I recently stumbled across the following statement on youtube:
“The "Economic Crisis" has nothing to do with capitalism (in the traditional, free market sense of the term), and everything to do with corporatism and central planning. The Fed (and the state's recognition of this central bank) is responsible, not free markets (which we don't have).”
Secondly, ‘corporatism’ is most certainly at the core of the dilemma. As witnessed in the recent case where U.S Supreme Court granting further citizenship and personhood rights to corporations, thereby opening the door to billions of dollars being spent by special corporate interests to influence and thereby dominate the political landscape of the United States. This sadistic symbiosis of corporate and government interests has allowed the most wealthy people on the planet continue to consolidate, expand and extended their power and influence all over the world.
And I do agree that the Federal Bank and its monetary policies played a major role in the "crisis", however, again, this is because it too is controlled through and through by corporate fascist interests.
Yet, notice the first 9 words of that statement! Here they are: “The "Economic Crisis" has nothing to do with capitalism…” WTF?
Let me try and simplify this for everyone: corporate dominance, elite influence and the banking systems they own ARE integral parts of CAPITALISM. Capitalism in contemporary global society is nothing more that a set of values, ideas, practices, policies, technology and social structures engineered to maximize and consolidate profit - managed and defended by massive corporations and all those wealthy elites who control them. Capitalism is the blind pursuit of profit utilizing any means, technology or advantage possible within a systematically unfair, unequal, controlled and dominated field of interaction. Capitalism has only ever operated through influence, power and the appropriation of ‘natural resources’.
And the person who wrote the comments quoted above was right: we do not have free market capitalism. You wanna know why? BECAUSE it is a MYTH. ‘Free markets’ do NOT exist. Nor have they ever existed. Capitalism as it has historically evolved is not the kind of system the kids were told about in primary schools, and it is certainly not about devising institutions that stay in line with the fantasies of Adam Smith. Since the birth of capitalism during the renaissance the wealthy have continued to dominate the fields of "competition", and controlled markets and access to markets throughout the world. [You might want to check out Fernand Braudel’s scholarship for the details] Markets, like everything else in the social world, are NOT, nor will they ever be, totally FREE.
Much like the belief in Anarchy in general, the notion of ‘free markets’ is a fantasy created by people naïve enough to think that there can ever be a “free” association of individuals operating outside the control of coercive powers. Put another way, believing in the possibility of "free markets" is like believing in a purple dragon - it looks good on paper, and makes for a good story but has never existed. Where there is opportunity (especially for profit) there will always be dominant people, groups and “special interests” (fascists) ready to rush in and shape the flow of materials and value for their benefit.
So to assert that the ‘economic crisis’ has nothing to do with capitalism is ridiculous. The whole banking system is a part of the larger machinations of capitalism – and it was the capitalist élites who drove these banks and corporations to do what they did.
In fact, the main goal of the banking-corporate-capitalist-government-elite alliance can only ever be achieved at the expense of other people and the ecosystems in which they subsist. Capitalism is an ideology and system with a single zero sum goal: profit. And the only way to extract profit is through the exploitation of others and the appropriation of natural resources. And failing to recognize this total alignment of contemporary profit-obsessed capitalism with the controlling interests and influences of the fascist elite would mean that we are either clinically insane, or that we have become so involved in our own self-hating delusions that we continue to operate out of a nihilistic state of denial.
10 comments:
I totally totally totally agree with this post.
Though if you really think about this there is no perfect socialism either. We have a socialist government in Greece that is more capitalist than the liberals.
"Profit" is a zero sum game? LOL!
Ever read Plato's (spurious) "Hipparchus" (aka - The Profiteer)?
How can anyhting that profits both sides in a financial transaction be considered "zero sum"?
Does the flute maker harm the flute player in selling him his instrument? Is it a "zero sum" transaction?
Purple Cow,
I totally agree: socialism as it has been rolled-out to date has been almost as flawed as capitalism. Almost.
But those two systems and their accompanying ideologies are not our only choices. In short, I advocate an interlocking and flexible set of 'functional hybrids' - incorporating elements from multiple economic and governance systems.
And who wants perfection anyway? I think perfection is a fantasy, and a useless notion, and without merit as a standard with which to evaluate real world situations.
Greece is a particularly interesting example. You folks voted in a 'socialist' government that when they took office, and had a chance to look at the situation from the inside, was forced to shift gears and become almost neo-liberal in order to deal with the massive debt and financial instability spreading throughout its major institutions.
Your current government literally had no choice than to cut programs and introduce economic austerity measures, and for two reasons:
1. Greece is very near bankruptcy. Because the previous governments believed the shit the U.S was peddling about how to do business, your government took out huge loans from international banks and then used the money to buy technology and weapons from the U.S and invest in unsustainable infrastructure projects (which were also managed by U.S firms).
Now they are forced to pay huge interest payments on money they borrowed, despite the fact that they had invested the money in the same corporate entities and banks that lent it to them in the first place.
So whatever ideas your government had about developing a social democracy (which is not the same as socialism by the way) before they came to power they necessarily had to be thrown out when those elected started experiencing the massive, and very real, economic, legal and political pressures coming from the U.S, the E.U and all the international power brokers.
2. And part of the 'new deal' struck with the people who lent you folks the money was to let international corporations move in on your national and local industries and resources.
The only thing Greece can do now that it has become basically a slave to the corporations and banking industry is default on your loans and re-organize your economy to be more self-sufficient.
And if your leaders did that, they would have a nice looking fella from the C.I.A show up in the middle of the night and shoot them in the face. (actually it would probably be made to look like a plane crash but you get the point...)
Thanks for reading and commenting!
Yul,
"Hence it is not right to reproach anybody with being a lover of gain: for he who makes this reproach is actually such an one himself." - Plato
Where to begin? It's kinda funny you brought up Plato because I just finished my second reading of his Republic a couple weeks ago. And, truth be told, it sucked as much this time as it did when I was in my twenties.
Plato advocated a brutal authoritarian state politic and social engineering project. He was also an aristocrat who openly argued for cosmology of transcendence - in terms of "ideal forms". On both counts he comes off as merely an arrogant miscreant - even if he was the most learned of the sophists.
I read the dialogue (if you want to call it that) you linked to and found it a) unintelligible, due to its horrendous translation, and b) pointless, due to its intensely flawed logic.
Let me sum up its main argument: everybody wants something. Really? That's as deep as Plato wants to go with that topic? Brutal.
Not only did Plato have a highschool knowledge of how economics work, he also (at least in that dialogue) displays a pathological desire to understand the world through binaries.
In the Real world, as opposed to Plato's Idealism, we would be able to see that the flutemaker is actually interested in extracting the most "gain" possible from the fluteplayer.
And how is that value created? By getting slaves to work in the shop and by cutting down as much reed or wood or whatever from his neighbors land he and his slaves can carry, thereby destroying his neighbor's watershed and displacing his neighbor's family from their ancestral homes.
See, your "faith" in capitalism, and I assume Adam Smith's ideology, doesn't account for the facts - the actual effects - of the actual system. Capitalism is a zero-sum game precisely because "profit" is extracted from the exploitation of natural resources - which have to come from somewhere (e.g., the neighbor's yard) - or human labor.Slaves or resources, that's it. Someone, or something, has to 'lose' in order for capitalists to 'win'.
I think you fail to fully appreciate the complexity involved in economic systems. There are many more "players" involved in teh "game" than in a simply person to person transaction...
Indeed, another milestone reached: from market socialism to the hybrid socialism of price regulation by governing authority to the post-socialist socialism of price regulation by the media. three cheers for gratuitous populism.
PC,
I'm not sure what you meant by "the post-socialist socialism of price regulation by the media"? Sounds interesting, can you elaborate?
Also what does "three cheers for gratuitous populism" mean?
I would argue that NO country, other than a few northern european states, have had any type of real socialism going on...
Please elaborate!
Plato advocated a brutal authoritarian state politic and social engineering project.
Did he? or did he choose to illustrate the "nature" of "justice" writ in a social, as opposed to individual, context...
Plato, "Republic"
But, said Glaucon, interposing, you have not given them a relish to their meal.
True, I replied, I had forgotten; of course they must have a relish—salt, and olives, and cheese, and they will boil roots and herbs such as country people prepare; for a dessert we shall give them figs, and peas, and beans; and they will roast myrtle-berries and acorns at the fire, drinking in moderation. And with such a diet they may be expected to live in peace and health to a good old age, and bequeath a similar life to their children after them.
Yes, Socrates, he said, and if you were providing for a city of pigs, how else would you feed the beasts?
But what would you have, Glaucon? I replied.
Why, he said, you should give them the ordinary conveniences of life. People who are to be comfortable are accustomed to lie on sofas, and dine off tables, and they should have sauces and sweets in the modern style.
Yes, I said, now I understand: the question which you would have me consider is, not only how a State, but how a luxurious State is created; and possibly there is no harm in this, for in such a State we shall be more likely to see how justice and injustice originate. In my opinion the true and healthy constitution of the State is the one which I have described (previously as a simple agrarian state - NOT "The Republic"). But if you wish also to see a State at fever-heat, I have no objection. For I suspect that many will not be satisfied with the simpler way of life. They will be for adding sofas, and tables, and other furniture; also dainties, and perfumes, and incense, and courtesans, and cakes, all these not of one sort only, but in every variety; we must go beyond the necessaries of which I was at first speaking, such as houses, and clothes, and shoes: the arts of the painter and the embroiderer will have to be set in motion, and gold and ivory and all sorts of materials must be procured.
True, he said.
Then we must enlarge our borders; for the original healthy State is no longer sufficient. Now will the city have to fill and swell with a multitude of callings which are not required by any natural want; such as the whole tribe of hunters and actors, of whom one large class have to do with forms and colours; another will be the votaries of music—poets and their attendant train of rhapsodists, players, dancers, contractors; also makers of divers kinds of articles, including women's dresses. And we shall want more servants. Will not tutors be also in request, and nurses wet and dry, tirewomen and barbers, as well as confectioners and cooks; and swineherds, too, who were not needed and therefore had no place in the former edition of our State, but are needed now? They must not be forgotten: and there will be animals of many other kinds, if people eat them.
Certainly.
And living in this way we shall have much greater need of physicians than before?
Much greater.
And the country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small now, and not enough?
Quite true.
etc., etc.
Not only did Plato have a highschool knowledge of how economics work, he also (at least in that dialogue) displays a pathological desire to understand the world through binaries.
LOL!
Xenophon, another student of Socrates and "peer" of Plato invented economics. It is we, through Smith, Malthus and Marx, who have transformed "Economics" into something fit for study only by "high-schoolers" and subsequent "ridicule" by ALL educated persons.
And how is that value created? By getting slaves to work in the shop and by cutting down as much reed or wood or whatever from his neighbors land he and his slaves can carry, thereby destroying his neighbor's watershed and displacing his neighbor's family from their ancestral homes. Talk about a strawman. Syrinx would indeed be proud. Who knew that the making of a single flute would yield such an environmental disaster...
Someone, or something, has to 'lose' in order for capitalists to 'win'.
Indeed. The losers would be those who would construct an ethic of ressentiment (Marxists) out of a nobler enterprise... allowing "each" to pusrue "his own".
I think you fail to fully appreciate the complexity involved in economic systems.
As one who has actually read Xenophon, Smith, Malthus and Marx, and have taken far too many undergrate and graduate level business courses, I would beg to disagree.
Post a Comment