- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Observations of False Capitalism

In Reply to: No merely observations, all. posted by Joel Jacobson on February 05, 1999 at 14:41:43:

: Qx: You're using a really dumb analogy here. Dingo is talking about a political struggle that resulted in a purge and you're trying to use American crime scenery as a parallel.

:JJ: Yes. As the politically more powerful always eliminate the less powerful in group utility maximizing confrontations.

Qx: If that's an observation then tell us whether it's inductive or deductive on your part.

JJ: I'm aware of the Night of the Long Knives. The problem is utiliarian collectivism (Nazism) is politically more powerful than egalitarian collectivism (Communists). This is why Nazism defeats Communism in direct political confrontation.

Qx: Not very good Jacob. Try reading about the intelligence warfare that went on between these two leviathans before getting fancy with your wording. Read about Reinhardt Heydrich and his operation of disinformation that was fed to the Soviets and resulted in the "liquidation" of upwards of 40,000 of the best and brightest officers in the Red Army in 1938 . The problem was intelligence warfare not some tangential and subjective rhetorical flourishes on your part that reeks of the ideology of perverted libertarianism.

JJ: My original post referred to an earlier one in which I showed that Stalin will always defeat Trotsky.

Qx: Yeah...via egalitarian versus utilitarian collectivism. Yeah , right. As before this was due to the use of intelligence gathering and also, may I add, personality clashes.

JJ: Lark's arguing an empirical observation I agree with whole heartedly. He then proceeds to advocate recreating, today, the conditions that allowed this to happen.

Qx: We'll let history decide that won't we? I think Lark has a much better handle on what's happening and the implications of the false capitalist ideology you seem to hold so dearly than you do.

: Qx: Yes, it does advance his argument. Even if Roehm, the Strasser brothers and other members of the SA were friends they were also politically expedient. Hitler wanted the full co-operation of German industrialists so he opened up the SS to members of nobility and the SS thus grew in numbers as the SA waned in power to virtually nil after the Night of the Long Knives.

JJ: We don't disagree. Again, utilitarian collectivism always defeats egalitarian collectivism. No value judgements here. Pure observation of verifiable and predictable phenomena.

Qx: Again, that's great, grand and convenient if you omit the various historical records. But go ahead. It's quite typical of perverted libertarians.

: Do you think I'd be so crazy as to destroy German heavy industry? Those producers worked their way to the top by their own merits, and, because of this process of selection, which proves that they are an elite, they have a right to lead! --Adolf Hitler to Otto Strasser,
October 1930. Quoted in Helmut Heiber, Adolf Hitler, (Berlin, 1960) p68

JJ: Exactly what a leader would say in this situation as a rational utility maximizer.

Qx: Good way of dancing around the fact that this quote of Hitler's is exactly a reflection of the corporatist ethic. The newspeak you stated most likely originated out the Harvard Business School somewhere in the Thirties in order to give some fancy window dressing for the justification for keeping people in poverty while the rich keep on getting richer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

: Qx: Now that is typical neo-classical economics (feigned capitalism) at it's most apologetic. You're simply spouting a social construct

JJ:Construct? Construction requires an act of will by a specific purposeful mind.

Qx: Actually, constructs are usually bvuilt up over a period of time and can easily be seen as a result of collective effort. Even if much of this the collective effort emanates from the wealthy.

JJ: Generate, maybe? Definitely not construction, as only individuals possess a will and a purposeful mind. Evolve from, though, is probably the most accurate.

Qx: So you seem to like the mentalistic way of viewing pwople and so do others.

JJ: And, additionally, if I'm spouting a social construct so are you. In fact, under this assumption, we were destined to have this conversation.

Qx: Actually, I'm really starting to see the href="http://www.uis.edu/~fox/papers/false.html">false consciousness that leads to the deep subjectivity you have immersed yourself in.

JJ: We had no choice in the matter.

Qx: Really? So now tell us about "rational choice theory" Jacob. I know full well that I had plenty of choice. I could ignore your rants or just read them and not respond or I could not read them and respond or I could read and I will respond. If you claim that I am spouting a "social construct" then you had best do some deconstruction as I'm about to do to your assertions.

(previoulsy)Qx: : and so it would be best if you could provide evidence for this aggrandizement.

JJ: Mmm. I actually gave Lark precise empirical studies earlier and he replied that he 'didn't believe the little men in the white lab coats.' Maybe you're different.

Qx: I don't believe in statistics very much either nor do I hold the so-called "profession" of neo-classical economics in high regard.

JJ: National economic indicators show a direct relation between GDP growth and lower regulation coupled with more property delineation (see Cato Journal, Winter 1999).

Qx: The GDP
is a crazy mis-measure and if anybody wants to think about economics in material terms and not as abstraction upon abstraction then they should really do some critical reading before assuming anything about the GDP.

~~~~~~~~~~ON THE CATO INSTITUTE~~~~~~~~~~~

:JJ: Yes, Cato is a libertarian journal so I suppose you dismiss it out of hand.

Qx: No. I can actually see where they are coming from when that write about corporate welfare. They're basically corporate ideologists who basically come off as vulgar Maoists of the
inverted variety.

JJ: If, indeed you do, why did you ask for empirical evidence given that any support I produced would automatically classify it as a tool of oppression?

Qx: Because what the Cato Institute stands for when it comes down to it is to promote the benefits of ecological disaster.

For example, Jerry
Taylor of the increasingly influential Cato Institute recommends selling off all the national forests and opening up public land, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to oil and gas developers.

What they do is promote false capitalism even though though their "policy analyses" will oftentimes state quite the opposite. You see, infrastructure pivatization is profoundly anti-capitalist. I find this strange coming from so called "pro-capitalists" such as the Cato
Institute.

(from a previous posting) There is a lot that is absurd about much of conventional political wisdom, in particular the near universal dominance of economic rationalism. I feel that economic rationalists are driven by an ideology that differs little from medieval thought with its belief in the power of the market and the invisible hand that guides it. God (in modern disguise)reaches down and guides the affairs of mankind.

Capitalism (in it's idealized state a la Adam Smith) is essentially about risk – taking a gamble through R&D, through your skills, through creativity, through your (and supporters) money. It is about creating something – new products, a new businesses,better technology. It is not about management. Management is about eliminating risk and increasing certainty. Management of course is useful. Like economics, management is a tool to be used.

Running infrastructure is not risk. In the main there is a captive market with guaranteed prices and good understanding of future outcomes. Risk of failure is minimal. Of course once this was the place for the entrepreneur. Railways, telephone lines, pipelines were pushed across the country – the builders of this great infrastructure (largely engineers) were the visionaries of the day. Now the risk has gone. Now the issues are of scheduling maintenance, replacement of assets, and cost reduction. Absolutely essential activities-society cannot function without this infrastructure, but it is not frontline entrepreneurial
capitalism.

Does this matter? Supporters of privatization say that the economy is held down by too much government. Sell the public infrastructure and so invigorate the economy.

But these pundits fail to see that economic activity is not limitless. There is only so much money, enthusiasm, expertise and energy that can be invested. If invested in one sector it is removed from use in others. For example, as the gambling industry increases, retail sales go down.

Investment in what were once public assets diverts private industry energy and money away from the front- line capitalist areas. Away from the new industries, new technologies, new projects that create real growth and a viable long term future for any nation.

: Qx: That is really dependent on the social conditions at the time.

JJ: And the social conditions at the time are based on what?

Qx: The material conditions of a society and also the power struggles that take place and are forgotten
nowadays.

JJ: Of course you'll argue that it based on the oppression of the capitalists.

Qx: Actually, I'll base it on the oppression of the false capitalists.

JJ:So the capitalists are a condition of society, and society is a condition of the capitalists. This is what's known as a tautological argument. It's completely self-contained and can neither be proven nor
disproven as it says absolutely nothing of predictive qualities.

Qx: If you claim that to be my argument then that's your straw man. Not mine. The part about tautology is correct. Perhaps you can find some of that within the paradigm of neo-classical economics if you look hard enough.

~~~ON PINOCHET, FASCISM, SOCIALISM & UTLITARIANISM~~~~~

JJ:: As soon as they achieve power Nazis begin setting up quasi-feudal arrangements, with the "capitalists" acting as dukes and barons administering their estates. Surprisingly, if Nazis overcome their propensity towards aggression they settle down and eventually lead quite productive regimes. See Spain and Chile.

: Qx: Uh-oh

JJ: Again, contrast this with USSR, Cuba, etc. I'm not promoting Pinochet. I'm just saying that fascism is more utilitarian than socialism.

Qx: You stated that "Surprisingly, if Nazis overcome their propensity towards aggression they settle down and eventually lead quite productive regimes. See Spain and Chile."

You basically stated that Chile and Spain were quite productive regimes. What is that? Are you simply believing what the economists of the Franco and Pinochet regimes stated, are you uncritically seeing the GDP/GNP as valid indicators of growth (ie, productivity)or both?

Also, would like to claim that the Nazi regime was not productive? We can always go to the International Military Tribunal's Record at Nuremburg. How about it? I have access to all 47 volumes and more evidence from other sources to counter your statement. The Third Reich was productive and used slave labor to the hilt. So did the
USSR. Spain and Chile used a captive labor pool by banning effective trade unions and Brazil is another great example of corporatist ideology seeping into what were once genuine worker's organizations.

Your stated "propensity towards aggression" is confined to just external enemies. You seem to forget the working class within these societies. Why am I not surprised?

JJ: None of this really seems to address the main points I am concerned with here in this string. I'm merely observing that fascism is politically more powerful than socialism.

Qx: For who? The rich of course. But then again of you think the USSR was ever "socialist" then you had better start looking harder.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

: Qx: Time to read about true libertarian eonomics and not the Milton Freidman swill.

JJ: Here's a snippet to show I visited it: "as the economic science, the dialectical philosophy, the sociology of class struggle and its solution, the materialist interpretation of history and the State form"

Qx: Good for you. Now you know and the readers can tell that copying and pasting is only a click away.

JJ: These guys are pure Hegelians and much of what they state is simply opinion, but I'll examine. They view individuals not even as possessing individuality. The view "every person is a construct of their society" denies that people exist as anything "besides abstracts of society".

Qx: I can always get the people who wrote this stuff to reply to you but since you'retrying to sling barbs I could easily get some Hegel scholars to reply to your deep subjectivities also.

JJ: Hegel and Compte directly said this.

Qx: Through the lense of JJ of course.

JJ: If this is true than I am merely saying these words as a result of "society's" putting them in me. You are arguing with me for the same reason. In fact, we are not even arguing with each other at all, though. The universal laws are working themselves out in our actions, and we are merely their pawns; capitalist, proletarians, all of us. Your thoughts are not yours. My thoughts are not mine. They are solely a product of that perfect clock that is the physical universe.

Qx: that is your view and if you feel that way then go ahead and get into the pseudo-religious angle but keep in mind that your href="http://www.sfu.ca/~wwwpsyb/96spring/articles/banerjee.htm">religion has been showing through for quite some time

JJ: Hegel and Marx, as physical or idealist, determinists would firmly state that what is real is rational, and what is rational is real. Upon, realizing this, we no longer have any rationale for action as anything we do must have been preordained, physically for Marx. Take the guy at the computer next to me. If I pull out a gun and shoot him it was pre-determined by the physical nature of the universe.

Qx: Tell that to these guys. But first try telling that top judge, state to the court that it was the Rule of Law that made you do it, and that you were just loving it so much that you liked it.

JJ: But hey, about Marx's time every philosopher and academic was either a Hegelian or a Romantic. I don't necessarily blame Marx for holding these views. However, I do blame you as it's been 180 years since Hegel and science has verified indeterminicy in the universe itself through quantum mechanics.

Qx: Well, readers..it's pretty obvious that JJ has to resort to the straw man again and state that what was in that article is reflective of my views. Pretty good for a someone punting for the Cato Institute.

:JJ:Using this logic every possible thing we see we must classify as rational. And from rational many would derive "good".

Qx: Which is pretty much how the perverted Libertarians view the world when using economics.

JJ: Why go to another debate room? We have one here.

Qx: Because you seem so intent on proving yourself right and entertainment along with education should be spread out on the Internet. Ever heard of sharing?

Follow Ups:

None.