OT: It's a hardy plant, this weed of socialism

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Oatka

New member
I love the way this guy writes. Not gun-related, but full of quotable quotes. If you like it, drop the writer and cc the Letters to the Ed.

From the Toronto Sun.
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/bonokoski.html

By Mark Bonokoski
Sun Media

OTTAWA -- So just what is this Third Way, this theoretically warm but technically fuzzy form of 21st-century governance which had the big boys swooning in Berlin, and Jean Chretien quickly packing his bags to accept his belated invitation?

While its supposed western-world inventor, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, remained in London changing his newborn's nappies, U.S. President Bill Clinton was positively cooing over this melding of capitalism and socialism which will allegedly alleviate socio-economic disparity faster than ornamental fountains can be built in a certain prime minister's riding.

Every centre-left leader in the pack (which means most of them) - Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, Holland's Wim Kok, Italy's 58th PM since World War II, Guiliano Amato, as well as our own petit gar' from Shawinigan - nodded in agreement with Clinton's assessment, all behind closed doors of course, and then returned to their respective countries as apostles to the cause.

But what magic potion are they selling? Is it real or is it snake oil?

And, more importantly, is it Third Way or Third Reich, as one headline put it?

According to award-winning American journalist Richard Poe, editor of Front Page magazine, it is more the latter - a pile of Bill Clinton "gobbledygook" which will have "Big Business owning the economy (under capitalism) and Big Government running it (under socialism)."

How it will work, says Poe, is both simple and dangerous. "Corporations will be bribed into obedience through subsidies, tax breaks, customized legislation and other special privileges," he wrote in a piece for the online news magazine, Newsmax.com.

If it sounds familiar it's because it sounds like the musings which once begat fascism.

Once upon a time, the Soviet empire's Mikhail Gorbachev attempted to give it a run for its money under what he then called glasnost and perestroika - not capitalism and not communism, but something in the middle - and failed miserably.

Now Britain's socialist PM, and America's Democratic president, want to wrap it up in a prettier bow and call it the Third Way - with Chretien effectively suckered by Clinton's congratulatory plaudits that it is already working in Canada.

Gabbleflab

A few years ago, U.S. Vice President Al Gore used the same gabbleflab in a different way, telling Americans they could suck and blow at the same time if they adopted the Third Way protocol. In other words, Americans could have two or three cars in every garage and the country could still lead the world in clean air and the elimination of greenhouse gases if the Big Three automakers would only get onside and follow the instructions of government.

If it gets any crazier out there, the Third Way will become a mantra for all things involving big government and big business, much in the same way the glasnost grab bag became the misunderstood mantra in the demise of both communism and the Cold War.

While attempting to polish up his image after his debacle in the Middle East, our prime minister was quoted as calling himself a "radical Liberal," whatever that might be.

Third Wayers use the word "radical" to describe the reforms necessary to convert modern day governance to the Gorbachev-Blair-Clinton model - the revamping of social security and medicare, reducing urban poverty through economic empowerment, creating an education system for the Information Age and making the world once again safe for socialism.

Flower power

There is a certain flower power familiarity to all of this, of course. Make love not war. Hell no, we won't go. Give peace a chance. Make the rich pay. Down with capitalism. Power to the people.

What will certainly hinder the Third Way if it hopes to be successful is the usage of the one word which it must embrace. And that word, boogah-boogah, is "socialism."

When Third Way proponents met previous to the Berlin fete, then-Italian prime minister Massimo D'Alema reminded Clinton that his party was once the Italian Communist party, but formed a coalition government when it removed the scary bits and changed its name to the Democratic Party of the Left.

"These are words that in your civilization, in your history, would sound difficult to understand or to accept," said D'Alema, adding that "socialism" - a vital plank in the Third Way platform - was another word which would be seen as negative.

To which Clinton replied, "(And) for that reason, I'm not sure that I'd have you here right now, Massimo, if I were running for re-election."

Yes, as Clinton (and Chretien, too) so vividly illustrate, it is all well and good to change the world, but first let's get the priorities in proper order.

The Me Generation remains in character.

It doesn't want to give it up quite yet.

Bonokoski is Sun Media's national affairs columnist and appears Tuesdays, Thursdays, Sundays. He can be emailed at bonokosk@sunpub.com

Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com or oped@sunpub.com.

Copyright © 2000, Canoe Limited Partnership.




------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
Once upon a time, the Soviet empire's Mikhail Gorbachev attempted to give it a run for its money under what he then called glasnost and perestroika - not capitalism and not communism, but something in the middle - and failed miserably.

The Russian economy failed not just miserably but spectacularly when a free-market approach was tried. The truth of the matter, frankly, is that the former soviet economy is in the pits, and neither capitalism or socialism will get it out of the pits anytime soon.

Contrary to the author's implication, lots of mixed-market (meaning, somewhere on the spectrum between pure capitalism and pure socialism) economies haven't failed; in fact, most successful first-world economies are mixed-market. France, Germany, and Sweden come to mind...

--Amp
 
Interesting.
Early Fascism was introduced as a "third way", claimed to be neither Left nor Right. Anyone familiar with history at all should instantly recognize "the third way" as a name for Fascism. It is surprising that they would be so open about this.
Although their version is more Socialist than Fascist, they are showing their anti-freedom, anti-capitalist nature.
They are bold and assured. They must see their final victory as unstoppable.

We have to fight them. Get active. Take part.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Contrary to the author's implication, lots of mixed-market (meaning, somewhere on the spectrum between pure capitalism and pure socialism) economies haven't failed; in fact, most successful first-world economies are mixed-market. France, Germany, and Sweden come to mind...[/quote]

With the possible exception of North Korea, are there any national economies in the world that aren't mixed-market, to one degree or another?
 
Hi Amp

Glad to see you found your way to our playground... welcome aboard.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The Russian economy failed not just miserably but spectacularly when a free-market approach was tried. The truth of the matter, frankly, is that the former soviet economy is in the pits, and neither capitalism or socialism will get it out of the pits anytime soon.[/quote]

Free market?

I don't think i would describe the economic conditions of the Soviets during the 80's as a Free Market.

I do agree with you, neither communism nor capitalizm is going to fix the Russian economy. A return to the rule of law would be nice (and getting rid of their rediculous parlimentary government in which they simply fire and rehire the government at the whims of the Head Honcho.)

------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

~USP

"... I rejoice that America has resisted [The Stamp Act]. Three millions of people, so dead to all feelings of liberty as to voluntarily submit to being slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest of us." -- William Pitt, British Parliament, December 1765

[This message has been edited by USP45 (edited June 12, 2000).]
 
Matt wrote: With the possible exception of North Korea, are there any national economies in the world that aren't mixed-market, to one degree or another?

I doubt that there are any (probably the last "pure" free-market economy was Chile under Pinochet, which isn't a stirring example). But there are countries which tend very much towards one end of the spectrum, such as the USA or (at the opposite end) North Korea, and many others which are more in the middle.

I think one of the big lacks in discussions of capitalism vs. socialism, actually, is that most people talk as if they were mutually exclusive, rather than being points on the same spectrum.

USP, thanks for the welcome. I was thinking of the 90s post-soviet Russian economy when I said that "The Russian economy failed not just miserably but spectacularly when a free-market approach was tried."

--Amp
 
The USA is a mixed-economy between socialism and capitalism.

The USA is already this "third way" if it's anywhere near the middle, the rest of europe is pretty communist.

It scares me when the Pres of Italy is trying to think of a way to be more left wing.

Capitalism is the economic side of individual freedom. It is not right because of how much better off people tend to be working for themselves vs. feeding off the public teat. It is right because individuals own their own property and are free.

Pinochet ran a free country? Beware - some govts. leave the populace alone while taking heavy control over large businesses (e.g. fascism).

Founding US was the closest to pure capitalism - capitalism died THOROUGHLY in the 20th century.


battler.
 
Capitalism: If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Capitalism built our country. Socialism stiffles economic growth. Socialism isn't needed.
 
Capitalism is broke. Just compare US (strongly capitalist) child poverty rates to France's (which has more "socialist" in its mixed-market economy than the US). We have identical child poverty rates before income transfer programs kick in - but France's drops down to about zero after social transfer programs.

There's also no proof that countries with more social spending experience slower growth. The figures show no clear relationship; plenty of countries who spend more on social programs (as a % of GDP) than the US have experienced higher rates of growth as well.

--Amp
 
Speaking for myself, and currently living in a "progressive" national socialist welfare state, anyone, and I mean anyone, who proposes to take anything of mine without my consent is no better than a common thug.

Any social welfare programs which do not depend on voluntary contributions require coercion.
 
Mumblating at the keyboard.

Seems to me that a country that has a low child poverty rate as a result of transfer of funds is a country that encourages the disintegration of the two parent family: Loss of individual responsibility and it's parallel; loss of freedom.

This "transfer of funds" seems to eliminate a great deal of incentive for the producing people to continue production at a high rate. Rather, the producers who are not allowed to keep the gains of their production will then slide into mediocracity. Thus taking their country into the easy street of mediocracy.

Sweden, France and, to a lesser extent, Germany are examples of countries that are bankrupt as a result of their social programs.

The premise that all men are created equal connotes to me that all men should have equal right to make of themselves what they will. A person should be able to reap the benefits of their sweat, brain or both; and to defend their person and those benefits. They should not be required to subsidize those who would neither sweat nor think.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
Ampersand,

"There's also no proof that countries with more social spending experience slower growth. The figures show no clear relationship; plenty of countries who spend more on social programs (as a % of GDP) than the US have experienced higher rates of growth as well."

It's called a "ban-aid". You're stating numbers - statistics. Do you really believe it's real, that the presence of socialism in a society "promotes growth"?

It promotes only one thing - dependence.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!

The NRA is our shield, the GOA will be our sword.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Capitalism is broke.[/quote]

I wouldn't use child poverty rates as my criterion of "brokeness", but to each his own.
 
It isn't the role of government to redistribute wealth. It is the role of government to remove obstacles to the population's economic opportunities.
This Socialism you are advocating removes the incentive to excel and rewards failure.
And don't give us that "for the children" drivel. That doesn't work here at TFL. We tend to analyze beyond the initial knee-jerk reaction.

Acceptance of the economic freedoms of Capitalism requires long-term thinking, not short-term feeling.

The Communist Manifesto is deeply flawed and based on Marx's strong emotional reaction to his failure/rejection in the freemarket world. (Someone else paid all of his bills while he wrote the silly thing.)

Intelligent beings need to look beyond the Leftist definition of "fair" and rely on individual achievement and Freedom. Let me type that again: FREEDOM!

The issue is Freedom, this thing that is unfashionable and unreasonable now. Freedom, which all of the power elites are now labouring to eradicate. It's already a memory in Europe.

Socialism: An emotional response to a thinking man's problem.

Welfare: A legalized system of buying votes.
The Dole: Ancient Rome's welfare programme which kept the populace distracted and compliant. It also robbed people of their initiative, grew apathy and spurred on the fall of the Empire.


[This message has been edited by Shin-Tao (edited June 13, 2000).]
 
CMOS and C.R. both argued that income transfer programs increase dependance. C.R. additionally argued that they contribute to the breakdown of the family. I think both of these points are wrong.

In the US, for instance, conservatives tell us that welfare increases dependancy by creating a "culture of poverty," which gives people an incentive to remain poor and dependant. (Two conservatives who argued for this view are Charles Murray and George Gilder). But it's not true; welfare spending and poverty aren't positively correlated.

For example, average AFDC monthly payments dropped from about $400 in 1970 to about $260 in 1988 (figures given in 1980 dollars). If "culture of poverty" theory were correct, we should have seen a reduction or at least a leveling off of poverty as welfare reductions reduced incentives not to work; but the exact opposite happened.

On the other hand, it is true that rising AFDC payments, from the 60s to the mid-70s (when payments started dropping), were positively correlated with a big drop in poverty levels. IRS data shows that the drop was, to a great extend, due to income transfer programs.

Finally, it's not true that a stingy welfare system encourages traditional family structures; if it were, than single-parent families and teenage mothers would be far less common in the US than in most Eurpoean nations. Although particular badly-designed welfare policies can discourage marriage, welfare on the whole does not.

CR, if it's true that income transfer programs discourage production, then high social spending should be correlated with low economic growth. But that's simply not true. Switzerland and the US spend less on transfer programs (as a % of GDP) than almost anyone, while Belgium and the Netherlands spend more than almost anyone; but Belgium and the Netherlands, as of 1992 (most recent data I have at hand), experienced much faster growth of GDP per capita.

To answer your question, CMOS, I don't think that increasing socialism in a mixed-market economy increases or decreases productivity. I do think it decreases poverty. Productivity is largely determined by other factors.

Matt, I'm with John Rawls with this one: the worth of a society can be judged by the status of its worse-off members. This is also one of the few areas I agree with the Catholic Church, which argued that "a fundamental moral measure of any economy is how the poor and vulnerable are faring... Society has a moral obligation, including governmental action where necessary, to assure opportunity, meet basic human needs, and pursue justice in economic life."

So yes, to each his own, absolutely: but be aware that my view that poverty matters when judging economic performance is hardly a radical or unusual view around the world.

--Amp

[This message has been edited by Ampersand (edited June 13, 2000).]
 
Yes, unfortunately your veiw is not rare. It is an easy, comfortable, veiw to hold. It's compasionate and reasonable, so middle of the road. You know, maybe we do have too much freedom. I advise that we all live in Federally funded compounds and have the Oligarchs look after us. After all, they are the best and brightest. Just ask them.

Back to reality. I don't trust the Government to deliver my mail on time, defend my Liberty, or even fix a pot-holed road. Why should I trust them to decide my economic choices for me?

Funny. As the liberated Eastern Republics embrace Capitalism, we decide to embrace Socialism. One of us has a National learning disability.

[This message has been edited by Shin-Tao (edited June 13, 2000).]
 
Ampersand,

Call me blind if you want, but I cannot buy into your statistics and (especially) the way you interpret them.

First of all, your comparison of America with any European country is flawed and based upon too many incorrect and untested premises. It is a typical leftist attitude to look upon societies and individuals as perfectly interchangeable and therefore subject to the same laws of social engineering. The reality is that countries, cultures and societies are too different to compare. This is especially true when it comes to the U.S., this most unique of nations. So this line of thinking leads us nowhere.

Secondly, you seem to fail to see the rational correlation between paying single mothers to have babies out of wedlock and out of work and that host of negative consequences we all came to know in the last 20-30 years. No numbers in the world (there is nothing as misleading as statistics, take it from someone whose job is to use them!) can take away from this fact. Forcing taxpayers to retribute unemployed, unwed mothers with a home, a check and full benefits is not only deeply unjust for those of us who work hard for all that, but also spells disaster to "society".

Third of all, there is something VERY wrong with delegating an "authority" to control a bigger and bigger slice of your income for whatever purpose. Within reason, I want to be the sole captain at the helm of my finances and consequently of my life. We are putting ourselves in the incompetent hands of this giant makeshift financial advisor that is first seducing us, than forcing us to give money to causes that are not even remotely associated with our lives.

Think about it. When you find a stack of bills in your mailbox, and you istinctively wonder why you are still scraping the bottom of the barrel in spite of your your flattering gross income figure, I bet that you don't console yourself with all those phony statistics. At least, I know I don't.

All I know is that I am being forced to pay for expensive, extravagant and doomed social experiments and footed with the bill and the blame when they inevitably fail. They come to me blaming my guns when the ghettos they created get violent. They come to me asking for yet more money to throw at schools when the socialistic institutions at which our kids are forced to go fail to produce any more than ignorant sociopaths.

Sorry, pal, but it doesn't make sense. Not here, not in Europe, not anywhere. Certain ideologies are just plain folly, and socialism is a blatant exapmle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top