Display:
this diary and discussion really highlight how hyperbole, though it does stimulate discussion, tends to weaken an argument.

attacking capitalism per se is as stupid as a war on terror. its an abstraction that has little to do with reality, which is trade.

there have been historical examples of wise rule and government where the populace was content enough to go along with the program, and even content to allow significant status difference and class systems, as long as they stayed within some bright line and scraps were plentiful.

extreme inequality is morally offensive as well as myopically greedy, but too often the drug of power feeds the sociopathy and hubris, till the inevitable blowback... when the elite get too far from the rest of the herd, the herd will teach them a lesson. one could speculate the herd even need an elite, as something to sacrifice, just as ancient civilisations fattened the prettiest boy and girl, festooned them with flowers, then threw them off a cliff. set up the skittles for the rush of knocking them over.

cleverness has displaced wisdom, grab the max now like a thief, because deep down there is a guilty knowledge, hidden in the subconscious, that the arc of justice would scythe sometime, so the more you could screw out of the system, the more you could hold the fear at bay with the intoxication of risk and the illusion of safety surrounded by paid thugs bought 'security'...

the dissolution of trust through the cancerous institutionalisation of mendacity has the consequences we now see unfold.

capitalism is a straw man being attacked, and while 99% of it maybe pure undiluted evil, pretending that tha concept itself is broken is to say no one is doing ethical business today, which is patently untrue.

absolutism run amok

this omission condemns the dissertation as less than serious, though the trust of the message -sans hyperbole- most assuredly is...

if you try and demonise the trust and mutual benefit of honest trade without suggesting anything systemically better that will realistically supplant a system-set that has taken millennia to evolve to the currently nasty mutation we see daily splashed across the media, not only will your argument be weakened, but you'll actively turn off people who would be ready to consider modulating their mindset, were it not for the globally accusative tone.

capitalism can't and shouldn't be extinguished or avenged, it needs to be pruned back to the quick. (and quick, lol). it's the only way to rediscover true value, something we have now wedded to spurious conceits.

it's too big a job for tiny humans though, way above our paygrade.....that's ok, it'll happen anyway, force majeure, no need for martyrs and demagogues, no need to crash a plane that's already in its death glide, fuel gauge in the red.

honest trade and trust has morphed into a sci fi horror flick, it's probably futile to expect different, people have been so thoroughly programmed.

when will we ever learn? any way but the hard way, that is?

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri May 15th, 2009 at 05:51:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
what is most peculiar in the US debate, and from what I can see in EU as well, is that the people who claim to be presenting "socialist" critiques in their few concrete proposals look like New Labour - with a grabbag of weirdly selected nostrums from conservative sources. So we see Ian Welch announcing, in the name of socialism, that "mark-to-market" accounting is the gold standard, and Doug Henwood explaining the virtues of the Canadian system of a few dominant banks controlling the economy. I mean, "arise revolutionary masses against the tyranny of non-GAAP accounting standards" is odd.
by rootless2 on Fri May 15th, 2009 at 06:17:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series