Young Americans Prefer Socialism Because They Are Ignorant of the Past

My favorite lesbian, feminist.

"Everything is so easy now," Ms. Paglia continues. "The stores are so plentifully supplied. You just go in and buy fruits and vegetables from all over the world." Undergrads, who've studied neither economics nor history, "have a sense that this is the way life has always been. Because they've never been exposed to history, they have no idea that these are recent attainments that come from a very specific economic system."

Capitalism, she continues, has "produced this cornucopia around us. But the young seem to believe in having the government run everything, and that the private companies that are doing things for profit around them, and supplying them with goods, will somehow exist forever."


https://reason.com/2019/09/03/young-americans-prefer-socialism-because-they-are-ignorant-of-the-past-camille-paglia/?fbclid=IwAR2FqoqKc5RUuS0sHnR2ngfo15FWV2FSvmtacRyLdf7j8zG_ur1z6G8lWJQ

1.  There is a fundamental problem raised by the industrial revolution: tools.  When the world went from an artisan and workbench economy, to a factory economy, the world producers needed, not hammer and saws, but smelters, conveyor-belts and presses.  Money and resources were needed for the instruments of production.  The blacksmith and baker no longer could accumulate tools of his trade.

2.  This provoked economic theorists to analyze and break production into four components: 1) land; 2) labor; 3) capital and 4) entrepreneur.  The focus was on capital as a needed component with which to purchase the tools of the new form of manufacture.  

3.  There were, and still are several sources for capital.  There is the capitalist--rich men with money to invest; guilds, co-operatives and assemblies of labor; and governments.

4.  Because the need for capital is great, providers of it can leverage their power.  Each has its own liability, turning on the manner of return on capital.  A) Governments tend to corrupt and misuse the wealth amassed for capitalization.  B) Guilds, co-operatives and assemblies tend to view capitalization as peripheral, seeing all return associated with the labor, and tend to undercapitalize.  C) Capitalists compete, and tend to eliminate one another, thus tending toward monopolization--the ultimate dysfunction to production.  All forms of capital building have liabilities.

No system of capitalization is better than the other.  Each is only as good as the people who work within their given system.  For example, one of the largest socialist organizations in the world is the US Military: it is run by the people; funded by the people, and serves the people.  All of it’s tooling is provided by the government, thus making socialism its form of capitalization.  I daresay, the military is a perfect example of socialism working superlatively and flawlessly.

There’s more to be said, but I’ll let you digest what I’ve said so far.

Original Quill wrote:1.  There is a fundamental problem raised by the industrial revolution: tools.  When the world went from an artisan and workbench economy, to a factory economy, the world producers needed, not hammer and saws, but smelters, conveyor-belts and presses.  Money and resources were needed for the instruments of production.  The blacksmith and baker no longer could accumulate tools of his trade.

2.  This provoked economic theorists to analyze and break production into four components: 1) land; 2) labor; 3) capital and 4) entrepreneur.  The focus was on capital as a needed component with which to purchase the tools of the new form of manufacture.  

3.  There were, and still are several sources for capital.  There is the capitalist--rich men with money to invest; guilds, co-operatives and assemblies of labor; and governments.

4.  Because the need for capital is great, providers of it can leverage their power.  Each has its own liability, turning on the manner of return on capital.  A) Governments tend to corrupt and misuse the wealth amassed for capitalization.  B) Guilds, co-operatives and assemblies tend to view capitalization as peripheral, seeing all return associated with the labor, and tend to undercapitalize.  C) Capitalists compete, and tend to eliminate one another, thus tending toward monopolization--the ultimate dysfunction to production.  All forms of capital building have liabilities.

No system of capitalization is better than the other.  Each is only as good as the people who work within their given system.  For example, one of the largest socialist organizations in the world is the US Military: it is run by the people; funded by the people, and serves the people.  All of it’s tooling is provided by the government, thus making socialism its form of capitalization.  I daresay, the military is a perfect example of socialism working superlatively and flawlessly.

There’s more to be said, but I’ll let you digest what I’ve said so far.

The military is way too expensive. It's an example of socialism being a wasteful moneypit.

The single largest item in the 2019 federal budget (contributing heavily to the aforementioned deficits and unfunded liabilities) is Social Security. The second-largest item is defense. The US government spends more on defense than any other country in the world—by far. In fact, it spends about as much as the next eight countries combined. That is to say, the US defense budget is approximately equal to the combined defense budgets of China, Saudi Arabia, India, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan.

Is spending of that magnitude necessary or even remotely justifiable? Probably not. We’ve all heard infamous examples of gross waste and financial incompetence in the Department of Defense (DoD)—from $21 trillion over a couple of decades that wasn’t correctly accounted for to $1,280 cups, $999 pliers, and $640 toilet seats.

https://fee.org/articles/the-f-35-project-has-been-a-disastrous-waste-of-money/

Next!

Maddog wrote:The single largest item in the 2019 federal budget (contributing heavily to the aforementioned deficits and unfunded liabilities) is Social Security. The second-largest item is defense. The US government spends more on defense than any other country in the world—by far. In fact, it spends about as much as the next eight countries combined. That is to say, the US defense budget is approximately equal to the combined defense budgets of China, Saudi Arabia, India, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan.

Is spending of that magnitude necessary or even remotely justifiable? Probably not. We’ve all heard infamous examples of gross waste and financial incompetence in the Department of Defense (DoD)—from $21 trillion over a couple of decades that wasn’t correctly accounted for to $1,280 cups, $999 pliers, and $640 toilet seats.

https://fee.org/articles/the-f-35-project-has-been-a-disastrous-waste-of-money/

Next!  

First point: Social security is paid for by the employee, not the government.  It's an insurance program.

Second point: I've often mentioned that the Department of Defense spends money on toys for admirals.  That is because they are generally so efficient that they have too much money left over…spend it or lose it!  And I know all about the $-trillion Joint Strike F-35...again, toys for admirals.

That is precisely why I argue that the Department of Health should be merged with the Department of Defense.  What is it that they say about Health?  'Oh dear, oh my, it will cost too much money.  And lo, the same government has this department (defense) over here that is over-flowing with money.  Merge the two departments, and the one over here with no money, will be able to take up the slack of the one over there with too much money.  It’s a win-win solution.

Let me point out that the two departments have the same mission: to defend and protect.  Defense protects against external enemies, and Health protects against internal enemies.  Merge them, and smooth out the cash flow...and voilà, two problems solved with one sweep.

Old Americans hate anything that even associates with the word socialism because they assume anything that does MUST be a Stalinist, Maoist, collectivising communist.

The likes of Sanders, Warren and AOC do NOT want Soviet style socialism or to destroy private enterprise. Nor do most of their supporters. They want socialised healthcare and free education.

In the biggest economic power by FAR, these things shouldn't be a lot to ask

The O/P is a total load of self-serving bullshit...

Proving once again DopeyDawg's total ignorance over anything to do with economic 'systems', that he even thinks he's somehow making some imaginary point here..

As for that writer in the O/P, she herself proves that she doesn't even understand the term "socialism" -- instead falling back onto the old Cold War propaganda where socialism = communism = Stalinism = evil incarnate.

Eilzel wrote:Old Americans hate anything that even associates with the word socialism because they assume anything that does MUST be a Stalinist, Maoist, collectivising communist.

The likes of Sanders, Warren and AOC do NOT want Soviet style socialism or to destroy private enterprise. Nor do most of their supporters. They want socialised healthcare and free education.

In the biggest economic power by FAR, these things shouldn't be a lot to ask

Do you even know what the definition of socialism is?

The thing about some old people, is they remember a world that was much less plentiful.

"Forty-two percent told us that they liked socialism even though only 16 percent could define it correctly as state ownership of the means of production and 64 percent wanted an economy managed by the free market (only 32 percent wanted the government to be in charge)."

"Our parents were the World War II generation," Ms. Paglia says, "so they had a sense of reality about life." Children now "are raised in a far more affluent period. Even people without much money have cellphones, televisions, access to cars. They're raised in an air-conditioned environment. I can still remember when there was no air-conditioning."


Adding a few parts of the OP because the MO around here is to type a lot and read very little.

Maddog wrote: "Forty-two percent told us that they liked socialism even though only 16 percent could define it correctly as state ownership of the means of production and 64 percent wanted an economy managed by the free market (only 32 percent wanted the government to be in charge)."

See, right there, you prove that Paglia's understanding of socialism is flawed. Socialism isn't even a political system. It's an economic system...to pool money for tooling in the industrial society. "State ownership" is only one of the alternative means.

Socialism only acquired political overtones under Karl Marx, as both Les and Wolf point out. This whole notion that socialism is some diabolical plot is based upon the experience of the Cold War, and the rise of television with films like I Led Three Lives and The Manchurian Candidate. It's as much conditioning as anything; the bad guy wears a black hat. That's what America reacts to today.

Socialism is as simple as, which uncle should I borrow money from? It's a need for capitalization, and can be provided by guilds, co-ops, associations, governments or capitalists. Governments, as a source, can go wrong, as it did under the Soviet Union. But free-market capitalism is a proven loser, as it inevitably leads to monopolization. Monopolization is anti-market, and destroys the whole system of production and distribution.

Maddog wrote: "Forty-two percent told us that they liked socialism even though only 16 percent could define it correctly as state ownership of the means of production and 64 percent wanted an economy managed by the free market (only 32 percent wanted the government to be in charge)."

You fucked up again right there, DopeyDawg..

By repeating her bullshit "definition" of socialism, you once again prove your complete ignorance of economic systems..

Why don't you get yourself a propuh edukashin, instead of continually parading your economic ignorance on here ?

Maddog wrote: "Forty-two percent told us that they liked socialism even though only 16 percent could define it correctly as state ownership of the means of production and 64 percent wanted an economy managed by the free market (only 32 percent wanted the government to be in charge)."

What that shows, in part, is a general ignorance among a lot of young people in regard to the traditional meaning of the word.

The underlining point your quote makes however is this: No One Is Asking For Pure Socialism!

So the Right need to STOP fear mongering over this and stop trying to slur Sanders et al. by making them sound like something they are not.

Democratic Socialism has come to be synonymous with Social Democracy - which is NOT socialism.

The constant harping on about socialists, as if ANY were actually running for president or in positions of power, is purely a way of scaring equally ignorant old people into thinking well intentioned politicians wants to take their money and give it to poor people.

It is cripplingly pathetic, and sees an absolute moron in office and maybe even reelected, because of some bogeyman word stirred up by the Right.

Young Americans just want what the rest of the developed world has - a more regulated capitalist economy with better social programs provided by the government to serve the needy.

I've spent the majority of 2019 in a country with government-run health care and much more welfare than the U.S. has, and I'm here to say that the sky remains exactly where it's supposed to be. I wish Americans could have such a country.

Ben Reilly wrote:Young Americans just want what the rest of the developed world has - a more regulated capitalist economy with better social programs provided by the government to serve the needy.

I've spent the majority of 2019 in a country with government-run health care and much more welfare than the U.S. has, and I'm here to say that the sky remains exactly where it's supposed to be. I wish Americans could have such a country.

Then they shouldn't be dumbasses and call that socialism.

See, when you don't know what the fuck words mean, I quickly discount your opinion.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote: "Forty-two percent told us that they liked socialism even though only 16 percent could define it correctly as state ownership of the means of production and 64 percent wanted an economy managed by the free market (only 32 percent wanted the government to be in charge)."

What that shows, in part, is a general ignorance among a lot of young people in regard to the traditional meaning of the word.

The underlining point your quote makes however is this: No One Is Asking For Pure Socialism!

So the Right need to STOP fear mongering over this and stop trying to slur Sanders et al. by making them sound like something they are not.

Democratic Socialism has come to be synonymous with Social Democracy - which is NOT socialism.

The constant harping on about socialists, as if ANY were actually running for president or in positions of power, is purely a way of scaring equally ignorant old people into thinking well intentioned politicians wants to take their money and give it to poor people.

It is cripplingly pathetic, and sees an absolute moron in office and maybe even reelected, because of some bogeyman word stirred up by the Right.

You obviously haven't read the platform of the Democratic Socialist Party.

'Wolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote: "Forty-two percent told us that they liked socialism even though only 16 percent could define it correctly as state ownership of the means of production and 64 percent wanted an economy managed by the free market (only 32 percent wanted the government to be in charge)."

You fucked up again right there, DopeyDawg..

By repeating her bullshit "definition" of socialism,  you once again prove your complete ignorance of economic systems..

Why don't you get yourself a propuh edukashin, instead of continually parading your economic ignorance on here ?

That wasn't Paglias definition.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote: "Forty-two percent told us that they liked socialism even though only 16 percent could define it correctly as state ownership of the means of production and 64 percent wanted an economy managed by the free market (only 32 percent wanted the government to be in charge)."

See, right there, you prove that Paglia's understanding of socialism is flawed.  Socialism isn't even a political system.  It's an economic system...to pool money for tooling in the industrial society.  "State ownership" is only one of the alternative means.

Socialism only acquired political overtones under Karl Marx, as both Les and Wolf point out.  This whole notion that socialism is some diabolical plot is based upon the experience of the Cold War, and the rise of television with films like I Led Three Lives and The Manchurian Candidate.  It's as much conditioning as anything; the bad guy wears a black hat.  That's what America reacts to today.

Socialism is as simple as, which uncle should I borrow money from?  It's a need for capitalization, and can be provided by guilds, co-ops, associations, governments or capitalists.  Governments, as a source, can go wrong, as it did under the Soviet Union.  But free-market capitalism is a proven loser, as it inevitably leads to monopolization.  Monopolization is anti-market, and destroys the whole system of production and distribution.

Thankfully she has Professor Mitty available to set her straight.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Young Americans just want what the rest of the developed world has - a more regulated capitalist economy with better social programs provided by the government to serve the needy.

I've spent the majority of 2019 in a country with government-run health care and much more welfare than the U.S. has, and I'm here to say that the sky remains exactly where it's supposed to be. I wish Americans could have such a country.

Then they shouldn't be dumbasses and call that socialism.

See, when you don't know what the fuck words mean, I quickly discount your opinion.  

Red, you're just being stupid. People on the left talk about policy issues, specifically: healthcare, immigration, gun control, etc. They don't use grand terms like socialism.

The only ones who use the term socialism are RW'ers, who are going back to the 1950's, and trying to stir up some shiet.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

See, right there, you prove that Paglia's understanding of socialism is flawed.  Socialism isn't even a political system.  It's an economic system...to pool money for tooling in the industrial society.  "State ownership" is only one of the alternative means.

Socialism only acquired political overtones under Karl Marx, as both Les and Wolf point out.  This whole notion that socialism is some diabolical plot is based upon the experience of the Cold War, and the rise of television with films like I Led Three Lives and The Manchurian Candidate.  It's as much conditioning as anything; the bad guy wears a black hat.  That's what America reacts to today.

Socialism is as simple as, which uncle should I borrow money from?  It's a need for capitalization, and can be provided by guilds, co-ops, associations, governments or capitalists.  Governments, as a source, can go wrong, as it did under the Soviet Union.  But free-market capitalism is a proven loser, as it inevitably leads to monopolization.  Monopolization is anti-market, and destroys the whole system of production and distribution.

Thankfully she has Professor Mitty available to set her straight.

You're not a real contributor, are you?  When the debate gets technical, you go low and begin to heckle and troll.

Face it...you raised a debate topic that you can't handle.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Then they shouldn't be dumbasses and call that socialism.

See, when you don't know what the fuck words mean, I quickly discount your opinion.  

Red, you're just being stupid.  People on the left talk about policy issues, specifically: healthcare, immigration, gun control, etc.  They don't use grand terms like socialism.  

The only ones who use the term socialism are RW'ers, who are going back to the 1950's, and trying to stir up some shiet.

The term is part if the survey. The fact that many people don't know what it means is another.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Thankfully she has Professor Mitty available to set her straight.

You're not a real contributor, are you?  When the debate gets technical, you go low and begin to heckle and troll.

Face it...you raised a debate topic that you can't handle.

I just dont hold you in the same high regards as you hold yourself.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Red, you're just being stupid.  People on the left talk about policy issues, specifically: healthcare, immigration, gun control, etc.  They don't use grand terms like socialism.  

The only ones who use the term socialism are RW'ers, who are going back to the 1950's, and trying to stir up some shiet.

The term is part if the survey. The fact that many people don't know what it means is another.  

It's "survey research". That means "opinion". Peoples' framework matters, else what are you surveying? You don't define terms and then ask opinions?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're not a real contributor, are you?  When the debate gets technical, you go low and begin to heckle and troll.

Face it...you raised a debate topic that you can't handle.

I just dont hold you in the same high regards as you hold yourself.

WTF do I care?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The term is part if the survey. The fact that many people don't know what it means is another.  

It's "survey research".  That means "opinion".  Peoples' framework matters, else what are you surveying?  You don't define terms and then ask opinions?

Thanks for your opinion.

Camille Paglia has always tries to intrude her personal opinion into the analysis, instead of remaining outside and objective.  What you have here is Paglia, offering her take on some disappointing news.

The news, here, is that young people don't hate socialist ideas as much as old farts like Paglia.  I agree with her that the crash of October 2008 was a watershed moment.  But it didn't come about because youth--damn their impetuous nature--was just responding negatively to the WWII generation.  It was the WWII generation that had their collective head in the sand.

Just as in 1929, the Republicans of the 1990's and 2000's wanted to open things up.  The Republican Congress of Newt Gingrich wrote the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (forbade regulation of derivatives) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, or Financial Services Modernization Act, (eliminated New Deal barriers to mergers of stockbrokers, commercial and investment banks and insurance companies).  Combined, these laws had the effect of abolishing all of the significant rules put in place at the time of the Great Depression designed to prevent a repeat.

So, October of 2008 happened!  It was history repeating itself, as soon as greedy Republicans forgot about 1929.  The Republicans then got into gear and created a form of corporate socialism…otherwise known as “bail-outs” for banks too big to fail.

The effect of this was a wealthy class that kept their heads above water, and the programs of Barack Obama started to lift the much heavier middle class up to the surface.  As a result of Obama’s efforts, now we reap the benefits of the Obama program: stock market highs, record lows in unemployment, economic growth everywhere…things that Trump tries to take credit for, but can’t.

You see, there’s only so much to go around.  As a result of the corporate socialism of October 2008, the wealthy got theirs, but as the middle class rose to the surface things thinned out a little bit.  The records were a bit more gaunt than anticipated: first, stock markets only help the rich; second, unemployment was down, but only for minimum wage jobs; third, the cost of living was rising, and the middle class was kept bobbing just below the surface.

The younger generation see facts, while Camille Paglia reminisces her rich, romantic youth.  It was the beginning of vindication of Marx’s  argument “that capitalism would destroy itself because a smaller and smaller number of super-wealthy people would arrogate all wealth to themselves and literally starve the working poor who produced all goods and services…”  Gillespie, Nick, Reason: FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS.  The facts are right there, and Paglia is just too lost in her foggy, pink dreams to notice.

What were the BBC headlines in January, 2006:  “Oxfam says wealth of richest 1% equal to other 99%.”

So much for Camille Paglia’s memories of happy days in her youth.

quill wrote:The younger generation see facts, while Camille Paglia reminisces her rich, romantic youth

She actually says things are better now.

Original Quill wrote:Camille Paglia has always tries to intrude her personal opinion into the analysis, instead of remaining outside and objective.  What you have here is Paglia, offering her take on some disappointing news.

The news, here, is that young people don't hate socialist ideas as much as old farts like Paglia.  I agree with her that the crash of October 2008 was a watershed moment.  But it didn't come about because youth--damn their impetuous nature--was just responding negatively to the WWII generation.  It was the WWII generation that had their collective head in the sand.

Just as in 1929, the Republicans of the 1990's and 2000's wanted to open things up.  The Republican Congress of Newt Gingrich wrote the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (forbade regulation of derivatives) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, or Financial Services Modernization Act, (eliminated New Deal barriers to mergers of stockbrokers, commercial and investment banks and insurance companies).  Combined, these laws had the effect of abolishing all of the significant rules put in place at the time of the Great Depression designed to prevent a repeat.

So, October of 2008 happened!  It was history repeating itself, as soon as greedy Republicans forgot about 1929.  The Republicans then got into gear and created a form of corporate socialism…otherwise known as “bail-outs” for banks too big to fail.

The effect of this was a wealthy class that kept their heads above water, and the programs of Barack Obama started to lift the much heavier middle class up to the surface.  As a result of Obama’s efforts, now we reap the benefits of the Obama program: stock market highs, record lows in unemployment, economic growth everywhere…things that Trump tries to take credit for, but can’t.

You see, there’s only so much to go around.  As a result of the corporate socialism of October 2008, the wealthy got theirs, but as the middle class rose to the surface things thinned out a little bit.  The records were a bit more gaunt than anticipated: first, stock markets only help the rich; second, unemployment was down, but only for minimum wage jobs; third, the cost of living was rising, and the middle class was kept bobbing just below the surface.

The younger generation see facts, while Camille Paglia reminisces her rich, romantic youth.  It was the beginning of vindication of Marx’s  argument “that capitalism would destroy itself because a smaller and smaller number of super-wealthy people would arrogate all wealth to themselves and literally starve the working poor who produced all goods and services…”  Gillespie, Nick, Reason: FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS.  The facts are right there, and Paglia is just too lost in her foggy, pink dreams to notice.

What were the BBC headlines in January, 2006:  “Oxfam says wealth of richest 1% equal to other 99%.”

So much for Camille Paglia’s memories of happy days in her youth.

You know, your posts would be better if you spent more time reading, and less time typing.

Maddog wrote:

quill wrote:The younger generation see facts, while Camille Paglia reminisces her rich, romantic youth

She actually says things are better now.

As I just explained, they are not. One percent hold the wealth of 99 percent.

Paglia also says that the younger generation doesn't realize when they are well off. They understand full well what is coming. As the article stated:

Gellespe wrote:"Marx argued that capitalism would destroy itself because a smaller and smaller number of super-wealthy people would arrogate all wealth to themselves and literally starve the working poor who produced all goods and services..."

And Marx is right on mark. The younger generation understands full well what is going on. Paglia is just reaching back 50-years ago, and recalling a deluded generation basking in the fruits of plenty. What do they say about the calm before the storm?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Camille Paglia has always tries to intrude her personal opinion into the analysis, instead of remaining outside and objective.  What you have here is Paglia, offering her take on some disappointing news.

The news, here, is that young people don't hate socialist ideas as much as old farts like Paglia.  I agree with her that the crash of October 2008 was a watershed moment.  But it didn't come about because youth--damn their impetuous nature--was just responding negatively to the WWII generation.  It was the WWII generation that had their collective head in the sand.

Just as in 1929, the Republicans of the 1990's and 2000's wanted to open things up.  The Republican Congress of Newt Gingrich wrote the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (forbade regulation of derivatives) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, or Financial Services Modernization Act, (eliminated New Deal barriers to mergers of stockbrokers, commercial and investment banks and insurance companies).  Combined, these laws had the effect of abolishing all of the significant rules put in place at the time of the Great Depression designed to prevent a repeat.

So, October of 2008 happened!  It was history repeating itself, as soon as greedy Republicans forgot about 1929.  The Republicans then got into gear and created a form of corporate socialism…otherwise known as “bail-outs” for banks too big to fail.

The effect of this was a wealthy class that kept their heads above water, and the programs of Barack Obama started to lift the much heavier middle class up to the surface.  As a result of Obama’s efforts, now we reap the benefits of the Obama program: stock market highs, record lows in unemployment, economic growth everywhere…things that Trump tries to take credit for, but can’t.

You see, there’s only so much to go around.  As a result of the corporate socialism of October 2008, the wealthy got theirs, but as the middle class rose to the surface things thinned out a little bit.  The records were a bit more gaunt than anticipated: first, stock markets only help the rich; second, unemployment was down, but only for minimum wage jobs; third, the cost of living was rising, and the middle class was kept bobbing just below the surface.

The younger generation see facts, while Camille Paglia reminisces her rich, romantic youth.  It was the beginning of vindication of Marx’s  argument “that capitalism would destroy itself because a smaller and smaller number of super-wealthy people would arrogate all wealth to themselves and literally starve the working poor who produced all goods and services…”  Gillespie, Nick, Reason: FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS.  The facts are right there, and Paglia is just too lost in her foggy, pink dreams to notice.

What were the BBC headlines in January, 2006:  “Oxfam says wealth of richest 1% equal to other 99%.”

So much for Camille Paglia’s memories of happy days in her youth.

You know, your posts would be better if you spent more time reading, and less time typing.

A little bit too much intellectual work for you, speed? You brought Gellespie's article up. Now you can't keep up?

I know...maybe a game of checkers.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You know, your posts would be better if you spent more time reading, and less time typing.

A little bit too much intellectual work for you, speed?  You brought Gellespie's article up.  Now you can't keep up?

I know...maybe a game of checkers.  

I read the OP, you didn't. But that won't stop you from commenting. Same old same old.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


She actually says things are better now.

As I just explained, they are not.  One percent hold the wealth of 99 percent.

Paglia also says that the younger generation doesn't realize when they are well off.  They understand full well what is coming.  As the article stated:

Gellespe wrote:"Marx argued that capitalism would destroy itself because a smaller and smaller number of super-wealthy people would arrogate all wealth to themselves and literally starve the working poor who produced all goods and services..."

And Marx is right on mark.  The younger generation understands full well what is going on.  Paglia is just reaching back 50-years ago, and recalling a deluded generation basking in the fruits of plenty.  What do they say about the calm before the storm?

You explaining something doesn't make it factual.

"Everything is so easy now," Ms. Paglia continues. "The stores are so plentifully supplied. You just go in and buy fruits and vegetables from all over the world." Undergrads, who've studied neither economics nor history, "have a sense that this is the way life has always been. Because they've never been exposed to history, they have no idea that these are recent attainments that come from a very specific economic system."

Maddog wrote:"Everything is so easy now," Ms. Paglia continues. "The stores are so plentifully supplied. You just go in and buy fruits and vegetables from all over the world." Undergrads, who've studied neither economics nor history, "have a sense that this is the way life has always been. Because they've never been exposed to history, they have no idea that these are recent attainments that come from a very specific economic system."

She forgot to add, "...if you can afford it." And, we all might add, '...pray that Trump doesn't put a tariff on those fruits and vegetables'. No, things are not that rosy.

So it follows, that students have a better picture than does Paglia, about the brutal results of capitalism, and how socialism more favorably compares.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As I just explained, they are not.  One percent hold the wealth of 99 percent.

Paglia also says that the younger generation doesn't realize when they are well off.  They understand full well what is coming.  As the article stated:



And Marx is right on mark.  The younger generation understands full well what is going on.  Paglia is just reaching back 50-years ago, and recalling a deluded generation basking in the fruits of plenty.  What do they say about the calm before the storm?

You explaining something doesn't make it factual.  

The facts are in plain view:

BBC wrote:What were the BBC headlines in January, 2006: “Oxfam says wealth of richest 1% equal to other 99%.”

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A little bit too much intellectual work for you, speed?  You brought Gellespie's article up.  Now you can't keep up?

I know...maybe a game of checkers.  

I read the OP, you didn't. But that won't stop you from commenting. Same old same old.  

Such a fookin' liar you are.  I read the OP better than you.  I know more economic theory than you.  And those kids in that survey know more reality than Camille Paglia, who is still living in the 1950's.

You demonstrate how one gets to be a conservative: Don't know shiet, and so you make it up as you go along.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:"Everything is so easy now," Ms. Paglia continues. "The stores are so plentifully supplied. You just go in and buy fruits and vegetables from all over the world." Undergrads, who've studied neither economics nor history, "have a sense that this is the way life has always been. Because they've never been exposed to history, they have no idea that these are recent attainments that come from a very specific economic system."

She forgot to add, "...if you can afford it."  And, we all might add, '...pray that Trump doesn't put a tariff on those fruits and vegetables'.  No, things are not that rosy.

So it follows, that students have a better picture than does Paglia, about the brutal results of capitalism, and how socialism more favorably compares.  

She forgot nothing.

"While I believe that boom-and-bust capitalism is inherently Darwinian and requires moderate regulation for the long-term greater good," she says, "I insist that capitalism has produced the glorious emancipation of women." They can now "support themselves and live on their own, and no longer must humiliatingly depend on father or husband."

Maddog wrote:"While I believe that boom-and-bust capitalism is inherently Darwinian and requires moderate regulation for the long-term greater good," she says, "I insist that capitalism has produced the glorious emancipation of women." They can now "support themselves and live on their own, and no longer must humiliatingly depend on father or husband."

The assumption here is that capitalism is responsible for everything.  Why?  Just because she says so?

Camille Paglia is given to just blowing gas out her ass.  I said that earlier.

I could as easily say that challenge is responsible for emancipation of women.  It was the lack of opportunity, the unfairness of two jobs, and the glass ceiling that angered women, and inspired them to fight back.

You said that Paglia is not your favorite lesbian and feminist.  Let me tell you something.  Camille Paglia embraces feminism, but she meets the challenge with ultra-conservative answers.  She is to feminism what Ayn Rand is to laissez-faire economics.

So, it's small wonder that Paglia romanticizes bygone days, when the devil was big, bad Russia, and folks like Joseph McCarthy ruled opinions.  Coincidentally, those were days of strong economic growth. Ergo: socialism = the enemy; capitalism = vitality.

But those were also the days when economic capitalism had to be tethered.  The Sherman Act, the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 were necessary to curb precisely what Karl Marx had predicted...that a smaller number of super-wealthy people would destroy the markets.  And what have I said above, and many times over, that capitalists knock themselves off the wall and tend toward monopolization.

In the end, Paglia is just sentimentalizing much like Trump does...Make America Great Again!  She has no grasp of the economic theory of capitalism, and she just correlates it with good ole times.  She urges the younger generation to embrace capitalism, just like Trump urges that we embrace coal as an energy source.

Those times are gone, and will never return.  Just as Marx predicted, the 1% rules over the 99%.  The younger generation is smart enough to see that some aspects of socialism, and regulation of markets are imperative for survival.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:"While I believe that boom-and-bust capitalism is inherently Darwinian and requires moderate regulation for the long-term greater good," she says, "I insist that capitalism has produced the glorious emancipation of women." They can now "support themselves and live on their own, and no longer must humiliatingly depend on father or husband."

The assumption here is that capitalism is responsible for everything.  Why?  Just because she says so?

Camille Paglia is given to just blowing gas out her ass.  I said that earlier.

I could as easily say that challenge is responsible for emancipation of women.  It was the lack of opportunity, the unfairness of two jobs, and the glass ceiling that angered women, and inspired them to fight back.

You said that Paglia is not your favorite lesbian and feminist.  Let me tell you something.  Camille Paglia embraces feminism, but she meets the challenge with ultra-conservative answers.  She is to feminism what Ayn Rand is to laissez-faire economics.

So, it's small wonder that Paglia romanticizes bygone days, when the devil was big, bad Russia, and folks like Joseph McCarthy ruled opinions.  Coincidentally, those were days of strong economic growth.  Ergo: socialism = the enemy; capitalism = vitality.

But those were also the days when economic capitalism had to be tethered.  The Sherman Act, the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 were necessary to curb precisely what Karl Marx had predicted...that a smaller number of super-wealthy people would destroy the markets.  And what have I said above, and many times over, that capitalists knock themselves off the wall and tend toward monopolization.

In the end, Paglia is just sentimentalizing much like Trump does...Make America Great Again!  She has no grasp of the economic theory of capitalism, and she just correlates it with good ole times.  She urges the younger generation to embrace capitalism, just like Trump urges that we embrace coal as an energy source.

Those times are gone, and will never return.  Just as Marx predicted, the 1% rules over the 99%.  The younger generation is smart enough to see that some aspects of socialism, and regulation of markets are imperative for survival.

I said she was my favorite lesbian and feminist.

Go back and read the OP.

Quill wrote:Camille Paglia embraces feminism, but she meets the challenge with ultra-conservative answers.

Camille Paglia: Some background is necessary. First of all, I must make my political affiliations crystal clear. I am a registered Democrat who voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary and for Jill Stein in the general election. Since last Fall, I've had my eye on Kamala Harris, the new senator from California, and I hope to vote for her in the next presidential primary.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/camille-paglia-on-trump-democrats-transgenderism-and-islamist-terror


You are extremely ill informed, yet it never stops you from droning on.

Maddog wrote:

Quill wrote:Camille Paglia embraces feminism, but she meets the challenge with ultra-conservative answers.

Camille Paglia: Some background is necessary. First of all, I must make my political affiliations crystal clear. I am a registered Democrat who voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary and for Jill Stein in the general election. Since last Fall, I've had my eye on Kamala Harris, the new senator from California, and I hope to vote for her in the next presidential primary.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/camille-paglia-on-trump-democrats-transgenderism-and-islamist-terror


You are extremely ill informed, yet it never stops you from droning on.

I've known Camille for over 40-years. I stand by my assessment.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Camille Paglia: Some background is necessary. First of all, I must make my political affiliations crystal clear. I am a registered Democrat who voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary and for Jill Stein in the general election. Since last Fall, I've had my eye on Kamala Harris, the new senator from California, and I hope to vote for her in the next presidential primary.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/camille-paglia-on-trump-democrats-transgenderism-and-islamist-terror


You are extremely ill informed, yet it never stops you from droning on.

I've known Camille for over 40-years.  I stand by my assessment.

Maybe you can call her up and ask her to explain herself on here?

She was professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, when I was a lecturer at nearby Rutgers University. Small world, innit?

Maddog wrote:Maybe you can call her up and ask her to explain herself on here?  

No need to...I know her pretty well.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Maybe you can call her up and ask her to explain herself on here?  

No need to...I know her pretty well.

For the rest of us. And get your workout partner Chuck Norris to make a few posts too.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No need to...I know her pretty well.

For the rest of us. And get your workout partner Chuck Norris to make a few posts too.  

Redneck, I know it's hard for you to imagine having any friends, especially professional friends. I do feel sorry for you. But I think I know why you have none.

I don't want to embarrass you. PM me sometime.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

For the rest of us. And get your workout partner Chuck Norris to make a few posts too.  

Redneck, I know it's hard for you to imagine having any friends, especially professional friends.  I do feel sorry for you.  But I think I know why you have none.

I don't want to embarrass you.  PM me sometime.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia#Politics

This not ultra conservative in any shape or form, but then anyone right of stalin is for Quill and he has never met her. That is complete bullshit

Great article Maddog and this is the problem with young socialists today. As many are apologists for Stalin, Mao, lenin etc.