Political Crossfire Forums

[David Kelly]

Fido wrote: David Kelly wrote: I dive the USA 100 years. As for our Golden Age, it was the 1920's. Only lasted 10 years yes, but we had one.

Great. A high point of the KKK, and half a dozen political protest parties, none of which could make any necessary changes to the society, co-opted by the big parties willing to accept change so long as it was not substantive. And what? Jazz? Syphilis? Forced sterilization laws? Hemingway? Prohibition? Do nothing government? Expediting the great depression, and the dust bowl? You have to have something better.
The best America has managed is a steel age. If you look at our art museums flooded with the art of a dying culture in Europe, you can see that much of it was bought with the gold of Robber Barons who had little enough of appreciation of art or gold, who wanted status equivalent to the vast sums that passed beneath their pens.
There have been times when Americans were better or worse, able or less able, but you cannot have a golden age without a silver age, nor an iron age without a bronze. If you put a beggar in the saddle he will ride the horse to death, and we are a nation of beggars riding whatever horse we can seize toward destruction. To know gold, not as a item of commerce, or a measure of wealth; but as a standard of culture one must begin with democracy. Great art, great philosophy, great understanding and science, magnanimity, are all the offshoots of great culture, and oligarchy, plutocracy, and aristocracy are the end of great cultures and the beginning of nothing. Our democracy is more the end of Roman or Greek democracy. We will not find a golden apple on the tree of bitter fruits.

What about the fact that almost everyone was rich? Up until the crash, you didn't even need to work to live a good life and if you did work you lived even better.
We made about 250 years of tech development in just 10 years (WW2 made that development look like child's play) and why was it called the Roaring 20's if not a Golden Age?

The 30's were bad, not the 20's.

[LostSoul3412]

David Kelly wrote: What about the fact that almost everyone was rich? Up until the crash, you didn't even need to work to live a good life and if you did work you lived even better.

Also remember that a lot of the money people were making in the 20's was from illegal alcohol smuggling and sales. Mafia and gangs were on the rise, and organized crime went through the roof during the 1920's. Also, I'd like to see some evidence that "almost everyone was rich [in the 1920's]", since the reason the crash happened in the first place was because people were buying on credit without any money, and when the bills came they couldn't back up their promises.

David Kelly wrote: We made about 250 years of tech development in just 10 years (WW2 made that development look like child's play) and why was it called the Roaring 20's if not a Golden Age?

Again, I'd like to see some evidence for the "250 years of tech[nological] development in just 10 years".

David Kelly wrote: The 30's were bad, not the 20's.

The 30's were a direct result of the 20's.

[David Kelly]

All true, but every Golden Age has it's dark side. Pax Romana, Nero. Victorian Era, a hated empire. Roaring 20's, Crime. Still a Golden Age.

[LostSoul3412]

David Kelly wrote: All true, but every Golden Age has it's dark side. Pax Romana, Nero. Victorian Era, a hated empire. Roaring 20's, Crime. Still a Golden Age.

The problem is that the 20's were a pseudo-Golden Age. People were buying without money, and crime was become more organized than ever.

Also, the Pax Romana had nothing to do with Nero; and the British Empire was anything but hated.

[David Kelly]

LostSoul3412 wrote: David Kelly wrote: All true, but every Golden Age has it's dark side. Pax Romana, Nero. Victorian Era, a hated empire. Roaring 20's, Crime. Still a Golden Age.

The problem is that the 20's were a pseudo-Golden Age. People were buying without money, and crime was become more organized than ever.

Also, the Pax Romana had nothing to do with Nero; and the British Empire was anything but hated.

Look at what I bolded. Nero was a Pax Emperor and tell the Americans, Irish, Indians and Africans that.

[Fido]

David Kelly wrote: All true, but every Golden Age has it's dark side. Pax Romana, Nero. Victorian Era, a hated empire. Roaring 20's, Crime. Still a Golden Age.

You know, If you compare the Greeks of Athens with the Greeks of Sparta, you find that the Spartans had no golden age at all. If you look at Athens you might find that their golden age was built on the spoils of a league formed to repel the Persians and then used primarily to ripen one city to rottenness. The golden age of Athens was built upon deep divisions in society and was an invitation to the Peloponnesian wars. I think you have to look at the period after world war two as the greatest lost opportunity in the history of this country and of the world, and for the blessings and hope brought about by the threat of Communism, of social security, individual freedom and expression, unionism, fair working conditions, available and affordable health care, and available and affordable education -all make this period the best this nation has ever known. There were times with greater promise and opportunity- built on the backs of slaves or upon the land stolen from the natives; but the best times we have known were not the result of internal forces, but the very real threat of communism, and since that threat has been squashed the need for social justice and opportunity has been disregarded. We have known no true golden age, though I will agree that we had a gilded age. Even the fifties and sixties were of chrome. Too much chrome where it shows and not enough know how where it counts.

[melchizedek22]

David Kelly wrote: Fido wrote: David Kelly wrote: I dive the USA 100 years. As for our Golden Age, it was the 1920's. Only lasted 10 years yes, but we had one.

Great. A high point of the KKK, and half a dozen political protest parties, none of which could make any necessary changes to the society, co-opted by the big parties willing to accept change so long as it was not substantive. And what? Jazz? Syphilis? Forced sterilization laws? Hemingway? Prohibition? Do nothing government? Expediting the great depression, and the dust bowl? You have to have something better.
The best America has managed is a steel age. If you look at our art museums flooded with the art of a dying culture in Europe, you can see that much of it was bought with the gold of Robber Barons who had little enough of appreciation of art or gold, who wanted status equivalent to the vast sums that passed beneath their pens.
There have been times when Americans were better or worse, able or less able, but you cannot have a golden age without a silver age, nor an iron age without a bronze. If you put a beggar in the saddle he will ride the horse to death, and we are a nation of beggars riding whatever horse we can seize toward destruction. To know gold, not as a item of commerce, or a measure of wealth; but as a standard of culture one must begin with democracy. Great art, great philosophy, great understanding and science, magnanimity, are all the offshoots of great culture, and oligarchy, plutocracy, and aristocracy are the end of great cultures and the beginning of nothing. Our democracy is more the end of Roman or Greek democracy. We will not find a golden apple on the tree of bitter fruits.

What about the fact that almost everyone was rich? Up until the crash, you didn't even need to work to live a good life and if you did work you lived even better.
We made about 250 years of tech development in just 10 years (WW2 made that development look like child's play) and why was it called the Roaring 20's if not a Golden Age?

The 30's were bad, not the 20's.

The 20's were a false sense of security built on a paper tiger stock market
that when headed down instead of up would collapse.

[David Kelly]

melchizedek22 wrote: David Kelly wrote: Fido wrote: David Kelly wrote: I dive the USA 100 years. As for our Golden Age, it was the 1920's. Only lasted 10 years yes, but we had one.

Great. A high point of the KKK, and half a dozen political protest parties, none of which could make any necessary changes to the society, co-opted by the big parties willing to accept change so long as it was not substantive. And what? Jazz? Syphilis? Forced sterilization laws? Hemingway? Prohibition? Do nothing government? Expediting the great depression, and the dust bowl? You have to have something better.
The best America has managed is a steel age. If you look at our art museums flooded with the art of a dying culture in Europe, you can see that much of it was bought with the gold of Robber Barons who had little enough of appreciation of art or gold, who wanted status equivalent to the vast sums that passed beneath their pens.
There have been times when Americans were better or worse, able or less able, but you cannot have a golden age without a silver age, nor an iron age without a bronze. If you put a beggar in the saddle he will ride the horse to death, and we are a nation of beggars riding whatever horse we can seize toward destruction. To know gold, not as a item of commerce, or a measure of wealth; but as a standard of culture one must begin with democracy. Great art, great philosophy, great understanding and science, magnanimity, are all the offshoots of great culture, and oligarchy, plutocracy, and aristocracy are the end of great cultures and the beginning of nothing. Our democracy is more the end of Roman or Greek democracy. We will not find a golden apple on the tree of bitter fruits.

What about the fact that almost everyone was rich? Up until the crash, you didn't even need to work to live a good life and if you did work you lived even better.
We made about 250 years of tech development in just 10 years (WW2 made that development look like child's play) and why was it called the Roaring 20's if not a Golden Age?

The 30's were bad, not the 20's.

The 20's were a false sense of security built on a paper tiger stock market that when headed down instead of up would collapse.

Sounds like today.

[rupert]

Isn't the really interesting question here whether the American republic is in decline? Rome too was a republic, but this changed and military might became important instead of votes.

Voting is in decline, with the 2004 election as the only exception. Corruption is rampant. The military is growing bigger and bigger. Previously accepted liberties are in danger (right to trial, no torture, right to privacy, even freedom of speech to some extent). The politcal class is out of touch with the people. In short, democracy is in decline. It might be small steps, but they lead in the same direction.

[melchizedek22]

rupert wrote: Isn't the really interesting question here whether the American republic is in decline? Rome too was a republic, but this changed and military might became important instead of votes.

Voting is in decline, with the 2004 election as the only exception. Corruption is rampant. The military is growing bigger and bigger. Previously accepted liberties are in danger (right to trial, no torture, right to privacy, even freedom of speech to some extent). The politcal class is out of touch with the people. In short, democracy is in decline. It might be small steps, but they lead in the same direction.

In the end Socrates was right about democracy

[Fido]

melchizedek22 wrote: rupert wrote: Isn't the really interesting question here whether the American republic is in decline? Rome too was a republic, but this changed and military might became important instead of votes.

Voting is in decline, with the 2004 election as the only exception. Corruption is rampant. The military is growing bigger and bigger. Previously accepted liberties are in danger (right to trial, no torture, right to privacy, even freedom of speech to some extent). The politcal class is out of touch with the people. In short, democracy is in decline. It might be small steps, but they lead in the same direction.

In the end Socrates was right about democracy

The democracy was done in Socrates' time. If the wealth was not common in the common wealth the political power would certainly not be. A uniformity of wealth, which is not to say -of status is the result of a general equality of rights. End these, and the democracy is limited and doomed. As in Rome, when the military became the source of power the necessity of buying votes which enriched the common citizen who was already without visible means of support because of having been displaced by slaves was gone. Then there was only the need to placate the mob with games and bread. When the military was beat the country was beat. The common man had nothing worth risking his life over. People cut off their thumbs rather than serve the state in the military. The emperor found he had bought peace, but not loyalty.