While doing my undergraduate work, I heard a story from a political science professor about a guy that thought the Russian Federation was only a ploy, that they would revert back to communism after America is weakened as a world power. Everywhere arm chair intellectuals gathered, I found the terms "democracy" used as an antithesis to "communism". Communism to the average American means: tyranny, anti-individualism, government takeover, lack of freedom, etc. Whereas, democracy meant: freedom, individualism, limited government, etc. This viewpoint couldn't be more skewed. What would be better is a comparison and contrast between capitalism and communism. Because a country can have a dictatorial governing model and also follow the principles of capitalism, just as a democracy can have a communist economic model.

Although not every tyrannical, dictatorial, despotic, authoritarian or totalitarian regime is synonymous with the words "socialism" or "communism", there are few examples of governing structures using the communist economic model.

Strictly speaking, the tenets of communism go back to the early gatherer-hunter societies with small hierarchies and limited property and adhered to principals of group survival; moreover, it was based in a governing structure of family collectives.

The opposite to this concept of communism would be the model that entrenched itself into Marxist dialog; the concept that was adopted by the Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, Maoists, et al. This massive economic model was proposed to alleviate the suffering of the working people during the Industrial Revolution, which spelled certain doom for the average worker. The economies of the world were owned by successors, royalty, lords, nobles, emperors and landowners. To the revolutionaries, there was no way that the Industrial Revolution was ever meant to improve the lives of the workers, instead it was only a way to increase the wealth and power of the few. The years leading up to the communist revolutions were a boiling point of sorts. When the power shifted from the monarchies and dynasties to the Politburo and vanguard, the economic models shifted as well. The eventual result was the horrible bumbling of rogue revolutionaries turned politicians which lead entire countries starving and unsheltered. Instead of turning over the economy to educated economists, these revolutionary politicians directed the economic structure to short-gain revolutionary goals. Communism peaked as a noble cause for the masses of disenfranchised people, but failed to loose itself from the values of disingenuous warfare. Like most waring countries, a large amount of any country's gross domestic product must be diverted to the war effort as seen with Great Britain during WW2.

Consequently, communism erupted where countries were poorest. Yet, when a country reverted to communism, most of the country's wealth hopped on a boat and settled on the shores of capitalist countries (mainly the U.S.). And thus, the perverse confusion of "democracy" and "communism" bubbled to the surface.

Today, eager right-wing zealots jump at the opportunity to use the term "communism" or "socialism" in a pejorative manner. The terms have become synonymous with government take overs and taxes, but both have richer contexts than the trite slurs they represent.

Currently, Tea party revolutionaries are demanding a break down of the federal government and a halt to all taxation. What they propose is private ownership of public interests, such as infrastructure (roads and bridges), structural engineering (building codes and safety), public safety (police, fire fighers, the national guard), public health (the FDA, OSHA, the CDC, Medicare), economic regulation and education. The Tea party's preoccupation with dismantling public funding for these programs is intellectually tragic. The revolutionaries leading this Tea party movement are no more educated about the economy than the Soviets were about theirs. What will happen is that a fringe group will contort the reality of an economic system that needs funding and eventually nosedive our already battered economy even further into the shitter.

In conclusion, these Tea party people aren't led by their conviction in economic statistics and data but rather a brief, ideological passion that has no plans for the future. What they want is JP Morgan & Chase repairing the roads and bridges, McDonalds policing our streets, News Corporation educating our children, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulating the market.

The way I see it, the Tea Party represents the dissatisfied common man. They have a severe weakness for libertarianism and as far as that goes I have to say that there are many beautiful and seductive points to the libertarian utopia. I can't fault them much for that weakness. What I can fault them for, however, is for falling for the blatant rhetorical tricks of the neocon right. If the dissatisfied common man thinks for two seconds that the Republican Party has his best interests at heart then he deserves everything he gets. Ultimately what the Tea Party demonstrates is that politics is absolutely dominated by media and that the right wing has a far more effective media machine than the left. The left are a bunch of disorganized rabble when it comes to cohesive bite-sized bumper-sticker-slogan messages. The left engages in in-fighting and bickering whereas the right offers a single and powerful slogan. The public likes simplicity and power and so the Tea Party are manipulated into formation by the Republican Party. We need a return to the E.R. Murrow days of the press as the fourth branch of the government. And that's the way it is. Probably not kosher to mix Murrow and Cronkite like this, but Murrow's tagline doesn't fit here at all.

I would guess that the Tea party is composed of common people and the majority of common people in America are generally middle-class. Libertarianism is anarchism without the collectives; it's more prone to groupspeak than intellectual debate. However, I do agree with some things Libertarians have proposed: auditing the Fed and decentralizing certain federal regulation for local subsidies and farms.   

Yeah I don't embrace libertarianism either. It's an appealing philosophy but ultimately an untenable ideal. Heck, most ideals are really. Pragmatism is my watchword. Or at least I try to make it that.

EDIT: I just saw Cowboys and Aliens a few hours ago. I thought it was OK although quite obviously only as a joke.  Has anybody else seen it? Thoughts?

As usual, the loudest, most strident, simplistic messages are all that get any air time, and it's usually the wrong message. Have a good look at countries like Yemen, Somalia or Afghanistan, because the way things are going, that's your future.

Bakka-lakka-lakka...

I disagree with the notion that the majority of common people are middle class.

I think that's pure propaganda on the part of politicians and the media. 

Most people now in the US are lower or working class, but identify themselves as middle class because the housing bubble + cheap credit + cheap Wal-Mart versions of goods made it possible to approximate the perceived middle class lifestyle for many. 

The other factor is that with reduced income inequality post WW2, there really was less lifestyle class distinction (at least among the working and lower middle class).  All of the anti-communist propaganda and the myth of the American dream also served to further blur class distinctions.

One of the traditional markers of being middle class is earning a college degree - which is something only ~30% of Americans have done.  Holding a professional job - engineer, doctor, lawyer, etc. - was also a marker of being middle class.

Also, in a society that tries to pretend that it's classless, it suits the popular narrative to label most people as middle class - if you're not Bill Gates and you're not the mythical welfare queen, then you're middle class according to the media and your big two political parties.  If you believe the popular narrative, the family making $35,000 and living in a modular home is middle class, just as the family making $200,000 and living in a stick built home is.  Hell, people with a net worth well in excess of $10,000,000 will identify themselves as middle class and fear that they're poor according to an article I read somewhere recently.

the majority of common people in America are generally middle-class.

I suppose I was being a bit lopsided on this theorem. According to which model for income distribution used, the term varies. What I was referring too was the upper and lower middle-class, mutually. Based on what it means to survive in American society, a property owning household would need a healthy debt-to-wealth ratio to be financially considered middle-class. As a figure in a census taken in 2009 by the U.S. Census Bureau, the median annual income is $49,777. This figure leads me to believe that any two people living together and earning wages equal to the one another, that household can humbly admit to middle-class status. Both persons in a household may have working class jobs but the household may maintain a middle-class income overall. However, a two person household may claim middle-class status but work blue collar or service industry jobs.

I disagree with the notion that the majority of common people are middle class.

I think that's pure propaganda on the part of politicians and the media. 

Most people now in the US are lower or working class, but identify themselves as middle class because the housing bubble + cheap credit + cheap Wal-Mart versions of goods made it possible to approximate the perceived middle class lifestyle for many. 

The other factor is that with reduced income inequality post WW2, there really was less lifestyle class distinction (at least among the working and lower middle class).  All of the anti-communist propaganda and the myth of the American dream also served to further blur class distinctions.

One of the traditional markers of being middle class is earning a college degree - which is something only ~30% of Americans have done.  Holding a professional job - engineer, doctor, lawyer, etc. - was also a marker of being middle class.

Also, in a society that tries to pretend that it's classless, it suits the popular narrative to label most people as middle class - if you're not Bill Gates and you're not the mythical welfare queen, then you're middle class according to the media and your big two political parties.  If you believe the popular narrative, the family making $35,000 and living in a modular home is middle class, just as the family making $200,000 and living in a stick built home is.  Hell, people with a net worth well in excess of $10,000,000 will identify themselves as middle class and fear that they're poor according to an article I read somewhere recently.

I agree. the issue of middle-class status is ambiguous and moot as of 2008. The media has driven quite a distance to prove that Horatio Alger's hero is still alive and kicking, that every working human being has the ability to achieve unfettered wealth if they have the will power and drive to do so.

We are destined to fail because our leadership is not looking, much less moving, in the correct direction.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQqDS9wGsxQ&feature=player_embedded

I used to think there had to be some sort of conspiracy with respect to growth limits and the inability of people to understand them, but after meeting a few public policy and politician types, the real problem is that many of them are fundamentally stupid.

There are very few intellectuals in government and public policy.  There are a lot of singularly driven people incapable of dealing with complex issues.  There are a lot of mental defectives who toe a party line - because they're incapable of problem solving or thinking for themselves after years of myopically sucking their way up the ladder of power. 

There are, of course, people with agendas but there is really no conspiracy there.  They're readily identified - people like the Kochs.  When you've got a bunch of cum hungry little whores lapping at your balls, you can propose whatever indefensible bullshit you want and have it taken as gospel.

they're incapable of problem solving or thinking for themselves

Not completely true, I think. It's just that the problems they are solving are different than those we hired them for. Politicians today are professional gold-diggers courting financiers for campaign contributions. Election campaigns are expensive as hell and money talks louder than any other single factor in a candidate's re-election. Each 4- or 6-year term is a 4- or 6-year preparation for re-election. There's a reason Congress is only in session 3 or 4 days a week. Politicians who wish to stick around have to spend every available moment speaking to lobbyists and special interests raising more money. It takes a special kind of person to be so consistently self-interested in the face of the grave problems facing the nation. The reason that there are very few intellectuals in government is obvious. What kind masochistic intellectual would want to deal with such a massive weight of self-interested ignorance?

That doesn't require any problem solving ability, though.  The two parties have their talking points.  They have their connections and party establishments.  Even the tea party candidates in congress were ultimately elected largely with party support.

Oh and yes, I totally realize that the video I posted was completely anti carbon based fuels and therefore totally biased. But so am I am so is anyone reasonable and fuck anyone else because we're correct.

Emp - I was being a bit facetious, but my point was that the problems they solve most effectively are how to dig up further funding and how to posture for their next run in the elections. I would honestly give many politicians the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a basic moral compass, but many of them shrug off morals because they are aligned with immoral but key investors or because they have taken Norquist-mandated purity pledges or because they are bound to any number of other inflexible stances whose only purpose is to get them re-elected.

Incidentally, the taboo against changing of one's mind is pretty sad as well. To me, a man who can change his mind is a thoughtful man. In politics the politician is drummed out of town. Presumably the American public is intended to believe that the only good politician is an omniscient reporter of Truth rather than a fallible thinker who takes changing evidence into consideration.

Zoomie - Maybe not just carbon-based fuels. The clip was against all limited energy resources.

Found a quote that seemed topical:

I believe--it may be no more than pious hope--that though a collectivised economy is bound to come, those countries will know how to evolve a form of socialism which is not totalitarian, in which freedom of thought can survive the disappearance of economic individualism.  "Literature and Totalitarianism" - George Orwell. broadcast, 21 May 1941; typescript. 

The 20 hours of C-Span radio I listen to per week means I have been listening to far too many politicians.  I could use a break from politics again, probably.