Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

History displays plenty of examples where capitalism run amok leads to rightwing populist reactions. It's easier for economically threatened working people to scapegoat blacks or immigrants or gays than to take on the elusive responsibility of financial elites. This is particularly the case when government seems deadlocked as a source of help, and the nominally center-left party is in bed with Wall Street.

In Europe's upcoming parliamentary elections, far-right nationalist parties from France to Norway are poised to pick up the most seats. The European establishment has only itself to blame. As financial abuses caused mass suffering, elites could think only of the well being of the bond market. In America, bailing out Wall Street took precedence over saving Main Street.

There is a name for an alliance between capitalists and angry working people who displace their economic frustrations into social and cultural rage. It's called fascism.

Despite occasional outbreaks of cultural tolerance on the part of the Chamber of Commerce, such as the Arizona tempest, for the most part cultural rage on the part of the white working class suits financial elites just fine. It takes the minds of the common people off of financial abuses that they wouldn't understand anyway. Better for them to bash gays and immigrants.

The antidote to fascism is strong democracy, in which working people grasp their own economic self-interest and a left party passes laws that harness the economy to common purposes. It's been a long since we've had that in America. That's why the right is making gains despite the fact that demographic and economic realities should favor the left.

kalm wrote:Why the Republican Party needs the bigots. Kind of similar to how the Democratic Party buys votes from the poor. To bad the radical center is complacent.

History displays plenty of examples where capitalism run amok leads to rightwing populist reactions. It's easier for economically threatened working people to scapegoat blacks or immigrants or gays than to take on the elusive responsibility of financial elites. This is particularly the case when government seems deadlocked as a source of help, and the nominally center-left party is in bed with Wall Street.

In Europe's upcoming parliamentary elections, far-right nationalist parties from France to Norway are poised to pick up the most seats. The European establishment has only itself to blame. As financial abuses caused mass suffering, elites could think only of the well being of the bond market. In America, bailing out Wall Street took precedence over saving Main Street.

There is a name for an alliance between capitalists and angry working people who displace their economic frustrations into social and cultural rage. It's called fascism.

Despite occasional outbreaks of cultural tolerance on the part of the Chamber of Commerce, such as the Arizona tempest, for the most part cultural rage on the part of the white working class suits financial elites just fine. It takes the minds of the common people off of financial abuses that they wouldn't understand anyway. Better for them to bash gays and immigrants.

The antidote to fascism is strong democracy, in which working people grasp their own economic self-interest and a left party passes laws that harness the economy to common purposes. It's been a long since we've had that in America. That's why the right is making gains despite the fact that demographic and economic realities should favor the left.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-ku ... 87263.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:Why the Republican Party needs the bigots. Kind of similar to how the Democratic Party buys votes from the poor. To bad the radical center is complacent.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-ku ... 87263.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To summarize, the poor and middle class are suffering, the rich are getting richer, we (the left) should be able to take advantage of the situation but haven't been able to, it can't be because we're fiscally incompetent and that people understand that bigger government isn't necessarily the right answer so it must be because they're (the right) fomenting national socialism (i.e. facism).

Cap'n Cat wrote:Again, high humor watching Conks' "fear" socialism when they live in a semi-socialist state…

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:Why the Republican Party needs the bigots. Kind of similar to how the Democratic Party buys votes from the poor. To bad the radical center is complacent.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-ku ... 87263.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To summarize, the poor and middle class are suffering, the rich are getting richer, we (the left) should be able to take advantage of the situation but haven't been able to, it can't be because we're fiscally incompetent and that people understand that bigger government isn't necessarily the right answer so it must be because they're (the right) fomenting national socialism (i.e. facism).

Cap'n Cat wrote:But, CID, get used to it. The trend is not going back to soda fountains and sock hops and monopolies. The continuing trend will be laissez-faire government overseeing capitalists running the market, just as it's been for 100 years.

Government needs to be there beating back overenthusiastic and damaging capitalist urges. If business were operating from a position of integrity all the time, you'd hear nary a whisper from Washington.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Again, high humor watching Conks' "fear" socialism when they live in a semi-socialist state…

Cap'n Cat wrote:But, CID, get used to it. The trend is not going back to soda fountains and sock hops and monopolies. The continuing trend will be laissez-faire government overseeing capitalists running the market, just as it's been for 100 years.

Government needs to be there beating back overenthusiastic and damaging capitalist urges. If business were operating from a position of integrity all the time, you'd hear nary a whisper from Washington.

kalm wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:But, CID, get used to it. The trend is not going back to soda fountains and sock hops and monopolies. The continuing trend will be laissez-faire government overseeing capitalists running the market, just as it's been for 100 years.

Government needs to be there beating back overenthusiastic and damaging capitalist urges. If business were operating from a position of integrity all the time, you'd hear nary a whisper from Washington.

Also an A-

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Also an A-

I give you both a D- because what Cap'n Cat just described was regulation, not socialism.

OL FU wrote:I have pretty much stayed out of these discussions but what the hell. It isn't an either or situation. One can support the social safety net yet desire it to incentivize people (who can) to escape it, instead of finding a comfort zone in it. As long as a person with a couple of kids makes 12,000 a year and as long as every dollar extra they earn, the lose 80 cents in subsidy benefits, they have no incentive to earn that extra dollar. I am for creating that inventive in what ever way we can, i.e., temporary benefits but we will pay for job training or education.

and PS, I am not criticizing the people who receive the benefits. I am criticizing the people that set up the system and are now trying to make it more entrenched.

kalm wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:But, CID, get used to it. The trend is not going back to soda fountains and sock hops and monopolies. The continuing trend will be laissez-faire government overseeing capitalists running the market, just as it's been for 100 years.

Government needs to be there beating back overenthusiastic and damaging capitalist urges. If business were operating from a position of integrity all the time, you'd hear nary a whisper from Washington.

Also an A-

OL FU wrote:I have pretty much stayed out of these discussions but what the hell. It isn't an either or situation. One can support the social safety net yet desire it to incentivize people (who can) to escape it, instead of finding a comfort zone in it. As long as a person with a couple of kids makes 12,000 a year and as long as every dollar extra they earn, the lose 80 cents in subsidy benefits, they have no incentive to earn that extra dollar. I am for creating that inventive in what ever way we can, i.e., temporary benefits but we will pay for job training or education.

and PS, I am not criticizing the people who receive the benefits. I am criticizing the people that set up the system and are now trying to make it more entrenched.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Also an A-

Uh, I don't think Cappy really meant to say laissez-faire government, I'm not sure he really knows what it means (and from kalm giving Cappy an A- I'm not sure he knows what it means either). A laissez-faire government isn't going to be out "..there beating back overenthusiastic and damaging captialist urges". If you're going to use fancy terms, please use them correctly.

CID1990 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Uh, I don't think Cappy really meant to say laissez-faire government, I'm not sure he really knows what it means (and from kalm giving Cappy an A- I'm not sure he knows what it means either). A laissez-faire government isn't going to be out "..there beating back overenthusiastic and damaging captialist urges". If you're going to use fancy terms, please use them correctly.

No no no no, Ganny you just dont understand!

Klam says that lazy fair economics is like totally entwixted with socialism for the sake of this here discussion we're having

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:

No no no no, Ganny you just dont understand!

Klam says that lazy fair economics is like totally entwixted with socialism for the sake of this here discussion we're having

Full disclosure…I went back and read Cappy's bit at least 5 times and now I'm not even sure of what he's talking about.

So I'm reducing his grade to D+ until further clarification.

But you and Ganny get D's for continuously failing to understand the laissez-faire advantages our financial sector and capitalists have enjoyed and the positives of a mixed market economy that, as the article points out, should harness productivity to "common purposes".

Your homework is to go and not read a Tom Friedman article for at least one week.

GannonFan wrote:When have I ever bemoaned the mixed market benefits of our economy, or the laissez-faire advantages of it (although, truth be told, we are far from a true laissez-faire economy - we haven't been close to that since the 1920's at least - maybe the 1880's - and I don't think anyone serious is really saying we go back to those times)?

Pwns wrote:I would argue that the religious right is a thorn in the side of the republican party. A lot of conservatives are fed up with them and it's very hard to build coalitions to win elections.

It's not like Wall Street is fighting tooth and nail to elect republicans anyways. Obama has been such a good friend to them. His administration makes Bush's look downright bloodthirsty when it comes to prosecuting corporate crime.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Full disclosure…I went back and read Cappy's bit at least 5 times and now I'm not even sure of what he's talking about.

So I'm reducing his grade to D+ until further clarification.

But you and Ganny get D's for continuously failing to understand the laissez-faire advantages our financial sector and capitalists have enjoyed and the positives of a mixed market economy that, as the article points out, should harness productivity to "common purposes".

Your homework is to go and not read a Tom Friedman article for at least one week.

When have I ever bemoaned the mixed market benefits of our economy, or the laissez-faire advantages of it (although, truth be told, we are far from a true laissez-faire economy - we haven't been close to that since the 1920's at least - maybe the 1880's - and I don't think anyone serious is really saying we go back to those times)?

As to what the "common purposes" represent, that's the beauty of using a term so vague and without meaning that you don't really end up advocating anything. Who gets to decide what "common purposes" mean?