Collectivism is Inherently Selfish

A mere prejudice. The tendency to violence surfaces wherever the hate is strong in people, 'right' or 'left.'

 

In individuals, perhaps, especially if they are directly provoked. But as a group? Weathermen Underground? Verses what? I don't see a bunch of Free-Market Capitalists walking down Wall St doing this

[video=youtube_share;D-azdxcMAM4]http://youtu.be/D-azdxcMAM4[/video]

Can you imagine those little old conservative ladies, waving American flags, and attacking stores and shattering windows? No? Neither can I.

Nor can I see Rush Limbaugh telling the Tea Partiers to get violent.

[video=youtube_share;ks89V-w8rKQ]http://youtu.be/ks89V-w8rKQ[/video]

And how much property damage today can be blamed on the Tea Party verses OWS? Just the raw numbers please. I think the first will be fairly easy. Zero.

 

I thought we were talking 'violence.' A march of untidy people that make you go 'ick' is not violence. Or did I miss the triple-digit body count attaching to the OWS folks?

On the other hand, there's this:



That's the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, in case it's not a familiar pic for you. 168 killed, 680 injured by a government-hater.

Also, did the recent assassination of Colorado Prison Director Tom Clements by a white supremacist just slip your mind? Like I say, prejudice. The information is out there, if you look. You just don't see it.

If you want, you could repair your awareness a little by checking out this recent column by CNNs Peter Bergen: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/04/opinion/bergen-right-wing-violence

Understand, it's my position that violence comes from extreme hate, and people at either end of the political spectrum can go there.

 

Don't flatter yourself. It is unbecoming.

 

You need to brush up on mataphors. Really.

I visited the shrine in Oklahoma City. Joh McCain and Lindsey Graham won't have any crosses because they get voted out of their cushy jobs. But they will be just as dead politically (that's a metaphor).

 

Good point. How many retired military officers when on to a career of political violence, other than John McCain who has done extraordinary damage?

 

Retired military officers? Political violence? What difference does that make? Leftists are often military leaders, and leftists obviously commit political violence.

 

I just mentioned John McCain. Select another example.

How many retired military officers went on to commit politically violent acts?

We do have an active duty Islamonazi who murdered in the name of Allah, the wise and merciful. Isn't that special? But then he was tainted by his Islamofascism.

 

I'm not even sure what this has to do with the topic.

First I wouldn't even consider McCain to be right-wing. He's about as right-wing as a Democrat. And nazis are left-wing. Fascism is left wing. Not right wing.

 

Follow the thread upstream a couple...
We agree on McCain. We agree on Nazism and fascism.

 

Not gonna lie, had to google that term. Indeed, it is very similar. Infact it describes the US welfare resident to a T, with the one exception, the lumpenproletariat was at least part of the working class, even though they were deemed an impediment.

 

Well the post you responded to, where I said that leftist typically resort to violence first, I wasn't referring to mainstream politicians. Mainstream politicians rarely openly support violence. It does happen, but not often.

I meant more like leftist groups and movements. 1919 Italy being a prime example, where dozens of various leftist groups, all engaged in violence against each other. More current, the Chavistas operating in Venezuela have routinely resorted to violence. Not to mention long standing leftist groups like FARC.

About the only 'right-wing' groups that are ever violent, are Anarchist groups, and off shoots of those.

 

Crikey, so you've shown support for both Keynesianism and Marxism in one day. You've impressed me!

 

They have common roots and a common end.

 

There is very little in common between the two; and its ludicrous to suggest otherwise. You could refer to how post-Keynesianism and Marxist analysis can be combined to understand market instability. However, we have a similar interaction between neoclassical economics and Marxism over involuntary unemployment (via the shirking model of the efficiency wage hypothesis).

 

Actually there is a very great deal in common. Keynesian policies tend to take vast wealth out of the hands of those in the private sector who created it for spending by the government. Marx knew that there can be no capitalism if there are no capitalists. He would applaud having government actions that defund capitalists.

Also look at the end result. In both cases we end up with people depending upon government rather than themselves.

You keep trying to sound educated. I will keep the truth simple.

 

You can play pretend as much as you want, but there is the two schools of thought are quite distinct.

Keynesianism uses behavioural economics to understand how macroeconomic instability is created. Its focused on realising the problems within any innate self-correcting properties.

Marx's classical approach, at least in terms of understanding capitalism, would be closer to Schumpeter.

There is no truth in your comment. You are simply making statements based on knowledge deficiency

 

I see you have toned down your expansive knowledge of worthless phrases. It is a start.
There are parts of Keynes that I recall liking when I read his central work about 40 years ago. I couldn't tell you what they are. Keynesian policies lead to dire consequences if they cannot be stopped in time. Or do the high taxes, massive government spending and promises of utopia from a different source?

Both he and Marx wreck capitalism albeit from different motives. The end result is the same.

 

I see you continue to say nothing.

Keynesianism has maintained capitalism, a system which is prone to crisis just through cost-plus pricing. Can we refer to elements of Keynesianism that have been poor? Of course! The efforts to ensure consistency with the microeconomic orthodox gave us a bastardised version which then encouraged guff like monetarism and new classical macroeconomics.

A vacuous comment.

 

Better said is that capitalism has remained robust far longer than expected under Keynesian assault.
I also wrote, "Both he and Marx wreck capitalism albeit from different motives. The end result is the same."

True nonetheless.

 

Which wouldn't be true. Economic reality isn't your friend! Can you deny that cost-plus pricing exists? Nope! Can you deny that it leads to stagflationary threats? I doubt it!

At least you acknowledged your comment was vacuous. That is progress!

Keynes has been a crucial figure in ensuring the reproduction of capitalist profit. And Marx? His analysis into property rights is terribly similar to the New Institutionalists you are forced to ignore.

 

Both were fundamentally wrong although revered even today.

I see you are back with your impressive array of phrases. Nice. Not useful. But it does give you something to do. Statists the world over rely upon Keynes and Marx to justify the things they do to us. Which side are you on? Do you side with constitutionally limited governments and the people or do you side with those who want the state to be and remain all-powerful? Are you on the side of liberty? Or of tyranny?

 

Must have missed your critique!

Basic English. Which vocab did you struggle with?

I'm neither Keynesian or Marxist. However, it isn't cunning to ignore their importance in understanding capitalism.

As a socialist, I'm in favour of the protection of property rights and therefore the end of capitalism

 

It is impressive that you admit that you are a socialist. I never doubted it for a moment.

Socialism is a lie from top to bottom. Capitalism is just shorthand for "you choose for you and I will choose for me."