I drink your milkshake! a metaphor for capitalism

rickyb

Well-Known Member
Anarchy can't last very long, precisely because we are individuals who lack the capacity to integrate enough with those around us for collectivism to ever be what you want it to be. Without centralized decision making (leadership) a collective will be unable to organize, chaos ensues, and a despot steps up and fills the power vacuum. You go almost immediately from anarchy to totalitarianism.

You might as well be saying you want unicorns and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow for everyone. You are buying a bogus bill of goods, being sold to you by a bunch of people you trust, who know better, and are taking advantage of your naivete. The fact that you say people like Milton Friedman are frauds or idiots makes it clear that someone has warped your view of reality.
heres one article:


"Neoliberalism as economic theory was always an absurdity. It had as much validity as past ruling ideologies such as the divine right of kings and fascism’s belief in the Übermensch. None of its vaunted promises were even remotely possible. Concentrating wealth in the hands of a global oligarchic elite—eight families now hold as much wealth as 50 percent of the world’s population—while demolishing government controls and regulations always creates massive income inequality and monopoly power, fuels political extremism and destroys democracy. You do not need to slog through the 577 pages of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” to figure this out. But economic rationality was never the point. The point was the restoration of class power.


As a ruling ideology, neoliberalism was a brilliant success. Starting in the 1970s, its Keynesian mainstream critics were pushed out of academia, state institutions and financial organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank and shut out of the media. Compliant courtiers and intellectual poseurs such as Milton Friedman were groomed in places such as the University of Chicago and given prominent platforms and lavish corporate funding. They disseminated the official mantra of fringe, discredited economic theories popularized by Friedrich Hayek and the third-rate writer Ayn Rand. Once we knelt before the dictates of the marketplace and lifted government regulations, slashed taxes for the rich, permitted the flow of money across borders, destroyed unions and signed trade deals that sent jobs to sweatshops in China, the world would be a happier, freer and wealthier place. It was a con. But it worked.


“It’s important to recognize the class origins of this project, which occurred in the 1970s when the capitalist class was in a great deal of difficulty, workers were well organized and were beginning to push back,” said David Harvey, the author of “A Brief History of Neoliberalism,” when we spoke in New York. “Like any ruling class, they needed ruling ideas. So, the ruling ideas were that freedom of the market, privatization, entrepreneurialism of the self, individual liberty and all the rest of it should be the ruling ideas of a new social order, and that was the order that got implemented in the 1980s and 1990s.”


“As a political project, it was very savvy,” he said. “It got a great deal of popular consent because it was talking about individual liberty and freedom, freedom of choice. When they talked about freedom, it was freedom of the market. The neoliberal project said to the ’68 generation, ‘OK, you want liberty and freedom? That’s what the student movement was about. We’re going to give it to you, but it’s going to be freedom of the market. The other thing you’re after is social justice—forget it. So, we’ll give you individual liberty, but you forget the social justice. Don’t organize.’ The attempt was to dismantle those institutions, which were those collective institutions of the working class, particularly the unions and bit by bit those political parties that stood for some sort of concern for the well-being of the masses.”


“The great thing about freedom of the market is it appears to be egalitarian, but there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals.”


“The great thing about freedom of the market is it appears to be egalitarian, but there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals,” Harvey went on. “It promises equality of treatment, but if you’re extremely rich, it means you can get richer. If you’re very poor, you’re more likely to get poorer. What Marx showed brilliantly in volume one of ‘Capital’ is that freedom of the market produces greater and greater levels of social inequality.”

The dissemination of the ideology of neoliberalism was highly organized by a unified capitalist class. The capitalist elites funded organizations such as the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce and think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation to sell the ideology to the public. They lavished universities with donations, as long as the universities paid fealty to the ruling ideology. They used their influence and wealth, as well as their ownership of media platforms, to transform the press into their mouthpiece. And they silenced any heretics or made it hard for them to find employment. Soaring stock values rather than production became the new measure of the economy. Everything and everyone were financialized and commodified."

 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
theres a real good chance milton was promoted because he said and did absurd things. ill post some quotes on here about him from guys i respect.

how do you suggest we have leadership?

i dont think anarchism is bogus at all, power is a major problem and its overlooked by design probably to perpetuate it.

I don't believe any system will ever be perfect, because we as individuals are imperfect. The best we can hope for is a system that is as good as possible for as many people as possible. It is a tough nut to crack. Representative republics work pretty well, but the tendency to continue to centralize power is strong, and must be resisted.

I think in order for any system of governance to work the best for the people involved is to keep the size of each system, along with the people involved, to a moderate level, and mostly autonomous, while being loosely banded with other autonomous groups in order to come together to deal with larger issues. Counties in the US, by and large, are about the right size for the system of governance to be accountable to the people, as such should maintain the highest degree of decision making ability for matters that affect their constituencies.

Just like in the business world, however, economies of scale and the efficiencies of consolidated governmental power are very seductive. Being able to do more with the resources available make it difficult to argue for smaller and more diffuse "states".

I am for making major tweaks to our current system that would go a long way towards leveling the playing field more without having to completely upend everything. It does take the will of the people to push for and implement these changes, but everyone has to come to an understanding of the issues, and why the changes would be necessary.

Dividing people is the MO of those who want to maintain their power. One way they do that is to manipulate the people on the fringes into believing that everyone else is responsible for their misfortune, and whip them into a frenzy of protests and rioting, demanding things they have no right to. This is called agitation, and is a favorite technique of communists.

People who want as much power as possible will take advantage of, and even create, any crisis they can to convince people to give up freedom and centralize more power. The pursuit of freedom and decentralized power is an endless struggle, as is self-mastery. And the one is helped along greatly by the other.
 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
heres one article:


"Neoliberalism as economic theory was always an absurdity. It had as much validity as past ruling ideologies such as the divine right of kings and fascism’s belief in the Übermensch. None of its vaunted promises were even remotely possible. Concentrating wealth in the hands of a global oligarchic elite—eight families now hold as much wealth as 50 percent of the world’s population—while demolishing government controls and regulations always creates massive income inequality and monopoly power, fuels political extremism and destroys democracy. You do not need to slog through the 577 pages of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” to figure this out. But economic rationality was never the point. The point was the restoration of class power.


As a ruling ideology, neoliberalism was a brilliant success. Starting in the 1970s, its Keynesian mainstream critics were pushed out of academia, state institutions and financial organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank and shut out of the media. Compliant courtiers and intellectual poseurs such as Milton Friedman were groomed in places such as the University of Chicago and given prominent platforms and lavish corporate funding. They disseminated the official mantra of fringe, discredited economic theories popularized by Friedrich Hayek and the third-rate writer Ayn Rand. Once we knelt before the dictates of the marketplace and lifted government regulations, slashed taxes for the rich, permitted the flow of money across borders, destroyed unions and signed trade deals that sent jobs to sweatshops in China, the world would be a happier, freer and wealthier place. It was a con. But it worked.


“It’s important to recognize the class origins of this project, which occurred in the 1970s when the capitalist class was in a great deal of difficulty, workers were well organized and were beginning to push back,” said David Harvey, the author of “A Brief History of Neoliberalism,” when we spoke in New York. “Like any ruling class, they needed ruling ideas. So, the ruling ideas were that freedom of the market, privatization, entrepreneurialism of the self, individual liberty and all the rest of it should be the ruling ideas of a new social order, and that was the order that got implemented in the 1980s and 1990s.”


“As a political project, it was very savvy,” he said. “It got a great deal of popular consent because it was talking about individual liberty and freedom, freedom of choice. When they talked about freedom, it was freedom of the market. The neoliberal project said to the ’68 generation, ‘OK, you want liberty and freedom? That’s what the student movement was about. We’re going to give it to you, but it’s going to be freedom of the market. The other thing you’re after is social justice—forget it. So, we’ll give you individual liberty, but you forget the social justice. Don’t organize.’ The attempt was to dismantle those institutions, which were those collective institutions of the working class, particularly the unions and bit by bit those political parties that stood for some sort of concern for the well-being of the masses.”


“The great thing about freedom of the market is it appears to be egalitarian, but there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals.”


“The great thing about freedom of the market is it appears to be egalitarian, but there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals,” Harvey went on. “It promises equality of treatment, but if you’re extremely rich, it means you can get richer. If you’re very poor, you’re more likely to get poorer. What Marx showed brilliantly in volume one of ‘Capital’ is that freedom of the market produces greater and greater levels of social inequality.”

The dissemination of the ideology of neoliberalism was highly organized by a unified capitalist class. The capitalist elites funded organizations such as the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce and think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation to sell the ideology to the public. They lavished universities with donations, as long as the universities paid fealty to the ruling ideology. They used their influence and wealth, as well as their ownership of media platforms, to transform the press into their mouthpiece. And they silenced any heretics or made it hard for them to find employment. Soaring stock values rather than production became the new measure of the economy. Everything and everyone were financialized and commodified."


I'm sorry, there is just too much to unpack and correct in this article. I just don't have the time. I will say, once again, social justice is a misnomer. Justice does not fall under the purview of economics. It is a matter of law, and applies to the individual. A group of people demanding something solely on the basis of a group they belong to, can only result in injustice.
 

El Correcto

god is dead
heres one article:


"Neoliberalism as economic theory was always an absurdity. It had as much validity as past ruling ideologies such as the divine right of kings and fascism’s belief in the Übermensch. None of its vaunted promises were even remotely possible. Concentrating wealth in the hands of a global oligarchic elite—eight families now hold as much wealth as 50 percent of the world’s population—while demolishing government controls and regulations always creates massive income inequality and monopoly power, fuels political extremism and destroys democracy. You do not need to slog through the 577 pages of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” to figure this out. But economic rationality was never the point. The point was the restoration of class power.


As a ruling ideology, neoliberalism was a brilliant success. Starting in the 1970s, its Keynesian mainstream critics were pushed out of academia, state institutions and financial organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank and shut out of the media. Compliant courtiers and intellectual poseurs such as Milton Friedman were groomed in places such as the University of Chicago and given prominent platforms and lavish corporate funding. They disseminated the official mantra of fringe, discredited economic theories popularized by Friedrich Hayek and the third-rate writer Ayn Rand. Once we knelt before the dictates of the marketplace and lifted government regulations, slashed taxes for the rich, permitted the flow of money across borders, destroyed unions and signed trade deals that sent jobs to sweatshops in China, the world would be a happier, freer and wealthier place. It was a con. But it worked.


“It’s important to recognize the class origins of this project, which occurred in the 1970s when the capitalist class was in a great deal of difficulty, workers were well organized and were beginning to push back,” said David Harvey, the author of “A Brief History of Neoliberalism,” when we spoke in New York. “Like any ruling class, they needed ruling ideas. So, the ruling ideas were that freedom of the market, privatization, entrepreneurialism of the self, individual liberty and all the rest of it should be the ruling ideas of a new social order, and that was the order that got implemented in the 1980s and 1990s.”


“As a political project, it was very savvy,” he said. “It got a great deal of popular consent because it was talking about individual liberty and freedom, freedom of choice. When they talked about freedom, it was freedom of the market. The neoliberal project said to the ’68 generation, ‘OK, you want liberty and freedom? That’s what the student movement was about. We’re going to give it to you, but it’s going to be freedom of the market. The other thing you’re after is social justice—forget it. So, we’ll give you individual liberty, but you forget the social justice. Don’t organize.’ The attempt was to dismantle those institutions, which were those collective institutions of the working class, particularly the unions and bit by bit those political parties that stood for some sort of concern for the well-being of the masses.”


“The great thing about freedom of the market is it appears to be egalitarian, but there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals.”


“The great thing about freedom of the market is it appears to be egalitarian, but there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals,” Harvey went on. “It promises equality of treatment, but if you’re extremely rich, it means you can get richer. If you’re very poor, you’re more likely to get poorer. What Marx showed brilliantly in volume one of ‘Capital’ is that freedom of the market produces greater and greater levels of social inequality.”

The dissemination of the ideology of neoliberalism was highly organized by a unified capitalist class. The capitalist elites funded organizations such as the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce and think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation to sell the ideology to the public. They lavished universities with donations, as long as the universities paid fealty to the ruling ideology. They used their influence and wealth, as well as their ownership of media platforms, to transform the press into their mouthpiece. And they silenced any heretics or made it hard for them to find employment. Soaring stock values rather than production became the new measure of the economy. Everything and everyone were financialized and commodified."


These people make a lot of stupid arguments. These are the same kind of people that go backpacking in the Middle East or go to the Muslim ghettos in Europe because of their faith in humanity only to have it shattered while they are being raped, imprisoned or murdered for being an infidel.
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member

These people make a lot of stupid arguments. These are the same kind of people that go backpacking in the Middle East or go to the Muslim ghettos in Europe because of their faith in humanity only to have it shattered while they are being raped, imprisoned or murdered for being an infidel.
actually chris hedges covered the wars out there for NY times and got fired for speaking out against the invasion of iraq.
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, there is just too much to unpack and correct in this article. I just don't have the time. I will say, once again, social justice is a misnomer. Justice does not fall under the purview of economics. It is a matter of law, and applies to the individual. A group of people demanding something solely on the basis of a group they belong to, can only result in injustice.
a group of people may all have something in common like their race or they are all poorly treated workers, thats perfect scenario for getting more justice.

you dont necessarily have to respond to what i post about friedman but i wanted to link to some critiques of him again.
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
hotel room sex spy cameras good for capitalism.

maybe who cares if someone sees you nude, youre not gonna be able to stop this crap. freedom is not caring.

 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
the world is increasingly a disaster. record hurricanes and wildfires. pandemic. high unemployment. high costs. and race wars in the streets. and govts which dont necessarily work.

it all originates from one thing: capitalism
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
they just fired all the unionized casuals at my job. this system is garbage. those casuals just lost all their pay increases and seniority
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
1598673429698.png

if he can he will.
 
Top