And for every narrative along this line there will be one that insist the government intervened in the economy precisely because the private sector was unable to avoid the crippling booms and busts.
Perhaps that’s because there has never been a historical era where crony capitalism did not largely rule the roost. Has there been in American history? What were the results?
Come on, if that were the case then, initially, during the Industrial Revolution, Marxism, socialism, unions, organized labor etc. would never have gotten a toehold. And in the modern era corporations rely on government safety nets to keep the political reprecussions regarding their more egregious policies ever at a low boil. And the corporate media is always there to steer the discussion in the direction of the lesser of two evils.
Yes, when the alternative is nothing at all, the sweat shops look mighty nice. But that doesn’t justify the brutally explotative policies. And the ruling class in places like Vietnam and China are a crony capitalist’s wet dream. American corporations drool over this kind of dictatorship over the proletariate.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m no Communist. I recognize that the capitalist political economy is the worst one out there—except for all the others. But the apologists for capitalism refuse to acknowledge just how brutal a world this can be when the “bottom line” is always the number one consideration.
Wasn’t it Jay Gould who once said, “I can hire half the working class to kill the other halve”? Many an employer will treat his or her employees with as much disregard as he or she can get away with. The Ayn Randroids love to portray their working class heros as the ones employed by magnates like Hank Reardon. But Atlas Shrugged was basically a caricature of a cartoon in my view.
And it’s not that capitalists are necessarily callous and uncaring sorts. It’s just the very nature of the political economy. Fierce competition requires each employer to pay as little as possible in wages and benefits. It’s the very nature of the beast to be exploitative.
iambiguous wrote:
One need but Google the Industrial Revolution to note why unions and communism became so popular. Capitalism is notorious for creating the very conditions that preciptate the politcial and economic interests that oppose it.
Again, I don’t deny there are two sides to this story. But I challenge anyone to investigate the conditions under which millions of working class men, women and children lived back then and then wonder why communism and organized labor burst onto the historical stage with a vengence in tandem.
Also, you ignore the psychological travails built into contraptions like Taylorism and the brutal alienation that is, in turn, built into production that is rationalized down to its most minute parts. It allows for extraordinary advances in production, of course, but it doesn’t lessen the mental costs born by those doing the production.
It is possible of course but we inevitably bump into Disraeli’s, “there are lies, damn lies and statistics.” No matter your political stake in arguments like these you can always come up with “facts” and “anecdotes” to “win” the argument.
Yes, but China may well be the future and here the government and the economy are often interchangable. It may come down to a contest between different renditions of crony and/or state capitalism. Laizze-faire capitalism? It is no where to be seen.
Again, bring out the statistics! America is the only industrial nation that does not deem health care to be a fundamental right of its citizens. And for every “horror story” you can pluck down from Canada, there are at least as many or more such calamities here in America.
Again, bring out the anecdotes! These “metaphyscal”, Objectivist arguments are so purely ideological it is simply not challenging to address them. Any number of untold millions of men, women and children have benefitted from government programs. And, as always, it is the “fit” that counts. And everyone sees this from differing historical, cultural and experential perspectives. To imagine government being reduced down to practically nothing is simply infantile in my view.
iambiguous wrote:
The concern I always have is the manner in which capitalism and the government are just two ways of saying the same thing. At least here in the US of A.
Abolishing the government is so close to la la land it is not even worth the time to consider; and reducing it is always neck and neck historically with expanding it. in my view, you need to put a leash on that intellectual leash you use to divide the world up into…patriots and pinheads?
And, like Glenn Beck, do you have an absolute opinion on God too?