This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Social Ownership

Tyler Durden's picture





 

By Michael Suede of Fascist Soup

Social Ownership

In listening to some old lectures by Rothbard, I heard him bring up a
concept called “social ownership” that was being pushed by communists
in the former country of Yugoslavia as a way of managing the ownership
of industry.

In Yugoslavia there was a communist general named Josip Broz, who
commonly went by the name Marshal Tito (how can you not love a guy that
walks around calling himself Marshal Tito?).  Marshal Tito is not your
average run of the mill commie hahaha.  I actually somewhat like this
guy.

From his biography:

From 1945 to 1953 Tito acted as prime minister and
minister of defense in the government, whose most dramatic political
action was the capture, trial, and execution of General Mihajlovic in
1946. Between 1945 and 1948 Tito led his country through an extreme form
of dictatorship (rule by one all-powerful person) in order to mold
Yugoslavia into a state modeled after the Soviet Union. [that last part
about wanting to model Yugoslavia after the Soviet Union is not true] In
January 1953, he was named first president of Yugoslavia and president
of the Federal Executive Council. In 1963 he was named president for
life.

By 1953 Tito had changed Yugoslavia’s relationship with the Soviet
Union. He refused to approve Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s (1879–1953)
plans for integrating Yugoslavia into the East European Communist bloc
(a group aligned for a common cause). He now started on his own
policies, which involved relaxing of central control over many areas of
national life, and putting it back into the control of the citizens.
Although
relations between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia improved when Soviet
leader Nikita Khrushchev (1894–1971) visited Belgrade after Stalin’s
death in 1955, they never returned to what they were before 1948.

Marshal Tito is one of those guys that accomplished a tremendous
amount of good for his country, which is why you’ve probably never heard
his name before.

You see, Tito came to recognize that while the Marxists constantly
called for the ownership of industry “by the people,”  they never
actually got around to making this happen.  Tito believed that
“ownership by the people”  must obviously preclude the ownership of
industry by the State.  In Tito’s view, communist social ownership
should consist of the factory workers owning a share of the company they
worked for.

The communist followers of Tito were inherently anti-statist.  They
made a clear distinction between State ownership and social ownership.
 They saw that the two were not related to each other in the slightest.

When Tito gained political control over Yugoslavia in 1945, he began
aggressively implementing his policies of social ownership.  Those
sectors of the economy in which the public assumed ownership of industry
soon began to prosper.  This lead to increased reforms and greater
public control of industry.

The communists ran into some problems though.  The workers wanted to
be able to retain their ownership in a company as their own private
property. This caused some tension between the old hard-line Marxists
and the general public.   The workers began calling for what amounted to
a stock exchange so they could trade their shares of ownership with
each other and pass them on to their children.

By 1952 the new system was in place.  It had a price system between
plants, and a profit and loss system in the plants.  The banks were
decentralized and consumer co-op banks (credit unions) took the lead
role in lending.  This lead to success after success as the economic
problems the country was facing resolved themselves.

By 1967 a third phase of reforms were implemented that were much more
free market.  The price system became completely free, profit and loss
tests for all firms were implemented, firms could go bankrupt, and State
control of investment was reduced.  By the end,  the State took only
20% of industrial profit in taxes – less than the United States.

The Slovenians and Croatians became the most industrialized as they
were the most accepting of the “social ownership” concept.  The Serbs
remained the most statist in their economic views so they tended to lag
far behind the economic growth of the Slovenians and Croatians.  By the
end, the Slovenian or Croat communists sounded like Barry Goldwater or
Ronald Regan.  They were even saying things like, “The individual should
not have to sacrafice himself for the social welfare.”  They even
wanted a gold standard and a freely convertible Dinar.

Rothbard’s lecture ends without him getting into the specifics of the
civil war that led to Yugoslavia’s break up, but the reasons behind the
conflict should be obvious.

Wiki states:

Croatia declared independence from socialist Yugoslavia
in 1991.  War broke out in 1991 with Yugoslav National Army open attacks
on Croatia. At the end of 1991 there was full-scale war in Croatia. The
war was between the Serbs, in what had been the Republic of Serbia in
the former Yugoslavia, and Croats in the newly independent Croatia. The
reasons for the war are quite complex. To greatly simplify, while
Croatia and Slovenia wanted to separate from Yugoslavia, Serbs were
largely unwilling to allow this to happen, probably largely for economic reasons.

Further:

At the 14th Extraordinary Congress of the League of
Communists of Yugoslavia, on 20 January 1990, the delegations of the
republics could not agree on the main issues in the Yugoslav federation.
As a result, the Slovenian and Croatian delegates left the Congress.
The Slovenian delegation, headed by Milan Ku?an demanded democratic
changes and a looser federation, while the Serbian delegation, headed by
Miloševi?, opposed it. This is considered the beginning of the end
of Yugoslavia.

Moreover, nationalist parties attained power in other republics.
Among them, the Croatian Franjo Tu?man’s Croatian Democratic Union was
the most prominent. On December 22, 1990, the Parliament of Croatia
adopted the new Constitution, taking away some of the rights of the
Serbs granted by the previous Socialistconstitution. This created
grounds for nationalist action among the indigenous Serbs of Croatia.
Closely following the adoption of the new constitution, Slovenia and
Croatia began the process towards independence, which led to a short
armed conflict in Slovenia, and all-out war in Croatia in areas with
substantial Serb populations.

You see, statist socialists always come to depend on the economic
success of freedom in order to support their statist programs.
 Socialist nations always have an incentive to violently attack the
productive members of their society if those productive members attempt
to leave the tax system.

There are tremendous parallels between the Yugoslavian civil war and
our own Civil War.  The causes of both are nearly identical.  The South
wanted to withdraw from the Union because the North had nullified the
fugitive slave act.  By nullifying the fugitive slave act, the North had
removed the only remaining economic incentive for the South to remain
in the union.

The southerners were putting up with high levels of federal taxation
and tariffs, without any return on those tax dollars, simply because
they needed the North’s cooperation in keeping slavery in place.
 Without the cooperation of the North in returning fugitive slaves, the
South had no remaining economic incentive to remain in the union.

The South viewed themselves as nothing more than tax slaves to the
North.  The money that was collected in federal taxes was almost
exclusively spent in the Northern states.  Since the South didn’t want
to be tax slaves to the North, they withdrew from the Union.

In so doing, the South did not want to invade and conquer the North,
they simply wanted to be left alone.  The Northern states had made it
quite clear to the South that if they attempted to leave the union, they
would be attacked.  This is what caused the South to fire the first
shots, since the South was dead set on leaving the union, they figured
they might as well position themselves in an as advantageous a position
as possible before the North could muster an invading Army.

If the North had simply let the South walk away, there would have been no Civil War in America.
However, the North could not stand for this loss of Southern tax
revenue, which is why they violently attacked and invaded the South.

Lincoln made it clear why aggressed against the South in his letter to Horace Greeley:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If
I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I
could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could
save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it
helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not
believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I
shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more
whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to
correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so
fast as they shall appear to be true views.

Lincoln was an ardent racist, as is evidenced in numerous speeches
and writings.  He even proposed sending all the blacks back to Africa at
one point.  The US Civil War was strictly about maintaining the flow of
tax revenue from the South into Northern coffers.  This
cause parallels almost exactly with why the Serbian military attacked
Croatia after it declared its independence.

History repeats itself, only in Yugoslavia, the South won.

Yugoslavia commentary starts at time 1:07:30

 

 

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:00 | Link to Comment homersimpson
homersimpson's picture

Great article. The article can be basically summed up as: Even more proof libbies love spending other people's money.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:35 | Link to Comment Zon
Zon's picture

Yes cause we all know republicans never spend any of other peoples money. Oh wait(remembers creation of the DHS, 2 wars, countless "defense" projects and yes they even support medicare and social security).

 

 

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:00 | Link to Comment Chappaquiddick
Chappaquiddick's picture

There will never be an end to this until we have a war that erases this bullshit from peoples minds.  Watching these futile ping - pong matches of Dems vs Reps:  wake up - see the light - stop the shite.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:10 | Link to Comment Aquiloaster
Aquiloaster's picture

It's like Plato said: People would rather debate shadows on the wall of the cave than think their way out of this and see the light.

All we need is someone to reply to this post and say something like "I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT, THAT WAS WHEN I REGISTERED [insert political party]"

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:55 | Link to Comment Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!!!!

Then I took up drinking heavily.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 23:25 | Link to Comment treasurefish
treasurefish's picture

The only part of your comment I take issue with is the end, where you say, "wake up - see the light."  

 

America is awake.  Most people know what is going on.  The problem is that we are a service-oriented country, and the IRS has their claws in our paychecks.  Americans just can't stop paying their taxes (and starve the beast) without entirely stopping their paychecks.  It must be the corporations that they work for that are willing to stop the deductions.  What is the chance of that ever happening?  NONE!  

 

If the people ever decided that they have really had enough, they would have to sacrifice their service-oriented jobs.  There is no farm to go home to like there was during the Great Depression.  People would be literally putting their family's lives on the line and face homelessness and starvation.  You would have to take the chance that your corporation didn't get rid of you for not showing up for work while you were throwing Molotovs at the Federal Reserve and IRS buildings.  Then what?  

 

Well, if enough people did it, and overcame that enormous fear factor, it would be be great, but never successful.  

 

There will be no Egyptian-style riots or American Revolution-style battles.  We are trapped within the greatest engineered prison system of fear.  If by some miracle you actually had simultaneous riots in Los Angeles, New York, Houston, Chicago, Phoenix, Denver, and Miami, it would not matter.  Washington D.C. sure wouldn't flinch, because they are all parasites living off the fat of the world, and our own soldiers wouldn't think twice about herding up all the belligerent trouble-makers to FEMA camps.  

However, that will never happen in the first place because as you point out, it would have to take a war that erases all the CNN, Fox News, and No Taxpayer Left Behind propaganda from people's minds.  

The only way you could ever change things in America would be to get the State Governors and Legislators to secede again, and take control of the nukes.  There is no other possible option, but that will also never happen.  So, we are stuck with our fate, because we are terrified, fat, lazy, pussies.  We deserve to be the future Chinese factory workers alongside our illegal Mexican immigrant compadres in a 1984 police state.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 04:27 | Link to Comment Chappaquiddick
Chappaquiddick's picture

That way of life is over.  A new and very much less profiligate future becons with very many fewer of us to inhabit the world.  In going from the now to the then there is a very rocky, uncertain and difficult time ahead.  I would love to say that I can see us being able to navigate that path successfully, but we got here on the way up because of greed and self serving behaviour, are we really going to act any differently on the way down?  Nope.

Ergo.....Mad Max.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 07:02 | Link to Comment JohnGaltsGrandson
JohnGaltsGrandson's picture

Good thing we have the Fed to destroy the system for us. 

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:34 | Link to Comment PeterSchump
PeterSchump's picture

Republicans aren't liberals?

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:33 | Link to Comment PeterSchump
PeterSchump's picture

Republicans aren't liberals?

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:37 | Link to Comment Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

This isn't about Democrats vs Republicans.  That is just a ruse used to Divide & Conquer people.

Check out the latest from the Capital Research Institute "The Elephant in the Room":

http://www.capitalresearchinstitute.org

"We have all heard the expression at one time or another. An uncomfortable fact that every one is (at least dimly) aware of, yet is not spoken of. When discussing the global economy, the turmoil and the unrest the world is experiencing the elephant in the room is undoubtedly the Federal Reserve. The Fed (and other central banks) have unleashed the most recent spate of food inflation on the world through their ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) and use of ‘quantitative easing’ (which simply put, is money printing).

Money that would have been kept in savings accounts has been withdrawn (because it earns no interest) and invested largely in stocks, and commodities. On top of that, more money has been conjured into existence, without an increase in real economic activity to accompany it, leaving a larger amount of money chasing the same pile of goods and services. The result, obviously, is a loss of purchasing power, as each newly conjured dollar buys less than the one before it.

Ben Bernanke has come out and attempted to justify his actions, but what has been lost in all his posturing? That the criticism of his policies are legitimate!"

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:22 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

I saw Glenn Beck on his show today blaming the Fed for world food inflation as part of his program.

"You see, statist socialists always come to depend on the economic success of freedom in order to support their statist programs.  Socialist nations always have an incentive to violently attack the productive members of their society if those productive members attempt to leave the tax system."

This sounds similar to what the public sector unions are doing to the non-union member taxpayers and small business owners in Minnesota. Unfortunately, the "economic success of freedom" is not working at the moment and Tea Party type tax payers and other conservatives are taking notice.

The new anti-union war is being waged on economic and no less important, ideological levels at the moment. Breaking up George Soros/Bankster funded socialist new world order agendas are essential to break the back and reduce the power of the NWO pushers.

I put it to you; Democrats and Republicans ex Tea Party Republicans and Libertarians, are New World Order promoters. They are hell bent on destroying the US Constitution and sacrificing US sovereignty to the globalist one world government banking cartel.

There are more than one new world order sects in the world. You have the Socialist European Democrat style NWO sect, the Communist NWO sect, the Islamic extremist militant NWO sect all unknowingly being used by the International Banking Cartel NWO sect.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:10 | Link to Comment nonclaim
nonclaim's picture

Do the Socialist European deserve a separate sect from the International Bank Cartel? They might have a style but they don't have political/military power to defend it... unless I'm missing something. Would you clarify?

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:35 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

They all think they deserve their own sect and it should be imposed on the rest of the world. Unfortunately they are all losing and being eviscerated by the Banking Cartel sect and don't even see it.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 02:34 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Iceland has already stitched up its evisceration, Norway has proven impervious so far, Finland is kicking it... which 'they' do you mean? I am guessing the 'theys'  with CB's that have been infiltrated by GS alumni.

 

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:26 | Link to Comment GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

Yeah right, the libbies like to spend other's money. How many of those scumbag Wall Street Banksters that enjoyed a taxpayer funded bailout are "libbies"?

Right-wing Rethugs prefer to not spend the money of other people living right now, and instead borrow the money and push off the payments on future generations while their buddies make money on the interest.

I've yet to see either political party or ideology show any interest whatsoever in NOT spending other people's money. It's just a matter of what they spend the money on.

So, go back to being deluded by Faux News and whatever else it is that tells you what you want to hear and what you already believe. Leave the real thinking to folks who are willing to see reality beyond what they are told to believe.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:34 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

George,

You are being used and played like a fiddle because you lack the ability to recognize reality.

There are more than one new world order sects in the world. You have the Socialist European Democrat style NWO sect, the Communist NWO sect, the Islamic extremist militant NWO sect all unknowingly being used by the International Banking Cartel NWO sect.

Who do you think will win top dog seat?

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:08 | Link to Comment GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

I don't know about being played like a fiddle. I'm fairly aware of what's happening, but hey, I could be as duped as anyone else. However, I am open to learning how I am being duped, unlike many who are too comfortable in their own biased ignorance to even consider such a thought. Also, I often write to incite and don't give away everything in the first round.

Unless people awaken, the winners will be those who have always won: the same gamemasters who own 90+% of everything and limit the knowledge and information that drifts down to peasants. I believe you are correct in that the real puppet masters have developed several layers of minions and useful tools between themselves and the sheople so they can game "reality" anyway they need to obtain their goals. I keep trying to learn every day.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:36 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

I just wish the Democrats would join the Tea Parties. We have more in common than you think. At least temporarily put asside the wedge issues. The Tea parties had no problem getting rid of Don't ask Don't Tell. We should both be working to get rid of the unfair trade treaties like NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT that got us into this mess. Scream bloody murder for bi-lateral trade agreements or whatever it takes to get consumer goods manufacturing jobs back in the USA.

Big Fat Secret Exposed!

75% of workers are not eligible to receive a retirement pension, only SS and maybe 401K.

Those 75% have to guarantee the payment to those 25% who are eligible to receive pensions through their taxes.

How many taxpayers are aware of this and how do you think they feel about that?

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:42 | Link to Comment GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

I used to live in a state capital and I know many of those state workers will crap a solid gold brick if their pensions are taken from them. It will be interesting to see if the powers that be will try to take it from them.

As for issues like don't ask, don't tell, that's issue 10,368 or so on the list of anything that matters. They use such BS "issues" to keep us talking about those things instead of how they are robbing us blind.

Those rioters in the Middle East are people who are tired of "decision makers" filling their pockets and those of their buddies while throwing the crumbs to the peasants. My guess is the disparities are much more readily apparent in their part of the world, than here, however, that is changing quickly as more and more people realize that NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT screwed working folks while increasingtop end pay, benefits and bonuses. You can bet the puppets of the masters are starting to sweat a little as the sheople awaken.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:36 | Link to Comment PeterSchump
PeterSchump's picture

Banksters aren't liberals?

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:51 | Link to Comment GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

I don't know, are they?

Somehow I don't see a bunch of suits in conservative financial businesses as being liberals, except they may not be the Bible-thumping, praise Jeezus, the military can do no wrong kind of conservatives.

With one exception, every person I know who works in the financial industry (5-6 people) tell me they vote Republican. Are Republicans liberal now? Or has the conservative corporate media finally won out and everything anyone sees as bad is now considered a liberal? I pay no attention to such mindless drivel anymore so I'm out of the loop.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 23:07 | Link to Comment PeterSchump
PeterSchump's picture

We would have to start with an exercise in semantics, but my simple point is these labels serve nothing but to distract from the point.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 23:23 | Link to Comment GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

I would agree. While many folks wail on and on about Liberal Democrats, I've yet to see a real Liberal who is a Democrat. Kucinich is kinda close, but Dems are essentially Republican light in this country. Both poarties are actually more along the lines or corporatists,  fascists, or feudalists or (insert you favorite title here).

While attending a Beautiful South concert in the 1990's, lead singer Paul Heaton told the audience that Americans have no clue what a real liberal is. They are from the UK and I've concluded he was correct then and now.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 23:44 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

Would someone who wants to legalize marijuana be considered Liberal?

Ron Paul Tea party people want to, they are all registered republican. They also want to end the wars imediately.

Liberal and conservative ideas can cross both party lines, despite what they would have you believe.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 23:52 | Link to Comment GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

I agree. The liberal vs. consevative battle is perpetuated to keep the little people bickering with each other over minutia instead of focusing on getting screwed. Also, we have been hammered with the idea that working together to gain anything is communism or socialism or evil, while the big boys collaborate all the time to their benefit.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 08:13 | Link to Comment 4ndy
4ndy's picture

Good bless you guys, great discussion between you. Hopefully this openmindeness will become standard.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 23:07 | Link to Comment Psquared
Psquared's picture

As I have watched the wreck that has become our capitalist society I am more and more disenchanted with the idea of a split between capital and labor. Maybe I am becoming a socialist in my old age, but I don't see that ownership of production by one group and ownership of the means of production by another produces an efficient and fair economy.

Furthermore, I do not see a wide gulf between managed or regulated capitalism and true social ownership. The main difference is the division between money (investors-owners) and labor. (workers-producers) The idea that more money in the hands of owners will promote greater welfare for the most people seems to be a concept that is failing.

Regulated capitalism bears many similarities to socialism; at least to true socialism where government allocates capital and labor. True capitalism completely free of government regulation disappeared when the first child labor laws were passed.

Government is an inefficient owner and regulator of business enterprises, but it can be an efficient means to allocate capital and labor when capital and labor are both owned by workers and government is truly democratic and not centralized. The Soviet system failed because the government became the owner as the representative of the people rather than the people as owners and managers who empowered the government.

Government should always serve the people not the people serve the government. We are making the same mistake in this country.

100 years from now historians will write about "ancient capitalism" the dichotomy between labor and capital which caused a form of indentured servitude.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 23:53 | Link to Comment Tortfeasor
Tortfeasor's picture

There is no labor anymore, at least not US labor.  Everything that can be automated is, and the non-automated jobs take very little skill.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 00:32 | Link to Comment moneymutt
moneymutt's picture

agree with some of your points, but someone must be the referee, someone must see to it that there is checks and balances, blended the best efficiencies of markets, regulated momonopolies/govt service when they make sense etc...if someone must be in control, that someone should be resposive to the people. Possibly there is a better way to do this than a democratic republic but I don't see it. Of course some republics are captured by monied interests, but some like US in 50s, 60s, Germany now, seem to get it pretty right. 

What I wonder is if there are better institutions and checks and balances that are more self-sustaining, that are more corruption resistant, that some how keep various powers competing but no one taking over. The checks and balances in US constitution were a crack at this. It seems like something that should be thoroughly studied by now but I don't think has been.

 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 08:18 | Link to Comment 4ndy
4ndy's picture

I agree. Unregulated free market or capitalism leads to monopolization and that leads to oligarchization which leads to tyranny. Tyranny of money is the same tyranny as political tyranny.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:04 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

Actually, Yugoslavia broke up under tribal friction.  Economics had nothing to do with it.

And Lincoln a racist?  Guess ODummer is like Lincoln.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:25 | Link to Comment eurusdog
eurusdog's picture

 

Economics: a social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management. It is always about economics. What else is there to fight about? Even religious conflict is about economics (how one consumes and spends resources in worship).

Then again your remark might have been tongue in cheek.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:46 | Link to Comment Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

I took Intro to Sociology in college. Every class, the prof. would say, at least three times, "everything is economics".

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:48 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

Religious conflict is about power over others.  Has nothing to do with economics, unless you want to truly pervert the def.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:10 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Economics is the continuation of ideology by other means....

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:49 | Link to Comment Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

Interesting avatar, I notice a few of those here from Germans.

Was Opa in the Frundsberg?

 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 00:39 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Naw...just a play on my old wargaming ID. I admit that it borders on political incorrectness, but Frundsberg had a very good record.... It wasn't like Totenkopf or Polizei

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 02:37 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

or Rendorseg

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:10 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

Abortion? (when adoption is available as an option?)

Gays? (in the age of same sex benefits?!)

Censorship (of the FCC/"standards and practices" variety)?

 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 08:23 | Link to Comment 4ndy
4ndy's picture

Economy ignore social dynamics and power dynamics. irational stuff like religion and tribal instinct are out of economic equation.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:44 | Link to Comment solgundy
solgundy's picture

more members in my tribe ,than Odumma has in his

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:13 | Link to Comment Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

"And Lincoln a racist?"

Well, um, yes:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/16_2/16_2_4.pdf

 

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 22:15 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

All human conflict is economic in nature. Everything else is the straw-man.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:05 | Link to Comment Hedgetard55
Hedgetard55's picture

Marshall Tito? Wasn't he one of the Jackson 5?

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:48 | Link to Comment Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

"In Hong Kong I am Michael Jachson, and you are Toto."

 

"That's Tito. Toto is what we had for lunch."

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:56 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

deleted

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:09 | Link to Comment Buzz Fuzzel
Buzz Fuzzel's picture

So is Social Ownership good or bad?  Suede does not say.

In reality it is bad because although it sounds nice the the workers own the factory they work in they will still use the State to stifle competition.  I have no objection to the workers owning the means of production, which seems to be the essence of the socialist dream.  I object vehemently to the use of the state to control competition or provide favorable treatment to some at the expense of others.  That is where socialism, social ownership, communism, social justice or what ever you want to call it always leads to SLAVERY for someone.

 

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:22 | Link to Comment lincolnsteffens
lincolnsteffens's picture

++ Good on you. Last time I looked around we've (editorial we...USA) has been doing this as far back as way before my grandfather was born. It has just gotten so complicated it is hard to spot any one example. Well, maybe hard to spot more than four score examples.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:25 | Link to Comment narnia
narnia's picture

the smaller the size and scope of government, the less corruptible it is.  a criminal is bad for offering a bribe, but the judge is worse for accepting it.  

no system we have can eliminate the criminals, but that shouldn't be the focus of the system.  the focus should be what system is best to maximize the freedom for the good folks...  even if some costs are associated with that.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 00:40 | Link to Comment moneymutt
moneymutt's picture

"smaller the size the govt, the less corruptible it is"...sure enough, can't corrupt the drug king pin that runs the town when there is NO democratic govt and govt police force to deal withim. Capturing the state is pretty nice for monied people, as you take peoples tax dollars and use them against them, but if you are rich, isn't even nicer to have no govt, like a latin american plantation, or being the king of england where you don't have to ge tcongress to pass a law to help you, you just make a law.

 

Why are rich people always arguing for lower taxes and smaller govt...because then they would be completely unfettered

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 02:46 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

You're BOTH right.

Balance people. Look at what DOES work. Mixed economies, indicative planning, it ain't easy, but it is functioning.  See Norway for an example. And no, it not inevitable that such a system leads to a plutocratic oligarchy or a Stalinist dictatorship, as long as the populace remains vigilant,  well educated, and diligent about maintaining their rights.

Learn.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:10 | Link to Comment Missing_Link
Missing_Link's picture

Lincoln was an ardent racist, as is evidenced in numerous speeches and writings.  He even proposed sending all the blacks back to Africa at one point. 

Horseshit.  You clearly know nothing of history.  Lincoln had to pander to the prevaling views of the day; that is all.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:19 | Link to Comment Catullus
Catullus's picture

And that view was racist.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:23 | Link to Comment topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

So show us your evidence otherwise I say you are the one full of shit.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:36 | Link to Comment eurusdog
eurusdog's picture

Before the civil war he voted for "Black Laws" in Illinoi. In case you didn't know, these laws made sure that blacks didn't recieve rights under the law. There is one example.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:41 | Link to Comment eurusdog
eurusdog's picture

Before the civil war he voted for "Black Laws" in Illinoi. In case you didn't know, these laws made sure that blacks didn't recieve rights under the law. There is one example.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:56 | Link to Comment topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

missing link said the author" knew nothing" and missing link believes that lincoln wasn't a racist but was merely pandering. Your evidence further supports the thesis that the author is correct and missing link is wrong

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:24 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

All you have to do is read the text of the Emancipation Proclamation...where his army had control slavery stayed as it was...where his army was not in control he "freed" slaves?

The pertinent passage;

"Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued."

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html

It was political in nature aimed at European support for the South and to try and stoke rebellion within the South that never came. It is not a humanitarian document as has been portrayed down through history...for if it was he would have freed the slaves he could, that is, where his army could enforce their freedom.

The letter to Horace Greeley is real. He said the same, in essence, in his campaign speeches.

His sole purpose for bankrupting the US and having a hand in the deaths of 600,00 Americans was to keep the Southern states from leaving a voluntary arrangement.

It was not humanitarian.

And Andersonville POW camp in comparison to Camp Douglas or Elmyra NY...LOL...well maybe some other time ;-)

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:10 | Link to Comment Richard Head
Richard Head's picture

Tyler, glad to see a guest post every now and then.  You've been cranking out some great material lately.  Thanks!

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:11 | Link to Comment Motorhead
Motorhead's picture

Did the trains run on time under Tito?

Tito pissed off the Serbs by stocking Kosovo (the cradle of Serbia) with Albanians.  Look what you have today.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:28 | Link to Comment the phantom
the phantom's picture

Correct.  Also, Tito was a Croatian. Croatia is very rich in natural resources, left Serbia to deal with the debts and keep financing the rest of Yugoslavia.  Kind of hard to drive a car without an engine.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:11 | Link to Comment kengland
kengland's picture

Sorry to hijack here but whatever happened to Nic Lenoir? Did he finally get burned so bad that he went up in flames? It's been a month. Gonzo. Another bear steamrolled

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:10 | Link to Comment kevinearick
kevinearick's picture

"Socialist nations always have an incentive to violently attack the productive members of their society if those productive members attempt to leave the tax system."

The talkers attack the doers, first with excessive taxation and then with force, leaving the doers with little choice but to build another system, beyond the "knowledge" of the talkers, leaving the talkers financially bankrupt as an outcome of their moral bankruptcy.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:10 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

"Socialist nations always have an incentive to violently attack the productive members of their society if those productive members attempt to leave the tax system."

And here in MA, (so in the quote, states too) we have a Congresscritter calling for 'getting a little bloody' in the streets in support of ... e.g., but his statements well documented:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/massachusetts_congressman_ca...

- Ned

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:39 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

pussy, cowardly junker.  Bring It!

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:48 | Link to Comment topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

You must have offended a socialist who wants to believe only tea partiers threaten violence.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:16 | Link to Comment falak pema
falak pema's picture

Tito was a war hero, a true patriot. Even Stalin was scared of his popularity. He was Croat by ethnic descent, germanophile and slav, as opposed to Serbs, who were Slav and Russophiles, and Bosniacs, who were moslems (Turkish Ottoman three century influence) and Slavs. Tito managed to stabilise these nations into one whole. That's why Stalin respected him as well for his partisan role in the second word war where he defied the Germans without outside help. Later on, he pissed off Stalin's successors as well as John Foster Dulles as he became a champion of 'third world independence' at Bandung conference in 1955, a major political watershed in third world aspirations for democracy, which have lain dormant under the American Imperium since and are now resurfacing with a vengeance.

Cooperative, collective, social capitalism is also practiced in western europe. The french have such schemes to encourage agricultural small farm capital sharing in cooperatives, outside state control. Nothing new.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 06:50 | Link to Comment theprofromdover
theprofromdover's picture

well written.

A lot more peeple should learn from history.

Tito deserves a lot more recognition for the way he kept all the ethnic groups in Yugoslavia from wholesale slaughter of each other for 40 years. Sometimes a benevolent dictator is of more use than an impotent well-meaning democratic talking shop.

We may need to learn this fast.

 

(I never said he didn't bash some heads together)

 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 06:55 | Link to Comment Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

Why do people get credit for simply delaying the inevitable? And using max force to do it?

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:14 | Link to Comment Common_Cents22
Common_Cents22's picture

The problem with socialism is you run out of other peoples money.  M. Thatcher

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:20 | Link to Comment Kayman
Kayman's picture

Socialist: AN EXTREMELY GENEROUS PERSON (with other people's money)

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:13 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  Hey! You ran away, I thought you had something to say about oil.

Looks like you are back to the minor leagues throwing out cliches from the peanut gallery.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:13 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

The problem with capitalism is you run out of other people's money. - Bernie Madoff

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:18 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  Ouch!

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:29 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

You fergot 'crony' in front of 'capitalism'.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 22:01 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

The distinction you choose to recognize is a matter of great debate analagous to the walls of Les Nesman's office on WKRP.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 23:21 | Link to Comment savagegoose
savagegoose's picture

oh no you di'nt  - obamma

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:14 | Link to Comment baby_BLYTHE
baby_BLYTHE's picture

If you want to see progress, I have an idea...

Mass protest outside of Fort Knox. No one leaves until at least a dozen of the revolt leaders gain enterance (Cameras allowed).

Why isn't this happening? Then all this BS would be over and the dollar would find its true value.

IMHO, Gold is all there. Won't move the markets significantly to the upside, at all. ( I am a gold Bull)

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:59 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

Well it wouldn't matter much without an audit to ensure the gold wasn't already sold and Ft. Knox is just the vault where the real owner stores it.  And an assay to make sure what's there is not tungsten. Oh, and as a former resident of Ft. Knox, good luck with that. :)

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:15 | Link to Comment lincolnsteffens
lincolnsteffens's picture

It seems I recall that Tito was the only one that could get warring factions to stop fighting each other and unite to battle the German War Machine. You know, the enemy of my worst enemy is my friend.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:16 | Link to Comment Kayman
Kayman's picture

"probably never heard of Tito" ???

You can't read anything about Yugoslavia without running in to Tito.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:05 | Link to Comment Implicit simplicit
Implicit simplicit's picture

Tito-one Italian mammary gland.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:18 | Link to Comment topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Yeah we in the south are owed reparations.

Capital was drained from the south by import tariffs which supported northern industrialization. In fact without the south involuntarily subsidizing northern industrialists from the first tariffs in the 1820's the north would not have been as developed and as wealthy as it is today, and the south would be more developed.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:29 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

I've mentioned here before, but worth repeating.  It took me a long time to understand why "The War of Northern Aggression" was a term with serious meaning.

Given the previous system, however, I'd suggest that the South would not be nearly as well off now (generally) as it is.

- Ned

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:49 | Link to Comment nufio
nufio's picture

and most african countries are owed reparations from the south.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:53 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"and most african countries are owed reparations from the south."

I find it amazing that you can even find the bathroom in the morning.

The Confederate flag never flew over a slaver ship. Vessels flying european flags and even the stars and stripes did.

Not much use in telling you about Arab slavery on the other coast of Africa or Africans putting other Africans into slavery as it might make your bowels explode...and we already know you have a hard time finding the bathroom. 

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:21 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

i would like to receed here in the comfort of my own home ,no blood to be spilled

i will willingly pay a gas tax and a toll to use your roads

i will obey the laws of the road or willingly pay the consequences

utilitys are in the hands of private owners, but i will willingly pay associated taxes to have them

i will pay taxes on your goods and services i use

 

other than that i would prefer to be left alone

i cant tell what i get from my property taxes but am willing to pay a fee for fire response if needed

my income taxes purchase nothing i want or need, so i would appreciate it if you stop stealing from me

i'm negotiable on points i have not considered

now fuck off

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:28 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

Think of income taxes as a very expensive form of NFLX, just not as entertaining.

Oh, and you can't cancel.  Ever.

Guess it's more like Sprint.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:28 | Link to Comment topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Would you be willing to volunteer in the schools and perhaps provide room and board to a few prisoners instead of paying the education and prison fees? Perhaps you will also pick up liter and keep the parks clean?

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:30 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

Home schooling, point 1 down.  Armed citizens, point 2 down.

Point 3 is already covered by TEA partiers always cleaning up after themselves.

Libs, not so much.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:35 | Link to Comment topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

Wow. I might prefer socialism to the Republic of Mynhair.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:53 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

Glad to step on your right to commit a crime, anytime, Top!

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:53 | Link to Comment nufio
nufio's picture

i dont believe effectively maintaining property rights is possible in an anarchist society.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:14 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

try buying a bigger gun....

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:31 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

I'll pick up a liter, what'cha drinkin'?

Ever been to a Tea Party rally?  Like locusts on litter.

- Ned

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:33 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

dont have kids...dont want kids

dont want to pay to educate someone elses kids

prison fees, only if the person being imprisoned has done something to me, unless we are gonna start applying the law fairly and send some wallstreeters to jail...i would happily lock a couple of them in my basement and one in the attic

 

i pick up littler in the park every time i go, and i paid the year in advance for my park pass

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:30 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

I do pick up litter and would happily charge a fee for use of the park, will be glad to let many non-violent prisoners go free, and have volunteered in schools (so I know that teachers...but not administrators...earn their keep and help reduce the number of potential prisoners).

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 07:24 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

non violent go free...except in cases of theft so large it can be considered violent because of the destruction it causes

if i have to explain that......

 

and drug offenders ...c'mon...weed?

for real?jail?

only dealers of the drugs, or legalize it altogether and remove the benefit to them

and why dont we use the prisoners as labor where its needed....how about a 100k prisoners picking up tarballs of the beaches around the gulf for a start

let them grow their own food,raise chickens

organic prisoner produce

lol

you down with opp?

yeah, you know me.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 07:40 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Decriminalize...not legalize. Taxes always start with a penny and rise to a dollar.

Just sayin ;-)

And no I don't, but I know those who do...all my vices are non-criminal...LOL.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:24 | Link to Comment Big Al
Big Al's picture

The author's grasp of American history is pathetic.

 

There was no income tax prior to the Civil War.  The Federal government's primary revenue source was tariffs on imports. Which the South could have avoided paying if they produced anything besides slaves and cotton.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:28 | Link to Comment Catullus
Catullus's picture

I don't see anywhere in the article where the author mentions income tax.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:33 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

Correct, only 'federal taxes' are mentioned.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:50 | Link to Comment Optimusprime
Optimusprime's picture

Correct indeed.  Big Al is distracting attention from the point.  The "federal taxes" involved were indeed tariffs on imports, and did indeed help the North and hurt the South.  Basic history.  "War to prevent Southern secession" is still my favorite title for this catastrophe--not only did it destroy the republic of the founders in favor of a coercive imperial system, it gave us Lincoln's example of soaring rhetoric in the defense of the indefensible that has funded generations of US ignorance and hypocrisy.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:31 | Link to Comment topcallingtroll
topcallingtroll's picture

First income tax was 1862.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:36 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

so didn't need that.  eeewwwww

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:01 | Link to Comment Conchy Joe
Conchy Joe's picture

The little horn who ruled the Sheen, is also called the beast. ...

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:31 | Link to Comment hugolp
hugolp's picture

That was a very interesting read.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:48 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

Better Marshal Tito than Marshal Marion.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:56 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

Marion - Barry?

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:06 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

My mistake, Marshall Marlon.  typo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jackson_5

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 19:50 | Link to Comment John Law Lives
John Law Lives's picture

US Department of Agriculture:  Food prices set to surge in 2011.  I guess The Ben Bernank will try to come up with a spin job for this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110224/wl_canada_nm/canada_us_usda_forum_fo...

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:10 | Link to Comment katnandu
katnandu's picture

This article is so disturbing to me that I find myself questioning everything I have ever read on this site. Um, Wow.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:11 | Link to Comment THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

What do we truely know about history - I suspect very little that can be confirmed as it relies on impartial historians that can verify documents and yet get a feel for the times - also of course there is poltical interference and direction , current cultural obsessions which may obscure a true understanding of the past and human weakness in general.

All I know is that I like others on Zero Hedge has been given a glimpse at the true chain of command and its state of affairs via the present crisis and it ain't pretty - probably never was much of a looker anyway.

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:15 | Link to Comment Racer
Racer's picture

Sheeple really are just that... sheep in people clothing, they go along with being lured into traps, ensnared and finally killed with debt

They are lured by shiny/moving objects and killed just like predatory animals do with lures

The thinking person who tries to warn is shunned as an outcast and a fear monger by the trap holders....

yeah welcome to the animal race that kills.... again and again and again and is cannibal in all but the eating

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:33 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

Sheeple get rabies, too.  Just look at the Libs.  (Wonder what bit them?)

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 20:36 | Link to Comment Beau Tox
Beau Tox's picture

Author neglects the religious divisions.  Croatia is historically a Roman Catholic country.

Serbia was orthodox Christians.  The muslims had been a wild card since Hitler employed

them as mass-murderers.

 

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:24 | Link to Comment michael.suede
michael.suede's picture

People don't engage in civil war over religious beliefs.  They engage in civil war over power and money.  

While religious and racial differences add tension to a situation, they are not what instigates warfare.

If it was strictly about religious differences, the Serbs would have let them walk way willingly.  In fact they would have been pushing them out the door.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 09:42 | Link to Comment Beau Tox
Beau Tox's picture


Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:04 | Link to Comment puckles
puckles's picture

Please, people--try to learn that the past tense of the verb LEAD is LED.  The latter is pronounced like the word that designates the main ingredient of bullets; this should resonate with most of you.  The word that designates the main ingredient of bullets is, unfortunately, spelled LEAD.  I know that most of you were indoctrinated in state institutions, but even your "educators" must have known this, at the very least.

The rest of this article is so full of factual horsheshit that it simply boggles what remains of my mind.  Let's keep in mind one very important matter--Tito, who was a Communist Croat war hero (Croatia was a Nazi captive state during the war), was a hardass dictator, and the only reason he was able to keep Stalin & Co. at bay for as long as he did was by making nice to them--the Russians, that is.  He had been in their camp during the war.  To many of his "own" people, he was the devil incarnate.  He enforced his rule by murder and persecution, which is typical of autocrats of any stripe.

 That was how, in an amazing grab of power of an inchoate mass of ethnicities, religious affiliations (Croats are Catholic, Serbs Orthodox Christian, and Bosnians typically Muslim), and even languages, who had been formerly cobbled together in the aftermath of the Great War (and poorly at that, under a seriously weak king), he was able to forge a tenuous union during the immediate postwar era. That union became draconian shortly thereafter. He even gave them a new language, Serbo-Croat, and enforced its use; there was no free speech or free association. To style the man as a libertarian hero is nonsense, although he was distinctly different in some commercial respects.

He died in 1980.  Shortly afterwards, the old ethnic hostilities began bubbling, especially the Bosnian/Serb nonsense; there was no longer an effective strongman network to block it.  Right after the Winter Olympics in Sarajevo, all hell broke loose, genocide took place, and eventually Clinton and the UN, as well as our troops, became involved. The rump state of Serbia declared itself the effective master of most of the territories not controlled by Croatia. The aftermath of that caused massive migrations on the part of all ethnicities involved.  Many are still exiles today, whether in the USA or elsewhere.

 

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:17 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

Past tense in referring to Libs is 'lead'.

Or is that pre-tense?

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:47 | Link to Comment michael.suede
michael.suede's picture

Tito was a communist strong-man after all.

I'm simply pointing out that Tito's market oriented reforms brought about a lot of good for the country that was mired in total poverty prior to his rule.

I'm not saying he was "good" as in Ron Paul good, I'm saying he was "good" in terms of what came before him.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 08:47 | Link to Comment 4ndy
4ndy's picture

Pinochet's economic reforms made Chile one of the stronest economies in latin america. He killed 'bout 30.000 people...so what's your point?

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 08:47 | Link to Comment falak pema
falak pema's picture

Tito was :

1) a patriot. A lot of others were floor mops for the nazis.

2) a man who brought unity to the Yugoslavs, irrespective of creed.

3) A third path believer outside the prevalent cold war scenario nightmare. As a consequence a pain in the 'arse' to both cold warrior diehard camps.

4) A central planning state dictator, who went more and more absolutist monarch. So his contribution was limited, often brutal,  as he left no progressive institutions with rule of constitutional law. Just strong armed men.

5) His successors were both ex-communist apparatchiks like Milosevic and fervent ethnic nationalists. Toxic cocktail that explains the sequel. Goodbye Yugo...hello balkan states who hate each other's guts...we move back two centuries and now it's up to the EU to mend fences!

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:04 | Link to Comment gwar5
gwar5's picture

Hardly...

The North contributed 92.5% of the $1.9 billion that comprised the total value of annual product in the country in 1860. There were many reasons for the Civil War but the North needing their money was not one of them. The south needed the cheap labor and wanted to keep the slaves and maintain their agrarian economy as it was. NYT (pre-Krugman) spells in out in their own archives from January 1, 1861, just weeks before Lincoln's inaguration March 4 and shots fired at Sumter April 12. 

THE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY--ITS STATISTICAL POSITION. - The Plan of a Southern Confederacy--Burr'sIdea--Renewal of the Scheme--Its Strength, Growth and Consequences. - Article - NYTimes.com

 

Also, Economics and the Civil War

 

The anti-slavery (GOP) party was formed spontaneously around the country by regular folks within months in 1854 after the democrats took control of congress and the white house and declared they wanted to expand slavery. By 1860 the newly formed Republican party controlled congress and Lincoln was president and within 90 days of his inauguration the dems started shooting.

Alexis de Toucqueville and many others had contemplated sending blacks back to Africa as a humanitarian thing to do. How could one integrate newly freed slaves into America? But Lincoln also came to the quick conclusion it was impractical. And many free blacks in the South also owned thousands of their own slaves. In fact, in New Orleans, a higher percentage of blacks owned slaves than whites. (Al Sharpton's got some 'splanin to do.)

Even so, beginning in 1822, black and white Americans had already sought to repatriate many blacks who so desired. Many did, and settled in Liberia -- named in honor of America and their Liberation. And their first president was an Americanized black named Joseph Robert Jenkins. Their flag is virtually the same as the US flag except with a single large star in the blue corner.

But the Civil War was clearly primarily about slavery. Grant's autobiography (one of the great autobiographys of all time) clearly states it so and regards it as a nobel war. The only time in the history of the world one race and class had fought itself to free another race/class. There are always layers of competing greed and interests in war and the Civil War was no exception.

The European central bankers had tried to form a central bank in America prior to the Civil War with mixed success. In 1860, Mexico defaulted on their loans. Prompted by their bankers England, Spain and France sent their armies to invade Mexico and successfully did. In 1861, they were then poised at the southern border of America to invade on behalf of the Southern Confederacy. Alarmed, Lincoln called on Russia for assistance and they sent warships to sit in the harbors on the West and East coasts until the danger passed. It worked.

Slavery was abolished, the Constitution amended, and Republicans passed the first comprehensive civil rights law in 1875. The Dems in the South didn't like the outcome and began Jim Crow laws to get around the civil rights laws. Racist Democrat Woodrow Wilson re-segregated Federal service as he had done at Princeton University. FDR also refused to sign anti-lynching laws and put a Klansman on the Supreme Court. 1350 victims of the 4750 people lynched during Jim Crow by dems were white Republicans (Tuskegee Inst.) alongside the black Republicans. Al Gore Sr., and the other dems still bitched about civil rights in 1964 and voted against the civil rights act in 1964 -- 100 years later after the Civil War.

Both Woodrow Wilson and FDR were erudite Northerners but true racist segregationists with Al Gore's daddy, Bull Conner, George Wallace and the rest of the Aryan enlightened democrats seen in the old black and white newsreels brutalizing blacks. 

 

 

 

 

 

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:15 | Link to Comment michael.suede
michael.suede's picture

You're real good at obfuscating the truth.

Obviously what the North contributed in GDP has nothing to do with the share of tariffs or the impact of those tariffs on southern life, nor does it have anything to do with amount of federal spending the South was recieving compared to the North.

We can clearly see why the South seceeded in their letters of secession.

It was all about the fugative slave act nullification and the tariffs/taxes.

We can also see CLEARLY what Lincoln's agenda was all about - and it wasn't about "freeing the slaves."

 

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 21:56 | Link to Comment Optimusprime
Optimusprime's picture

+1

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 22:31 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Absolute horseshit.

Grant married a slaveholder. He also managed her fathers plantation outside St.Louis.

He also sucked as a general (mostly because he stayed drunk half the time) and only won because of superioity of numbers and a naval blockade.

He wasn't called Butcher Grant by the North for no reason and by the end of war the South was capturing foriegn speaking men who had been given the promise of citizenship if they would step in to make up for the losses he had.

His presidency was marked by graft & scandel.

The lies never stop around this subject.

Why not bring up the Black Codes of the North as well as Jim Crow?...if we're going to pick scabs let's rip the damn things off!

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 08:50 | Link to Comment falak pema
falak pema's picture

Talking of scabs : was Geronimo or Gen. Arthur MacArthur a greater scab?

I love the legend of Geronimo. So I'm biased.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 21:07 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Talking of scabs : was Geronimo or Gen. Arthur MacArthur a greater scab?"

Geronimo was a great warrior and a certified redneck...LOL...it was yankee veterans who got him too.

McArthur's son did a fair job...but I would say he was a scab ;-)

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 23:50 | Link to Comment moneymutt
moneymutt's picture

First, in order it appears in the article, not in order of outrage: social ownership as decsribe in this article is a far cry from the anarchist de-regulated libertarian utopia the author seems to idolize. To have such a organization, that is helpful to workers, and workers' ownership in the profit they create,this requires regulations and state interventions and state protections. It does not  require state calling all the shots, but it does require state making sure there is balance of power and workers have power, democractic controls. Because of lack of proper regulations, US corps have become less democratic, management controls companies more than ownership does due to proxy vote issues and other corrruption and cronyism govt could easily regluate. In Tito's case the state seemed to get it quite right, it allowed crowd-sourcing, markets, localized credit creation...really Germany is sort of mild version of what the article describes given Germany has strong regulations, require workers be on the boards of their companies, give workers strong protections. Tito didn't do the strong central planned govt thing, but make no mistake, that is just one extreme they avoided, but Tito also did not wither away the state to no power and leave things deregulated either. If you completely deregulate, a big bank would take over local credit unions, etc. To me its all about checks and balances, and govt the serves as a clean, strong referee.

Second: The slave keepers, that made their living off the sweat and blood of captive human and their captives children...using the term tax "slave" in regards to human slave keepers....that is just plain offensive and some serious intellectual denial.

Yes, Lincoln wanted to save the union...even if that meant slavery presisted in the South, he very directly stated this...but to say that means he was after South taxes only is sooooo narrow. The southern states when they seceded didn't say they were leaving Union because they were tired of being taxed too much and the tax revenue skewing to the north too much, their declarations said they were doing it over slavery, plain as day. They wanted slavery expanded, by northerners being required to return escaped slaves and by territories being able to become slave states. North wanted to stop expansion of slavery by limiting it to where it already existed but not letting it being legalized in new territories. I challenge anyone who is swallowing this thinking to simply read Lincolns major speeches about the pending civil war during his campaign and his presidency. Read Cooper Union Speech, House Divided, First Inauguaral....you may not agree with Lincoln but he made much analysis of the issue as at hand that provide much contradiction to this Civil War was about taxes argument. Are you willing to at least consider Lincolns arguments will you reject them without even reading these speeches?

The interesting thing about the Civil War analysis in this article, is that in the mid 1850s the North was MUCH more like Tito's economy than the South could even hope to be. Prior to big corporations taking over US economy in second century of country, the economy in northern US was all about small businesses, individual tradesmen, small farms and it was a healthy vibrant economy, it had a very healthy middle class. Regular people could make a good living farming, making shoes etc. Meanwhile the South, while being quite wealthy due to a commodities like cotton and tobacco, had a very moribond economy, like a Latin American banana republic. Foreigners that traveled both north and south commented on this fequently. Isn't slavery the ultimate anathema to a libertarian? They get NO freedom, no fruit of thier labors. And yet a libertarian is defending that pre-civil war south as the aggrieved states because the north benefitted from their taxes? Please. Libertarians defending slavery and empathizing with the slave keepers...that's rich...makes as much sense as libertarians supporting landed aristocracy in old Europe who had vast populations of serfs, like a libertarian whining about how aristorcracy was enslaved and should have been left to freely manage their serfs without interference or taxes. Yeah, that would be liberty for a few people but surely not for the serfs.

What messed up ideology is this...twisted, I say twisted.

 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 09:14 | Link to Comment rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

moneymutt

your comment is excellent

IMO the blindness of some so-called Libertarians begins with the belief that "private property" is "god-given", and not a creation of, defined by, and protected by the state.

That blindness results in an unqualified religious defense of "private property" per se, as though economic problems were due to its lack of worship, and the amassing of property were divinely (hidden hand) ordained.  Taxation (or wealth redistribution) of even billionaires, owners of land and factories, is then assailed as "property theft".

 With no recognition of the proper origination of property "rights", they falsely conclude that there should be no "government" interference (taxation) in property, ... falsely "beginning" the "non-interference" now BUT leaving the current distribution intact.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 23:53 | Link to Comment moneymutt
moneymutt's picture

thanks, and interesting, realthanks, and very interesting points you make good stuff and very true. Hardwire in a rigged system by stopping govt controlled police when you have upper hand.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 00:00 | Link to Comment robertocarlos
robertocarlos's picture

Undo!

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 01:30 | Link to Comment critical tinkerer
critical tinkerer's picture

I am a Croatian and lived there till 1998, in US till present.

The post has about 50% facts right. Yugoslavia was communist country, where workers owned the compaies they worked for. It was also a superdemocracy where voting on compani's business was a biweekly matter, they even voted on who is to be fired if slacking or stealing.

There was no predetermined corporate tax, but state was taking what was left over after workers decide on what to do with profit. Usually they voted to use profits for housing for themselves or for sport and cultural sponsoring. 

Tito was represive only to those that were for joining Stallin and ones that were nationalist and they are only ones calling him a dictator.

The civil war came after the economic crash in '87 due to improvement in relations between east and west. Yugoslavia was living on the hog partly due to being a middlemen in West-East trade. Since Tito died in 1980 central planing failed to invest into new production, while masess had too much savings and not enough products to spend it on, treat of inflation was constant.

After the economic crash in 1987, emotions flared and blame was everywhere (does that remind you of some other place now). The people in power blamed wictims of the crash in order to divide and stay in power. When economy improved in 89, Milosevic, who was president of central Federal Bank organised looting of it for benefit of Serbia. That woke up represed nationalis movements all over the country.

In order to hold a position of power, they had to be members of communist party, but if you went to church you could not belong to the party. That was not true if you were a Serbian. Since about a quarter of Croatian and Slovenians did go to church, most of the power was held in Serbian hands, and before the war almost all generals were Serbian..

 In 1990 were first multiparty elections in Yugoslavia where all winning parties in every republic were nationalist parties. New parties meant new people in power to replace many Serbians in power  that was dramaticly out of proportion. Serbians in Croatia did not want to give up power and since they controled Federal Army, they tought it was an easy winn, especially since Bush senior gave Milosevic, new president of Serbia, an OK to keep Yugoslavia in one piece.

 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 02:52 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Edifying, thanks for posting! You should post more often.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 03:19 | Link to Comment michael.suede
michael.suede's picture

You said I got about 50% of the facts right, please clarify which facts I got wrong so I can adjust my post.

I don't see you saying what I specifically got wrong.  

You provide good additional background information though.

 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 04:08 | Link to Comment critical tinkerer
critical tinkerer's picture

I wasn't clear enough, it is Rothbard's lecture thats 50% wrong and points taken from him.

Tito stud up to Stallin even before the end of the WWII. He pushed hard to get on teh border with Hungary that tens of thousands partisans died on Panonian front against Nazy divisions, in order to prevent Soviet forces to come down trough Hungary. Serbians were very pro-russian, thats true, and they advocated for joining Stallin.

After eliminating Stallin supporters (couple hundreds) and trowing them in jail, Tito surrendered Trieste, Itally back to allies in 1953 and joined in Marshall plan for Europe. Here in US, i met a WWII veteran that was on the hills surrounding Trieste getting ready to attack Tito's partisans before '53.

Tito then gave economic reform into hands of artists, not economists. There is a catch. Artists (musicians, filmmakers, which at the time worked with Orson Wells, painters) created the social property state that allowed prosperity to come to Yugoslavia.

Slovenia and Croatia were far more industrialised because before WWIthey were under Austrio-Hungarian Empire and Italy, while rest of the Yugoslavia was under Ottoman empire(Arabs) for centuries earlier. Slovenia and Croatia were highly industrialized as much as Austria or Italy while southern republics were pure agrarian economies.

After the first multiparty elections in 1990, there was a question about what kind of federation, Yugoslavia is going to be. Serbians and poorer republicans wanted hard federacy(to enjoy share of federal funds) while slovenia and Croatia wanted a loose federacy. It wasn't about state ownership and social ownership as it was presented in the lecture.

 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 10:13 | Link to Comment michael.suede
michael.suede's picture

Dude, I'm still not following what parts Rothbard said are wrong.

And you're telling me that the economic differences between Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia in 1990 were strictly due to differences that existed prior to WWI?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

And I never said the war was about social ownership, I said the war was ultimately about looting.

 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 11:03 | Link to Comment critical tinkerer
critical tinkerer's picture

Each paragraph is a point of difference.

Economic differences are not strictly (100%)due to conditions prior to WWI, but about 85% cause. Rest of it is tribal mentality and lack of centuries of  education that industrializations bring with it. Part of it is also the colonial mentality of Serbs over the rest of Yugoslavia, nurtured since they were members of Allies in WWI, which they got to colonize after the Treaty of Versailles.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 11:24 | Link to Comment michael.suede
michael.suede's picture

You aren't explicity saying Rothbard says "This" and it is wrong because "This is what really happened".

You are providing good additional background information, but I don't really see where there is a conflict with what Rothbard is saying.

Obviously I'm not going to cover the entire history of Yugoslavia in a blog post, so of course there is going to be a lot of missing information.  But I don't see anything that is "wrong" with it.

 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 11:57 | Link to Comment critical tinkerer
critical tinkerer's picture

After reading your post for third time i realized that differences are not so stark as i said, not even close. I apologize to all. It  is more for lack of cause and effect in presentation that made me react harshly. 

It is that situation in Yugoslavia before break up corresponds more to the present time in the US then to Civil War era. If you take the forces, mass psychology and power struggle. 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 02:20 | Link to Comment Peter K
Peter K's picture

Since we are rewriting history about the butcher Tito, can a warm fuzzy Uncle Adolf be far behind? He did do a lot of good in Germany. Had the country out of the great depression by 1935, a mear 2 years after he assummed power. And he was a vegetarian and loved children and dogs.  Anywayd, just a thought;)

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 04:48 | Link to Comment critical tinkerer
critical tinkerer's picture

Tito was as benevolent as they come.  There was a lot of burning emotions after the WWII due to masacres on all sides, between nationals in Yugoslavia. Different political factions fighting for power. That was all neseccery to keep in order was to put the in jail to keep Yugoslavia together. He was really loved by about 90% of the people.

 

There was bad things too. Like misstreatment of land owners and limit the land to 100acres per household. And allowing intelligence agencies to grow too large. But in past years nobody came up with total numbers of deaths ordered by Tito, all of them range from 150 to 1000. Thats not that bad in 40 years of turbulence and constant threat from both pacts durring the cold war and in 35 years of Tito's peacetime rule. A lot of them I contribute to internal inteligence agency fight for power.

The fact that there were political power strugles shows that there was a lot of place for individual freedom. If Tito was a dictator in full sense then there would be no power fractions under him. 

We enjoyed full freedom individually, i could even say i feelt more free then here, even tough that could be subjective. Difference is in choice, not much choice in Yugoslavia when choosing products or elections. But i gota tell you a person is happier with medium limited choices (like in western Europe) instead of being overwhelmed with owerwhelming numbers of choices here. And private ownership was limited to 25 employees. 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 06:58 | Link to Comment Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

People vote with their feet. If it was so very awesome, why were people willing to kill, or die to end it?

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 07:09 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Thank you for your postings.

Wonderful insights that touch on many things...from the historical, societal, cultural, ethnic potpourri that I understand the region to be and been. 

While I understand why you would say;

"We enjoyed full freedom individually, i could even say i feelt more free then here, even tough that could be subjective. Difference is in choice, not much choice in Yugoslavia when choosing products or elections. But i gota tell you a person is happier with medium limited choices (like in western Europe) instead of being overwhelmed with owerwhelming numbers of choices here. And private ownership was limited to 25 employees."

and I disagree with it, because it is a difference I have always known (choices, and many of them), you have added invaluable first person insight to the subject.

To judge someone or a people of the past you have to step back into time and fill their shoes...look around through their eyes and understand the situation, in all it's complexities, that you now find yourself in...back there, in that time.

Wonderful points...thanks for posting!

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 06:14 | Link to Comment Shylockracy
Shylockracy's picture

Knowing that the mass-murderer and communist dictator Tito is your kind of guy, Michael Suede, impugns anything you may have to say.

 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 07:58 | Link to Comment 4ndy
4ndy's picture

I can agree with some assumptions about the break-up of Yugoslavia, but the economic reasons were only one of many others. Another one was that Tito with magnitude of his character was holding this federation together. After the death it went apeshit. There were also nationalist reasons for Serbs to attack. They had the notion that other states just belong together.

 

I'm sry to read those things 'bout Lincoln. Someone should uncover this myth about him being the anti-slave president to public.

 

The social ownership is way to go. Give the companies to it's employees and they'll care much more how it's doing. It works in big scale, check the spanish syndicate called Mon... something. It's making huge profits even in this crisis.

 

The individual should definitely not sacrifice himself to social welfare, but should give a bigger piece of his pie while simultaneously enjoying a bonus for his bigger profits that would not cause excessive inequality. It's about social empathy.

 

 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 08:47 | Link to Comment Niko nikad
Niko nikad's picture

I lived 20 years under Tito, 8 years under Milosevic, 5 years under Reagan and Bush Sr., and 4 under Putin. Between them, Tito was by far the best MANAGER of land and people which the Providence, Electorate, History, or a brute force may give an individual to govern. Certainly my own, mid-middle class, family never had it better. He managed to bring the "greatest hapiness to greatest number of people." He would pass any test devised by Ayn Rand, John Stuart Mill, and even Cecil B. DeMille (oh, the Marshal could take lead role in any of his historical movies, including Cleopatra!) His approval rating would slip below 95%, for few short days, only when the British Queen or a Hollywood star of Richard Burton's fame would visit Yugoslavia... Only hard-core ideologues from the right and from the left, would complain. For Tito was a genuine leader and able administrator who would use and utilize almost any ideology to have things done. "Social ownership," impossible to define within any established legal theory or civil code, was one such creation. Free education, universal health insurance, "factories to the people," hard-currency bank accounts and no-visa travel to London, Milan, Moscow... all financed by cheap Western loans and Soviet arms purchases (fourth largest army in Europe). It was great while it lasted.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!