When you are starving, and there are dirt roads, there is progress to be made, but once there is enough to eat, more food is not progress, and once the roads are paved, covering everyone's garden in slabs and tarmac is not progress. — unenlightened

But wouldn't you agree, unenlightened, that what has happened in China is that kind of progress that you do accept? It genuinely has been about turning dirt roads to highways, creating the World's biggest high-speed rail system and an impressive effort in renewable energy resources among other things. The scale of the development is at first hard to understand.

If I would have born as a Chinese person, the country at my birth (1971) was something totally different than now. My actual country is a lot more similar to the one it was in 1971 than China then compared to the country today. I don't like the Chinese communists, but they sure have done quite a historical job.

t these issues I think are serious problem for someone, for instance in a philosophy context, using China as an example of how capitalism is "good". — boethius

Capitalism has come always in many flavors. Yet the amount of Chinese billionaires shows that indeed the Chinese system is a hybrid. To me modern China is more of an example of fascism than socialism.
What has been especially problematic has been the insistence that 'capitalism' has to go with a liberal democracy or that they somehow are intrinsically together. Earlier it was the German Empire, then the Third Reich, which were capitalist at some level, yet not at all liberal.

In terms of Chavez, the main issue is with American imperialism in South America and opposition to that. So, in this framework, Chavez was good vis-a-vis showing US interests could be opposed, but I don't think many informed commentators believed Chavez's plans were guaranteed to work. - However, I am very doubtful any ardent commentator was pointing to Venezuela as the example of "social democracy done right" and a soon-to-be great model to follow — boethius

You think so? Just look at what people said before the problems were totally evident.

Just to give one example of a multitude of commentaries, here is Richard Gott of the Guardian in May 2005:

Something amazing has been taking place in Latin America in recent years that deserves wider attention than the continent has been accustomed to attract. The chrysalis of the Venezuelan revolution led by Chávez, often attacked and derided as the incoherent vision of an authoritarian leader, has finally emerged as a resplendent butterfly whose image and example will radiate for decades to come.
-
The Chávez government, for its part, has forged ahead with various spectacular social projects, assisted by the huge jump in oil prices, from $10 to $50 a barrel over the past six years. Instead of gushing into the coffers of the already wealthy, the oil pipelines have been picked up and directed into the shanty towns, funding health, education and cheap food. Foreign leaders from Spain and Brazil, Chile and Cuba, have come on pilgrimage to Caracas to establish links with the man now perceived as the leader of new emerging forces in Latin America, with popularity ratings to match. This extensive external support has stymied the plans of the US government to rally the countries of Latin America against Venezuela. They are not listening, and Washington is left without a policy.
-
So, what does his Bolivarian revolution consist of? He is friendly with Castro - indeed, they are close allies - yet he is no out-of-fashion state socialist. Capitalism is alive and well in Venezuela - and secure. There have been no illegal land seizures, no nationalisations of private companies. Chávez seeks to curb the excesses of what he terms "savage neo-liberalism", and he wants the state to play an intelligent and enabling role in the economy, but he has no desire to crush small businesses, as has happened in Cuba. International oil companies have fallen over themselves to provide fresh investment, even after the government increased the royalties that they have to pay. Venezuela remains a golden goose that cannot be ignored.

See Chávez leads the way

And there you see it. The Chavez worshipper assures us that Capitalism is alive and well in Venezuela, denies that Chavez is an out-of-fashion state socialist and is only curbing the "savage neo-liberalism". Yes, a golden goose that cannot be ignored indeed.

This is what I'm talking about. From earlier times I have books written by Westerners who praise the Maoist cultural revolution against the decadent capitalist West. So my point again: look at what the critics give as examples of positive approaches to solving the problems. What are they enthusiastic about. It's quite telling.

But they are probably talking past each other. — Bitter Crank

Not actually,

Even if it is difficult for a clinical psychologist to understand a philosopher (who knows that he would be on thin ice if he would start talking about clinical psychology and hence sticks to philosophy), the two make it through the discussion. To the outrage or disappointment of their supporters, they find a lot of common ground.

I think Krugman misses one important point.

That is that this debacle, which is a culminating triumph for the Russian intelligence services, is simply a huge embarrasment for the US. The US government looks like naive fools. The US government doesn't want to look like this, so there is an urge to go forward and forget the whole thing.

I genuinely think that if it wouldn't be for Mr. Inept Trainwreck, there naturally wouldn't have been any Mueller report and then the official FBI report done under Comey's supervision, would have just stated that "yes, the Russians interfered in the US elections". Period. Nothing else. Move on folks, nothing to see.

Yet Agent Trumpov, the agent that simply could not keep his mouth shut when it was the only thing he had to do, gave us this farce by firing Comey and did the utmost to damage his Presidency by his open panic about the inquiry. Just how pathetic is it that in this report it clearly states that Agent Trumpov wanted to obstruct justice, but his staff simply would not follow his orders.

By "fight off possibility of famine", do you mean the great leap forward? — boethius

Well, that "great leap" indeed caused a famine that killed officially 15 million, and perhaps twice the number, yet I meant to say that after the last death rattles of Maoism, Communist China still had to be really careful in avoiding famine in the 1970's.

In terms of an example of capitalism succeeding, it's not necessarily straightforward task to argue that Communist China is exemplary. Though, I'm not sure that's your intention — boethius

Deng Xiaoping's famous argument, "It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white; as long as it catches mice, it’s a good cat." explains quite well the Chinese Communists approach to Capitalism. Of course communists living in the West don't at all see it in the same way.

. And I'd say most people offering criticism (allowed to talk) in the mainstream will still accept this general framework, and then offer a few worries about sustainability and human rights and some potential tweaks to address those issues. — boethius

Yet here's the problem: look at what they really embrace for their 'more responsible' and 'just' economic growth.

Usually they aren't at all inspired if a country embraces liberalism and capitalism and starts working up the steps in the globalized market. No, the most ardent critical commentators see the as the 'positive' approach Venezuela of Hugo Chávez (before the problems were evident) or other socialist countries. I even remember this praise about Eritrea, which is a really odd dictatorship.

I think the reason is that because the whole perspective about capitalism and free market economy is negative, then those economies that not only curb the excesses, but actual obstruct the market mechanism are hailed as something good.

I've said some stuff. You say some stuff, and then we'll compare. But try not to create a straw man argument based on the virtue of the poor. — unenlightened

?

I'm not trying to bully you. I just wanted to ask a question about how economic growth and the rise of prosperity do fit to the traditional narrative.

In our lifetime we have witnessed the largest expansion of wealth and prosperity and the decline of absolute povetry especially with the rapid historical economic growth in China, but also the growth in South East Asia in general. Also India has made rapid progress.

Yet where do we see this in the discourse about global povetry? Usually nowhere.

You complain about people not reading Greenwald but Mueller had described several instances of what could be considered obstruction and yet this is your take away. Have you read it? It's because a sitting president cannot be indicted that Mueller doesn't reach conclusions with respect to obstruction. Here's a nice visual that shows at least 4 instances described by Mueller are basically hard evidence of obstruction: — Benkei

Great answer.

Isn't that what you high-toned philosophers call an ad hominem? If you chose to, you could read what Greenwald wrote and challenge his substantive points. But why bother? — fishfry

Oh I've listened to Mr Greenwald. Not only commenting this issue, but also how Mr. Greenwald defends the Venezuelan regime and how it hasn't done much wrong, but how evil Americans are the real culprit of everything bad that has happened in the country.

Basically Mr Greenwald is also a pure example of how a sensationalist journalist has to, very unfortunately, pick his side and after that turns into a supporter of the side he or she backs up. The most unfortunate thing is that it's not actually the 'side' that supports the journalist, it's the obnoxious followers that create the fan base for these journalists. A Conspiracy whistleblower is sucked into appeasing the conspircacy crowd. So Mr. Greenwald assisted Edward Snowden and published Snowden's findings, which then forced Snowden to seek refuge from Russia. And then Greenwald was the instant hit with the conspiracy theorists and especially with the Alex Jones conspiracy crowd also. And this then easily shows what kind of journalism Glenn goes after:

From its hawkish immigration crackdown, to its support of Saudi Arabia even after details of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder came to light, the Trump administration has mired itself in countless scandals that a younger Greenwald might have sought to expose. But the gadfly who now calls Brazil his home has reserved his powder for attacks on the Democratic Party and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, in a quest to draw “attention to things that were being overlooked.”

“Obviously the people who engage in money laundering and tax fraud and the like belong in prison, and I am happy Paul Manafort is there,” said Greenwald. But The Intercept founder says there are “tons” of Trump’s policies he agrees with, such as the president’s stance on Russia and NATO.

The simple reason why it is so is that people simply cannot tolerate that somebody would be critical of both sides. Greenwald would be then a "sell off", who would "betray the cause" if he would be critical in this case and simply would loose his audience. And then there wouldn't be any money. That's how it goes.

So how does Glen Greenwald answer the allegations of Russian involvement. With a tight rope performance, I would say:

On the question of whether the Russians are behind the hacks, I think the officials provided a lot of detail about who did it and how they know. Even though there are no underlying documents, you have to essentially believe that Mueller invented it or fabricated it, which I do not think is likely. I do regard the Mueller indictment as some evidence, not conclusive, but at least some evidence finally that the Russians are involved, but that doesn’t say the extent to which Putin was involved, let alone the extent to which Trump officials are criminally implicated.

And later,

I don’t think there can be any question that the most significant finding has to be about the allegations that kicked off the entire saga almost three years ago, which was the two-pronged conspiracy theory that Donald Trump worked with, coordinated, collaborated and conspired with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election and that Donald Trump is captive to Vladimir Putin as a result of a variety of blackmail, leverage and other forms of links that allow the Kremlin to dictate to the White House what it is that they’re supposed to do.

Of course, there are many other issues at play in comparing first world and sub-Saharan African energy usages. Do you find this disparity congruent with your expectations of capitalism as it is, incongruent, or do you find other factors more important? — boethius

There's a lesson in these comparisons:

Do you know that the GDP of China was equivalent of the Netherlands in the 1990's? It actually was and earlier it was far lower as the Chinese really had to fight off the possibility of famine.

And now the GDP is second to the US. There is no possibility of famine in China. So what happened? Did Bob Geldof save the Chinese? No?

What is important is, for sure, to have modern medicine and dentistry, to have good communications, to have food and shelter, security, and a pleasant environment. — unenlightened

Ah yes, the nice things. Dental hygiene is often forgotten!

Now the problem at the moment is that production is not making itself responsible for cleaning its own mess plastic in the sea, fumes in the city, pesticides in the countryside, CO2 in the atmosphere ... and if a rule is made here, industry will go elsewhere where there is no rule, because if one doesn't a competitor will. This is the industrial tragedy of the commons. — unenlightened

Oh those irresponsible unethical wily capitalists!

So unenlightened, is that really what industry gives to the Third World? Environmental problems? Sweatshops? Nothing else? How do you add up these two parts of your commentary?

I'm not sure what your question is about anyway.

Thinking and physical movement or speech or quite separate things.

But that's not thinking!

Not good in writing with my left hand as I've not done it, but I guess with training I could do two different short sentences. How much time the training would take I don't know.

Now: try to think the sentences "I like oranges" and "I like bananas" at the same time. Simultaneously. (Not one after another. Instead, literally: try to think both thoughts at the exact same time).

You can't do that.

Why not? — YuZhonglu

I can't?

Then what do you mean with "thinking the sentences"?

I can easily visualize the two statements. I think about two people saying the sentences, which is especially easy in the "I like" part and then it's not particularly difficult to think what saying oranges and bananas simultaneously will sound like. Basically there's a multitude of different algorithms how to handle this information, for example using the group of fruits that contains oranges and bananas.

You see, your argument starts from the premise that in order to think of a statement, you are in your head saying it. I disagree with this premise: especially when using my mother tongue, I don't first "think" a sentence in the way of saying it, before I say it. And a lot of 'thoughts' can be visual. Especially many mathematical objects are easier to be understood visually in geometry.

All I can say is that you are not looking. — Banno

Lol. Well, with a brief google search on the topic and it looks clear that the problem is a totally inflamed political environment about the issue. Sure, for a reason.

The real question is the following: why don't women vote for women?

Look at it this way: Women have had the right to vote and be members of the Australian House of Representatives since and the Senate since 1902, right? Yet the first female member entered the house as did the first member of the senate in 1943 AND ONLY after 1980 has there been continuously women in the house of representatives. My question is why?

This is not a problem about men. This is a serious problem about Australian women.

Finnish women have been members of Parliament right from the start and we had the first female minister in an administration in 1926. We have had one female President (with several candidates), two female prime ministers and 79 female ministers of the 574 ministers of every administration there has been. Before 1990, Australia had had only 8 female cabinet ministers.

Fair enough. We were taking as our example the Australian Liberal Party, which faces a thrashing in a forthcoming election partly because of its entrenched misogyny. — Banno

I really wouldn't see the reason in entrenched misogyny or anything like that (even if I don't know Australian politics so well). Sorry, but apart from the Muslim Brotherhood I assume few political parties are entrenched with misogynists. If the voters, especially women voters, have been used to vote for men, then that is a far more bigger reason than misogyny. One really has to look at how voters relate to women candidates. Typically the media seeks to make misogyny or chauvinism to be the reason for under representation of women and hope they catch some old politician they don't like saying something bad about women in politics.

Tell you the truth, very few men actually hate women and would be opposed to them in Parliament in the Western World. Political traditions are different in various countries. If there isn't the tradition of female politicians to seek office, then you simply don't have so many talented candidates from to choose from.

If men and women are both capable of acting as representatives in an elected body such as parliament, then we would expect to see equal numbers of men and women.

But we do not. — Banno

The US is just old fashioned.

We have here a parliament 46% female, 54% male and I thinkis that quite close enough. Especially when below 50% of the candidates running for Parliament were women, hence women haven't had it more difficult to get the the Parliament than men. The Green Party here btw. has 85% of it's members of parliament female. Here's the stats from the birth of the modern Parliament with the amount of female members of Parliament. Women have been present right from the start. (There are 200 seats in the Parliament here.)

I agree, but the question raised by the original post was "should a men's rights movement exist?"

My thing is why should it exist? If it does exist, like feminism will it speak to a certain group of men or all men? Considering that the male perspective has been at the forefront of society since the beginning of civilization I question at what point am I as a man in need of male rights when in fact historically my country of is just beginning to treat me as a human being, a civilian?

In other words how can I get behind a movement about my gender when I'm still facing a battlefront of what I look like? — Anaxagoras

Perhaps the reason is just that few will get a lofty academic position to study "male studies". And the university leadership will think: "Well, we have a woman studies department, so we cannot be intolerant and not have a "male studies" or "men's studies", so let's give them some financing. And to get their voices heard (and funding), perhaps some "male study" people will start talking about 'male rights'. Some of them will likely be deemed as misogynists and accised to be some kind of counter movement to feminism. Perhaps they get their funding from right-wing groups.

Anyway, in the academia they don't have to speak in any way at all to the ordinary man. It's just this hustle in the academia.

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stoalen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that member of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Yep, quite a Trumpian exoneration.

Had Trump and his team been professional or diligent (I read a quote that ‘Donald doesn’t do “diligence”‘) then they would have knocked back any approaches from Russia or anything that suggested it. But they let it slip, because Trump and his team were sloppy. — Wayfarer

Really? Why?

The argument that they were just sloppy doesn't hold.

They were trying to build a Trump building even as the election campaign was going on. The simple reason I find is that Trump and his inner circle was totally ignorant about the fact that the FBI keeps taps on what foreign intelligence services do in America. They couldn't fathom that it would be different to mingle with Putin and the Russians than some American billionaire and a Super Pac. That isn't just being sloppy.

It's similar as if we would start believing that the Hollywood acces -tape were just "Locker room talk" that had nothing to do with Trump's actual conduct with women. Like that the multitude of accusations don't matter, because there is the possibility of Trump just made it up.

I don’t think Trump picked up the phone to Putin — Wayfarer

That's right, before 2015 Putin wouldn't have time to speak to a egoistic American millionaire.Now it's a bit different.

Glenn Greenwald: Mueller "obliterated" Russia conspiracy theory. — fishfry

I assume Assange, Glenn's old buddy, thinks the same.

I've thought for a long time that the Trump-Putin connection has been one of the biggest intelligence coups of all time. Still, even if all the 'too-friendly-to-Russia' people were whisked away as fast as possible and Trump couldn't change truly the US foreign policy, this still makes truly the historical annals of intelligence operations.

The most outstanding thing was that the Russians got away with it and will get away with it. Putin is truly one of the greatest intelligence service masters in history.

Play with this fantasy — unenlightened

Why do you play with that absurd fantasy? And why would they be so smart in clinging on to the two party system in the first place?

I think that smartness comes from the realization that in a democracy people have different ideas and uphold different values. Hence the smart thing is to seek a consensus that the vast majority can live with.

"Men's rights groups", or at least the ones I'm familiar with, are indeed seeking to address the problems you have mentioned (and like their counter parts, have become obsessed with the virtue of victim-hood). It's almost impossible for them to not frame men as a victim because that's the format that sells (because it induces rage) — VagabondSpectre

This is the reason why it won't work. For victimhood to be successfull there has to be a common feeling of guilt and wrongdoing, the need for others to prove that they are supportive of the victim. Then the 'victim' is listened to and his/her/they(?) demands can be taken seriously.

Civil Rights movement and the Suffragists/Suffragettes had an obvious objective. We are now universally against segregation by race and for women to have the ability to vote. Anybody arguing for open segregation by race and that women shouldn't have the right to vote would not be taken seriously. Hence actually in both cases the "White guilt" and perhaps "Male guilt" in the case of universal suffrage was a way to achieve those goals by using the victimhood card. Yet to argue that males are victims is hilarious. Just who will feel guilty about men?

Simply put it, identity politics is a dead end in this issue. But as I said, these problems that modern males have can be dealt in totally different ways.

You are probably right that a third party needs to gain prominence, beginning at the local level. But I think that is just as likely to occurr as as people, en masse, deciding to vote third party, and getting it elected to president. — Merkwurdichliebe

Or either party breaks up in two.

Imagine how that would look like either with Republicans or Democrats.

Do you believe that men of science never killed people because of "blasphemy laws"? — Mariner

Why don't you enlighten us about when "men of science" have killed people. Science is just a method, you know.

I would call Joseph Mengele more a nazi than 'man of science', if that is your argument.

The evidence that it's corrupt is found in the fact that they won't allow 3rd parties in the debate unless they have a certain amount of support. But they are unable to generate that support simply because they are not permitted into the debate.

Its obvious the rules are set up this way to prevent 3rd party candidates from ripping up the Republican and Democratic positions, and exposing them for the frauds they are — Merkwurdichliebe

There a mountain of difficulties made for 3rd parties to engage the political system, but the biggest obstacle is the view of the people. Voting a 3rd party means "that the other side wins automatically". That you "throw away your vote". This idea is the problem.

Another problem is this fixation on the President. As if a 3rd party presidential candidate would really get anything done with Capitol Hill in the hands of the Democrats and the Republicans. How a 3rd party ought to start is from the ground level up, with people in the communal and city elections and then continuing on to the state level. And when there is a will, there is a way.

What also can sometimes cause confusion is that Scandinavian's have often never been to the US and never interacted with US libertarian or free-market ideology. — boethius

This is so true. In fact it's great to talk about the issue with Finns who have moved or been in the US. Many fall in love with the libertarian side of the US. The simple fact is that individual rights, even if they basically do exist here too, aren't on the forefront of the political narrative. A lot of people would find the US far better than they now think if only they would have been there. As one Finn who had moved to Florida noted to me: it's absolutely great when you have a job and you don't get ill. I personally remember nearly 40 years ago as a little boy the huge contrast between Finland and Seattle. Now the Supermarkets and television in Finland are similar as they were already in the US back then, but 40 years ago Finland was quite different.

Ideologically, the extreme-right in Europe is only in step with the right in the US on topics like immigration and nationalism and maintaining or strengthening whatever racist institutions are around (which Europe certainly has). As far as I know, there is no right wing party with any significant support that has abolishing healthcare and public education and public transport as a core part of their platform. — boethius

100% true. The fact is that European conservatives and right-wingers would be surely labeled RINO's in the US. They would be basically right-wing democrats or centrist republicans.

For instance, the True Finns make it a point to say they aren't against the principle of the welfare state; likewise the Front Nationale in France, just that only Finns/French should be benefiting. Even "corporate friendliness" is not an extreme right-wing thing (as EU corporations generally like the existence of the EU and don't like racism and getting tied to Neo-Nazism, directly or indirectly; so I don't see the extreme-right in Europe viewing the very wealthy or multinational corporations as natural or likely allies; which is to say the right in the EU and US style libertarians have very little ideological overlap — boethius

This is one of the things people should understand especially when they hear about the "far right" in Europe.

I've become quite sceptical when the media says a party in some European country is fascist and their leader is a 'neonazi'. It's just similar as saying that Jeremy Corbyn is a marxist. Yeah right, the labour party in the UK surely promotes marxism. I really demand the real ideological quote that makes it evident. Many times it isn't the "far right" (or the far-left) at all. It is equivalent to thinking that every person that voted Trump in the US is a racist alt-right bigot, because they hated Obama. The obvious note is that yes, there are few who indeed are neo-nazis, but they are really a small minority. Yet the political tribalism makes it so that people cannot see this: they surely notice the absurdity when their own side is said to harbour extremist views, but when the focus is the side they oppose, they eagerly accept similar trash-talk.

There is plenty to be pissed about regarding the Democratic Party, but they are the only viably electable party to vote in progressive candidate to enact real change. — Maw

And this faith in your two party system upholds the corrupt two party system.

Philosophically it's interesting, this utter lack of trust in the democratic process. Basically it feels like God has given you two parties, and there is no other way. You cannot do anything about it. So pin your hopes on the "primary" elections and that you can change this corrupt parties to your liking.

It's really something that people think before they notice just how easily voters can change the political environment and they don't have to vote for the old parties.

What are your thoughts about this and what appears to be a lack of coverage on the matter? — I like sushi

Assange is the perfect example of the impossibility of independent investigative whistleblowing on a large scale. You either follow one actors fiddle or the other in today's hostile climate. This was obvious even before the Swedish rape allegations and Mr Assange's voluntary confinement in the Equadorean embassy. You pick one side or another.

After publishing to the World what one soldier had copied from military database, Assange was financed by the Russians and did get a lucrative deal with the Russian media and had his own "World Tomorrow" show on Russia Today.

And this naturally meant that Assange has NEVER said a bad Word about Putin, the killings of journalists in Russia and actually when the Panama Papers got out WAS AGAINST this, defended Putin and naturally attacked who else than GEORGE SOROS: See here. A perfect example of reurgitation of Russian propaganda. Needless to go to the Wikileaks/Russia link in the 2016 elections.

But this of course means nothing to those that have put mr Assange on a pedestal as a beacon of freedom. In my view it just shows how easily and willingly people do take sides.

Not discounting Senator Ducksworth's sacrifice, but she chose to serve of her own volition and without a social obligation to do so, while the same can't be said of many young men in service. — Not Steve

No, incorrect.

Citizens of the US don't have a social obligation to serve in the military. In my country we do, there's obligatory conscription. You can choose unarmed Service of civil duty, but opting to do neither basically you would go to jail. Our constitution says: "Every Finnish citizen is obligated to participate or assist in national defence"

In my view women in the military are evidence that war and military aren't a phenomenon because of the tyrannical patriarchy, but something that relates to human kind.

I think there are enough common interests for men to warrant some kind of political attention, or at the least, a social movement that recognizes their struggles and offers support. Community support is something troubled men aren't taught to seek or expect. — Not Steve

Yet to mimic the women's movement or any human rights movement would be whimsical. Playing the victimhood and greivance politcs would be simply awful and laughable. Because with arguing that men are victims you obviously have to have the oppressor. Well, who would that be? Women? [i[Really?[/i]

The simple fact is that you should be far more exact on just what is the problem and what you want to be done. Let's say that too many men are taking their lives or using alcohol and drugs or ending up on their couch watching TV and playing video games. Well, fight then that by perhaps embracing manhood (or something). Start to change those views that make men difficult to seek help with programs and methods that don't carry a stigma, but would be contrary to that. How can you avoid burn out, PTSD or other mental problems before you have them in a high stress environment. How to help your friend. That would sound totally different. But don't assert that it's some human rights issue and men are the victims.

Not really. Leftist Baby Boomers were a minority. — Maw

Oh I agree, Maw. They were just the loudest.

Just like hmm...now.

What is silent is the moderate center.

I consider this conversation over. — Maw

Interesting how much mental gymnastics ssu... — Maw

Interesting to end the conversation and then continue. Well, I've tried to make my point that Scruton is a scruffy old conservative and tried to explain why and you stick to your line that I'm evading the issue.
I think that you have already played the Worlds smallest violin already for a very long time...

Incidentally, China would not be where it is now were it not for the one-child policy/ — Jacob-B

I'm not so sure.

You see, rising prosperity makes population growth to decrease. India hasn't had any kind of similar policies, yet look at the change:



China has basically made a real short term pension problem into the future.

he government doesn't own (much) of the private sector, yes, but everything is very much regulated, so I wouldn't say it "leaves it alone". — boethius

Of course. There naturally is a political struggle between the right and the left in every Nordic country. But my emphasis is in that there are broad areas that are left alone also.

I would argue that the broad usage of socialism in the US today is to refer to social programs; to which the conservatives would cry "that's socialism!", so after trying and failing to educate on the difference of social democracy and social programs and whatever "socialism" is loaded with, Bernie Sanders decided to just own the term, so now it's evolving to mean what Sanders is referring to (in many, certainly not all contexts), which we agree is basically the Scandinavian style social programs. — boethius

I agree.

It is very important to understand the discourse and it's political environment, the context what is referred to when talking about "socialism" or the right and the left. One example is that I assume that many Trump supporters don't know that Angela Merkel is actually a conservative and a right-winger.

That's a good point you are making, andrewk.

Yet you shouldn't forget that the media at the time tried to make it as intense as possible. So when (here in Finland) conscripts were used to basically assist the movement of the immigrants to refugee centers, the local media screamed about this with media tabloids like "ARMY DEPLOYED TO THE BORDER". This is a fact. And the photo used was of soldiers in full combat gear with assault rifles. Not a small contingent of unarmed soldiers helping the asylum seekers to carry their bags, which was the reality. And btw, we got the stream of immigrants in 2015-2016 only because Sweden had vowed to close it's borders.

So, when you were fed with the following kind of news reporting, it isn't so far fetched to talk about an invasion. Which btw did stop after 2015-2016. Notice that the reporter uses the word "war" to describe the events:



And basically, what does this map look like with the pointers?



I should add that the American media has been more critical of going into this kind of alarmist narrative with questions about the Trump's caravan.

Does she know what it's like to be expected to face the horrors of war, to die a violent death, or to return, broken, to a home where one no longer belongs? No. She can never know — Not Steve

Tell that to senator Tammy Duckworth.

So, with all that said, should there be a distinct and credible men's rights movement? — Not Steve

I'll tell a little anecdote of my wife.

We had Parliamentary elections here just last sunday. As she is an immigrant and doesn't follow so much Finnish politics, she used these 'election machines' as we call them to find the candidate that shares the most of her political views. The website also gave her the candidate that was the most opposed to her. This candidate, the furthest from her political views, had the least similar views in the category of "values". My wife and this candidate shared only 9% of common ground in questions of values. Yes, you might have guessed it. The candidate was a woman from the Feminist Party. This candidate, as any candidate from the Feminist party, didn't get elected and had one of the lowest amount of votes given in the district, btw.

This shows actually the plight of feminism today. My wife does think the women are oppressed in some way in this society. Many women usually support the traditional objectives of feminism, but hardly see anything relateable in the current wave of feminism. Hence if 'male studies' have anything to with current feminism, it's total nonsense. And 'Male rights' movement is totally absurd.

The big question is just how reasonable is it to crave for male rights? What rights are men missing? What is so wrong with human rights? What is so wrong to talk about humans, men and women, when it comes to the rights of people?

I don't know who George Eaton is; never heard of him prior to this — Maw

Eaton made the article that got Scruton scrutiny so much that he was fired from a committee.

to say things like, "The Hungarians were extremely alarmed by the sudden invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East," — Maw

So your argument why Scruton is islamophobic is the wording "huge tribes" basically.

Right.

I wouldn't use myself a word tribe, but does that make Scruton such a malevolent Islamophobe, really? Would it have been outrageous if you would have simply used "a lot of"? Like if I would use the term that "Finns were extremely alarmed by the sudden invasion of a lot of Muslims from the Middle East", am I an Islamophobe if I would say so? Because that is what did happen. A lot of Finns were alarmed. Others weren't and I do assume that some Hungarians weren't either. Personally my first thoughts in the time period was that relations between the native Finns and the new immigrants will sour in the country as many of my fellow countrymen have xenophobic tendencies.

or that Islamophobia was “invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in order to stop discussion of a major issue” — Maw

I already earlier did note this that we can argue if this is really so. Yet I think that Scruton referred more to one way that the word Islamophobia is used, not that there hasn't been fear of Muslims earlier than the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood. And he does have a point, at least partially: Pascal Bruckner has argued that the term emerged "At the end of the 1970s, Iranian fundamentalists invented the term ‘Islamophobia’ formed in analogy to ‘xenophobia’. The aim of this word was to declare Islam inviolate. Whoever crosses this border is deemed a racist." Yet it was Claire Berlinski in 2010 that argued of the use of the term by the Muslim Brotherhood:

Now here’s a point you might deeply consider: The neologism “Islamophobia” did not simply emerge. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia. Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word.

So used the term Islamophobia was before the 1970's or the 1990's can be debated.

Insofar as you're, once again, unwilling to directly confront Scruton's remarks that I've highlighted and the loaded antisemitism that they contain, I consider this conversation over. — Maw

Insofar I've noticed, you are unwilling to approach my point that Scruton isn't spreading anti-semitism, but is simply a scruffy old conservative. And I agree 100% with what fdrake:

I don't think Scruton is actually as prejudiced as the connotations suggest. — fdrake

This is my view also. But no, you are willing to go with sentence that Scruton is a right-wing racist anti-semite islamophobe, which is so obvious to you that you want to stop the conversation now.

And furthermore, what you call "Bernie type socialism" is actually correctly labeled capitalism? — boethius

Basically Bernie Sanders is close to European style social-democracy, which accepts the capitalist system. This social democratic view limits the actions of the government to a confined space of taxation, welfare programs and some limited role of the government in the economy, but doesn't truly challenge the private ownership of capital.

to be clear, the point of my comments is to point out that US libertarian or conservative proponents can't in one context claim Scandinavia is an example of capitalism succeeding, and in another context argue that things like universal health care, free university, strong social net, large and powerful unions, that are features of Scandinavian government, are a path to socialist tyranny. — boethius

In the last sentence lies the crucial point: It's not a path to socialist tyranny. The welfare programs aren't a stepping stone to something larger. The Nordic model starts from the basic understanding that government programs are paid by tax revenue and because it's the private sector's job to create this tax revenue, the private sector and the capitalist system is basically left alone. This fight is about the level of taxation etc. with the right. True socialism (in my view) starts from the idea that government can and indeed it is it's role is to own the industries and services in the economy and hence make the revenues required by itself.

Nordic social democracy doesn't go to that. For example, the Swedish Social Democrat party has been the largest party in the country for a hundred years or so (if I remember correctly) and typically has been in the government, but this hasn't lead to de facto socialism.

These programs are completely compatible with capitalism as it is understood by US conservatives? — boethius

Actually yes.

Apart from Norway, which could indeed finance it's welfare programs through oil revenue (which it actually doesn't, it basically only spends the interest on the oil revenue and hence sits on a vast sovereign wealth fund), no other country could have sustained the welfare state without a functioning private sector and a capitalist system. All of the countries have successful large corporations that have succeeded quite well in the global market. All the countries have their modest billionaires, who don't make a fuss about themselves (and especially don't run for political office). To say that they aren't capitalist somehow anymore is simply silly.

You see, one has to put these things into perspective and remember the narrative and the discourse when US politicians talk about the Scandinavian/Nordic states. The whole thing gets politicized when Bernie says anything good about the Nordic states. Hence the conservative politicians/commentators have to bash these countries, namely Sweden. As Trump said: "Remember Sweden? Sweden!" They can argue that the Nordic States have problems with their welfare state and public sector costs, which is partly true, yet you really have to understand that these aren't huge existential problems. The countries aren't on the verge of collapse as Venezuela is. The countries have gotten into debt, but so have other Western countries too. None of the countries have been as reckless as Greece has been with their public finances. And let's just remember that health care costs per citizen are a lot bigger in the US than in any Nordic country, even Norway. (So just what system is unsustainable?)

The objectives are basically domestic in the US debate, which should be clear to people. The bashing of especially Sweden is a perfect example. As crime is easier to understand than finance and economics, I'll give the following example. So the cherished right-wing argument goes that the city of Malmö has no-go zones and has increased violence thanks to an open door immigration policy. Yes, indeed Malmö has an uptick on violence and it's murder rate is about 3 (to 100 000 people annually). In Finland it's about 1,4, so Malmö is indeed more violent than my town. Yet the US has a murder rate above 5 to 100 000 people, and in Chicago the murder rate is at 23 or something. Hence the US is on average a far more dangerous place than Malmö.

Yet nobody talks about the actual no-go areas in Chicago and that in a short while the non-hispanic whites in the US will lose their majority status. It doesn't help anybody's agenda. Why? Naturally as Americans know quite well their surroundings they live in , they simply aren't horrified about these issues. You cannot instill panic in the same way. You really have to find a true white supremacist who is concerned about his own racial status. Otherwise even if you are a Trump supporter, it's just "meh".

Hence the argument has to be taken to a country that actually Americans don't know in order to create this idea that the Bernie type socialism is bad and that social welfare programs are incompatible with an economy based on free market capitalism. Yes, Europe is doomed.

Americans are the ones with the issues concerning so-called "Islamic terrorism" yet turn a blind eye to the domestic terrorist. — Anaxagoras

I don't think so. At least the government doesn't.

Actually the security apparatus of the US government has taken a well balanced view on what are the terrorist threats to America. The FBI looks at various groups irrespectively of their political stand. Hence starting with Al Qaeda or right-wing militias, you have animal rights groups also followed. You have pro-gun movements and anti-gun movements kept tabs on. It's actually quite different from what the media, especially outlets like Fox News center on. And they know what the actual threat is.

For the past several years, reports have indicated that domestic terrorists — specifically acts of mass violence by white men — are a far greater threat than actions perpetrated by Islamic extremists. According to the Washington Post, the trend continues: Internal FBI figures reviewed by the paper show more domestic terror suspects were arrested in 2018 than “those allegedly inspired by international terror groups.”

According to FBI data, 150 Americans were arrested for planning to engage in acts of domestic terrorism in 2017, compared to 110 international suspects; in 2018, the ratio was 120 to 100. An FBI official claims that the decrease in the arrests of potential terrorists inspired by ISIS or Al-Qaeda in 2018 can be attributed to a growing number of Americans attempting to join the Islamic State abroad.

The bureau investigates thousands of Americans for charges related to terrorism every year, though, as the Post notes, the public only is aware of dozens of the high-profile suspects charged with violent crimes, or the plans to carry them out.

(See Report: Domestic Terrorism Is Still a Greater Threat Than Islamic Extremism)

Population growth was a big bogaboo in the 1970's. Now it isn't. Only African countries might be worried.

The thing is that likely in this Century we will see Peak Human population and then the global population will shrink. Already a lot of countries are decreasing in population. The biggest reason for this is the rise of prosperity: we simply don't need offspring to take care of us anymore. And as Bitter Crank said, women are educated, their role isn't to produce as much offspring as they can as before.

Above all, China is has a fertility rate of 1,635 (children per women), hence China's population will stop growing. Here are actually all the countries that have a problem that their fertility rate is below 2, which would sustain the population size:

Bahrain 1.998 children per woman
Jamaica 1.991 children per woman
French Polynesia 1.99 children per woman
Ireland 1.98 children per woman
Uruguay 1.979 children per woman
New Zealand 1.974 children per woman
France 1.973 children per woman
Georgia 1.971 children per woman
Kuwait 1.967 children per woman
Vietnam 1.946 children per woman
Iceland 1.921 children per woman
Guadeloupe 1.92 children per woman
Sweden 1.909 children per woman
Saint Vincent And The Grenadines 1.902 children per woman
North Korea 1.893 children per woman
United States 1.886 children per woman
Qatar 1.881 children per woman
Martinique 1.881 children per woman
United Kingdom 1.871 children per woman
Brunei 1.848 children per woman
Australia 1.832 children per woman
Norway 1.827 children per woman
Colombia 1.827 children per woman
Belgium 1.799 children per woman
Barbados 1.799 children per woman
Aruba 1.796 children per woman
Finland 1.782 children per woman
Chile 1.765 children per woman
Costa Rica 1.764 children per woman
Denmark 1.762 children per woman
Bahamas 1.755 children per woman
Russia 1.751 children per woman
Netherlands 1.75 children per woman
Trinidad And Tobago 1.73 children per woman
United Arab Emirates 1.725 children per woman
Cuba 1.716 children per woman
Belarus 1.706 children per woman
Brazil 1.705 children per woman
Albania 1.705 children per woman
Lebanon 1.704 children per woman
Lithuania 1.661 children per woman
Estonia 1.659 children per woman
Montenegro 1.657 children per woman
Slovenia 1.638 children per woman
China 1.635 children per woman
Iran 1.621 children per woman
Serbia 1.62 children per woman
Armenia 1.601 children per woman
Luxembourg 1.594 children per woman
Bulgaria 1.584 children per woman
Latvia 1.57 children per woman
Czech Republic 1.566 children per woman
Canada 1.563 children per woman
Ukraine 1.557 children per woman
Switzerland 1.549 children per woman
Macedonia 1.546 children per woman
Romania 1.54 children per woman
Austria 1.511 children per woman
Italy 1.491 children per woman
Japan 1.478 children per woman
Malta 1.475 children per woman
Puerto Rico 1.47 children per woman
Germany 1.47 children per woman
Slovakia 1.462 children per woman
Thailand 1.458 children per woman
Croatia 1.446 children per woman
Saint Lucia 1.444 children per woman
Mauritius 1.433 children per woman
Hungary 1.397 children per woman
Spain 1.391 children per woman
Bosnia And Herzegovina 1.386 children per woman
Macau 1.347 children per woman
Cyprus 1.337 children per woman
Hong Kong 1.326 children per woman
South Korea 1.323 children per woman
Greece 1.302 children per woman
Poland 1.29 children per woman
Singapore 1.26 children per woman
Portugal 1.241 children per woman
Moldova 1.23 children per woman
Taiwan 1.218 children per woman

Do you consider Scandinavia well-fare state (free education at all levels, universal healthcare, high taxes on the rich) as socialism or capitalism? — boethius

Scandinavian countries aren't socialist, they are capitalist. Period.

They surely have a long tradition of social-democrats in power and many welfare programs and state programs that seem to be socialism for an American, but in the end the system is based on capitalism. I would object that we let socialism to be defined by those who use it just as an swearword.

The misconception does exist, though. I remember one Cuban, who was member of the Cuban communist party, saying that he thought Cuba's objective would be to be like Sweden. Well, Sweden is quite capitalist. The capitalists just maintain a low profile.