A lot of them hated Kerry since the war, for his anti-war activities, congressional testimony, actions at demonstrations etc. John O’Neill challenged him several times and debated with him on Dick Cavett in 1971. It’s true that there was no formal organization SVfT until the 2004 campaign but Kerry should have been aware that there was a lot of resentment and controversy that the Republicans could exploit.
I think elucidator did a great job of answering your question.
The chief Swift Boater (can’t remember his name) had been after Kerry ever since they debated each other in the early 70s. I’m sure wikipedia explains it if you care to look there.
No. Where did you get that idea from?
You state on the one hand that marxism is dead, and they say that private property doesn’t exist. I’m at a loss to reconcile those two statements. Am I missing something?
Volumes.
Marxist theory is as dogmatic and intellectually bankrupt as Objectivism, both claim to be founded on principle of total rationality, and both fall prey to the “turtles all the way down” fallacy. Any structure of philosophy, political or otherwise, rests upon assumptions that are moral, spiritual, or otherwise irrational. Marxist theory wildly exaggerates the significance of class, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
I didn’t say private property doesn’t exist, you said that I did. Those are not the same things. In your eagerness to dismiss, you oversimplify. I point out that wealth in America is derived from resources held in common. We have come to understand that the air we breathe, and the water we drink, are no man’s private property to freely exploit. That’s a good start.
I quite agree, class warfare is ghastly, as is any warfare. The liberal seeks to treat the symptoms, the radical goes to the root cause. I would prefer to eliminate class warfare by eliminating its cause, economic injustice. Failing that, a kinder, gentler form will have to do, for now.
Quite the reverse, and I repeat my question: What harm would come of class warfare, as you have defined it, and limited to nonviolent political means?
(deleted for unproductive snark)
That is a distinction without a difference. If the “resources” are held in common, then no one owns them individually. If everything is loaned out from society as a whole, then society can reclaim any of it or all of it any time. We were once told that property is theft, but now you tell us property is borrowed. Is that the kinder, gentler marxism?
Serioiusly, dude, where did you get the idea that “wealth in America is derived from resources held in common”? Are my ideas a resource that is held in common?
Many great fortunes have been built on running unsafe factories and mines because it was relatively cheap and dumping the resulting maimed workers onto society at large to take care of, or not. In addition, for years those amassing such fortunes have created dangerous byproducts which they dumped into our water and air or left in huge piles such as sulphur laden slag heaps after extracting all the value they could. And when anyone complained they shouted that free enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit was under attack.
Ah the beauty of externalizing costs, how sweet it is.
It’s still going on today.
This is the problem I have with libertarians and economic conservatives and their ilk (especially their ilk, nothing irks me more than an ilk). You’re always going on as if you were fleshy robots dropped into a barren wilderness, building Western Civilization with nothing more than steely determination and the sweat or your own urine. You make no concessions to the fact that you were born and raised in a society, a society that had an existing infrastructure of roads, education, medicine, laws, mores, etc., which has benefitted you enormously. At the slightest hint that you might be beholden in some way for the myriad gifts that have been bestowed on you, you immediately shreik that you are being robbed and enslaved, probably both at the same time. It’s just pathetic. All I see is thinly disguised greed and social irresponsibility.
That’s certainly true. And if that were the only way wealth was created, or the only way wealth could be created, then I would agree with elucidator. But it isn’t.
The idea that wealth is created from resources held in common is an interesting postulate, but not a statement of fact. And it’s not a postulate that our society is based upon, either. We live in a capitalist society, as does every democratic nation on the planet. Capitalism starts with the postulate of private ownership of the means of production. If you don’t accept that postulate, then you don’t accept the economic system that we live in. Nothing wrong with that, but let us be clear that if you accept a different postulate, you are proposing a different system. Call it socialism or call it communism, or call it a pretty flower. But it is not our system.
Yes, John, I know that. That is precisely what I wish to see changed.
And this word “private” that seems to mean so much to you…just how flexible is that word? I’ve many friends who have worked in worker-owned collective businesses (as have I). They hire and fire managers and accountants (Marxist MBA Wanted! Inquire Within…). So, does that qualify as “private” ownership?
The problem is not whether or not capitalism is inherently unjust, I tend to think that it is, but can be persuaded otherwise if it can be proven. What we have now is unjust…better than it was, to be sure, but still far short…and if thats capitalisms fault, and that fault cannot be remedied, then it must go. If models of socialistic-capitalistic hybrids can be made to work, fine! I am not interested in political philosophy, I am interested in solutions. If you can provide a model of capitalism that provides for the needs of my brother and his children, you cannot wish for a firmer ally. Failing that, you offer little more than obstruction. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Well, I see the thread has been completely hijacked into yet another battle between the forces of good and those of anti-capitalism. 
When in Rome…
This was the standard thinking of socialist/communist types and their ‘ilk’ for decades. The Soviets in particular felt that if only they could control the means of production, building all that wonderful infrastructure you are going on about, that they would have a utopia on earth, with innovation and production leaping ahead in great bounds. Mao felt that if only the Chinese Communists could seize the means of production and force through industrialization (by promoting such wonderful ideas as foundries in every backyard) that they would gain (through the magic of the collective) innovation and production to make a capitalist weep.
And yet…it didn’t work out that way. In fact, quite the opposite. Then there are our Euro buddies. They felt that having the state control (or guide) industry, harnessing it to the use of helping out ‘the people’ while placing incredible burdens on all those rich bastards at the top, that they would gain innovation and industrialization and enter into a paradise on earth, where industry was the servant of The People™, simply an instrument of social engineering by the folks who felt they had the best idea of what was best for everyone. I note (with some irony) that most of the more productive European nations have, er, backed off of that stance in the past decade or so.
Oh, they still have all those social programs that the liberals on this board drool after, but they have managed a fair degree of taking (some) of the chains off their industries…and to a lesser extent their own rich. For the rest…well, time will tell I guess. Maybe things will all work out in the end for the France’s of the world…or maybe they will hit the wall sometime soon and their economies complete the crash and burn they seem bound and determined to head for. Or, maybe like the more successful economies in Europe (say, like Ireland today) they will shift that sliding scale a bit more toward ‘capitalism’ and away from the extremes of ‘socialism’. I guess we could revisit this in 5 or 10 years and see how it works out. I know what result MY money is on.
Quite frankly, you aren’t interested in any solutions. What you are obviously interested in is continuing to tell yourself (and hear others tell you) that an obviously failed system is working marvelously…while a system that has equally obviously shown that it DOES work and provides the greatest level of economic and social benefit for the maximum number of people in history is a broken system in need of further reform. That and spouting off half baked psudo-communist/socialist claptrap, while attempting to dismiss your concept of what capitalism is.
The truth is that neither the US nor any other nation on earth is a pure capitalist system…so attempting to paint them as such is a strawman. Every working economic system on earth is some form of capitalism…including that the Europeans are currently using. Where you set the sliding scale between capitalism on one extreme and socialism on the other is a matter of what is important to a given nation or people. Set it closer to capitalism and you will have a more vibrant and responsive economy (such as the US enjoys) while having less benefits and social programs…set it closer to socialism and you have a more sluggish economy on the one hand, but greater social programs and benefits on the other.
Where that bar is set depends mainly on what the folks operating under the system really want…and in the case of a nation like the US or many European nations that sliding scale can change as the attitudes of the people change. But EVERY nation that actually functions at all economically uses some form of capitalism. The ones that don’t…don’t work at all. Regardless of the idealistic dreaming of the folks who wish things were different…
Good to hear it! Since every European nation that has a working economy uses some model of capitalism, and since I assume this would meet your own definition of ‘provides’, its really good to have you on board 'luci!
For that matter, the US model ‘provides’ for the vast majority of citizens (your rhetorical ‘brother and his children’…and perhaps even your ACTUAL brother and his children ), giving even the poorest citizens adequate health care, food, and shelter. Nothing great, mind…but better than what most of the rest of the planets poor gets. Hell, in a lot of cases better than most of the rest of the planets NOT so poor get.
Depending on your definition of ‘provides’ we have a model of capitalism for YOU! 
-XT
Maybe everything worth saying about Hillary’s run had been said.
OK, capitalism has done better than Soviet style communism… That’s sort of damning with faint praise, don’t you think?
Yes, our poorest are doing better than the merely poor in many countries. So we should rest on our oars? Our poor don’t, in fact, have adequate health care, even when they are actully ill. And there is no preventive care at all to speak of. They don’t have adequate food of adequate nutrition, and they don’t all have shelter.
It is obscene to say that because we’re doing better for our poor than the poorest countries that nothing needs to be changed.
I would say that the problem isn’t the capitalist, market oriented system. It’s greed, and the main problem I see with capitalism is that it’s built around greed.
Excuse me? Please present your Certificate of Telepathy before you presume to inventory the contents of my mind, or bugger off.
You sure about that, Dr. Pangloss? I suppose, then, that you win the argument, hands down. All of these years, I have labored under an illusion, but now the scales fall from my eyes…All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible nations, with the bestest economic system EVAH!
(I thought we talked about this: don’t be dropping acid with the Regents University crowd, you’re not equipped to deal with the mindfuck…)
Aaaand desperately seeking to go back to the original subject… Why not? The only thing “unelectable” about Rodham is that it has been loudly trumpeted as an Article of Faith by her potential opponents that she is. If anything, my main trouble with her candidacy is the aura of “inevitability”, I’d rather she had to explain her substantive positions and face more challenges before steamrolling ahead.
Also, it would be nice if the run-up to chosing candidates involved in some remote way what are their substantive proposals and their vision for the nation, as opposed to the question of an image of “electability”. But we gotta go to battle with the armies we have, I guess.
As long as we’re dealing with comparisons between Kerry and Hillary, something that has been touched upon in some posts, is that regarding Kerry the resentments over his going to the antiwar camp had simmered and festered relatively quietly (as far as the greater mainstream’s attention was concerned) for 30 years; in Hillary’s case the raw unmitigated hatred is still fresh and, having bloomed in the Age of Talk Radio, reached a large segment of the population. So while bringing up Kerry’s unattended baggage,** precisely on the issue on which he was anchoring the “character” side of his campaign**, was “news” to enough people to cause a serious campaign disturbance, it would be harder to do so with Hillary’s.
Then there’s of course the reaction. A lot of people, by the time of 2002, had apparently* plain plumb forgot * about the controversial nature of Kerry’s post-service antiwar activities. Some were apparently thinking that particular issue had faded into total oblivion, or more generally that by now “Vietnam: Pro-War Bad, Anti-War Good; Brass Bad, Grunts Good” was a resolved issue, case closed, and that those who were still smoldering to get back at Kerry would be dismissed as wackos if they tried to step forward. Folks got too enthused with* “Goody! A Decorated Vet! Now nobody can accuse us of being soft on Defense, or Draft Dodgers!” * …except the issue was NOT about being “soft on defense” any more: it was about the whole notion of “How DARE anyone EVER say OUR soldiers have done evil!!”… 2004 was the **ideal ** time to bring that back up. And they were not able to handle it right. Because they were still fighting the 1992 election, apparently…
HRC has an advantage in that whenever they bring up any of the major policy/character issues she can fire right back the equivalent of “Oh, please THAT again? That’s so 1996…” * and people will know what she means. BUT if she knows what’s good for her, she’s NOT relying on that she has been hit with everything possible already. Instead she’s having her team dig up everything she ever* said, did or wrote and seeing how it could be repackaged as “something new” to be used against her, and how she can make it fit into an issue to which she can respond with THAT line.
We already see, that her changing/evolving political positions are somehow seen as something targetable. If you ask me, that’s a lame angle of attack. I care about electing or not electing the persons the candidates are today, NOT the persons they were when they were 20 year olds. But I have to recognize that there’s a considerable segment of electorate that cares about that for some reason. The “hobgoblin of consistency”. In that sense I do see an element of weakness in her handling of the war vote, which IS in recent memory. She doesn’t want to say she was flat wrong, and doesn’t quite want to say very affirmatively she’d do it again, either. (besides, again, it would mean saying Our Brave Boys have been bleeding over something “wrong”. How dare anyone… :rolleyes: ) Even though it would be a rational answer. She’s got to figure that one out.
Y’know another thing I just noticed? Upthread I’ve seen a couple of instances of the word “pragmatist” being tossed about as a possible negative. Being pragmatic does NOT mean being devoid of principle or ideals; it means being results-oriented. And you can be moral while being results-oriented. And not necessarily the “easy” results or the “expected” results: you can be a pragmatist towards a better world. Hey, even that great True Believer Ronald Reagan did what had to be done, to get the results he wanted. Ergo, he had the image of an idealist AND the deeds of a pragmatist. (Contrast Mr. W. Bush, whose apparent plan for victory seems to be entirely faith-based.)
Maybe…though I doubt it. This is a woman who could very well be the next President of the US. A woman hated, feared…and loved and respected…but a hell of a lot of folks. I don’t think the surface has even been scratched as to the good or bad that can be said on the subject of Hillary. That just MHO though. 
I suppose you could look at it that way. Or to paraphrase a famous quote…Capitalism is the worst economic system out there. Except for all the others.
Who said anything about resting on our oars? Not I. What I said was that its a sliding scale between pure capitalism on one extreme and pure socialism on the other…with most countries (including the US) coming to rest somewhere in between. Where that sliding scale is set depends on the disposition of a nations CITIZENS. In the case of the US, by and large where that scale currently rests is exactly where we (collectively) WANT it to rest…i.e. with the greatest economic advantage while still preserving SOME safety net and social programs (more than ‘some’ in fact…quite a bit). If the mood of the country changes then there will be a shift one way or the other in that scale…but its inconceivable that regardless of how the mood changes it will ever go to either extreme. In fact, its probably due for another shift ‘socialism’-ward in the near future. And then back again further out.
As for your statement that the poor in this country don’t get ‘adequate’ health care…well, that depends on your definition of ‘adequate’ I suppose. As to preventative care, well, thats very true. Whats equally true is that thus far the American PEOPLE seem to accept that as an acceptable trade off for a vibrant economy and the advantages that gives us. This might chance…maybe in this election cycle. Or it might not too.
As for food and shelter, again it depends on your definition of ‘adequate’. My own family is originally from Mexico…so my definition of ‘adequate’ wrt food, shelter and health care are probably a lot different than your own. Suffice it to say that most of the worlds poor envy that inadequate health care, food and shelter that our own poor suffer under.
Perhaps it would be…had I actually said that. As I didn’t however, I’ll just disregard this bit here.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. IMHO, greed is good…except when its the government becomes so greedy that it stifles or even attempts to kill off the golden goose. All in the name of The People™ of course.
-XT
One needs a ‘Certificate of Telepathy’ to detect something you have stated quite clearly…and for years now? Interesting…
Perhaps you should have tried being born poor…and in a different country? Reality has a way of making things a bit clearer…
Or, since that is something none of us has any control over (and one that, having experienced it myself I wouldn’t recommend), you could have, I don’t know, tried to actually study history? Or economics? Or, well something?
Whatever you say 'luci…
-XT
Haven’t we had enough of president’s who won’t admit mistakes?
I can’t vote for any of the Republicans who all seems to be saying we must “finish the job” in Iraq, or close to it.
If the Democrats nominate Hillary they are going to make it hard to vote for anyone.
Prove it. Or shut it.
I see. If only I had your superior experience, I would see things your way. Quite the argument.
Is accusing me of ignorance the best argument you can muster? I got my faults, and its a long list, but “stupid” ain’t on it. If this is how you behave when you lose an argument, you should take up knitting.
All I see is a defense of the status quo without any indication of a need for any changes.
Oh, and inadequate shelter means none at all or living in a Volkswagon bus or day to day in charity shelters.