🇪🇺 Discussion: The European Union

[hippie_hunter]

Blaming the Greek crisis on bloated entitlements is no different from conservatives blaming Wall Street's meltdown in 2008 on lazy minority homeowners; it's a scapegoat to distract from the real problem. The reason Greek debt got so huge in the first place is because the wealthy weren't paying their taxes, and because the government wasted public funds on prestige projects like the Olympics.

You might find the following article helpful:

The myth of the "lazy Greek workers"

And yes, it's a crisis of capitalism because without the boom-and-bust cycle, without the wealthiest class in Greece deciding that country's policies, and without the rule of an unelected group of international financiers over every country's monetary policy, we wouldn't be talking about a Greek crisis right now. If Cuba was having economic problems, I'm sure you'd be quick to blame "communism" for those problems. Why so uncomfortable when the shoe's on the other foot?

Greece, Italy and Spain only have no choice than to enact austerity because there's currently a global economic crisis that was the result of the capitalist system's natural propensity to crisis. Not even conservative defenders of the free market will deny that capitalism experiences periodic boom and bust cycles; this is obvious to everyone.

But even working within the logic of capitalism, which says that somebody has to pay for the crisis, why are you so quick to agree with the ruling class's position - that we need to cut "entitlements", i.e. we need to go after the social programs that poor and working class people rely on? Why not tax the rich instead? Why do you buy so easily into the argument that we need to go after the poorest, weakest, most defenceless members of society to pay off that debt rather than the rich and powerful, whose policies got us into this mess in the first place?

Except I'm not blaming lazy Greek workers. It's obvious that they're being screwed over by their government which lied about their numbers. And yes, most of Europe's entitlement system is overly bloated. The Western system needs to reform their entitlement programs to deal with rising costs while keeping them effective for the 21st Century.

Also, the rich are getting their taxes raised in Europe. You see, austerity is more than just budget cuts. Austerity also raises taxes. Italy's budget for example increases taxes on property, luxury items such as yachts, cracking down on tax evaders (people who do this are typically wealthy), etc. Greece also increased taxes on the wealthy. You see, due to the bad policies of their governments, everyone will be affected, from the poor having their entitlements cut (Italy's Welfare Minister was in tears while announcing it) to the rich having to pay more in taxes.

And the current Euro crisis, much of it has to do with the simple fact that the Greek government LIED. They flat out lied to the international community so that they could join the Euro when they should have not been allowed to. The problem isn't with the concept of capitalism like you think. The problem is that these governments have been lying about the state of their finances and politicians that are afraid of entitlement reform.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Except I'm not blaming lazy Greek workers. It's obvious that they're being screwed over by their government which lied about their numbers. And yes, most of Europe's entitlement system is overly bloated. The Western system needs to reform their entitlement programs to deal with rising costs while keeping them effective for the 21st Century.

"Keep them effective for the 21st Century". What does that actually mean? Apparently, it means cutting them to the bone. Come on, you're letting politicians' Orwellian excuses for the cuts cloud your judgment here. I think a better way to keep those programs "effective" would be NOT CUTTING THEM.

Also, the rich are getting their taxes raised in Europe. You see, austerity is more than just budget cuts. Austerity also raises taxes. Italy's budget for example increases taxes on property, luxury items such as yachts, cracking down on tax evaders (people who do this are typically wealthy), etc. Greece also increased taxes on the wealthy. You see, due to the bad policies of their governments, everyone will be affected, from the poor having their entitlements cut (Italy's Welfare Minister was in tears while announcing it) to the rich having to pay more in taxes.

These are largely for appearances' sake - like in the U.S. when Obama promises to tie some corporate loophole for private jets at the same time he's cutting home heating subsidies for the poor - and then makes the melodramatic announcement that everyone is making sacrifices. If taxes for the wealthy have gone up in Greece, that's largely because Greece is not in control of its own destiny anymore, but rather a handful of unelected IMF bureaucrats are.

But it's obvious, contrary to your statements, that not everyone is suffering equally here. Corporate profits (and executive bonuses) in the U.S. and Canada are stronger than ever while working people suffer unemployment or declining wages and benefits. Why do they need to cut much-need social services at all when the people at the top have so much money that they're not doing anything with? This is the real question.

And the current Euro crisis, much of it has to do with the simple fact that the Greek government LIED. They flat out lied to the international community so that they could join the Euro when they should have not been allowed to. The problem isn't with the concept of capitalism like you think. The problem is that these governments have been lying about the state of their finances and politicians that are afraid of entitlement reform.

Again, why do we need entitlement "reform" (meaning cuts) in the first place? Why is it a bad thing for people to have decent wages and good pensions that they've earned? If the system is incapable of providing these things, then it's the system we should toss out, not poor and working people.

FYI, if Greece weren't going through this specific crisis right now, some other country would. Capitalism breaks first at its weakest link. If not Greece, we'd be having this conversation about some other country and it would be the same scenario. That should tell you there's a problem with the system itself. There's no way you can eliminate boom and bust cycles in a capitalist economy, and the effects of this are magnified by globalization (an inevitable process given capitalism's insatiable thirst for new markets) so that people suffer all over the world. Enough already.

The fact is that the Titans of Capital have no solution to this crisis. Nobody does, if they choose to work within the confines of capitalism. Do you? No solution is possible under capitalism except for austerity and cuts, and the widespread human misery that will cause, in my mind, makes it no solution at all.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Actually, if Greece weren't a part of the Euro, we probably wouldn't be having this issue. When there are countries that have their own currency like Argentina and Iceland, they're able to enact their own policies to get out of bankruptcy. Greece on the other hand, couldn't do anything to fix their problems the way other bankrupt nations did. The austerity cuts are not excuses. The fact is that they have no choice. Also, the party that got the Greeks into this mess......were the Socialists.

As for reform, I don't mean gutting those programs. There will never be enough political will to do such a thing. However, there needs to be reform to allow those programs to remain effective (as in still serve their purpose) and yet not sink their nations down with their costs (the high costs of entitlements is what is dragging down the fiscal state of the United States and Europe).

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Actually, if Greece weren't a part of the Euro, we probably wouldn't be having this issue. When there are countries that have their own currency like Argentina and Iceland, they're able to enact their own policies to get out of bankruptcy. Greece on the other hand, couldn't do anything to fix their problems the way other bankrupt nations did.

Good point. The reason France and Germany care so much about Greece is because French and German banks made big loans to the country and they need Greece to pay off its debt more than anyone.

Still, in the end the issue of a country having its own currency is incidental to the general crises of capitalism. The global economy today, like it was in the 1930s, is so integrated that a financial crisis in the U.S. or Europe immediately spreads to the rest of the world. And periodic crises are an inescapable part of the capitalist system. No one denies this.

The trigger for the crisis, whether in 1929 or 2008, is usually expressed by some event in the stock market, but the deeper cause is overproduction. Sooner or later, the boom slows down, the market is saturated, and companies are producing more products than they have consumers for, so they start cutting back investment, and this is when savvy stock brokers see the writing on the wall.

So regardless of individual government policy, a global economic crisis was inevitable sooner or later and that's when people start to get more protective of their money. European banks that were happy to loan to Greece during the "irrational exuberance" of boom times suddenly want their money back and Greece finds it doesn't have that money. But most advanced capitalist countries are hugely in debt. This is precisely how the postwar economic boom was artificially extended over the last 30 years - through credit. But this just meant that when the crash finally came it would be even worse.

Greece is facing huge debt problems, but so are France, Britain, Italy, Spain, the U.S., Canada, and so on. That's why bankers and politicians are so worried that the Greek contagion will spread. But no matter how many bailouts Europe cobbles together, it's not a question of if Greece will default, but when. We're in for hard economic times ahead no matter which way you cut it.

The austerity cuts are not excuses. The fact is that they have no choice.

Correction: they have no choice if they work within the confines and logic of capitalism.

Also, the party that got the Greeks into this mess......were the Socialists.

What about New Democracy? PASOK and ND ruled the country alternately for the last 30 years. Anyway, just because PASOK call themselves "socialists" means nothing. The Chinese Communist Party call themselves communists, but there's nothing socialist about their strain of nationalist, authoritarian capitalism. Then there are the European "socialist" parties, which are really social democratic, like PASOK or the Socialist Party of France.

These parties are not Marxist revolutionary parties. They work within the confines of capitalism and believe it can be reformed. The problem is that if you buy into capitalism, you have to play by its rules, and in times of crisis when reforms become impossible, even a "Socialist" government will find itself able to offer nothing but counter-reforms and cuts. This is precisely what happened in Greece under George Papandreou, but it would have happened anywhere else a non-revolutionary government came to power.

The real role of "socialist" or social democratic governments in these times (much like the Democrats in the U.S.) is to ram through unpopular austerity policies while disarming the left politically.

As for reform, I don't mean gutting those programs. There will never be enough political will to do such a thing.

There is more than enough political will among the ruling elite, but they are to a certain degree afraid of the consequences - the popular anger that will erupt if beloved programs are cut. That's why you have things like the undemocratic "super-committee" in the States, which allows major cuts to Social Security and Medicare to be made while sitting politicians hide and cower behind the unelected deficit committee.

However, there needs to be reform to allow those programs to remain effective (as in still serve their purpose) and yet not sink their nations down with their costs (the high costs of entitlements is what is dragging down the fiscal state of the United States and Europe)

So you want the programs to remain effective while not sinking down nations with their costs? Ignoring all the public funds that are thrown down the toilet on things like corporate tax cuts and military spending, there's only one way way to do that in the current political environment: cut them. So whether you realize it or not, by reform you DO mean "gutting the programs". At any rate, this is all that's on offer.

But it sure as hell isn't the high cost of entitlements that's dragging down the fiscal state of the U.S. and Europe. In both countries you've had corporate tax rates and taxes on the wealthy being cut over and over in the last few decades. Someone had to make up that revenue, and that's why the working class has been squeezed more and more as we see a gradual transfer of wealth upwards.

And with the States, you're missing the elephant in the room: the "defense" (imperial) budget. It costs a lot to have a larger military than the rest of the world combined, to have hundreds of military bases all over the globe, to be waging six wars overseas, and to intervene in any country at any time. The Pentagon is notorious for overinflated weapons costs and bureaucratic waste, but right now they're cutting programs Americans actually depend on to keep paying for weapons to blow up people on the other side of the world.

You can't begin to have a serious conversation about tackling the debt crisis in the United States without drastically cutting the military budget. But that is off the table in the current, highly corrupt system.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Still, in the end the issue of a country having its own currency is incidental to the general crises of capitalism. The global economy today, like it was in the 1930s, is so integrated that a financial crisis in the U.S. or Europe immediately spreads to the rest of the world. And periodic crises are an inescapable part of the capitalist system. No one denies this.

The trigger for the crisis, whether in 1929 or 2008, is usually expressed by some event in the stock market, but the deeper cause is overproduction. Sooner or later, the boom slows down, the market is saturated, and companies are producing more products than they have consumers for, so they start cutting back investment, and this is when savvy stock brokers see the writing on the wall.

The 2008 crisis had nothing to do with the stock market. It all had to due with the banks taking on far too much debt due to government policies letting them get too big and promoting policies that people should own houses that they can't afford.

So regardless of individual government policy, a global economic crisis was inevitable sooner or later and that's when people start to get more protective of their money. European banks that were happy to loan to Greece during the "irrational exuberance" of boom times suddenly want their money back and Greece finds it doesn't have that money. But most advanced capitalist countries are hugely in debt. This is precisely how the postwar economic boom was artificially extended over the last 30 years - through credit. But this just meant that when the crash finally came it would be even worse.

But those are due to bad government policies, not the ideals of capitalism.

Correction: they have no choice if they work within the confines and logic of capitalism.

Sorry, but that's the system that we live in and it's not going to change. Communism died in 1991 and it's not coming back.

The real role of "socialist" or social democratic governments in these times (much like the Democrats in the U.S.) is to ram through unpopular austerity policies while disarming the left politically.

I don't think so.

There is more than enough political will among the ruling elite, but they are to a certain degree afraid of the consequences - the popular anger that will erupt if beloved programs are cut. That's why you have things like the undemocratic "super-committee" in the States, which allows major cuts to Social Security and Medicare to be made while sitting politicians hide and cower behind the unelected deficit committee.

1. There isn't will among the ruling elite because they fear that if they cut such programs they'll be voted out.

2. The super-committee in Congress was not allowed to touch Social Security and Medicare. Nancy Pelosi stuffed it with members like Jim Clyburn to ensure that it wouldn't be touched. Barack Obama pretty much demanded that they would not touch the entitlement programs.

But it sure as hell isn't the high cost of entitlements that's dragging down the fiscal state of the U.S. and Europe.

Yes it is. The problem with our entitlement programs is that they were developed decades ago and do not take into account of today's world with the population aging at a much faster rate, increases in health problems such as obesity, living much longer, etc.

And with the States, you're missing the elephant in the room: the "defense" (imperial) budget. It costs a lot to have a larger military than the rest of the world combined, to have hundreds of military bases all over the globe, to be waging six wars overseas, and to intervene in any country at any time. The Pentagon is notorious for overinflated weapons costs and bureaucratic waste, but right now they're cutting programs Americans actually depend on to keep paying for weapons to blow up people on the other side of the world.

We can certainly agree with that

You can't begin to have a serious conversation about tackling the debt crisis in the United States without drastically cutting the military budget. But that is off the table in the current, highly corrupt system.

The military budget needs to be cut, much like our entitlement budget, the military budget of the United States is overly bloated, filled with waste, inefficient, and far too big. There really is no reason for the defense budget to be as large as it is.

 

[The Overlord]

"Keep them effective for the 21st Century". What does that actually mean? Apparently, it means cutting them to the bone. Come on, you're letting politicians' Orwellian excuses for the cuts cloud your judgment here. I think a better way to keep those programs "effective" would be NOT CUTTING THEM.



These are largely for appearances' sake - like in the U.S. when Obama promises to tie some corporate loophole for private jets at the same time he's cutting home heating subsidies for the poor - and then makes the melodramatic announcement that everyone is making sacrifices. If taxes for the wealthy have gone up in Greece, that's largely because Greece is not in control of its own destiny anymore, but rather a handful of unelected IMF bureaucrats are.

But it's obvious, contrary to your statements, that not everyone is suffering equally here. Corporate profits (and executive bonuses) in the U.S. and Canada are stronger than ever while working people suffer unemployment or declining wages and benefits. Why do they need to cut much-need social services at all when the people at the top have so much money that they're not doing anything with? This is the real question.



Again, why do we need entitlement "reform" (meaning cuts) in the first place? Why is it a bad thing for people to have decent wages and good pensions that they've earned? If the system is incapable of providing these things, then it's the system we should toss out, not poor and working people.

Why, because some of those programs were insane and there is no way the government could effort them. There was a program that said if a Greek government worker died, the pension would be given to the worker's daughter, until she is married. That means the pension will continue long after the original worker is dead. That is a huge drain of resources for Greek government, its a huge waste. Its not sustainable. Having programs like these make people dependent on the government and ensures the government has no real resources sustain these programs. Here are some articles dealing with the pension system in Greece and why it doesn't work. This pension system is not a necessity, its a luxury and one they cannot afford.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-difficult-to-defuse-for-unwed-daughters.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2010/02/greeces_generous_pensions

This is why I am not communist, communists seem to think the government is a magical entity, that has unlimited money, its not. I am Canadian and center left in Canada, which would put me to the left of the center left in the US. So I believe in something of welfare state, but that doesn't mean I believe the government should do everything for everyone. Relying on the government all the time is not a good way to live and the government having to take money from other institutions to pay for these programs is a bad way to run a country, it enslaves the country to these institutions. That's the problem with borrowing money, you are indebted to the person you borrow and you are endanger of losing your personal freedom to those you are indebted to.

For your talk about capitalism is in crisis, you seem to ignore the fact that communism has been in crisis since 1991 and that crisis has never been resolved. Until communists address that, communism will never be seen as a viable option.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

The 2008 crisis had nothing to do with the stock market. It all had to due with the banks taking on far too much debt due to government policies letting them get too big and promoting policies that people should own houses that they can't afford.

Right. And which industry's lobbyists got the government to enact those policies?

But those are due to bad government policies, not the ideals of capitalism.

No, this same pattern repeats itself in every bust and boom cycle, which is an inescapable consequence of leaving the economy to the whims of the market.

Sorry, but that's the system that we live in and it's not going to change. Communism died in 1991 and it's not coming back.

Wow. No matter how many times I explain it, you guys can't seem to get it through your heads: Stalinism is not socialism, let alone communism.

What makes you so confident the system will never change? I'm sure at the beginning of this year Mubarak thought he was going to be the ruler of Egypt for a long time to come. The system has failed, people are suffering and sooner or later they're going to snap. We're already seeing giant protests all over the world. You think this anger is just going to go away?

I don't think so.

Doesn't really matter what you think, because that's exactly what's happening. Conservative governments unite the opposition; nominally "left" governments fool the people into thinking the state has their best interests at heart. That's how you get things like rank-and-file Democrats defending cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

1. There isn't will among the ruling elite because they fear that if they cut such programs they'll be voted out.

2. The super-committee in Congress was not allowed to touch Social Security and Medicare. Nancy Pelosi stuffed it with members like Jim Clyburn to ensure that it wouldn't be touched. Barack Obama pretty much demanded that they would not touch the entitlement programs.

And we all know how much a promise from Barack Obama is worth. This is the same guy who stuffed the panel with deficit hawks like Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles.

You're correct that the political elite is afraid to cut these programs or else they'll be voted out; even the supposedly anti-government Republicans know that. That's why they've put together this "super-committee", as a means of putting through the cuts while avoiding accountability. But if we're talking about the elite having the will to carry through these cuts...of course they have the will, otherwise why would we be talking about it in the first place?

Yes it is. The problem with our entitlement programs is that they were developed decades ago and do not take into account of today's world with the population aging at a much faster rate, increases in health problems such as obesity, living much longer, etc.

True, and they should take those things into account. I'm just not sure how you expect these programs to offer increased benefits while bringing down costs. Trying to square that circle won't work. It's really a question of the priorities in American society: do you want your money to go towards, for example, stealth bombers and corporate tax cuts, or towards helping sick people and the elderly?

Why, because some of those programs were insane and there is no way the government could effort them. There was a program that said if a Greek government worker died, the pension would be given to the worker's daughter, until she is married. That means the pension will continue long after the original worker is dead. That is a huge drain of resources for Greek government, its a huge waste. Its not sustainable. Having programs like these make people dependent on the government and ensures the government has no real resources sustain these programs. Here are some articles dealing with the pension system in Greece and why it doesn't work. This pension system is not a necessity, its a luxury and one they cannot afford.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-difficult-to-defuse-for-unwed-daughters.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2010/02/greeces_generous_pensions

This is why I am not communist, communists seem to think the government is a magical entity, that has unlimited money, its not. I am Canadian and center left in Canada, which would put me to the left of the center left in the US. So I believe in something of welfare state, but that doesn't mean I believe the government should do everything for everyone. Relying on the government all the time is not a good way to live and the government having to take money from other institutions to pay for these programs is a bad way to run a country, it enslaves the country to these institutions. That's the problem with borrowing money, you are indebted to the person you borrow and you are endanger of losing your personal freedom to those you are indebted to.

I don't want people to rely on the government. The role of the welfare state under capitalism is basically about helping the people who've lost out under the system. I want working people to run society for themselves and produce for human need rather than private profit - a system which guarantees full employment with good wages, benefits and pensions.

You're right that all this has to be paid for. We have the money to pay for this stuff already; it just gets siphoned off by the ultra-wealthy as part of their profits or tax cuts, or spent on ******** military/security programs that buttress the corporate state. We can use those funds for things that actually improve people's lives instead.

For your talk about capitalism is in crisis, you seem to ignore the fact that communism has been in crisis since 1991 and that crisis has never been resolved. Until communists address that, communism will never be seen as a viable option.

Jesus, I keep addressing it, over, and over, and over, and OVER again. You just don't want to listen. You think my argument - that those governments did not represent real socialism in the Marxist sense - is a cop-out. Well, I don't know what else you want me to say. I'm a Trotskyist. Marxism can explain the collapse of Stalinism, you're just not interested in that explanation. I'd be happy to go into more detail in another thread if that's what you want, but I can't keep explaining something to a person who refuses to listen.

"Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?" - Mark 8:18

Again, regardless of whether people believe in Marxism or not is irrelevant, because the things Marx talked about are happening right now. A crisis of capitalism on a global scale. Working people being squeezed more and more while the bosses get richer and richer. People have already started rebelling - in Egypt and Tunisia, in Greece, in Spain, in Russia, in the Occupy movement.

The question is where do we go from here? Most people don't have an answer to that question. Marxism does. It explains how we got into this mess and how we can get out. That's why it's still relevant today.

I also just want to point out...

- Communist Party of the Russian Federation is now the 2nd biggest party in the Duma and the main opposition to Putin
- Parties to the left of the "socialist" PASOK (15% support) now have a combined 37% support in Greek opinion polls
- The Orange Wave in Canada's federal election that brought the NDP to power
- Biggest general strike in Britain since 1926

Most people aren't Marxists. But they're fed up with the bitter realities of life under capitalism in the 21st century. And whatever you think, the reality is that class struggle exists and we see clear evidence of that every day.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Right. And which industry's lobbyists got the government to enact those policies?

Some within the financial industry. But it's also from politicians who had the idea of letting everyone follow the American Dream that everyone should own a house.

No, this same pattern repeats itself in every bust and boom cycle, which is an inescapable consequence of leaving the economy to the whims of the market.

Except you can directly trace the root of the problems. It has nothing to do with the bust and boom cycles. It all has to do with bad European policies such as governments lying about their finances to get into the Euro, government policies that allowed too much money to flow into weaker nations like Greece, government policies that let their entitlement programs become too bloated, etc.

When a government makes bad decision after bad decision, people don't want to invest in them.

Wow. No matter how many times I explain it, you guys can't seem to get it through your heads: Stalinism is not socialism, let alone communism.

I'm not saying that Stalinism is true Communism. But you can blame Stalinism for ruining the image of Communism forever. Human nature will always end up ruining Communism. And most people in Western societies prefer some form of a capitalist economy that allows them to obtain wealth.

What makes you so confident the system will never change? I'm sure at the beginning of this year Mubarak thought he was going to be the ruler of Egypt for a long time to come. The system has failed, people are suffering and sooner or later they're going to snap. We're already seeing giant protests all over the world. You think this anger is just going to go away?

Changing a political system is vastly different than changing an economic system. These protests aren't protests against capitalism as a concept. These protests, whether it be the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, the new protests in Russia are to demand their governments to be accountable, to end the corruption, to take on the inequalities in society.

Doesn't really matter what you think, because that's exactly what's happening. Conservative governments unite the opposition; nominally "left" governments fool the people into thinking the state has their best interests at heart. That's how you get things like rank-and-file Democrats defending cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Except Democrats refuse to cut Social Security. Maybe you should pay attention to the situation a bit better but there haven't been any cuts to Social Security benefits in the United States. The Medicare cuts are coming from the Super-Committee's inability to make a deal and the cuts have to come somewhere (Medicare and the Defense budget primarily).

But if we're talking about the elite having the will to carry through these cuts...of course they have the will, otherwise why would we be talking about it in the first place?

Because the only way they will do the cuts is if they're forced. I.E. not having enough money to pay for them and the programs dragging down the fiscal state of our nations.

True, and they should take those things into account. I'm just not sure how you expect these programs to offer increased benefits while bringing down costs. Trying to square that circle won't work. It's really a question of the priorities in American society: do you want your money to go towards, for example, stealth bombers and corporate tax cuts, or towards helping sick people and the elderly?

I want my money to be used effectively. I don't want my country to end up like Europe. I'm tired of my country being the imperial policeman of the world. I'm tired of the idiots who run everything.

We can still have a strong national defense without the Defense budget being as absurdly huge as they are. We can still have Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid run efficiently while not being as bloated as they are today (by reforming them for the 21st Century). We can set up our tax code so that the United States can be competitive in the global economy. That is what I want.

 

[The Overlord]

I don't want people to rely on the government. The role of the welfare state under capitalism is basically about helping the people who've lost out under the system. I want working people to run society for themselves and produce for human need rather than private profit - a system which guarantees full employment with good wages, benefits and pensions.

You're right that all this has to be paid for. We have the money to pay for this stuff already; it just gets siphoned off by the ultra-wealthy as part of their profits or tax cuts, or spent on ******** military/security programs that buttress the corporate state. We can use those funds for things that actually improve people's lives instead.

Too bad we have to deal with the system we have now, rather then a hypothetical one. Taxing the super rich in a country just means they will move somewhere else, it doesn't fix anything. Wishing for a better future is nice, but it doesn't change the cold hard reality of today. In today's world, governments have limited resources and have to spend money carefully and that will not change for a long time.

Jesus, I keep addressing it, over, and over, and over, and OVER again. You just don't want to listen. You think my argument - that those governments did not represent real socialism in the Marxist sense - is a cop-out. Well, I don't know what else you want me to say. I'm a Trotskyist. Marxism can explain the collapse of Stalinism, you're just not interested in that explanation. I'd be happy to go into more detail in another thread if that's what you want, but I can't keep explaining something to a person who refuses to listen.

"Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?" - Mark 8:18

And what makes a Trotskyist more legitimate then a Maoist? Communists can't even agree on what communist, communism has splintered into different factions who get involved in petty infighting, they can't even agree with themselves, how are they supposed to organize a workers revolution?

That quote may work better if I was religious.

I have heard your explanation and I think its a cop out. I hear it and I reject it completely, that's different from not hearing. Communists do not have do any real reflection or take responsibly for the past with this lame excuse, "its wasn't real communism, so we don't have reflect on the failure of the USSR or take any real lessons from it." It seems like an easy recipe to repeat the mistakes of the past, rather then taking ownership of these mistakes.

I'm beginning to think modern communists treat communism as a religion, with Marx as an all knowing prophet and his works are sacred texts. Its all a matter of faith rather then fact or reason.

Again, regardless of whether people believe in Marxism or not is irrelevant, because the things Marx talked about are happening right now. A crisis of capitalism on a global scale. Working people being squeezed more and more while the bosses get richer and richer. People have already started rebelling - in Egypt and Tunisia, in Greece, in Spain, in Russia, in the Occupy movement.

The question is where do we go from here? Most people don't have an answer to that question. Marxism does. It explains how we got into this mess and how we can get out. That's why it's still relevant today.

A solution that has never really proven itself, a solution that seems to work better in theory then in practice. You don't have any real hard evidence that communism works, everything on that score is hypothetic. Its like Objectivists who say real capitalism has never been really tired, that if you try real capitalism and get rid of all government except defense, everything will be great. I don't believe in either of those things, because I don't believe solutions to problems, really life is not as simple as Objectivism or Marxism would have people believe.

See I'm not a capitalist persay, but I am skeptic and a cynic and I believe communism to be an idealistic pipe dream, like many other ideologies. See there is the thing, I don't trust the capitalist class, I don't trust the working class and I don't trust communists. I do not trust groups period. I think the working class is just as base and mercenary as the capitalist class. I think all ideologies should be smashed with the hammer of skepticism, again and again to prove their worth. I give no ideology the benefit of the doubt and I don't trust ideologues. I don't see why communism should be spared this hammer.

Perception is everything in politics and in the perception of most people Marxism is a failure. Ignore that perception at your peril. Whether you like or not, communism is seen as having a track record and the track record is poor. Ignoring that and just criticizing capitalism gets you ultimately no where. I have only one real defense for capitalism, people are greedy and petty so they want a greedy and petty system to follow their pretty and greedy desires. That's not a real defense though, see that's thing with me, I don't really believe in the virtues capitalism, just happen to have such a low opinion of the human race that I think they want a system like this.

I have studied Russian history, with the failure of war communism, Lenin brought in a system of limited capitalism, where grain was allowed to be sold on an open market. the end result was rich peasants and poor peasants, with the poor peasants often wanting to be rich peasants. It seems like the desire to become petty bourgeois never really went away.

Orwell, though a left winger, seemed to have no real faith in the masses, in the 1984, Orwell portrayed the proles as easily duped idiots who would follow a terrible status quo with the promise of cheap booze and porn.

That's my problem, I'm nominally left wing, but my cynicism prevents me from going any further left then I am today. I am not a nihilist though, I have moments of optimism but I always have a healthy skepticism about everything, I don't believe in things that aren't proven and communism has never really been proven.

I also just want to point out...

- Communist Party of the Russian Federation is now the 2nd biggest party in the Duma and the main opposition to Putin
- Parties to the left of the "socialist" PASOK (15% support) now have a combined 37% support in Greek opinion polls
- The Orange Wave in Canada's federal election that brought the NDP to power
- Biggest general strike in Britain since 1926

Most people aren't Marxists. But they're fed up with the bitter realities of life under capitalism in the 21st century. And whatever you think, the reality is that class struggle exists and we see clear evidence of that every day.

This doesn't mean anything, worker dissolution led to the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s in Germany and the rise of the religious fundamentalists in Iran in 1979. Worker dissolution doesn't instantly lead to a communist revolution.

Capitalism was in a bigger crisis in the 1930s and yet there was no communist revolution in the west. Marx seemed to predicted that communism was right around that corner, but it hasn't happened yet.

The NDP coming in second in Canada and the communist coming in second in Russia are not signs that an international workers revolution is at hand. NDP didn't win and the communists didn't win in Russia. I like NDP personally, but I don't think voting for them made more likely to believe in communism.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Some within the financial industry. But it's also from politicians who had the idea of letting everyone follow the American Dream that everyone should own a house.

Ah, see what happens when you follow the money? But do you really think politicians caused the crisis? Governments are a vessel for special interests, and given their greater financial resources, that generally means business interests. Encouraging everybody to own a home wasn't the product of some politician's earnest wish for them to share in the American Dream; it was a sop to the banking and real estate sectors that were (at the time) making tons of money by making subprime loans and selling homes to people who couldn't afford them. But I'm glad you at least acknowledge that the parasitical financial sector played a key role here.

Except you can directly trace the root of the problems. It has nothing to do with the bust and boom cycles. It all has to do with bad European policies such as governments lying about their finances to get into the Euro, government policies that allowed too much money to flow into weaker nations like Greece, government policies that let their entitlement programs become too bloated, etc.

Nothing to do with the boom and bust cycles? Come on. Obviously it's because we're in an economic downturn that everyone suddenly started wanting their loans back.

Did you read the article I posted earlier on "the myth of the 'lazy Greek workers' "? Entitlements in countries like Greece are less generous than in Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe. This so-called problem of bloated "entitlements" is just an excuse to squeeze programs that the ruling class has always seen as a drain on profitable investment (for them).

Whatever individual government policies were pursued, you have to remember that these were capitalist governments making choices that seemed to make sense during the boom times. Countries like Greece wanted to get in on the party and join the eurozone, and the richer countries were only too happy to let on board. This is all part of the irrational exuberance of any capitalist boom, but sooner or later the party has to stop.

How is this not directly rooted in the nature of capitalism? This is how the system works - boom and bust, and government policies are largely a reflection of economic interests during those boom and bust periods.

When a government makes bad decision after bad decision, people don't want to invest in them.

French and German banks seemed fine with investing in Greece back when the global economy was roaring along, despite the warning signs. This is what fanboys might call a retcon.

I'm not saying that Stalinism is true Communism. But you can blame Stalinism for ruining the image of Communism forever. Human nature will always end up ruining Communism. And most people in Western societies prefer some form of a capitalist economy that allows them to obtain wealth.

Yeah, Stalin made the job of any honest communist a million times more difficult. But forever? I would have to say never say never. You probably wouldn't have imagined back in 1991 that the main winners of a Russian election 20 years later would be the Communist Party.

Also, people's idea of a capitalist economy and the reality is quite different. People watch TV shows and movies that repeat the hoary old myth that anybody can be rich if they work hard and play by the rules. The fact is, everybody can't be rich. The people who are making the most obscene wealth right now crashed the global economy and paid no consequences for their actions, while hundreds of millions of people who worked hard and did play by the rules are facing unemployment, poverty and destitution. I agree with George Carlin: "they call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."

The fact is that under a socialist society that distributed wealth more equally, the vast majority of people would be far better off than they are now. But it's part of the false consciousness of our time that too many struggling people still buy into the fantasy that they can get rich and leave behind the misery of their ordinary lives. Why don't we work on improving the lives of the vast majority instead so their lives don't suck?

Changing a political system is vastly different than changing an economic system. These protests aren't protests against capitalism as a concept. These protests, whether it be the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, the new protests in Russia are to demand their governments to be accountable, to end the corruption, to take on the inequalities in society.

The protests generally aren't against capitalism as a concept (although you must have missed a good portion of the signs at Occupy Wall Street). But they can all be traced to the consequences of the system. To take one example, would the U.S. have kept brutal Arab dictators in place for decades unless authoritarian rule guaranteed greater profits for its private corporations - thus necessitating an Arab Spring?

Except Democrats refuse to cut Social Security. Maybe you should pay attention to the situation a bit better but there haven't been any cuts to Social Security benefits in the United States. The Medicare cuts are coming from the Super-Committee's inability to make a deal and the cuts have to come somewhere (Medicare and the Defense budget primarily).

You're letting the Dems' disingenuous rhetoric fool you. Of course they'll say they don't want Social Security cut, but the whole point of that committee is to find a backdoor way to do it. And you acknowledge Medicare is going to be cut. The whole point is, why are we constantly talking about these cuts in the first place? I reject an economic system in which real people suffer for the abstract concept of "fiscal responsibility".

Because the only way they will do the cuts is if they're forced. I.E. not having enough money to pay for them and the programs dragging down the fiscal state of our nations.

But they never talk about cutting the military in the same way, and most of those wars are optional, whereas medical care for the elderly is a necessity. And we keep hearing about more corporate tax cuts at the same time when the deficit is supposed to be such a HUGE problem that they're willing to let Grandma start eating cat food again. How do you explain that two-faced hypocrisy?

I want my money to be used effectively. I don't want my country to end up like Europe. I'm tired of my country being the imperial policeman of the world. I'm tired of the idiots who run everything.

We can still have a strong national defense without the Defense budget being as absurdly huge as they are. We can still have Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid run efficiently while not being as bloated as they are today (by reforming them for the 21st Century). We can set up our tax code so that the United States can be competitive in the global economy. That is what I want.

I agree with almost all of that. But your concept of the need to cut these social programs - and the fact that you frame these cuts using the Orwellian and meaningless buzzphrase, "reforming them for the 21st century" - indicates that you've fallen for the politicians' rhetoric hook, line and sinker. "Reforming them for the 21st Century" means CUTTING THEM. And how is that supposed to help people deal with all the increased health concerns you mentioned earlier they didn't need to worry about before, like obesity, increased old age, etc.?

People need to draw a line in the sand - NO CUTS. These programs need to be expanded, not cut, and the money can come from shrinking the bloated military budget and taxing the rich.

 

[Crazy Quilt]

You're letting the Dems' disingenuous rhetoric fool you. Of course they'll say they don't want Social Security cut, but the whole point of that committee is to find a backdoor way to do it. And you acknowledge Medicare is going to be cut. The whole point is, why are we constantly talking about these cuts in the first place? I reject an economic system in which real people suffer for the abstract concept of "fiscal responsibility".



But they never talk about cutting the military in the same way, and most of those wars are optional, whereas medical care for the elderly is a necessity. And we keep hearing about more corporate tax cuts at the same time when the deficit is supposed to be such a HUGE problem that they're willing to let Grandma start eating cat food again. How do you explain that two-faced hypocrisy?

On the Democrats (of course) trying to find backdoor ways to make cuts to social spending: Remember, Reagan couldn't have gutted welfare. It took a Democrat(Clinton) to do that.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

On the Democrats (of course) trying to find backdoor ways to make cuts to social spending: Remember, Reagan couldn't have gutted welfare. It took a Democrat(Clinton) to do that.

Exactly, and this was my point above. Just like only Nixon could go to China, only a charismatic black Democrat can cut Social Security.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Overlord, thanks for letting me know where you're coming from. It's obvious that there's no point in my continuing this argument any longer, because as you yourself acknowledge, you're far too jaded to believe in the potential betterment of humanity. I hope one day you find reason to become a little more optimistic.

Working within the system only gets you so far. At some point you have to take a stand. I get that a lot of people don't agree with that, but that's what I believe. I don't think progressives will get anywhere in the American political system, for example, until they abandon the big business parties once and for all and the unions form a mass party of labor.

I do feel the need to respond to a couple of things you said, but otherwise that's it from me:

And what makes a Trotskyist more legitimate then a Maoist? Communists can't even agree on what communist, communism has splintered into different factions who get involved in petty infighting, they can't even agree with themselves, how are they supposed to organize a workers revolution?

Short answer: we're internationalist defenders of workers everywhere, not nationalist defenders of an authoritarian bureaucracy. Also things like Trotskyists supporting workers' democracy and fighting the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union, whereas Maoists are apologists for Stalin as well as catastrophes like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

The answer to your question is: the workers will have the revolution themselves - like they did in Egypt and Tunisia, and like they're on the verge of doing in Greece. A Marxist organization merely provides some guidance. As Trotsky put it:

"Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam."

I have heard your explanation and I think its a cop out. I hear it and I reject it completely, that's different from not hearing. Communists do not have do any real reflection or take responsibly for the past with this lame excuse, "its wasn't real communism, so we don't have reflect on the failure of the USSR or take any real lessons from it." It seems like an easy recipe to repeat the mistakes of the past, rather then taking ownership of these mistakes.

If you haven't read Marx or Lenin for yourself, or in particular, if you haven't read any Trotsky, then sad to say, you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Read The Revolution Betrayed and then maybe I'll care about your critique of Marxism.

I'm beginning to think modern communists treat communism as a religion, with Marx as an all knowing prophet and his works are sacred texts. Its all a matter of faith rather then fact or reason.

I used to make that comparison before I became a Marxist. But it's only the ultra-left sectarians that repeat what Marx or Lenin or Trotsky said a hundred years ago and expect it to apply equally to the events of today. Marxism has nothing in common with rigid dogma. It's a scientific method that we can use to make sense of the world we live in, and like any science we need to continually adapt it to new information. But there's a difference between shifting tactics and straying from core principles.

For the record, guys, I'm not expecting a communist revolution to break out tomorrow and have people all over the world dressed in red and waving around the hammer and sickle. Please, give me some credit. What I do believe is that as the effects of the global economic crisis become more and more severe, working class anger will keep building and we will see the growth of new leftist currents. I'm working with other Marxists to try as much as possible to expand the influence of these ideas because I think that's the only way we'll ever really escape the miseries and horror of capitalism. It's a very long-term view. Maybe something will come of it, maybe nothing ever will. But I feel like I'm doing the right thing in the best way I can, and that's enough for me.

 

[The Overlord]

Overlord, thanks for letting me know where you're coming from. It's obvious that there's no point in my continuing this argument any longer, because as you yourself acknowledge, you're far too jaded to believe in the potential betterment of humanity. I hope one day you find reason to become a little more optimistic.

I can say I shouldn't argue with you anymore, because you are blind idealist who ignores certain rash realities, but I'm not going to say because do this fun rather then trying to convince anyone of anything. I think argue for fun more then anything else, plus being a cynic makes me honest, it doesn't invalidate my criticism. Just because I don't believe me in your theory, doesn't make my criticism of it invalid. it just means you don't like it. Sometimes a cynic is right and sometimes an optimist is right, I just happen to fit one side more then the other.

Short answer: we're internationalist defenders of workers everywhere, not nationalist defenders of an authoritarian bureaucracy. Also things like Trotskyists supporting workers' democracy and fighting the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union, whereas Maoists are apologists for Stalin as well as catastrophes like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

The answer to your question is: the workers will have the revolution themselves - like they did in Egypt and Tunisia, and like they're on the verge of doing in Greece. A Marxist organization merely provides some guidance. As Trotsky put it:

"Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam."

That's just opinion, some Maoist is going to come up with some explanation why they are vanguard of communism and you are false communists. It hearkens to my ultimate point, communists can't even agree, how is their supposed to be a united workers movement when your ideology is split into factions?

Anarchists would also decry your defense of Trotsky and say they are the true Marxists, they believe in a purer form of Marxism then you.

Its all just opinion, just like there is no way say one version of Christianity is better then another, there is no objective say one faction of Marxism is better then another.

If you haven't read Marx or Lenin for yourself, or in particular, if you haven't read any Trotsky, then sad to say, you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Read The Revolution Betrayed and then maybe I'll care about your critique of Marxism.

Its pretty arrogant of you to assume that I haven't studied Marxism just because I am critical of it. I took a course on Russian history, took a course on Marxism taught by a Marxist and I read the communist Manifesto twice. Just because I don't agree with communism doesn't mean I agree with it. How much more do I have study before my criticism becomes valid? I don't see why I have to prove how much I read Marxism to you to have my criticism of it validated. My criticism of its valid regardless of that.

I used to make that comparison before I became a Marxist. But it's only the ultra-left sectarians that repeat what Marx or Lenin or Trotsky said a hundred years ago and expect it to apply equally to the events of today. Marxism has nothing in common with rigid dogma. It's a scientific method that we can use to make sense of the world we live in, and like any science we need to continually adapt it to new information. But there's a difference between shifting tactics and straying from core principles.

It comes off a bit like pseudo science to me, personally. There is no real evidence it that works, its just a theory, not fact. I have never seen evidence that is compatible with human nature.

For the record, guys, I'm not expecting a communist revolution to break out tomorrow and have people all over the world dressed in red and waving around the hammer and sickle. Please, give me some credit. What I do believe is that as the effects of the global economic crisis become more and more severe, working class anger will keep building and we will see the growth of new leftist currents. I'm working with other Marxists to try as much as possible to expand the influence of these ideas because I think that's the only way we'll ever really escape the miseries and horror of capitalism. It's a very long-term view. Maybe something will come of it, maybe nothing ever will. But I feel like I'm doing the right thing in the best way I can, and that's enough for me.

Hey you can believe in whatever you want, I'm cynic, so when things turn out right I can pleasantly surprised. Its not that I don't want the world to be a bad place, I just don't think people have the tools to fix it as much as you want without something else going wrong in the process. I don't want to be a cynic, but I can't help it, for you everything that happens confirms your Marxist beliefs, for me almost everything confirms my cynicism. Its just a difference perception, maybe you are right, maybe I am, maybe we both are wrong. The difference is I don't be right in my cynicism, so sometimes I let flashes of optimism in. I think you are so want to believe Marxism, you think everything confirm it and lose your objectivity. I think you are cherry picking recent events that confirm your conclusion and ignoring facts that contradict your conclusion.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Ah, see what happens when you follow the money? But do you really think politicians caused the crisis? Governments are a vessel for special interests, and given their greater financial resources, that generally means business interests. Encouraging everybody to own a home wasn't the product of some politician's earnest wish for them to share in the American Dream; it was a sop to the banking and real estate sectors that were (at the time) making tons of money by making subprime loans and selling homes to people who couldn't afford them. But I'm glad you at least acknowledge that the parasitical financial sector played a key role here.

Despite what you may think, there are politicians out there who believe in the American dream.

Nothing

to do with the boom and bust cycles? Come on. Obviously it's because we're in an economic downturn that everyone suddenly started wanting their loans back.

Last time I checked investors wanting their loans paid back when they are due is a reasonable demand.

French and German banks seemed fine with investing in Greece back when the global economy was roaring along, despite the warning signs. This is what fanboys might call a retcon.

And their poor decisions is biting them in the ass now. And rightfully so.

Yeah, Stalin made the job of any honest communist a million times more difficult. But forever? I would have to say never say never. You probably wouldn't have imagined back in 1991 that the main winners of a Russian election 20 years later would be the Communist Party.

Russian voters voting for the Communists is less along the lines of Russians supporting Communism and more along the lines of their discontent with Putin and the Communists being the only legitimate opposition to him.

You're letting the Dems' disingenuous rhetoric fool you. Of course they'll say they don't want Social Security cut, but the whole point of that committee is to find a backdoor way to do it. And you acknowledge Medicare is going to be cut. The whole point is, why are we constantly talking about these cuts in the first place? I reject an economic system in which real people suffer for the abstract concept of "fiscal responsibility".

Except it's fact. Social Security was not on the table for cuts on the super committee. Democrats refused to cave into Republican demands for Social Security cuts or reform.

I agree with almost all of that. But your concept of the need to cut these social programs - and the fact that you frame these cuts using the Orwellian and meaningless buzzphrase, "reforming them for the 21st century" - indicates that you've fallen for the politicians' rhetoric hook, line and sinker. "Reforming them for the 21st Century" means CUTTING THEM. And how is that supposed to help people deal with all the increased health concerns you mentioned earlier they didn't need to worry about before, like obesity, increased old age, etc.?

By reforming them for the 21st Century, I mean that we have to take into account that the Western nations have an aging population due to the Baby Boom after World War II, people living longer due to improvements in medicine, modern day health concerns, etc. These programs were designed back when the world and society were very different and due to politicians refusing to reform, they have become relics that are dragging the the fiscal state of these nations.

Sorry guy, but Social Security wasn't designed to take into account people living 20+ years after the age of 65. It wasn't designed to the massive population boom. Our health programs weren't designed to take on modern day health concerns like diabetes and obesity. And because of that, they're becoming unable to deal with such problems.

What would you rather have? A reformed Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that can actually handle the 21st Century, or none of those programs because the governments of the world let them go bankrupt and fiscally insolvent.

People need to draw a line in the sand - NO CUTS. These programs need to be expanded, not cut, and the money can come from shrinking the bloated military budget and taxing the rich.

That is utterly unrealistic. Even if you taxed the rich at 100%, it still wouldn't be enough to fund the government for a year. And while the defense budget takes up a good chunk of the federal budget, Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid take up even more. With your calls for expanding such programs while not reforming them, cutting the military budget would do nothing to fix the problem with the fiscal state of those programs.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I can say I shouldn't argue with you anymore, because you are blind idealist who ignores certain rash realities, but I'm not going to say because do this fun rather then trying to convince anyone of anything. I think argue for fun more then anything else, plus being a cynic makes me honest, it doesn't invalidate my criticism. Just because I don't believe me in your theory, doesn't make my criticism of it invalid. it just means you don't like it. Sometimes a cynic is right and sometimes an optimist is right, I just happen to fit one side more then the other.

Hey you can believe in whatever you want, I'm cynic, so when things turn out right I can pleasantly surprised. Its not that I don't want the world to be a bad place, I just don't think people have the tools to fix it as much as you want without something else going wrong in the process. I don't want to be a cynic, but I can't help it, for you everything that happens confirms your Marxist beliefs, for me almost everything confirms my cynicism. Its just a difference perception, maybe you are right, maybe I am, maybe we both are wrong. The difference is I don't be right in my cynicism, so sometimes I let flashes of optimism in. I think you are so want to believe Marxism, you think everything confirm it and lose your objectivity. I think you are cherry picking recent events that confirm your conclusion and ignoring facts that contradict your conclusion.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic in my first paragraph, I really meant what I said. Takes all kinds to make a world, right?

But it took me a long time to get to where I am now politically. As much as I hate to say this, back in 2001-2003 I thought Bush was doing a generally good job and I supported the Iraq War (give me a break, I was young, naive and influenced by the post-9/11 atmosphere). Then I started to realize that was ******** and went back to where I was going before, a bit left of centre. I liked the idea of reasoning with one's opponents and still thought it was possible to reform the system. Even as things got worse and worse, I still thought as you do now about communism - that it was a failed experiment, end of story. But then I thought you might take some of the best parts of capitalism and communism and combine them - "market socialism". One book arguing for market socialism was enough to convince me that theory was incorrect.

My socialist tendencies were gathering strength by 2008, but I still thought Obama might just be able to turn this thing around. Like so many people, I soon realized he was a total con artist and corporate tool. So after all this, and wondering why liberal and social democratic leaders always seem to sell out in power, and seeing the global economic crisis, the wars and the obscene bailouts, I finally came around to Marxism. But I still flirted briefly with ultra-leftist tendencies (Communist Party of Canada, something called the Socialist Equality Party no one's ever heard of) before realizing that the only way to go was to orient towards the traditional mass organizations of the working class, and in Canada that means the trade unions and the NDP.

So it's not like I found this sterile, unchanging ideology and I cotton-pick evidence and try to make everything conform to it. I pride myself in critical thought. Every day I read far more than Marxist websites - I look at progressive blogs, "liberal" papers, and hard right conservative stuff like the National Post and Fox News. I spent months last year reading Ayn Rand. All I'm trying to say is I'm not a blind ideologue, but I've thought long and hard about this stuff and come to the conclusion that Marxism has the best explanation for why the world sucks so much right now and how to solve those problems. But I'm fully aware very few people share that viewpoint at the moment.

P.S. I also like arguing for the sake of arguing, but sometimes I get too involved and take it too seriously.

Its pretty arrogant of you to assume that I haven't studied Marxism just because I am critical of it. I took a course on Russian history, took a course on Marxism taught by a Marxist and I read the communist Manifesto twice. Just because I don't agree with communism doesn't mean I agree with it. How much more do I have study before my criticism becomes valid? I don't see why I have to prove how much I read Marxism to you to have my criticism of it validated. My criticism of its valid regardless of that.

Honestly, dude, you just have to read The Revolution Betrayed. It's Trotsky's most important work, and it explains why the Soviet Union degenerated into a totalitarian bureaucracy under Stalin. That's all you have to study. I feel like anyone who's read that book will at least have a more informed view of why the USSR turned out the way it did. Hopefully you'll give it a try sometime.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Despite what you may think, there are politicians out there who believe in the American dream.

Call me cynical.

Last time I checked investors wanting their loans paid back when they are due is a reasonable demand.

No argument there.

And their poor decisions is biting them in the ass now. And rightfully so.

It's not so much that it's biting the bankers in the ass; most of them are rich enough they won't be living on the streets in any case. The problem is the people of these countries who have to endure a permanently lower standard of living because their governments have assumed the debt owed to the bankers and are making the working class pay for it.

Russian voters voting for the Communists is less along the lines of Russians supporting Communism and more along the lines of their discontent with Putin and the Communists being the only legitimate opposition to him.

I agree. Even Alan Woods acknowledges this.

Except it's fact. Social Security was not on the table for cuts on the super committee. Democrats refused to cave into Republican demands for Social Security cuts or reform.

Incorrect. Obama was the first one to touch the third rail of American politics. He was the one who first put Social Security cuts on the table.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-puts-medicare-social-security-cuts-table-031442907.html

Democrats refusing to cave? That's like Republicans supporting abortion; maybe once in a blue moon. Power has been put in the hands of the super-committee so the Dems can say they still have clean hands.

By reforming them for the 21st Century, I mean that we have to take into account that the Western nations have an aging population due to the Baby Boom after World War II, people living longer due to improvements in medicine, modern day health concerns, etc. These programs were designed back when the world and society were very different and due to politicians refusing to reform, they have become relics that are dragging the the fiscal state of these nations.

Sorry guy, but Social Security wasn't designed to take into account people living 20+ years after the age of 65. It wasn't designed to the massive population boom. Our health programs weren't designed to take on modern day health concerns like diabetes and obesity. And because of that, they're becoming unable to deal with such problems.

What would you rather have? A reformed Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that can actually handle the 21st Century, or none of those programs because the governments of the world let them go bankrupt and fiscally insolvent.

Look, I'm really not interested in hearing politicians who never met a war or military program they didn't like, and who squandered at least $16 trillion on bailouts for Wall Street, suddenly come to us and say there isn't enough money for vital social programs. This idea - that we can cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid or not have them at all - is a false choice presented to us by a government completely captured by financial and corporate interests. It's time to strike at the real root of the problem, not sit back and suffer the gradual destruction of the social safety net.

That is utterly unrealistic. Even if you taxed the rich at 100%, it still wouldn't be enough to fund the government for a year. And while the defense budget takes up a good chunk of the federal budget, Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid take up even more. With your calls for expanding such programs while not reforming them, cutting the military budget would do nothing to fix the problem with the fiscal state of those programs.

Cutting the military budget would do NOTHING? That's a pretty big statement. Anyway, I had a feeling our debate would end up coming down to you accusing me of being "unrealistic". In order to get the thread back on track towards the European Union, let me offer my final reply to all accusations of a lack of realism by quoting from Trotsky's Transitional Program:

Property owners and their lawyers will prove the “unrealizability” of these demands. Smaller, especially ruined capitalists, in addition will refer to their account ledgers. The workers categorically denounce such conclusions and references. The question is not one of a “normal” collision between opposing material interests. The question is one of guarding the proletariat from decay, demoralization and ruin. The question is one of life or death of the only creative and progressive class, and by that token of the future of mankind. If capitalism is incapable of satisfying the demands inevitably arising from the calamities generated by itself, then let it perish. “Realizability” or “unrealizability” is in the given instance a question of the relationship of forces, which can be decided only by the struggle. By means of this struggle, no matter what immediate practical successes may be, the workers will best come to understand the necessity of liquidating capitalist slavery.

 

[The Overlord]

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic in my first paragraph, I really meant what I said. Takes all kinds to make a world, right?

But it took me a long time to get to where I am now politically. As much as I hate to say this, back in 2001-2003 I thought Bush was doing a generally good job and I supported the Iraq War (give me a break, I was young, naive and influenced by the post-9/11 atmosphere). Then I started to realize that was ******** and went back to where I was going before, a bit left of centre. I liked the idea of reasoning with one's opponents and still thought it was possible to reform the system. Even as things got worse and worse, I still thought as you do now about communism - that it was a failed experiment, end of story. But then I thought you might take some of the best parts of capitalism and communism and combine them - "market socialism". One book arguing for market socialism was enough to convince me that theory was incorrect.

My socialist tendencies were gathering strength by 2008, but I still thought Obama might just be able to turn this thing around. Like so many people, I soon realized he was a total con artist and corporate tool. So after all this, and wondering why liberal and social democratic leaders always seem to sell out in power, and seeing the global economic crisis, the wars and the obscene bailouts, I finally came around to Marxism. But I still flirted briefly with ultra-leftist tendencies (Communist Party of Canada, something called the Socialist Equality Party no one's ever heard of) before realizing that the only way to go was to orient towards the traditional mass organizations of the working class, and in Canada that means the trade unions and the NDP.

So it's not like I found this sterile, unchanging ideology and I cotton-pick evidence and try to make everything conform to it. I pride myself in critical thought. Every day I read far more than Marxist websites - I look at progressive blogs, "liberal" papers, and hard right conservative stuff like the National Post and Fox News. I spent months last year reading Ayn Rand. All I'm trying to say is I'm not a blind ideologue, but I've thought long and hard about this stuff and come to the conclusion that Marxism has the best explanation for why the world sucks so much right now and how to solve those problems. But I'm fully aware very few people share that viewpoint at the moment.

P.S. I also like arguing for the sake of arguing, but sometimes I get too involved and take it too seriously.

Well we different political journey in life, people have different paths and perceptions. Unlike every people, I don't think Marxism is evil or that Marx is to blame for everything that was done in his name. I don't think Nietzsche should be blamed for what the Nazis did either. I don't believe in Marxism in a structural manner, I think it has structural flaws. Since I have rather cynical concept of human nature I'm going to be a bit biased against its conclusions. I always thought Marxism as a work of criticism was more viable then any solutions it presented. In a certain way I am somewhat objective in that I think of almost every positives and negatives an ideology and even if I ultimately reject it, I can still see positive aspects to it. I am not libertarian either, but I see some positives and like Marxism some of its criticism is interesting. I kinda like Ron Paul, even though I don't agree with his ultimate conclusion.

See I don't hate communism like some others do, my criticism is more dispassionate then others. I look it at from the clinical standpoint, cynicism is my only real bias, rather some great hatred of communism or great love of the current system.

Honestly, dude, you just have to read The Revolution Betrayed. It's Trotsky's most important work, and it explains why the Soviet Union degenerated into a totalitarian bureaucracy under Stalin. That's all you have to study. I feel like anyone who's read that book will at least have a more informed view of why the USSR turned out the way it did. Hopefully you'll give it a try sometime.

It can't hurt to read it, I think I would approach it with a more critical eye, being a skeptic. I don't see Trotsky as the hero you see him as. But one book from 1937 doesn't change the negative image people have in their mind about communism, communism wasn't tried once, but several times. I have heard North Korea has been described as a country where the government is based off of Marxism if it was interpreted by a mad man.

All the countries who tried communism failed in one way or another. Even a lot of the rebel Marxist movement have been connected with unseemly actions, FARC is guilty of a lot of human rights abuses . Its not just Stalin that discredited communism and he is not an isolated case, its too easy to blame all the failures of communism on one evil man and his followers, the answer is more complex then that.

Also its not like Trotsky has not received some valid criticism over the years, Emma Goldman has been pretty critical of Trotsky. Noam Chomsky was also critical of Trotsky. These two are hardly right wing reactionaries, so why would their criticism be invalid?

The Negative perception of communism, due to the terrible acts done in the name of Marxism, is its greatest obstacle.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Also its not like Trotsky has not received some valid criticism over the years, Emma Goldman has been pretty critical of Trotsky. Noam Chomsky was also critical of Trotsky. These two are hardly right wing reactionaries, so why would their criticism be invalid?

Emma Goldman is an anarchist, and I have fundamental disagreements with that philosophy.

Chomsky is awesome, but even he admits he hasn't read much about Marxism or works by Marxist thinkers.

The Negative perception of communism, due to the terrible acts done in the name of Marxism, is its greatest obstacle.

Bingo. 100% agree.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Cutting the military budget would do NOTHING? That's a pretty big statement. Anyway, I had a feeling our debate would end up coming down to you accusing me of being "unrealistic". In order to get the thread back on track towards the European Union, let me offer my final reply to all accusations of a lack of realism by quoting from Trotsky's Transitional Program:

Do you have any idea on just how much entitlement programs cost? They are a lot of money. If you expand upon them the way you say they should, cutting the military budget and taxing the rich would still not be enough to pay for them.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Do you have any idea on just how much entitlement programs cost? They are a lot of money. If you expand upon them the way you say they should, cutting the military budget and taxing the rich would still not be enough to pay for them.

I know how much they cost, but the Pentagon sucks up more of the budget. Half of every discretionary dollar spent goes to the military.

Looks like the EU is moving towards greater integration for all but Britain and greater centralized control over national budgets. I imagine this will lead to more of what we've already seen in Greece and Italy - an unelected group of bankers overruling the will of the people in sovereign nations.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I know how much they cost, but the Pentagon sucks up more of the budget. Half of every discretionary dollar spent goes to the military.

I don't know where you get your facts from but the Pentagon typically takes up 20% of the federal budget. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined take up over 40%. And this is not including other entitlement programs like unemployment, welfare, CHIP, federal housing, etc.

So yeah, I stand by my point, even if you cut the Pentagon's budget and tax the rich more, if you expand upon our current welfare system, it will still be fiscally unstable.

Looks like the EU is moving towards greater integration for all but Britain and greater centralized control over national budgets. I imagine this will lead to more of what we've already seen in Greece and Italy - an unelected group of bankers overruling the will of the people in sovereign nations.

If the other nations avoid the blunders that Greece and Italy did, hopefully such a situation will not occur.

 

[8wid]

Eurozone solution is "beyond reach", says credit agency Fitch

 

[hippie_hunter]

- Ireland is hinting that it might need to go through a referendum to enact the recent agreement between fiscal unity within the Eurozone. Wanna bet on how well that will go?

- Hungary, Sweden, and the Czech Republic have joined the UK in refusing to go along with the new fiscal unity agreement. Their reasoning is that such rules should only apply to Euro members.

- Protests have organized in Poland in opposition to the new agreement.

- The European Union and IMF have broken off talks with Hungary in regards to a bailout.

- Czech Republic finance officials have recommended that the nation NOT join the Euro.

 

[chamber-music]

Germany and France especially have been dying to make the Irish raise their corparation tax which played a large part in Irelands economic boom over the past decade. If Ireland goes with the new treaty I'm sure that will be top of the list of things sarkozy wants them to change.