I probably spoke too broadly there. But I think Mr Smashy was talking about Marx’s version of socialism.
That’s a crazy idea, but not as crazy as it seems at first glance. Socialist elements might have a factor, but not due to economic decline – but rather because it leads to a more egalitarian sharing of power, and that leads to governments that are not keen on using their resources (i.e. the military and corporate welfare) to prop up foreign trade.
And if socialism means less corporate-welfare colonialism and a more egalitarian democracy, then bring on the socialism. The median standard of living in Britain and France were not affected when they lost their empire. I’d say they even increased, except for the chronic shortages caused by the near-total capital destruction in Europe during WW2.
Well yes. Free market worshippers will always try to conflate different types of socialism because it suits their purpose. But you’re smarter than that, and you shouldn’t play along with their silly little reindeer games.
HRoark, you seem to be confusing liberalism, socialism, & Leninism. A common error among those who see the world as split into “right” & “left.”
Liberalism, the belief in personal liberty, is managing all right for the most part. Same-sex marriage is becoming legal in more places, for example. I think we can see some curtailings of freedom, such as freedom of movement in the USA, even as other kinds of freedom, such as freedom of banks to act like casinos, have become established. We will probably see the exact mix of freedoms available continue to reshuffle, as they have through our history, but liberalism in general is doing quite well, thanks.
That said, the “postwar liberal consensus” of the 1950’s USA has been dead for a while. We’re a much more Reaganite country now, & that may be having some influence on the rest of the world.
Socialism is a fuzzy term, but let’s split it into Western-style social democracy on one hand, & Leninist collectivism on the other.
Social democracy is still alive. The labor unions haven’t been outlawed, countries with socialized medicine still have it. We’re just going through a rough patch where slightly more right-wing policies are embraced for a while. If that turns out to make things worse, a more lefty social democracy will probably be back in a bit.
If “austerity” seems to make things better, well, who knows? Some of the present reforms may endure, but does that mean we’ll abandon social democracy? Is this the high water mark of the modern right, or a harbinger of things to come? Well, remember that the classical liberal Social Darwinism of the 1800’s gave birth to socialism (of all types, from anarchist to Leninist) in reaction to its unacceptable aspects. We aren’t going back. We might stagger around in some sort of superficially attractive liberalism/individualism/objectivism for a while before embracing state socialism again, but we got there before for a reason. And it was state action–Rooseveltian socialism at home, the Marshall Plan in Europe–that rebuilt the West. Sooner or later people will remember that.
Leninism, on the other hand, has been substantially discredited already, less because of its economics than because of its general illiberalism & the behavior of its past administrators. It has hung on, notably, in Cuba, for whatever reason. And Cuba’s present reforms so far are removing a bit more than 10% of the workforce from state employment. Going from ~85% to ~75% of the workforce state-employed isn’t exactly embracing capitalism. It remains to be seen whether such a policy will encourage further cuts. But if Cuba were to cut state employees down to 50%, they’d still be far more socialized than a Western capitalist country.
China’s literacy rate is above 90% according to the UN Human Development Index.
That perennial corn vendor **Paul Harvey **(whom I kinda liked BTW) had a similar saying, although I don’t think it meant quite the same thing: Much more colorful and quotable tho.
History is only the patter of silken slippers descending the stairs…And the thunder of hobnailed boots going up.
I’ve seen that phrase before, more than once, in one form or another. Here’sone use, here’s a slightly inverted use: “You can’t be for capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down.” - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Sept. 21, 2008. So it does exist.
I appreciate the thought, but I think Mr Smashy is just uninformed here rather than playing games.
That means something completely different to the way Mr. Smashy was trying to use it. Gingrich is implying you take the rough with the smooth - if you want government out of your business when things are booming, don’t come running looking for a bail out when things turn bad.
Smashy, on the other hand, was implying capitalism makes things go up for a country, and moving to socialism is the cause of the downward turn.
Oh dear, missed the edit and further checking shows that particular bon mot did not originate with Mr. Harvey (although that was where I first heard it) but was apparently taken from Voltaire. The proper quote is:
“History is only the pattern of silken slippers descending the stairs to the thunder of hobnailed boots climbing upward from below.”
I’d rather live in a slum than no home at all.
Yeah, let’s stop feeding hungry people. That’ll get the obesity problem under control!
There are several factors contributing to obesity. The rise of the fast food restaurant correlates with the rise of obesity. Soda and snack dispensers in public schools sure as hell aren’t helping things either. There’s also the problem of “food deserts”, where people in impoverished areas don’t have easy access to grocery stores that sell healthful food so they’re basically forced to buy unhealthy food instead.
There actually are liberal solutions to these problems but conservatives will scream bloody murder if we implement them. Tax junk food, and take the soda and dorritos out of our public schools. Improve public transportation. Better food stamp benefits (because fresh fruits and vegetables are actually rather expensive).
The above mentioned programs mitigate poverty, and they mitigate them quite well. People who would otherwise be homeless were given homes. People who would otherwise be hungry were given food. In that sense, they were successful.
If you expected the war on poverty to make everybody be self supporting, then I can see why you regard it as a failure. But that was never a realistic goal to set. They’ll always be people on the margins of society who can’t properly take care of themselves.
You’re complaint is about as nonsensical as railing against modern medicine, because more people are dying today than ever before in history. It may technically be true but it lacks all sense of perspective.
I agree we have to fix it but the notion that there is enough blame to go around doesn’t mean that the blame is evenly distributed.
Look at when most of our deficits occurred and then look at when we had Republicans in the white house. However you feel about tax and spend, Democrats generally taxes the people for what their government spent.
Really? Because I thought medicare and social security were still pretty popular programs.
Does the White House control spending? Or it also be relevant to look at who controlled Congress during these time periods as well?
It’s also worth pointing out that modern medicine contributes to social problems because it keeps–often unproductive–people alive to continue straining the budget.
Also contributing to social problems is conservative opposition to family planning. Imagine how severe social problems would be if FP was simply unavailable and there had been a much higher rate of out-of-wedlock births for the last 40-50 years.
No, no, no.
[CRAZY FUNDY HAT]The availability of family planning increases the number of out-of-wedlock births. Were there no condoms or birth control pills, people would not be exposed to sex, and would not desire it out of marriage, and so would not have out-of-wedlock children. [/CRAZY FUNDY HAT]
I wondered why I’m always so horny…
And vice versa.
Everything old is new again. Or something. I sure I could find more if I refined my search and started mining other threads for related comments.
Every election cycle it’s the same thing - the Democrats/liberalism/Republicans/conservatism are doomed to permanent/long-term minority status and marginalization. Much like the Dictatorship of the Proletariat they will eventually whither away to irrelevance because the American people are fed up and on to their sly tricks, disingenuous campaigning and the general bankruptcy of their heinous philosophies.
It’s all ( well, mostly ) bullshit. A year is an eternity in politics and most people are fickle. Arguably most are functionally impossible to satisfy as well.
Cultural shifts exist - the increasingly trend towards gay rights would have been unthinkable 40 years ago. But political shifts? Those will always be ephemeral.
Whoa there, cool your jets young man. Who said that they declined because of socialism? I never suggested a cause-and-effect was at work, and certainly never suggested which way it may have been going.
I get enough straw men from the other liberals on this board, we don’t need them from the mods too.
Edit to add: upon further review I can see how pst 45 could be interpreted that way…
Ahem:
This was in support of your comment “the history of civilizations is capitalism on the way up, socialism on the way down.” If you weren’t saying they declined because of socialism (“then they got all socialist-y and now look at them”), you chose your words badly.
ETA: Yes, exactly.