Limits of State Power

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 21:53
VIEWED: 37205
PAGE 22 of 36

PREV PAGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NEXT PAGE

KWICKO

Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Canada, or Denmark, or Sweden, or Switzerland or ... v the US

Canada, Denmark, et. al. all have capitalist economies. They're not Socialist or Communist economies at all. The most they are is welfare states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

Communist economies - now that the Soviet Union has tanked - are China, Cuba, North Korea. Any more you can think of?

The Socialist Party U.K.- who should know who's Socialist and who isn't - says that there are no Socialist governments in Europe; that all governments have "remained capitalist through and through."
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/News2Frame.htm?socialistcountries.htm

So in comparing the U.S. to Sweden, etc. you're comparing apples to apples, and proving that capitalism works.

Thanks for your endorsement of Capitalism.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Ah - So when Obama moves to exert more government control over business, when he says we need to have a redistribution of wealth, when he says we need universal health care, and all the right-wing nut-jobs start screaming "SOCIALIST!" - what they REALLY mean is, "See? I told you he was a capitalist! He just endorsed capitalism!"

Right?

Sweet. I knew he wasn't really a socialist. Obama's win must surely be seen as a victory for capitalists everywhere; I'm sure Geezer would agree wholeheartedly.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:46 PM

Anyway Sarge, apparently several people besides me "get" the idea of economic coercion, from historical, theoretical and personal viewpoints. Its a concept you might wanna think about, because it is a very real phenomenon and salient to the conversation.

Frem: Yes, there was the might of anti-union guns, but there were other factors as well: The USA "trade-union" and the push for money instead of power (the unions weenied out), internal union corruption, the rise of anti-communism, and the USA's unparalleled post-war prosperity. Other unions in other places have succeeded in worse situations.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:40 PM

Well aware of it, as well as the rabid factionalism that helped Gov and Corps set them against each other, helped along by that ratbastard sellout Sam Gompers and his AFL punks breaking IWW strikes in the name of nationalism and patriotism, but in fact as payback for a cushy cabinet position.

And as well I am oh too well aware that both the red scare of the 20's and of the 50's had more to do with "breaking them damn unions" than anything else - one result of which that still haunts us even today is that any time a Union stumbled upon a trick that WORKED, the Corps ran crying to the Gov, who then made it illegal.

They played too nice, if you ask me, something I view with the same perplexed derision as begging the powers that be for a permit to protest against them...

The only contemporary union I got any respect for is the IWW, whom I am currently helping ram their boot up the arse of Starbucks crosswise.

I love the new logo, since many of the IWW folks I deal with directly hold Kallista as their unofficial mascot, since the image of the wild black cat has always been symbolic to them.

One of the issues that was so problematic is that the Unions in general became so much like the Corps they were up against that in the end there's not too bloody much of a difference - something the IWW by the very nature of it's own organisation isn't so much susceptible to, and in fact it runs a lot like the model Siggy proposed for co-ops.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SERGEANTX

Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anyway Sarge, apparently several people besides me "get" the idea of economic coercion, from historical, theoretical and personal viewpoints.

I'm well aware that the popular consensus is with your view. That's one of the reasons I go out of my way to point the illogic I see in the idea.

Quote:
Its a concept you might wanna think about, because it is a very real phenomenon and salient to the conversation.

I've thought about it a lot, actually.

See, the phenomena you're describing are real. People with money aren't always generous. Some, in fact, will deliberately hoard money because they're greedy jerks. Some business people will take advantage of desperate people in desperate times. All of these thing happen.

The question is whether it's the same thing as threatening, or using, violence to get your way. It's not. And, from what I can see, those who coined the phrase deliberately borrow the terms "coercion" and "force" to insinuate that it is. I call bullshit on Orwellian attempts to implement political change by manipulating language. Even if such campaigns have already won over popular consensus.

[EDIT to add]
It may be just your usage of the term I'm objecting to. Yesterday I looked around for some definitions, and most defined it much more narrowly. Pretty much everything I read used it when referring to a situation where a business or person maintained monopoly over a necessary commodity. So this probably comes back to your idea of what constitutes a monopoly, which I've noticed is much more liberal than mine.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

OUT2THEBLACK

Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Ah - So when Obama moves to exert more government control over business, when he says we need to have a redistribution of wealth, when he says we need universal health care, and all the right-wing nut-jobs start screaming "SOCIALIST!" - what they REALLY mean is, "See? I told you he was a capitalist! He just endorsed capitalism!"

Right?

Sweet. I knew he wasn't really a socialist. Obama's win must surely be seen as a victory for capitalists everywhere; I'm sure Geezer would agree wholeheartedly.

Mike

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money... and more must be printed by government idiots. He knows no country has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity.

More on this subject :

" Why has this become such an important topic? Because the current administration's economic strategy could create the greatest economic disaster in recorded history.

Not only is the administration planning on enormous deficit spending this year, but the current plan calls for increasing deficit spending for the next decade – spending that will more than double our entire national debt during Barack Obama's presidency. At the same time, Obama plans to extend federal control over vast and critical sections of our economy, promulgating new and extensive rules and taxes over both the power industry and the health care business.

These are probably the two most important engines of our economic growth. Producing huge amounts of inflation while severely restricting the most productive sectors of our economy is a recipe for catastrophe.

I don't have room for the all of the details in this space – and you hear enough bad news in the newspaper. Just know that, by 2019, our government's financial profligacy will saddle every family in America with around $800,000 in debt and unfunded liabilities. That doesn't include state or local governments, and it doesn't include any personal or corporate debt.

The government will pay for this debt by increasing taxes and inflating away the value of our currency. This will create a disaster in the coming years. I can't tell you when it will happen... but I can tell you it will happen. That's why it's critical you take precautions right now."

http://www.dailywealth.com/archive/2009/apr/2009_apr_23.asp

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:24 PM

Sarge, just doing a quick google search on coercion brings me this:

Coercion (co-er-shion) is the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Actual or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of coercing; Use of physical or moral force to compel a person to do something, or to abstain from doing something, thereby depriving that person of the exercise of free will; A specific instance of ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coercion

coerce - to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means

The definition is broader than you seem to think.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

SERGEANTX

Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:11 PM

Well, semantic arguments over definitions don't really go anywhere. Rather than play qoute 'em, let me just get to the heart of the matter.

Most of you what you've described so far seems to be of the form "not helping" = "harming". eg not feeding someone is the same thing as forcing them to starve. That's what doesn't make sense to me.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:35 PM

IF you have overwhelming economic power... and that is what I think is going on... THEN you CAN starve people because they have no other choice. Putting someone in a box, taking away their options, using your overhelming power make them accept whatever you propose, is coercion.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

RUE

Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:38 PM

Paying starvation wages because you can is NOT equal to 'not helping'. You are benefitting at their expense. You are killing them for more money in your pocket. You are an ACTIVE element in their destruction.

Shame on you, SergeantX. You should know better. Or be more honest.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Friday, May 15, 2009 12:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Shame on you, SergeantX. You should know better. Or be more honest..

I hang my head in abject guilt.

C'mon. You guys are assuming I'm defending this stuff, and I'm not. We've agreed the cards are stacked in favor of the corporations, and I think that business owners that play shitty games manipulating their employees are firstclass assholes. And in many cases they should be held accountable, with the force of law in necessary.

I'm simply disagreeing with your attempt to equate economic power with political power. The source of our disagreement is in your denial of what I consider obvious: economic power is dependent on political power (law). Righteous got it a few posts back. Without the law to back them up, the "money masters" are just assholes in ugly suits.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

PREV PAGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NEXT PAGE