Forum Replies Created
-
“… I was amazed how even the most liberal students took for granted certain dubious narratives in which they (and much of the rest of the country) were marinated all year long, like the notion that Hillary Clinton was extravagantly corrupt…”
Well 2 can play that game.
How and in what way was HC “extravagantly corrupt”?
I have no particular emotions about her either way. I found her lacking in several policy areas. So voting for her was like voting for Obama. It was just the best the 1 1/2 party system could do. Though to be honest the reviling she attracted struck me as strange. It didn’t seem to involve anything real in any demonstrable way.
AND I always found the “extravagantly corrupt” routine just to be a right-wing narrative. Is there any good reason to doubt that?
So how is calling her “extravagantly corrupt” NOT a dubious narrative?
.
——————–
I’m not the least bit interested in debating whether Hillary was “extravagantly corrupt” or not. To me it would be like arguing about whether the rams “extravagantly sucked” this year — clearly they did, and clearly she is. You disagree. No problem. We see it differently. I dont intend to debate it.I also had a problem with the authors use of simplistic econ numbers to explain some things away. Like he said WV was plus-five percent blah blah blah and the nation as a whole was plus-two percent, etc. That was not convincing to me. I’ve traveled all over WV and its really bad out there. Really, bad. The only jobs for unskilled workers are Walmart jobs and Fracking jobs.
w
vWV,
I think his point was if we compare apples to apples. Perception of reality tends to be dependent upon which party is in power, and it shifts wildly when that happens, even though the nation has barely changed at all.
I’ve spent far too many years arguing with people on the right not to miss how everything suddenly becomes sunshine and roses when their team takes power, and suddenly becomes hell on earth when the other team takes power. The economy was much worse under Bush, especially in the beginning and toward the end, but most folks on the right didn’t raise a ruckus about it until Obama won the presidency. Suddenly, everything mattered again, like the debt, deficits, even — and this was the ultimate in hypocrisy — inequality, and poverty in minority communities.
And we can all remember how Reagan was viewed in his day by his fans, and still is, even though he tripled the debt, took us from a trade surplus to a trade deficit nation, from a creditor to debtor nation, and launched the most aggressive form of neoliberalism to date. Wages had been stagnating for the rank and file since 1973, so he didn’t start that. But it did accelerate on his watch, as did part-time jobs, temp jobs, McJobs and so on. But conservatives still say the American economy was never better.
We are just such a deeply divided nation, and too many people think a change of parties means a radically horrible or radically wonderful change to everything in sight. Mostly, things stay pretty much the same, give or take. Tragically. But people don’t perceive it staying the same.
BT, that’s 4 posts on what I said was a “vote” meaning there can’t be wrong and right, just statements of beliefs. I don’t have time to read 4 posts intelligently until probably Weds.
I can just spontaneously express myself without the deeper engagement that comes from reading.
I am approaching this differently than you. (Also I didn’t say I tuned out anti-capitalist arguments–I said I tuned out all arguments that try to rationally calculate some kind of utopia, which of course includes moving on from some kind of “bad situation.” I tune them all out. Why? I absolutely do not believe they are anything BUT beliefs. I don’t believe in their presumed rationality.) (Plus of course I don’t count capitalism as being a late-comer. The UK was an agrarian capitalist nation in the 18th century, and industries did exist such as ship building, and then there were things like the East India Company and so on. So we also see history differently. I see different versions of capitalism rising from at least the 14th century onward. I assume there will be different versions in the future and I also assume that there are different versions globally, for example the Scandinavian versions).
So remember how I see this—this is alliance politics with different people saying where they are coming from (which is what I did). IN that approach there is no “debate” about who is “right.” There’s only different votes.
I can read all this on Weds. (early in the week is always bad for me, in terms of engaging intelligently in extended discussion. Sometimes on Mon/Tues I can’t even tend to the board in normal ways, let alone engage in extended discussion).
But I won’t change. I will vote as I vote, and honor the differences between us. That will be the “we see it differently but have an alliance” approach. I arrived where I am over decades.
Till Weds then.
Sounds good, ZN. Looking forward to that. And I apologize to the board for the many posts. But it’s a complicated subject, and spawns so much misunderstanding, I thought it was a necessary start.
Also, I think because you didn’t read most of what I’ve written on the subject, you missed my own replay of the history, which I’ve learned through reading books like the ones I listed. When I say “latecomer,” I’m talking in relative terms. The histories I’ve read place the beginnings of agrarian capitalism in Britain in the late 17th century, but show that even there, capitalism wasn’t dominant until much later, after the Industrial Revolution in fact. And that continental Europe was largely immune to its attempts to unify all previously independent, local markets, but British colonies succumbed sooner — Ireland and India, especially. The USA, again, wasn’t a majority capitalist nation until after the Civil War. It was “pre-capitalist” until then, with most people working for themselves, as small farmers, artisans and the like. We had a C-M-C and use-value economy, primarily, not a M-C-M and exchange-value system.
Also, when you do finally get around to reading these posts, I think you’ll discover again that your fears of “utopian dreams” is misplaced. That’s never been my angle, or the angle of anticapitalists I read and admire.
In fact, I think the real “utopian dream” is the one that says we can make capitalism work for everyone, if we just tinker with it in the right way. There is no evidence that this has ever worked, and no logic behind this belief. And it is a “belief,” ZN — just like the one you say I hold.
Looking forward to your responses.
First, I’d tell politicians and their shills, you work for us. You don’t get to say you invited the Press in. The American people are temporarily renting OUR house to you. It’s not yours. And here, in our studios, you can’t even say you have a temporary lease. We invited you here, and if you won’t answer our questions, you won’t ever, ever be back. We don’t need you. But you need us. We could find tens of thousands of people who’d love to fill your spot, most of whom wouldn’t lie to everyone, gaslight the country, and do this endlessly without shame.
Yes but the press today is all about ratings. Trump and his thugs get ratings. No one cares about some policy wonk who will try to explain why block grants for medicaid are a terrible idea. America doesn’t care. Keep it simple–put it in a meme and say how great America will be. Otherwise–they can watch “Pawn Stars” or some such thing. Ratings “Trump” all. So t some point the press may have to lick their boots.
Trump knows this. They are going to do things HIS way. The press will have to come along in time. There’s always a Fox News ready. NBC not interested? Yawn. Head over to Fox. People will watch.
The press will not set any rules in the long run. Trump is patient. He’ll wait.
He knows we’re in an Idiocracy. He gets it. And he’s the king.
I agree with most of that. But if you try to watch Conway — and it’s like nails on a blackboard — I think you can see a crack in that wall. Because I really doubt the networks get higher ratings when she or Spicer or some other Trump shill come on. They get it for Trump. And Conway’s style is so beyond annoying, so relentless, so non-stop in its spin, bullshitting and gaslighting, I’m betting she actually causes people to switch channels.
But, yeah, overall, I agree with your take. It would be great of our Press weren’t beholden to shareholders, quarterly reports, profit reports and could just do the damn news as it should be done.
But, back to neoliberalism for a second. In capitalism’s one and only middle class boom, here and in Europe, especially (roughly 1947-1973), Keynesian economics was the basic consensus. Capitalism was highly regulated. Taxes were very high on the wealthy. “Redistributionist” policies were the norm. But even at its height, during its best period in history, modified capitalism left most minorities in the dirt, plus most women, and America and the West screwed over the Third World to keep it all afloat.
In short, there is no historical period within Capitalism, under any name, where more than the richest 20% of the global population had decent pay or a chance. We in the West tend to have a false take on that Golden Era, especially if we are white, middle class, professional or rich. We tend to forget about how capitalism functions, and that it can’t — it’s impossible mathematically and logically — to both concentrate capital at the top, AND allocate resources, income, wealth, access and opportunity to everyone.
It doesn’t work. It’s never worked. And that’s math. You can’t simultaneously concentrate most income, wealth and power and spread it out to the masses. It’s one or the other, by definition.
Right now, just eight humans have as much wealth as the bottom half of the world combined. But even in the best of (capitalist) times that number was always very small. And even in the best of times, post-WWII, the richest 20% of the world consumed 85% of all its resources.
Our being in that 20% blinds the vast majority of us about the actual effects of the capitalist system — again, historically, through all of its guises.
For instance, you make it sound like you stick to principles, and I — and other anticapitalists — don’t. That our arguments — and they’re diverse as well — are always already about utopian dreams and historical necessity.
That’s not what I read when I read anticapitalist analyses, and it’s not what I believe as one of them. In fact, principles are why I became an anticapitalist in the first place. It’s always been a principled stand for me against inequality, social injustice, slavery, poverty, hunger, famine, oppression, colonialism, exploitation, pollution, etc. It’s always been a principled stand for me in favor of equality, social justice, fairness, fair trade, personal and cultural autonomy, access and opportunity for all and democracy.
That last one? Capitalism, in every guise we’ve seen to date, from its agrarian beginnings in 17th century England until today, has always been anti-democratic. It’s structured that way, from the micro to the macro. If it were democratic in nature, it couldn’t be “capitalism,” by definition. It would be something else.
(Again, to keep things shorter . . .)
“….Neoliberalism is the killer plague of the 21st century. Neoliberalism is economic fascism. It is a criminal doctrine. Globalized neoliberalism privatizes public goods for private profit. Neoliberalism led by Washington with the shameful complicity of Europe has in the last fifteen years killed between 12 and 15 million people by wars, famine, deprived health services… forced refugees. Today a small world elite of corporate and Wall Street CEOs and selected politicians call the shots….” ~Peter Koenig
WV,
This may be one of those times when “We could write each other’s posts” with you standing in for that “we,” and the following being what you could write in anticipation, etc. etc. . . .
;>)
To me, I think too many people are missing the proverbial forest for the trees, when they talk about neoliberalism, which is, of course, odious. And it often surprises me when critics themselves lay out its fundamentals but fail to take the next logical step.
The main reason why neoliberalism is so destructive is that it rolls back previous restraints on capitalism, designed to prevent it from doing what it wants to do — though they were in place for a much shorter period of time than most people think. Prior to those curbs on its power, we had an even more aggressive capitalism, with even fewer restraints than we have now, and the results were worse.
I’m honestly baffled when people think it makes sense to concentrate on the presence of more, or the presence of fewer, restraints on an economic system that has proven over time that we can’t trust it if left alone. Logic tells me that it’s the economic system itself which is the problem, or we wouldn’t need them, or need to increase them, or fear their absence.
It’s kind of like choosing a new pet dog for your kids. Does it make sense to bring home a dog which requires all kinds of restraints, leashes, special fencing, muzzles and what not, and concentrate on making sure you have the right stuff to protect your kids from the dog . . . .? Perhaps it’s a lot smarter way to go to bring home a dog that loves kids naturally, is always gentle and kind to them and doesn’t need all of that protective gear.
