NationStates Jolt Archive

What I believe constitutes the defense of bourgeois property in a more general way, specifically in America, is the attempt of those outside the political bourgeois mainstream, namely libertarians, to paint a distort a false vision of reality. They seek to paint a vision of an underdog status for capitalism, probably the most common thing libertarians will say is that 'true' capitalism doesn't exist in America or the world, words like 'corporatism' and 'state monopoly' are thrown around quite alot in libertarian circles. They seek to create the vision not only that 'capitalism' is in an underdog status, but is desperately threatened on all sides by 'big government' or any number of imaginary 'statist' bogeyman created to serve this purpose.

.libertarians desperately seek to assign themselves and their cause (capitalism) a status of being under attack from all sides. This has many effects, but all are ultimately reactionary and seek to defend the status-quo. Firstly it therefore assigns to bourgeios parliamentarism an important and significance in politics out of all proportion to it's actual power. Libertarians will constantly tell you that capitalism stands upon the edge of a knife, and that 'socialists' are on the verge of taking over the US government (through the Democrats no doubt) and creating a veritable Soviet Union in our backyards. This has the effect of telling people that bourgeois politics, which exist for no reason other than to defend the old decaying system of capital, is meaningful, and thus attaches a significance and urgency to the rhetoric of libertarians.

It is fundamentally this underdog rhetoric which keeps libertarianism, existing merely on the fringe, alive. Those fed up with the mainstream of bourgeois politics find meaning in the bourgeois fringe in libertarianism, who tell the people 'big government' (usually accompanied by lots of big words) is the problem of all the worlds woes. Thus libertarianism serves a unique part in the overall class struggle in society and a unique position in the political defense of capitalism.

Libertarians would have you believe that 'true capitalism' exists nowhere in the world, and that itself is a palpable position to take, and instantly creates a world view that everyone is against capitalism. On a slightly different note, this persecution phenomenon is observed also in American Christians, who while being in the majority and by far the largest and most politically powerful religion, will constantly tell themselves and each other than 'liberals', 'secularists' and 'atheists' are on the brink of taking over and doing away with Christianity. This is what gives alot of impetus to both Christianity (as a political movement) and libertarianism in general. A common SS slogan in Nazi Germany was once 'Hitler saves us from Jewish tyranny', you see to justify themselves as being in such a dominating and oppressing position over the Jews, the Nazi's could only reconcile this will creating a fallacy that the Jews were on the brink of taking over and ruling the Germans. This of course was rubbish, but designating a political movement as the 'underdog' is always a powerful tool in the hands of the Ruling Class.

And on this note of fascism, it's also important to remember that at it's heart, the concept of 'defense of bourgeois property is the defense of the fatherland' is the basis for fascism in general, and also is the basis of American libertarianism, which itself morphed into it's own form of conservatism distinct from European forms of conservatism. An almost constant rallying cry of conservatives is that American was 'founded on capitalism', and that capitalism is distinctly an 'American' thing, which also goes a long way to understanding why the libertarian phenomenon is so concentrated in America. I believe it is so for a few reasons, the first is that America was indeed founded on the earliest seeds of capitalism, that being the liberal rebellion against absolute monarchy which laid the basis for the upcoming revolution of capitalism over feudalism. And secondly it is indeed quite obvious that so much economic power lies with the US that indeed America has the 'luxury' of libertarianism. In other poorer nations the governments must be social-democratic in order to be elected, or at least be populist in that way, these governments must support a 'limitation' of capitalism to be elected. While in America the concentration of capital and wealth is so great that the Ruling Class can afford not to placate the workers as much, which is why American 'politics' is basically a contest between conservative capitalists (Republicans) and liberal capitalists (Democrats)....

I totally agree, and by god, we should do something about it. There aren't enough frozen yogurt places left in the US to serve all of us and I'm tired and sitting back and watching the numbers dwindle. I'm taking up arms. We won't be silenced by the Cold Stones of the world any longer! What say ye, Generalites?

They seek to paint a vision of an underdog status for capitalism, probably the most common thing libertarians will say is that 'true' capitalism doesn't exist in America or the world, words like 'corporatism' and 'state monopoly' are thrown around quite alot in libertarian circles.
I presume you will now provide an argument to actually refute this claim of ours.

.libertarians desperately seek to assign themselves and their cause (capitalism) a status of being under attack from all sides.
No, I don't.

This has many effects, but all are ultimately reactionary and seek to defend the status-quo.
No, I don't.

Libertarians would have you believe that 'true capitalism' exists nowhere in the world, and that itself is a palpable position to take, and instantly creates a world view that everyone is against capitalism.
No, it doesn't.

A common SS slogan in Nazi Germany was once 'Hitler saves us from Jewish tyranny', you see to justify themselves as being in such a dominating and oppressing position over the Jews, the Nazi's could only reconcile this will creating a fallacy that the Jews were on the brink of taking over and ruling the Germans.
Godwin. [/thread]

Dude, I realise that this stuff is probably communal property wherever you got it from, but it's still intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge where it came from. Marx would be spinning in his grave.

tl;dnr

Judging from Neu Leonstein's response, it's a typical Andaras cut & paste...meaning I didn't miss anything.

tl;dnr

Judging from Neu Leonstein's response, it's a typical Andaras cut & paste...meaning I didn't miss anything.

You'd think by now he'd try to be original. Really, I'd be willing to debate with him if he'd just use his own damned words.

The problem with pure Capitalism is that it's more or less based around the idea that, in a purely capitalist everyone has the right to advance his or her self, in the society. But, in reality, it doesn't work, the very rich are never going to suddenly lose all their money, even if they didn't work hard for it, and the very poor are unlikely to have opportunities to advance themselves, for various reasons. For example, people below the poverty line typically cause their children to also remain below the poverty; perhaps they can't send them to a good school (or school at all) to get an education.

Ultimately, all capitalism really does is make rich richer, and poor poorer.

The problem with pure Capitalism is that it's more or less based around the idea that, in a purely capitalist everyone has the right to advance his or her self, in the society. But, in reality, it doesn't work, the very rich are never going to suddenly lose all their money, even if they didn't work hard for it, and the very poor are unlikely to have opportunities to advance themselves, for various reasons. For example, people below the poverty line typically cause their children to also remain below the poverty; perhaps they can't send them to a good school (or school at all) to get an education.

Ultimately, all capitalism really does is make rich richer, and poor poorer.

True. Pure unregulated capitalism is just as bad--if not worse--than outright communism.

Unfortunately, the most efficient economic system we've got is regulated capitalism, so we're going to have to stick with it. It's not perfect, but it works a lot better than any other system we've tried. The key, of course, is the amount and severity of the regulation, as well as the specifics.

tl;dnr

Judging from Neu Leonstein's response, it's a typical Andaras cut & paste...meaning I didn't miss anything.

Google says it's not a directly lifted article. If it's plagiarized then he's at the very least altered it some.

Unfortunately, the most efficient economic system we've got is regulated capitalism, so we're going to have to stick with it. It's not perfect, but it works a lot better than any other system we've tried. The key, of course, is the amount and severity of the regulation, as well as the specifics.
You shouldn't confuse one with the other. Xomic wasn't talking about regulation, he was talking about active income redistribution.

That's different, and really much less consistent with capitalism than regulation is: capitalists of all sorts expect and understand that the trade and ownership of property is going to be handled according to rules that facilitate it and let everyone know what to expect. Some expect these to happen without state violence, most don't and accept the need for some level of regulation.

But that's very different from the idea that some should be granted the unearned that is taken from others. I accept that there is a problem associated with young people growing up into poverty (it doesn't lie in the schooling though as much as it does in the mindset and approach to life and learning that you find with the chronically poor) and so far I haven't come up with a solution that I'm really happy with. But even if we can say that these kids are suffering undeservedly, I'm not happy to say that anyone can decide whether or not some rich person hasn't legitimately earned his or her wealth. And even if we were doing something good by giving money (and again, it's not so much a lack of money as it is the wrong approach to life that is the real problem), we can't do something bad in order to facilitate it.

You shouldn't confuse one with the other. Xomic wasn't talking about regulation, he was talking about active income redistribution.

That's different, and really much less consistent with capitalism than regulation is: capitalists of all sorts expect and understand that the trade and ownership of property is going to be handled according to rules that facilitate it and let everyone know what to expect. Some expect these to happen without state violence, most don't and accept the need for some level of regulation.

But that's very different from the idea that some should be granted the unearned that is taken from others. I accept that there is a problem associated with young people growing up into poverty (it doesn't lie in the schooling though as much as it does in the mindset and approach to life and learning that you find with the chronically poor) and so far I haven't come up with a solution that I'm really happy with. But even if we can say that these kids are suffering undeservedly, I'm not happy to say that anyone can decide whether or not some rich person hasn't legitimately earned his or her wealth. And even if we were doing something good by giving money (and again, it's not so much a lack of money as it is the wrong approach to life that is the real problem), we can't do something bad in order to facilitate it.
Again, all true.

On the token of mindset, though, how exactly can we work to change it? The only way I can see is through a vast increase in education, in amount, type, and quality, and that's going to need more money, and--as annoying as it is--the rich have a lot more to spare, so I think it's only fair to ask them to pay a little more in tax to ease the situation. Call it a case of responsibility. We should all work together for the good of everyone.

Income redistribution alone though won't solve a thing. You have to use the money correctly and efficiently. We all know from experience that if you just throw more money at a problem without changing how you're spending that money, it won't be fixed. And the thing is, we haven't really bothered trying to figure out the most efficient way to do this. We've all just bandied about with ideology in one way or another rather than getting things done right.

You shouldn't confuse one with the other. Xomic wasn't talking about regulation, he was talking about active income redistribution.

That's different, and really much less consistent with capitalism than regulation is: capitalists of all sorts expect and understand that the trade and ownership of property is going to be handled according to rules that facilitate it and let everyone know what to expect. Some expect these to happen without state violence, most don't and accept the need for some level of regulation.

But that's very different from the idea that some should be granted the unearned that is taken from others. I accept that there is a problem associated with young people growing up into poverty (it doesn't lie in the schooling though as much as it does in the mindset and approach to life and learning that you find with the chronically poor) and so far I haven't come up with a solution that I'm really happy with. But even if we can say that these kids are suffering undeservedly, I'm not happy to say that anyone can decide whether or not some rich person hasn't legitimately earned his or her wealth. And even if we were doing something good by giving money (and again, it's not so much a lack of money as it is the wrong approach to life that is the real problem), we can't do something bad in order to facilitate it.

Untrue. A minarchist government would provide protective services even to those who don't contribute through taxes and criminals who, because they have violated the rights of others, detract even more resources. So a minarchist government would tax people and give services to those who did not pay for them, Basically it an in-kind welfare program.

The problem with pure Capitalism is that it's more or less based around the idea that, in a purely capitalist everyone has the right to advance his or her self, in the society. But, in reality, it doesn't work, the very rich are never going to suddenly lose all their money, even if they didn't work hard for it, and the very poor are unlikely to have opportunities to advance themselves, for various reasons.
Aye well pure capitalism is as much a joke as 'proper' communism, or 'ideal' socialism. You don't get people falling into such abject misery as they starve in Western countries, so long as they're on benefits (or 'welfare', or whatever else you call it in your country) they'll be able to eat, their children will be statutorily required to to go to school, and they will be able to get treated at a hospital for free (unless your country is sorta retarded still).
For example, people below the poverty line typically cause their children to also remain below the poverty
True. This is pretty sad, but also The Way Things Are.
perhaps they can't send them to a good school (or school at all) to get an education.
I would love for you to point out a country in the developed world where you can't send your children to school regardless of wealth or location.
Ultimately, all capitalism really does is make rich richer, and poor poorer.
Don't be stupid.

You can make yourself wealthier without being at the top already. And the rich can definitely become poorer, see the whole Bear Stearns débâcle. Aye you're probably a bit fucked if you get all homeless and such, but even then you should be able to claim benefits so long as you're looking for work and registered as such.

I would love for you to point out a country in the developed world where you can't send your children to school regardless of wealth or location.

Well, if you're really poor, you may not be able to afford school materials like paper or such.

But, more importantly, it can be difficult getting a well-paying job with just a high school degree, and without money, it can be difficult to get into university, or such.


You can make yourself wealthier without being at the top already. And the rich can definitely become poorer, see the whole Bear Stearns débâcle. Aye you're probably a bit fucked if you get all homeless and such, but even then you should be able to claim benefits so long as you're looking for work and registered as such.

I'm not saying you can't become wealthier, or loose your money, but in the capitalistic system, it is extremely difficult to gain, when you can barely survive, and it's difficult to loose when you've managed to get so much money you haven't a clue what to spend it on.

Well, if you're really poor, you may not be able to afford school materials like paper or such.
Your school should be providing this, especially if you're really poor.
But, more importantly, it can be difficult getting a well-paying job with just a high school degree, and without money, it can be difficult to get into university, or such.
Aye, true. Do you guys not have scholarships, though?
I'm not saying you can't become wealthier, or loose your money, but in the capitalistic system, it is extremely difficult to gain, when you can barely survive, and it's difficult to loose when you've managed to get so much money you haven't a clue what to spend it on.
Aye, it's not impossible to do better, though.

Your school should be providing this, especially if you're really poor.

You would think, and maybe they do, but in my experience the teacher just yells at you for not being perpared :P

Aye, true. Do you guys not have scholarships, though?

Yes, we do, but university can still be very expensive. (plus I'm not sure you'd be able to promote a helpful learning environment when you're living in such poverty, so I'm not sure how many people coming from poverty stricken families really go out for these scholarships)

You would think, and maybe they do, but in my experience the teacher just yells at you for not being perpared :P
Aye, I mean in terms of giving you pads of paper, not giving you paper as and when it's needed :P
Yes, we do, but university can still be very expensive.
And being poor is also very expensive in the long run in terms of lost opportunities - it's a cost/benefit thing.
plus I'm not sure you'd be able to promote a helpful learning environment when you're living in such poverty
Wut?
So I'm not sure how many people coming from poverty stricken families really go out for these scholarships
IIRC not many. Still could, though.

I'm trying to see some sort of an argument in there but I can't find one. It's just a massive pretentious pile of "libertarians are this, and libertarians are that" without any form of reasoning, evidence or even specific examples. There must be something in this substance-less article!

And being poor is also very expensive in the long run in terms of lost opportunities - it's a cost/benefit thing.
I suppose, but I doubt poor people are waking up and saying "oh boy, I wanta be poor 4ever"

Wut?


What I mean is, it maybe difficult to write a report on, say, Beowulf, if you're sitting in a house that's falling apart and you're cold cause the windows are properly sealed, etc.

I suppose, but I doubt poor people are waking up and saying "oh boy, I wanta be poor 4ever"
No shit. But then that doesn't help without some kind of action to stop it happening.
What I mean is, it maybe difficult to write a report on, say, Beowulf, if you're sitting in a house that's falling apart and you're cold cause the windows are properly sealed, etc.
Which is why you ought to be on campus...

Your school should be providing this, especially if you're really poor.

Aye, true. Do you guys not have scholarships, though?


Just to satisfy my curiosity: how much does university cost in the U.K.? Is it pay-what-you-can, sort of like in the U.S., or is there just one universal fee?

Which is why you ought to be on campus...

I was thinking of more or less high school and such, where they may early on develop a dislike of learning, and forgo higher learning, even if it would be possible for them to get the funding.

Just to satisfy my curiosity: how much does university cost in the U.K.? Is it pay-what-you-can, sort of like in the U.S., or is there just one universal fee?

It differs from uni to uni but its usually around £3000 a year for tuition fees, and something similar for accomodation

Just to satisfy my curiosity: how much does university cost in the U.K.? Is it pay-what-you-can, sort of like in the U.S., or is there just one universal fee?
Around £2500-3000 for an undergraduate degree, but how you pay depends where you are in the UK, and what financial backing you have.

Every student has to pay tuition fees, but in Scotland the government loans every Scottish student the money for the fees. After university is finished, and once the student is earning over £15,000 p/a, the loan is paid back to the government in instalments, taken off one's salary, with no interest added.

The government also allows each student to apply for money to cover living costs, which is means-tested; the richer your parents/guardians are, the less money the government gives you. Bursaries and endowments are available to certain students, some for poor students, some for students in specific circumstances.

English, Welsh, Northern Irish and foreign students are a different matter. I'm not entirely sure on the details of UK tuition fees outside of Scotland, but IIRC they have to pay the tuition fees up front. This has led to a lot of English media to state that Scottish students get 'free' university education, but of course we don't; we 'merely' pay for the education after the fact.

Just to satisfy my curiosity: how much does university cost in the U.K.? Is it pay-what-you-can, sort of like in the U.S., or is there just one universal fee?
£3k a year in tuition fees (you get a loan for this with interest fixed to inflation), and then about £8k a year in living costs (up to about £6k available in a loan, you can fairly easily earn the other £2k with part-time work in term-time and a temping job over the summer.

Most people come out with about £20k in debt. But it's more like a graduate super tax than anything else, because it's based entirely on how much over £15k a year you earn.

You'd think by now he'd try to be original. Really, I'd be willing to debate with him if he'd just use his own damned words.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt and decided he'd mistakenly re-posted an old post for the 15th time. That's why I substituted in my own topic... but apparently this world is just apathetic to the silent campaign of genocide against frozen yogurt. :(

Andaras is back with the popular(In his mind) view of "All Christians are paranoid" and of course, "Capitalists iz teh oppressing us!!!"
:rolleyes:

Honestly, I think that the underdog status is nothing more than a side benefit of the main purpose of libertarian revisionism: to avoid what would otherwise be devastating critiques of the effectiveness of their proposed programs if implemented. One doesn't have to have much more than a course in American history to realize that the periods of time where American economic policy most closely matched that of libertarian proposals, namely about 1870-1902, 1920-32 and 1982-present, are not marked by the kinds of results libertarians suggest: namely, they're marked by accelerating economic inequality, significant assumption of economic risk by the lower middle class, and by recurring economic panics. That isn't to say that the effects are entirely bad economically; usually during this period significant infrastructure is built up that later economic expansions use to bolster productivity. But from an individual voter persepective, these are known as either not particularly good times to be poor/working/middle class, or they're calms before devastating storms in the case of the Roaring 20's.

Libertarian talk about corporatism is really just a way "Hey, this isn't really the consequence of what we're proposing; it's something else at work". It's the same kind of game you hear with end-stage Marxists talking about how socialism doesn't really have anything to do with the problems in Russia, or China, or Laos, or Cambodia, or Vietnam, or North Korea. To which I would have to say that while possibly true (I'd say the Marxists have a stronger argument than the libertarians), it suggests that there is some kind of implementation problem you haven't worked out yet that keeps turning your capitalist dreams into corporatist reality, and that further, you seem to be unwilling to concede the possibility that capitalism by libertarian definitions isn't just the Unknown Ideal, but the Unknowable one, because it doesn't jive with any realistic manner in which Americans actually implement economic policy.

£3k a year in tuition fees (you get a loan for this with interest fixed to inflation), and then about £8k a year in living costs (up to about £6k available in a loan, you can fairly easily earn the other £2k with part-time work in term-time and a temping job over the summer.

Most people come out with about £20k in debt. But it's more like a graduate super tax than anything else, because it's based entirely on how much over £15k a year you earn.

Okay, so that's about the cost of a typical public American university. I thought it was much cheaper for some reason (maybe I didn't convert pounds to dollars when I first saw the price.)

You still haven't been deleted yet!?

Around £2500-3000 for an undergraduate degree, but how you pay depends where you are in the UK, and what financial backing you have.

Every student has to pay tuition fees, but in Scotland the government loans every Scottish student the money for the fees. After university is finished, and once the student is earning over £15,000 p/a, the loan is paid back to the government in instalments, taken off one's salary, with no interest added.

The government also allows each student to apply for money to cover living costs, which is means-tested; the richer your parents/guardians are, the less money the government gives you. Bursaries and endowments are available to certain students, some for poor students, some for students in specific circumstances.

English, Welsh, Northern Irish and foreign students are a different matter. I'm not entirely sure on the details of UK tuition fees outside of Scotland, but IIRC they have to pay the tuition fees up front. This has led to a lot of English media to state that Scottish students get 'free' university education, but of course we don't; we 'merely' pay for the education after the fact.

Is it possible to receive aid that is not in the form of a loan?

I feel somewhat obliged to respond, even though this is something of a toughie.

But from an individual voter persepective, these are known as either not particularly good times to be poor/working/middle class, or they're calms before devastating storms in the case of the Roaring 20's.
I think the problem is that you're looking at this from a politician's perspective. Politicians and voting interests are ultimately fronts though. The problems you described are basically the side effects of the actions of individuals when they're free to do their own thing. Regardless of whether or not they're ultimately good, or whether they're justified, talking about them in terms of politics and voting is a mistake. You can't indebt yourself until you can't take the slightest increase in interest rates and then vote left to protect you from predator capitalism.

Or rather, you can, but I don't consider it particularly honest. Politics is a horrible, disgusting business at its heart, and whether or not a system is politically viable in a large, real-life democracy is in my view the last thing I'd want to look at.

To which I would have to say that while possibly true (I'd say the Marxists have a stronger argument than the libertarians)...
They most certainly do not.

...it suggests that there is some kind of implementation problem you haven't worked out yet that keeps turning your capitalist dreams into corporatist reality, and that further, you seem to be unwilling to concede the possibility that capitalism by libertarian definitions isn't just the Unknown Ideal, but the Unknowable one, because it doesn't jive with any realistic manner in which Americans actually implement economic policy.
Now, I realise you aren't talking to me as such, and there probably are other libertarians to which your point applies better - but I actually make a distinction between capitalism as an ideal, which I can debate here with people standing for other ideals and the real capitalism that is constrained by this way policy implementation works.

The interesting question is whether libertarians, since they see the government as the problem, are not doing themselves a favour by not including the government into their plans and solutions. In other words, a minarchist system might be the desired outcome, but without honestly understanding and using the government we actually have at the moment in some way, we wouldn't get there.

It's difficult because, as I said above, politics is way below the belt for anyone with a libertarian streak. It's a disgusting business of claiming to know what is best for others, of representing people you don't know and have no interest in knowing, of corruption and social engineering. I'm not convinced it is reformable to actually produce good outcomes, rather than the current "stuck in the middle, not all that great, but people are afraid of change" systems.

So libertarians talk about implementation even less than socialists do. That is probably a mistake, but one that is somewhat understandable given the fact that anything short of a revolution would mean that you have to somehow make use of the root of most of the world's problems while destroying it in the process against the interests of those who currently hold all the power. Democratic Socialism failed and became Social Democracy. Hell, in reality I'd probably settle reasonably contently with a liberal party that is committed to social and economic freedom in the sense I'd understand it without expecting the destruction of the state within the decade. Such a luxury is unfortunately not something I can enjoy with any expectation of success (and that's where the real "suppression" of libertarianism occurs: in the way economic matters are understood and discussed in public discourse) and I'm left standing on the side, ranting powerlessly and becoming disillusioned with government and democracy alike.

Is it possible to receive aid that is not in the form of a loan?
Yes.

If you are from a particularly poor background, the government may give you a scholarship or bursary (I'm not sure of the exact difference, if any, between the two) to cover your tuition fees and/or living costs that isn't a loan. Moreover, there are institutions, individuals, charities and trusts that give money to students in specific circumstances.

Some are set up for poor students in particular, some are set up for students from certain places or who have done certain things. For example, my brother recently received £250 for being a Humanities student at Edinburgh University who had attended a certain high school and achieved a certain level of academic excellence; presumably the fund had originally been set up by an individual who had previously attended his high school.

There are quite a few similar funds out there. Some will give you money to fund your entire time at university, some will give you some extra dosh to get by.

The interesting question is whether libertarians, since they see the government as the problem, are not doing themselves a favour by not including the government into their plans and solutions. In other words, a minarchist system might be the desired outcome, but without honestly understanding and using the government we actually have at the moment in some way, we wouldn't get there.
The age-old chestnut: social libertarians want to get rid of the state but quite like the idea of welfare; individualist libertarians want to get rid of the state but like their mail delivered on time.

:p

[Insert your own 'In the Soviet Union...' joke here]

There's a reason that, as a political philosophy, communism is slightly less relevant than monarchism.

There's a reason that, as a political philosophy, communism is slightly less relevant than monarchism.
In the USA, communism is slightly less relevant a political philosophy than monarchy.

In Soviet Russia, monarchy is slightly less relevant a political philosophy than COMMUNISM!

*sighs*

Ah, mindlessly repeating rhetoric. That's bound to change the economic state of the world. Never mind silly notions such as demonstrating proof of concept.

The only thing I'm going to say here is that saying Democrats are liberal capitalists is stupid. Congressional Democrats have a record of supporting government regulation in business, as well as socializing certain markets.

Please don't insult my party. Thank you.

What I believe constitutes the defense of bourgeois property in a more general way, specifically in America, is the attempt of those outside the political bourgeois mainstream, namely libertarians, to paint a distort a false vision of reality. They seek to paint a vision of an underdog status for capitalism, probably the most common thing libertarians will say is that 'true' capitalism doesn't exist in America or the world, words like 'corporatism' and 'state monopoly' are thrown around quite allot in libertarian circles. They seek to create the vision not only that 'capitalism' is in an underdog status, but is desperately threatened on all sides by 'big government' or any number of imaginary 'statist' bogeyman created to serve this purpose.

Capitalism is threatened by state intervention into the economy. Statism is not imaginary. I sure as hell didn’t imagine last April 15th. There is no bogeyman, but a C student coke head with executive signing statement privileges and a penchant for steamrolling over the 4th amendment that currently occupies the white house.

Libertarians desperately seek to assign themselves and their cause (capitalism) a status of being under attack from all sides. This has many effects, but all are ultimately reactionary and seek to defend the status quo. Firstly it therefore assigns to bourgeois parliamentary an important and significance in politics out of all proportion to it's actual power. Libertarians will constantly tell you that capitalism stands upon the edge of a knife, and that 'socialists' are on the verge of taking over the US government (through the Democrats no doubt) and creating a veritable Soviet Union in our backyards. This has the effect of telling people that bourgeois politics, which exist for no reason other than to defend the old decaying system of capital, is meaningful, and thus attaches a significance and urgency to the rhetoric of libertarians.

I don’t defend anything status quo. I hate corporate welfare mooching as much, if not more, then I do social welfare looting. Capitalism stands on the edge of liberating the world from hunger and poverty, but the government stands in our way. We are slipping into a situation where we could very well wake up in “V for Vendetta” England. But that process has proved gradual and not just “a vote away”.

It is fundamentally this underdog rhetoric, which keeps libertarianism, existing merely on the fringe, alive. Those fed up with the mainstream of bourgeois politics find meaning in the bourgeois fringe in libertarianism, who tell the people 'big government' (usually accompanied by lots of big words) is the problem of all the worlds’ woes. Thus libertarianism serves a unique part in the overall class struggle in society and a unique position in the political defense of capitalism.

Libertarianism is not on any political fringe. The very principles of libertarian ideology are rightfully enshrined and ensconced in the US Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights attached to it. By many estimates, as much as 20% of the American public identifies with libertarian political thought very strongly. More then half the American public at least agrees, at least somewhat, with basic libertarian principles- lower taxes, less government, more personal choice. The evidence in many Republican won presidential elections, where the GOP candidate won on a quasi-semi-libertarian plank suggests that Americans do in fact desire the government to keep out of our wallets and bedrooms. The sole struggle libertarians propagate is the struggle of the individual against the force of the state.

Libertarians would have you believe that 'true capitalism' exists nowhere in the world, and that itself is a palpable position to take, and instantly creates a world view that everyone is against capitalism. On a slightly different note, this persecution phenomenon is observed also in American Christians, who while being in the majority and by far the largest and most politically powerful religion, will constantly tell themselves and each other than 'liberals', 'secularists' and 'atheists' are on the brink of taking over and doing away with Christianity. This is what gives alot of impetus to both Christianity (as a political movement) and libertarianism in general. A common SS slogan in Nazi Germany was once 'Hitler saves us from Jewish tyranny', you see to justify themselves as being in such a dominating and oppressing position over the Jews, the Nazi's could only reconcile this will creating a fallacy that the Jews were on the brink of taking over and ruling the Germans. This of course was rubbish, but designating a political movement as the 'underdog' is always a powerful tool in the hands of the Ruling Class.

The infringement made on all our individual liberties is evident in the recent overhaul of the FISA laws. Also, the USA PATRIOT act, as well as the Military Commissions Act all severely threatens the rights and liberties we enjoy as being protected under the constitution. Every American has plenty to be concerned about when it comes to government intervention into our lives.

We are not oppressed; instead Americans have their rights routinely abused in the name of security or the state or even safety. We should all be worried about the path America is taking, but we’re certainly not planning to take over a continent or exterminate anything or anyone. We simply want to live free of government intervention into an otherwise free market.

It is only those people who think that the government is somehow justified in ruining sound money and free economies; they are the ones we wish to oust from the reigns of power. But no “revolution” is necessary. There won’t be any Reichstag fires from our side. The American people can be reasoned with, they are rational, and we will campaign politically as so.

And on this note of fascism, it's also important to remember that at it's heart, the concept of 'defense of bourgeois property is the defense of the fatherland' is the basis for fascism in general, and also is the basis of American libertarianism, which itself morphed into it's own form of conservatism distinct from European forms of conservatism. An almost constant rallying cry of conservatives is that American was 'founded on capitalism', and that capitalism is distinctly an 'American' thing, which also goes a long way to understanding why the libertarian phenomenon is so concentrated in America. I believe it is so for a few reasons; the first is that America was indeed founded on the earliest seeds of capitalism, that being the liberal rebellion against absolute monarchy which laid the basis for the upcoming revolution of capitalism over feudalism. And secondly it is indeed quite obvious that so much economic power lies with the US that indeed America has the 'luxury' of libertarianism. In other poorer nations the governments must be social-democratic in order to be elected, or at least be populist in that way, these governments must support a 'limitation' of capitalism to be elected. While in America the concentration of capital and wealth is so great that the Ruling Class can afford not to placate the workers as much, which is why American 'politics' is basically a contest between conservative capitalists (Republicans) and liberal capitalists (Democrats)....

Libertarianism is neither left nor right, not liberal and certainly not conservative. The Nolan categorization is now, thankfully the default in identifying political ideology. America was not founded on capitalism or Christ. Instead it was founded on freedom based on the recognition of human rights, which laid the foundation the economic system of individual liberties-capitalism. Republicans, while one supposedly being for limited restricted government is now indistinguishable from democrats, I agree. But it wasn’t always so, especially since 9-11. The ruling class isn’t so. The people in America are in control but they are almost never given a choice in elections. Republicans used to offer libertarian-sounding positions but alas it is no more. When they used too, America voted them in with landslide majorities. Yes, the American government could use an overhaul, and we are slipping into a dangerous authoritarian place in history, but never underestimate the principles of our constitution or the resolve of the American people.

I support the Constitution and what it represents. Today the constitution is anything but status quo. It would certainly sound revolutionary the things we propose, but this is only because of the way the 2 statist parties frame debate and political thoughts. Jefferson said that revolution was healthy every 10 years.

By my count we are way overdo.

rEVOLution

I <3 Capitalism

Just to satisfy my curiosity: how much does university cost in the U.K.? Is it pay-what-you-can, sort of like in the U.S., or is there just one universal fee?

In England there are university fees (as said, around £3000 p/a) plus your accommodation. Some courses also have additional costs, specialist materials, field work etc.

However, if you are poor, you are actually in lucky, help wise, as the government help for students is means tested. If your parents earn under £15k a year (or yourself and partner, if an adult student) will be given a student loan to cover your fees and a reasonable chunk of your living expenses, plus a non-repayable grant. The loan repayments only start once you have graduated and are earning over £15k a year. The interest is counted at around the rate of inflation, so it's pretty good.

Our system is a good mix of the pragmatic and the benevolent. Everyone said fees would hurt poor students but it's been handled so it really doesn't, but the universities still get extra income.

What we do need is more vigorous education at the high school level, and more on campus accom for uni students, but that's another issue.

Libertarianism is not on any political fringe. The very principles of libertarian ideology are rightfully enshrined and ensconced in the US Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights attached to it. By many estimates, as much as 20% of the American public identifies with libertarian political thought very strongly. More then half the American public at least agrees, at least somewhat, with basic libertarian principles- lower taxes, less government, more personal choice. The evidence in many Republican won presidential elections, where the GOP candidate won on a quasi-semi-libertarian plank suggests that Americans do in fact desire the government to keep out of our wallets and bedrooms. The sole struggle libertarians propagate is the struggle of the individual against the force of the state.

Libertarianism is on the political fringe. People hate taxes, but they love Social Security, Medicare, minimum wages, publically funded education, ect. The EITC is more expensive than TANF, but has great bipartisan support. Expanded personal choice is a pretty broad term. Its pretty much advocated by most politicians these days. Of course they differ by what they mean by it.

It is only those people who think that the government is somehow justified in ruining sound money and free economies; they are the ones we wish to oust from the reigns of power. But no “revolution” is necessary. There won’t be any Reichstag fires from our side. The American people can be reasoned with, they are rational, and we will campaign politically as so.

So practically everyone is ruining the economy, and you wish to oust them all? Raising interest rates to curb inflation is unpopular by the public at large. This is why central banks are independent to some degree or another from the legislative and executive branches. The gold standard is even worse. Whenever the balance of trade leans too heavily towards imports interest rates have to be raised deflationary. Reducing protectionism is politically unpopular.

Libertarianism is neither left nor right, not liberal and certainly not conservative. The Nolan categorization is now, thankfully the default in identifying political ideology. America was not founded on capitalism or Christ. Instead it was founded on freedom based on the recognition of human rights, which laid the foundation the economic system of individual liberties-capitalism. Republicans, while one supposedly being for limited restricted government is now indistinguishable from democrats, I agree. But it wasn’t always so, especially since 9-11. The ruling class isn’t so. The people in America are in control but they are almost never given a choice in elections. Republicans used to offer libertarian-sounding positions but alas it is no more. When they used too, America voted them in with landslide majorities. Yes, the American government could use an overhaul, and we are slipping into a dangerous authoritarian place in history, but never underestimate the principles of our constitution or the resolve of the American people.

When was the Republican party as a whole ever for limited government? I know of paleocons who were for heavy tariffs and very limited immigration. Social conservatives who want to other than the market, and that too if they consider it immoral. The anti-communists who supported foreign intervention in the Cold War?

Also, there are only two choices primarily because of the US's first-past-the post electoral system. They have a strong tendency to promote a two party system.

I support the Constitution and what it represents. Today the constitution is anything but status quo. It would certainly sound revolutionary the things we propose, but this is only because of the way the 2 statist parties frame debate and political thoughts. Jefferson said that revolution was healthy every 10 years.

Tell me what the Constitution represents. Is it the one where slavery was legal and white male land owners were the only one expected to be given the vote, or is it some that has been PCly cleansed? Is it Ron Paul's version which allows state governments ban gay sex, interacial marriages, and abortions? Or Thomas Jefferson's one allowing him to ban exports while in office? I'm guessing its some idealized version of your own beliefs regardless of the actual words of the Constitution, intentions of the founding fathers, or the case law of the judicial system.

Bump

SNIP

Methinks you have to much time on your hands. Perhaps you need to take up skateboarding, mow the lawn, or recite poetry while playing the bongo drums in a coffee shop in Harvard Square. Does anyone know what Ahraras said? Does anyone care?

Workers Of The World Unite! You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Self-reliance, Liberty, Dignity And Future!