Archive for the 'socialism' Category

Socialism, and other isms, and of course, some abandoned houses

07190901_03.jpg

As a continuation of my previous post about some ideologies that seem to be misunderstood by so many, I am writing about several different ‘isms’ that seem to be used frequently in discussions and arugments. I am not an expert in any kind of “ism”. I am simply interested in social, economic, and political theory and ideologies.

After writing this I came across an article in the Atlantic Monthly. It’s interesting, in that I see the type of agenda (both liberal and conservative) the article discusses far too often much of our media. I’m not in this to win. I don’t want to destroy anyone. I just want to encourage rational thought provoking discussion. It also made me think about what I’ve written in the past. Has it contributed to anger and hate, or has it contributed to a more admirable goal? Hopefully I can achieve the latter more often in the future.

Socialism

From Merriam-Webster’s dictionary:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Just putting the definition out there. You can make your own decision as to whether or not Obama is a socialist or not.

Fascism

From Merriam-Webster’s dictionary:

1 : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Recently Barack Obama has been accused of being a Fascist, which is of course silly. From Wikipedia, we can see that Fascists believe, among other things, that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak, and Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept. Fascists also believe in quashing all dissent and criticism of both the government, and the Fascist movement itself.

Fascists often believe in imperialismSingle-party states, Social Darwinsim, indoctrination, eugenics, and corporatism. For the most part these are not liberal ideals, and in fact, Fascism is close to the direct opposite of liberalism. It is pretty much anti-liberalism.

So to explain this in simple terms, was Obama a Fascist, the protesters at the recent town hall meetings would have been jailed or executed. Furthermore, Barack Obama is no more a dictatorial leader than George W. Bush was. Insisting on your way, if you’ve got the votes, and alliance to do so is not dictatorship. George W. Bush called it “Political Capital.” It’s not bipartisan, but it’s also not autocratic or dictatorial.

Nazism

From Merriam-Webster’s dictionary:

: the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer.

Considering the following from the Nazism Wikipedia entry, “Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism,” and that fascism is the antithesis of liberalism, it would be difficult to truly believe Barack Obama could be compared to Hitler, as has been done recently.

Liberalism

From Merria-Webster’s dictionary:

1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 : a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class) d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

Liberalism has got to be one of the big surprises for many. I would think approximately half of the politically active in this country would hate to be called “liberal,” when in fact the U.S. was founded as, and still is, a liberal nation. The Declaration of Independence states: “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Furthermore, the free market, so beloved by conservatives, is a liberal ideal. Of course there are different varieties of liberalism, but with a few exceptions, that is what we really have in this country. I think it’s possible to see policies in both parties that arguably violate the ideals of above quote. Furthermore, most of the political fighting currently going on is about different varieties of liberalism.

Capitalism

From Merriam-Webster’s dictionary:

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

There are many different forms of capitalism. One of the debates on capitalism of late is whether or not Keynesian economic theory should be used at this time, or whether or not we should continue to put our faith in the Chicago School of thought, based on neoclassical economics, which many blame for the current economic mess. One of the big flaws in neoclassical thought is the belief that people make rational decisions resulting in rational markets, and pricing. The obvious lack of rationality leads many to behavioral economics, which studies emotional factors involved in decision making.

Free Market

Once again, from Merriam-Webster’s dictionary:

: an economic market operating by free competition

This is such a simple definition, and something that we have probably never truly had in this country, contrary to many who argue that we are only currently straying from it. I would argue that we’ve had a mixed economy pretty much since the country’s inception. Although, corporations often claim they like competition, they usually don’t. Hence they often lobby our politicians for protectionist legislation (tariffs on light trucks and SUVs, and more recently, tires), restrictions on ownership (such as radio and television frequencies), and other such government interventions to give a competitive advantage to specific industries or companies.

A lesson in free speech, blah, blah, something, something, and some photos of Detroit

07160903_15.jpg

After a week of listening to crazy political, economic, and social theories, beliefs, and comments, I felt the need to vent. Unfortunately I wrote way too much, so I’ll only post a little bit at a time. I hope not to come off as preaching from a soap box, but rather presenting information that seems to be too often misunderstood.

Having a discussion about politics is similar to a discussion about religion. It takes the right combination of individuals to have a civil discussion (as evidenced by our recent national political screaming matches…err, I mean discussions). Unfortunately, bringing reason and facts to a political discussion is about as welcome and useful as it is in most religious ones. That is to say, facts and reasoned arguments are not very welcome at all. It’s too bad, as a debate of political, economic, and social theory is a good thing. Yet it seems to be almost impossible to have. If you are going to disagree, at least get your facts and statistics straight. As Mark Twain said, “Facts, or what a man believes to be facts, are always delightful - Get your facts first, and then you can distort ‘em as much as you please.” That way if you want to make stuff up, at least you’ll be less likely to come off as part of the lunatic fringe.

The first topic in which it was obvious many of the participants of the “discussions” didn’t have much of an understanding is:

Free speech, and the protection of it under the First Amendment of the Constitution

From the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Note, you do not have a protection from corporations, private businesses, or individuals. Therefore if someone in the press criticizes what you have said, or suggests you shouldn’t have said it, your right to free speech has not been violated. If an online forum deletes your idiotic (or thoughtful) comment, your right to free speech has not been violated. If someone tells you to “shut up,” your right to free speech has not been violated. Furthermore, there is a whole host of instances in which, the amendment has been interpreted to allow for the restriction of the individuals right to free speech by the federal government (judicial activism has a long history, knows no political boundaries). Of course this is a very limited presentation on your first amendment protections. It is only meant to explain your right, or lack thereof, as it pertains to the, apparently, very common misconception that you are granted the right to free speech in every domain.

09150401_17.jpg

And here’s the blah, blah, something, something part:

There’s been a claim that the the federal government can’t do anything right (no pun intended). That they’ll obviously bungle anything they do, other than, depending on your point of view, highways, defense, social security, sewers, water, and electricity. In direct opposition of the first statement is a second one. The second statement often used in conjunction with the first says, that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in health care because they’ll drive the private businesses out of business due to a lower operating cost. Well, which is it? It can’t be both. Is the government more efficient…or less?

Don Tapscott provides a good argument in favor of my long held desire to clean house at the Big Three, in a “Crisis of leadership.”

At least we’re not Texas. Does anyone other than a Texan like Texas?

This poor woman decides to leave Detroit after 60 years, and get berated by idiots in the comments. What the hell? Can’t people can’t just say, “good luck.” Or how about, don’t say anything? Really, we’d all appreciate it.

Mind control, welcome to Detroit…sorry we stole your stuff, and other stuff

07200902_06.jpg

More irrational fears appear to be circulating in the metro Detroit area. Apparently, according to the comments, Barack Obama has mastered the (non-existent) ability of mind control. And over the airwaves nonetheless! Supposedly the President will attempt to “indoctrinate” school children while “pretending” to extoll the virtues of hard work, studying, and staying in school. How could he? Everyone knows it’s best for our future if school children skip school, don’t do their homework, and eventually drop out. After all this whole education thing is a liberal conspiracy. In metro Detroit’s defense, apparently the same irrational fear has found it’s way around much of the country. I wonder what he’ll do with his army of school aged, socialist, zombies?

Detroit welcomes all artists and other creative types, though we’re sorry all of your expensive equipment was stolen within hours of your arrival… The truth is though, there is something very engaging about Detroit. I suppose it’s like watching a building demolished by explosives. Maybe you’re sad to see it go, but damn it’s cool to watch. And, perhaps with a lot of hard work, by the few types of individuals willing to live there (artists, immigrants…), something better came replace what once was.

From Metropolis:

“The fact is that there is something about Detroit, something compelling and frightening that draws you there to consider the landscape. On some level you understand that we did this. All of us. Detroit represents the hubris of American industry, an industry once innovative and now atrophied, an industry that created the car-centric culture that is choking not just Detroit but cities everywhere (no Cash for Clunkers for our dying buildings). It is the fall of Rome right before our eyes, an apocalypse of our own making. It is the death of the American city as we know it and we are all at a loss of where to go next.”

Here are the kinds of people Detroit needs to attract. Entrepreneurial, risk takers…the very people that start businesses, and come up with solutions to problems are the people that can help save metro Detroit. The problem, of course is how to attract them. Don’t let them visit cities like Portland, or Denver, before they commit to Detroit, that’s for sure. The friendly, creative communities, the bike lanes, parks, recreational opportunities, restaurants, coffee shops, safe urban living, and clean, affordable mass transit, available in those cities, will make it a no brainer for them.

And, damn it Michigan! When will you pass a smoking ban? 80% of the population does not smoke. Michigan is one of only 13 states with no ban whatsoever. Like with everything else you refuse to do Michigan, you are falling behind the rest of the country. Please, try not to become the Appalachia of the north.