ZN,

On policy: Clinton used the State department to ram American capitalism down the throats of several Central and South American nations, forcing open their commons. Ongoing “primitive accumulation,” etc. etc. (which Marx erroneously thought would end in the 19th century). Of course, she’s not the first to do this. It’s been SOP for our government for generations. But if she wanted to go against the neoliberal tide, she could have ended the practice.

She also has a very hawkish record on war and empire. Again, this is policy, not personality. This is her record, not the fever-swamp creation of the far right.

Her coziness with Wall Street is also her record, not a matter of personality or just right-wing smears — though they definitely have their own version of that coziness.

In short, I think there IS a way to separate “personality” issues, right-wing smears and fever-swamp attacks from her own reality as a public figure. I’m no expert on the subject, and don’t pretend to be. But I have read (and seen) enough — and broadly enough — to make me not like her policy record. Though I think her husband’s is worse, and he obviously had far greater power to implement his vision, etc. etc. Though he was also subject to insane attacks from the right.

IMO, the Clintons really are unique when it comes to baggage they bring to the table — and that’s after we remove the Scaife-led attack machine and all its competitors for abject lunacy. That’s after we remove the irrelevant aspects of “personality.”

bnw wrote:

Zooey wrote:

Trump, who is on to something, will still probably fail to win simply because he’s an asshole.

So we can debate his opinions all we want, but the plain truth is that he expresses his opinions in such an irresponsible way that many people will refuse to vote for him.

More likely he expresses the true opinions of the majority of voters who are tied of being lied to by establishment candidates. His speech last night was all about fixing the nightmare caused by the so called ‘responsible’ candidates.

Yes, bnw, the vast majority of Americans are sick of being lied to by establishment candidates. Very true. But they’re also sick of being lied to by established business interests, which Trump represents. The vast majority of the country also knows how often Trump himself lies and has lied throughout his lifetime, and they don’t choose him to be their champion in the fight against establishment interests — public or private. He IS the establishment. And they definitely reject his appeals to white nationalism and white supremacist ideology, and his tight bonds with the Alt-Right and nutcases like Alex Jones and the Breitbart folks.

Trump has gone bankrupt six times, and in the process screwed over countless working people. He lives like a pasha, while failing to pay his contractors, workers, clients. There are thousands of lawsuits against him for his corrupt business practices. He outsources all of his manufacturing jobs. He continuously uses the language of fascism to whip up hatred in his followers, and as a result, attacks on Muslims and Mexicans and immigrants in general are up in America.

In short, yes, Clinton is a terrible candidate and tens of millions of Americans want change. But Trump isn’t the change they want. He’s the past. He’s America’s reactionary, white nationalist past and most Americans reject that.

nittany ram wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I’ve mentioned it before, but Michael Perelman’s The Invention of Capitalism is really excellent on the subject — with copious direct quotes from the powers that be.

And the Church did its best to also shame the poor into giving up their free time to work in the factories, the mines, the slave ships and so on. And this work-shaming was especially overwhelming and stigmatizing in Ireland and other British colonies.

That’s interesting, Billy. I’ll have to check that book out.

Nittany, it’s really an excellent book. Extremely well researched and supported.

I’d also highly recommend The Origin of Capitalism, by Ellen Meiksins Wood. Taken together, they provide perhaps THE best definition and history of origins for Capitalism anywhere. And the Woods book is fairly short, if you’re pressed for time. I also think she shows the uniqueness and unprecedented nature of capitalism better than any other book available. At least that I know of.

When it comes to stitching together how all of this played (and plays) out globally, the why and how, I highly recommend The Making of Global Capitalism, by Sam Gindin and Leo Panitch. But the first two, IMO, are the most important.

nittany ram wrote:

wv wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

wv wrote:

——————-
Yes, which leads me to repost my favorite ‘law quote’ for the
gazillionth time. I never tire of reading
btw, what do you think is the core, fundamental, difference tween
right-thinkers and left-thinkers? What is the heart of the ‘difference’ ?

I think of this right / left thing sometimes when i see debates
about Fisher, btw. Sometimes i think the core difference tween righties and lefties has ‘something’ to do with how they view…’context’. I mean is ‘injuries’ an ‘excuse’ or do we look at the context…. I dunno. Just rambling…

w
v

My all too brief and simplistic response to that is the right views the world through a ‘moral absolutist’ lense. Everything falls into a category of either right or wrong, true or false. There’s no gradation between the categories. It’s black or white, period. No room for more than one truth. Whereas a leftist’s views are more nuanced. They recognize an entire spectrum exists between black and white…one shade grading into the other and what shade you see is a matter of perspective. Of course as I said that’s overly simplistic and there is a lot more to it and there are exceptions yada, yada but to me that’s the gist of it.

==================

I dunno. I think there is something to that, but i dunno.

Sure seems like, above all else, they Blame the Poor.

I just wonder where that comes from.

w
v

I wonder if blaming the poor is an American thing. The poor are mistreated all over the world but it seems to me that only in America are they are blamed for being poor. It probably stems from that ridiculous idea that in America, if you work hard enough you WILL succeed so anyone that doesn’t succeed must be lazy. Anyone not succeeding simply isn’t trying hard enough. That’s probably rooted in American Exceptionalism or some other BS.

It’s not really unique to America, though we’re probably the biggest true believers. It really stems from the so-called “Protestant Work Ethic,” which was imported from Europe. If you read the political economists of the 18th and early 19th centuries, especially — and more than a few of the Enlightenment philosophers — they were often in the habit of shaming the poor into working. This, in fact, was a key aspect of primitive accumulation . . . getting “the peasants” to forsake their own means of self-provisioning, small farms, atisanship, home ec provisioning, to go into the factories to work for a pittance. Adam Smith and his very wealthy peers, all men of leisure, were always going on and on about how lazy and unproductive the peasants were . . . primarily because they prioritized family and friends above working to make others rich.

The state, of course, stepped in to put muscle behind the work-shaming, with enclosures, and changing the laws regarding hunting and fishing, etc. etc. But this actually all starts in Europe, with England being the prime locale.

Zooey wrote:

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/06/trumps-suicide-mission-he-is-not-trying-to-destroy-his-own-campaign-the-destructive-urge-he-represents-is-much-bigger-than-that/?scrlybrkr

This is interesting.

There is something rough about the ideas in here. It doesn’t seem completely convincing as it stands, but the idea behind the article intrigues me somewhat. I can’t quite put a finger on what appeals to me here, and what just doesn’t seem to click into place. It’s like an unfinished conversation at the end of the evening in a bar, I guess.

That is a good article, Zooey. Thanks for linking to it. You probably already know this, especially with your background, but O’Hehir is a really good movie critic too. Very astute at picking up on hidden gems among foreign and indy films, or pointing us in the direction of films we should know about that are well-known in other countries.

Anyway . . . his overall picture of America made me think of Rick Moody’s Purple America and pretty much everything by Don DeLillo. America really is in big trouble, and he’s right to say the Dems aren’t helping matters with that happy happy joy joy nonsense, though it’s preferable to the GOP’s End of Days rhetoric.

There is, of course, no “happy medium.” But we’re somewhere between our best and an actual Armageddon. Perhaps too close to the latter for comfort, but it’s not happening for the reasons given on Fox news, Breitbart, Alex Jones or Trump.

Neither party has the answers. None of our “leaders” do. In short, we’re rudderless. Maybe that’s something we can work with?

And, I think this concentration on the self makes it a great deal easier to support policies that help the few at the expense of the many. Because the right’s focus has always been the ruling class, the rich, the Church and State hierarchies and their privileges. The right has always been the side of the political spectrum most concerned about keeping existing hierarchies in place and preventing inclusion of “the lower orders” from happening, much less any kind of universal access/franchise, etc.

Historically, they’ve fought against every movement to extend civil and social rights and access . . . from the landless, to women, to ethnic and sexual minorities, to the poor.

The left has always been the side of the aisle championing the “underclasses,” in opposition to the rulers. And the further left within the left you go, the broader that support goes, the less support for hierarchy, for inequality, for concentrations of power of any kind.

Both the left and the right have faults, of course. Both have blind spots and have made tons of errors, historically. But, IMO, the left — especially the far left — has the moral high ground to an overwhelming degree . . . . and I don’t mean that in a religious sense. Well, because I don’t see organized religions as good arbiters of morality in the first place, with the possible exception of Buddhism. Which many see as a philosophy, not a religion anyway.

Oh the drama! Why not post the same thing from the pinko standpoint? Or is the word ‘freedom’ so alien or undesired as to never making the radar?

. . .

More glib lib. How about the government controlling your income?

. . .

More drama.

It’s pretty clear, bnw, that you really don’t want to engage in any discussions here, beyond taking silly pot shots. I mean, you might as well just respond with “yawn” or “more yawns,” like you did before. “Drama” doesn’t really work. And “pinko”? Really? Sheeesh. That was a sign of serious ignorance back in the 1950s when it was used. It hasn’t aged well since then.

Oh, well.

Thanks for those articles.

That’s a pretty good one-two punch. Frank and Taibbi. Two voices that the public should pay attention to. They’re pretty much always incisive, and they both have wit to go with their wisdom.

But I think they fall short in this way: They don’t take the logical next step, given their own evaluation of the state of the state. IMO, what they’ve both been writing about for decades should lead them both to say “Hell no, capitalism has to go.” Especially Taibbi and his vampire squid, etc. etc.

This is a very, very tough move for most Americans, even those who are really excellent at seeing what ails us. Saying no to capitalism seems to be that bridge too far, even for them. It’s too ingrained in our cultural transmissions, like the idea of American exceptionalism and its underlying myth of Manifest Destiny. It’s like “capitalism” is written into that destiny, even though it wasn’t dominant here until after the Civil War.

Well, at least they aren’t blindly cheering it on, as the ruling class’s useful idiots do. That includes Trump and Clinton, of course.

And homo sapiens wiped them out. The bloodbath was incredible, all over the world. Yuval Harari’s book was an eye-opener for me. I didn’t realize how many animals our species made extinct. And this continues today.

Is it considered “genocide” when it’s not human slaughter, but slaughter of animals by humans?

Odder still. No mention that she included all religions, and was a socialist.

;>)

Nittany,

From wikipedia
“Democratic socialism is distinguished from both the Soviet model of centralized socialism and from social democracy, where “social democracy” refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state”

That’s why all the hysteria about Sanders was so out of place. He was actually pushing FDR, New Deal policies, updated for 2016. They weren’t even Democratic Socialist, a la Michael Harrington. And while he rightfully talked about how well Denmark works for its citizens — far better than our system, and it’s not close — he didn’t even go that far.

My own vision is anticapitalist, and that we need to repeal and replace our current system. And by “capitalism,” I don’t mean “commerce” or “business” or “trade.” Capitalism isn’t synonymous with those things. It’s a unique and unprecedented form of economics. Non-capitalist commerce, trade and business have been around for thousands of years, etc. I’m talking about M-C-M and exchange value, with a capitalist purchasing labor as a commodity, in order to get workers to make commodities for money, which the capitalist then appropriates (exploitation) for himself or herself.

One could easily have a non-capitalist business by avoiding the above. As in, you make your own custom chairs for sale, all by yourself. With your own two hands. You don’t have employees. You sell them yourself. You’re not a capitalist and do not own a capitalist business in that case. You become a capitalist, however, when you hire employees to build those chairs for you and collect the surplus value they generate as if you had done all the work yourself.

You could, of course, grow that business without it ever becoming capitalist if all new chair builders share equally in surplus value, and you didn’t have an employer/employee structure.

A society with nothing but sole proprietors and democratic co-ops would not be “capitalist,” but could produce the same things as a “capitalist” society.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Billy_T.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Billy_T.

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

You’re making a mountain out of a molehill.

That would be the logical version.

He’s just engaged in the usual partisan personality defamation tactics that very partisan political types buy into. They even bot it off of bot sites, they don’t invent it. It’s not like we’re ever going to get an original, informed critique of a Sanders policy. Just monkeys throwing shit level stuff.

I get that. But what I don’t get is that someone would begrudge a home to Sanders and his wife, with roughly a century of work between them, when he supports the billionaire Trump.

A billionaire who inherited roughly 40 million, and then managed to go bankrupt six times and still owns private jets, etc. Trump owns too many to count, apparently, including the Kluge Estate in Charlottesville. He gets to live like a pasha, and bnw has a problem with Sanders and his wife buying a vacation home at 74-years-old and 65, respectively?

Unlike you I don’t buy into the lie. The polls showing him down double digits I do not believe for a second. The establishment is throwing everything against him and it won’t work. Especially the race baiting you bring into every discussion. Obama benefited from it to especially the blacks detriment. Trump stays on message about jobs and Hildabeast criminality he won’t lose.

He is the establishment, bnw. He’s benefited tremendously from being a part of that establishment, getting away with stuff you and I could never do, like refusing to make payments on massive loans and eventually shafting his workers and creditors. Another case of this has just cropped up. Hannity lied about Trump helping out some marines back in 1991:

Too good to check: Sean Hannity’s tale of a Trump rescue

And that “focus on jobs”? What is it, exactly? He has never come out with a plan to add even one single new job, anywhere. But he has told us he’s going to slash the tax rates for himself and his billionaire friends, and put hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of his heirs.

There is literally nothing new in his trickle down scheme. It’s warmed over Laffer, Cheney, Reagan/Thatcher, Bush (neoliberal) nonsense, and it’s never worked for anyone but the super rich.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Billy_T.