(02-03-2017, 09:49 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2017, 12:44 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2017, 05:56 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:That's quite true; although there were lots of "men" at the women's marches (including moi of course)
There, fixed that for you. 
One of the signs there mentioned that the real men are those defending women's rights and human rights at these marches.
Well if it was on a sign, it must be true.
In this case, it certainly was. The
real men were
there, defending women and men alike. The
phony men are behind Trump and his pussy-grabbing attitudes, screaming about making America fucked again.
(02-03-2017, 01:47 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2017, 09:49 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2017, 12:44 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2017, 05:56 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:That's quite true; although there were lots of "men" at the women's marches (including moi of course)
There, fixed that for you.
One of the signs there mentioned that the real men are those defending women's rights and human rights at these marches.
Well if it was on a sign, it must be true.
I have to ask, are you into Men's Rights and all that jazz?
No, those people are losers.
I don't normally read articles on
The Daily Beast, but as I was grazing headlines today, this one caught my eye: "The Screwed Generation Turns Socialist"
The thrust of the article was about making distinctions among the generations with some supporting data. It even gave a nod to Strauss & Howe. The nascent embrace of socialism by Millennials has been revealed in previous surveys. What truly riveted my attention toward the end of the article was its reference to the Millennials' less-than-steadfast commitment to liberal democracy, as I have seen that
tendency corroborated by another academic study recently:
...Yet even given these factors, Republicans have their work cut out for them as the generational wheel turns. Certainly, to be remotely competitive, they must abandon socially conservative ideas that offend most Millennials. The GOP’s best chance lies with making capitalism work for this group, sustaining upward mobility and expanding property ownership. If we see the creation of a vast generation of property serfs with little opportunity for advancement, America’s future is almost certain to be redder, a lot less market-oriented, and perhaps a lot more authoritarian than previous generations have ever contemplated.
For those who gave
The Fourth Turning a close reading, Strauss & Howe vaguely alluded to just such a prospect. And, of course, the writer here means "redder" not as in red state, but as in cue the music and strike up "The Internationale."
Read further at this link:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...alist.html
(02-19-2017, 01:28 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]I don't normally read articles on The Daily Beast, but as I was grazing headlines today, this one caught my eye: "The Screwed Generation Turns Socialist"
The thrust of the article was about making distinctions among the generations with some supporting data. It even gave a nod to Strauss & Howe. The nascent embrace of socialism by Millennials has been revealed in previous surveys. What truly riveted my attention toward the end of the article was its reference to the Millennials' less-than-steadfast commitment to liberal democracy, as I have seen that tendency corroborated by another academic study recently:
...Yet even given these factors, Republicans have their work cut out for them as the generational wheel turns. Certainly, to be remotely competitive, they must abandon socially conservative ideas that offend most Millennials. The GOP’s best chance lies with making capitalism work for this group, sustaining upward mobility and expanding property ownership. If we see the creation of a vast generation of property serfs with little opportunity for advancement, America’s future is almost certain to be redder, a lot less market-oriented, and perhaps a lot more authoritarian than previous generations have ever contemplated.
For those who gave The Fourth Turning a close reading, Strauss & Howe vaguely alluded to just such a prospect. And, of course, the writer here means "redder" not as in red state, but as in cue the music and strike up "The Internationale."
Read further at this link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...alist.html
Around the turn of the century (19th to 20th) the leading capitalists like Rockefeller, Ford, and Edison decided that if the capitalism whence they prospered were to survive, they would need to ensure that the proletariat would need a stake in the system. It is not likely that either read any Karl Marx, but they certainly knew of him second-hand. So turn the proletariat into consumers buying the wares of capitalists, and make Marxist socialism irrelevant. So it has been through the entertainment moguls, capitalists but not largely industrial capitalists. So it was with developers of middle-class housing. So it was with the creators of electronic devices like televisions and personal computers. At any point since 1917, capitalists were wise enough to recognize that the sullen and angry proletariat of Marxist literature was to either be co-opted with a car, nice clothes, furniture, appliances, and a comfortable flat with running water and inside plumbing (the liberal solution) or to smash the dreams of an angry and sullen proletariat with a fearsome order of terror and brutality, as with fascism or Apartheid. Fascism and Apartheid allowed existing elites (often agrarian elites who still had traces of a feudal heritage) more profits for the time... before that got destroyed in war and revolution.
The American Right wants its "Red" America as a
Christian (Pence)
and Corporate (Trump)
State... one which dispenses with the consumerism of modern capitalism and reverts to the early capitalism that Marx saw. That's the only capitalism that Marx (or Dickens in his time, or Lenin in his time and place). A hundred years ago, Russia was culturally sophisticated, technologically average, and socially backward by world standards. Does that sound familiar?
A Socialist revolution or takeover is typically a Crisis event, whether early (Hungary in 1919) or late (Hungary in 1947).
(02-19-2017, 01:28 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]I don't normally read articles on The Daily Beast, but as I was grazing headlines today, this one caught my eye: "The Screwed Generation Turns Socialist"
The thrust of the article was about making distinctions among the generations with some supporting data. It even gave a nod to Strauss & Howe. The nascent embrace of socialism by Millennials has been revealed in previous surveys. What truly riveted my attention toward the end of the article was its reference to the Millennials' less-than-steadfast commitment to liberal democracy, as I have seen that tendency corroborated by another academic study recently:
...Yet even given these factors, Republicans have their work cut out for them as the generational wheel turns. Certainly, to be remotely competitive, they must abandon socially conservative ideas that offend most Millennials. The GOP’s best chance lies with making capitalism work for this group, sustaining upward mobility and expanding property ownership. If we see the creation of a vast generation of property serfs with little opportunity for advancement, America’s future is almost certain to be redder, a lot less market-oriented, and perhaps a lot more authoritarian than previous generations have ever contemplated.
For those who gave The Fourth Turning a close reading, Strauss & Howe vaguely alluded to just such a prospect. And, of course, the writer here means "redder" not as in red state, but as in cue the music and strike up "The Internationale."
Read further at this link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...alist.html
Around the turn of the century (19th to 20th) the leading capitalists like Rockefeller, Ford, and Edison decided that if the capitalism whence they prospered were to survive, they would need to ensure that the proletariat would need a stake in the system. It is not likely that either read any Karl Marx, but they certainly knew of him second-hand. So turn the proletariat into consumers buying the wares of capitalists, and make Marxist socialism irrelevant. So it has been through the entertainment moguls, capitalists but not largely industrial capitalists. So it was with developers of middle-class housing. So it was with the creators of electronic devices like televisions and personal computers. At any point since 1917, capitalists were wise enough to recognize that the sullen and angry proletariat of Marxist literature was to either be co-opted with a car, nice clothes, furniture, appliances, and a comfortable flat with running water and inside plumbing (the liberal solution) or to smash the dreams of an angry and sullen proletariat with a fearsome order of terror and brutality, as with fascism or Apartheid. Fascism and Apartheid allowed existing elites (often agrarian elites who still had traces of a feudal heritage) more profits for the time... before that got destroyed in war and revolution.
The American Right wants its "Red" America as a
Christian (Pence)
and Corporate (Trump)
State... one which dispenses with the consumerism of modern capitalism and reverts to the early capitalism that
Marx saw. That's the only capitalism that Marx (or Dickens in his time, or
Lenin in his time and place). A hundred years ago, Russia was culturally sophisticated, technologically average, and socially backward by world standards. Does that sound familiar?
Arise, ye pris'ners of starvation is precisely what one can expect if the wealth and power of economic elites creates suffering without creating mass happiness. The capitalist order that is little more than cost-loading is itself doomed even if the revolutionaries choose to replace cronyism and class privilege with a competitive market.
The
crimson color has nothing to do with
Harvard University.
(02-19-2017, 01:28 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]I don't normally read articles on The Daily Beast, but as I was grazing headlines today, this one caught my eye: "The Screwed Generation Turns Socialist"
The thrust of the article was about making distinctions among the generations with some supporting data. It even gave a nod to Strauss & Howe. The nascent embrace of socialism by Millennials has been revealed in previous surveys. What truly riveted my attention toward the end of the article was its reference to the Millennials' less-than-steadfast commitment to liberal democracy, as I have seen that tendency corroborated by another academic study recently:
...Yet even given these factors, Republicans have their work cut out for them as the generational wheel turns. Certainly, to be remotely competitive, they must abandon socially conservative ideas that offend most Millennials. The GOP’s best chance lies with making capitalism work for this group, sustaining upward mobility and expanding property ownership. If we see the creation of a vast generation of property serfs with little opportunity for advancement, America’s future is almost certain to be redder, a lot less market-oriented, and perhaps a lot more authoritarian than previous generations have ever contemplated.
For those who gave The Fourth Turning a close reading, Strauss & Howe vaguely alluded to just such a prospect. And, of course, the writer here means "redder" not as in red state, but as in cue the music and strike up "The Internationale."
Read further at this link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...alist.html
And as a follow-up to this post, especially as it relates to Millennial attitudes toward liberal democracy, and a detectable rising support for authoritarian alternatives:
"How Stable Are Democracies? ‘Warning Signs Are Flashing Red’"
Here are a few excerpts from the
New York Times article published shortly after the election:
Yascha Mounk is used to being the most pessimistic person in the room. Mr. Mounk, a lecturer in government at Harvard, has spent the past few years challenging one of the bedrock assumptions of Western politics: that once a country becomes a liberal democracy, it will stay that way.
His research suggests something quite different: that liberal democracies around the world may be at serious risk of decline...
...Support for autocratic alternatives is rising, too. Drawing on data from the European and World Values Surveys, the researchers found that the share of Americans who say that army rule [Hooah!] would be a “good” or “very good” thing had risen to 1 in 6 in 2014, compared with 1 in 16 in 1995.
That trend is particularly strong among young people. For instance, in a previously published paper, the researchers calculated that 43 percent of older Americans believed it was illegitimate for the military to take over if the government were incompetent or failing to do its job, but only 19 percent of millennials agreed. The same generational divide showed up in Europe, where 53 percent of older people thought a military takeover would be illegitimate, while only 36 percent of millennials agreed.
In the United States, Donald J. Trump won the presidential election by running as an antisystem outsider. And support for antisystem populist parties in Europe, such as the National Front in France, Syriza in Greece and the Five-Star Movement in Italy, is rising.
Of course, this is just one paper. And the researchers’ approach, like all data-driven social science, has limitations. It is only as good as the survey data that underlies it, for instance, and it does not take into account other factors that could be important to overall stability, such as economic growth...
Read further at this link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world...cracy.html
(02-20-2017, 11:59 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2017, 01:28 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]I don't normally read articles on The Daily Beast, but as I was grazing headlines today, this one caught my eye: "The Screwed Generation Turns Socialist"
The thrust of the article was about making distinctions among the generations with some supporting data. It even gave a nod to Strauss & Howe. The nascent embrace of socialism by Millennials has been revealed in previous surveys. What truly riveted my attention toward the end of the article was its reference to the Millennials' less-than-steadfast commitment to liberal democracy, as I have seen that tendency corroborated by another academic study recently:
...Yet even given these factors, Republicans have their work cut out for them as the generational wheel turns. Certainly, to be remotely competitive, they must abandon socially conservative ideas that offend most Millennials. The GOP’s best chance lies with making capitalism work for this group, sustaining upward mobility and expanding property ownership. If we see the creation of a vast generation of property serfs with little opportunity for advancement, America’s future is almost certain to be redder, a lot less market-oriented, and perhaps a lot more authoritarian than previous generations have ever contemplated.
For those who gave The Fourth Turning a close reading, Strauss & Howe vaguely alluded to just such a prospect. And, of course, the writer here means "redder" not as in red state, but as in cue the music and strike up "The Internationale."
Read further at this link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...alist.html
And as a follow-up to this post, especially as it relates to Millennial attitudes toward liberal democracy, and a detectable rising support for authoritarian alternatives:
"How Stable Are Democracies? ‘Warning Signs Are Flashing Red’"
Here are a few excerpts from the New York Times article published shortly after the election:
Yascha Mounk is used to being the most pessimistic person in the room. Mr. Mounk, a lecturer in government at Harvard, has spent the past few years challenging one of the bedrock assumptions of Western politics: that once a country becomes a liberal democracy, it will stay that way.
His research suggests something quite different: that liberal democracies around the world may be at serious risk of decline...
...Support for autocratic alternatives is rising, too. Drawing on data from the European and World Values Surveys, the researchers found that the share of Americans who say that army rule [Hooah!] would be a “good” or “very good” thing had risen to 1 in 6 in 2014, compared with 1 in 16 in 1995.
That trend is particularly strong among young people. For instance, in a previously published paper, the researchers calculated that 43 percent of older Americans believed it was illegitimate for the military to take over if the government were incompetent or failing to do its job, but only 19 percent of millennials agreed. The same generational divide showed up in Europe, where 53 percent of older people thought a military takeover would be illegitimate, while only 36 percent of millennials agreed.
In the United States, Donald J. Trump won the presidential election by running as an antisystem outsider. And support for antisystem populist parties in Europe, such as the National Front in France, Syriza in Greece and the Five-Star Movement in Italy, is rising.
Of course, this is just one paper. And the researchers’ approach, like all data-driven social science, has limitations. It is only as good as the survey data that underlies it, for instance, and it does not take into account other factors that could be important to overall stability, such as economic growth...
Read further at this link: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world...cracy.html
---*yawn* Marx said that once capitalism had run it's course the Revolution would commence
Now tell us something we don't know
(02-20-2017, 12:15 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ] (02-20-2017, 11:59 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2017, 01:28 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]I don't normally read articles on The Daily Beast, but as I was grazing headlines today, this one caught my eye: "The Screwed Generation Turns Socialist"
The thrust of the article was about making distinctions among the generations with some supporting data. It even gave a nod to Strauss & Howe. The nascent embrace of socialism by Millennials has been revealed in previous surveys. What truly riveted my attention toward the end of the article was its reference to the Millennials' less-than-steadfast commitment to liberal democracy, as I have seen that tendency corroborated by another academic study recently:
...Yet even given these factors, Republicans have their work cut out for them as the generational wheel turns. Certainly, to be remotely competitive, they must abandon socially conservative ideas that offend most Millennials. The GOP’s best chance lies with making capitalism work for this group, sustaining upward mobility and expanding property ownership. If we see the creation of a vast generation of property serfs with little opportunity for advancement, America’s future is almost certain to be redder, a lot less market-oriented, and perhaps a lot more authoritarian than previous generations have ever contemplated.
For those who gave The Fourth Turning a close reading, Strauss & Howe vaguely alluded to just such a prospect. And, of course, the writer here means "redder" not as in red state, but as in cue the music and strike up "The Internationale."
Read further at this link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...alist.html
And as a follow-up to this post, especially as it relates to Millennial attitudes toward liberal democracy, and a detectable rising support for authoritarian alternatives:
"How Stable Are Democracies? ‘Warning Signs Are Flashing Red’"
Here are a few excerpts from the New York Times article published shortly after the election:
Yascha Mounk is used to being the most pessimistic person in the room. Mr. Mounk, a lecturer in government at Harvard, has spent the past few years challenging one of the bedrock assumptions of Western politics: that once a country becomes a liberal democracy, it will stay that way.
His research suggests something quite different: that liberal democracies around the world may be at serious risk of decline...
...Support for autocratic alternatives is rising, too. Drawing on data from the European and World Values Surveys, the researchers found that the share of Americans who say that army rule [Hooah!] would be a “good” or “very good” thing had risen to 1 in 6 in 2014, compared with 1 in 16 in 1995.
That trend is particularly strong among young people. For instance, in a previously published paper, the researchers calculated that 43 percent of older Americans believed it was illegitimate for the military to take over if the government were incompetent or failing to do its job, but only 19 percent of millennials agreed. The same generational divide showed up in Europe, where 53 percent of older people thought a military takeover would be illegitimate, while only 36 percent of millennials agreed.
In the United States, Donald J. Trump won the presidential election by running as an antisystem outsider. And support for antisystem populist parties in Europe, such as the National Front in France, Syriza in Greece and the Five-Star Movement in Italy, is rising.
Of course, this is just one paper. And the researchers’ approach, like all data-driven social science, has limitations. It is only as good as the survey data that underlies it, for instance, and it does not take into account other factors that could be important to overall stability, such as economic growth...
Read further at this link: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world...cracy.html
---*yawn* Marx said that once capitalism had run it's course the Revolution would commence
Now tell us something we don't know
Actually, the writer of
The Daily Beast column betrays a leftist slant to his interpretation, perhaps even wishful thinking. I was being sarcastic in referring to the socialist hymn "The Internationale." If you read the study by Yascha Mounk cited in the NYT article, it's a potential authoritarianism of the Right (military takeover) to which he refers. Americans have little appetite for revolution, historically, notwithstanding our own war for independence. A small contingent of radicals have tried twice in America to light the fires of socialist revolution in the 20th century, to no avail. Indeed, they were stepped on (hard) by the powers that be. The real political momentum now--both here and abroad--lies with right-wing populist movements, not the Far Left.
More to follow...
(02-20-2017, 11:59 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2017, 01:28 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]I don't normally read articles on The Daily Beast, but as I was grazing headlines today, this one caught my eye: "The Screwed Generation Turns Socialist"
The thrust of the article was about making distinctions among the generations with some supporting data. It even gave a nod to Strauss & Howe. The nascent embrace of socialism by Millennials has been revealed in previous surveys. What truly riveted my attention toward the end of the article was its reference to the Millennials' less-than-steadfast commitment to liberal democracy, as I have seen that tendency corroborated by another academic study recently:
...Yet even given these factors, Republicans have their work cut out for them as the generational wheel turns. Certainly, to be remotely competitive, they must abandon socially conservative ideas that offend most Millennials. The GOP’s best chance lies with making capitalism work for this group, sustaining upward mobility and expanding property ownership. If we see the creation of a vast generation of property serfs with little opportunity for advancement, America’s future is almost certain to be redder, a lot less market-oriented, and perhaps a lot more authoritarian than previous generations have ever contemplated.
For those who gave The Fourth Turning a close reading, Strauss & Howe vaguely alluded to just such a prospect. And, of course, the writer here means "redder" not as in red state, but as in cue the music and strike up "The Internationale."
Read further at this link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...alist.html
And as a follow-up to this post, especially as it relates to Millennial attitudes toward liberal democracy, and a detectable rising support for authoritarian alternatives:
"How Stable Are Democracies? ‘Warning Signs Are Flashing Red’"
Here are a few excerpts from the New York Times article published shortly after the election:
Yascha Mounk is used to being the most pessimistic person in the room. Mr. Mounk, a lecturer in government at Harvard, has spent the past few years challenging one of the bedrock assumptions of Western politics: that once a country becomes a liberal democracy, it will stay that way.
His research suggests something quite different: that liberal democracies around the world may be at serious risk of decline...
...Support for autocratic alternatives is rising, too. Drawing on data from the European and World Values Surveys, the researchers found that the share of Americans who say that army rule [Hooah!] would be a “good” or “very good” thing had risen to 1 in 6 in 2014, compared with 1 in 16 in 1995.
That trend is particularly strong among young people. For instance, in a previously published paper, the researchers calculated that 43 percent of older Americans believed it was illegitimate for the military to take over if the government were incompetent or failing to do its job, but only 19 percent of millennials agreed. The same generational divide showed up in Europe, where 53 percent of older people thought a military takeover would be illegitimate, while only 36 percent of millennials agreed.
In the United States, Donald J. Trump won the presidential election by running as an antisystem outsider. And support for antisystem populist parties in Europe, such as the National Front in France, Syriza in Greece and the Five-Star Movement in Italy, is rising.
Of course, this is just one paper. And the researchers’ approach, like all data-driven social science, has limitations. It is only as good as the survey data that underlies it, for instance, and it does not take into account other factors that could be important to overall stability, such as economic growth...
Read further at this link: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world...cracy.html
Since the United States of America is not culturally sophisticated, nor intelligent, by developed-world standards, I still expect Europe to rise above the far-right xenophobia that has taken over the USA. The populist party in Italy, for example, is much smarter than the Trumpist GOP, and LePen seems unlikely to win in France. Brexit and Trump both won narrowly. Now that the refugee crisis is subsiding somewhat, perhaps Europeans will focus on REAL concerns again. We can hope.
But democracy has indeed gone into decline since the brief uprise in the Arab Spring. Most of those revolutions were suppressed, and so democracy did not advance much in Egypt, and chaos replaced tyranny in Libya (not much of an advance). Iraq gained a better leader, but still battles the Islamic State which gobbled up a lot of territory in Iraq and Syria and a small slice of the Libyan coast. Similar movements to the IS established reigns of terror in northern and central Africa that are now receding. Putin, who now actually owns half of his country, has destroyed earlier democratic advances and become the latest in a long line of Czars. Many Eastern European regimes seem to be moving to the right too.
Meanwhile Turkey has become an autocracy by democratic decision, and suppressed its Arab Spring and Kurdish revolts. Ukraine threw out a corrupt Putin agent as its ruler in the Arab Spring era, but still battles against Putin in the East, and Crimea reverted to the new Czar's rulership. North Korea is even worse than before, and China remains authoritarian. Burma made some progress, but still represses minority groups. Brazil has fallen into a corrupt oligarchic malaise and is losing ground on human rights and democracy. Venezuela is on the verge of collapse under its successor to cult-ruler Hugo Chavez. Elsewhere in SA, Colombia seems on the right track, and a turn to the moderate right is happening. Cuba is still under tight control. Africa has made unsteady progress, but is still largely authoritarian, if not in chaos. The Philippines elected a tyrant who kills thousands of his people and is turning to China. India has a nationalist leader whose dedication to democracy and human rights is somewhat doubtful, and Pakistan is under constant terrorist attack. Afghanistan is a permanent clusterfuck.
(02-20-2017, 12:59 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ] (02-20-2017, 12:15 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ] (02-20-2017, 11:59 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2017, 01:28 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]I don't normally read articles on The Daily Beast, but as I was grazing headlines today, this one caught my eye: "The Screwed Generation Turns Socialist"
The thrust of the article was about making distinctions among the generations with some supporting data. It even gave a nod to Strauss & Howe. The nascent embrace of socialism by Millennials has been revealed in previous surveys. What truly riveted my attention toward the end of the article was its reference to the Millennials' less-than-steadfast commitment to liberal democracy, as I have seen that tendency corroborated by another academic study recently:
...Yet even given these factors, Republicans have their work cut out for them as the generational wheel turns. Certainly, to be remotely competitive, they must abandon socially conservative ideas that offend most Millennials. The GOP’s best chance lies with making capitalism work for this group, sustaining upward mobility and expanding property ownership. If we see the creation of a vast generation of property serfs with little opportunity for advancement, America’s future is almost certain to be redder, a lot less market-oriented, and perhaps a lot more authoritarian than previous generations have ever contemplated.
For those who gave The Fourth Turning a close reading, Strauss & Howe vaguely alluded to just such a prospect. And, of course, the writer here means "redder" not as in red state, but as in cue the music and strike up "The Internationale."
Read further at this link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...alist.html
And as a follow-up to this post, especially as it relates to Millennial attitudes toward liberal democracy, and a detectable rising support for authoritarian alternatives:
"How Stable Are Democracies? ‘Warning Signs Are Flashing Red’"
Here are a few excerpts from the New York Times article published shortly after the election:
Yascha Mounk is used to being the most pessimistic person in the room. Mr. Mounk, a lecturer in government at Harvard, has spent the past few years challenging one of the bedrock assumptions of Western politics: that once a country becomes a liberal democracy, it will stay that way.
His research suggests something quite different: that liberal democracies around the world may be at serious risk of decline...
...Support for autocratic alternatives is rising, too. Drawing on data from the European and World Values Surveys, the researchers found that the share of Americans who say that army rule [Hooah!] would be a “good” or “very good” thing had risen to 1 in 6 in 2014, compared with 1 in 16 in 1995.
That trend is particularly strong among young people. For instance, in a previously published paper, the researchers calculated that 43 percent of older Americans believed it was illegitimate for the military to take over if the government were incompetent or failing to do its job, but only 19 percent of millennials agreed. The same generational divide showed up in Europe, where 53 percent of older people thought a military takeover would be illegitimate, while only 36 percent of millennials agreed.
In the United States, Donald J. Trump won the presidential election by running as an antisystem outsider. And support for antisystem populist parties in Europe, such as the National Front in France, Syriza in Greece and the Five-Star Movement in Italy, is rising.
Of course, this is just one paper. And the researchers’ approach, like all data-driven social science, has limitations. It is only as good as the survey data that underlies it, for instance, and it does not take into account other factors that could be important to overall stability, such as economic growth...
Read further at this link: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world...cracy.html
---*yawn* Marx said that once capitalism had run it's course the Revolution would commence
Now tell us something we don't know
Actually, the writer of The Daily Beast column betrays a leftist slant to his interpretation, perhaps even wishful thinking. I was being sarcastic in referring to the socialist hymn "The Internationale." If you read the study by Yascha Mounk cited in the NYT article, it's a potential authoritarianism of the Right (military takeover) to which he refers. Americans have little appetite for revolution, historically, notwithstanding our own war for independence. A small contingent of radicals have tried twice in America to light the fires of socialist revolution in the 20th century, to no avail. Indeed, they were stepped on (hard) by the powers that be. The real political momentum now--both here and abroad--lies with right-wing populist movements, not the Far Left.
More to follow...
Here is an interesting rebuttal to the
Daily Beast column cited above:
"Sorry Liberals. Millennials Aren’t Communists — Not Even Close"
https://thenationalpulse.com/commentary/...ommunists/
I have suggested before on the previous forum that there is a singular, deft, and bold stroke that either the Democrats or Republicans could have proposed before the last election, a fiscal stimulus that would have accomplished two objectives: 1) provide an immediate boost to GDP growth, perhaps even achieving the elusive "escape velocity" to lift our economy out of its "secular stagnation," and 2) weds a huge segment of the Millennial cohort to the political party brave enough to enact it.
(02-22-2017, 11:11 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]... I have suggested before on the previous forum that there is a singular, deft, and bold stroke that either the Democrats or Republicans could have proposed before the last election, a fiscal stimulus that would have accomplished two objectives: 1) provide an immediate boost to GDP growth, perhaps even achieving the elusive "escape velocity" to lift our economy out of its "secular stagnation," and 2) weds a huge segment of the Millennial cohort to the political party brave enough to enact it.
The entire fiscal stimulus loop has been analyzed to death. Yes, it gives a huge initial boost, but triggers a lot of inflation too. Unless the stimulus also creates huge gains in productivity, it will be subsumed in short order. Of course, that kind of stimulus can be enacted, but rent-seeking tends to kick in early, making it far less than what it should be.
I certainly don't trust Trump or his cronies to do this anywhere near right and the Dems are cowards, so I doubt it will happen.
(02-23-2017, 03:17 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2017, 11:11 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]... I have suggested before on the previous forum that there is a singular, deft, and bold stroke that either the Democrats or Republicans could have proposed before the last election, a fiscal stimulus that would have accomplished two objectives: 1) provide an immediate boost to GDP growth, perhaps even achieving the elusive "escape velocity" to lift our economy out of its "secular stagnation," and 2) weds a huge segment of the Millennial cohort to the political party brave enough to enact it.
The entire fiscal stimulus loop has been analyzed to death. Yes, it gives a huge initial boost, but triggers a lot of inflation too. Unless the stimulus also creates huge gains in productivity, it will be subsumed in short order. Of course, that kind of stimulus can be enacted, but rent-seeking tends to kick in early, making it far less than what it should be.
I certainly don't trust Trump or his cronies to do this anywhere near right and the Dems are cowards, so I doubt it will happen.
Pundits and politicians, mainly in conservative quarters, have been predicting for
years now the return of inflation due to our ballooning federal debt. Such misplaced fear has justified austerity and sequestration, blunting GDP growth at precisely the time that a heavy dose of neo-Keynesian stimulus could have revived our moribund economy--and at record-low interest rates. Paul Krugman, with whom I've often disagreed about politics, has been very right on this issue. So where is this oft-predicted inflation spike that fiscal (GOP) chicken hawks have long forewarned us is just around the corner? Nowhere. We have been mired in a mild deflationary trap since the Crash of 2008. It's only with an unprecedented monetary stimulus (ZIRP, QE) that we have dodged outright deflation like that experienced in the Great Depression.
There has been
much hypocrisy about federal deficits in the past, mainly coming from the GOP when they're
out of power. Once they are ensconced in the White House (Reagan), and sometimes with the added plus of a Congressional majority (Bush the Younger), then it's no longer "Katy bar the door." The floodgates of fiscal "red ink" open once again--military spending, tax cuts--and we hear nary a word from the Republican party and its media mouthpieces about the looming specter of hyperinflation. Is there any doubt that Trump, with his proposed infrastructure spending and tax cuts, is poised to run up our federal debt even further?
So here's my question. As long as we're going to add another trillion dollars or so to the federal debt, what spending measure would give our economy the most bang for the buck? I have my own idea about that.
(02-24-2017, 11:01 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ] (02-23-2017, 03:17 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2017, 11:11 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]... I have suggested before on the previous forum that there is a singular, deft, and bold stroke that either the Democrats or Republicans could have proposed before the last election, a fiscal stimulus that would have accomplished two objectives: 1) provide an immediate boost to GDP growth, perhaps even achieving the elusive "escape velocity" to lift our economy out of its "secular stagnation," and 2) weds a huge segment of the Millennial cohort to the political party brave enough to enact it.
The entire fiscal stimulus loop has been analyzed to death. Yes, it gives a huge initial boost, but triggers a lot of inflation too. Unless the stimulus also creates huge gains in productivity, it will be subsumed in short order. Of course, that kind of stimulus can be enacted, but rent-seeking tends to kick in early, making it far less than what it should be.
I certainly don't trust Trump or his cronies to do this anywhere near right and the Dems are cowards, so I doubt it will happen.
Pundits and politicians, mainly in conservative quarters, have been predicting for years now the return of inflation due to our ballooning federal debt. Such misplaced fear has justified austerity and sequestration, blunting GDP growth at precisely the time that a heavy dose of neo-Keynesian stimulus could have revived our moribund economy--and at record-low interest rates. Paul Krugman, with whom I've often disagreed about politics, has been very right on this issue. So where is this oft-predicted inflation spike that fiscal (GOP) chicken hawks have long forewarned us is just around the corner? Nowhere. We have been mired in a mild deflationary trap since the Crash of 2008. It's only with an unprecedented monetary stimulus (ZIRP, QE) that we have dodged outright deflation like that experienced in the Great Depression.
There has been much hypocrisy about federal deficits in the past, mainly coming from the GOP when they're out of power. Once they are ensconced in the White House (Reagan), and sometimes with the added plus of a Congressional majority (Bush the Younger), then it's no longer "Katy bar the door." The floodgates of fiscal "red ink" open once again--military spending, tax cuts--and we hear nary a word from the Republican party and its media mouthpieces about the looming specter of hyperinflation. Is there any doubt that Trump, with his proposed infrastructure spending and tax cuts, is poised to run up our federal debt even further?
So here's my question. As long as we're going to add another trillion dollars or so to the federal debt, what spending measure would give our economy the most bang for the buck? I have my own idea about that.
I don't see us escaping from an inflation wave this time. The economy is already pretty tight. The real question is how far the prime movers in the private sector will push their newly won freedoms. I see this riding high for a short while, then crashing for the second time in less than 20 years.
There are many worthwhile projects that need attention and soon. I'm betting that this rent-seekers holiday will suck up all the money and none of the important things will be done. Then, the Dems will be hired to fix things like typical adults, the populace will be mad that they have to actually pay for it, and will them fire them in favor of the GOP again. Unless this crash is huge, and even the RW will have trouble blaming it on anyone but themselves, this could repeat, ad nauseam.
In recent news, David Horn denies possibility of change. In related news,
![[Image: old-man-yells-at-cloud-simpsons.jpg]](http://www.irkitated.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/old-man-yells-at-cloud-simpsons.jpg)
(02-20-2017, 12:59 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ] (02-20-2017, 12:15 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ] (02-20-2017, 11:59 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2017, 01:28 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]I don't normally read articles on The Daily Beast, but as I was grazing headlines today, this one caught my eye: "The Screwed Generation Turns Socialist"
The thrust of the article was about making distinctions among the generations with some supporting data. It even gave a nod to Strauss & Howe. The nascent embrace of socialism by Millennials has been revealed in previous surveys. What truly riveted my attention toward the end of the article was its reference to the Millennials' less-than-steadfast commitment to liberal democracy, as I have seen that tendency corroborated by another academic study recently:
...Yet even given these factors, Republicans have their work cut out for them as the generational wheel turns. Certainly, to be remotely competitive, they must abandon socially conservative ideas that offend most Millennials. The GOP’s best chance lies with making capitalism work for this group, sustaining upward mobility and expanding property ownership. If we see the creation of a vast generation of property serfs with little opportunity for advancement, America’s future is almost certain to be redder, a lot less market-oriented, and perhaps a lot more authoritarian than previous generations have ever contemplated.
For those who gave The Fourth Turning a close reading, Strauss & Howe vaguely alluded to just such a prospect. And, of course, the writer here means "redder" not as in red state, but as in cue the music and strike up "The Internationale."
Read further at this link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...alist.html
And as a follow-up to this post, especially as it relates to Millennial attitudes toward liberal democracy, and a detectable rising support for authoritarian alternatives:
"How Stable Are Democracies? ‘Warning Signs Are Flashing Red’"
Here are a few excerpts from the New York Times article published shortly after the election:
Yascha Mounk is used to being the most pessimistic person in the room. Mr. Mounk, a lecturer in government at Harvard, has spent the past few years challenging one of the bedrock assumptions of Western politics: that once a country becomes a liberal democracy, it will stay that way.
His research suggests something quite different: that liberal democracies around the world may be at serious risk of decline...
...Support for autocratic alternatives is rising, too. Drawing on data from the European and World Values Surveys, the researchers found that the share of Americans who say that army rule [Hooah!] would be a “good” or “very good” thing had risen to 1 in 6 in 2014, compared with 1 in 16 in 1995.
That trend is particularly strong among young people. For instance, in a previously published paper, the researchers calculated that 43 percent of older Americans believed it was illegitimate for the military to take over if the government were incompetent or failing to do its job, but only 19 percent of millennials agreed. The same generational divide showed up in Europe, where 53 percent of older people thought a military takeover would be illegitimate, while only 36 percent of millennials agreed.
In the United States, Donald J. Trump won the presidential election by running as an antisystem outsider. And support for antisystem populist parties in Europe, such as the National Front in France, Syriza in Greece and the Five-Star Movement in Italy, is rising.
Of course, this is just one paper. And the researchers’ approach, like all data-driven social science, has limitations. It is only as good as the survey data that underlies it, for instance, and it does not take into account other factors that could be important to overall stability, such as economic growth...
Read further at this link: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world...cracy.html
---*yawn* Marx said that once capitalism had run it's course the Revolution would commence
Now tell us something we don't know
Actually, the writer of The Daily Beast column betrays a leftist slant to his interpretation, perhaps even wishful thinking. I was being sarcastic in referring to the socialist hymn "The Internationale." If you read the study by Yascha Mounk cited in the NYT article, it's a potential authoritarianism of the Right (military takeover) to which he refers. Americans have little appetite for revolution, historically, notwithstanding our own war for independence. A small contingent of radicals have tried twice in America to light the fires of socialist revolution in the 20th century, to no avail. Indeed, they were stepped on (hard) by the powers that be. The real political momentum now--both here and abroad--lies with right-wing populist movements, not the Far Left.
More to follow...
-- yeah, the alt right would be capitalism's last gasp, it's death throws. Then after that comes the Revolution. Probably in time 4 the next Awakening
If there's a Revolution coming, the time will be the 2020s, not the next Awakening. Revolutions are more-likely in 4Ts.
Awakenings are times when movements get going. So, the movement is going. Now is the time to bring it to fruition.
(02-24-2017, 02:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]If there's a Revolution coming, the time will be the 2020s, not the next Awakening. Revolutions are more-likely in 4Ts.
Awakenings are times when movements get going. So, the movement is going. Now is the time to bring it to fruition.
-- damn Eric, that was quick. Anyhow, the 2020s would be even better. The less time we have to put up with capitalism's death throws the better
(02-24-2017, 11:01 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]So here's my question. As long as we're going to add another trillion dollars or so to the federal debt, what spending measure would give our economy the most bang for the buck? I have my own idea about that.
Isn't it going be tax cuts for the rich in the end? It's what Congress wants to do. What else would they sign on to? They
hate stimulus. What Trump has alluded to would make them throw up. Why would they go there? Look Warren is a Trump fan and he has already defined Republican-friendly stimulus as "supply-side stimulus". And what is that? Tax cuts. The more things change the more they stay the same.
But people are weird about Donald Trump. Here is a
Vox article
with the title "Trump just made it official: transgender students no longer have an ally in the White House". On what planet in what bizarro alternate universe, would Donald J Trump be an ally for transgender students???
CPAC Offers Utterly Uninspiring Vision for Millennials
Steve Bannon said yesterday that "economic nationalism" is a core tenet of Trump's vision. If that be true, the single largest generation in US history has to be asking, "What's in it for Me-llenials?" Not much that I can see so far. I say that the political alignment--if not loyalty--of this huge cohort is still up for grabs.
(02-24-2017, 02:55 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ] (02-24-2017, 02:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]If there's a Revolution coming, the time will be the 2020s, not the next Awakening. Revolutions are more-likely in 4Ts.
Awakenings are times when movements get going. So, the movement is going. Now is the time to bring it to fruition.
-- damn Eric, that was quick. Anyhow, the 2020s would be even better. The less time we have to put up with capitalism's death throws the better
I would say, capitalism as we know it today in America (an oligarchy in which a few CEOs and investors own most of the wealth, control politics through money, and use that politics to destroy everything valuable in order to maximize their profits) is a likely target of a genuine Revolution in the 2020s. Capitalism per se is a broader term, and an anti-capitalist revolution defined as some kind of permanent collectivist socialist takeover is less likely in America in this 4T, or any time in the future.