Conservative Bias in the Media

I had reason to make this point elsewhere recently, but I'll make it again here.

All movements have an extreme edge (likely just simple bell curve stuff) but with a new social movement, often those 'extremists' are the ones that break the barriers and, in the process, get a lot of the revolutionary work done.

The feminist movement would certainly have moved forward at a much slower pace than it did if not for people like Marilyn French or Catherine McKinnon - who both got a hell of a lot wrong.

Greenpeace began here in Vancouver as an anti-whaling movement. They were considered extreme (still are by many) but they, and then the others who followed, changed the shape of the world.

(I should add that in making this point earlier - that social movements NEED an extreme edge, sozobe followed up with a post noting that she had argued this point too in relationship to deafness issue)

and then there's Barry Goldwater.

and Paul Wolfowitz

There is nowhere on this planet where socialism is not either failed or failing, and the only place fascism is looming is in your head.

The Chinese might want to dispute your first contention there, Boss--and no, i'm not interested in hearing your disquisition on why the PRC ain't really socialist--you can find someone else to fob off your eternal defense of whatever point you try to make . . .

socialism as in Social Security? Medicare/Mediaid? FDA? Dept of Health? and myriads of other USA programs? yeah virtually all of Europe/North America has been an abysmal failure of socialism.

boys...leave him alone...scrat prefers simple

Government Programs = socialism?!

Perhaps you should refresh your ideas on socialism here.

Translation: I disagree, but I am not willing to defend my position.

Sorry Scrat, but Setanta understands better than you why you gain less engagement than you'd like.

Simply compare Setanta's posts (take a broad look) to your own. His are marked by detailed historical analyses, references to other works and ideas, and thoughtful and sequential argumentation.

Your posts are not like that. They ought to be like that. You post like a grumpy old sniper, pissed off, up in a tree or a bell tower.

Dys - As in your example and another someone offered before getting all nasty there are successful (at least in the short term) mixes of private and government control.

It may well be that the ideal economic model is a capitalist system that contains tinges of socialism wedded to those things that a market-based model won't do well.

But that's a far different thing than writing "socialism is beginning to look better and better" which reads as clearly advocating a top-to-bottom socialist system. (If that's not what she meant, fine, but that's what I was taking aim at.)

Now, anyone want to point me to a successful socialist system, or can we all concede that those that are still limping along are doing so only because they have begun playing with that nasty evil capitalism they decried for so long.

And if anyone wants to offer any of the increasingly socialist countries of Europe as an example, I would ask that you hold your comment for 10 years, and get back to me.

Socialism--pure socialism--does not work, because it removes the incentive for creating the very wealth the government would dole out.

pure socialism like pure capitalism is a non-existentent ideal. for someone to demonstate a successful socialistic state, i would ask, in return to demonstate a successful capitalistic state.

Oh, for chrissake, get over yourself.

And that, of course, is precisely a good part of the problem now. This admin is so focused on the getting of money (not for everyone, mind - don't want to get that socialistic) that everything else disappears. Like the huge budget surplus that was inherited. Like the increasing failure rate of HMOs. Like all the TomDelays out there hoping something falls off the Bush.

Sort of makes one proud to live in country whose major aim is the getting of money, where nothing else is a virtue or a value.

Bet you in ten years we have nationalized medicine (because the privatized plans don't work), and nationalized pensions of some sort. That leaves plenty of room for free enterprise.

"Free enterprise" has never existed. Even when it was nothing more than protection rackets as government, no nation has ever know laissez-faire capitalism. The principle difference between the socialist command economy of China and the poorly regulated, cronyism-dominated "free enterprise" economy of the United States is one of degree.

Fair point. Let me make my point more carefully then... I think what I am trying to say is that socialism taken in small doses may be fine, but they must be well-chosen and very small doses. I think it's also rather obvious that those cultures with the highest capitalism:socialism ratio are doing better by their citizens than those who have it the other way around.

I don't know what your standard of purity is, but the most capitalist country by anyone's standards over the last 100 years has been Hong Kong, which has been wildly successful ever since it became a British colony. Looking further back in history, America during the Guilded Age and 19th century England after the repeal of the corn laws had even more of their public services provided by the private sector. Both of them were very productive societies. Going even further back, we find medieval Iceland, a country where seats in parliament were a tradeable commodity and all law enforcement was private. The system survived for almost 300 years and showed every sign of being successful for its time.

On the other hand, the country where per-capita income grew most rapidly during the last 40 years is Botswana, a mixed economy whose government spends just under 50% of GDP. (The corresponding figure for America is just over 30%.) So while there's a plausible case that capitalism leads to success, mixed economies can be successful too.

-- Thomas


-- Thomas

thomas

Nice post. Thank you. Part of what is screwing scrat up here is the black/white frame of reference he prefers (yes you do). The demonization of socially progressive policies as 'evil socialism' has a long and colorful history in the US, particularly. Regarding European nations which have happily successful economies (and, it ought to be noted, societies with considerably superior statistics on infant mortality or societal violence than does the US), Scrat politely requests we not speak of these for ten further years. I promise to do so if he promises to not talk about the US for the next ten years.

yeah, Thomas (not to gang up on you, but I'm just not as literate as Blatham), so yeah, what Blatham said

That's bunk. Socialism will never take hold in America because the populous will never allow it. Capitalism, freedom and the ideas of democracy are what make America the great country that it is. People leave socialist countries for a reason, and where do they flee to? America.

Every immigrant that comes to America comes here because of "The American Dream" that everyone can make something of themself if they work hard enough. They can live the good life. Socialism can't promise that.