And about that mythical "far left."

[Mythsaje]

Last I checked the communists weren't exactly in favor anywhere in this country. Sure, some of us would like to see a little more reasonable distribution of wealth or, at the very least, a minimum standard for those who are held under the solid weight of a culture that would just as soon pretend they didn't exist as to do anything to help them.

You know, like make sure they have decent healthcare, a chance of higher education, someplace to live, and FOOD?

I don't recall anyone on the "far left" calling for the nationalization of industry, though I'm not convinced we shouldn't SERIOUSLY consider nationalizing the oil companies. Oh, and return certain important sectors to public control. Like the prisons, for example. It's ludicrous that we have the highest percentage of our population in prison of any industrial nation, and then we allow that industry to lobby to put MORE people in prison. No, I'm pretty sure that's not just ludicrous, but criminally insane.

Other than that, the right-wing memes calling, oh, well over half the population "far left" are completely delusional. They've left any semblance of rationality far behind them. Of course, when you're teetering on the far rightward lip of the world, I suppose anyone left of Reagan looks "far" left.

Hell, even the guy they love to hate, Clinton, was somewhere about the middle of everything. Barely "leftist" at all when you get right down to it.

Some have actually started accusing Bush of being leftist, which should send us all into fits of laughter, except such startling stupidity isn't at all funny. The guy who's setting himself up to be the first right-wing dictator of the United States, actually a "leftist?" Who are they trying to kid.

Maybe if they'd glance up from worshipping their pile of ill-gotten gains, or staring over at their neighbors' with such undisguised envy and avarice, they'd actually be able to see the real world rather than the cash cow they seem to think it is.

It's like the soul of every one of them is that of a petty dragon, and not the wise, powerful kind from the east, but the greedy, soulless ones from the west--concerned only with increasing their horde and defending it from anyone who'd dare to try and take it.

It's interesting to note that the wise and beneficient dragons of the east are revered and those of the west were hunted down and killed. (As the legends go). Greed and avarice are rarely helpful in the long run.

So maybe, just maybe, every time one of these pukes reference the "far left" in public, maybe someone, anyone, could respond. "There IS no far left here, you putz! You only think so because you're hanging off the far right edge by your fingernails! If you were to go any farther right, you'd fall into oblivion." Or complete irrelevence.

As if that would be a BAD thing.

[zonmoy]

1. pukes consider hitler far left which shows how scary crazy they are.

[YOY]

11. Because they're trying something new and revolutionary, don't you know!

It's Ultranationalis...I mean super duper Jesus endorsed patriotism!

Hey, nobody has ever done that before! I mean, it's got all the markings of super success!

:sarcasm:

[mediaman007]

2. These same people will cheer the beginning of the

"Bush* Dictatorship!" All of their rhetoric about freedoms will be gone with the winds, as they cheerlead the Bush* takeover.

[baldguy]

3. People on the far left want govt to be responsive to the needs & wishes of the people

Rather than those of multinational corporations.

People on the far left believe we should only use military force against those who treaten us or our allies.

People on the far left think it's better for the govt to tell the truth instead of lies.

[Mythsaje]

4. That's not far left...

That's just left of "Batshit crazy."

[Vincardog]

6. People on the LEft want Government to FEAR the People.

[IronLionZion]

13. People on the far right want total control over our personal lives

but let the corporations plunder and pillage unchecked.

[Malidictus Maximus]

5. IMHO "left/right" is not good enough

If you define 'left' as degree of government intervention on the economy or private lives then the corporate socialist oligarchy of Bushco is where?

I like a matrix with govt economic control on one axis and government social control on the other; a bit more accurate. After all even the word 'socialism' means whatever the person using it wants it to mean. Being a former Libertarian, now a 'progressive' (that is believing that health care and the environment ARE the rational sphere of the government but still believing that what goes on in my bedroom, bloodstream or gun closet are none of anyone Else's business), I find elements definitions of 'left' and 'right' to be inaccurate.

Just my .02

[Warren DeMontague]

7. I agree. We've got freedom for corporations and freedom for individuals all mixed up.

Far too much for the first, not enough for the second.

I tend to identify as "left-libertarian" these days; I've had it with the control freaks on all sides of the spectrum.

In my experience, the OP's well-thought out pieces generally reflect that sentiment, as well. :hi:

[Mythsaje]

14. End corporate personhood...

That would go a long way toward solving THAT problem.

Individuals have rights. Corporations have RESPONSIBILITIES.

Now THERE'S a meme to push.


And, yeah, I'm left-libertarian too.

[zonmoy]

18. I agree with you both on ending corporate person-hood

and I also consider myself left-libertarian.

[Malidictus Maximus]

24. Or, at least if we don't end it

then have ALL corporate employees (yep, even the 'little Eichmann's' in the mailroom)and ALL stockholders (even granny and CALPERS) held criminally responsible for any acts of the corporation or its agents

[zonmoy]

25. not to mention all the stockholders including all those that hold stocks

through unions and mutual funds.

[Malidictus Maximus]

27. Yep.

Don't want to be criminally liable? Invest in a socially responsible fund our get one's ass to the meeting.

[Mythsaje]

10. I feel much the same way...

But that's not the language they use and we haven't been shown to be able to control the dialogue to that extent. Or hardly at all, really.

[DBoon]

8. there are people as far left as Rush & Coulter are far right

They are in tiny, irrelevant, nutty groups like the Spartucus League and the Revolutionary Communist Party.

The number of leftists that seriously advocate revolutionary violence and the complete replacement of capitalism is miniscule

Basically, there is no such thing as a "far left" in this country. There is a far right that tries to smear moderates with the label.

[Xithras]

12. ELF and ALF might qualify

We have our extremist nutjubs just like they have theirs. Nothing new there.

[Mythsaje]

15. Yeah, but THEIR extremists are taken seriously by the media...

Even WE don't take our extremists seriously.

[zonmoy]

19. by moderates you mean center right, I hardly consider those that are

considered liberal now to be liberals.

[unpossibles]

9. K&R!! n/t

[Madspirit]

16. k&r...n/t

[librechik]

17. they have spent MILLIONS (maybe billions) to change the perception of the "center"

to just right of Joe McCarthy. It was money well spent.

Now anybody who voices support for a successful government program, (like Medicare) can be raked over the coals as a far left extremist.

How can we turn that around? I have no idea. It was a brilliant move, probably a death blow to America.

Congratulations, Righties. Hope you enjoy the fascist dictatorship you dreamed up.

[KillCapitalism]

20. Interesting post.

I think that DU for the most part is center-left, and not far left like some would think. An example of far left would be myself since I am a Marxist, but that's OK, I don't take offense when people here or anywhere say I'm really far left.

[Mythsaje]

22. In theory, marxism is fine...

But from history, we can see that it primarily only works in small groups. Extending it too far leads as much to corruption as does capitalism. I think one reason we're not ALL "far left" is that we realize that a balance should be struck between capitalism and collectivism. We need capitalism to drive the economic engine, but we also need collectivism to provide services for those for whom the capitalist system doesn't work.

[Malidictus Maximus]

28. Power corrupts

And Marxism (and many many implementations of socialism) has never gotten around how to distribute power so that some doesn't end up in charge (and therefore, eventually, evil).

[rocktivity]

21. The American far left is a figment of the imgination

of the American far right. The "far" is thrown in to make us sound scarier.

:headbang:
rocknation

[eallen]

23. I always get a chuckle out of those who want to nationalize the oil companies.

All the oil companies? There are thousands of them. And what are you going to do about new ones? Exploration and drilling companies are incorporated every month. Shall we ban them?

Or is it just the major companies you want to nationalize? The problem there is that some of the majors aren't US corporations. I suspect Gordon Brown would take some exception to the US trying to nationalize British Petroleum, and the Dutch some exception to the US nationalizing Royal Dutch Shell.

Well, OK, let's say you just want to nationalize the major, US oil companies. Exxon-Mobil and ConocoPhilips. What, exactly, does that mean? Are you advocating that the federal government simply seize those companies and their assets? That will generate quite a bit of objection from just about everyone who owns a retirement account or who is vested in a pension plan. Exxon is on the Dow Jones 30, and so it is owned, directly or indirectly, by just about everyone in the US who has some kind of retirement savings that are partly invested in the stock market. If the federal government were to seize the company, all those people would take a bit of a haircut. Not much if they are diversified. Maybe quite a bit for those who thought Exxon was a good investment, and put quite a bit of their IRA into it.

Fortunately, the fifth amendment forbids such seizure. I count myself fortunate that I live in a nation whose Constitution says that if the government wants to take part of my retirement holdings, then it has to compensate me for that. So that leaves one alternative, when you say you want the government to nationalize the oil companies: for the federal government to purchase Exxon-Mobil and ConocoPhillips.

That would be legal. Exxon has a market cap of $517 billion, and Conoco of $135 billion, so purchasing these companies outright certainly is in the scope of what the federal government can do. Federal expenditures in 2005 were about $2.4 trillion. But... why do you want the federal government to do this, while it is running a deficit, and holding a significant debt? I think there is a good argument that some of the social security trust fund should be put into stocks, rather than invested entirely in US bonds. But it would be a terrible violation of financial prudence to put it into just two stocks. In one business. While I am still bullish on oil, I have no particular power to predict the future. Oil might be trading at $40/bbl in two years, and these two companies then worth 30% less then than they are today. Do you really think the federal government should focus so narrowly in its investments?

Or do you think that by purchasing these two companies, the federal government might affect the way the world oil markets work? Sorry, but no, that won't happen. These companies don't own more than a small slice of the world's oil reserves, the vast majority of which are in foreign hands. Oil trades on a global market. The US has a great thirst for oil, drinking about a quarter of world supply. A supply it does not control. If the US were to purchase Exxon and Conoco, oil might go up a bit in price, due to investor nervousness whether the new owner would run these companies as well as previous management. Other than that, world markets would continue to work as they have in the past.

If it is the world market you want to affect, then you want the federal government to seize Aramco. All that requires is war with Saudi Arabia.

So yeah, I think "nationalize the oil companies" is a kooky left idea. Or maybe just a kooky one.

:hippie:

[Mythsaje]

26. A good argument against...

One way or another we need to put them on a leash. They're influencing and WRITING U.S. energy policy, stealing from consumers, and making record profits.

Maybe nationalizing them isn't the answer for the very reasons you describe. But that doesn't mean we should do nothing about them.

[bvar22]

31. Don't need to nationalize the Oil Companies.

Just regulate them and tax them fairly.

That's not a kooky idea at all.

[eallen]

33. Yes, but that's a very different thing. You were talking about the mythical left....

Someone reading this board might think it isn't so mythical when he sees a proposal to nationalize the oil companies.

It's something very different to propose an oil tax. There is strong argument for that, and straightforward implementation that fits within our Constitutional framework. It isn't kooky at all. Maybe it's liberal. Liberal is alright.

:hippie:

[dorkulon]

29. I think it's time to rehabilitate the word "socialism."

Because when you look at the countries in the world with the best social stats, standard of living, etc., they are socialist countries. Democratic socialists, to be precise. A strictly results-based assessment shows us that Democratic socialism is simply the best form of government in existence.

But we're not even allowed to use the word in America without marginalizing ourselves. Orwell tells us about the power of words, or their suppression.

[eallen]

32. No, they are social democracies with capitalist economies.

Social democracy is not the same thing as socialism. I think it would be terribly unfair to socialist thinkers and activists, from Fourier onward, to bend the meaning of the word so much that it means a nation like Sweden or France -- or the US? -- that has a capitalist economy.

There were people who believed in socialism. I think they were mistaken, and that the economic of history of the 20th century pretty well demonstrates the nature of their error. Being mistaken doesn't mean their desires were misplaced. They wanted what many people here want. We owe them their history. And we also owe ourselves the benefit of learning from that mistake.

Socialism is not the same thing as social democracy. Sweden has a capitalist economy. Yes, it has relatively high rates of taxation and relatively generous social programs, and it is all well and fine to point to the benefits of that. But its economy is still capitalist, with all the characteristics that Marx, for example, would have recognized as capitalist, and a few characteristics, such as derivative trading, that would have him shaking his head at where capitalism would go a century after his death.

:hippie:

[bvar22]

35. Its not entirely correct to call those economies "Capitalist".

Nor is it entirely correct to call the economy of the USA "Capitalist".
The American People own hundreds of different business. Most of the businesses we own are Monopolies that provide a type of service FREE to the public. (FAA, FDA, Corp of Engineers, FEMA, Board of Health, Weather Bureau, NOAA, Social Security Administration, Fire & Police Depts...and on and on) and hopefully HealthCare in the near future.

We are a long way from pure Capitalism, though we are moving in that direction as these vital services are being privatized and turned into private FOR PROFIT enterprises.


Sweden and the enlightened European countries are even farther away from pure "Capitalism".
We are looking at different shades of gray.
In Sweden's case, a healthy blend of Capitalism and Socialism.

[eallen]

38. Most social programs really aren't businesses.

If you look at Medicare, for example, it does not provide health care. It might be viewed as providing universal health insurance for those over 65. But even that is a bit odd, since insurance in the normal sense is never universal. It would more accurately be described as a social program for spreading the financial risk of the health problems of the aged. That is good social policy. And fortunately, the government doesn't have to provide a single tangible product or service to do that, except for mandating a tax we all pay, and allocating benefits appropriately. The government's role is entirely fiduciary. To the extent that we provide more universal health care, one of the important issues that will arise is the extent to which the government's role is fiduciary rather than substantive. I believe we would be wise to keep it fiduciary. Capitalism does a good job at developing and distributing the wide variety of products that are needed for health care, from syringes to surgical tools to prosthetics. I don't want to see the federal government try to take over what McKesson does, along with thousands of other companies.

Social security almost fits this pattern. The fact that the government has to invest the trust fund means it is more substantively providing a product, in the form of that investment: the trust fund is wholly invested in US government bonds. These have performed quite poorly compared to a more diverse allocation of assets. That, I think, is a legitimate criticism of how social security has been run, and one that can and should be improved. (Please don't confuse that with the notion of private accounts!)

That said, there are some areas where the government does quite well providing the actual product or service. In particular, the federal government is the major funder of primary scientific research, most of which has benefits so diverse or so far downstream that private industry would not fund it. This includes not just NOAA, but also everything funded through the NSF.

I think it is just wrong-headed to view police and courts and law and armies as "products." That view makes sense only in some anarcho-capitalist philosophy that has never described real societies. Capitalism, as with every other economic system, relies upon a social and legal structure, which these things define.

[Malidictus Maximus]

34. Power of words - no shit..

Whoever on the other side coined 'Partial Birth Abortion' was/is a fucking genius. If you can define the terms you've already wonmthe debate

[yardwork]

30. Excellent observations. kicking.

[eridani]

36. Anyone who uses the term "far left" without the quotation marks--

--is actively working to support Republicans.

[eridani]

37. People who are truly far left in any meaningful sense support Bush

--on the grounds that incompetent imperialism will destroy itself faster. They regard any harm to average Americans while the downfall is happening as something that will benefit everybody in the long run.