What Jimmy Taught Us

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (22)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  Socialism is NOT democracy.  It is fascism.  By definition a people can not be “free” and be socialist or marxist.
  Socialism has destroyed countless economies by removing all incentive.  It makes me think you are just an anarchist looking to reduce America to the level of Cuba.
  Don’t be afraid to read some economic books- you might learn something!!!

  Posted by Jon on Jul 8, 2005 at 7:09 AM

  you’re obviously retarded.

  Posted by mike on Jul 8, 2005 at 11:45 AM

  Right on, Jon. These socialist kooks need
  to read Capitalism by George Reisman.
  mikey has a severe case of jock itch
  today so just ignore him.

  Posted by Martin on Jul 8, 2005 at 12:29 PM

  you right wingers’ slavish devotion to free market capitalism has left you more than blind and ignorant.  it’s reduced yout to mere pawns and suckers for a political class who love to do nothing more than rob you blind.  and in response you’d likely turn to rob someone else to get yours back.  which is the moral flaw with your ideology.

  selfish, self-centered, corrupt idiocy.

  Posted by get-your-head-out-your-ass on Jul 8, 2005 at 12:43 PM

  It is totally killing me to see the above comments.  We need a civil, respectful debate, not the self-righteous spewing of sided banther. If we keep seeing each other as being equally retarded, where the heck is that going to leave us?  I’ve got to side with the left, though i don’t know how socialism can be easily defined without being mistaken for one stereotype or another.

  in other news,
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1522983,00.html

  Posted by surge on Jul 8, 2005 at 10:22 PM

  good another commie prick dead- let me know when Kennedy schumer(that NY scumbag) and boxer and feinstien die . Maybe we can have a liberal-socilaist free country again someday. I wish all you commie scumbags would die.

  Posted by deadcommie is goodcommie on Jul 9, 2005 at 7:10 PM

  yeah anybody that does not agree with your stupid commie crap is retarded right? some diversity and tolerance ya got there commie asshole. Hypocrite bastards all of you. When can we start the war on liberals and commies here in America? when the war comes ( and it will) I wish you all a painful death for what you have done to America.

  Posted by stop the commies on Jul 9, 2005 at 7:13 PM

  Once again so called"conservatives" devolve to the usual bombast and perjoratives with sound and fury signifying nothing. To Jon: commnunisim does not equal fascism. Fascism is a different system;strong government backing of corporate capitalism.Don’t confuse the economic system with the government system; they are not one and the same. Fascism is opposed to Communism, that is why “good” capitalists tried to overthrow the U.S. government in the 1930’s (see references to General Smedley Darlington Butler) when their interests were threatened by Roosevelt’s “New Deal” legislative agenda which they percieved as “socialist”. Many famous people of the era were supportive of the NAZI government of Germany and openly admired other fascist governments.  I would suggest that you re-read “Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith, especially his metaphor regarding “the invisible hand” then read “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” also by Adam Smith. Then read any summary of Karl Marx; I suggest “Marx for Beginners” by Rius as the absolutely easiest to read(funny, too) so that you can come intellectually armed to critique any “commie” or speak intelligently on capitalism.
  As economies evolve, so will capitalism. The problem is that the U.S. is trying to return to the capitalism of the early 20’th century and the rest of the world is moving beyond that (See Lester Thurow’s books “Head To Head” and “Dangerous Currents") Under this administration’s dogma, we will just spin our wheels without progress and find ourselves in a morass which will be difficult if not impossible to extricate ourselves for years to come.

  Posted by Angelo on Jul 10, 2005 at 3:38 AM

  Excellent article by Joel Bleifuss in spite of the venomous posters who are unable to write or express themselves without insults. 

  Unfortunately, we have devolved into a so-called dialogue and separated into categories of either/or, black or white, which amount to the name-calling which is all too prevalent in the world of cyberspace. Name-calling simply covers up for their crass ignorance and inability to engage in an intelligent discussion on anything.

  I’m sure that anyone who has bothered to open a book on economics must have a basic understanding of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. 

  I know of no country which is free of socialistic policies completely, including our own. To suggest that every economic policy must genuflect at the feet of a capitalistic, profit-oriented system one would presume that they also support plutocracies and oligarchies which always put their self-interests above all.

  Adam Smith simply believed that the wealth, goods and services produced in one’s own country should be consumed and shared within one’s own country.  He did not mean exploit the work force, pay paltry wages and once you’ve used the sweat and blood of the workers, throw them out on the street. Had it not been for strong unions who stood up for the average worker, pension plans, health benefits, decent living wages and laws against child exploitation in the workplace would never have seen the light of day.

  The Bush administration and his corporate thralls are working hard, yes, “working real hard” to turn back the clock to those early 20th Century “halcyon” days when worker rights were nil. 

  The current policies of the Bush government consistently favor the wealthiest elite, exempting many from paying a single dime in taxes, which, by the way, are among the lowest in any industrialized country, yet the ever-greedy capitalists demand more.

  Departing and abandoning workplace and health regulations and laws in our own country have led to increased outsourcing of jobs overseas where, even where there are worker protection laws on the books, they are seldom enforced while greedy profiteers stash their monetary gains in tax shelter havens and in offshore banks with phony company names.

  Those are just a few of the “moral values” celebrated and practiced by the new GOP power-crazed, corrupt corporate czars who would sell their own mother or sacrifice their own offspring if they thought they could make an extra buck.

  And that’s exactly why it’s so easy for them to do the same to our country. Their unapologetic greed has no allegiance or patriotism to any country nor any boundaries which they will not exceed to slake their insatiable appetites for personal wealth.

  No wonder they eye so covetously the riches and resources of other countries whose government leaders are equally as eager to exploit their own people and no wonder that they so readily talk of waging war as if war is just another special purpose entity to increase their bottom line.

  Posted by Richard on Jul 10, 2005 at 9:26 AM

  Adam Smith was a total believer in free,
  international trade and was not at all
  as Richard described. He repudiated protectionism
  root and branch and advocated total globalization
  as to both people and money.
  He believed in open borders and was an advocate
  of benevolent self-interest.
  The rich pay an enormous amount in taxes
  and so do many of us in the middle class.
  One great value of George Reisman’s work titled
  Capitalism is its integration of Smith’s classical
  economics with Austrian economics.
  Every thing that Richard says about Smith and
  capitalism is in error. But check out the
  Reisman book, read Smith too in tandem with
  Reisman.
  Fascism and communism are identical in their
  statist-collectivist premises. The fascists
  want to regulate and control everything exactly
  like our liberals while the Communists now
  agree with that too because they realize that
  nationalization is a proven failure.
  As far as only the Right setting the bad tone,
  please spare us your selective indignation,
  Angelo. You obviously haven’t read many of
  the leftist postings on this board if you
  believe the ignorant crap that you spout.

  Posted by Martin on Jul 11, 2005 at 4:29 PM

  Martin:
  You had me there until you came out of your face with that last crack.

  My indignation is far from selective, had you read the post c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y you would have noticed that I also suggested that you read “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” along with “Wealth of Nations” because even Adam Smith understood that capitalism needed some sort of moral grounding;you see, Adam Smith was not an economist, he was a moral philosopher.

  “Wealth” is not the only treatise on economics-I would suggest “Principles of Political Economy” by John Stuart Mill which discusses the function of government in the progress of democracy. By the way, JSM was a liberal utilitarian who published the book in 1848.

  There is also “The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation” published in 1817 by David Ricardo which also explores further the concept of the political economy which Adam Smith only covers the surface of. Lastly, there is “Progress and Poverty” written by Henry George in 1880 where he discusses in depth why there is persistent poverty in otherwise affluent societies.

  Adam Smith is not the be all and end all of ecomomic thought; and I have yet to see Supply side thought disprove Keynesian theory. Richard is not advocating overthrowing capitalism, rather he is advocating making the institutions within it more resposive to the people through government. I said that capitalism would evolve, as all systems do, and that the U.S. style would be forced to do so as well. Anyone who does not see this happening I would accuse of being ignorant.

  So I would check a mirror if I were you before you call someone “ignorant”

  Posted by Angelo on Jul 11, 2005 at 5:23 PM

  I’m familiar with all of the above
  classics that you reference but you
  might benefit from the Reisman book
  which combines the best insights of
  the classics, including a reworking
  of the exploitation thesis, with Austrian
  economics.
  Keynesian theory was disproved long ago,
  see The Failure of The New Economics
  and Critics of Keynesian Economics by
  Henry Hazlitt. Von Mises shredded Keynes
  in Human Action (1949) and Murray Rothbard
  did the same in his 2 vol Man, Economy and
  State (1962).
  Smith is a far better economist than a moral
  philosopher, he is nothing in that area compared
  to Ayn Rand, see her work Atlas Shrugged.
  My last sentence is true, you had the gall
  to only complain about the rude rightist rants
  and I agree those are bad but far from the only
  bad rants on this site.
  The US system will evolve out of the semi-fascist
  mixed economy into pure laissez-faire.
  We have already tried the social democratic
  variations and they have failed.
  I’m not an admirer of supply side economics
  but the only reason they came to power is the
  complete collapse of the Keynesian Paradigm
  25-30 years ago.
  Next lightweight, please.
  I never wrote that Smith was the end all of all
  economics.
  Can’t you even read straight ?
  Don’t worry about the mirror, do something
  about your monumental ignorance.

  Posted by Martin on Jul 11, 2005 at 6:21 PM

  Martin:
  Again. You cannot resist using pejoritive zingers can you? Let’s get down to brass tacks: Reisman and Rand both belong to a minority viewpoint namely, the Austrian School of economic thought. While Ayn Rand’s works are highly romantic IMHO they no more have any revelance to economic thought than Wuthering Heights has to getting laid.

  While you may think that Keynes has been “disproven” the present economy would indicate otherwise. Most people are consumers, and not savers-in a way supply siders agree with that premise, hence this adminstrations focus on tax cuts for the wealthy.

  As to my indignation; if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you don’t like the rhetoric that the “left” espouses-well, buck up. The conservative right hasn’t exactly been nice and polite either. Remember, you used the pejoratives, not me. I don’t have to call names to point out the weaknesses in a idea or get personal in order to show errors in thinking. Now if you wish we can have a discussion on ideas and maybe you might be able to enlighten me (doubt it)
  on the other hand, if you want to play the dozens, i’ll make you run home to yo mama. Your choice.

  Posted by Angelo on Jul 12, 2005 at 5:39 AM

  Angelo, you’re quite the wannabe thug, aren’t you ? In person your a sissy pants of sissy pants.
  I have already made attempts to enlighten you with
  brief arguments backed by references.
  Now it is up to you to get off your fat, lazy
  ass and do the homework.
  People are producers before they are consumers,
  read the works on Keynes that I cited.
  Rand was not an Austrian economist, she was
  a novelist and philosopher with a tremendous
  interest in economics, indeed Atlas Shrugged is
  a paen to economics but you need to read it,
  it is not my job to enlighten you, you need
  to enlighten yourself and I have been kind
  enough to suggest ways to do this.
  It doesn’t matter if the Austrians are a
  minority school but if they are correct and
  again YOU have to read their works if you
  want to find out. I’m not here to save you
  or be your big brother or brother’s keeper.
  Now close the big mouth in overdrive and open
  the mind currently stuck in neutral.
  Do not waste my time with anymore of your
  juvenile communications and yes, you have been
  nasty & insulting but you are just one of many
  jerks whose stinky butts I have kicked on this
  board.
  Could yo’ mama even LOCATE yo’ papa ?

  Posted by Martin on Jul 12, 2005 at 9:50 AM

  Angelo,

  Michael Hardesty, aka Martin, Steverino, Mikey, Peter, Jack Barnes, etc., etc., is a paid conservative TROLL who posts under numerous names (including hijacking other posters’ screen names), and has conversations with himself in order to disrupt liberal discourse. JUST IGNORE HIM.

  Do a Google search for Michael Hardesty.  You’ll find that he does the same thing on other liberal message boards.  He’s on Tom Delay’s payroll.

  Posted by Lefty on Jul 12, 2005 at 10:49 AM

  BTW angelo, I travel under the premise that there are only 2 kinds of conservatives: 1) idiots, and 2) crooks.

  Posted by Lefty on Jul 12, 2005 at 10:52 AM

  The bottom line is that serious liberal print like ITT needs financial support, and it ain’t gonna come from Michael Hardesty.

  Posted by Lefty on Jul 12, 2005 at 10:55 AM

  How strange that a link to a 16 month old Kurt Vonnegut article led me to death notice of James Weinstein. IN THESE TIMES must carry on.
  Send money.

  Posted by ishtarsunstar on Aug 9, 2005 at 9:41 AM

  good another commie prick dead- let me know when Kennedy schumer(that NY scumbag) and boxer and feinstien die . Maybe we can have a liberal-socilaist free country again someday. I wish all you commie scumbags would die.
  Posted by deadcommie is goodcommie on July 9, 2005 at 8:10 PM

  What a cocksucking insensitive piece of shit you are. I could spew on here how much I wish to see the brains (what little there are of them) of that asshole GW, but I won’t. Fuck you , get colon cance and die, fucking worthless asshole.

  Posted by Ammonia D on Sep 1, 2005 at 12:49 AM

  My God -
  Ammonia D, are you trapped in New Orleans?
  Help is on the way, first we had to knock out the fascists.

  While I’m here, some Bibliomancy:

  socialism (noun) 1. A social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.
  from SOCIUS, companion, partner

  communism (noun) 1. A social system characterized by the absence of classes and by common ownership of the means of production and subsistence. from COMMUN, common

  fascism (noun) 1. A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership… from FASCIS, bundle

  liberal (adj.) 1. Having, expressing, or following social or political views or policies that favor non-revolutionary progress and reform. 2. Having, expressing or following views or policies that favor the freedom of individuals to act and express themselves in a manner of their own choosing. 8. (obsolete) a. Permissible or appropriate for a free man. b. Unrestrained. from LIBER, free. LIBER+, book
  Rooted in the quality of one who reads.

  Posted by ishtarsunstar on Sep 5, 2005 at 9:09 AM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Joel Bleifuss

• Keep the Heat on Obama
  
• EPA on Trial
  
• Bush’s Selective Mourning
  
• Piling it High
  The sewage sludge industry meets the light of day
• Political Vice Squad
  
• Red-Boating Obama