I have held my tongue. I have quietly rolled my eyes. I have pinched myself to be sure that I was actually sentient -- oh, and awake.Where do all the stupid idiots spouting off -- invariably in shrill voices, because their voices are not anchored by anything approaching the weight of *content* -- about "sharing/spreading the wealth," "socialism," "communism," and occasionally the backhanded "terrorism" --
Oh, where did my sentence go? Where do all the stupid idiots spouting off... get off? come from? leave their senses of shame?
Given that I am a socialist, I feel fairly comfortable assuring the nitwits that socialism is not in play, but they are pulling their definitions out of the Big Book of Dumbed Down Political Smears. I *wish* we were about to experience a foray into socialism.
Tempered wisdom, often so silly, itself, reminds that these are only "scare tactics."
That almost makes me feel better, except that, as the cacophony swells, one cannot escape the realization that these chronically painful bloggeurs are not tacticians, no -- they truly are just stupid.
Stunted? Incapable of critical thought?
No. Just stupid. Really, really incapable and stupid.
It boggles the mind.
i am not afraid of fire
nor the groundswell that heralds the mob.
[...]
no, i am afraid
of the stupid people.
As one of the stupid people, I admit to a bit of exaggeration. I view attempts at central planning (of the economy or of business) by the government as socialist, even though ownership may remain in the hands of the private sector. If a business is privately owned, but the operation is regulated to the point of state control, because of the perceived safety or ethics of the government, is that much different from socialism?
ReplyDeleteAn explanation of the economic argument is handled much better by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book The Black Swan, which is currently receiving a lot of attention, because people are claiming that he predicted the current banking crisis. He only pointed out the potential for disaster. That his book was published before the signs of problems were evident, makes it appear to be a prediction. He would probably disagree most strongly that he was making any kind of a prediction, since the book is about distrusting predictions, especially from those who pretend to be able to eliminate risk.
Hi, Rogue Medic --
ReplyDeleteIt has been difficult maintaining an even keel (witness this cranky Stupid People post!) when cries of “socialism” seem to be equated with the crime of yelling fire in the proverbial crowded theatre.
Worse yet, whether those on the "right" of the political spectrum accept or attack an idea comes down not to its merits, but rather to which individual or party advocates it. Hence the accusations of fear-mongering, etc., and my considerable lack of enthusiasm for arguments, because rhetorical logic has been turned on its head.
I mean, if there were world enough and time, we could discuss how the Republican Party is really a secret Anti-Capitalist Group of Thugs (ACGOT) attempting to subvert the free market system. Cough.
Remember Cheney’s energy taskforce – those ACGOTs of major industry influenced and created a national energy policy; Think of Norquist and Delay’s K Street Project
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_Project); Consider Nixon’s wage and price controls, his balancing act of unemployment/inflation born from recession fears. (Don't you think that a study of that era could really inform us in today's situation?)
Please note that I haven’t even referenced the 700 billion dollar bailout! Noam Chomsky’s response to the BBC’s query, “Where now for capitalism?” is spot on, I think:
"The unprecedented intervention of the Fed may be justified or not in narrow terms, but it reveals, once again, the profoundly undemocratic character of state capitalist institutions, designed in large measure to socialise cost and risk and privatize profit, without a public voice."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7621771.stm#noam
Ah, but I wander (way febrile at the moment!). While I am not an ideologue, the ideal of socialism is my utopian ideal. Know this, though: I deal with my ideals in the same way that mathemeticians posit the idea of the *limit* in calculus -- function infinitely approaching, but never arriving.
I am a terrible student of economics but guess that were I toetagged, I’d be a mixed breed: Keynesian, one of those dastardly interventionists, and a Christian socialist, dabbling in Liberation theology and trying to live according to a Social Gospel.
Things are not so clear or gentle when dealing with the numerous ideologues in my field of literary theory/criticism, wherein literature becomes a mode of production!
You write: I view attempts at central planning (of the economy or of business) by the government as socialist, even though ownership may remain in the hands of the private sector. If a business is privately owned, but the operation is regulated to the point of state control, because of the perceived safety or ethics of the government, is that much different from socialism?
Yes, of course it is. This is a false argument, and you know it. Intent matters more. The political and economic framework matter more.
Now, if you would like to posit your example as being part of a classical Marxist pre-socialist perspective, have at it. Rogue Medic on the Decline of Capitalism!
(Don't forget to show your work!)
I think the intent is much less important than the result. As with medical treatment, if the person means well, but is incompetent, they should be prevented from treating the patient - no matter how altruistic the motive.
ReplyDeleteI view Socialist Utopia along the lines that Thomas more described. These are not living conditions that will work for much of the population. Although, with the current divorce rate, his suggestion of switching homes and spouses every several years, does seem to be the practice.
Not being a Republican, I do not feel any need to defend them. I have been very critical of the current administration, although not so much on my blog. I try to minimize the politics, but I am not always successful.
The bailout is as you describe. The bankers have used our money to speculate (not just on a national level, since they are multinational) and are now expecting the government to pay for their mistakes. The government is coming in with the expectation that they could not possibly do any worse, but they might.
The main incentive seems to be the ability to prevent the CEOs from making ridiculous amounts of money. This is a foolish way to accomplish this goal. Perhaps we would be better off educating the board members of their duty to the shareholders, who end up being the ones to pay these amounts. The sexual holier than thou of the conservatives is not different from the economic holier than thou of the liberals.
If both sides would limit themselves to laws that protect against abuse, but allow individuals to do as they please with their bodies and their property, as long as they are not hurting others, then we might not have such polarized approaches to these topics.
Apologies, Rogue Medic, for not responding quickly -- I've been busy doing The Gimp Version of The Happy Dance. And, as a risk-oriented investor, trying to deal with all the acid in my stomach. Here at Marlinspike Hall, nestled in the Tête de Hergé, I'm the only one to bring in a salary. The joke is on me -- I despise money and hope to see the day where we can all agree to some more sane version for the base standard of "value" -- maybe grains of sand? Potato granules? Leaves of grass? Cheetos?
ReplyDeleteI will also be pleased as punch the day that we recognize *work* as being *work* -- any one unit of which equals any another. Ah, but that is a concept for another day's discussion.
I'm not a fan of More and his Utopia, and did not mean to cite it -- though that puts me smack dab in the middle of Stupid People Country for using the word to begin with. My utopia definitely is of the lower case variety, that is, a personal vision. Socialism, real socialism, insists upon what is real and would remind us (if it could drive a verb) that "utopia" means "nowhere."
Marx was no fan of utopia, More's or any other's -- mostly due to the tendency of (literary and philosophical) socialist utopias to arise out of *fiat*, failing to morph from the inequities of, and struggles against, actual societies.
As odd as it sounds, idealist socialism, is bad socialism... or, at least, not helpful. What matters is what is real.
Remember that I do think, though, that More was actually more backward-looking than forward-dreaming -- and that his utopian vision was more nostalgia for the relative collectivism of the Middle Ages than futuristic and revolutionary. (Further evidence of my respect for *intent*!)
Back to the present.
I don't quite understand what you mean when you say: "The main incentive seems to be the ability to prevent the CEOs from making ridiculous amounts of money." You really think *that* is behind the bail out? Hmmm, sarcasm is an option, I suppose!
Sure, no one wants to see the Fat Cats get fatter from this extraordinarily effed-up economic picture -- but I doubt that concern for them was the genesis for the bail out.
You wrote: "The sexual holier than thou of the conservatives is not different from the economic holier than thou of the liberals."
I love it! That is prime t-shirt and bumper sticker material!
I don't enjoy being stuck in -isms, either. It would be such a relief if we could be done with them.
Thanks for dropping by, Rogue Medic.
Bianca Castafiore,
ReplyDeleteI also have to apologize for a delay in responding. I have been experiencing a bit of writer's block.
If money were not money, but something else took on all of the qualities of money, would anything have changed?
Different types of work do have different values. Sisyphus pushes a rock up a hill - continuous, arduous labor. He accomplishes nothing. And yes, I do realize that this is his punishment, and his accomplishment is maintaining his control of his mind in spite of the futility of his labor, but since he does nothing productive by way of that labor, what is it worth? Should you be concerned that you might pay Dr. Pasteur too much for his productivity?
It is absurd, to return to the theme of Sisyphus, that those who care for and educate our children are paid so poorly. How do we expect to improve society, when we pay so little to those responsible for its future?
On the other hand, those who are productive should be rewarded. Many people can be very productive without being virtuous. I would rather pay someone handsomely to make life better, than discourage him by preventing the rewards that may be the only motivations he cares about. We do pay for the inability of the masses to appreciate quality, but should the government tell the masses how to spend their money. This is what taxation is. It just transfers the money to different fools. Their intent may be better, but the result is not. So much technological advancement comes out of the US, because of the ability to profit from innovation. Innovation is not something government is good at, at least not useful innovation. The last century saw dramatic improvements in quality of life for almost everyone. The abundance, that has been provided by technological improvements, is a good thing, even though it is not shared equally.
One of the problems with socialism is that it relies on wide spread integrity. In practice, governments seem to demonstrate wide spread corruption. So do companies. There need to be checks on the power of both.
I watched the CSPAN broadcasts of the bailout coverage in Congress. It seemed that a lot of time was spent on how the bailout to provide government with the ability to limit executive pay. This is such an unimportant part of the problem, that it should not have received any attention.
The main beneficiaries do seem to be the banks that are considered to be worth saving. Worth saving has nothing to do with whether they contributed to the problem, but whether they can survive with help. The government has not shown much of an understanding of business and should not be deciding which businesses are worth saving.
Bumper stickers and T-shirts?
We'll be rich! :-)
Maybe Worth Savings as a bailout slogan?