Act Now!

Left Forum 2007

posted by Peter Rothberg on 03/07/2007 @ 10:52pm

One of the country's premiere progressive events, this weekend's Left Forum brings together activists and intellectuals from across the globe to share ideas for understanding and transforming the world.

An outgrowth of the former Socialist Scholars Conference, the Left Forum was started in 2005 after a factional split over strategy and personalities led to the resignation of seven SSC board members and the formation of a similar annual conference but with a greater emphasis on activism, organizing and practical politics.

With close to one hundred panels and three major cultural events, this year's Forum will tackle Big Questions like can the Left advance an alternative vision capable of capturing the popular imagination, and is reform the farthest possible horizon for our hopes?

Featuring a roster of dynamic speakers including Nation writers Gary Younge, Liza Featherstone, Doug Henwood, Christian Parenti and Dave Zirin as well as Frances Fox Piven, Cornel West, Dennis Brutus, Marion Nestle and many more, this year's Forum should be an invaluable opportunity for progressives to trade notes, numbers and ideas.

The conference's opening plenary (chaired by Featherstone) takes place this Friday, March 11, at 7:00 at Cooper Union at 7 East 7th Street (at 3rd Avenue) in Manhattan. The panels and events take place all day on both Saturday and Sunday. Various panels will also be streamed and archived online. Check the Left Forum site this weekend for details.

Check out the full program, including info on a special, free Saturday night series of readings from Howard Zinn's Voices of a People's History of the United States by Amy Goodman, Anthony Arnove, Staceyanne Chin, Brian Jones, Deepa Fernandes, and Erin Cherry. Click here for info on registering, getting there and anything else you might need to know.

Comments (124)

  1. can the Left advance an alternative vision capable of capturing the popular imagination?

    Peter, that is a good question, and a central one to the relevancey of this weekends's gathering...will it just be a back-slapping social gathering, a chance to press the attack on the evil repubs, or a new beginning for a movement to focus positive energies on accomplishing something even righties like me can root for?

    My sincere hopes for the latter, truly........

    Posted by davebarlett at 03/07/2007 @ 11:56pm

  2. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/08/2007 @ 02:18am

    Gotta somewhat go with LVLIB here. Why the name change, PETER?

    Unless they thought maybe they couldn't "sell it to the public" as a "Socialist Scholars Conference"...

    so they changed it to a more innocuous "Left Forum"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 07:00am

  3. Mask The reason they changed the name was because many on the left aren't socialists and weren't joining so they changed it to include left wingers who aren't socialists.I'm beginning to think that this country doesn't need a leader to unite us.We need a psychiatrist to do mass group therapy for about 90% of the country.Too many suffer from suspicion and paranoia.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 08:08am

  4. Speaking for myself, the word "socialist" bothers me no more than "libertarian," "anarchist," or "green." Presumably, these four ideologies constitute the "left." Perhaps the aim of the re-naming is to make the conference more inclusive. This can only be a good thing, since everything bad about socialism has its origin in one-party systems that excluded their critics. There is nothing inherently bad about socialism itself, no more than there is anything inherently bad about "libertarianism," "anarchism," or "greenness." The bad thing is always one-party rule.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 03/08/2007 @ 09:01am

  5. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/08/2007 @ 08:08am

    So who's running it? The "left wingers" or the socialists?

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 09:13am

  6. BTW, always ask this question when the topic comes up (it did in David Corn's thread for some reason)....

    If there IS a definable difference between a "progressive" and a socialist, just as there is between a "progressive" and a conservative or "centrist"....what is it?

    I mean, if a "progressive" can say "No, I oppose that and will fight against it" against some conservative policy or plan....can they ALSO say "No, I oppose that and will fight against it" to some socialist policy or plan....if so....give me an example?

    If not...then....IS there a difference?

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 09:16am

  7. MASK These days true socialists are rare.A believer in socialized medicine is not a socialist.If they were then all people who support the V.A. hospital system would be socialists.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 09:17am

  8. Terms like socialist,communist,fascist are used too loosely these days.There are very few true believers in any of those left in America.Look at how many people ignorantly refer to China and the former USSR as being communist.They had governments.There is no government in a communist country because the government has to wither away before you are,by definition,communist.If there is still a government then you are,by definition,socialist.There is,also, a right wing form of socialism.Ever hear of the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party?We need to stop worrying about children left behind and start with the adults left behind.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 09:26am

  9. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/08/2007 @ 09:26am

    I'M, that too is the constant refrain....the "reverse negative definition" ..."So, is Social Security socialism, if so....".

    And it doesn't answer my question. (Frankly, one of the main reasons I suspect there IS no difference between a "progressive" and a socialist).

    If we use the labels we use...and I see few who have a problem labelling a "right-winger" a "right-winger" or a "neo-con" a "neo-con"...or even a "conservative" a "conservative"...

    and the term "socialist" has a MEANING and definition and a 80-90% qualifying factor when applied to a person's political ideology...

    then what does the term "progressive" mean? And how is it defined DIFFERENTLY from a socialist political ideology?

    "There are no true believers"?...okay. Well we just have been through 12 years of a "conservative" Congress that went out of control with spending and expanding government....so I agree.

    But people DO claim to have a political philosophy....and if you're a "progressive", I'm pretty sure how it differs from a "conservative" philosophy....and would simply like to know how it is different from a "socialist" philosophy?

    So far...after literally YEARS of trying on political blogs....I've gotten few straight answers.

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 10:02am

  10. I see the "Emminent Historian" (my quotes)Howard Zinn mentioned. As one who has read all kinds of history all his life, I don't even regard Zinn as an historian: He's just an idealogue with a very limited view of history, kind of like a left wing David Horowitz. I remember reading him as part of a class in college 30 years ago & thinking him an A-Hole back then: Some things never change.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/08/2007 @ 10:03am

  11. Well, Chip, you know what they say: You can lead a horse to water.... And you can do even less with a jackass.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 10:09am

  12. Mask If you re read what I wrote you'll see that I said true believers who are socialists,communists,and fascists.It would be pointless to explain anything else to you since you have such trouble understanding simple English like several others on here.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 10:10am

  13. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/08/2007 @ 10:10am

    Yes, I'M ....I read it.....but it STILL doesn't explain where the "true believer socialist" ends...and "pragmatic progressives" begin.

    Again, where do the "progressives" say "No, can't support that...that's 'true believer socialist' and I oppose it."

    any examples?

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 10:22am

  14. But people DO claim to have a political philosophy....and if you're a "progressive", I'm pretty sure how it differs from a "conservative" philosophy....and would simply like to know how it is different from a "socialist" philosophy?

    Progressives are exactly that--progressive. Move ahead, embrace alternatives--be it a socialist or capitalist approach--whatever works. Just be practical and willing to take chances without wedding yourself to only one approach.

    (I'm sure the fuedal lords centuries back argued that their system was the end all of human kind, that things could not get better, as the elites of every other system since human beings embarked upon sedintary civilizations have argued in order to continue enjoying their wealth, rank, priviledges.)

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 10:23am

  15. And an Ahole is known by the company he keeps, Spence, old boy

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/08/2007 @ 10:29am

  16. MASk By definition, a progressive is a moderate who believes in working within the system to improve the system.By definition,a progressive does not want to radically change the system.By definition,a socialist does want to change the entire system.I would be considered a progressive thinker,but in no way shape or form would I be considered a socialist.My experiences with the veterans administration hospital system cured me of that.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 10:30am

  17. My experiences with the veterans administration hospital system cured me of that. Posted by I'M NOBODY

    Tell me about it. I hate having to deal with the VA; it always a pain in the ass and all hosed up. But--and this is a big but--it's an alternative if you're without insurance. Nothing's perfect; there's always a trade off.

    It's funny though: In other industrialized nations they have socialized medicine without some of the problems you encounter at the VA. Why is that?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 10:37am

  18. Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/08/2007 @ 10:23am

    That's fine, MTSP. Now, can you give me an example where a progressive would embrace a CAPITALIST approach to an issue?

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 10:45am

  19. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/08/2007 @ 10:30am

    I'M...sigh...again. Any SPECIFIC examples of the differences?

    "radicalism"?....ok, so are all socialists radicals, or perhaps believe in an incremental approach, but the same end-goal?

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 10:46am

  20. Mask I just gave you the definition of a progressive which includes working within the capitalist system and a belief in the capitalist system.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 10:48am

  21. Mask Get back to me when you learn how to comprehend simple English.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 10:49am

  22. That's fine, MTSP. Now, can you give me an example where a progressive would embrace a CAPITALIST approach to an issue?

    Posted by MASK

    Okay, how about off shoring CEO positions to Indian or Chinese executives that can do the work for a fraction of the pay.

    Or paying legal citizens the market wage for work that is done by illegal aliens for far below the market wage.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 10:50am

  23. MTSPENCE I have no idea why the veterans administration can't function as well as other countries socialized medicine does.It is a good thing if you have no insurance or if you love narcotics and tranquilizers.The veterans administration is the worlds best drug dealers.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 10:55am

  24. RESE -- As I've said before you're welcome here as long as you maintain some minimal standards and refrain from posting extremely long, re-posts that are completye off-point. This thread is for people to share their thoughts on certain topics, NOT to cut-and-paste other people's thouhgts on your own obsessions. Pls cease and desist or be gone.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 03/08/2007 @ 10:58am

  25. MASK/LL -- The conf changed its name b/c it was a diff. conference, started by a small-ish faction of folks previously involved with the SSC. Nothing too mysterious about it.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 03/08/2007 @ 11:00am

  26. I've used the VA for routine medical needs such as a cold that led to a throat infection. The problems I've encountered have been with the bureaucratic functions, not the actual medical care received (the doctors take the time to listen and speak with you, rather than rushing you in and out of the office).

    My suspicions on quality in comparison to the socialized medicine in other nations is that there is an inherent lack of will to make it the best it can be.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 11:01am

  27. MASK,

    Always kvetching and pettifogging in that pretentious style of yours. And what post by MASK wouldn't be complete without that dopey, uncalled-for sense of gloating due to his self-professed faculty of intuition that sets him above the mob here present? But while MASK boasts of possessing a subtle sense of morality and being abnormally gimlet-eyed, he cannot distinguish between socialist and progressive, assuming they are one in the same, not only because it better suits his perspective, but also because he's a royal kiang and doesn't know any better. On the other hand, should someone equate a neo con with a fascist he'll cry foul and take it upon himself to beam some sunshine through your clouded thinking.

    I'll be waiting for your captious rejoinder.

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/08/2007 @ 11:08am

  28. Posted by CHIMICHENGA

    Amen.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 11:19am

  29. MTSPENCE I have some horror stories about the medical part of the V.A.,but I know that there are some private care facilities that have similar horror stories so I won't judge them too harshly.Because I'm medically retired I have free government insurance that can be used for private care and can go to military bases so I do that if I can to avoid the V.A.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 11:20am

  30. Is not military medicine a form of socialized medicine?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 11:30am

  31. MTSPENCE I suppose that military medicine would be a form of socialized medicine.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 11:40am

  32. LvLiberty your need to write "the left" on every post makes your posts silly and pointless.Many on the right,also,view these as forms of socialized medicine.You live too sheltered a life and need to get out more.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 11:43am

  33. LVLIBERTY There are right wingers who cite the veterans administration hospital system as a good example as to why we shouldn't have socialized medicine.Obviously,they must believe it is a form of socialized medicine in order to use it as an example of socialized medicine.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 11:51am

  34. It is socialized in the sense that tax dollars finance it and it is not owned, operated by a private company.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 11:55am

  35. After reading the articles on the Nation for a while now as well as those who support those authors here, I concluded that the "group" think is socilism. From forced unions on Walmart to having the Post Office set up a health care system...all the forces here trend to more govt regs and influence on our personal lives and not less intrusion..from how much we make to what kind of oil our fries are cooked in and how hot the oil must be. How much income do I really need to live as opposed to the needs of others.

    There has been nothing I have read on this site EVER that espouses or celebrates the INDIVIDUAL and his/her efforts to better improve their lives on the own. No articles bout how one can do many things on ones own only if one TRYS. Always some govt, union, or some group to demand something from someone else , taken from someone else. You throw around the words income or wealth redistribution as if it is benign term....or passing around the candy dish.

    Go back and look at the "list of distinguished" apeakers and attendees...and you will not find one entrepenuer, industialist(one who built his business up with his bare hands),a conservative, any one who thinks rugged individualism is a virtue...Any lectures advocating do-it-yourself guide lines? or is a series of what "should" be done, if only we could get the govt in the hands of those who know better...in fact, call the conference by any name you want...the entire cabal are socialist and their beliefs and desires are to have the country MORE socialist rather than less so..

    there fore ...its socialism , you, all.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2007 @ 11:56am

  36. then what does the term "progressive" mean? And how is it defined DIFFERENTLY from a socialist political ideology?

    Posted by MASK 03/08/2007 @ 10:02am

    isn't socialism a political philosophy that seeks to nationalize key economic sectors in order to promote the common good (by keeping them out of private hands)? usually it's contrasted with classic communism which is antagonistic to capitalism (calling for the abolition of all private property) and democracy (calling for a "revolutionary" one-party state).

    progressive is a much more slippery term, not least because it defines a historic period of american history (think teddy roosevelt) linked to reform, modernization and the establishment of public institutions like schools and national parks. nowadays progressive is the linguistic substitute of choice for "liberal" -- which has taken on a pejorative meaning since the 1970's as in "tax and spend" liberal or "bleeding heart" liberal -- by people with left of center politics.

    so a progressive means what a "liberal" used to mean, minus the negative connotation, essentially a political stance of being open to reform and positive change in the economic, political and social spheres. it's much broader than socialist and so can include environmentalists, feminists, and people interested in racial and economic justice.

    Posted by katamantulo at 03/08/2007 @ 12:12pm

  37. i should add: so long as they don't want to challenge our capitalist system and its attendant inequalities in any fundamental way.

    Posted by katamantulo at 03/08/2007 @ 12:17pm

  38. It's amazing how many people come on here spouting opinions about socialists,progressives,socialized medicine,fascists etc just to find out that the person doesn't even have basic knowledge of what these terms even mean.Everybody who says all leftists are socialists and all righties are fascists are children left behind.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 12:36pm

  39. "(one who built his business up with his bare hands)"

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    I can speak only for myself. The small business man in this country gets the short end of the stick. He/she does not enjoy the influence, tax breaks and all the other advantages of the large corporations. It is the large corporations that we all should regard as dangerous to our political freedoms and economic security. Large corporations do not have to follow the rules of the market; they, due to their size and wealth and other advantages, are able to "make" the rules, and of course the rules they make favor their interests.

    If either party favors small businesses, genuinely free enterprise, then how can the mega-mergers that have taken place in the last two decades be explained. Mergers do not expand choice, they only eliminate jobs and benefit stock holders. (It is an accumalation of capital for the new global market.)

    And for those that claim the "free" market solves all problems (whether you own a small business or are the CEO of a large corporation), how do you explain the mess that is medicine in this country?

    It's all about creating--and maintaining!--a balance between the producers (a relative minority) and the consumers. Provide consumers with a fair, equitable system and I don't think there will be any demand for socializing anything. Point your vindictive at the corporations, Mr. Maasch; they're the ones screwing all of us.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 12:38pm

  40. It's amazing how many people come on here spouting opinions about socialists,progressives,socialized medicine,fascists etc just to find out that the person doesn't even have basic knowledge of what these terms even mean.Everybody who says all leftists are socialists and all righties are fascists are children left behind.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY

    It's because they've never studied the subject. They've swallowed what the system, a system dominated by big business, has been feeding them all their lives. People always look at me like I'm insane when I try to explain the USSR was communist in name only. They are oblivious to the facts.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 12:42pm

  41. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/08/2007 @ 11:56am | ignore this person

    Go get yourself a bucket of piping-hot Freedom Fries cooked in lard, scarf 'em down and then shove your favorite Ayn Rand book up your ass. The problem is, there are too many people like you claiming they know what's best for everyone, not just themselves. They're not content to be kingmakers - no, they also want to make pawns and run the whole gameboard. It's a shame there aren't more choices in between hard-boiled noddies like you with your limited experience and exposure masquerading as divine wisdom and perspective (and let's not forget the requisite love of mankind and tireless desire to elevate it) and those who want to give away everything in the store. I own no allegiance to either way of thought, but I do fear people like MAASCH who talk of the world of winners able to be obtained if everyone just saw things as clearly as he - and of course, followed his lead, because he is no doubt one of those who "know better".

    Funny how MAASCH proclaims his desire to see individualism thrive so that each and everyone can prosper and earn his own (as if some didn't have to starve in order for others to stuff their faces), and live without any government interference in his affairs and myriad pursuits of lucre and joy, yet he has absolutely no problem with the government spying, drying up jobs and shipping them overseas, opening borders and permitting the influx of illegal workers willing to work for a fraction of the minimum wage (thus bringing down the individual to a state of hunger wages), alleviating taxes on those "individuals" like him who've earned their keep and want to hive as much of it as possible so no one else can benefit, despite his claims to want to work towards improving society as a whole and seeing all ships rise with the tide. No, he doesn't mind tapped phones, data mining, or corporate welfare, just as he doesn't have any problems with bombing civilians, strangling the economies of poor, uncooperative nations who don't see the light or peppering the globe with sweatshops, so long as it increased profits, but more importantly, increases his degree of comfort and smugness. Because at the end of the day, the only values MAASCH wants America to cherish are those of money and consumption, and if you don't hop on board and play, well, it's your tough luck.

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/08/2007 @ 12:44pm

  42. Speaking as a Trotskyist, i.e., a particular type of revolutionary socialist, I would define "Progressive" as a catch-all category running from left-wing capitalists to the more right-wing socialists. For instance, so-called "Left-Liberals" support reforming and regulating capitalism, and prefer unions (generally), cooperatives and small business over big business, multi-nationals AND state-owned enterprises (for the most part). To me, garden-variety liberals are more open to deregulation than progressives and less interested in alternative forms of business.

    Not much farther to the left than the left-liberals these days are the Social Democrats. At one time, these "Right Socialists" talked about reforming capitalism out of existence. By managing capitalism and the state better, setting up both small and large cooperatives, unionizing industry and winning the hearts and minds of workers, small farmers and the petit-bourgoisie, eventually a critical mass of the economy or the electorate, or both, would tip the system from capitalism to socialism. While that long-term goal has long-since been dropped across the globe and social democrats in many countries have betrayed the working class to the IMF and the World Bank, they still have a record of reform and management that is pretty darn enviable (Scandanavia, Western Europe, Milwaukee and some other U.S. cities).

    Finally, non-revolutinary anarchists, libertarian socialists and christian socialists may also be considered progressives. The largest group of progressives in the U.S., however, are certainly the liberal-left, which is how I would characterize The Nation. William Grieder, its chief economics correspondent, has stated that private enterprise is essential to preserving civil liberty, and yet he is a supporter of agressively reforming and regulating capitalism. He is certainly no socialist or anarchist, but would definitely qualify in my book as more than a liberal. Hence, he's a progressive.

    Posted by cka2nd at 03/08/2007 @ 12:46pm

  43. I guess Chimi is having another bad day..

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2007 @ 12:47pm

  44. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/08/2007 @ 12:47pm | ignore this person

    Hey Gordo,

    You don't give a shit about anyone but yourself, but we already knew that. Nothing you say means anything, because you see a mirror when speaking or thinking. Go have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/08/2007 @ 12:50pm

  45. MTSPENCE No communist country has ever existed, as you pointed out.They were kind of socialist,but they had the totalitarian form of socialism which disillusioned many of us hippie types.I get the idea that some on here don't even know that there different forms of each of these types of governmental and economic systems.Even true laissez faire capitalists are rare these days.Most people believe in some kind of mixture of the different economic and political systems.Purists don't exist in large numbers.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 12:53pm

  46. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/08/2007 @ 10:49am

    Okay, I'M ....and you get back to me when you can tell me some DETAILS or SPECIFICS, and not generalities, to explain what the difference is.

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 12:56pm

  47. MASK,

    What's the difference between an idiot and a loser and how do you so eloquently balance your amalgam of both?

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/08/2007 @ 12:57pm

  48. Posted by CKA2ND 03/08/2007 @ 12:46pm

    CKA...that's the CLEAREST and most honest answer I've seen so far.

    No major specifics, but not the philosophical generalities and "Oh, it means not socialism, but not capitalism" high school responses that we've seen here so far.

    Let me ask you though about our "progressive/liberal" friends.....

    if YOU and those who hold your views proposed nationalizing industries (say..."Big Oil"), would they fight you, stay silent, or "reluctantly" go along with you?

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 12:59pm

  49. MASK I can't make it any more simplistic than I did.You'll have to put some thought into it.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 12:59pm

  50. "classic communism which is antagonistic to capitalism (calling for the abolition of all private property) and democracy (calling for a "revolutionary" one-party state)." Posted by KATAMANTULO 03/08/2007 @ 12:12pm

    Communists are not necessarily opposed to democracy, inlcuding multi-party democracy. If not for the circumstances - civil war, imperialist intervention and subversion and, in the case of the Left Social Revolutionaries, an armed uprising aimed at continuing the war against Germany! - a multi-party Soviet system including the Bolsheviks, the Left SR's and the Left Mensheviks might have survived in Revolutionary Russia.

    Posted by cka2nd at 03/08/2007 @ 1:01pm

  51. "he cannot distinguish between socialist and progressive, assuming they are one in the same"

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/08/2007 @ 11:08am

    Here's your chance to prove your intellectual superiority, CHIMI...

    and TELL me the difference?...in specifics?

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 1:01pm

  52. ROFLMAO!....Agreed!

    "MASK I can't make it any more simplistic than I did..."

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/08/2007 @ 12:59pm

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 1:02pm

  53. MASki And you still didn't understand it when I wrote in simplistic terms.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 1:06pm

  54. Oil is a toughie. Everywhere else in the world, the oil itself is owned by the state, even if the extracting companies are not. As for Big Oil, given its record and given global warming, etc., I could see many progressives going along with nationalization, and some liberals, too. However, many liberals and some progressives would probably prefer a very tough re-invigoration of the anti-trust laws and laws/regulations forcing the companies to implement publically desired policies, rather than turning them into public entities.

    As for other major industries, I think both liberals and progressives would generally favor anti-trust and regulation over nationalization. And, of course, when nationalization did have to occur, they would favor compensating all stockholders. Hardliners like me, on the other hand, would compensate pension funds and such but if you think I would pay off Warren Buffet if I didn't have to, I've got a bridge for sale, cheap.

    Posted by cka2nd at 03/08/2007 @ 1:09pm

  55. MT,

    I am refering the business built up by hand as a small business....my plumber as an example...he is very conservative,hard working, puts in long hours, worked his own business and built it up by hand...one pipe at a time, ...I don't give a shit about big corporations...they do not make up the majority of jobs in this country...individuals are what gets hurt by do gooders without regard to unintended consequences...the left are parnoid freaks when it comes to big corporations..they are the constant bogeyman for them..

    as to medicine...I come from a medical family..2 doctors, one GP and another, a surgeon, plus and an oral surgeon... after 4 years of school, I refused to go to med school or dental school...became the black sheep so to speak...

    Medical care in this country is the the best on the planet, and so are our drugs...thats not the problem...the problem in the delivery system...the method by which we deliver the most care to the most people without destroying either...in the last 20 years more drugs and more procedures have come onto the market that more people need or want...if you let the insurance companies run the books...then many services will not be dispenced due to a bean counters at the insurance com...if you turn this over to the govt, which can't run ANYTHING efficiently, you will kill off the procedures, demoralise the Doctors and kill the patients...it has to be a new system...and don't tell me about how wonderful England or Canada is...I grew up in Minnesota and the offices of my family in Wisconsin and Minnestoa were filled with Canadians wanting their treatment now, especially the major treatments..the socialists in Canada turned their health care system into a postal service, even tho they meant well..by that I mean, if you need the basics and preventive check ups, great, but if you need a kidney, you wait and hope to live...or you go to the place where you can get better care and sevice...similar to UPS or FED EX to deliver a letter where and when you need it...even when the cost is $ 19.00 vs 39 cents..socialism gives you the 39 cents version, which works for many,...but does not provide the $ 19.00 if you need it..poor metaphors, perhaps, but I hope yopu get my point....which is, more need the $ 19.00 version...

    Chimi claims I am all for the capitalist way and damn the rest...but I am not, nor am I for the good govt way...which will fail us all in the end.

    If you turn your health care over to the govt...you will end up at the post office.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2007 @ 1:10pm

  56. "Go have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/08/2007 @ 12:50pm

    'Have a coke?

    Shut the fuck up?

    Yikes..

    That might work in your $ 2.00 a day paradise down in LA( I am sure it is my fault, too)..but here we don't have to shut the fuck up...we can ignore , so I suggest if you do not like my posts..don't read them? But I will never shut the fuck up for you or anyone else....ok Amigo? Verstehen?

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2007 @ 1:16pm

  57. CHIMI,

    What's the difference between an idiot and a loser and how do you so eloquently balance your amalgam of both?

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/08/2007 @ 12:57pm

    Inyour case them is no difference...lookm in the mirror..

    Bush is down there somewhere for the next week...aren't you supposed to get your anti American sign ready?

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2007 @ 1:21pm

  58. Get my point Chimi?

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2007 @ 1:21pm

  59. MTSPENCE No communist country has ever existed, as you pointed out.They were kind of socialist,but they had the totalitarian form of socialism which disillusioned many of us hippie types.I get the idea that some on here don't even know that there different forms of each of these types of governmental and economic systems.Even true laissez faire capitalists are rare these days.Most people believe in some kind of mixture of the different economic and political systems.Purists don't exist in large numbers.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY

    That's the irony of a socialist revolution. Lenin understood that in order to overthrow the czarist regime a well organized, disciplined party was absolutely necessary. A well organized, disciplined party is anathema to communism, however. I've always wondered what could have happened had the circumstances that CKA2ND pointed would not have developed following the October Revolution. Would Lenin have been willing to share power with the SR's, Mensheviks, anarchists?

    And then, of course, Russia was not exactly an industrialized nation, at least not along what Marx describes; and what was left of industry and the advanced proletariat following the civil war was even less.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 1:24pm

  60. I don't give a shit about big corporations...they do not make up the majority of jobs in this country Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    But it is the corporations that control the government. It is corporations that set fiscal and monetary policy. Look at the board of the major corporations on this country and you will see a lot of the same faces.

    Medical care in this country is the the best on the planet...

    That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

    If you turn your health care over to the govt...you will end up at the post office.

    Once again, why does it work for the other industrialized nations? Could it be they geniunely want it to work?

    The post office? They've never lost a piece of my mail--never.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 1:30pm

  61. Once again, why does it work for the other industrialized nations? Could it be they geniunely want it to work..

    This, too, is your opinion.

    The post office? They've never lost a piece of my mail--never.

    How would you know?

    My pointis go to a post ofice and what do you see?

    Long lines. 6 windows, 3 of them closed, and you plod along...and you could be next in line, but a plack goes up and says, next window please...goes on break ..union rues yo know..and you wait.

    You are not the important cog in that machine...no matter what happens to you or what feel about your treatment. you will hand a card to fuill out and mail in with your cpmplaint..

    I do not want my family in that Dr. Office...I don't use to send out mail...I pay everything I use on line or FEDEX if I need to know it will get there..the next day ...

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2007 @ 1:42pm

  62. MTSPENCE Neither Russia nor China were at a point where Marxism could flourish.The people were too used to totalitarian rule and had little industrial base,as you pointed out.Russia probably would have been better off with the liberal govt that replaced the czar and then evolved into socialism and communism,but we'll never know.I think one of the mistakes Marx made was in not separating religion from Spiritualism.In many ways,the Spiritual beliefs of the Chinese fit in quite well with Marxist idealism as do the Spiritual teachings of Jesus which would have helped Russia.Spiritualism isn't the opiate of the masses.There aren't any accept your lot in life beliefs nor are there any suffering is good beliefs.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 1:49pm

  63. I do not want my family in that Dr. Office...I don't use to send out mail...I pay everything I use on line or FEDEX if I need to know it will get there..the next day ...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    And your are so fortunate to have the money to pay with. Lucky you. Meanwhile millions go uninsured and corporations complain that they cannot compete in the world market if they continue to provide their employees with insurance converage.

    The post office? They've never lost a piece of my mail--never.

    How would you know?

    When you mail bills in you definitely hear about it if they do not arrive.

    You want it all your way, just like a small child. Nothing's perfect; there are trade offs with any and all systems. You have to look at what benefits the most. Continue blaming the left for all the problems while you turn a blind eye to the so called "free" market and the corporations that benefit from it--as the expense of all the rest.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 1:50pm

  64. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/08/2007 @ 1:06pm

    I'M, I'm sorry, couldn't resist that opening.

    No, you didn't. You used generalities and "Well, progressivism isn't socialism, because there IS no socialism, and if there was it'd be radicalism, and progressivism isn't radicalism."

    "A does not equal B because B does not exist in reality or B=C...and A exists and does not equal C."...great...define "A" with specific terms.

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 1:55pm

  65. I'M, I'm sorry, couldn't resist that opening.

    No, you didn't. You used generalities and "Well, progressivism isn't socialism, because there IS no socialism, and if there was it'd be radicalism, and progressivism isn't radicalism."

    "A does not equal B because B does not exist in reality or B=C...and A exists and does not equal C."...great...define "A" with specific terms.

    Posted by MASK

    Geez, Mask, go buy a book if you really don't know the difference.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 1:58pm

  66. And all the while, Mr. Maasch, wages do not keep up with inflation (or the profits of the market); the "free" market pollutes the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat; tuition rises at twice the rate of inflation; our representative government is bought and paid for by the deep pockets that can afford the price tag; the US, the richest country in the world incarcerates more people relative to its population than any other nation; most of the US population is in debt up to their eye balls--yeah, it's all working great for you and a relative handful of others. Just remember, it is not the "left" that is running the show here.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 2:02pm

  67. I recommend the conference although I do think it's rather dominated by Old Left types, and in 2004 the final session was hijacked by Kerrycrats (I've read the other posts here: please don't ask me to define these things, do a little research in this age of the internet!). I'm sympathetic to libertarian socialism and that's represented though, as are Nation types (i.e. Kerrycrats!) and others. The Left is quite diverse, obviously. Feminists and black activists are noticeable for their very low profile at the conference, though.

    OK I will offer a definition: the classical 19th century image of socialism was a classless society where exploitation was eliminated. Policy specifics and strategies vary infinitely, but obviously nationalizing some industrial sectors or doing things the Russian way don't count as "socialism" by this definition, still the best in my opinion.

    Posted by rakhia at 03/08/2007 @ 2:05pm

  68. Nobody: Socialism is the product of Christian values. Marx simply objected to the methods religion is used to enslave the masses; and the way religion tends to close minds.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 2:10pm

  69. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/08/2007 @ 1:21pm | ignore this person

    When I look in the mirror I see a well-groomed sleuth with a twinkle in his eye that evinces a lust for life and a grin that is perhaps provoked by a latent letch or maybe just the residue from a recent jeer. One thing is for sure - I do not see any strings hovering over my head like many I've enfiladed here, nor do I view anything akin to corpulence or "fleshiness" in my physique unlike some heavy rollers here present. But more importantly, I try to look at what the mirror cannot describe as well as that which lies beyond the mirror, just as I successfully foray to the other side of the television screen by traveling as often as possible where I can stumble upon new places and new faces to which I can actually put names and learn the scoop directly from the horse's mouth, which is a great alternative to jawing what some towncrier or talebearer brings you without ever having to unglue yourself from the idiot box.

    P.S. MAASCH, I do agree with you about not letting the government be responsible for your health care. Having worked in pharmaceuticals I believe the individual should be responsible for his/her own healthcare. I mean, the government is in cahoots with the FDA and others who sell you Bovine Growth Hormone-laced milk and cloned meat and claim it's all good for you. Riiiiiight... If you want to live in dis-ease, well, buy what the TV peddles, get sick, then ask your doctor about the cures offered in between the ads for garbage masquerading as food. Autointoxication is patriotic - just as throwing your money at doctors bent on making you a perpetual patient is instead of curing your ailments.

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/08/2007 @ 2:16pm

  70. MASK That isn't what I wrote.Learn to read English.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 2:17pm

  71. Look there are only three possibilities for why NO ONE can specifically define the difference between "progressivism" and "socialism"...

    1. There is NO definition of "progressivism" as there is socialism. It is ephemeral and emotion-based and though it knows what it is in opposition on the Right side of the political spectrum, it is elusively defined towards the other end. NO ONE can define it specifically against the Left or socialist side. It is beyond the realm of human thought. It's like defining "God". (Should come as no surprise to some like CONSHAME who equate religious morality to their politics.)

    2. There is no difference except in matter of time-tables and public expression. In other words a "progressive" is simply a socialist who...A. is willing to see their ultimate goal done in increments and over an extended period of time. Or B. a socialist who due to the political climate in the USA CANNOT admit to being one and must "fudge" their political ideology with an innocuous label of "progressive".

    3. No progressives here can figure it out and offer specific examples of where they would differentiate themselves from a socialist or strongly oppose a socialist policy as they would a conservative one.

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 2:17pm

  72. Geez, Mask, go buy a book if you really don't know the difference.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/08/2007 @ 1:58pm

    "I know, but I'm not going to tell YOU!"

    hehe...put MTSP down for a "#3"

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 2:18pm

  73. MASK Progressive does have a specific definition.People who come on here should,not only know, what the definitions are,but should even know the more common variations on the theme.If you don't then get off here and learn about them and then come back and give an informed opinion.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 2:21pm

  74. MTSPENCE In fairness to Marx I will say that during his time religion and Spiritualism were not considered to be separate things and he was,basically correct in his view of religion.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 2:26pm

  75. MT,

    You have a classic knee jerk reaction and claim I have a child like understanding and am lucky, but what about....

    "And your are so fortunate to have the money to pay with. Lucky you. Meanwhile millions go uninsured and corporations complain that they cannot compete in the world market if they continue to provide their employees with insurance converage.''

    First, no, they can't compete when union workers here will not agree to a co pay even when the haven't worked in 2 years...when health care per worker cost more than steel in the car...shouldn't SOMEONE be talking to the worker? at least the one who ISN"T working? Of course they can not compete...corporations are NOT a welfare program that you seem to want them to become.

    As for me, some facts for you..so you don't come off as child like...

    I do not have health care nor have I had it..I did the math and used the same math the insurance companies do when they figure how much you will cost in the long term...This year I bought a Medical Savings Account..kinda like an IRA..If you pay premiums you pay $ 800 a month plus deductable,,Maybe $ 2500...thats about $12, ooo a year before 80/20 rule kicksd in and before co pays...and thats whether or not you make a claim or see adoctor...you are out of pocket...take tha times 12 years for your children...% 144,000.....in my 12 years I have paid out of pocket for 3 kids maybe $ 35,000..do the math....THEYInsurance companies) do...you don't. The money I didn't pay insurance premiums..I ate and took care of my family with it..

    Am I in your "uninsured" millions you care so much about?

    "Nothing's perfect; there are trade offs with any and all systems. You have to look at what benefits the most.

    ..according to whom? Who gets to say what is best for the most? For me and my ideas, a universdal one pay system will be the worst for ALL ..we will become vitims and NOT customers..no choices are for victims ...choices are for customers and you advocate killing off choices..IE. LESS FREEDOM in exchange for what YOU think is good for the most..

    It is you who are a threat to freedoms by trading them off for what you believe will be fair and security...FLASH..THERE ARE NONE OF EITHER...YOU DO THE BEST YOU CAN DO...

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2007 @ 2:27pm

  76. MASK,

    Please refrain from making any more inane queries - this is getting ridiculous. You are obsessing over trivia and displaying an overly-annoying tendency to pedantically analyze trifles. Judging by your posts today I wonder if you're so rigid as to even refuse to remove your Underoos on the few occasions you've managed to get layed by a sundowner met at the local grind house.

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/08/2007 @ 2:33pm

  77. "And all the while, Mr. Maasch, wages do not keep up with inflation (or the profits of the market); the "free" market pollutes the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat; tuition rises at twice the rate of inflation; our representative government is bought and paid for by the deep pockets that can afford the price tag; the US, the richest country in the world incarcerates more people relative to its population than any other nation; most of the US population is in debt up to their eye balls--yeah, it's all working great for you and a relative handful of others. Just remember, it is not the "left" that is running the show here."

    Typical reactionary generalizations on how things are bad for you...well, I think you need to grab onto life and live it and use the glass is half full for a paradigm shift..you need a vacation...I have news for you..as bad as you think this is here....there are millions who would gladly trade with you in the world and never look back...I don't want you fixing the "problems" here that keep yopu a wake at night...I believe your "fixes" only make things worse..as that is what govt does.

    Sometimes my wages keep up and sometimes they don't...welcome to life...come on in, over all the water is fine...stop worrying about the water until you actually have some experience with it...some water is pure and other is urine..be aware....

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2007 @ 2:35pm

  78. , still the best in my opinion.

    Posted by RAKHIA 03/08/2007 @ 2:05pm

    But rejected by generation after generation..and yet many still force this down the populations throats..

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2007 @ 2:36pm

  79. Maasch - Well, I don't see anyone anywhere forcing a "classless society" down anyone's throat. Please don't cite the PRC or Cuba or something like that, I really can't take seriously the idea that there are no privileged elites (classes!) in those countries.

    You're right that in rich countries since WW2 people have preferred consumerism to socialism. Hard to fight for social justice when you're worried about buying an iPod. Wrong choice in my humble opinion. Still, for many generations millions of people WERE fighting and dying for socialism, and today there is obviously still a desire for socialism in some poor countries (see Latin America!)

    Posted by rakhia at 03/08/2007 @ 2:45pm

  80. Posted by RAKHIA 03/08/2007 @ 2:45pm | ignore this person

    Yes, see Colombia, FARC and ELN. Longest armed conflict in the hemisphere (half-century) where the largest and best-financed insurgency continues its fight against the government in hopes of installing a Marxist model. But you must realize there has never been any true form of socialism anywhere on earth, only afterbirths, humbugs and lousy attempts that always ended in dictatorship.

    Yet the dread of anything akin to socialism remains today, and again Colombia is a perfect example, with the noble United States throwing billions at this nation under guise of the "drug war" (total hoax) when in reality they're funding the army and paramilitaries who have rampaged the countryside in an attempt to wipe out the rebels. There are hundreds of mass graves currently being investigated here and people such as unionists, peasant leaders, liberal politicians and journalists continue to die in the most horrific ways. But hey, so long as this so-called "socialism" doesn't take root, who cares about tens of thousands of casualties? Sad thing is, the US is so desperately busy seeking something to criticize Chávez next door for that they're completely blind to the fact that Colombia has boasted the worst human rights record in the hemisphere for the last 16 years. It's also been the biggest recipient of US aid in that same time period. Of course, there can be no correlation, because Americans, like MAASCH, just look back at their smug faces in the looking glass or puts their iPod back on every time some inconvenient truth like this pops up...

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/08/2007 @ 2:57pm

  81. "You're right that in rich countries since WW2 people have preferred consumerism to socialism. Hard to fight for social justice when you're worried about buying an iPod. Wrong choice in my humble opinion. "

    But thats because you assume the choice is between an Ipod and some other choice in your opinion...you also stated rich countrys..in other words, countrys that have allowed their populations to growth to their own potential..NOT SOCIALISTIC in the beginning for sure...countrys that start out socialistic are probably destined to be poor..there wouldn't be any iPods to choose from...when a society becomes affluent, then it seems there is pressure on it to become more socialist..I can understand why, my understanding of socialism is that it needs something to nationalise or confiscate in order to reorder the results...if you have no surplus to confiscate, then you can't "help" the poor..

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2007 @ 3:05pm

  82. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/08/2007 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person

    Have you gone anywhere? No iPods to choose from? Give me a break. Not only are there iPods in places as poor as Nicaragua and Guatemala, there are also iRivers, Creative Zens, Sony PlayStations, Xboxes and manifold other gizmos you place so much importance on, turning toys into symbols of freedom. Colombia possesses 14 of the world's 16 most valuable resources yet many of its people live in poverty. There is plenty of wealth and more than enough goodies to go around, it's the disproportionate distribution of that wealth that causes problems and fuels any desire towards socialism. Look right now in Sao Paola, Brasil, one of the most capitalistic cities in the southern hemisphere yet an obscene level of crime, poverty, hunger and misery. And you wonder why there is talk of redistributing wealth? Maybe if you actually took a look at the castaways in the great voyage towards free enterprise and capitalism and the lot their toil has earned them you'd have a better idea. But again, you continue to base your opinions on your sole experience instead of actually attempting to put yourself in someone else's shoes...

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/08/2007 @ 3:37pm

  83. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/08/2007 @ 12:57pm

    responding to a rational question with unbridled hostility does "our" side no good whatsoever.

    Posted by katamantulo at 03/08/2007 @ 3:56pm

  84. JM If you study the history of some of the richer countries you'll see that they suffered under laissaez faire capitalism and only began to truly prosper after socialist or pseudo socialist principles were put in place.There was a horrid class division that almost cost some of the richer countries their existence prior to implementing a fair number of socialist ideas.It seems like no pure form of economic or political system works very well.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 4:10pm

  85. People who come on here should,not only know, what the definitions are,but should even know the more common variations on the theme.If you don't then get off here and learn about them and then come back and give an informed opinion.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/08/2007 @ 2:21pm

    You don't....or atleast are oddly vague about saying what you know?

    hehe

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 4:28pm

  86. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/08/2007 @ 2:33pm

    I'll take that for a "I don't know, but I know it when I see it", Justice Stewart.

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 4:32pm

  87. PETER ROTHBERG....how about you?

    Can YOU define the difference...if any?

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 4:33pm

  88. MASK I gave you the general definition of progressive and a quick sentence to show you the difference between it and socialism.Obviously,I know what it means or I couldn't have given you the definition.I'm not here to teach you.I assume people on here should have this basic knowledge and probably a little more.Maybe you don't know the definition of "radical" either.I don't know.It would take you little time to go online and look it up.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 4:52pm

  89. Communists are not necessarily opposed to democracy, inlcuding multi-party democracy.

    Posted by CKA2ND 03/08/2007

    maybe i should have said "revolutionary" communism. i know there are communist parties that participate in parliamentary democracy, in places such as france, italy, and india, and sometimes even run municipal governments, but these rarely if ever govern nationally. countries run by communist governments are without fail ones where the communists came to power by force and have banned any competing party or ideology.

    Posted by katamantulo at 03/08/2007 @ 5:46pm

  90. Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    First, no, they can't compete when union workers here will not agree to a co pay even when the haven't worked in 2 years...when health care per worker cost more than steel in the car

    That's it, blame the unions. It's all the fault of the unions, a mere small percentage of our work force that no longer has any real power in our political system. It's easy to attack the weak, rather than go after those that are responsible for the mess

    I do not have health care nor have I had it..I did the math and used the same math the insurance companies do when they figure how much you will cost in the long term

    Wow, you're so much smarter--and have much more available income than all of those that live hand to mouth on what they earn in today's economy.

    ..according to whom? Who gets to say what is best for the most?

    I would say what benefits the most, as opposed to a relative handful.

    It is you who are a threat to freedoms by trading them off for what you believe will be fair and security

    When did I advocate trading "freedoms" for security? Paying taxes, allowing the government to handle sectors of the economy the "free" market can't take care of, reining in the power of large corporations, industries (The oil and other energy industries got to sit down with the vice prez and write energy policy! Did consumers get to have any input? Did the consumers even get to read what was said at that meeting?)--that's not swapping freedom for security, that's moving forward, that's giving us more freedom.

    Typical reactionary generalizations on how things are bad for you...well, I think you need to grab onto life and live it and use the glass is half full for a paradigm shift..you need a vacation...I have news for you..as bad as you think this is here....there are millions who would gladly trade with you in the world and never look back...I don't want you fixing the "problems" here that keep yopu a wake at night...I believe your "fixes" only make things worse..as that is what govt does.

    Sometimes my wages keep up and sometimes they don't...welcome to life...come on in, over all the water is fine...stop worrying about the water until you actually have some experience with it...some water is pure and other is urine..be aware....

    Don't try to lecture me, old man. I've been around the world, I understand how bad it can be. Do you really think there is no room for improvement? Why does the US--the richest country in the world--consistently lag behind all the other industrialized nations in "quality of life"? Stick your head back in the sand. Wages are not keeping up with inflation or the gains a small sector of the population are enjoying--it's some anomaly, it is a long pattern.

    Oh yeah, please tell that sad story about how you put yourself through school way back when, along with all the rest of your bs about working so hard (people that work hard don't brag about it).

    Once again, I am not advocating a complete socialization of our economy. I am saying only that some sort of balance must be established between those with the power, wealth--that 10% of our population--and the vast majority which are employees and consumers. There is nothing more detrimental to the health of a democracy than grotesque distributions of income. You've got a closed mind; and, to be fair, I suppose if I grew up with doctors for parents I might share your worldview. I grew up in a working class family, I served as a deck seaman in the navy, I've been in a federal prison, I've been fortunate enough to study at two universities, I've worked a great many jobs--I have a much different perspective. The glass is always half empty; I want it to be as full as possible.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 5:56pm

  91. Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/08/2007 @ 1:58pm

    "I know, but I'm not going to tell YOU!"

    hehe...put MTSP down for a "#3"

    Posted by MASK

    I know it's hard, but try not to act like a queeb.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 5:58pm

  92. pro·gres·sive (prə-grěs'ĭv) Pronunciation Key adj. Moving forward; advancing. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax. Pathology Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis. Grammar Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.

    n. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government. Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party. Grammar A progressive verb form.

    pro·gres'sive·ly adv., pro·gres'sive·ness n.

    American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source

    There you go, cry baby. It's real simple: Go to Dictionary.com.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/08/2007 @ 6:08pm

  93. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.

    Better conditions, for whom? And who gets to decide what "better" is?

    40% of our state budget goes to Medicaid, 15% of everyones pay (payroll tax) goes to FICA (Social Security and Medicare), and all those baby boomers haven't started retiring yet. Sounds like socialism to me.

    Posted by Sliver at 03/08/2007 @ 7:26pm

  94. Don't try to lecture me, old man.

    ok. Class.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2007 @ 10:41pm

  95. Sliver:

    a recent article by robert samuelson related that in 2006, 59% of federal spending went to "welfare" (i.e. social security, medicaid etc) and only 19% on defense--a near mirror image of spending in 1956.

    Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 03/08/2007 @ 7:41pm

    I read the same article and was trying to explain to MT and a few others that all the wealth the socialists take to redistribute comes from a strong free enterprise system, not from their management of it...it first must be made in order for socialists can take it, they seem to claim the system is great because they stop run away capitalism , but seem to foreget who actually makes the money they redistribute...

    Nations don't become wealthy because they are socialist...they become socialist AFTER they become wealthy..cart and horse thing..

    but, alas, it didn't take..

    A simple examination that shows a flip in social spending vs military should say it all, whether using percentages or dollars..it flippped..and these guys STILL want more.....but...you tell me..

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2007 @ 11:02pm

  96. I read the same article and was trying to explain to MT and a few others that all the wealth the socialists take to redistribute comes from a strong free enterprise system, not from their management of it...it first must be made in order for socialists can take it, they seem to claim the system is great because they stop run away capitalism , but seem to foreget who actually makes the money they redistribute... Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Maybe you should reread what I've written. I'm not attacking the "free enterprise" system; it is the power, influence of corporations that I view as a threat to individual freedom (including your free enterprise).

    A simple examination that shows a flip in social spending vs military should say it all, whether using percentages or dollars..it flippped..and these guys STILL want more.....but...you tell me..

    Once again, the Social Security system is paid for by a separate tax. How much of that fund has been looted by Dem and Repub administrations?

    We've tried what fools like you are advocating; it all came crashing down in 1929. Just like unions, government regulations, Social Security and so much more is a direct response to failures of the capitalist system.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/09/2007 @ 09:15am

  97. MASK To put it in a nutshell-Progressives believe in combining socialism with capitalism whereas socialists believe in just having a socialist state.The Progressives believe in social programs that come from socialist beliefs.What's fun is that the vast majority of non progressives also believe in combining socialism and capitalism,but just to a lesser degree.How many votes do believe a presidential candidate would get if they vowed to end all social programs?Anybody who has lived in areas dominated by anti socialist types knows that it isn't unusual to see them with foodstamps, WIC vouchers,or getting free daycare.Some tried to justify it by claiming their taxes pay for it,but quite often they were in an income bracket where they got more back then they paid.So,combining socialism and capitalism is,by far the dominate belief in America.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/09/2007 @ 09:23am

  98. MT, Fools like me would never take your money in the form of income taxes, fools like me would neve trap you into a dead end wage system like unions set up, fools like would never turn over govt to politicians as a full time job...

    1929? Fools like me have never had their ideas even tried, where socialism, confiscation, communistic ideals, have all been tried ad nauseum and have be rejected endless by the generations of people who have been screwed over by it...

    Sorry, but my ideas have never been tried..too many people would realize they don't need some must "overseeing" by the govt and they would be amazed by how much they could do woith their own money in their hands...and their mlives wouild improve..

    My theory of course, from my point of view, but if you go from 19% entitlements to 59% entitlements in only 50 years....that is alot of government growth and confiscation....or in other words, alot of redistribution of fruits from others labors...a lot of people being taken care of in stead of taking care..and always the same groups complaining...those who are getting the fruits of others.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/09/2007 @ 09:36am

  99. Sorry, .."don't need some must "overseeing" by the govt and they would be amazed by how much they ...

    Should read..."so much overseeing."..

    Posted by john maasch at 03/09/2007 @ 09:38am

  100. Progressives believe in combining socialism with capitalism whereas socialists believe in just having a socialist state.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/09/2007 @ 09:23am

    Okay, getting somewhere.

    Now...where does the progressive say "NO" to the socialist? Specifically.

    Posted by Mask at 03/09/2007 @ 09:38am

  101. MASK Just like within all groups there are going to be different views on questions like "How much socialism?" Conservatives don't agree on how much socialism they'll go for and neither do progressives.Progressives do,of course, believe in more programs than your average conservative says they do,but, as I pointed out, many of those conservatives have no problem taking advantage of all the system has to offer.I would probably be considered a progressive and my view is that we have pretty much the right programs,but we need to do more to stop those who abuse the system.I believe welfare should have a time limit and should include vocational training if the person is unskilled.There are progressives who come close to being pure socialists,but for the most part I think most are more moderate which is part of the definition of progressive.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/09/2007 @ 09:56am

  102. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/09/2007 @ 09:56am

    I'M, would it help if I started throwing out examples and maybe see how you would respond (since asking for them from you seems to lead to more rhetorical flourishes)...

    State (i.e. the Federal Government) control over health care (and no, they can't just "pay for it" without controlling it)....pro/con?

    State control over major industries?.....okay what if it was "Big Oil"?....pro/con?

    State control over wage and prices?....Okay, what about "CEOs getting 20 Mill golden parachutes while the workers lose benefits"?....pro/con?

    Okay, now if you've answered honestly....and IF you've said "yes" to all three...

    what's the difference?

    Posted by Mask at 03/09/2007 @ 10:55am

  103. MASK I can't speak for all progressives on any single question which is why these things can only be discussed in general terms.I could tell you how I might view these particular things,but that would just be my views and not the views of each individual.One does not have to be a pure socialist to believe in some form of socialized medicine.The veterans administration is a form of socialized medicine.Having rules that control big business is not the same thing as turning big business into a state run thing.Progressives want regulation,but socialists want complete control.Of course,most conservatives want some degree of regulation,also.Regulating prices and wages is not the same thing as a state determining prices and wages.I don't understand why you're having such a difficult time with this.Purist socialist,like purist capitalists, are simply quite rare.Most people believe in a combination of socialism and capitalism.How much of each seems to be what separates people.If you can't understand the difference between a purist and somebody who believes in combining different beliefs then there is nothing I can do for you.That is a simple concept.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/09/2007 @ 11:12am

  104. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/09/2007 @ 11:12am

    I'M, if you read my post you'd see I said..."and IF you've said "yes" to all three".

    A person who believes in socialized medicine is not necessarily a "socialist"....I grant that. That was just the "lead-in".

    But I'm trying to draw out some SPECIFICS. So, you'd "regulate, but not control" Big Oil....cool. What would you NOT regulate about it? I mean, I think even YOU would agree that if you regulate EVERYTHING about a business....that's "control"?

    Same for "regulating" wages and prices. What do you leave "off the table" so that you're not taking over total control?

    "Control" doesn't mean some "commissar" from the Fed coming in and setting up his/her office in the Exxon or Microsoft HQ. It could be as simple as a litany of regulations SO all pervasive that a simple "audit" every few weeks from the Federal Industrial Board.

    But again....it all depends on where you draw the line....or IF you draw it?

    Posted by Mask at 03/09/2007 @ 1:04pm

  105. MASK Not allowing monopolies is regulation,but not control.Not allowing price gouging is regulation and not control.Labor laws are regulation and not control.No insider trading is regulation and not control.As is known from history,laissez faire capitalism doesn't work.It leads to revolution so regulation of the types I mentioned are needed.These regulations are, technically,socialist in nature.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/09/2007 @ 1:14pm

  106. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/09/2007 @ 09:36am

    You are speaking as if your utopian vision of the world is possible. It's not any more possible than a Socialist utopia or a Marxist utopia for one very important reason - free will!

    You advocate giving people all kinds of power over their lives - great! That also will apply to corporations as well? And how do corporations do with little to no oversight? Not so well!

    Here's a news flash (apparently) - free will does not come free; with freedom comes responsibility. If corporations don't want regulation, then they should stop doing things that are harmful to Americans. Whenever in this nation's history business has been un- or de-regulated, it has been bad news for the vast majority of people. Oh, sure, deregulating manufacturing has caused some people's portfolios increase, but that isn't going to cover the costs of cancer treatment caused by the rampant pollution.

    And those unions you villify? Did they spring up out of thin air? No, they exist because without them, workers were being abused, subjected to dangerous conditions, and were left without any recourse. But I guess that's ok with you?

    Just because you are perfect and would never try to get ahead on the backs of others, doesn't mean that it won't happen. Just read your history books - those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/09/2007 @ 1:19pm

  107. But again....it all depends on where you draw the line....or IF you draw it?

    Posted by MASK 03/09/2007 @ 1:04pm

    You're in a particularly argumentative mood, aren't you! You're attempting to do what - get somebody to admit that some labels overlap? Or that labels in general are noxious in their usage.

    Give it up.

    Regulation is not control, but it does set parameters that some people view as control.

    "But why can't we dump this benzene in this river? It will improve the profit margins! Damn socialists want to control everything!"

    Free will means responsibility. Maybe you and John Maasch can talk amongst yourselves about this little conundrum.

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/09/2007 @ 1:24pm

  108. MASK Let me try this another way.Pure Socialists believe that the government should own the means of production.Progressives believe that the means of production should be owned by private enterprise,but regulated by the government.Oddly enough,most Americans agree with the progressives.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/09/2007 @ 1:33pm

  109. Regulation is not control, but it does set parameters that some people view as control.

    Posted by TURK33 03/09/2007 @ 1:24pm

    Yes, TURK....so what amount of regulation do YOU regard as "control" and what is just "progressivism"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/09/2007 @ 2:05pm

  110. And we're back to generalities....

    "Progressives believe that the means of production should be owned by private enterprise,but regulated by the government."

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/09/2007 @ 1:33pm

    Fine....when does it STOP being "private" and becomes "government"?

    See, again, this is why I'm on this "Grail Quest" and don't expect a straight SPECIFIC answer.

    Let's try one last question for the Fisher Kings....

    If I say to you ..."A conservative supports privatizing Social Security"...you as a progressive would say "I'm a progressive and I oppose that vigorously"...right?

    If I say to you "A PERSON supports imposing strident regulations upon Big Oil, over all aspects of its operatinos, to the point where wages of the employees are set by the Fed (including management and the CEO) and the price of a gallon of gas is set by the Fed, and where its profits are taxed and put to a Government alternative energy program to eventually put it out of business"....is that something you woulf fight as vigorously against as Social Security privatization or tacitedly....maybe even vigorously...support?

    And why is that NOT "socialism"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/09/2007 @ 2:13pm

  111. MASK You Rio,Ponti, and LvLiberty need to take a high school economics and political science course.When does it stop being privately owned and become government owned,you ask? I'm going to pretend you're kidding.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/09/2007 @ 2:28pm

  112. Posted by TURK33 03/09/2007 @ 1:19pm

    Amen.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/09/2007 @ 2:59pm

  113. If I say to you ..."A conservative supports privatizing Social Security"...you as a progressive would say "I'm a progressive and I oppose that vigorously"...right?

    Posted by MASK

    You don't have to be a "progressive" or anything else--aside from informed--to understand that privatizing social security would only make the situation worse.

    It's not just black or white; there are infinite shades between the two.

    Once again, what is it you're attempting to compensate for?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/09/2007 @ 3:05pm

  114. When does it stop being privately owned and become government owned,you ask? I'm going to pretend you're kidding.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/09/2007 @ 2:28pm

    Well....don't. Again, if it's SO SIMPLE (as you keep saying)...

    then it should be SIMPLE for you to explain with simple SPECIFIC terms.

    SO far....generalities and "overall philosophy".

    And why do I get lumped in with RIO, LVLIB, PONTI? Have they EVER attempted to get a straight, clear answer to what the difference between liberalism/progressivism and socialism is?

    Mostly they just jump ahead to saying they're the same thing...I'm ATLEAST giving people a chance to explain IN DETAIL the difference to me.

    Posted by Mask at 03/09/2007 @ 3:11pm

  115. It's not just black or white; there are infinite shades between the two.

    Once again, what is it you're attempting to compensate for?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/09/2007 @ 3:05pm

    Fascinating. I'm trying to garner specific information on what defines a political philosophy....yet it means I'm "compensating" for some psychological deficit?!?!!?

    And if there are "infinite shades of grey"...then the terms are MEANINGLESS, and a person can claim to be a "progressive" and support Social Security privatization (which I wasn't, merely offering an example)....because, after all, it would be "progressing away from an old system", wouldn't it???

    Posted by Mask at 03/09/2007 @ 3:14pm

  116. Fascinating. I'm trying to garner specific information on what defines a political philosophy....yet it means I'm "compensating" for some psychological deficit?!?!!?

    And if there are "infinite shades of grey"...then the terms are MEANINGLESS, and a person can claim to be a "progressive" and support Social Security privatization (which I wasn't, merely offering an example)....because, after all, it would be "progressing away from an old system", wouldn't it???

    Posted by MASK

    You're just being a pain. You're attempting to appear superior with a little girl game of gotcha. No matter what anyone says you find some wiggle room to exploit, much like a worm on a hot plate. I can't help but believe that this pathetic act is form of compensation for you. The only person you're fooling (aside from the resident fools here) is yourself.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/09/2007 @ 3:30pm

  117. If you're really, really interested in discerning the difference between a progressive, socialist, anarchist, then pick up a book and read it. Try Contemporary Political Ideologies: A Comparative Analysis by Lyman Tower Sargent.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/09/2007 @ 3:34pm

  118. Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/09/2007 @ 3:30pm

    Why is it "gotcha"...if there's no "got" to "cha"?

    YOU keep saying there IS a difference between a "progressive" and a socialist. I keep asking for a FEW specifics and get none.

    TEN posts ago you could have spelled out, in specific terms the differences between modern "progressivism" and socialism and where a progressive would OPPOSE a socialist idea or policy with the same vigor they would oppose a conservative one.

    Instead, you gave me generalities and "go look it up here (website), this explains it...but I can't write it in a post here because..uh....you're just being contrary and trying to compensate for...uh....something!!!!"

    If I had asked you for a DOZEN ...SPECIFIC...policies that conservatives endorse, that you as a "progressive" would oppose with all your heart and effort and that offer a DEFINITIVE difference between the two ideologies.....no problem. Maybe get TWO dozen.

    But....oddly....not ONE available for why a progressive is different from a socialist.

    So again...only three possibilites.

    1. "Progressive" means NOTHING, except "opposing conservatism" (and nothing else). Which means it's an ideology ONLY defined by what it opposes (and just on the Right) and not what it favors.

    2. It is too difficult a task for the great thinkers here.

    3. There is no difference.

    Posted by Mask at 03/09/2007 @ 3:55pm

  119. Oh and before we get back to "I support industry regulation, not control"....

    again define THAT in specifics. I guess you know what "Government regulation" means (a simple minimum wage law is a start on THAT definition)....but what does "Government control" mean?

    Is it JUST "a commissar from the Federal Industry Council" sitting in an office at Exxon, Ford, IBM and nothing else is "control"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/09/2007 @ 3:58pm

  120. Go look it up yourself. No matter what anyone says you're gonna nit pick, disagree, etc. So just look it up yourself. I'm not playing this little bitch game with you.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/09/2007 @ 4:01pm

  121. MASK The reason terms like socialist and progressive have different definitions is because they're different.Of course,it could be a vast left wing conspiracy that they're defined differently in order to fool you.The fact that you don't know what these terms mean is your fault and not ours.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/09/2007 @ 4:08pm

  122. Plus, I always got the impression that you know it all, anyway.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/09/2007 @ 4:10pm

  123. If you want to see socialism in action, look to the prisons.

    Why spend $150,000 to put your kid through college, $800 per month for health insurance, $500 per month for food, $1,500 per month on mortgage and taxes, $500 per month for a car?

    You'd be better off sticking up the pizza delivery guy and getting it all for free. Then when you get out, you have no debt.

    Posted by Sliver at 03/09/2007 @ 6:28pm

  124. The reason terms like socialist and progressive have different definitions is because they're different.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/09/2007 @ 4:08pm

    How?

    "Oh, you're just trying to compensate for something!!!"

    Nice wrap-up to this thread, boys....and once again, the Quest goes on!

    Posted by Mask at 03/09/2007 @ 10:23pm

Peter Rothberg Peter Rothberg

Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» Editor's Cut

New Web Column at The Washington Post | Every Tuesday, I'll be featuring progressive thinking about politics and challenging the Right in my new web column for The Washington Post. Read my first one here.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
14 Comments
Posted at 4:52 PM ET

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
33 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
25 Comments

» The Beat

John Murtha: The Old Soldier Who Said "Bring the Troops Home" | His Iraq War debate with Dick Cheney highlighted the difference between the modern era's sunshine patriots and winter soldiers.
John Nichols
109 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
53 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
54 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman