Skip to main content

View Diary: Anti-Capitalist Meetup: On "The Making of Global Capitalism" (84 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think that the consolidation of the former (7+ / 0-)

    Eastern "socialist" bloc into the capitalist economic system was part and parcel of the situation that lead to the Washington Consensus which consolidated neoliberalism as the economic framework under which the advanced capitalist governments operated and which was then forced under the rubric of the IMF and World Bank in developing economies.

    The imposition of this was easier in a uni-polar world economy, but the rise of China as an economic powerhouse and the deliberate impoverishment of workers in the advanced capitalist world has led to an additional problem which was the revival of the realisation crisis caused by insufficient incomes to further demand which would enable economic growth. The whole fantasy of export-led growth where no one can purchase goods due to the destruction of worker's incomes means that unless gov'ts purchase the products of industry, demand and realisation crises are a problem. This is where the relationship between the MIC and the various governments of the world comes in handy as they guarantee purchase of the products of the military industrial complex. Interestingly, NATO has been insisting that its members up military spending (at a period of time when most of the advanced capitalist world is destroying the social welfare state and state sectors) which would provide demand for military goods but is literally demanding a gun-butter struggle.

    On containment of the inherent crises of capitalist as opposed to prevention (which is impossible given that they derive from the laws of motion of the system itself and Keynesian economic policies are geared towards amelioration but cannot prevent either business cycles or larger crises), this began to shift under Nixon following the oil shock, running the Viet Nam war on inflation, leading to the need for abandoning Bretton Woods for a different international currency regime.  Then under Reagan and Thatcher, we see the triumph of monetarism and supply side stupidity and the beginning of deregulation and abandonment of Keynesian amelioration policies. The movement away from regulation towards deregulation and the consolidation of this shift occurs under Clinton.

     

    "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

    by NY brit expat on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:34:22 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The authors would argue that deregulation (4+ / 0-)

      goes back further, even before the big shift into neoliberalism. Though they note that it accelerated in the early 70s and beyond. At the same time, they show the contradictions of fewer regulations begetting more regulations and perhaps more power for government bureaucracies. I'd have to reread the book to do a decent job of expressing that seeming contradiction, because it's a tough concept, but it's in there. They make a really good case for that having happened.

      “While we do our good works let us not forget that the real solution lies in a world in which charity will have become unnecessary.” ― Chinua Achebe . . . {Economic Left/Right: -9.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.77}

      by diomedes77 on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:44:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is a serious problem ... (5+ / 0-)

        if the system's laws of motion lead to crises and they do. Then all you can do is try to contain the crises, that is what Keynesianism does ... containing crises depends upon the state stepping in to invest (directly and indirectly) and to hire people (directly and indirectly) and to cover the vast majority when the inevitable crisis arrives (and then to provide the income to enable the private sector to come out of the crisis) when the private sector invariably starts flailing between boom and bust. On a humorous note, Gordon Brown actually believed that they beat boom and bust through providing income through debt and credit if you need a laugh ...  If then inevitably finance capital moves from being a "aid to capitalists for investment" and develops its own strength which is separate from the real economy (and it has) and then financial bubbles led to centralisation of capital and the destruction of redundant capital, what can be done to stop crises? Nothing except abandoning the system and quite honestly, the government in the US (and those throughout Europe are wed to capital for quite some time) ...

        I would argue that preventing crises was abandoned very early on under Roosevelt as they did not want to create long-term government jobs (relying on short-term direct government job creation through work creation programmes) ... they did the minimum, the economy fell back into crisis and world war II pulled it out again for a number of reasons. I do not think prevention is possible in the system, amelioration, certainly is ... but this becomes less effective due to globalisation as Keynesian policies do not work as effectively on a global level.

        "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

        by NY brit expat on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:56:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  the ideology of deregulation goes quite far back (3+ / 0-)

        but one simply need to look at the shifts in US regulatory regulatory regimes in major industries as well as the financial sector and the effects of the monetary/keynesian neoclassical debates since the rise of the US regulatory era(s) since there are several in the last two centuries.

        Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

        by annieli on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:58:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  might volunteer for one of the (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NY brit expat, Galtisalie, diomedes77

          coming open diary spots but the coming week may be quite stupidly busy so I cannot commit just now. The recent Rand Paul appearance in SF has gotten me thinking about the problems of Ayn Randianism and the Austrians with the usual problems of thinking about a "left libertarianism" which is like naming your rock group the Young Hegelians.

          Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

          by annieli on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:03:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That would be excellent ... (6+ / 0-)

            got into a rather odd discussion with someone that wants to found a neo-Austrian or new Austrian schools from a right-wing anarcho-capitalist perspective at the conference ... I really think that would be an important discussion.

            The right-wing "libertarians" stole the libertarian name from the anarcho-communists ... in the US, no one seems to know whom the term libertarians applies to as they all think it is some bizarre right-wing cult (which it is in the states, but only the US could come up with right-wing "anarchism" based upon free-market stupidity and privatisation.

            "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

            by NY brit expat on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:14:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  indeed US intelligentsia's got ironically LoFos (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NY brit expat, UnaSpenser, diomedes77

              galore....

              in the US, no one seems to know whom the term libertarians applies to as they all think it is some bizarre right-wing cult (which it is in the states, but only the US could come up with right-wing "anarchism" based upon free-market stupidity and privatisation).

              Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

              by annieli on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:21:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  and wouldn't a (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              diomedes77

              "right-wing anarcho-capitalist perspective" simply be a rebranded fascism

              Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

              by annieli on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:22:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The fascists had very strong government (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                annieli

                relations with industry, this was so in Italy, Germany and Spain. There was not an anti-government position as the role of the government and nationalism was so important to Fascism. This is completely different from a fascist economic argument in the classic sense; there has been a shift, but no fascist would want to eliminate government control over politics and economic decision making to the private sector alone --  they work hand in hand.

                "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

                by NY brit expat on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:27:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  true dat, although a structure/agency approach (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  diomedes77, NY brit expat

                  might look at the institutions differently, I say this only recently looking at a Smithsonian program on Mussolini where it's not so easy to see where the government stops and the party (of capitalists) begins

                  Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

                  by annieli on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:31:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  they were always closely linked (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    annieli, diomedes77

                    but even the so-called post-fascists (Fini) in Italy would still recognise a role for the state in provision of some social welfare which would not be the case for right-wing libertarians who are happy to use the state to ensure their private property, but are loath to use it for social welfare provision either going to the full voluntarist provision through charities (along the Malthusian lines) or letting people sink or swim. Fascists are not that stupid, they know that they are competing with the hard left for support of the working class and petit-bourgeoisie ... that means that they need to offer more than nationalism and xenophobia (as the centre-right already does that) ... I expect that sooner or later some fascists groups may adopt a right-wing libertarian perspective, but that seems to be more of the hard-right rather than fascist right ...

                    "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

                    by NY brit expat on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:50:14 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  they are that stupid in that their expediency (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      NY brit expat, diomedes77

                      is ultimately inhumane because to them it's never a competition - it's about domination / eradication

                      Fascists are not that stupid, they know that they are competing with the hard left for support of the working class and petit-bourgeoisie

                      Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

                      by annieli on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:53:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  compare the BNP to UKIP (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        annieli, northsylvania

                        the BNP is fascist (nationalistic, racist and xenophobic) and they never called for the eradication of the state (they need the state) while UKIP is nationalist and xenophobic while arguing for deregulation and elimination of state controls (especially those of the EU). Interestingly, at the last election, BNP lost voters to UKIP ... I don't know enough about Hungary to discuss their parties, but Golden Dawn in Greece is holding to a classic fascist argument.

                        "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

                        by NY brit expat on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:57:05 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  but doesn't (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          NY brit expat, northsylvania

                          Golden Dawn draw from both constituencies?

                          Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

                          by annieli on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:59:36 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  they seem to be classic fascists (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annieli, northsylvania, diomedes77

                            but I will check; maybe I am wrong, always possible! I have been expecting some influence and change;  but the hard right and the fascist right may share some similarities but they differ on economic perspectives ... strong support of private property certainly, tight linkages between the state and private sector, but the fascists were not free-markets nutters ... wouldn't surprise me if newer groups that are developing pick up that line, but that brings them into competition with the hard non-fascist right that is far more respectable (cough, cough) in the sense of respectable in the mainstream political system (no one bats an eye on neoliberalism nuttiness, Berlusconi helped rehabilitate fascism and was a member of P2, but was a free-marketeer; I would not call him a traditional fascist by any means ... he was a corrupt right-wing politician ... by legitimising fascism, he could borrow some political ideas but not their economic ideas) ...

                            the other thing is that the US is rather different than other places, the rabid individualism, free market and fear of government combined with a desire for strong state protection of private property makes for a right-wing that has rather different characteristics than are often found elsewhere ..

                            "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

                            by NY brit expat on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 06:20:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Exceptionalism! /nt (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            NY brit expat, diomedes77
                            the other thing is that the US is rather different than other places, the rabid individualism, free market and fear of government combined with a desire for strong state protection of private property makes for a right-wing that has rather different characteristics than are often found elsewhere ..

                            Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

                            by annieli on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 07:34:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  The key is where they want their "anti-government" (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annieli, NY brit expat, northsylvania

                  ideology to apply.

                  It's not across the board, so it can still be quite "fascist" in that sense. It's a cherry-picked opposition.

                  They want the government to protect their property, contracts, workplace rights (as owners), etc. They just don't want the government doing anything on behalf of labor, minorities, the environment, women, etc.

                  And if you go more primal, the hate lists of right-libertarians are very similar to old style European fascists. To me, that's a key indicator of affinities, even if latent.

                  “While we do our good works let us not forget that the real solution lies in a world in which charity will have become unnecessary.” ― Chinua Achebe . . . {Economic Left/Right: -9.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.77}

                  by diomedes77 on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:39:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  yes and the analysis of all fascist regimes would (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    diomedes77, NY brit expat

                    feature a kind of false consciousness as you pointed out on the issue of property ownership, from your Ames example, the role of the real estate industry funding Uncle Miltie, yet mum on the issue of financing the the American Dream via FHA.

                    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

                    by annieli on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:49:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's a very convenient sort of opposition. (3+ / 0-)

                      This may be old news for this group, but I think Corey Robin's book, The Reactionary Mind is really good on the subject.

                      Boiled down, the right has always been against the rise of "the lower orders," and their loyalties and oppositions are pretty much always in tune with that. A couple of centuries ago, their loyalties were with Church and State (the Aristocracy), which crushed those "lower orders." Now, it's with the capitalist class.

                      The illusion of separation between capitalist and state, however, gives them cover. It makes them appear to be in rebellion with the state, and this gives them added cache among all too many. When they were just cheerleading for Big Church and Big Aristocracy, they were nakedly in opposition to the vast majority. Now they can pretend to be against one form of oppression of that vast majority, the state. Of course, the side they back is far better at oppressing the vast majority, at least domestically, and they typically support the state when it puts people in jail or goes after Occupy protestors, etc.

                      “While we do our good works let us not forget that the real solution lies in a world in which charity will have become unnecessary.” ― Chinua Achebe . . . {Economic Left/Right: -9.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.77}

                      by diomedes77 on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 05:03:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Basically. (4+ / 0-)

                Their idea of "freedom and liberty" is that business owners can do anything they like, screw over workers, consumers and the earth, and that the "freedom and liberty" for workers and consumers consists solely in their "voluntary" associations with markets.

                As no doubt everyone here knows, it's a radically one-sided dynamic. And a con. One of the biggest cons of the 20th and early 21st century. Unfortunately, it seems to have caught on with a lot of young people. And it's especially big with young people in the IT world.

                “While we do our good works let us not forget that the real solution lies in a world in which charity will have become unnecessary.” ― Chinua Achebe . . . {Economic Left/Right: -9.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.77}

                by diomedes77 on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:28:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  yes, quite attractive after a few bong hits /nt (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  diomedes77, NY brit expat

                  Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

                  by annieli on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:32:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The person I was talking to was a very (4+ / 0-)

                  young woman who acknowledged that the basic income argument that has been accepted by the right (as well as some of the left) could be used by the Austrians and their ilk to eliminate the social welfare state (she thought this was good as the state was so "bureaucratic") as people can purchase what they need for their social welfare from the private sector. I tried to explain two obvious points:

                  1) we do not all have the same needs and the basic income argument essentially argues that everyone irrespective of class gets the same amount of money. I asked her about working class women and disabled people who obviously have different needs to those of wealthier women and those that are disabled.

                  2) The private sector only provides what they can make a profit on; if working class people cannot afford health care, they will not provide it. If working class and unemployed people cannot afford clean drinking water, they will not provide it for them unless they can pay. For social care, looking at Greece is helpful. Young adults who could not find jobs, moved home with their parents, who also did not have money. Childcare and care for the sick and elderly and for that matter healthcare need money, people don't have it and guess what, it falls on women.

                  These young people are incredibly privileged, they have no idea what working class and unemployed people need to do to survive. Their ideas are fantasies and they are dangerous; as an understatement, I was horrified.

                  "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

                  by NY brit expat on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:38:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  another diary just got posted addressing that (3+ / 0-)
                    Its message — that minimum wage increases will lead to service workers being replaced by apps — is continued on an accompanying website — BadIdeaCA — which claims to be “holding activists accountable for minimum wage consequences.”

                    So who the hell pays for billboards threatening waitstaff with redundancy if they demand a living wage? A bit of digging and clicking reveals that the campaign is backed by Employment Policies Institute, the conservative lobbying group which regularly campaigns on behalf of the restaurant industry.

                    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

                    by annieli on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:40:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I was in a local major brand fast food place (4+ / 0-)

                      recently to order an ice cream shake. I noticed an interesting new big box near the area where you order. It's a box that lets you order and pay without standing in line for an order taker. It's completely voluntary at this time. My guess is that they are starting to put this technology into the field to work out the bugs, get customer feedback, and have it ready for rising labor costs because of minimum wage increases or market forces. I imagine that in the near future you will be able to communicate with the box from your smart phone so that when you arrive you would just need to pick up your order which would be ready to go.

                      I wonder if anyone else has seen this technology deployed? I was at a Jack-In-The-Box in the SF bay area.

                      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                      by VClib on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 05:07:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually how about a discussion (4+ / 0-)

                    about full employment versus a citizen's income provision? Would that be interesting to people here?

                    "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

                    by NY brit expat on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:41:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Whoo. That would make some heads explode. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      NY brit expat

                      A minimum wage at least separates the deserving from the undeserving poor. Interesting that Switzerland is considering it.

                      "The 'Middle' is a crowded place - that is where the effective power is - the extreme right and left might annoy governments, but the middle terrifies them." Johnny Linehan

                      by northsylvania on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 03:49:12 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I think our government should guarantee work. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      NY brit expat

                      It should be a right. If a citizen wants to work, there should never be a time when he or she can't.

                      In our current system, if the private sector won't hire, the government should be compelled to step in and pick up the slack.

                      Personally, as long as we have a capitalist economic engine, I think full employment should be mandated, along with living wages, maximum wages and a max ratio of executive to rank and file pay. I would trade an extensive "social welfare system" for that.  

                      The welfare system we would have in place would be smaller and only there to cover those who can't work. There shouldn't be any need for government to supplement private sector pay, as we do now with places like Walmart and McDonald's. Businesses should be forced by law to pay living wages, etc. etc. Taxpayers should not be forced to supplement them.

                      If someone wants to start a business, they should be held to at least basic requirements of fairness, justice, equal rights, etc. etc. And no exemptions for religion. None. Zero. Zilch.

                      “While we do our good works let us not forget that the real solution lies in a world in which charity will have become unnecessary.” ― Chinua Achebe . . . {Economic Left/Right: -9.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.77}

                      by diomedes77 on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 08:07:19 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Made me think of all the people whose water (3+ / 0-)

                    got cut off in Detroit because they can't pay for it.  Can you imagine? First they get their pensions cut, then even their water is cut off because they are so "irresponsible" they cant pay for it.  I suppose, since this, unlike the water being cut off for the entire community which often happens in Gaza, it is supposed to be ok because in Detroit it is just commercial capitalism as usual and supposedly they can just go buy bottled water? Can you imagine what it would cost to buy bottled water if they cant even pay their utilities? And since many, probably most of those affected, are old or disabled people, can you picture them hauling large bottles of water from the store back to their apartments? It is a grotesque situation.

                •  similar logic to supporters of pedophilia: (4+ / 0-)

                  the child can say "no" so it's not really a problem.

                  This logic that workers and consumers can opt out lacks any basis in the reality of the way things work.

                  I just had a young man tell me the other day that it was okay for banks to charge whatever fees they want - as in there should be no regulations, at all - because you don't have to use a bank.

                  The "don't have to" is a very narrowly applied analysis. We tried to explain to him that more and more you can't make cash transactions with people and are required to have a debit card. Also, that more and more jobs require a credit check and that includes the expectation that you are doing your good capitalist part and contributing to the capitalists by using banks and taking on debt.

                  People who support deregulation of all human endeavors fail to admit that

                  1. there is such a thing as coercion and extortion and that it's not always possible to avoid those influences on your choices;
                  2. that people have character flaws which range from benign to evil, that we don't always act in our own - much less anyone else' - best interest, and that one of the reasons we are social animals is so that society can act as a regulator of our less than beneficial inclinations. Our governance system is specifically for the purpose of maintaining a larger conscience and making sure that we don't stray off the path too destructively.

                    If society is doing it's job well, it is assuring that everyone's basic needs are met fairly and that healthy corrective measures are available when people need them. That would mean such things as recognizing that it serves the community and the pocketbook better if we help guide people back to functioning well in society rather than punishing people because they have strayed. It also means, making it clear that we don't allow people to bully, coerce, manipulate, extort or otherwise make it so that some people can't eat while others wallow in lives of luxury.

                  Building Community. Creating Jobs. Donating Art to Community Organizations. Support the Katalogue

                  by UnaSpenser on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 08:06:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Anarchists (4+ / 0-)

                  who began using the term "libertarian" in 19th century France to take the place of the term anarchism to avoid French laws which had made anarchism illegal, would consider the right wing version an oxymoron, because as long as property is used as a tool of dominance and exploitation of workers, forcing them into wage-slavery, and subservience to the hierarchy and rankism of the workplace, it is not liberty. Private property used in production, or even state property not under the direct possession and management of the workers, is one of the most authoritarian concepts ever devised, and this is enforced through violence of the state. It can't be called liberty.

                  As I recall, it was Ursula Le Guin (an anarchist) who coined the term "propertarian" in her book The Dispossessed, which has come to be used to describe what right wing "libertarians" really are. There is nothing libertarian about capitalism, which serves the elite few, enslaving the rest.

                  Bakunin presciently touched on this difference long ago. See my sig line.

                  "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                  by ZhenRen on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 12:37:09 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Did not know that about Le Guin. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ZhenRen

                    Thanks. I have her book, but have not read it yet. Read her Left Hand of Darkness and loved it.

                    My own vision of a socialist future does include private property, but not for business. I would separate business from personal holdings, and as mentioned above, transition to a far more equal distribution of even private property over time. It would be a natural result of ending capitalism, and going to a system of electronic debit, with virtual funds coming from the people's pool . . . and with prices and wages set by everyone, all of us, together, and those would be set in stone.

                    I'm thinking of a max ratio of 4 to 1. Four tiers for workers, similar to master/apprentice arrangements, but we'll find a different word for the former.

                    :>)

                    No more volatility. No more integration with all the other dominoes across the world. Local economies, producing what communities need, in harmony with the earth and other local communities. As little waste as possible -- we currently throw away half our food, for instance.

                    It would have some similarities with Parecon, and anarchist ideal as well.

                    “While we do our good works let us not forget that the real solution lies in a world in which charity will have become unnecessary.” ― Chinua Achebe . . . {Economic Left/Right: -9.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.77}

                    by diomedes77 on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 08:17:47 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The concept of property (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      UnaSpenser

                      tends to include "title" (interesting term), the right to rent, to borrow against or use as collateral on rented money which earns interest, so I don't support "property" in this sense. Renting property (for example, leasing land to farmers, renting money to workers for production) is just another form of exploitation.

                      The concept of possession, on the other hand, in which property is being possessed and directly used by the possessors (not rented out for use of another), but can't be inherited (unless the inheritors are also intending to use it in actual possession), or rented, is a concept that seems workable. I agree with Kropotkin who wrote of leaving larger homes and mansions with the (live-in) "owners", who would not have unusual access to labor, or employees or servants to maintain their homes for them, and as Kropotkin observed, would soon tire of maintaining such large dwellings. And as Kropotkin wrote, "no one wants your overcoat", referring to personal possession of items actually being used.  For most anarchists, it seems personal possessions would be generally left in the hands of the possessors.

                      In my mind, there is nothing fair about most areas of extreme beauty (I'm thinking of one of my favorite Oregon coastal areas) being in the hands of the privileged wealthy class. I could see such lands and homes being turned to vacation use by rotation.  Ordinary workers for the fist time would be able to love in a mansion on the coast for a month... now that is an appealing thought.

                      Mainly the danger of property is accumulation beyond personal use, using it to exploit and gain economic and political power. Most individual (or state) property of this nature was historically gained by outright violence, if one goes back far enough. Think of the property in the US, and how that was acquired! I recall Washington having been "given" a tract of land the size of a small state by English royalty, not that the lord really had any rights to give it in the first place. Washington became the wealthiest person in America. And of course the Indian wars, the war with Mexico, the colonization of various islands, all for acquisition of new territories. It is from this kind of theft that property "rights" derive.

                      "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                      by ZhenRen on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 09:20:21 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I should say... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        UnaSpenser

                        it was, as afar as I know, Proudhon who came up with the concept of possession vs property. Not that the idea wasn't already in existence with, for example, the American Indians, who had no European concept of "title" but understood use and possession. If you don't actually use it, you could lose it.

                        "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                        by ZhenRen on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 09:24:09 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm talking about personal usage. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ZhenRen

                        Not ownership for sale or rent. That would change it from being a personal possession into being a business, of sorts, so it would then fall under the umbrella of the commons.

                        In the system I'd like to see, the economy is fully democratized. Communities decide what they want in their communities, using broader guidelines set down in a new constitution, democratically agreed to, etc.

                        Also, no worries regarding funding. No taxes, either. The form of currency is electronic, and it comes from a central pool which we all own in common. If we can build it, decide we need it, and it complies with green, sustainable principles, etc., we draw whatever funds are needed for the project. Numbers are infinite, so we never run out. We account for every digit, but we never have to worry about borrowing, debt, taxes, etc.

                        In our current system, with 1000 trillion in outstanding derivatives trading, we're already using money as fiction, fiction as money. My idea would be to put that fiction to use for 100% of society, rather than just 1% or 0.001%.

                        “While we do our good works let us not forget that the real solution lies in a world in which charity will have become unnecessary.” ― Chinua Achebe . . . {Economic Left/Right: -9.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.77}

                        by diomedes77 on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 09:32:54 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh, what a typo (0+ / 0-)

                        Meant to say "live in a mansion" although "love in a mansion" works too.

                        "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                        by ZhenRen on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 11:13:10 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  Here's one person's take on the origins of (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            annieli, NY brit expat, northsylvania

            American libertarianism. Perhaps the better word for it is propertarianism.

            http://www.alternet.org/...

            “While we do our good works let us not forget that the real solution lies in a world in which charity will have become unnecessary.” ― Chinua Achebe . . . {Economic Left/Right: -9.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.77}

            by diomedes77 on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:25:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The ideology was always a part of (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annieli, diomedes77, tardis10

          economic arguments, but the hegemony of deregulation as a policy accepted by governments is quite clear in the late 70s and early 80s.  Then what were considered to previously be hard-right cranks came into prominence in both government policies and and in the economic theories in the mainstream, think of new classical economics and the attack on Keynesian policies theoretically. The power of the Chicago school was spread by their role in governments in Chile and then of course consolidated by recruiting students from Latin America who were sent home to spread the gospel of Milton Friedman. The Austrians always held a deregulation perspective and from Hayek to Friedman and onwards.

          "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

          by NY brit expat on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:06:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Dear ExPat, your very quick overview of the (6+ / 0-)

      neoliberal agenda and the history of supplyside and Keynesian econonmics makes me want to ask you to right a more in depth discussion of your brief comments.  Many of the readers and writers at ACM know we don't want capitalism but have never really been given a thorough background in the dynamics of economic decisions in the last 42 years. Because if we don't understand the economic underpinnings we will have little influence in turning our failing economy in a new direction no matter how many demonstrations we have. A discussion of the end of the Bretton Woods agreement and its implications, alone, would be a great addition.  Maybe we could do a series where  several of us could agree to research and do one of the topics.

      •  That is a good idea, I certainly can do that (4+ / 0-)

        I think that would be a good research project where we can all pick up a number of points under the discussion. I have to sit down and read the book we are discussing today; they presented at Historical Materialism conference, but I need to read the book.

        But that is a separate issue from what you are suggesting ... we can do some of this easily ... we have people who know this stuff well, but it must be done from a level that everyone can understand. What we also need is a good discussion of financialisation and shadow banking ...

        "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

        by NY brit expat on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:30:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site