Political discourse has a long tradition of reasoning, of convincing the other political players in your system of your stance. But naturally all reasoning is motivated by emotions and games of power, and thus reason and unreason are inseparably entangled from the very beginning of politics itself, a condition which gets taken advantage of a lot.
In this thread we list up and discuss various means of strategies and tactics with which to take advantage in the aforementioned way. For starters, I will list up two common scare-tactics of contemporary politics.
Unemployment to a certain degree is actually good for the state and the economy. Companies are happy for every employee they don't need anymore. The state uses the statistics to suggest the constant prospect for employees to lose their jobs and share the ranks of those which the state tries to support less and less.
Thus they help the companies to establish poorer conditions for the employees who continously become more willing to accept these "inherent neccessities" of economy.
The term itself depends on current definitions which are provided by the state itself and can be expanded almost indefinitely, as long as the citizens are scared enough to believe that a broader definition of "terrorism" or "terrorist" will result in heightened general safety.
Doing this, the state acquires more justifications for more legitimized laws with which it can control its citizens better and more thoroughly.
This tactic works especially well, since terrorism already has happened which is a prerequisite to enact all kinds of preemptive measures againstt what has not yet happened, as can be seen that the terrorism subject has been used to give reason for war - the kind of politics which is the most difficult one to convince citizens of a democratic state of.
*FUD
The manure lefties instinctually begin spreading whenever conservatives are in power or a large corporation is in the vicinity. Be on the lookout for silliness such as the inherent evilness of large corporations and how they exploit the proletariat; and the "fact" that a government of a minority wishes to exert its power over the majority, despite the fact that, in all nations where lefties are free to spread such FUD without being imprisoned, the exact opposite is true.
While it is used a lot contemporarily, these themes have been around for a lot longer. I hesitate to put any timeline on their existence, but if we study propaganda from WWI through to now the current themes are nothing new.
They generally boil down to this:
The terrorists are evil (they're not us). We stand for justice and liberty, and will go liberate others. They'll welcome us too (lol)! GWB is an honest fellow, and will do what is right. He's our leader, don't question the president in times of war (cult of personality?). Our country is the greatest nation on Earth, the true light of democracy (greatness of nation). Etc
In recent times these have taken the guises of terrorism and employment. We laugh now at how the British and the Germans depicted each other during WWI & WWII. It was quite ludicrous, really. But the same thing is going on with the current Islam = Terrorist. I make no claims on the accuracy or lack thereof, but the parallels are obvious.
The better future manifests itself as employment (vote for me for a better economy!). For Mussolini is was turning Italy back into a glorious nation. For Churchill it was beating the Nazis (the destroyers of civilization). For Hitler it was ignoring the treaty of Versailles, getting rid of traitors (aka Weimar Republic and Jews), and making Germany prosperous once more. And so on.
It has very little to do with left or right either. Churchill, Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler all did it, and only one of them could have been defined as "left". Left/right muddles the issue anyway, and there have been compelling arguments that left/right is woefully insufficient to describe a political stance.
> * They're evil (they're not us).
Hello, >>2.
Nice knee-jerk reaction there, by the way. >>1 was not referring to any particular ideology, but to the processes of power and persuasion in general, used liberally by all sides. You were the one reading an attack on your own stance into it. Seems kind of insecure, no?
And now for some constructive remarks, instead.
I don't have much to add on the direct topic of this, as what has been said already pretty much covers it. However, a sidestep: To which degree do you think this kind of behaviour is a conscious effort to mislead the greater populance, and to which extent is it just a side-effect of the political discourse in general? Might it even be a sub-conscious reaction to having and wielding power?
Is there a conspiracy, or is there not?
> Is there a conspiracy, or is there not?
Politics are always characterized by the usage of calculus but (and this is just as important) only to an extent. The consequential politics are a matter of perspective and its respective cui bono. But even an "objective" interpretation and critique of history and the inherent prophecies within it ultimately depends on a specific theory of power and causation.
It soothes me that such a theory has never been perfect and never will be, and that all efforts of the "great men" and their followers to put these theories into practice, have failed so far, regardless of whether their empires have been made of stones and fire, pamphlets and bills or scriptures and poems. The fact that everything within this universe dies puts all games of powers, the open democratic discourse as well as tyranny and conspiracy, into their places and, in the end, their graves, and gives man ground enough keep up his spirit, no matter who "they" might be and how much power "they" might wield.
So yes, there are conspiracies. As soon as ethics come into politics with their moral demands to power, some kinds of powers require and adapt some sort of cloak, usually made of the same fabric as the ethics.
> >>1 was not referring to any particular ideology
Oh, please. The first argument stated that corporations like firing some employees and keeping the remaining ones in "poorer conditions," and the government helps them do it. The second is the old "The government labels anyone they don't like as a 'terrorist!'" argument, combined with "no preemptive strikes!" Ostensibly, it doesn't speak for or against any ideology, but if you read between the lines, all sorts of liberal FUD flags are raised..
By the way, according to the WakabaMark section of the documentation, my "*FUD" line should have done a bulleted list...
> all sorts of liberal FUD flags are raised
Words cannot begin to describe how I despise the American sentiment of "liberals vs conservatives" and the reactionary mudslinging it resorted to in the last decades, culminating in people like Michael Moore and Ann Coulter.
WAHa is right, though.
> according to the WakabaMark section of the documentation, my "*FUD" line should have done a bulleted list...
Needs more single space after the "*".
Also, why is hapsisve deleting all of his posts from 4-ch and WAKAchan? I smell a conspiracy.
> The first argument stated that corporations like firing some employees and keeping the remaining ones in "poorer conditions," and the government helps them do it.
Are you denying this, then? Do you claim corporation value the happiness of their employees above and beyond their profits? And do you deny that corporations lobby governments to pass laws that benefit them?
> The second is the old "The government labels anyone they don't like as a 'terrorist!'" argument, combined with "no preemptive strikes!" Ostensibly, it doesn't speak for or against any ideology, but if you read between the lines, all sorts of liberal FUD flags are raised.
Only if you take an incredibly narrow view of history would you come to that conclusion. You're reading an attack into Bush's government into this yourself. He is only the latest example of a long history of terrorist-baiting by left- and right-wing governments alike.
You still look like you are projecting your own insecurities into this discussion, sounding more like you are trying to rationalize your beliefs to yourself than to others.
> So yes, there are conspiracies.
Of course. A more interesting question might be: Which is more common, the plotting and scheming conspiracist, or the ultimately well-meaning but naïve or misguided person who adopts the manipulative tactics of the schemer because he, too, genuinely believes it, or at the very least takes it to be the way the world works?
I like it when Albright posts. While I may not agree with the stance, someone has to have a dissenting opinion in order for any sort of argument. o.o-b
I'd like to derail this argument a while and ask whether it will always be the case that a hegemony will end. Up until now the human condition has always been the same, certain needs and desires are universal. But the advancement of psychology, sociology and economics, and most specifically technology, grant significantly increased leverage to those in power. Will there finally come a time when a power relationship develops that will exist until the end of civilization?
In response to >>14, I think that both cases are true. I advance that a certain cynical mindset is required for, or at least developed by, a successful conspiracist. Thus, while many conspiracists may start with laudable beliefs, the final result is a jaded individual who plays the game for the sole sake of winning.
That's a tough question and one that has been persuaded for decades now without a definite answer. You might be interested in the Frankfurt School which had been focusing on these kinds an other topically related matters.
>Words cannot begin to describe how I despise the American sentiment of "liberals vs conservatives"
This is hardly a concept which is solely American. The question of the size and shape of the role a government should play in the life of its citizens predates the United States by centuries.
>Needs more single space after the "*".
Oh. Thanks.
>Are you denying this, then? Do you claim corporation[s] value the happiness of their employees above and beyond their profits?
Not necessarily; businesses exist to make money, not to make people happy (except to the extent that making money makes people happy). On the other hand, employees are integral to making a profit. In a free market, businesses have incentive to provide good conditions for their employees to the extent that happy, comfortable employees -- people who care about their job -- will make them more money than people who are unhappy, and couldn't care less whether the company sinks or swims. Say you're an experienced cook. Restaurant A offers a fifty-hour work week in a dingy kitchen for $2000 a month. Restaurant B offers a thirty-five hour week in a clean, modern kitchen for $2000 a month. Who do you want to work for? Your first choice will be Restaurant B, of course, and Restaurant A will have to hire one of the leftovers.
>And do you deny that corporations lobby governments to pass laws that benefit them?
Governments, yes; politicians, no. (Our government is not inherently evil. Some politicians are...) But if our government and/or politicians are so anti-worker, how come I can't make less than $6.75 an hour in California (over-the-table, anyway) and I am free to join a union (and hold a sickout during the busy holiday time... http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=365174 ) if I wish?
>Only if you take an incredibly narrow view of history would you come to that conclusion. You're reading an attack into Bush's government into this yourself. He is only the latest example of a long history of terrorist-baiting by left- and right-wing governments alike.
Well, it has only been recently when the word "terrorist" entered the everyday speech of America, both by government and otherwise. Would you care to provide examples of another case in history you and Citizen may be addressing?
>Will there finally come a time when a power relationship develops that will exist until the end of civilization?
Like capitalism? That's been around for millennia, though... :P
I don't think it's necessarily in the best interest of a company to keep happy workers. How else to explain the robber barons et al in the 19th century, the current mass labour in Asia, or the more popular recent example of Electronic Arts?
Union powers are weakening, BTW. While unions have their own set of problems, they did serve a purpose. I know that where I live the power of unions was shattered in the 1990's when the government changed the legislation.
Whilst this is true, in theory, in practice it tends to be the case that the real pressure on employers to provide good working conditions, high wages &c only comes when there is full or near-full employment. Businesses have the choice in such times of cutting their profitability by raising standards for the workers or of not doing so and losing their employees to those who will with the concommitant fall in profitability. The corollary is that businesses prefer that certain degree of flexibility in the workforce that results from a certain level of unemployment.
> Union powers are weakening, BTW.
Less employees in general = less union members = weaker unions
> On the other hand, employees are integral to making a profit. In a free market, businesses have incentive to provide good conditions for their employees to the extent that happy, comfortable employees -- people who care about their job -- will make them more money than people who are unhappy, and couldn't care less whether the company sinks or swims. Say you're an experienced cook. Restaurant A offers a fifty-hour work week in a dingy kitchen for $2000 a month. Restaurant B offers a thirty-five hour week in a clean, modern kitchen for $2000 a month. Who do you want to work for? Your first choice will be Restaurant B, of course, and Restaurant A will have to hire one of the leftovers.
So you are assuming everybody would play fair. The whole point that >>1 was making was that by increasing unemployment, employers can circumvent this whole selection process, because for the individual it's no longer a choice between employment at Restaurant A or B, it's a choice of working under shitty condition, or not working at all. Increasing unemployment tips the scales in favour of the employers.
Which seems to be the basic flaw in most of these free-market arguments: It is implicitly assumed that corporations, when given complete freedom, would play fair against each other and compete for the favours of consumers. Yet there is no reason for them to, when they could gang up with each other, and towards each other, and do their utmost to limit consumer choice so as not to have to compete. They do this already to the extent they are allowed, and I've seen no reasonable explanation to why they shouldn't continue to do so if they were left to alone by regulations.
Also,
> But if our government and/or politicians are so anti-worker
You are the one assuming this is an attack on your own government in particular; nobody else has claimed anything like that, remember?
>How else to explain the robber barons et al in the 19th century, the current mass labour in Asia, or the more popular recent example of Electronic Arts?
Sorry, I don't see where you're going with this. I don't recall what robber barons had to do with labor (weren't they stock market manipulators?), "mass labor in Asia" is quite vague, and I'm unfamiliar with what EA has done. (Are you referring to the exclusive NFL game license deal?)
>>20: Good point; I'll give you that one. That's the law of supply and demand...
>>21: It's probably not a matter of less employment; more likely, it's just more people choosing to opt out of joining a union because they don't feel the benefits are worth giving up a portion of their paycheck. I know many conservatives don't like joining unions that make large donations to liberal political candidates...
>>22: A free-market economy does allow for the rise of monolithic corporations, but it also supports the creation and development of small ones. If there really is a limit to consumer choice, a small company may be able to break that limit by offering other choices, which will allow it to profit and grow at the same time.
Remember, Wal-Mart started with only one store. Enough people thought that a ridiculously large store selling a lot of cheap crap of just enough quality to be usable was a good idea, so it grew from there, outpacing old Sears and K-Mart.
My point was that it is not necessarily the case that companies are interested in good working conditions for the worker. This was a response to a point made in >>18.
Good working conditions are only one part of a larger equation. If a company can get away with it, it'll happily ignore conditions to increase profit.
I have a feeling that we've both misunderstood what the other is saying though. I agree in a typical case it is in the company's best interest to keep en employee happy. I'm just looking at extreme examples, which I believe is the end-state of a true laissez-faire economy.
Too bad a lot of companies recently are ignoring employee conditions, seeing short-term maximization of share price above long-term viability (hello Carly Fiorina). I like companies that take a long-term strategy, since they're the ones that invest in employees, do research and so forth.
As for the EA brouhaha, it was all sparked by EA Spouse: http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/274.html
> This is hardly a concept which is solely American. The question of the size and shape of the role a government should play in the life of its citizens predates the United States by centuries.
The second assertion is right but doesn't have anything to do with the first, which is wrong. The dichotomy of liberal / conservative is so essential American that it is almost exclusively used in an American context. There are indeed other dichotomies to characterize "the size and shape of the role a government should play", like revolutionary/reactionary, communist/capitalist, etc.
> If there really is a limit to consumer choice, a small company may be able to break that limit by offering other choices, which will allow it to profit and grow at the same time.
They can do that now, and it hardly ever happens. Why would it happen if the large monopolies are given even more freedom to choke those who try to challenge them? Not only does the smaller company have higher operating costs, and thus won't be able to compete price-wise, the large monopoly could, if not restrained by regulations, pressure its suppliers to not do business with the small company.
Microsoft is well known for doing this already, and attempts to get them under control by regulators have not been very successful, due to the limited power they wield. Why would decreasing this power even more be beneficial to anyone but Microsoft?
> The dichotomy of liberal / conservative is so essential American that it is almost exclusively used in an American context.
Indeed. These words have vastly different meanings in the American political discourse than they do in the rest of the world, or than what even an American dictionary defines them as. I've quoted this before, but I think it's time to do it again:
lib·er·al
adj.
con·ser·va·tive
adj.
>They can do that now, and it hardly ever happens.
It happens constantly! See the rise of organic foods in the last ten years. Folks saw that there was a market selling organic foods to folks, so they went ahead and started doing it. Now the organic foods market is gangbusters, even though organic foods usually cost more than the pesticidey standards. Look at Linux and the companies profiting from it, like Red Hat (and how scared SCO and Microsoft are). Look at the rise of cheap-but-decent-enough car companies in the US like Daewoo and Kia. Look at JetBlue airlines. Look at Subway eating into McDonalds' and Burger King's market, and then Quizno's eating into Subway's market. And, again, remember Wal-Mart (and McDonald's, and Blockbuster, et al) started with just one store.
I have two choices of local video game stores; one, GameStop, who has one of their thousands of stores in a mall twenty miles away, which is too small with really thin aisles so you have to turn sideways to pass people; typically long lines; and staff who are usually too busy or distracted to offer help or to chat with. Or two, Crasty's Total Gamer ( http://www.crastys.com/ ), who has one of their three stores in my hometown, has a nice large store with wide aisles and friendly staff who are never too busy to chat. Given that both stores generally have a good selection of new and used stuff, guess which store I prefer to patronize?
And don't you think Crasty sometimes dreams of having his name on thousands of stores worldwide?
>The dichotomy of liberal / conservative is so essential American that it is almost exclusively used in an American context.
>Indeed. ["Liberal" and "Conservative"] have vastly different meanings in the American political discourse than they do in the rest of the world
I think you all are trying to make the words mean things more complex than they do. "Liberal" in the political sense means those who think the cure for societal ills is more government involvement, and "Conservatives" think the answer is less government involvement. I don't see how the concept of "How much power should the government have?" could be a purely American concept... Is political debate dead in the rest of the world?
> It happens constantly!
And for each of those examples, how many failures are there? How many small businesses have been strangled by the monopolistic behemots? And you didn't explain why a freer market would be better for the small businesses, instead of the large ones.
Linux is an interesting topic, though. However, it isn't really relevant to either of our points, since it's playing outside the rules of the market entirely by relying on volunteers. The companies benefitting from it are essentially getting a free ride (not that they're not helping out, too, but that's just a small piece of the whole puzzle). It's one of the first and most positive signs of the end of scarcity, but that's a topic for another thread.
> "Liberal" in the political sense means those who think the cure for societal ills is more government involvement, and "Conservatives" think the answer is less government involvement.
What we are trying to point out here is that those WORDS are purely an American construct. The dictionary definitions of those words are completely different from this supposed political definition of them, and thus we dislike using them because they are extremely misleading. "Liberal" and "conservative" are used in very different ways in political discourse in the rest of the world.
The question of government power is an important one, but dividing the political spectrum based on this one sole question is a gross oversimplification, much like any other division. And using misleading labels like "liberal" and "conservative" only muddles the issue further.
> "Liberal" in the political sense means those who think the cure for societal ills is more government involvement, and "Conservatives" think the answer is less government involvement.
And see, in the European tradition, "liberals" are mostly classified as those who think the answer is less government involvement, contrary to the American definition of the word.
Also, "conservative" is mostly applied to a whole different aspect of politics, mostly that of "conserving traditional values" (i.e. hardcore Christians and such), at least here in Europe.
>And for each of those examples, how many failures are there?
Given time, all companies will fail, even the big ones.
>And you didn't explain why a freer market would be better for the small businesses, instead of the large ones.
It would be better for both. Large companies have an easier time at continuing to turn a profit, and small companies have fewer obstacles in their path to become large ones.
Exactly which types of free-market restrictions would you like to see? Anti-trust laws? High taxes? Recently there was a ballot measure here in California that would have required all companies with twenty or more employees to offer health care to those employees. It didn't pass, but I guarantee you that if it did, many companies that had twenty to thirty employees would have suddenly had nineteen...
> It would be better for both. Large companies have an easier time at continuing to turn a profit, and small companies have fewer obstacles in their path to become large ones.
And when the obstacle the smaller companies face is the larger companies? Not just their market share, but the fact that they can sacrifice large amounts of money to drive the smaller companies out of business, or use their power over their suppliers to cut off the small companies?
We need a "Das Kapital" reading circle thread for these kind of off-topic discussions.
>>33: Then, again, what's your solution? Have a size limit so companies can't grow too big? Make it so big companies can't spend the money they earn on increasing or maintaining their size? I suppose we should institute "maximum wage" laws too...
If a small company better fills the need of the marketplace than a big company, the big companies are not a problem.
>>34: How is this off-topic?
Well, it doesn't really have too much to do with the original subject of this thread. But that seems to inevitably become the case whenever political and economical issues are getting mixed in a discussion.
Breaking up companies when they get so large that they threaten competition within the marketplace is common enough in the world today ; capitalism and monopolies don't go together.
yeah, the gov is a monopoly already.
>If a small company better fills the need of the marketplace than a big company, the big companies are not a problem.
That doesn't address the issue of big companies with enough resources to outsell smaller companies at their own game. A bit of extra research spending and big companies will have no trouble deriving a product based on the up-and-coming consumer favourite, selling it for a cheaper price, and making it generally more available to a wider audience.
Once the smaller company who came up with the idea is driven out of business, well... Assimilation of the new product into an existing product line and turning it into more of the same old thing isn't unheard of.