My fear of the liberal communists...

[warpus]

I'd be a bit more afraid of those pesky conservative communists if I were you.

 

[Richard Cribb]

At least nobody is elfing yet.

I am too heavy for that, I am afraid.

Well, I somewhat kind of agree with Bozo when he says the article postulates that economic liberalism is nefast.

Nobody doubts that. But that is only an underlying premise, not the topic of the article.

Afterwards the article is mainly about drawing a impressionist picture of various personalities, it's not really challenging on a scientific or logical ground IMO.

Fair enough, but still it is possible to have opinions about it. Or refrain from having it, in which case posting is unneccessary.

Anyway I kind of understand that this semantic is repulsive from an anarchist point of view, since romantically supporting both socialism and libertarianism at the same time for the last centuries and ending up with a bunch of cash machines labelled almost the same must feel pretty odd.

Missing the target, I am afraid. Except for a weird statement about what anarchists "romantically" do, I am quite fond of this term.

 

[betazed]

Are we?

I thought we are. In fact I really have not come across anybody who is smart enough to understand the system and not know that it has drawbacks.

Sorry but that is off-topic again.

Oh ok. That was the interesting part though. Without it just pointing out the problems of the existing system is no more than just a rant (maybe nicely written rant ).

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Luceafrul, all Im saying is that what we're dealing with in the article is a moral outlook, not economics. In the opinion of the author, the accumulation of capital in the hands of individuals and corporations is an evil thing. Those who accumulate capital do so by taking it away from others. Their attempts to mitigate the damage they do by engaging in philanthropy should be dismissed, because if they really were concerned with the welfare of others, they wouldnt have accumulated so much wealth in the first place. IMO thats a perfectly reasonable basis for a discussion about morality, but not economics. Judging from your reply to betazed, that discussing alternative economic systems would be off topic, I cant help but think that you agree with me about that.

 

[MamboJoel]

Fair enough, but still it is possible to have opinions about it.

Ok ! So my opinion on the picture drawn by the author is that it looks pretty nice. I like art.

Edit (Sorry big OT) : makes me remember two springs ago on vacation in Italy a splendid 24 year old blond girl from NY that stopped me in the middle of the discussion to ask me : "Do you like art ?". (I like you)

 

[Richard Cribb]

Oh ok. That was the interesting part though. Without it just pointing out the problems of the existing system is no more than just a rant (maybe nicely written rant ).

That is sort of true, but the thing is that it seems to be that one special problem is singled out her, which perhaps may not be so clear to everybody and which is important.
And about the alternatives, we will come back to that many times in the future.

Luceafrul, all Im saying is that what we're dealing with in the article is a moral outlook, not economics. In the opinion of the author, the accumulation of capital in the hands of individuals and corporations is an evil thing. Those who accumulate capital do so by taking it away from others. Their attempts to mitigate the damage they do by engaging in philanthropy should be dismissed, because if they really were concerned with the welfare of others, they wouldnt have accumulated so much wealth in the first place. IMO thats a perfectly reasonable basis for a discussion about morality, but not economics. Judging from your reply to betazed, that discussing alternative economic systems would be off topic, I cant help but think that you agree with me about that.

That is so much better, my friend.
I mostly agree with this.
Anyway I must leave now, have a nice evening everybody.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Phew, I didnt think for one moment we'd end up agreeing.

(leaves the trench and goes out for a smoke in No Mans Land)

 

[El Justo]

i read the article. nothing impressive really imo. rather contradictory in principle actually.

anyway, how did these folks end up w/ the name "Liberal Communists"?

 

[punkbass2000]

It would seem to me that the labels themselves are fairly irrelevant.

 

[El Justo]

It would seem to me that the labels themselves are fairly irrelevant.

that doesn't really answer my question...

 

[punkbass2000]

I know it doesn't. Because your question is irrelevant, it needs no answer. Given that luceafarul has already indicated displeasure with discussion of topics tangential to his OP, I imagine a semantic debate would be most annoying.

EDIT: Thus, if you'd like to discuss political terminology and its origins, another thread may be better suited for it.

 

[El Justo]

I know it doesn't. Because your question is irrelevant, it needs no answer. Given that luceafarul has already indicated displeasure with discussion of topics tangential to this, I imagine a semantic debate would be most annoying.

EDIT: Thus, if you'd like to discuss political terminology and its origins, another thread may be better suited for it.

dude...relax and either answer my question or don't comment at all.

my question is completely relevant mind you...

why are the people in the article referred to as "Liberal Communists"?

 

[MamboJoel]

dude...relax and either answer my question or don't comment at all.

my question is completely relevant mind you...

why are the people in the article referred to as "Liberal Communists"?

It's an elegant shortcut extrapolation from a parisian journalist, it's not supposed to make much more sense than that. Well the idea seems to be :

1. They are liberals from the start because they build their empire thanks to capitalism. (Economic liberals).
2. They are communists because they engage a vast amount of their money and time on social and humanitary programs.

So the brillant parisian dude ironically labelled them "Liberal Communists". Easy no ?

Edit : Basically what I'm not comfortable with is considering a mickey-mouse-dinner-party label as valid enough to stick it on a group of individual and argue about the whole mess.

 

[El Justo]

thank you MamboJoel.

 

[Che Guava]

The entire article is based on the premise that making alot of money is morally wrong, and those who do are bad people. The crime of wealth is so great, that even major acts of philanthropy cant wipe away the guilt of the wealthy. You either agree with that or you dont.

So do you agree with it or not? I'm assuming from your response that you don't have a moral objection to individuals like those mentioned having a good chunk of change, but do you disagree with the way that the spend thier money, the way that they accumulated it or the moral posturing that they do?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

So do you agree with it or not? I'm assuming from your response that you don't have a moral objection to individuals like those mentioned having a good chunk of change, but do you disagree with the way that the spend thier money, the way that they accumulated it or the moral posturing that they do?

I dont agree with it. Greed, as they say, is good. These two supposedly morally reprehensible rich people (Soros and Gates) employ and provide livelihoods to many thousands of people directly, and who knows how many other thousands or millions of people indirectly. I have no problem with wealth, however I do have a problem with believing wealth is a sign of inherent superiority. But thats not an economic problem, its a moral one

I believe that the confusing of communism/marxism/socialism with economics is one of the great blunders of history. Its a moral philosphy, a secular religion, and most definitely not an economic system.

 

[Atropos]

FWIW, I can see a few problems with the OP article:
1. It assumes that an objective definition of a "progressive" movement exists and that such a movement necessarily must eschew the concentration of great wealth in the hands of a few individuals.
2. It assumes that outsourcing is, in fact, objectively harmful to the third world.
3. It makes very large assumptions about the motivations of persons like Soros without much support from these individuals' published words.
4. It assumes that Soros, Gates et al have a broad basis of support among those that we would conventionally call libertarians.

All of these assumptions can be questioned:
1. The word "progressive" implies movement towards the future. If the history of the past fifty years suggests anything, it suggests that the free market system is strengthening, not weakening, so the term "progressive" applied to anti-free-market ideologies is a misnomer.
2. Jericho could make the case here much better than I can, so let me just say that so-called "outsourcing" is a form of free trade. No serious economist opposes free trade in principle, and David Ricardo's work suggested two hundred years ago that it helps the poor as well as the rich.
3. I seriously doubt that the weltanschauung of, say, Bill Gates is anywhere near as developed as the article suggests. By what art has the author made a window into Gates' soul?
4. Because Windows is a quasi-monopoly, many libertarians (including myself) have very grave doubts about Bill Gates. They may support the existence of rich people, but that is quite different from supporting Gates' putative ideology. Nor do most libertarians believe that aid, in isolation from other measures, can be the primary method of reducing poverty. You can send all the medical supplies you can eat to the Congo and it will do very little good because trained nurses and doctors have fled and the warring factions seize everything valuable.

 

[punkbass2000]

These two supposedly morally reprehensible rich people (Soros and Gates) employ and provide livelihoods to many thousands of people directly

But is it not fair to say that they would not provide these livelihoods if it were not of benefit to them? I don't think it's a one-way street.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

But is it not fair to say that they would not provide these livelihoods if it were not of benefit to them? I don't think it's a one-way street.

Oh yeah, they dont employ all those people out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it because all of those people help them to continue accumulating capital.

 

[Che Guava]

I believe that the confusing of communism/marxism/socialism with economics is one of the great blunders of history. Its a moral philosphy, a secular religion, and most definitely not an economic system.

Thanks for clearing things up! I don't know if I would go as far 'secular religion' (ugh, getting shades of that 'darwinist pseudo-religion' stuff from the ID threads), but I would agree that its more of a social philosophy than an economic one. Aslong as everyone is taken care of according to thier needs and no one is exploited beyond thier capabilities, I don't really care what engine is driving the system....