Kerry's running mate

[HasimirFenring]

I know you used to, but that was some time ago. Put more simply: do you have trade unions who back your 'as left as our sponsors will allow' 'Democrat' party.

I am fairly certain we do have such unions, yes.

[danielsh]

I know you used to, but that was some time ago. Put more simply: do you have trade unions who back your 'as left as our sponsors will allow' 'Democrat' party.

We absolutely do.  American unions are, to the best of my knowledge, generally rather corrupt and far from what they once were (strong, revolutionary, concerned for the worker); however, they certainly do exist.

[Wolf]

Yeah, trade unions are a Democratic party bread-and-butter support group. Big supporters of the Democrats.

[exatreide]

We absolutely do.  American unions are, to the best of my knowledge, generally rather corrupt and far from what they once were (strong, revolutionary, concerned for the worker); however, they certainly do exist.

No they are much less corupt then they once were.

[Wolf]

Dan believes the exact opposite becase he feels that anything less than perfection must be magnified. It is his belief that, in so magnifying each and every flaw, the flaws will be more quickly corrected. ;)

And, yes, while the unions in their early stages operated as armed mobs, I think that they more accurately represented a more fed-up working class who demanded rights. Nowadays, unions are more peaceful and rarely utilize violent means to accomplish their goals. But, they don't seem to be as active as they once were...

[danielsh]

And, yes, while the unions in their early stages operated as armed mobs, I think that they more accurately represented a more fed-up working class who demanded rights. Nowadays, unions are more peaceful and rarely utilize violent means to accomplish their goals. But, they don't seem to be as active as they once were...

Yeah!  They used to do it right, dammit!

I'm kidding.  I was referring to the decreased activity

[Wolf]

I don't think you can say they're "letting themselves" be exploited when they don't see it as exploitation. If they are legitimately satisfied with what they have, then you can't blame for that.

[Edric O]

You are right that kerry might actually help in overturning much of what bush has messed up on. Not largely because of his or his side's ideas, but because it would probably create an atmosphere with the people to spark change

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I heard, Roosevelt wasn't much of a radical either. However, he was thrust onto the White House at a time when radical change was desperately needed, and when the American people desperately wanted it - so he delivered the radical change.

That doesn't mean Kerry will do the same, of course. Roosevelt was facing the Great Depression; and as bad as things are in America today, they're nowhere near as bad as in 1932 (although if Bush gets another term, at the rate he's handling the economy, they might well be).

so I agree with you dan, but this is the problem. Something within me fears voting for the lesser of two evils.

Then vote for Nader! Or for one of the many candidates put forward by one of America's many tiny socialist parties.

I'd probably vote for Nader myself - unless I knew I lived in a state that might go the same way as Florida in 2000. In that case I'd vote for Kerry, just to be on the safe side.

Reply to Edric: I think that's an interesting analysis of how things have been done. I think that it (what you and Marx have said) is pretty much correct and I agree with it for the most part, but I wonder exactly how that (the division of the working class) has been accomplished over the years. Is it an on-going conspiracy by the rich? Or is it more unconcious than that, sort of the natural response of the rich towards the dissent of the poor?

It's certainly not a "conspiracy" - the rich usually don't band together unless they have absolutely no choice (like, for example, if revolution is imminent). Keep in mind that they are in competition with each other for wealth and power.

But it's not unconcious either. When there's a lot of money invested in panic-mongering and making the population believe that the "barbarians" (people of a different race/nationality/religion/sexual orientation) are pounding at the gates, this is obviously done with a calculated reason in mind. The rich act separately, but they act consciously.

And, yes, while the unions in their early stages operated as armed mobs, I think that they more accurately represented a more fed-up working class who demanded rights.

Indeed. But also, in those days, the state itself (not to mention big business) operated much like an armed mob - a heavily armed mob.

[ordos45]

Off topic a tad, but I just ran across a Kerry/Edwards slash fic site.  Please go back to the Army of Gates...I mean...the heavily armed mobs that are business and politics.

[danielsh]

I had the opportunity to hear Congressman Kucinich speak today, and I still believe that the man is incredible.  Reform will not, in my opinion, fix the intrinsic problems of the American system, but to listen to someone with Kucinich's passion, idealism, and eloquence speak is to remember that it can at least make things a little better.  The mainstream media ridicules him for his more extreme positions, but it's refreshing to hear someone declare and fight for a belief in the midst of all Washington's corruption and politicking.

He should have been veep...

[Wolf]

What gangster (of the same time period, roughly, as unions and a meaner government) said that the government was just simply legalized organized crime? It taxes -- protection money. It has an army -- hitmen. I think those were his justifications.

[Edric O]

What gangster (of the same time period, roughly, as unions and a meaner government) said that the government was just simply legalized organized crime? It taxes -- protection money. It has an army -- hitmen. I think those were his justifications.

Well, historically speaking, "organized crime" is exactly the form taken by government and private property at their very beginning. A bunch of thugs came in and said "this is our land" to people who did not have the means to overpower them, and they became the private owners and the "government" of that land, all rolled into one.

Actually, come to think of it, in certain ancient times (after the widespread introduction of agriculture but before the first written laws, such as the Code of Hammurabi), the government and the owner of private property were one and the same. When a person gained property over a patch of land, he became the king of that land. There was no difference between "king" and "private owner". It was not until much later that "the government" and "the corporations" (I'm using the term loosely) were actually separated. And it wasn't until the late 19th century and the early 20th century that the government stopped being an armed gang and started actually caring for the welfare of its people. We call this kind of government a "welfare state", and its appearence coincided more or less with the introduction of full democracy (universal suffrage).

See, if the people control the government, they'll want more than just an armed gang. No wonder advocates of "limited government" tend to hate democracy (or at least full democracy) so much.

[HasimirFenring]

This is off topic I guess, but I've been wondering: Edric, you have often said that America doesn't HAVE a Left, Democrats being center Right and republicans being far right (these days, anyway).  I agree, but was wondering why you think this is so.  What makes Americans vote several degrees further right than other electorates?

[Edric O]

This is off topic I guess, but I've been wondering: Edric, you have often said that America doesn't HAVE a Left, Democrats being center Right and republicans being far right (these days, anyway).  I agree, but was wondering why you think this is so.  What makes Americans vote several degrees further right than other electorates?

Because they don't have a choice, obviously. The two monolithic parties hold such power that the choice to any American is either Democrat or Republican. If neither party fits your views, you can't do anything about it.

Or, at least, not unless you get together with other people to fight for your cause.

[HasimirFenring]

What I meant was more along the lines of: why have no strong Leftist parties developed in America while they have come to power elsewhere?  Chance?  Many other nations, in Europe in particular, had political machines controlled by the Right a century or two ago, yet Labour and Socialist parties still developed.

[Wolf]

How did the British Commonwealth have such patriotic fervor associated with it when it was still an Empire -- the Victorian era, for example? A nation doesn't have to be a universal democracy for people to want to support it. Conquest, a sense of national power or pride, those were once enough to keep people satisfied.

That's a good question, Fenring, and I'm at first inclined to say that it has to do with a modern-day dosage of isolationism. And I think a US-Canada comparison will help to illustrate the form of isolation I'm talking about -- both countries are geographically quite similar, yet have developed quite different national attitudes and political leanings. The United States, for much of its history, has existed with little outside support. Canada, on the other hand, was highly supported and influenced by Britain, and maintained close ties. Canada, to my knowledge, operated much like an extremely independent colony up until recent years. Especially when compared to the bombastic Americans to the south. In short, Canada has always been more aware of European politics -- the only politics anyone really cared about for the last 300 years, anyway. This heightened awareness created a sense of being more at ease with the global situation. Such a perception the United States never possessed.

The real rise of liberal politics in Europe begins right after World War II, at least as I understand it. I feel this happened because the shock of what the Nazi empire attempted was so great that it spurred people from all European nations to do better. Reforms were instituted, students and the youth demanded them. Leaders, horrified by the past, were disposed to instituting them. The Cold War kept what might have been a full-blown liberal revolution in check, but the changes happened anyway, however muted they might have been.

The United States, however, faced a different path of history. America had been spared the destruction of World War II -- in fact, of any war for the last 80 years. Areas such as New England, the West Coast, and Mid-West either had never seen war in their entire histories as United States, or had seen limited forms of strictly-conventional warfare in the 1770s. The shock value simply did not exist for the vast majority of Americans. In fact, the only liberal movements the United States had in the 20th century were "one-use only." The Civil Rights, women's rights, and anti-war movements all existed to oppose or to promote one thing. And once accomplished, their fuel was spent and their sparks went out. The motivation to do better no longer existed because people felt they had done better. The only reason these movements existed in the first place was because there was, within certian groups, the motivation to go forth with them. There was no widespread shock value that every citizen felt. There was no unification of purpose, nor was there any coordination of political activities. Once goals had been met for one group, that group returned to a "dormant," if you will, political state. The United States has lacked a universal motivation for the betterment of society. There are several causes. One, people are disaffected by the idea of change because they are satisfied. Two, people have not been exposed to the negative stimulii required to demand change. Three, motivation exists, but whatever costs a movement would entail far outweigh the expected benefit,  and sheer economics prevents change.

A lot of ideas thrown out there, but there you have it. A lot of this probably is wrong, but, hey, it's a good try.

[HasimirFenring]

Thanks Wolfwiz, seems like an excellent explanation to me.  Could the way Americans were spared the shock of the world wars also be behind the higher rate of violent crime (as seen in Bowling for Columbine)?  The many millions that died in Europe taught its people to embrace nonviolence in a new way, while America lost relatively few citizens to the war.

[Wolf]

Yep. I think that's a big part of it, but mainly it comes down to one of those three factors. People are satisfied and feel no need for change. People are unaware of any seriously negative stimulus that would demand change. Or people feel a slight need for change, but feel that the cost of change would be greater than its benefit.

[Edric O]

How did the British Commonwealth have such patriotic fervor associated with it when it was still an Empire -- the Victorian era, for example? A nation doesn't have to be a universal democracy for people to want to support it. Conquest, a sense of national power or pride, those were once enough to keep people satisfied.

I never said the people hated (or even disliked) their government. I said that they would have demanded more from it if they had the chance. And when they did get the chance, they did demand more from it.

I agree with you regarding the reasons why the political landscape of the USA is so different from the one in the rest of the First World, but the dominant role was played by World War one, not WW2.

Despite its smaller scale, lower death toll and lower physical damage overall, the First World War had a MUCH greater impact on the world (and Europe in particular) than the Second.

The rise of liberal (or social democratic, as we call it) politics in Europe began after the First World War, not after the Second. Just consider the following: In 1914, Europe was far more right-wing than America (in fact, the USA was the most liberal country in the world in 1914). By 1950, Europe was far more left-wing than America. You can imagine the massive changes that took place in this period of time.

In 1914, Europe was the bastion of the Right, the homeland of the old conservative empires: The German Empire, the Austrian Empire, the Russian Empire, and even the decadent Ottoman Empire. By the end of the First World War, the emperors had been overthrown, their empires shattered. The most conservative empire in Europe and the last absolute monarchy on our continent, Czarist Russia, suffered the greatest defeat of them all. The aristocracy wasn't merely defeated; it was crushed, and the most right-wing country in Europe became the most left-wing. The Bolshevik Revolution was the greatest shock of the war. It literraly scared the sh*t out of every government on the continent, and for good reason. The years 1918-1920 were years of revolution. Hungary declared itself a soviet republic. Bavaria declared itself a soviet republic. In Italy, the workers and the socialists ruled the streets. Germany was ablaze. France and Britain faced massive social movements and strikes. Those were years of immense optimism for the left-wing: The World Revolution appeared to be at arm's reach. Many believed it was only a matter of one or two years; perhaps even a matter of months. Socialists prided themselves by saying that red flags were flying from the Atlantic to the Urals. Unfortunetaly, their optimism was exaggerated. The capitalist governments had been taken by surprise and lay paralyzed in shock for a couple of years, but they eventually recovered and began bloody campaigns to crush the revolutions. The socialist movement itself was disorganized and soon fractured. The communists and the social democrats split, going their separate ways (and often fighting each other).

The World Revolution never took place, but the psychological impact of those years, and of the war itself, was immense. The right-wing never quite recovered. The old 19th century political dichotomy between liberals and conservatives was destroyed, as various off-shoots of the socialist movement entered the parlamentary arena. The only place where the 19th century liberal/conservative spectrum remained intact was the USA. But even there, the liberals re-shaped themselves in the 30's, when Roosevelt took up many social democratic ideas.

As for the Soviet Union, have you ever seen its coat of arms? The hammer & sickle over the globe. It was created in the post-war period of unbridled optimism, and none of its architects ever dreamed that it would remain a primarily Russian Union. They thought they were laying the foundations of a European Union, and eventually a World Union. They thought Moscow would be just a temporary capital, soon to be replaced by Paris or Berlin, or perhaps London. Had the European Revolutions succeeded, that is what would have happened. And the Soviet Union would have had the industry and infrastructure needed for a smooth transition to socialism, Stalin would have never been given the chance to take power, and Western European democratic traditions would have ensured the Soviet Union remained a good democracy. After that, who knows? Perhaps there would have been a Star Trek-style united Earth government by the middle of the 20th century.

Come to think of it, this would make a great sci-fi story set in a parallel universe...

[nemafakei]

"The real rise of liberal politics in Europe begins right after World War II, at least as I understand it. I feel this happened because the shock of what the Nazi empire attempted was so great that it spurred people from all European nations to do better."

As Edric said, it was the rise of socialist parties, and it began after WWI, though I'd contest that WWII gave it a very significant push too.

My view is that it has a lot to do with the state of the lives of the poor. That is to say, the poor were really poor and there was real demand from the soldiers too for welfare, even though armies tend to vote right. That's the main reason for our Attlee government.

Postwar Liberalism didn't particularly get off the ground until the end of rationing. After all, what's freedom if you've got nothing with which to be free?

Regarding the US, I think your lack of a real socialist party lies partly because you lacked our circumstances (above), partly because you already believed you had a left-wing party, partly because the US is so big that it's very difficult to estabish a new party capable of running a campaign in every constituency.

[Wolf]

Edric; Right then, I can see your reasoning there, and I completely agree. About that Star Trek style alternate universe... Do you think that there can ever be a worldwide communist revolution, or does communism have to evolve slowly?

Yep, Nema, I agree with you there. Those are the three primary reasons. There was no negative stimulus to shock people into action. People either believed they had fulfilled liberal goals, or were too satisfied to feel any need to act. And, lastly, the cost of starting a movement -- the difficulty of establishing a party, as you said -- outweighs what people might perceive as gains from the movement.

[HasimirFenring]

It's a shame that Stalin was running the Soviet Union when the Great Depression hit Europe.  Had it been an idealist instead of a butcher at the helm, maybe Edric's alternate history would have come true.

[Wolf]

I doubt it, a lot of people who didn't want change still commanded armies. Case in point, Hitler's Germany. I'm not sure if an idealistic Soviet Union would have beaten back the Nazis. I'm not sure about the facts, but I know that Stalin brutally ordered the defense of Stalingrad, the turning point of the war in the Eastern theater. Another leader might have lost, or might not have had the will to press the attack after a victory there, if victory was inevitable.

Even then, a depression doesn't necessarily mean communism or socialism will occupy the power vacuum. Strong leaders who seem very trustworthy or charismatic can make grand promises, and a lot of people will follow them. If they're challenged, political discord and even civil war may ensue. Communism might triumph, true, but only after what would probably have been something on the scale of a World War, considering how poorly off so many countries were at the time.

[HasimirFenring]

As I recall communist/socialist parties had record popularity in the early and mid 30's (and even in the 20's in Germany, where the Depression struck early).  Extreme Left and Right parties both had many supporters in Germany circa 1930--but Hitler acted first and had the opposition killed.  A leader whose primary goal was spreading socialism rather than building up heavy industry (that is to say, NOT Stalin) may have been able to prevent the Nazis from coming to power at all, possibly even uniting Europe within the first half of the 20th century (but there is no way of knowing, aside from being optimisitc, that the government would have been a free and democratic one).

[Wolf]

That's true, and it might have gone the exact opposite way as well. Hitler was elected, lest we forget. There were people who found his way of "progress" better than the Socialists'. Which is why I say there would be conflict of some kind and political discord -- which there was, in our history, anyway. We called it World War II.