox at times. The Amerikan Kleptocracy is in full
force, and we the people get 'divided' like sheeple following our selected party
while decrying the other guys as partisans.

rubbish.

we are being used. and abused. by BOTH sides. and those who think otherwise
have not learned to think for themselves.