Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Baraka_Guru · 10-06-2010, 08:21 AM

I think the mythology built up around capitalism post-Rand is centred around the idea that "capitalism is good" because "capitalism means freedom," and "America is a capitalist nation." So it stands for many that more capitalism means more good because it means more freedom, and who doesn't want to be free?

The problem with that mindset is that it distracts from the core problem of today's economic situation: capitalism is also corrupt. So when the wholesale failure of capitalists to mitigate their own risks causes the global system to spin out of control, it's suddenly the fault of something else. Because it can't be the fault of capitalism, because it's an ideal. It's freedom, and freedom is good. Anything else is an assault on liberty and risks turning into authoritarianism or, worse, totalitarianism. As though for some reason there is no middle ground between totalitarian communism and oligarchical lassez-faire. Middle grounds are for progressives, and we all know what they want, right?

So the blame shifts away from the First Movers: the holders and controllers of capital, and it shifts towards the end users or "clients" or "customers," if you will. Except they're not quite that, exactly. In this case, specifically with the sub-prime disaster, they weren't so much clients as they were profit centres that went awry. So when the profit centres fail, the shift easily falls on what's left: the people left holding the bag (which happens to have bottomed out, and which happens to be their homes) and the people who act to do something to prevent the whole system from failing entirely. So why not blame people who took these mortgages and government that tried to keep the wider system going? Surely it's their fault for messing things up. And the blame that still rests on the troubled banks who issued these products—and whether they were bailed, will be bailed; will survive, will fail—is inconsequential; once the dust settles, it will be business as usual.

Capital and its holders and users, on the other hand, are what makes things possible, they move things forward, they keep the nation free. Who cares how they go about it, so long as the money keeps flowing. So why not just keep out of their way? Things would be so much better if that were the case, would they not?

10-06-2010, 08:21 AM	#40 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I think the mythology built up around capitalism post-Rand is centred around the idea that "capitalism is good" because "capitalism means freedom," and "America is a capitalist nation." So it stands for many that more capitalism means more good because it means more freedom, and who doesn't want to be free? The problem with that mindset is that it distracts from the core problem of today's economic situation: capitalism is also corrupt. So when the wholesale failure of capitalists to mitigate their own risks causes the global system to spin out of control, it's suddenly the fault of something else. Because it can't be the fault of capitalism, because it's an ideal. It's freedom, and freedom is good. Anything else is an assault on liberty and risks turning into authoritarianism or, worse, totalitarianism. As though for some reason there is no middle ground between totalitarian communism and oligarchical lassez-faire. Middle grounds are for progressives, and we all know what they want, right? So the blame shifts away from the First Movers: the holders and controllers of capital, and it shifts towards the end users or "clients" or "customers," if you will. Except they're not quite that, exactly. In this case, specifically with the sub-prime disaster, they weren't so much clients as they were profit centres that went awry. So when the profit centres fail, the shift easily falls on what's left: the people left holding the bag (which happens to have bottomed out, and which happens to be their homes) and the people who act to do something to prevent the whole system from failing entirely. So why not blame people who took these mortgages and government that tried to keep the wider system going? Surely it's their fault for messing things up. And the blame that still rests on the troubled banks who issued these products—and whether they were bailed, will be bailed; will survive, will fail—is inconsequential; once the dust settles, it will be business as usual. Capital and its holders and users, on the other hand, are what makes things possible, they move things forward, they keep the nation free. Who cares how they go about it, so long as the money keeps flowing. So why not just keep out of their way? Things would be so much better if that were the case, would they not? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 10-06-2010 at 08:33 AM..