—Myca

I’d rephrase that as: There is a very real, very nasty element in the American polity, rife with angry, entitled class prejudice, that is rolling back the clock to the late 19th century.

Well, I think that’s giving them a bit too much credit. Remember how badly Social Security privatization turned out. The point is, the fact that they’re fighting a battle that can’t be won makes them more unhinged in some ways. Note the overwhelming victim complex, coming from a group of people who are basically protecting yacht owners from malnourished inner city children.

Meanwhile, the only definition of such “revolution” these days is “non-capitalist”, which basically means taking ownership away from private interest, and says nothing about what to supplant it with. Anarcho-syndicalists do not see eye-to-eye with authoritarian Communists, who also don’t necessarily agree with conventional far-left liberals, and in order to become “revolutionary” one has to pick a doctrine, otherwise you’ve nothing but screaming pointless contrariness.

There is a very real, very nasty element in the American polity, rife with angry, entitled class prejudice, that would like to roll back the clock to the late 19th century.

I’d rephrase that as: There is a very real, very nasty element in the American polity, rife with angry, entitled class prejudice, that is rolling back the clock to the late 19th century.

It’s probably about as accurate as saying medicare is ‘communism’.

Advocating less regulation is not the same thing as advocating NO regulation. There’s a big difference between advocating the elimination of all taxes and advocating the estate tax be eliminated in favor of carrying over the original basis price of the asset. (To pick a somewhat topical example) By conflating the two I think you’re trying to pull the same trick as when Medicare is called communism. You’re associating a particular position with the most extreme version of that position possible in an effort to discredit the position.

Austerity programs went way beyond repeal of the estate tax and Carter-esque winnowing of some regulations here and there. They are as fair an example of laissez-faire as the USSR was to communism.

But it’s nice to see that Robert, Myca Amp, and sylphhead all seem to agree that the OP is proposing a bad idea.

Workers’ revolutions are not necessary under a mixed market welfare state. We know this because all these leaders of neo-Marxist and Trotskyite revolutionary guard seem not to be the workers themselves, but…

“bourgeois” youth voluntarily renouncing their privilege, at least for a few years in college and afterwards.

That doesn’t mean the revolution has been won. There is a very real, very nasty element in the American polity, rife with angry, entitled class prejudice, that would like to roll back the clock to the late 19th century.

For the same reason that some rightists still believe in the New Capitalist Man. Aren’t you paying attention?

the only true revolutionary socialists are the kids selling newspapers on and around college campuses and in the Bay Area.

Ummmmm…I’m not sure about your classification of “revolutionary.” I mean, for me, a bourgeois white kid who doesn’t understand fully (but thinks s/he knows about) white privilege and just passes out a bunch of paper to folks whom they’ll never organize is not a revolutionary.

A handful of crabby economists is not a social movement; revolutionary socialism is.

Prior to WWII, revolutionary socialism was a social movement, but the energy and ideas of revolutionary socialism were subsumed into European social democratic movements, which took the social programs and things that would benefit society and ditched the ideological purity and Soviet Imperialism of pre-WW II Communism.

Right now, the only true laissez-faire people are the Ludwig von Mises Institute economists and the college Objectivists, and the only true revolutionary socialists are the kids selling newspapers on and around college campuses and in the Bay Area.

I’m not sure if “laissez-faire” is the correct term for the widespread economic beliefs that lead to things like the austerity programs; a worship of so-called free markets, a hatred of regulation, the cutting away of social support services, etc.. These beliefs are extremely widespread among influential people; they are the consensus belief among powerful conservatives, and also among “centrist” Democrats in leadership positions. And they do a lot of harm in the world, and generally create a fertile ground for crony capitalism

It’s probably about as accurate as saying medicare is ‘communism’.

Advocating less regulation is not the same thing as advocating NO regulation. There’s a big difference between advocating the elimination of all taxes and advocating the estate tax be eliminated in favor of carrying over the original basis price of the asset. (To pick a somewhat topical example) By conflating the two I think you’re trying to pull the same trick as when Medicare is called communism. You’re associating a particular position with the most extreme version of that position possible in an effort to discredit the position.

But it’s nice to see that Robert, Myca Amp, and sylphhead all seem to agree that the OP is proposing a bad idea.

Most of the leftists I know are not committed to a model of revolutionary socialism, especially if that means violent revolution. Your generalization about “leftists” seems unwarranted to me.

I’m not sure if “laissez-faire” is the correct term for the widespread economic beliefs that lead to things like the austerity programs; a worship of so-called free markets, a hatred of regulation, the cutting away of social support services, etc.. These beliefs are extremely widespread among influential people; they are the consensus belief among powerful conservatives, and also among “centrist” Democrats in leadership positions. And they do a lot of harm in the world, and generally create a fertile ground for crony capitalism.

Maybe you aren’t, but the OP seems to be.

But I don’t see the “100,000 masked youths” metric as the only valid measure as to judge whether a rogue ideology is dangerous. A hundred academics and shady well-heeled interests having the ear of government sounds a lot more nefarious to me.

Especially since the only serious internal attempt to overthrow the government came from the right, and was promoted by business interests, almost certainly as a way to reduce regulation.

Wow, actually, gosh, I guess that’s also true of the Civil War, isn’t it?

We don’t have to indulge your fantasies of 100,000 masked youths, Robert. The USA has had plenty of experience with actual danger from anti-regulation fanatics.

—Myca

Crony capitalism, which is what you saw in the “austerity” program countries, is not laissez-faire.

Totalitarian bureaucracy, which is what you saw in the USSR, is not communism.

The point is that crony capitalism is what laissez-faire inevitably leads to. If we’re lucky. Fascism is the other.

The only place in recent history that has tried laissez faire was Hong Kong.

Only a Westerner could differentiate between “Hong Kong” and “crony capitalism” in two sentences without a trace of irony.

But if Hong Kong is a shining model for laissez-faire, perhaps many of us liberals should be more open to the ideology, given that it would mean “laissez-faire” guarantees free medical care and housing.

Hong Kong has low taxes. That’s not synonymous with laissez-faire. It can afford low taxes because it does not need to pay for national security (it has a totalitarian communist daddy to take care of that), it’s a city-state (urban areas pay more in taxes, rural areas receive more), and it has a relatively young population (low dependency ratio). But its economic culture has very cozy ties between its corporations and its government, and some of its social programs are more generous than any in Europe.

let me know when 100,000 masked youths march through Paris demanding the government allow business to do as it pleases

Why are leftists so committed to a model of revolutionary socialism which has proven unworkable?

A handful of crabby economists is not a social movement; revolutionary socialism is.

We are not committed to a model of revolutionary socialism. We’re arguing that laissez-faire is analagous to communism, and we disapprove of laissez-faire. That formulation would not make sense if we did not disapprove of communism in turn.

But I don’t see the “100,000 masked youths” metric as the only valid measure as to judge whether a rogue ideology is dangerous. A hundred academics and shady well-heeled interests having the ear of government sounds a lot more nefarious to me.

The only place in recent history that has tried laissez faire was Hong Kong. And it worked pretty well there - but that was a very special case and I would not generalize it.

All of which is way off topic. The ludicrous attempt to equate the faith in revolutionary socialism with a nearly entirely academic economic libertarianism aside - let me know when 100,000 masked youths march through Paris demanding the government allow business to do as it pleases - I think my question is very valid.

Why are leftists so committed to a model of revolutionary socialism which has proven unworkable? If you insist on generalizing the phenomenon to other socioeconomic models, fine, answer that one too - but with a realistic, not rhetorical, view of who’s advocating for what. A handful of crabby economists is not a social movement; revolutionary socialism is.

100-year old examples all you got? Like I said, you can’t point to it, because it doesn’t exist here and now.

It used to exist, very recently, in Third World countries indebted to the IMF that were put on austerity programs. It was abandoned when it was discovered that in addition to the massive cost in human suffering, corruption, bigotry, and cronyism, it also plain didn’t work.