Is Capitalism Without a Socialist Backbone Impossible?

[Lplus]

Again wrong. The political right had moved to such extremes that to them, views that would have firmly right of center in the 1990's are now being called "socialist" in right wing political dogma. In the US, economic polices that were "core conservative values" 25 years ago have been completely abandoned by Republicans and now form the core of mainstream Democratic economic policy.

The right wing talking heads now call these things "socialist" in order to keep their power base from fragmenting so they can hold onto power even though they have no realistic policy ideas of their own. Since they have no actual policies to pursue holding onto power for powers sake is all most of the old guard are doing. The scary thing is that the younger idealist are actually willing to try some of the bats*** crazy ideas that is all Republicans have left after 40 years of moving farther and farther right to maintain a differentiation between themselves and Democrats.

This is why economists who have used to support Republicans now vote Democrat by a wide margin. In practical terms many policy ideas promoted by more intellectual Republicans are often indistinguishable from AnCaps.

With the rise of Trump, this is somehow glued together with populist Republicans that support something resembling the Fascist countries in WW2. This includes both economic isolationism that restricts imports under the guise of "self sufficiency" while exports are encouraged as a means of projecting power. Privately owned business is encouraged but only those that are willing to support right wing leaders in their political goals are supported by government while those who refuse such support are undermined at every turn.

This is a toxic mix that history tells us can only lead to explosion or implosion, but everything else is deemed "socialism" by the talking heads in order to keep the rank and file in line.

And yet despite this continuing apparent massive movement to the right there is still a close balance between Democrat and Republican voters. So either the whole USA is veering rightwards en mass (which seems unlikely), or nothing has really changed except the definitions.

None of which affects the definition used on this forum as requested by Dualb.

 

[lomiller]

And yet despite this continuing apparent massive movement to the right there is still a close balance between Democrat and Republican voters.

Voters themselves have migrated towards the Democrats. It's only a combination of voter suppression and gerrymandering that allow Republicans to have any success nationally. Even with significant suppression of traditionally Democratic voters there is little hope of Republicans winning the popular vote any time soon.


Regardless, my point is that Republicans have sopped adopted a strategy of creating a system where they can dictate to their core voters what policies they are supposed to support or oppose. in this system it doesn't really matter if a policy is socialist, nor does socialist really need to mean anything at all. It's just a way of telling their base what polices they need to support and what they need to oppose in order to be "a real Republican". The goal is to keep voters who will do as they are told inside a partisan bubble, keep themselves distinct from Democratic policy to keep that bubble from fragmenting and to do as mush as possible to keep anyone else from voting.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Again wrong. The political right had moved to such extremes that to them, views that would have firmly right of center in the 1990's are now being called "socialist" in right wing political dogma. In the US, economic polices that were "core conservative values" 25 years ago have been completely abandoned by Republicans and now form the core of mainstream Democratic economic policy.

This is an interesting view. It looks to me that Conservatives are in the exact same place as they were during the Reagan/Bush era. Yet beginning with Clinton, the shift to Socialism started to appear in the NAFTA negotiations with the redistribution of wealth from the US to everywhere else in the World. So in other words, exactly the opposite is true of your stated opinion above.

The right wing talking heads now call these things "socialist" in order to keep their power base from fragmenting so they can hold onto power even though they have no realistic policy ideas of their own. Since they have no actual policies to pursue holding onto power for powers sake is all most of the old guard are doing. The scary thing is that the younger idealist are actually willing to try some of the bats*** crazy ideas that is all Republicans have left after 40 years of moving farther and farther right to maintain a differentiation between themselves and Democrats.

As the Left policies on trade were/are Socialist so should they be labelled. When you start redistributing American jobs and wealth worldwide, that's socialism right out of the book, there can be no doubt.
Again, Republicans have not moved, they're still in the same place as they were 40 years ago. I'll list a few so there is no misunderstanding:
1.Reagan/Bush Republicans wanted a strong economy with fair trade practices to allow American business and workers to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the World.
2.Lower taxes to reduce the shoulder weight carried by lower income individuals and to help increase/build business thereby promoting job growth and income. Increased jobs/income of the masses ensures increased tax revenue for the Government. Everyone wins.
3.Republicans wanted protection of the 2nd Amendment.
4.Immigration policies that actually give immigrants a path to citizenship the correct legal way. Reagan actually pardoned illegal Immigrants and gave them a path to citizenship. Which was also a path to becoming new tax payers of course.

Just to name a few. So all in all a quick compare/contrast of Republicans vs Democrats has the movement on the political Left/Right spectrum credited to Democrats moving further Left and exactly the opposite of your claim. Republicans are rooted to the same place they were 40 years ago.

This is why economists who have used to support Republicans now vote Democrat by a wide margin. In practical terms many policy ideas promoted by more intellectual Republicans are often indistinguishable from AnCaps.

This is an interesting claim. Is this claim based on certain leaning media sources or is there a real study somewhere? Linky...

With the rise of Trump, this is somehow glued together with populist Republicans that support something resembling the Fascist countries in WW2. This includes both economic isolationism that restricts imports under the guise of "self sufficiency" while exports are encouraged as a means of projecting power. Privately owned business is encouraged but only those that are willing to support right wing leaders in their political goals are supported by government while those who refuse such support are undermined at every turn.

This is yet another talking point straight out of the Left's playbook. Call Republicans Nazis and compare their ideas to WW II Germany. Yet in reality, taking pride in one's own Country is not something to be shunned. It's not a sin nor is it evil to wish to see one's own Country flourish. Comparing patriotic pride of one's own Country to Nazi Germany or Hitler is the silliest political rhetoric the Left could come up with.

In reality the Left is much closer to Nazi Germany than the right. The main difference being that Hitler wanted to combine Fascism and Socialism into a new form of Government. The Left is almost halfway there already. And speaking of Hitler, ask yourself when is the last time the Democrat party did something productive for Israel? Has any Democrat President ever snubbed Israel's leaders by not meeting with them? Or interfered in Israel's elections by supporting opposing candidates? Supported multiple states? Hmmm. Very telling.

This is a toxic mix that history tells us can only lead to explosion or implosion, but everything else is deemed "socialism" by the talking heads in order to keep the rank and file in line.

Point of clarification: Redistributing jobs and wealth from the US to elsewhere is Socialism. It's one of the main problems with Socialism vs Capitalism. If your wealth is to be redistributed, what is the motivation for working harder than the other guy? Creating something new? Why work at all? As soon as those currently embracing a move to Socialism finally understand that all the free stuff isn't actually free, that it's paid for in other ways, I think the romance with Socialism will end.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

.... the shift to Socialism started to appear in the NAFTA negotiations with the redistribution of wealth from the US to everywhere else in the World. So in other words, exactly the opposite is true of your stated opinion above. ... When you start redistributing American jobs and wealth worldwide, that's socialism right out of the book, there can be no doubt.

Forget political theory, as you clearly don't know anything about it. However, to make things easy for you, identify the decision makers involved in shifting industry to other locations. It would be helpful to your edification if you considered first the shift of manufacturing jobs from the unionized industrial North to the South, notably in the auto industry, but including such things as standard military pork projects. (Huntsville, AL comes laughingly to mind, a vast federal welfare and jobs project for the cluelessly unschooled, which also affords high school dropouts bragging rights, as if they had accomplished something.) This effort preceeded and paved the way for the mass shift overseas. No unions left to complain and strike. Neat!

What you will find, should you actually do your homework, are political arguments from the GOP against unions, an age-old practice in the US from the times of mining towns and violent union busting. These arguments have come from the Republican Party since the time of Nixon. You will also find myriad executive policy decisions to move production offshore in boardrooms across the US, Apple being the poster boy.

And what is the effect of this transfer? The loss of the middle class, the rise of the disgruntled White man with little education, suddenly bereft of a huge source of easy pickings that heretofore conferred bragging rights as a breadwinner. Let's face it, union jobs in the auto industry were, and remain, one of the very few sources of high income for those who are otherwise unskilled, but trainable. And who do these men blame, as do you? Well, I think we can see the nice complete package here: break unions, break the Democratic Party, break high salaries, break political discourse, and so drive a decades-long effort to lower taxes on the rich with the willing, cheering help of the people you just fleeced.

Brilliant, effective, and in your case, a total, sweeping success. Pretty darn easy when you can openly, laughingly pull the wool down over eyes that, in the best of cases, rarely open anyway. Facts are there, trail of breadcrumbs intact, only a question of proper intellectual due diligence, that age-old bugaboo for White boys in America.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Forget political theory, as you clearly don't know anything about it. However, to make things easy for you, identify the decision makers involved in shifting industry to other locations. It would be helpful to your edification if you considered first the shift of manufacturing jobs from the unionized industrial North to the South, notably in the auto industry, but including such things as standard military pork projects. (Huntsville, AL comes laughingly to mind, a vast federal welfare and jobs project for the cluelessly unschooled, which also affords high school dropouts bragging rights, as if they had accomplished something.) This effort preceeded and paved the way for the mass shift overseas. No unions left to complain and strike. Neat!

What you will find, should you actually do your homework, are political arguments from the GOP against unions, an age-old practice in the US from the times of mining towns and violent union busting. These arguments have come from the Republican Party since the time of Nixon. You will also find myriad executive policy decisions to move production offshore in boardrooms across the US, Apple being the poster boy.

And what is the effect of this transfer? The loss of the middle class, the rise of the disgruntled White man with little education, suddenly bereft of a huge source of easy pickings that heretofore conferred bragging rights as a breadwinner. Let's face it, union jobs in the auto industry were, and remain, one of the very few sources of high income for those who are otherwise unskilled, but trainable. And who do these men blame, as do you? Well, I think we can see the nice complete package here: break unions, break the Democratic Party, break high salaries, break political discourse, and so drive a decades-long effort to lower taxes on the rich with the willing, cheering help of the people you just fleeced.

Brilliant, effective, and in your case, a total, sweeping success. Pretty darn easy when you can openly, laughingly pull the wool down over eyes that, in the best of cases, rarely open anyway. Facts are there, trail of breadcrumbs intact, only a question of proper intellectual due diligence, that age-old bugaboo for White boys in America.

First of all, condescension is the first sign one is losing an argument. It rarely adds anything to the discussion rather than fallacy.

Second, you do understand that NAFTA was negotiated and signed by Bill Clinton who is in no way a Republican? This was a purely Socialist policy that removed tariffs from products competing against American jobs and paved the way for relocation to overseas operations for big business. One can't really blame them. I mean if you can make your product at less than half the cost outside the US and then ship it back into the US market without penalty and sell it at full price, why not?

This policy had nothing to do with North or South or education for that matter. It had mostly to do with the Midwest and production factories of the Rust Belt. Blue collar workers, Union members, the college educated as well as the high school graduate, all lost their jobs equally when companies were enticed by Socialist policies that rewarded them to relocate.

It's actually quite refreshing that you'd attempt to throw in a bit of Racism in the mix. That's the usual go to when Socialist Democrats feel threatened by someone questioning policy. As a refreshing reminder I would remind that it didn't really matter what color of skin someone was draped in, everyone lost their jobs equally under NAFTA.

I realize there are still many Obamites out there that truly believe the best is behind us, but that's only true if we move closer to Socialism. Given fair trade practices Capitalism will trump Socialism every time.

 

[RolandRat]

Second, you do understand that NAFTA was negotiated and signed by Bill Clinton who is in no way a Republican? T

According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

"The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U.S. president Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his 1980 presidential campaign. After the signing of the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the administrations of U.S. president George H. W. Bush, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney agreed to negotiate what became NAFTA. Each submitted the agreement for ratification in their respective capitals in December 1992, but NAFTA faced significant opposition in both the United States and Canada. All three countries ratified NAFTA in 1993 after the addition of two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC)."

"Chrétien subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with Bush, who had subverted the LAC[18] advisory process[19] and worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton.[20]"

Seems the process began and nearly completed under Republican Presidents.

 

[lomiller]

According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

"The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U.S. president Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his 1980 presidential campaign. After the signing of the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the administrations of U.S. president George H. W. Bush, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney agreed to negotiate what became NAFTA. Each submitted the agreement for ratification in their respective capitals in December 1992, but NAFTA faced significant opposition in both the United States and Canada. All three countries ratified NAFTA in 1993 after the addition of two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC)."

"Chrétien subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with Bush, who had subverted the LAC[18] advisory process[19] and worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton.[20]"

Seems the process began and nearly completed under Republican Presidents.

Protectionism has historically been something Democrats supported while Republicans supported free trade and removing protectionist barriers to international trade. Clinton's support of free trade marked a major and lasting move to the right for the Democratic Party. Protectionism does start to rear it's head in right wing politics once you get really far to the right. Eg fascist countries in WWII were both protectionist and isolationist much like Trump Republicans.


His presidency also marked a significant move to the right on regulation for the Democrats. In response Republicans moved even further to the right on de-regulation. As a result regulatory regimes Republicans supported in the 80's and early 90's are in fact very similar to what Democrats have supported since the mid 90's.

Todays Republicans in contrast don't even have a level of regulation they deem appropriate. When questioned on how much regulation is required the only answer they are capable of is "less". In practice, this is no different than the answer an AnCap would give, which is "none".

Taxation follows a similar pattern. Republicans in the 80's and 90's wanted lower taxes, but Regan actually raised taxes nearly 2 dozen times even though he was openly running deficits as a political strategy. Bush I famously raised taxes when it became obvious that it was required to support the sending he wanted. He could have traded reduced spending on the military for reduced spending on Democratic priorities, but both sides ultimately agreed that raising taxes was a better way to balance the budget. This agreement, along with Clinton's stewardship of it resulted in a balanced budget by the late 90's.

Just as with regulation, though, ask a Republican how high taxes should be and the only answer they can give is "lower" they have no notion of how low so they are effectively indistinguishable from the AnCap position of "no taxation"

Another example is cap-and-trade. Cap-and-trade was originally the proposal of Republicans and Conservatives in other countries for dealing with CFC emissions. The scheme has since been adopted by many Democrats as a way to deal with CO2 emissions and it yet another thing Republicans now call "Socialist".

Likewise the "socialist" Obamacare is lifted directly from right wing counter proposals to the Clinton public health care plan proposed in the 1990's. The plan that was mainstream conservative 25 years ago is now far to the left of anything Republicans would support, hence them now calling it "socialist"

 

[Darat]

First of all, condescension is the first sign one is losing an argument.

…snip…

Is it? I’ve never heard that claimed before and can’t recall that in any of the many books and articles (about arguing and discussing) I’ve read over the decades. Can you provide a source?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Is it? I’ve never heard that claimed before and can’t recall that in any of the many books and articles (about arguing and discussing) I’ve read over the decades. Can you provide a source?

Certainly. It's a prime example of "Courtier's reply"

Quick ref from Wiki:

A criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.


Anytime someone begins with a response mired in fallacy, it's a sure sign they've already lost the argument.

 

[psionl0]

Is it? I’ve never heard that claimed before and can’t recall that in any of the many books and articles (about arguing and discussing) I’ve read over the decades. Can you provide a source?

Robert H Thouless referred to something similar in his book "Straight and Crooked Thinking". He called it the "affectation of ignorance". Essentially it was saying "I don't understand you so you must be talking nonsense".

 

[RolandRat]

Robert H Thouless referred to something similar in his book "Straight and Crooked Thinking". He called it the "affectation of ignorance". Essentially it was saying "I don't understand you so you must be talking nonsense".

What if the person is actually talking nonsense? Surely every argument doesn't deserve the same weight given to it.

 

[Darat]

Certainly. It's a prime example of "Courtier's reply"

Quick ref from Wiki:

A criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.


Anytime someone begins with a response mired in fallacy, it's a sure sign they've already lost the argument.

You said “ First of all, condescension is the first sign one is losing an argument.” not “mired in fallacy” (whatever you mean by that).

Your claim is still unsupported.

 

[Darat]

Robert H Thouless referred to something similar in his book "Straight and Crooked Thinking". He called it the "affectation of ignorance". Essentially it was saying "I don't understand you so you must be talking nonsense".

That is not addressing the claim made “ First of all, condescension is the first sign one is losing an argument.”

 

[Roboramma]

You said “ First of all, condescension is the first sign one is losing an argument.” not “mired in fallacy” (whatever you mean by that).

Your claim is still unsupported.

If, by condescension, he was referring to:

"A criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter."

Then it seems like his claim is supported.

 

[Roboramma]

What if the person is actually talking nonsense? Surely every argument doesn't deserve the same weight given to it.

If someone is talking nonsense, then that's the issue, and should itself be easily addressed, not some other thing that you think may be correlated with people who talk nonsense.

 

[Darat]

If, by condescension, he was referring to:

"A criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter."

Then it seems like his claim is supported.

I would have thought the dictionary definition was more appropriate i.e. “an attitude of patronizing superiority; disdain.” It is entirely possible to agree with someone in a condescending manner. It is not an argument in itself so I still see no evidence for the claim i.e. “ condescension is the first sign one is losing an argument.”

But it’s only a mildly interesting point so I’m happy to leave it there.

 

[Minoosh]

Certainly. It's a prime example of "Courtier's reply"

Quick ref from Wiki:

A criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.


Anytime someone begins with a response mired in fallacy, it's a sure sign they've already lost the argument.

But your claim was, "When you start redistributing American jobs and wealth worldwide, that's socialism right out of the book, there can be no doubt."

What book defines "socialism" this way? What you are talking about IMO is trade. There can be favorable and unfavorable trade conditions, but that doesn't make it socialism - unless socialism just means any system you don't like.

 

[Minoosh]

If, by condescension, he was referring to:

"A criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter."

Then it seems like his claim is supported.

I agree - as far as I can tell ChrisBFRPKY is making up his own definition of socialism and applying it to a completely different situation, which (unless I am wrong, always possible) indicates he is not well-qualified to define the word. I don't know if this is due to insufficient knowledge, but it's definitely a possibility. Condescension under those circumstances may not be the most helpful response possible, but I don't agree that it's a fallacy.

If Chris can cite scholarly definitions of socialism "right out of the book" that agree with his personal interpretation, it might improve my opinion of his qualifications, but as it stands I'd say condescension is justifiable - and tempting - but not terribly persuasive.

 

[RolandRat]

If someone is talking nonsense, then that's the issue, and should itself be easily addressed, not some other thing that you think may be correlated with people who talk nonsense.

I don't think this is something separate from the core argument. That being condescending means the argument is lost.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You said “ First of all, condescension is the first sign one is losing an argument.” not “mired in fallacy” (whatever you mean by that).

Your claim is still unsupported.

I really don't get where you're trying to go with this. As applied to his response my statement stands. Now if you wish to take my statement away from his response, and apply it to an overall general claim that's a different meaning than I had used it. That would be something akin to moving the goalpost.

Bottom line, you asked for a citation, I delivered, based on the member's fallacy laden post to which I had responded.