BlackIntrospection Speaks to the common fallacy of pro-capitalist arguments.
As an advocate of social democracy, participatory economics, another point that the article didn't bring up is that the failure of other systems, communism, socialism didn't occur in a vacuum. Capitalistic economies have long been at war, with guns and dollars, with the economies of socialist societies. Exactly(!), one might say. And the better system won.
No. The article made a point about economics being a 'behavioral science'. Yes Yes Yes
Solidarity and cooperation are core values of socialist/communist models while unrestrained competition fueled by greed is the central component of capitalism making it more suited to destroy other economies but ill-suited to build societies sustainable to natural life (human, plant or animal).
The merit or detriment of capitalism shouldn't be viewed through the lens of competition with other economic models. It will destroy them, no doubt. Today's problem is that in a society dominated by capitalist thought, that destruction is conveniently interpreted as democratic expression of basic human values when it actually is the demonstration of a historic instance where the promotion of one human value, greed was done more successfully than another human value, cooperation.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Bush Calls Hillary 'Formidable' Opponent: Read Between The Lines
Perhaps for the first time in his presidency, Bush tells the truth around a major issue...sort of. What I'm talking about is Bush's pseudo-endorsement/declaration that Senator Hillary Clinton would be a serious contender as a presidential candidate. Bush is right; she will be a ‘formidable’ opponent.
Before elaborating on Bush’s recent statement, we’d do well to remember one of the basic rules of political or ideological contest. And that is in dealing with potential threats. Threats are dealt with by, and in this order,
1) Ignoring them.
2) Ridicule and slander
Validation as a viable opponent is not one of the tenets, and for good reason. In a political or ideological contest it makes no sense to give credibility or any kind of traction to your opponent. However, there is a mode in which Bush's statements do fit and that is endorsement. Often when one seeks to endorse and lend credibility to an ally without cheerleading and thus compromising the pretense of independence and objectivity, politician #1 will certify politician #2's worth as a serious opponent. This endorses #2 by inherently lending the popularity and credibility of politician #1 to such a statement.
Now back to Bush's statement about Hillary Clinton's potential presidential run. What Bush said about Hillary doesn't fit any of the rules because Bush is Republican Party and Clinton is Democratic Party. Bush and Clinton are opponents, not allies. Right? Right?
The truth is that Clinton is only an ostensible opponent of the Republican Party. There is a level of politics built on and around headlines, sound bites and talking points. But it was once said that 'politics is the shadow of big business'. This is true. And on this level, George Bush and Hillary Clinton are but two players in a broad allegiance of Democrats and Republican politicians. The rhetoric doesn't validate what I'm saying. The rhetoric says the opposite. The economic facts and history tell a damningly different story but who cares about that?
So Bush tacitly endorses Hillary Clinton and everyone gets what they want. Deckplate Republicans hear the promotion of a candidate they already love to hate and believe they can defeat. Hardcore grassroots Democrats starving for ANY form of opposition to Bush and his 'agenda' hear a tacit admittance that Clinton is a threat. So, most are encouraged to read into Bush's words far beneath the relevant level, taking away ideas that validate an already held vision of the political landscape.
Everyone wins, except not really.
With the election of a Republican or of Hillary Clinton, everyone loses except big business, the entity casting the shadow. In this system, it never loses. And it's to them, not us, that Bush's statement was directed.
Before elaborating on Bush’s recent statement, we’d do well to remember one of the basic rules of political or ideological contest. And that is in dealing with potential threats. Threats are dealt with by, and in this order,
1) Ignoring them.
2) Ridicule and slander
Validation as a viable opponent is not one of the tenets, and for good reason. In a political or ideological contest it makes no sense to give credibility or any kind of traction to your opponent. However, there is a mode in which Bush's statements do fit and that is endorsement. Often when one seeks to endorse and lend credibility to an ally without cheerleading and thus compromising the pretense of independence and objectivity, politician #1 will certify politician #2's worth as a serious opponent. This endorses #2 by inherently lending the popularity and credibility of politician #1 to such a statement.
Now back to Bush's statement about Hillary Clinton's potential presidential run. What Bush said about Hillary doesn't fit any of the rules because Bush is Republican Party and Clinton is Democratic Party. Bush and Clinton are opponents, not allies. Right? Right?
The truth is that Clinton is only an ostensible opponent of the Republican Party. There is a level of politics built on and around headlines, sound bites and talking points. But it was once said that 'politics is the shadow of big business'. This is true. And on this level, George Bush and Hillary Clinton are but two players in a broad allegiance of Democrats and Republican politicians. The rhetoric doesn't validate what I'm saying. The rhetoric says the opposite. The economic facts and history tell a damningly different story but who cares about that?
So Bush tacitly endorses Hillary Clinton and everyone gets what they want. Deckplate Republicans hear the promotion of a candidate they already love to hate and believe they can defeat. Hardcore grassroots Democrats starving for ANY form of opposition to Bush and his 'agenda' hear a tacit admittance that Clinton is a threat. So, most are encouraged to read into Bush's words far beneath the relevant level, taking away ideas that validate an already held vision of the political landscape.
Everyone wins, except not really.
With the election of a Republican or of Hillary Clinton, everyone loses except big business, the entity casting the shadow. In this system, it never loses. And it's to them, not us, that Bush's statement was directed.