The Failings of the Modern Left

[darkbeaver]

Read these when you're finished.

Johan Norberg, In Defense of Global Capitalism (2003)
Douglas Irwin, Free Trade Under Fire, 2nd ed. (2005)
Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works (2004)
Russell Roberts, The Choice, 3rd ed (2006)
Tyler Cowen, In Praise of Commercial Culture (1998 )
Thomas Larsson, The Race to the Top (2001)
Jagdish Bhagwati In Defense of Globalization

Norberg's is probably the easiest, so that's the one I'd start with.

That looks like a reading list for initiates in some sort of capitalist cult, bathroom books from the very heart of the great satan.Why must the titles be so frightening? Does your family know you read this kind of material? Where do you get the money to buy it?:laughing7::laughing7::laughing7: Just kidding Toro, I should read some of them too, get some help for my budgeting.:laughing7::laughing7::laughing7::wave::wave:

 

[darkbeaver]

I better bow out now as I've been into the sauce.

Talk to you after Das Kapital, if yer lucky I might just mail you my copy. :wave:

Don't need it I want Das Kapital the Biography by whatshisname.:wave:

 

[Said1]

Don't need it I want Das Kapital the Biography by whatshisname.:wave:

That's the one I mean, Wheen's.

 

[gopher]

You didn't bother reading any of my posts. This thread isn't about the right, it's about the morally defunct left. You want to talk about the right, go right ahead, start another thread, I'll participate.
And it doesn't appear you are paying any attention (big surprise).
When was the last time the left organized a march to condemn Cuba, China, North Korea et. al.?
Never. :wave:

It's simple: for all its failings, the political left is vastly superior in political pragmatism than is the bankrupt right.

The left is defunct? Then explain the reermergence of the Democrats in the November election - the strengthening of Chavez in Venezuela - the growth of democratically elected governments throughout all of Latin America - the loss of right wing Congressional power - the falling apart of the neoKKKons - the dissension among Republicans - and, of course the other failings of the right wingers.

Discussing the failings of the left without drawing parallels with the utter sterility of the right leaves the discussion with little context. A whole holistic approach is preferable.

 

[gc]

For the left, it's easier to sit back and let millions of oppressed continue to be oppressed, so long as they can grind their political ax. It's that simple, always has been.

Except that the invasion of Iraq was never about helping out oppressed people. I could agree that it's a fortunate side-effect, if only things were better than they had been. In other words, if it hadn't killed hundreds of thousands in the process, not to mention the current situation. Do you think it's worth the number of lives lost (whatever that number may be) to get rid of Saddam Hussein?

And forget North Korea, let them starve! How about other regions of the world? Where are the tree huggers for places like Somalia? The US can't do everything, because quite simply, it's damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. Backseat comments by the morally defunct left don't impress me. They used too a long time ago, but not anymore.

Absolutely, I'd love to see the West look out for other regions of the world. Consider this, millions of people die every year from malaria and tuberculosis (and others) in Africa. Yet, it costs suprisingly little to treat these diseases, probably only a few bucks per person. So, please tell me why the U.S. didn't spend their $400 billion or so that they spent in Iraq (and it would only cost a fraction of that) to wipe out malaria and tuberculosis in Africa? Spent wisely, that money could have saved many more lives than the entire population of Iraq.

 

[Curiosity]

gc

The U.S. is already spending billions in humanitarian aid to African nations and other poverty-riddled countries ....

You are mixing up military money for defense and humanitarian money..... these are two distinct and separate issues. In addition to the classic charitable giving, many people in the U.S. travel to the African Nations (especially African Americans), to give of their own personal time and money... my own doctor travels to Africa once a year with the Doctors Without Borders - at his own expense.

The U.S. has manned and maintained the DMZ (look back over 50 years) between the two Koreas at their own expense on direction by the United Nations - with never a relief from another nation - never a thought to their unchanging role ....

Your knowledge is apparently limited and biased ....

 

[I think not]

It's simple: for all its failings, the political left is vastly superior in political pragmatism than is the bankrupt right.

The left is defunct? Then explain the reermergence of the Democrats in the November election - the strengthening of Chavez in Venezuela - the growth of democratically elected governments throughout all of Latin America - the loss of right wing Congressional power - the falling apart of the neoKKKons - the dissension among Republicans - and, of course the other failings of the right wingers.

Discussing the failings of the left without drawing parallels with the utter sterility of the right leaves the discussion with little context. A whole holistic approach is preferable.

You're no spin master, you need lots of work at it, just FYI.

I said the Left is morally defunct. I'm not going to repeat the reasons why, I have yet to get an answer.

 

[I think not]

Except that the invasion of Iraq was never about helping out oppressed people. I could agree that it's a fortunate side-effect, if only things were better than they had been. In other words, if it hadn't killed hundreds of thousands in the process, not to mention the current situation. Do you think it's worth the number of lives lost (whatever that number may be) to get rid of Saddam Hussein?

You're asking the wrong person if it was worth it. Ask the Iraqi's, not me.

Absolutely, I'd love to see the West look out for other regions of the world. Consider this, millions of people die every year from malaria and tuberculosis (and others) in Africa. Yet, it costs suprisingly little to treat these diseases, probably only a few bucks per person. So, please tell me why the U.S. didn't spend their $400 billion or so that they spent in Iraq (and it would only cost a fraction of that) to wipe out malaria and tuberculosis in Africa? Spent wisely, that money could have saved many more lives than the entire population of Iraq.

The U.S. government and it's people send over $80 Billion a year in foreign aid all over the world.

Second, I ask the same question, albeit with a different target. Why not spend it at home for the poor?

Now, you said you wold love to see the West look out for other regions of the world. When will enough be enough? Trillions of dollars has been sent to the third world in the past 20 years by first world countries. Comments?

Perhaps you can answer my question, why the left sits back and never marches against dictators?

 

[Cannuck]

You're turning daft, you're not getting it.

I want you to explain to me the morality of leaving millions in oppression.

Faulty logic. Not supporting the war does not equal doing nothing. Maybe that is the whole problem the left has with the right. The Right sees "doing something" as "waging war" and the left doesn't.

 

[BitWhys]

The days of Ricardo verses Marx took its dying gasps with the New Deal. Artificial bifurcated generalities make poor terms of reference in dealing with reality, particularly since in such cases the medium is indeed the message.

 

[I think not]

Faulty logic. Not supporting the war does not equal doing nothing. Maybe that is the whole problem the left has with the right. The Right sees "doing something" as "waging war" and the left doesn't.

Ok then, WHAT has the left done to rid Iraqi's of an oppressive regime?

 

[vinod1975]

I think I also have the same question as " I dont think " has

 

[gc]

gc

The U.S. is already spending billions in humanitarian aid to African nations and other poverty-riddled countries ....

Perhaps you missed my point...now that it's clear that Iraq was never a threat to American security, the pro-war crowd has shifted it's focus to the humanitarian cause. The problem is, I simply don't buy that. If the U.S. is in Iraq for humanitarian reasons, they are being extremely inefficient with their resources. Those same resources (hundreds of billions of dollars) could have saved millions of lives in places like Africa. So my question to the pro-war crowd is if you really want to help people why wasn't that $400 billion spent in Africa instead of Iraq? The reason is that Iraq was never about being a humanitarian cause.

You are mixing up military money for defense and humanitarian money..... these are two distinct and separate issues. In addition to the classic charitable giving, many people in the U.S. travel to the African Nations (especially African Americans), to give of their own personal time and money... my own doctor travels to Africa once a year with the Doctors Without Borders - at his own expense.

I never said that people in the U.S. don't do great things like donate money and time. There are a lot of people in the U.S. who do great things, but that doesn't change the fact that the pro-war crowd could care less about humanitarian causes.

 

[gc]

You're asking the wrong person if it was worth it. Ask the Iraqi's, not me.

Well, unfortunately I don't know too many Iraqis. But if I did ask an Iraqi whether it was worth it, what do you think they would say? What if that Iraqi had lost someone close to them? Or what if you could ask the dead what they thought, what do you think they might say?

Second, I ask the same question, albeit with a different target. Why not spend it at home for the poor?

Sure, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Now, you said you wold love to see the West look out for other regions of the world. When will enough be enough? Trillions of dollars has been sent to the third world in the past 20 years by first world countries. Comments?

I acknowledge that the West has done good things for third world countries, my point (as I told Curiousity in the above post) is that Iraq was not a humanitarian cause. Some people, like in the article you posted, try to paint it as such in order to make the left look "bad", but I find that very hypocritical. If the pro-war crowd cares so much about humanitarian causes, why are they not writing articles about curing third world diseases? The right is as guilty of grinding their political ax as much as anyone.

Perhaps you can answer my question, why the left sits back and never marches against dictators?

Only if you can answer why the right sits back and never fights against third world diseases...
As someone who is relatively on the left, I can say that I have no problem getting rid of dictators, so long as the end justifies the means. In Iraq I don't think that's the case...but if hundreds of thousands of people hadn't died in the process, and Iraq magically became a democracy without civil war, I would be very much for the war. Unfortunately, that's not the case...but again, what do I know...
Now, can you think of any good reasons not to spend that money on curing diseases? Will anyone be killed in the process? Not likely.

 

[BitWhys]

Read these when you're finished.

Johan Norberg, In Defense of Global Capitalism (2003)
Douglas Irwin, Free Trade Under Fire, 2nd ed. (2005)
Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works (2004)
Russell Roberts, The Choice, 3rd ed (2006)
Tyler Cowen, In Praise of Commercial Culture (1998 )
Thomas Larsson, The Race to the Top (2001)
Jagdish Bhagwati In Defense of Globalization

Norberg's is probably the easiest, so that's the one I'd start with.

Which among those deals with restricted international worker mobility, regulatory inequalities and acknowledges that fiat currency is only partly controlled by trade balances?

 

[darkbeaver]

Ok then, WHAT has the left done to rid Iraqi's of an oppressive regime?

The left in Iraq is killing Americans as fast as small weapons fire will allow, over three quarter million former socialists have given thier lives prematurely to crush the oppressive murderous western occupation regime.:wave:

 

[darkbeaver]

Which among those deals with restricted international worker mobility, regulatory inequalities and acknowledges that fiat currency is only partly controlled by trade balances?

BitWhys I got this book, The End Of Economic Man, an introduction to humanistic economics George P. Brockway. Have you read it? Am I looking in the right place, (humanistic economics).?I enjoy the way he writes.:wave:

 

[gc]

If you think any politicians gift a rat's rear about the people in Iraq, the military dead and wounded and their families waiting and having nightmares.... you would be wrong.

I agree...but do you think that is not true of right-wing politicians as well?...or only the left-wingers?

 

[vinod1975]

hummm my be gc is right

 

[BitWhys]

BitWhys I got this book, The End Of Economic Man, an introduction to humanistic economics George P. Brockway. Have you read it? Am I looking in the right place, (humanistic economics).?I enjoy the way he writes.:wave:

Haven't read it. Being more a proponent of the social gospel than things avowedly secular I'd have to run the more humanistic of references through the babblefish (like I do with JR Saul and the like).

That said, anything that decommodifies human capital is probably a step in the right direction.