Not Quite a French Poodle

posted by John Nichols on 05/06/2007 @ 6:55pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (83)

Subscribe Now

PARIS -- During the campaign for president of France, Socialist Sègolene Royal's supporters derided conservative front runner Nicolas Sarkozy as "an American neo-conservative with a French passport."

The line Royal and her backers pushed as she struggled to close the gap in the final sprint to catch up with Sarkozy was that the conservative would abandon France's traditional stance as an independent player on the international stage and make the nation little more than an American puppet-state.

The charge was always something of stretch. Sarkozy may have been more comfortable than Royal when it came to speaking of "friendship" with the US, but he always explained that friendship did not require "submission."

Sarkozy was never going to be George Bush's "poodle" in the way that British Prime Minister Tony Blair had been in the run-up to the Iraq war. During the campaign, Sarkozy pointedly stated his opposition to the war, backed moves to withdraw French troops from Afghanistan, and allowed as how "the messianic side of Americans can be tiresome."

That said, Sarkozy was during the course of the campaign portrayed as the more Bush-friendly candidate for the presidency, a characterization that did him no good in a country where the American leader enjoys only a six percent approval rating.

No serious election observer doubted that it was Sarkozy's tough talk about modernizing the French economy and promoting law and order--as well as Royal's missteps early in the campaign--that gave the conservative the lead. Still, Sarkozy's 53-47 win over Royal in Sunday's voting was always going to be seen as something of a victory for Bush. The White House rushed to congratulate the winner, as presidential aides and appointees spoke up about how the administration really looks forward to working with the man who will replace outgoing French President Jacques Chirac, a frequent thorn in Bush's side.

But Sarkozy, who ran with Chirac's support, was not playing the poodle role on the night of his electoral triumph.

Conscious of fears that he would be unwilling to stand up to an American president who was making mistakes, the French president-elect delivered an acceptance speech that promised friendship to the United States but rejected acquiescence.

Speaking of his desire for good relations with the US, Sarkozy did not hesitate to prod Washington on an issue--after Iraq--has put the Bush White House most at odds with the world. While the Bush and his allies have long attempted to deny the seriousness of the threat posed by global warming, and in so doing have undermined international efforts to address climate change, the French president-elect said, "I want to tell them [American leaders] as well that friendship is accepting that one's friends can act differently, and that a great nation like the United States has the duty to not obstruct the fight against global warming but on the contrary to take the lead in this struggle because what is at stake is the future of all humanity."

Despite that opening salvo, Sarkozy is not likely to be so publicly pointed in his challenges to US policies as Royal would have been.

But the conservative, who led the race from the start, knows that Royal scored points by suggesting that Sarkozy would be too willing to align with the US, and he is taking important steps to establish his independence.

That's important, for France and the US.

As Sarkozy says, honest friendship between countries is about more than just allies saying "yes" to allies.

Honest friendship between countries requires a pointed challenge when the capable leader of one country comes to the conclusion that an ally is at odds with reality.

There's no question that President Bush is at odds with reality when it comes to global warming.

Sarkozy's willingness to challenge the American president in his first address as the president-elect of France marks him as a something more than a French poodle.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (83)

So, I looked at the debate and it was rather interesting. A couple of quick things that jumped out from Mayor Anderson's speech:

1) Many of his arguments are solid, particularly his criticisms both of our failure to deal with Afghanistan and our decision to allow torture and other violations in Iraq.

2) Some of his arguments are deeply fallacious. Two in particular I want to highlight. First, he references the Kellogg-Briand Pact. This is not a good argument, and the reason for this is that said pact outlaws war. It doesn't outlaw aggressive war, it outlaws all war. It should be obvious why this might be a bit of a problem. Second, he makes unwarranted leaps in some of his analysis, between a Bush claim being incorrect and a Bush claim being willful deception.

Posted by Thrawn at 05/06/2007 @ 8:59pm
Interesting thought about getting troops out of Afghanistan. Do the people on this board think that it would be a good thing if other nations and the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan? I know how everone here feels about Iraq. But is the liberal left actually saying that everyone should also withdraw from Afghanistan? I thought the more moderate of you were upset with the U.S. losing its focus by getting involved in Iraq and that we should have stressed finishing the job in Afghanistan. Could it be that the far left really didn't support our efforts in Afghanistan and never will? Could it be that any use of U.S. military force, even after the Taliban gave safe haven to Al Quida,is seen by our left leaning brothers and sisters as Yankee Imperialism? Say it ain't so.

Posted by Len Mosse at 05/06/2007 @ 9:00pm
Also, real quick on the debate...Hannity was bad. He made virtually no real arguments, and I thought it was particularly ironic that after correctly pointing out the toxic nature of partisan politics, he proceeded to level a series of purely political arguments.

Posted by Thrawn at 05/06/2007 @ 9:22pm
Quickly, on Len Mosse's point...withdrawing from Afghanistan would be dumb.

Posted by Thrawn at 05/06/2007 @ 9:23pm
Nice try at a CYA, Nichols ("See, he hammered Bush on global warming, so he's not a real conservative so this means the French didn't vote for a conservative and I'm still right").

Posted by woodyee at 05/06/2007 @ 9:58pm
"Sarkozy was never going to be George Bush's "poodle" in the way that British Prime Minister Tony Blair had been in the run up to the Iraq war."

BLOG | Posted 05/04/2007 @ 3:05pm In France, Running Against Bush

"Linking Sarkozy to Bush is smart politics for Royal and her backers..."

Hmmm? Not smart enough I guess?

Posted by Mask at 05/06/2007 @ 10:22pm
BTW, can anybody imagine the "end of conservatism, resurgence of socialism" spin that John Nichols would have put on a Royal victory, mirrored with recent elections, both our 2006 midterms and elsewhere in the world?

Posted by Mask at 05/06/2007 @ 10:25pm
"My own personal view is that Dumbya knew he screwed up in Afghanistan so he plotted the shock and awe in Iraq. Needed a victory quick. Looked much better on tv. So they manipulated the intelligence, knowing full well that people were going to die. And remember what Rummy told Dumbya. "There are no soft targets in Afghanistan." "

Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/06/2007 @ 10:14pm

Frank, that's not true. Parkistan wouldn't allow us to pursue Bin Laden inside the badlands. One reason is Musharref presidency is walking a very fine line. Islambad is full of muslim extremist. The last thing we need is AQ getting it's hands on Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Causing the collapse of that govt would put not only the US on the defensive, but Europe, Israel and India as well.

Posted by ACook at 05/06/2007 @ 10:38pm
So when the hsuB/heney admin gets completely demolished and most new cons are voted out, lose anything remotely suggesting power, will they all move to France? Naw, that would be way too ironical. Besides, do they even know how to make good freedom-fries in France?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/06/2007 @ 11:27pm
Not surprised that Sarkozy won the election. Royal provided no real new ideas to deal with France's growing problems, just more social programs paid for who knows how? At the last minute she even said that a massive riots would be sparked by a Sarkozy victory. Not a great way to tell the electorate why they should vote for you.

Sarkozy wants to change how business is done in France in order to create more jobs. Royal just wanted to expand government entitlement programs to deal with the 9.8% unemployment rate (50% for those under 25), and the one million homeless. However, the people have spoken and they want to work and feel important, and not just sit and cash government checks, whose debt is crippling France's long-term economy. Even those who are under the age of 25 who do work, mostly just have temp. jobs. I would like to see The Nation's spin on how the young in France have spoken. It should be a doozy.

Posted by Zeddmen at 05/06/2007 @ 11:32pm
This is amazing spin on the part of The Nation. Until this morning, they had an article up, front and center, that said this election was Royal vs. Bush. Now, hours later, and after "Bush" won the election, The Nation is trying to backpedal on that claim, saying that Sarkozy doesn't really represent Bush, and digging back for years of evidence to support that claim. In other words, most of the evidence they used in this article to distance Sarkozy from Bush was available when they were equating Sarkozy with Bush. How dumb do these people think their readers are? They could at least give you credit for having better short term memory than a housefly.

Posted by utcareful at 05/06/2007 @ 11:33pm
Posted by UTCAREFUL 05/06/2007 @ 11:33pm

Yeah, I loved it when The Nation was trying to "swiftboat" Sarkozy. Now they're saying he nothing like Bush. The spinmasters are at it again.

Posted by Zeddmen at 05/06/2007 @ 11:45pm
- from less than sober hsuB per cel, giving old tired sage advise to Sarkozy:

Hunh...it's like...

I don't care about nuthin man.

Roll another poll.

Yeah cuz...

I was gonna clean th' gervment up... Until I got high. I was gonna get up and find the budget... But then I got high. My plan is still messed up... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I was gonna go talk at congress... Before I got high. "C'mon y'all...check it out." I coulda created stuff and I coulda passed forms... But I got high. I'm doing it next session... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

"Go to the next one" "Go to the next one" "Go to the next one BUSSSHHOSH!"

I was gonna go read th' NIE... But then I got high. I just got a new power. But I got high. Now I'm sellin surge... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I was gonna get a new court... Before I got high. I was gonna stay unimpeached... But then I got high. "No you wasn't." They took my whole DOJ... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I wasn't gonna run from Katrina... But I was high. "I'm serious man" I was gonna help victims and not stop... But I was high. Now I'm a limp duck... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I was gonna get Iraq for keeps... Until I got high. "Say what...say what?" I wasn't gonna gamble on the OBL... But then I got high. Now the congress's pullin away... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I was gonna make Rove do you... But then I got high. I was gonna lead our country too... But then I got high. Now I'm wackin off brush... And I know why! "Turn that shit off" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

"Go...go...go...go."

I messed up your entire life. Because I got high. I lost your kids at Iraq. Because I got high. "Say what...say what" "Say what...say what...ohhhhh." Now I'm sleepin at Kennebunkport... And I know why! "Why man?" Cuz I got high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

I'ma stop speachafying this speach. Because I'm high. I'm speachafying this whole thing wrong. Because I'm high.

"Bring it back" "Bring it back" "Bring it back"

If I don't sell the next surge... I'll know why! "Why man?" Cuz I'm high. Because I got high. Because I got high.

"Are you really high though...man?"

Cuz I'm high. Cuz I'm high. Cuz I'm high.

"Hey...where the buck stops at man?"

Bu-bushi-bushi-bushi-buSSSSHHHOSSSHHH!!

Because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high, because hsuB was high,..

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/06/2007 @ 11:50pm
NICHOLS: ...France's traditional stance as an independent player on the international stage....

Didn't Nichols pen a recent piece about how `big' an ally France had been....?

NICHOLS: Sarkozy was never going to be George Bush's "poodle" in the way that....

But Sarkozy, who ran with Chirac's support, was not playing the poodle role on the night of his electoral triumph....

NICHOLS can't even be consistent in the same article! After "But", Shouldn't it be followqed by "was" instead of "was not"???????

Get a grip Mr. Nichols, other readers had detected your convoluted thinking!

First Germany, then Canada, Australia, Japan and now France.....I'd say in every instance, the `Right' in all these democracies have won! Several of these are `utopias' longed for by our own Liberals/Leftists. Isn't it about time someone in your camp, KVH perhaps, can muster the courage and question why socialism is waning everywhere EXCEPT where democracy itself is threatened (example: Venezuela)?

Posted by Happy at 05/06/2007 @ 11:54pm
Hey, all politics are local. I remember someone said that not only once.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/06/2007 @ 11:57pm
Who cares who wins in France..it will change nothing between the US and France anymore than anyone else winning...even if Royal won, she would be bashing the US more than she had before...as her country slipped into econmic malaise(le Carter?)...but now what now? And will we here notice?

Nope. It doesn't matter.

Posted by john maasch at 05/07/2007 @ 12:11am
Not true, MAASCH. Leaders being on good terms does have consequences. It'll be interesting to watch Sarkozy's interaction with whoever's next for us.

Posted by utcareful at 05/07/2007 @ 12:16am
Perhaps hsuB, well, maybe not hsuB, but someone in the hsuB admin, can negotiate US support of global warming, if France and allies can help via their 'socialized' medical health wherewithall, with this problem:

For Iraqi Soldiers, A Medical Morass Lack of Facilities Leaves Wounded To Seek Own Care By Karin Brulliard Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, May 6, 2007; Page A01

As the U.S. military prepares for an eventual handover of security duties to Iraqi forces, more of Iraq's 120,000 soldiers are advancing to the front lines of the war, and more are being wounded. But because there are no Iraqi military hospitals, thousands have been left to the mercy of overtaxed and corrupt civilian hospitals and a military compensation system paralyzed by red tape and disorganization, according to soldiers, family members, doctors and military officials. Many, feeling abandoned, turn to their families for help.

Iraq's Defense Ministry has recorded 3,700 injured soldiers since the war began, but officials say the true figure is probably double that. The Congressional Research Service estimates that more than 33,000 Iraqi security force members -- about two-fifths of whom are soldiers -- were wounded by late April 2006. Last year, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Iraqi forces were wounded at about twice the rate of American troops. About 25,000 U.S. soldiers had been injured as of this May 1, according to the Department of Defense.

U.S. military officials who work with the Defense Ministry say Iraq's capacity to care for its troops has greatly improved but remains hampered by its reliance on public hospitals, which deteriorated under economic sanctions in the 1990s.

Decent military hospitals existed under Saddam Hussein, but they were looted during the war and their doctors fled. So while some seriously injured Iraqi soldiers now receive initial treatment at sophisticated U.S. military facilities in Iraq, they must recover in public hospitals where medicines and highly trained staff are scarce. There is one military prosthetics clinic in the country, little in the way of mental health services and no burn center.

But the sense of abandonment is worse, soldiers said. Most acknowledged they never asked what care they would receive if wounded. They simply expected easy access to the care they needed, or even the option to fly out of Iraq for treatment. Hassan, the surgeon general, said Iraq has sent fewer than 30 soldiers outside the country for treatment since the war began.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2007/05/05/AR2007050501236.html

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/07/2007 @ 12:22am
Posted by HAPPY 05/06/2007 @ 11:54pm |

And where is The Nation article about the worldwide death of liberalism? Republicans (not conservatives) lose Congress and we are supposed to believe that conservativism is dead. A socialist country turns more conservative and...crickets.

Posted by usc1 at 05/07/2007 @ 12:35am
Perhaps the French can show us how to figure this out:

Memorial honoring fallen soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan runs out of room By Frank Davies

San Jose Mercury News, Posted on Fri, May. 04, 2007

WASHINGTON - Congress already has run out of space on a memorial created last year to honor all of the U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a grim sign of the times, the "Wall of the Fallen," set up by House Republican leaders in June, is almost full. The mounting death toll from Iraq has forced U.S. House staffers to study how to reconfigure the display in the lobby of the Rayburn Building - the largest office building for members of Congress - to squeeze in more names.

According to the Defense Department, 3,736 U.S. service members died in the two wars by the end of April. New names are added to the display every few months, but none have been added since November. The last name listed is Lance Cpl. Luke Holler, 21-year-old Marine reservist from Bulverde, Texas, killed by an explosive device on Nov. 2.

In the current format, there is space for about 130 more names, but 506 Americans have died since mid-November. In April, 104 Americans were killed in the war's sixth-deadliest month.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/07/2007 @ 12:36am
UT,

What I mean is , France will do whats good for France and I don't blame them for that..they always have and always will...I think we are the ones who seem to always worry what the world thinks about our actions...France didn't give a shit about the food for oil program or what the world thinks...

but many of our politicians do..in the Dem "debates"... Obama when asked what would he do after we get hit again..mumbled something about first responders and then consult with our allies..

My guess, if you asked any leaders of Germany, Russia, China India, or even the great state of Venez...you would hear a different answer.....which makes sense to me..

If the leader of France loves Bush, so what, other than those here wetting their pants, it will change nothing, and if Hillary wins, then the leader of France, if he likes her, win be a genius..and so on..

Posted by john maasch at 05/07/2007 @ 12:40am
CHIRAC FACES CHALLENGES ON 3 FRONTS

July 5, 1986, Saturday By PAUL LEWIS, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT)

After a hundred days in power, Prime Minister Jacques Chirac's new conservative Government is approaching its most important test so far in its bid to liberalize the French economy. Over the next few weeks, Mr. Chirac's administration faces major challenges in three areas critical for the success of its historic attempt to roll back France's centuries-old tradition of state intervention in business and also critical for its own political fortunes.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/07/2007 @ 12:41am
And no comment from The Nation about some of Sarkozy's ideas...

expanding the 35 hour workweek to increase productivity

not taxing any personal income earned above and beyond the 35 hours

not taxing businesses on those dollars earned after 35 hours

up to 95% exempt from inheritance tax

cut illegal immigration and require immigrants to actually speak French.

Posted by usc1 at 05/07/2007 @ 12:48am
er, France isn't turning left, it's been right for a while now:

Sarkozy wins French polls

Web posted at: 5/7/2007 3:40:36 Source ::: REUTERS

Tens of thousands of supporters flooded into central Paris to celebrate the victory which extended the right's 12-year grip on power in France, but also marked the start of a new era. Sarkozy replaces 74-year-old President Jacques Chirac.

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section= World_News&month=May2007&file=World_News2007050734036.xml

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/07/2007 @ 12:49am
Should read: er, France isn't turning right, it's been right for a while now:

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/07/2007 @ 12:50am
"By backing Sarkozy, voters showed they wanted a strong leader to resolve France's many problems, including high unemployment of at least 8.3 per cent, falling living standards, job insecurity and declining industrial might. He has promised a clean break with the policies of Chirac, and says he will curb the powers of the unions and toughen sentencing for criminals. On foreign policy, Sarkozy is more pro-American than Chirac, and immediately reached out to Washington yesterday, saying he wanted to be a friend of the United States."

Since Chirac was in the same conservative party as Sarkosy-- can't anyone see the parallels between what those repubs thinking about running for office, are about to do to hsuB in order to win in '08?

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/07/2007 @ 12:59am
Don't worry, France will never really be an ally and freind, most American realize this now. What's really going is Europeans are worried that America will lose its stomach for conflict after the way her allies played both sides in what is really becoming the Islamic war- basically they are scared America won't send blood and treasure (once again) to save them when push comes to shove in the near future. We gave the French 100,000 dead young American boys in 1918 and, then another 400,000 in the 1940's- never again -it's over, we understand the game now- they are not our friends clearly.

Posted by robster at 05/07/2007 @ 05:45am
Atleast SOME Republicans admitted that they actually LOST 2006, by losing the right to be called "fiscal conservatives" or "family values" candidates....but ideologues (Right OR Left) never seem to admit that maybe it was their IDEAS that weren't popular....

Defeated Socialists search for scapegoats By Martin Arnold in Paris

Published: May 6 2007 19:23 | Last updated: May 6 2007 19:23

Let the finger-pointing begin. Ségolène Royal's defeat on Sunday night left the French Socialist party in disarray and searching for someone to blame. There is hardly a shortage of scapegoats.

It is the party's third consecutive presidential defeat. The Socialists now face the question of whether they can ever regain power without ditching their anti-capitalist rhetoric, as the mainstream left has done across almost all of Europe.

Ms Royal can argue that she did better than Lionel Jospin, who in 2002 led the Socialists to a humiliating third place behind Jacques Chirac and far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen. But France's main opposition party still faces a wrenching crisis.

"The left is not credible on so many issues, from the 35-hour working week to immigration and law and order," says Dominique Reynié, professor at Sciences Po university.

"It is the fault of the left collectively. Ever since their [parliamentary election] defeat in 1983 they have never questioned their fundamental ideology, only thinking they needed to change tactics," he says.

In many ways, Ms Royal, the Senegal-born daughter of an army colonel, seemed to be the tactical masterstroke that could restore the Socialist party to winning ways.

Young and moderate voters were drawn by her Blairist ideas and taste for smashing party taboos on the 35-hour week and young offenders. By embracing the internet to invent a new participative style of campaigning, the glamorous 53-year-old seemed to be breaking the political mould, becoming the first woman with a shot at the Elysée palace.

But Ms Royal failed to capitalise on the buzz around her euphoric victory in November's Socialist primary, when she was seen as the "gazelle" beating more experienced "elephants" for the presidential nomination. The fierce primary battle, however, left the "elephants" feeling jealous and reluctant to rally behind her.

In the months that followed she lost momentum, committing several gaffes, notably on foreign and economic policy, which sowed the seeds of doubt about her "presidential stature".

Her campaign was shambolic. There were many last-minute agenda changes and she often arrived late. Socialist staff moaned about her personalised leadership style. An opinion poll found that 63 per cent of voters thought her campaign was poor.

She never seemed able to escape from her party's rigid ideological barriers. Every time she tried, for instance by suggesting military camps for young offenders, it provoked a volley of criticism from the party apparat.

Moderates attracted to her early campaign were disappointed by her manifesto, filled with generous spending pledges and little indication of how to fund them.

Party disunity exploded into public view when Eric Besson, her economic adviser, quit saying she was "dangerous for France" and joined the Sarkozy campaign.

Posted by Mask at 05/07/2007 @ 07:15am
I wonder what Hillary is studying this morning.

Posted by john maasch at 05/07/2007 @ 10:02am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/07/2007 @ 10:02am

More to the point, I wonder what Obama and Edwards are. Edwards especially has hedged his bets on appealing to the liberal base and possibly even running on a "progressive agenda" in the General Election. Less Iraq....and given the results in France....IS that such a good idea now?

Posted by Mask at 05/07/2007 @ 11:14am
At least SOME Republicans admitted that they actually LOST 2006, by losing the right to be called "fiscal conservatives" or "family values" candidates....but ideologues (Right OR Left) never seem to admit that maybe it was their IDEAS that weren't popular....

Posted by MASK 05/07/2007 @ 07:15am | ignore this person

Thanks for the article, Mask. The thing is, though, a proper left-wing analogy to your statement that some Repubs admit that the GOP lost because the party had failed to live up to it's fiscally and socially conservative values would be that the Socialists in France, and the Left in Europe in general, have been losing recent elections not because their ideas are wrong but because they haven't had the courage to actually govern according to them. Instead, especially during the last two to three decades of worldwide, neo-liberal globalization, and under cover of being the supposed "friends of labor", they have undercut the working class and favored capital, especially the most truly parasitic ones of the financial sector. From deregulation (health and safety, labor standards, financial markets, trade policy) through economic "flexibility" and privatization, workers have seen the political parties that had traditionally defended their interests, more or less, back down in the face of the EU, the IMF, the World Bank, the US and the men behind their respective national curtains, the Central Bankers.

Instead of responding to economic problems like unemployment and inflation with policies that might have pissed off the bankers and their lot - while building domestic and foreign demand - too much of the left responded with liberal, not leftist, social programs and the lamest forms of multi-culturalism ("Sure, your reactionary and barbaric practices are OK because they are culturally authentic."). They remind me of all the pro-choice folks who want to meet the anti-abortion side in the middle. How's that working, folks?

The results of this mini-turn to the right in Europe will be the continued disappearance of the independent farmer (and boy, ain't that a historic change from past conservative practice and principles), fewer and fewer people getting decent vacation time (already a third in France don't get those classic and re-charging 4-5 week vacations), less unemployment insurance, more privatization, more de-industrialization (as long as they can keep killing unionists in the third world and firing them here in the U.S. with impunity). Sure, unemployment may go down, but poverty will go up, real wages and compensation will stagnate, and everyone will be convinced, even as a new, hereditary economic, if not titled, aristocracy develops right under their noses, that the "death tax" hurts everyone and should be repealed. Talk about a con job. But the rich, baby, the rich will get richer. Oh, yeah!!!

Posted by cka2nd at 05/07/2007 @ 11:18am
What's really going is Europeans are worried that America will lose its stomach for conflict after the way her allies played both sides in what is really becoming the Islamic war- basically they are scared America won't send blood and treasure (once again) to save them when push comes to shove in the near future.

Posted by ROBSTER 05/07/2007 @ 05:45am | ignore this person

Bingo! Our true friends for the most part are former Soviet satellites who realize the US is the only country that has (had) the guts to defend them. Expect more "neutrality" from larger European countries such as France and Germany as they negotiate energy and resource trade deals with Putin. They will play both sides to their advantage. Both of these countries have enjoyed benefits of our military spending. Maybe its time to pull the plug on these freeloaders.

Posted by OneVote at 05/07/2007 @ 11:20am
Sure, unemployment may go down, but poverty will go up, real wages and compensation will stagnate, and everyone will be convinced, even as a new, hereditary economic, if not titled, aristocracy develops right under their noses, that the "death tax" hurts everyone and should be repealed. Talk about a con job. But the rich, baby, the rich will get richer. Oh, yeah!!!

Posted by CKA2ND 05/07/2007 @ 11:18am | ignore this person

Global Economy equals Global Rule - already entrenched - groundwork laid - its a done deal. Remember the Bank of Credit & Commerce International (BCCI)? What a wonderful world!

Posted by OneVote at 05/07/2007 @ 11:29am
Check this out, folks. Half of all Democrats believe that Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand. My guess is, the percentage is higher here at the Nation, people just won't admit it. And these are the people who call themselves 'intellectuals' and frequently claim to be 'reality-based'. Interesting, huh?

Rasmussen has a new poll that measures the paranoia level in America, and unsurprisingly, BDS [Bush Derangement Syndrome] sufferers exhibit more than almost any group. When asked the question "Did Bush Know About the 9/11 Attacks in Advance?", almost as many Democrats say Yes as say No (via Memeorandum):

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.

Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.

Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.

Only four in ten Democrats will commit to the idea that George Bush did not know of the 9/11 attack in advance.

Posted by pontificus at 05/07/2007 @ 11:49am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/07/2007 @ 10:02am

More to the point, I wonder what Obama and Edwards are. Edwards especially has hedged his bets on appealing to the liberal base and possibly even running on a "progressive agenda" in the General Election. Less Iraq....and given the results in France....IS that such a good idea now?

Posted by MASK 05/07/2007 @ 11:14am

I believe the big H will start to tack more to the right...and in your vein of thought, I'll bet Obama will too, but Fast Eddie will have an epiphany moment and run left..and off the cliff and out of the race....leaving what we all know is the deal anyway,,,Hillary and Obama, and Hillary eats him for lunch.

Posted by john maasch at 05/07/2007 @ 11:58am
"Sure, unemployment may go down, but poverty will go up, real wages and compensation will stagnate, and everyone will be convinced, even as a new.."

If unemployment goes down, more are working, how can poverty go up?

France economy is stalling as it is...keeping on the same path without change over there WILL cause more poverty...I for one, am counting on France to be French, with demands for jobs that one can't be fired from regardless whether or not you are doing the job...has kind of a Soviet feel..(USSR had zero unemployment)

Posted by john maasch at 05/07/2007 @ 12:02pm
'Only four in ten Democrats will commit to the idea that George Bush did not know of the 9/11 attack in advance.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/07/2007 @ 11:49am

NOPE...NO KOOKS HERE.

Posted by john maasch at 05/07/2007 @ 12:03pm
"There had been fears that the impoverished suburban housing projects, home to Arab and African immigrants and their French-born children, would erupt again at the victory of a man who labeled those responsible for rioting in 2005 as "scum." "

So the far left and bums who rioted last time are rioting again against the choice of a man who called the rioters scum, which is true, so they riot again?

Posted by john maasch at 05/07/2007 @ 12:33pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/07/2007 @ 12:03pm |

'Only four in ten Democrats will commit to the idea that George Bush did not know of the 9/11 attack in advance.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/07/2007 @ 11:49am

NOPE...NO KOOKS HERE.

I'm just wondering if there is ANYONE here on the left who is willing to disavow the idea that George Bush knew of 9/11 in advance. Any takers? MASK?

Posted by pontificus at 05/07/2007 @ 12:37pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/07/2007 @ 12:37pm |

PONTI....first I'm not "on the Left" (not "on the Right" either, as I have to explain to "black or white" liberals, like I'm explaining to "black or white" conservatives).

Second, I've mocked on NUMEROUS occasions the RESE/PLUNGEY Crowd and their MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose) theories, and willing to do the same for the LIHOP (LET It Happen On Purpose) guys.

Now that doesn't mean that Bush & Co weren't INCOMPETENT and screwed up on 9/11. So I put it down to "stupidity" (not being serious about terrorism) than "evil machinations".

Posted by Mask at 05/07/2007 @ 12:48pm
Posted by CKA2ND 05/07/2007 @ 11:18am

Sorry, CKA, but the "They Didn't Go Far ENOUGH! They Sold Out The Revolution" Argument is as old as hills...or Trotsky. Eventually it has to squelch ANY free market or socialism has to be in EVERY country (so no evil bankers in England and Germany, for example, can corrupt the pure 'workers' paradise' in France) to end the excuse...or the people just stop buying into it, which apparently they did in France.

Or you might try the excuse that "the wrong kind" (i.e. stupid) socialists got into power...but that brings up another idea that the Left rarely wishes to admit...

that the people on THEIR side could be stupid or incompetent!

Posted by Mask at 05/07/2007 @ 12:55pm
Posted by MASK 05/07/2007 @ 12:48pm

Well, MASK, the reason why I called you out is I figured you were the only one resembling a Democrat to not buy into the craziness.

Posted by pontificus at 05/07/2007 @ 1:28pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/07/2007 @ 11:49am

Hey, you sorry assed coward. Can't even own up to your nonsense, so you think you can just ignore me?

Heven't even got the nut to apologize, so you just avoid me.

Coward. I piss on you and all that you stand for, hypocrite.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 05/07/2007 @ 1:31pm
the reason why I called you out is I figured you were the only one resembling a Democrat to not buy into the craziness.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/07/2007 @ 1:28pm |

Calling people out again, huh, oh gutless one?

Posted by Dr Decibels at 05/07/2007 @ 1:31pm
What? A conservative in favor of fighting global warming? This must be a mistake.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/06/2007 @ 7:56pm

Here, Sarkozy would probably be considered a far-left progressive Democrat. "Liberal" and "conservative" are extremely relative terms. I've had this discussion with European friends who note that what we consider left-liberal in America is even somewhat right-of-center in Europe in general, including Germany. So, as is typical of their ilk, Bush & Co. are making a big to-do over a "conservative" label that really doesn't mean much in their terms.

Posted by w_m_bear at 05/07/2007 @ 1:39pm
Royal would peg the meter on the left.

Posted by w_m_bear at 05/07/2007 @ 1:43pm
Socialist Sègolene Royal's supporters derided conservative front runner Nicolas Sarkozy as "an American neo-conservative with a French passport." [...] Sarkozy was never going to be George Bush's "poodle"

Those two sentences are not mutually exclusive. There is little doubt that Bush is "an American neo-conservative" - but Bush is nobody's "poodle"

Likewise, I believe that it is accurate the describe Nicolas S. as being like "an American neo-conservative". I don't think that Nicolas S. is going to be going to be George Bush's "poodle" Actually, I think that Nicolas S. 's has too big of an ego to be anybody's "poodle". He probably even has too big of an ego to tolerate people who have ideas different than his. Just like Bush.

Posted by olwagner at 05/07/2007 @ 2:08pm
Bush is nobody's "poodle"

Ah, but he is KKKarl Roves little bitch.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 05/07/2007 @ 2:12pm
DR. Goebbels, you're crackin' me up......

Posted by davebarlett at 05/07/2007 @ 2:25pm
Well, Mask, as I am a Trotskyist, I am in favor of socialism, worldwide.

You know, I love how at one moment you attack the netroots liberal-left for deriding Pelosi, Clinton and the rest of the Democratic leadership, and at the other, you say the left (still talking about the liberal-left or do you want to throw in the far left, who are always attacked as "sectarians" for criticising everyone else on the left) for not being willing to criticize their own. Which is it, darling?

Ponti, I haven't voted for a Democrat or a Republican in 20+ years, but I'll take the plunge: no, I don't think Bush, Cheney and Co. knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance. They should have been prepared for something, as the intelligence had worked its way into Rice and Cheney's hands, at least, but the specifics of the 9/11 plot, no. Even I don't think that they are quite that depraved. By the way, Alexander Cockburn and the folks at CounterPunch have done their share to try to undercut the idiotic and counter-productive conspiracy theorizing on the left, broadly speaking, about 9/11.

Posted by cka2nd at 05/07/2007 @ 2:31pm
John,

You seemed to admit that poverty could exist in the midst of full employment under a Stalinist economy, so that should give you some clues as to how poverty could go up while unemployment goes down in a capitalist one.

Posted by cka2nd at 05/07/2007 @ 2:34pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/07/2007 @ 1:28pm

I avoid craziness from ALL sides. Both the 9/11 Conspiracy guys....to way back to the "Clinton smuggled coke into Alma Airport/Hillary wacked Vince Foster" Crowd.

Posted by Mask at 05/07/2007 @ 2:47pm
Posted by CKA2ND 05/07/2007 @ 2:31pm

CKA, I'm afraid you didn't make your point. I was referring to people who do not criticize people OF their own ideology or look at themselves in the mirror, for that matter.

IOW, it wouldn't be surprising for a Trotskyite (like yourself) to critique Hillary, Pelosi, etc. Now, you going after Segolene Royal or Hugo Chavez WOULD be a surpise.

Frankly the fact that you embrace a political/economic philosophy that is ALMOST 100 years old (and a leader dead now for nearly 70) shows that YOU are quite static in your approach to world problems.

Perhaps you're a "neo-Trotskyite", who incorporates new technology, transportation, and cultural phenomena into your philosophy...but then again, I doubt you break much from ol' Lev Davidovich Bronstein or think that maybe he's a bit...passe'...for the 21st Century.

Perhaps if I heard 4-5 elements of socialism/Marxism that you think are abject failures....you might make a point. Until then, I stick with my original contention that ideologues almost NEVER criticize themselves or their ideology (once firmly established as their self-identity that is). (BTW, that WOULDN'T include "Well, I opposed the authoritarian nature of the Soviet Union"...I'm talking the ideas, not their implementation)

Posted by Mask at 05/07/2007 @ 2:55pm
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 05/07/2007 @ 2:25pm

ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Posted by Dr Decibels at 05/07/2007 @ 3:20pm
Perhaps if I heard 4-5 elements of socialism/Marxism that you think are abject failures....you might make a point. Until then, I stick with my original contention that ideologues almost NEVER criticize themselves or their ideology (once firmly established as their self-identity that is). (BTW, that WOULDN'T include "Well, I opposed the authoritarian nature of the Soviet Union"...I'm talking the ideas, not their implementation)

Posted by MASK 05/07/2007 @ 2:55pm

Mask -- How's this? Marx obviously and badly needs to be updated and, you're right, there is tremendous (and unfortunate) resistance among contemporary Marxists to do such updating. (REVISIONIST! He screamed.)

However, when I read "Capital," I was tremendously impressed by Marx's analysis of exactly the way in which the difference between the wages that workers are paid and the value they produce minus basic costs (plant, machinery, etc.) of production equals the capitalist's profit. What is out-of-date, of course (especially in an age where most "products" are actually services, including information services) is the fact that Marx's analysis was focused almost exclusively on assembly-line production and relies perhaps too exclusively on the so-called "labor theory of value."

Mutatis mutandis....

If you even do the most rudimentary kind of economic analysis on the whole issue of productivitiy versus wages/salary, you come up with a similar idea -- capitalist profits are essentially a form of legitimized theft that depends on paying workers (whatever they produce, hardware or software, and however they're paid, wages or salary) less than the actual value of what they produce. Marx's real genius, it seems to me, lay precisely in seeing that there IS nowhere else that capitalistic profits CAN come from except this discrepancy! For example, one U.S. Labor Dept. statistic I recently came across set the average productivity of the American worker at something like $150K per year. But does the average American worker EARN anything like $150K before taxes? I don't THINK so. And guess WHERE the difference between the value of what the worker earns and what he or she produces goes? (Granting that the cost of production does also have to be taken into account -- insert pages of closely reasoned economic analysis ala that in "Capital" here.)

Posted by w_m_bear at 05/07/2007 @ 3:32pm
Ponti.....Hmmmmm.......9/11 & Bush........I am not completely convinced.

FINANCE: Questions Linger About Bushes and BCCI Analysis by Lucy Komisar*

NEW YORK, Apr 4 (IPS) - Now that the U.S. Congress is investigating the truth of President George W. Bush's statements about the Iraq war, they might look into one of his most startling assertions: that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Critics dismissed that as an invention. They were wrong. There was a link, but not the one Bush was selling. The link between Hussein and Bin Laden was their banker, BCCI. But the link went beyond the dictator and the jihadist -- it passed through Saudi Arabia and stretched all the way to George W. Bush and his father.

BCCI was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, a dirty offshore bank that then-president Ronald Reagan's Central Intelligence Agency used to run guns to Hussein, finance Osama bin Laden, move money in the illegal Iran-Contra operation and carry out other "agency" black ops. The Bushes also benefited privately; one of the bank's largest Saudi investors helped bail out George W. Bush's troubled oil investments.

BCCI was founded in 1972 by a Pakistani banker, Agha Hasan Abedi, with the support of Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al Nahyan, ruler of Abu Dhabi and head of the United Arab Emirates. Its corporate strategy was money laundering. It became the banker for drug and arms traffickers, corrupt officials, financial fraudsters, dictators and terrorists.

The CIA used BCCI Islamabad and other branches in Pakistan to funnel some of the two billion dollars that Washington sent to Osama bin Laden's Mujahadeen to help fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. It moved the cash the Pakistani military and government officials skimmed from U.S. aid to the Mujahadeen. It also moved money as required by the Saudi intelligence services.

The BCCI operation gave Osama bin Laden an education in offshore black finance that he would put to use when he organised the jihad against the United States. He would move money through the Al-Taqwa Bank, operating in offshore Nassau and Switzerland with two Osama siblings as shareholders.

At the same time, BCCI helped Saddam Hussein, funneling millions of dollars to the Atlanta branch of the Italian government-owned Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL), Baghdad's U.S. banker, so that from 1985 to 1989 it could make four billion dollars in secret loans to Iraq to help it buy arms.

U.S. Congressman Henry Gonzalez held a hearing on BNL in 1992 during which he quoted from a confidential CIA document that said the agency had long been aware that the bank's headquarters was involved in the U.S. branch's Iraqi loans.

Kickbacks from 15 percent commissions on BNL-sponsored loans were channeled into bank accounts held for Iraqi leaders via BCCI offices in the Caymans as well as in offshore Luxembourg and Switzerland. BNL was a client of Kissinger Associates, and Henry Kissinger was on the bank's international advisory board, along with Brent Scowcroft, who would become George Bush Sr.'s national security advisor. That connection makes the Bush administration's surprise and indignation at "oil for food" payoffs in Iraq seem disingenuous.

Important Saudis were influential in the bank. Sheik Kamal Adham, brother-in-law of the late Saudi King Faisal, head of Saudi intelligence from 1963 to 1979, and the CIA's liaison in the area, became one of BCCI's largest shareholders. George Bush Sr. knew Adham from his time running the CIA in 1975.

Another investor was Prince Turki bin Faisal al-Saud, who succeeded Adham as Saudi intelligence chief. The family of Khalid Salem bin Mahfouz, owner of the National Commercial Bank, the largest bank in Saudi Arabia, banker to King Fahd and other members of the ruling family, bought 20 to 30 percent of the stock for nearly one billion dollars. Bin Mahfouz was put on the board of directors.

The Arabs' interest in the bank was more than financial. A classified CIA memo on BCCI in the mid-1980s said that "its principal shareholders are among the power elite of the Middle East, including the rulers of Dubai and the United Arab Emirates, and several influential Saudi Arabians. They are less interested in profitability than in promoting the Muslim cause."

The Bushes' private links to the bank passed to Bin Mahfouz through Texas businessman James R. Bath, who invested money in the United States on behalf of the Saudi. In 1976, when Bush was the head of the CIA, the agency sold some of the planes of Air America, a secret "proprietary" airline it used during the Vietnam War, to Skyway, a company owned by Bath and Bin Mahfouz. Bath then helped finance George W. Bush's oil company, Arbusto Energy Inc., in 1979 and 1980.

When Harken Energy Corp., which had absorbed Arbusto (by then merged with Spectrum 7 Energy), got into financial trouble in 1987, Jackson Stephens of the powerful, politically-connected Arkansas investment firm helped it secure 25 million dollars in financing from the Union Bank of Switzerland. As part of that deal, a place on the board was given to Harken shareholder Sheik Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, whose chief banker was BCCI shareholder Bin Mahfouz.

Then, in 1988, George Bush Sr. was elected president. Harken benefited by getting some new investors, including Salem bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's half-brother, and Khalid bin Mahfouz. Osama bin Laden himself was busy elsewhere at the time -- organising al Qaeda.

The money BCCI stole before it was shut down in 1991 -- somewhere between 9.5 billion and 15 billion dollars -- made its 20-year heist the biggest bank fraud in history. Most of it was never recovered. International banks' complicity in the offshore secrecy system effectively covered up the money trail.

But in the years after the collapse of BCCI, Khalid bin Mahfouz was still flush with cash. In 1992, he established the Muwafaq ("blessed relief") Foundation in the offshore Channel Islands. The U.S. Treasury Department called it "an al Qaeda front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen."

When the BCCI scandal began to break in the late 1980s, the Sr. Bush administration did what it could to sit on it. The Justice Department went after the culprits -- was virtually forced to -- only after New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau did. But evidence about BCCI's broader links exist in numerous U.S. and international investigations. Now could be a good time to take another look at the BCCI-Osama-Saddam-Saudi-Bush connection.

*Investigative journalist Lucy Komisar's chapter, "The BCCI Game: Banking on America, Banking on Jihad," appears in the new book "A Game as Old as Empire", just published by Berrett-Koehler (San Francisco). (END/2007)

Posted by OneVote at 05/07/2007 @ 4:02pm
capitalist profits are essentially a form of legitimized theft that depends on paying workers (whatever they produce, hardware or software, and however they're paid, wages or salary) less than the actual value of what they produce.

Except that you're overlooking that it isn't just labor that produces profit, it's the investment and organization of capital. That's the basis for a capitalists profit and a generally legitimate one.

Posted by brunowe at 05/07/2007 @ 4:15pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 05/07/2007 @ 4:02pm

OV, the one thing I find scary about that article is that anyone thinks it proves anything. What a hash of mismatched facts, dubious conclusions, etc. I can't make heads or tails of it, honestly.

Posted by pontificus at 05/07/2007 @ 4:16pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 05/07/2007 @ 4:02pm

That article reminds me of the marathon rants some fellow from the Christic Institute used to deluge NPR airwaves with back in the late 80's. It's hard to make heads or tails of any of it, but it's easy to be bowled over (or numbed) by the sheer volume of it.

Posted by pontificus at 05/07/2007 @ 4:22pm
John, "Independent Player of the International Stage"?? Give me a break. Their performance over the past 70 years hardly qualifies them to even be considered ON the International stage.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/07/2007 @ 4:23pm
Posted by W_M_BEAR 05/07/2007 @ 3:32pm

W_M, Mr Marx may have had a basis in fact in the 1840s....but like most history-centric figures (like the Apostles or perhaps even the Founding Fathers) they are trapped by the era from which they emerged.

For instance, what would Mr Marx' view be of.....software manufacturers, like Microsoft. The software engineers create a program, get paid an hourly wage that could reap them 200K a year (an example), and then MACHINES reproduce the software onto disks by the millions that reap the corporation (and yes, Mr Gates) MILLIONS of dollars.

Now, "the workers" are truly are being paid for what their labor is worth...originally. The initial program on a master copy CD-ROM. But the "labor" for the true profits from THEIR "labor" is done by robotic machines burning CDs by the thousands.

Is the software engineers' "labor" being "exploited"? Hard to say. It's a group project (rarely is a program the work of one person). The reproduction of the item is done by machines. And if it fails to sell, the company eats the loss, the workers do not.

But it's one of the technological ideas that were Sooooooooo far beyond Karl that it's taking neo-Marxists numerous hoops to jump through to try to reconcile.

Regardless, most Marxism is left to those same academics/professors...because in reality it's never worked and probably never will work. Even the Soviets eventually broke down into class structure (apparatchniks) and opened up department stores. And the Chinese are as Marxist as I am. Where the attempt has been made to get as close to Marx as possible, it either is a dictatorship (Cuba, N. Korea)...or a hippie commune

If Adam Smith couldn't visualize "The Wealth of Nations" becoming "multi-nationals with off-shore banking and tele-conferencing"....Karl Marx too is good for a chuckle or a "hmm"...but should be moved off to the dustbin of history.

Posted by Mask at 05/07/2007 @ 4:56pm
capitalist profits are essentially a form of legitimized theft that depends on paying workers (whatever they produce, hardware or software, and however they're paid, wages or salary) less than the actual value of what they produce.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

So why doesn't each worker just break-away from their respective businesses and do their jobs independently from one another, and keep the "value" they created.

For instance, take a windshield making company. One guy can gather up all of the raw materials to make the glass in this back-yard. Another guy can buy a melter to put in his garage. Another guy can buy some forms.

But wait, if all of these guys weren't in the same building, how can they make a windshield?

Ok, lets say they form a partnership, but each is responsible for their share of the rent, and each has to buy his own equipment. The raw materials guy can then send an invoice to the melter guy, cause he is going to sell him the raw materials to melt, then the melter is going to send the molten glass to the form guy and send him an invoice for the molten, and on and on and on...

So basically, each person, in order to "reap" the benefits of "their" labor, is going to have to hire accountants and lawyers to help them interact with each other.

But lets switch gears. What about the Accountants? In a corporation, they do not create any product of value with regard to the products sold by the company, they are a cost center. Should they have to pay the company for the opportunity to work there? Or should their pay-check come out of some of the revenue garnered by selling the product that the "workers" produced?

Who decides what is produced in the first place? Does the high-school drop-out glass melter (who is probably extremely competent at his job by the way) make that decision? Maybe we should pay someone to talk to Ford and ask them what they need, again, that comes out of the revenues, hit up the worker again.

Oh, and all of the machinery, millions of dollars. Did the "worker" pay for that? Ok, so we need "investors" to buy that. Do they get any "return" for their "investment" or does that not sound enough like work to anyone?

So, I think 3- 10% return on investment for a business and its investor/ owners is probably reasonable.

And the only risk the "worker" has is being able to show up to work on time and punch his time card on the correct side. Worker is probably doing just fine.

Posted by WallStreet at 05/07/2007 @ 5:18pm
Mask, no offense, but your knowledge of the left is not nearly as comprehensive as you seem to think. While some Trotskyist organizations play uncritical footsie with reformists like Royal and Chavez, they are the type who will chase after any mass movement to gain a few, generally low-quality, recruits. Many Trots, however, identify Royal as a pure reformist and bourgeois politician, and Chavez as a more militant reformist with socialist pretensions. I would hope that would even capture, very roughly, the international Trotskyist consensus (guarenteed to be the first time that phrase has ever been used!), but things have slipped some in recent years.

I'm quite flexible in my tactical thinking, and as a student of history, I am also particularly interested in the roots of Marxism in Adam Smith and David Ricardo, among others. I think at least one of them also discussed a labor theory of value, by the way. I'm also the guy who keeps quoting The American Conservative on this site, generally favorably. But I do try to stand firm on my principles, even if they are 70-100 years old. Libertarians, among others, do the same when they discuss Mises and Hayek, even as they acknowledge the contributions (gag me) of a Friedman.

I could ask you to point out the abject failures in capitalist theory, but that would be a dodge. I will admit that, while I have given some thought to failures of revolutionary implementation over the years, I have not studied the classics (Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, etc.) as I should have, so while I might be able to discuss some of the mistakes that the Bolsheviks made, and the criminal break with the past represented by Stalin and those who followed him, I am less able to critique the finer points of Marxist theory. In fact, I am in awe of those Marxists who can, with a single quote or citation, put some know-it-all laissez faire type in their place.

Posted by cka2nd at 05/07/2007 @ 5:18pm
Mask,

Damn, I worked on my example for 10 minutes, and there you go beating me to the punch... Next time... I'll be ready.

Posted by WallStreet at 05/07/2007 @ 5:19pm
OV, the one thing I find scary about that article is that anyone thinks it proves anything. What a hash of mismatched facts, dubious conclusions, etc. I can't make heads or tails of it, honestly.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/07/2007 @ 4:16pm | ignore this person

Okay....no proof of anything beyond a reasonable doubt. But my concern is that investigations into these relationships were never undertaken or undertaken very half heartedly. The web of international money laundering and financial favors is staggering when you start to connect the dots. You don't find it unusual the Bush family is using the same bank that terrorists and drug cartel uses? You are an easy juror Ponti.

Posted by OneVote at 05/07/2007 @ 5:22pm
I'm a democrat who is willing to admit that President Bush did not know about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. As to whether he should have known, ah, that may be a different matter.

Posted by The Goods at 05/07/2007 @ 5:42pm
The discussions on "capitalist profit" only briefly touched on the huge matter of risks! In the cases of the `old' manufacturing economy, like Wallstreet's windshield example and the assembly-type work Marx fermented his theories on, just imagine the amount of capital it takes to set up `shop'.

Just imagine, if you had any vague sense of $$, say for a 100-man factory, what the Capitalist must do: secure real estate, owned (capital) or leased (liability), purchase & install capital machineries, front labor's wages for 30/60/90 days, front much of the costs of raw materials, front most ordinary on-going non-labor/mat'l oper. costs, deal w/the ever-presesnt Gov't regs (and post-Marx, lawyers!), and on and on...Whether Socialists know it or not, there are huge risks in every phase of a typical `capitalist' endeavors Then, if successful, competition begins to show up; worse yet, they begin hiring away your (now trained) labor! Is it any wonder why academics and intellectuals gravitate to this idealogy which never addresses the reality of `risks'....on the other hand, how many capitalists ever `grow' into Socialists/Marxists?

Another factor for the `capitalist profit' that got NO MENTION, except indirectly by MASK, is INNOVATION! Identifying needs, or even dreaming up yet-unknown needs, and coming up with a way to fulfill such needs at a cost that generate end demand, is what America has been most successful at for at least a 100 years now!

Does Marx address any of these `modern' economic factors that have been taught in any business curriculum now for decades?

Posted by Happy at 05/07/2007 @ 5:51pm
Happy,

Good points. I didn't want to get into the overall set-up costs, because the only logical conclusion under convoluted economic theories would be to not-pay the workers (becuase if there are no sales of the product of labor, their labor is worthless or negative).

It amazes me that when you take away the ability to charge a risk premium, economics becomes really easy. This is why Union wages have been stagnant for decades, and why unions must continually threaten strikes to get meager raises, they have bargained away all of their risk for a little bit of security, hence, no compensation above routine returns.

Why does this not make sense to so many people?

Posted by WallStreet at 05/07/2007 @ 6:06pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/07/2007 @ 4:16pm

Shut up already. You are a liar, a hypocrite, and a coward.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 05/07/2007 @ 6:07pm
Posted by WALLSTREET 05/07/2007 @ 5:18pm |

Exactly.

Posted by john maasch at 05/07/2007 @ 6:27pm
Why does this not make sense to so many people?

Posted by WALLSTREET 05/07/2007 @ 6:06pm

Because they want a gaurentee...no pain...they trade away freedoms for "security" and end up settleing for low stagnant security..

Posted by john maasch at 05/07/2007 @ 6:39pm
Less than 10% of the people practice the free enterprise model, the rest just want a job and then go home with their check..and our schools do not teach how to build wealth...people have spent their lives "learning" that they are victims or some other guy, who became rich,at their expense,so it does not compute to them that the 1% or 5% who have the most wealth are the same ones who end up providing the jobs....and the "workers" never connect the dots...the unions and the dems will not let them do so...imo

Posted by john maasch at 05/07/2007 @ 6:47pm
1% or 5% who have the most wealth are the same ones who end up providing the jobs....and the "workers" never connect the dots...the unions and the dems will not let them do so...imo

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/07/2007 @ 6:47pm

What jobs do the hedge funders provide?

Wolfe writes: "The collision of new money and old money, or, to be more accurate in our American context, slightly older money, has been a recurring drama . . . But the current breed stands apart for two reasons."

First, they have more money. And second, they have a "previously unheard-of status fixation."

The irony here, of course, is that the wealthy have always been fixated on status (Wolfe's matron lives, after all, on Park Avenue). For the old guard to complain about the hedge funders' brutish quest for money and social standing, when their family founders did much the same, is delusional at best. The real problem for Old Money crowd isn't that hedge funders have no manners or taste: it's that they have more money -- much more money.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

Oh but that's because of unions and taxes... Bwahahahahahahah. Sure it is, just keep deluding yourself and attempting to delude others-- it just ain't so, but if helps your muddled hard heart to believe in greed, pack shorts and lots of sun screen...

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/07/2007 @ 8:23pm
Oh and Ponficalness, I did hear that Cheney told hsuB a few days later what happened. So one could say that the hsuB/heney admin knew about it before it happened if you include Cheney first and then hsuB for covering it up...

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/07/2007 @ 8:30pm
HSUBFOOLS: Whine and complain, whine and complain ...

Oh, and your not greedy, are you? It's interesting how those you seem to despise the most are also the most generous and give/donate a greater percentage of their income to charities than liberals do. Most liberals are very generous, but with other peoples money.

This is still the greatest nation with the greatest freedoms and opportunities. It will still be so, even if a democrat is elected (at least for the foreseeable future).

A good percentage of the 1 - 5% started with nothing or next to nothing. Through a lot of hard work, long hours and taking some risks, they got to where they are.

Out of necessity I recently went from employed to small business owner. Most left leaning employees and libs don't have a clue as to what it takes to start and run a business; the risk, the hard work, the hours, the sleepless nights, little or no vacations, the regulations, the paperwork (after the other work is done), etc. etc. If they did, they'd spend a lot less time complaining.

Of course there are always some really bad situations and life isn't always fair, but chances are, if you put in the time and effort and take some risks, one can achieve a significant degree of success in this country.

For those who truly can't help themselves; every conservative I know believes we need to provide the assistance they need.

Posted by facethetruth at 05/07/2007 @ 11:38pm
HSUBFOOLS: Whine and complain, whine and complain ...

Oh, and your not greedy, are you? It's interesting how those you seem to despise the most are also the most generous and give/donate a greater percentage of their income to charities than liberals do. Most liberals are very generous, but with other peoples money.

This is still the greatest nation with the greatest freedoms and opportunities. It will still be so, even if a democrat is elected (at least for the foreseeable future).

A good percentage of the 1 - 5% started with nothing or next to nothing. Through a lot of hard work, long hours and taking some risks, they got to where they are.

Out of necessity I recently went from employed to small business owner. Most left leaning employees and libs don't have a clue as to what it takes to start and run a business; the risk, the hard work, the hours, the sleepless nights, little or no vacations, the regulations, the paperwork (after the other work is done), etc. etc. If they did, they'd spend a lot less time complaining.

Of course there are always some really bad situations and life isn't always fair, but chances are, if you put in the time and effort and take some risks, one can achieve a significant degree of success in this country.

For those who truly can't help themselves; every conservative I know believes we need to provide the assistance they need.

Posted by facethetruth at 05/07/2007 @ 11:42pm
Back to Nichols: I guess since his previous premise fell flat (Royal vs. Bush) he must of been up all night trying to think of another anti-Bush angle to it all. What a stretch.

Posted by facethetruth at 05/07/2007 @ 11:46pm
From a quick Google search, Peter Hudis argues that Marx talked about capitalist innovation quite a bit: http://www.net4dem.org/cyrev/archive/issue7/articles/Hudis/Hudis1.htm.

Jude Wanniski, an admirer of Marx though he is a supply-side economist associated with the right, disagrees. From a quick glance at his essay, I'm not sure that he makes the case on innovation, but he seems on firmer ground in noting that Marx, like all of the classical economists before him, didn't really take manufacturing risk into account because of their historical circumstances and the lack of systematic economic theories on risk until the early 20th century. Interesting stuff: http://www.wanniski.com/ssu.asp.

I'll leave it to someone else to search how later generations of Marxist economists have addressed the issue of risk.

One other note: Marx took into account all of that capital some of you used in your examples of capital and labor in the building or running of a factory. Where did that capital come from before the factory was built? Before the banks got ahold of it? From the labor of earlier workers, sometimes even earlier generations of workers.

And Mask, I will say that the labor theory of value still does not completely convince me, although more so because of issues raised by high value items like gold and diamonds where human emotions get involved.

Posted by cka2nd at 05/08/2007 @ 12:34am
Here in France, what was retained against Nicolas Sarkozy was what he said to Bush during his visit in USA: "France has to stop its arrogance". This was a comment directly related to Chirac's position on Irak war and Villepin's intervention during UNO deliberations on that matter. There are people around Sarkozy who plaided for France to join the coalition. Some quite vehemently. Sarkozy is nobody's poodle, got too much of an ego to be one, but he is quite unexpectable on a lot of issues, and shares some NeoCons traits. Chirac did support him, but it was mostly cosmetic, and only because he had no choice. Now, if Chirac opposed France veto to Irak intervention, it was only for some private and national interests (somewhat entwined). So things are quite complicated on that front.

What is more simple is the social and economic project of Sarkozy. Here you have a real conservative revolution. Something new in France. And nothing to rejoice about, if you are really on the liberal side...

Posted by Pierre-Arnaud at 05/08/2007 @ 07:47am
Out of necessity I recently went from employed to small business owner. Most left leaning employees and libs don't have a clue as to what it takes to start and run a business; the risk, the hard work, the hours, the sleepless nights, little or no vacations, the regulations, the paperwork (after the other work is done), etc. etc. If they did, they'd spend a lot less time complaining.

Posted by FACETHETRUTH 05/07/2007 @ 11:42pm

Whine whine whine...

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/08/2007 @ 08:18am
Forgot the essential point here about global warming: what makes Sarkozy a conservative in an "anglo-saxon" manner is the fact his world spins around economic "realities" and corporations needs. When he speaks about nuclear energy, it is only because France is well placed on that market, Areva must be the first or second world biggest corporation to provide nuclear plants... If France had Enron and Shell, he would promote oil economy with the same conviction... Nuclear is not really an alternative, renewable source of energy. Uranium will disappear like oil. And perhaps with a bang...

...In 1986, when Ukrainian Tchernobyl plant exploded and melted, a toxic cloud covered western Europe. Miraculously, it stopped at France's borders... Since then we learned it was a french government lie on the behalf of the nuclear lobby, and there was a jump in some forms of cancer in the radiated zones (east and south-east areas in France). Guess who was the state secretary in charge to propagate the lies in 1986 ?

Nicolas Sarkozy.

Now, what make him a NeoCons, is Sarkozy will privatize the national EDF, "Electricité De France", and sell it to his friends, some of the richest and more powerfull industrialists and entrepreneurs in France... We already know their names, and the friendship links they share... 75% of electricity produced by EDF in France comes from nuclear plants...

Posted by Pierre-Arnaud at 05/08/2007 @ 08:20am
Once again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with 'true' conservatism. There are a lot of areas that libs overlap with repubs especially if it's about fairness and compassion. Where all depart are especially with the current new con hsuB/heney secretive shinanagans that go way beyond fairness, truth, law, and are just plain unAmerican. Any 'real' American would want to know the 'facts' not fabricate them, hide from them or run from them, as the righty new cons do here. Truely disengenuous and beyond cowardly.

The current hsuB/heney admin is a complete disaster for the USA. Admit it and fix it asap or we all go down and the blame will be on the repubs hands for generations. Repubs, get some backbone. Stop lying and whining.

Posted by hsuBfools at 05/08/2007 @ 08:34am
Posted by ONEVOTE 05/07/2007 @ 5:22pm

You don't find it unusual the Bush family is using the same bank that terrorists and drug cartel uses?

I'm really not sure that's what the article says. And even if they did, what's the point here? That Bush and Bin Laden are in cahoots, and the fact that they use the same bank proves it? If we were to play this game of six degrees of separation, Kevin Bacon could be proven to have some involvement in practically every Hollywood movie ever made, for example. This does NOT make him the most powerful man in Hollywood, it only demonstrates the smallness of the networked world we live in.

Posted by pontificus at 05/09/2007 @ 03:56am