Skip to main content

View Diary: Eugene Robinson loves the Occupy protests (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  on capitalism as a faith (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, LWelsch

    for most americans, their default position is a capitalism-run economy

    for those skills it allows, such as working harder or being creatively productive, leading to a higher standard of living than your fellow person if that's what one thinks he/she needs, let it be hypothesized as relevant

    but at that, if it's not to eat itself, it has to be regulated to the nth degree, and is in addition to a social safety net basic society

    ask warren buffett/the late steve jobs if he's been hampered by govt oversight

    •  Capitalism is, from a practical perspective, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Abelia, LWelsch, isabelle hayes

      the preservation of resources and assets for future use.  It implies an awareness of time as composed of past, present and future -- an awareness that not all humans seem to have.  Those that live in an ineffable present, cannot envision future use.

      One has to wonder if our earliest economic analysts were fully into the role of time in trade and exchange.  All of their analysis is still focused on a specific point in time.  John Kenneth Galbraith explained it as an inability to construct dynamic models of a system which is in fact dynamic--i.e. changing all the time.  So, instead, at least until recently, economists have been normative.  That is,  they come out with pronouncements about how the economy should work to be consistent with their models.  Which is sort of backwards thinking and may also be evidence of a tenuous relationship to the linear flow of time.

      Anyway, socialism and communism refer to the ownership of assets, rather than their temporal use.  Which is why China has had no difficulty melding state ownership of assets with saving and investing for future use.

      Trying to partner democracy and capitalism as inseparable makes almost no sense.  Democracy is a system of government by the population while capitalism, again, refers to how their assets are used. Not even apples and oranges.
      Nor is democracy necessarily manifest as government by the people.  It's quite possible to relegate it to a component, the selection process by which totalitarian dictators can be chosen for a more or less limited term (as we see now in Russia).  Totalitarian rule does tend to capture the exchange of goods and services to maintain itself, but the impetus is from the lust for power and is not inherent in trade and exchange.

      Political economy, I've recently figured out, refers to the use of the necessities of life as a tool to coerce public subservience.  In other words, people are ruled by making it virtually impossible to sustain themselves unless they do what they are told.  Sadly, for this to be effective, the right to private property has to be established first, for the simple reason that property restrictions can't be enforced by just a few people using military force.  There has to be a considerable population willing to keep the rabble out.

      What's so egregious about OWS is that the public is being kept out of public space.  That this goes on is not new.  What's new is more people noticing the public spaces have been requisitioned for private use -- i.e. by people with permission slips.

      People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

      by hannah on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 07:55:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so well put (0+ / 0-)

        "... the use of the necessities of life as a tool to coerce public subservience.  In other words, people are ruled by making it virtually impossible to sustain themselves unless they do what they are told..."

        This myth about life in the usa is the big scam,
        since that right to private property, whereby any (fully employed at a life supporting income level) worker can own their own home, used to be widespread, but no more;

        you'd think it'd sink in...

        will we see americans realizing that the 99% could act together to at least get us back to where we were? or are they still too invested in being the slightest bit better off than a poor person?

        •  Money, an impersonal tool, has turned (0+ / 0-)

          out to serve as a shield behind which people can be deprived without being fully aware of how it's done.

          Take Lily Ledbetter, for example.  She worked for decades without knowing that her pay envelope was lighter than everyone else's.  If people were paid in corn that they carry away, they could see a difference. Using money is much more efficient, but it also makes it easier to deceive and some people seem to get high on cheating other people just for the fun of it. Some people harbor resentments that cause them to be mean and, if they're cowards, they're likely to take it out on someone who's not likely to fight back--some unsuspecting bloke is best.

          On the other hand, inoffensive people have a hard time figuring out why they're being attacked.  They console themselves with the idea that maybe God is mad. This, in effect, lets the culprits off. "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord." We hope.

          People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

          by hannah on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:52:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  WOW (0+ / 0-)

        Fear is the Mind Killer

        by boophus on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 04:02:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (143)
  • Community (70)
  • Memorial Day (28)
  • Elections (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (25)
  • Media (25)
  • Law (24)
  • Science (23)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Marriage Equality (18)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site