-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/12/11/naomi-klein-quote-of-the-day/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Capitalism in general is not on trial. What needs defending is unbridled capitalism versus well regulated capitalism. The former is about boom and bust economic cycles and 2 class societies. The latter is about improved economic efficiency and a strong middle class.
She's right in my opinion. Libertarianism is all about an improper intepretation of social darwinism. Libertarianism is selected against in human societies because its un-natural. The reason there are no libertarian sociaties is because they are radiactive and devole into Somolia or Mexico or Russia. We are a social creature and to build societies around individualism makes no sense. If libertarianism is such a great way to set up society such that everyone prospers and the economy is super effieicent don't you think all the developed countries would be running on a model of it rather then the social democratic forms you currently see.
Libertarianism... aa failed ideology...get over it...evolve.
Government, not industry, needs to be regulated. All governments, even democratic ones, will march steadily towards authoritarianism. Being responsible to the shareholders (voters) has slowed America's progress towards fascism. The two party system has also slowed our progress by creating infighting in government. Still, the government has violated the only regulations ever placed upon it (the Constitution) and (God bless our forefathers) was even given control over their own regulations! It's no surprise that socialism is right around the corner.
The only way to halt this progress is through revolution. You tear down government when it becomes too powerful and start over with more specific restrictions. Depending on who led the revolution you begin with a libertarian government, a democracy, socialism, fascism, or what have you. The cycle will repeat as long as some people hold force over others.
"When the people find they can vote themselves money , that will herald the end of the Republic." - Ben Franklin
Ah, the naturalistic fallacy. (Devolve into Russia or Somalia? When were either "libertarian"?)
Please note further that "social" and "individual" are not warring opposites, if taken in the proper context. Humans are social animals in that we like company and in that autarky leaves us all impoverished and immiserated.
"Individualism" at the political level, however, is opposed to collectivism rather than "society".
Might I suggest, say, the first volume of The Open Society and Its Enemies to straighten you out on the thoroughly incorrect identification of "society" and "collective", and "individual" with "egotist"?
(As for "evolve"? You're the one arguing (incorrectly) that social collectivism is the current "natural" state of man, not its future. It's far more supportable to consider a libertarian or Liberal social pattern as the evolved one.)
Damn, she is such a moron. I'm sorry about using bad names but, my god, she's just such a dunce.
Capitalism is also, if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty of it, NOT an ideology. It is the way in which humans, lesser primates, and even some other animals have been observed to evolve in order to minimize the collateral damage wrought to their communities as a result of resource competition and just plain old mistrust.
I forget the source, but it was probably from one of the usual suspects (Reason, Cato, The Devil, etc.) - that republished a scientific study from some trade where they took a bunch of miniature monkeys and gave them what amounted to currency. Well, the long and short of it was that with little to no encouragement, prodding, or "engineering", the monkeys engaged in the purest most Laissez-faire capitalism you could ever observe (and even some prostitution - God bless 'em). So I would highly suspect that capitalism, first referred to as such by Karl Marx, and not Adam Smith, as some might assume, is not an ideology and simply an EVOLUTIONARY device that primates have used in order to establish trust within tribes or herds that rely on complex resource allocation systems, which ordinarily would lead to violence. Note that it is the only strife-mitigating tactic developed by primates that does not rely on some form of unwilling submission, coercion, or violent force, as other so called "civilizing" factors have often tended to.
Yeah ... that's the ticket!
I would suggest you research the facts about Argentina, Chile and others in Latin America and then show that willing submission, no coercion and abstention of the use of violent force was part of it
The reverse is not true. Every other system is enforced through coercion. You can't opt out of socialism or communism. The relative merits-- even though capitalism is the best-- aren't even as important to me as it is important to me that I am free.
Free, or some kind of partially-enslaved hydra. I'll take free.
If you guys want to be the useful idiots for the financial aristrocrasy, go right ahead. But don't tell me that the 700 billion for wall street parasites is all very regrettable but less than 5% of that amount for industry that actually produces a useful product is A BRIDE TOO FAR!!!!!!!ONEONEELEVENTYONE!!
I heard that John Stewart rant about a "useful" product too...
Once again I fail to see how this is not unlike to those sad, sorry trotskyites bitterly complaining that real communism hasn't been tried.
Dain,
you have to deal with the free market you have not the free market on Big Rock Candy Mountain. The wall street bailout is a fact, admittedly supported on both sides of the aisle. And it was demanded by the very people who have spent the last 8 years or more extolling the vitrues of Milton and telling us how their hands off policies would unleash the wonderous powers of the free market and vigorously opposing any sort of government assistance (Hi Welfare Reform!) to those not part of the financial aristocracy.
Once again how does this differ from the sad bitter Trotskyites complaining that Stalin wasn't a real communist and real communism hasn't been tried?
The last 8 years have seen an incredible increase in government assistance, including Bush's "ownership society" nonsense, which contributed to the current problem. The claim of a hugely interventionist Bush administration is a widely recognized fact at this point. Increased spending on discretionary "nice" stuff like education, etc.
And actually, there are many communists who'd claim that communism hasn't been tried, only authoritarian undemocratic versions. I'm not that familiar with their train of thought, so I'd best be humble. This sort of reminds me of the argument that Nietzsche was responsible for the Nazis, that Marx was responsible for Stalin.
A Trotskyite would likewise argue that "although Stalin claimed to be a strong defender of Marxism he put an elite few in charge of industry who enriched themselves on the backs of an opressed labor force, not unlike western capitalists, therefore Stalin is the ultimate vindication of Marxism"
I don't buy it, but there we are. Your free market ideas will continue to be used to justify dening assistance to the poor and middle class and conviently ignored when the wealthy get themselves into trouble. Perhaps, just perhaps , we could try it the other way around for a while?
If rhetoric should be held responsible for reality, then every tin pot dictator who's made references to the "people's will" or other vague, generally warm and fuzzy sounding b.s. ought to be strung up along with their lame, super nice ideology.
The phrase "Free market capitalism" is like saying "snake with feet". Capitalists love big government precisely because it tends to shield them from the fallout of crap decisions. That these corporations even exist to beg for bailouts in the first place shows how much meddling there has already been in the market, since they clearly couldn't have survived this long without it.
I agree libertarians have largely been used as propaganda cover for corporate statism. That's why we need to throw off this tendency to want to fit in with the social circles of big business boosters.
Hardly. What example is there of 'unbridled capitalism' in the current crisis?
"...unbridled capitalism versus well regulated capitalism."
"...well regulated capitalism."
"...regulated capitalism."
I think you're approaching it from the wrong angle. We should pursue free socialism. That way, you have both "free" and "socialism"! It couldn't fail!
"I use to describe the political strategy of deliberately using a crisis—not deliberately creating a crisis, but deliberately using the fear, panic, and desperation that is induced by a cataclysmic event, whether it's a natural disaster or war or terrorist attack or an economic crisis, to very rapidly push through economic shock therapy. And so that's what The Shock Doctrine is—using one shock to push through an economic shock."
You mean like nationalizing financial institutions and the auto industry.? Isn't this more about governments/politicians reacting (and over-reaching) in a crisis: "Don't just stand there, DO SOMETHING" Her soft-peddling of FDR interventions was weak. "Populist shock therapy"? I'm not sure how "populist" an auto bailout is?
Ironically, she seems to be appealing to a classic conservative sensibility: "Beware of governmental over reaction."
As a good socialist, I'd show the government that I was displeased by exiting! But only if I were inclined toward anarchy and secession, which would make me libertarian.
Oops, I've come full circle. Even if Klein is right, libertarianism is the answer.