Talking to the right-winger in your life

quote:More and more I find it really difficult to explain things pertaining to politics to people who have been "educated" in fields like engineering, pharmacy, the sciences, etc.
As the socialist that I am, I am engaging in too many discussions with people of very limited educational backgrounds (economics, etc) – most, if not all, are conservatives.

So, I guess my question is: how can one explain concepts and simple history to people with such limited mind frames?

Cheers,
Mikhail

The answer...

Such a condescending question.

The writer starts from the assumption that her background is broad, and that his friends are the dumb ones. He doesn't entertain the possibility that in fact he may be the narrow-minded one.

Heh. Check out Ms C's response. You might like it!

Just let them go about their lives as surely as they're going to let you go about yours. Arguing politics is tenuous, even amongst "allies".

I do, and it's a good point.

I've never seen anybody go from left to right or vice versa in a short time frame. Human beings are way too stubborn, and usually they had good reason to be where they are in the first place, so counterevidence will take a while to accumulate in a sufficient manner.

quote:I am engaging in too many discussions with people of very limited educational backgrounds (economics, etc)

Dear Mikhail:

Grow a brain, you insufferable, anti-intellectual smudge of vapid smugness.

I've never found natural scientists to be rightwing...I'd say they fall more on the left than right side in my experience.

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Dear Mikhail:

Grow a brain, you insufferable, anti-intellectual smudge of vapid smugness.Any Rand rules right SG. Don't poke the Chicago Bears SG doesn't like it.

If you're going to indulge self-gratifying fantasies, could you please close the door? And clean up after yourself.

First let us assume there is a free market!!!! Fantasies are always fun don't you think.

Not if they're about me.

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Dear Mikhail:

Grow a brain, you insufferable, anti-intellectual smudge of vapid smugness.

That's a pretty good translation of Ms. C's first sentence.

My impression of the reason that people that do well in activities that have good objective standards of goodness (engineering and athletics being classic) is that it's clear to them that they got there because they are better than the others in their immediate vicinity. So they think the whole world works that way.

How true that is is left as an exercise for the student.

Another possibility is that Mikhail's interlocutors have developed analytical skills, and that they keep finding flaws in his arguments.

Maybe he's asking 'How do I deal with people who keep calling me when I make shit up?'

[ 04 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

Doesn't reflect my experience with fellow computer programmers. They are mostly completely ignorant of the conditions most people live under.

I have had some flatly deny that median income is on the order of 30K, they assert it must be closer to 60K because of tips(!?).

Economists wouldn't make that mistake. Nor would we dismiss computer scientists in a discussion of the merits of a particular algorithm.

Point. Economists are a special case in this discussion.

Economists are often the worse. Ever take a University level economics course? Once they start in on the "free market" and the "invisible hand" my eyes glaze over and I know I am in the wrong class.

Apples, no offense but weren't you the one who posted the sciences on a scale, with sociologists being the lowest and mathematicians being the highest?

Anyways, most of the Business majors and computer science students were some of the most conservative groups of people I have ever met. I expect it is a product of their education OR they pick these fields because they are conservative.

I would definitely posit self selection in part with those 2 groups. Both of them have significant sub populations who are in it for the money.

Er, with business that sub population is probably equal to the whole population [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Another possibility is that Mikhail's interlocutors have developed analytical skills, and that they keep finding flaws in his arguments.

Maybe he's asking 'How do I deal with people who keep calling me when I make shit up?'

[ 04 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

I found most of my computer science colleagues to be poorly equipped for moral or political arguments. (In fact, I can recall discussing this with one of them. He agreed.) I don't say this because a lot of them were conservative. I recognize a good debater whatever his or her position. I think it's maybe due to a lack of general knowledge: not knowing the history of such discussions, perhaps, or the range of opinion, the counter-arguments, etc.

That's not to say I haven't heard a lot of very poor arguments on all sides.

quote:Originally posted by Stargazer:
Economists are often the worse. Ever take a University level economics course? Once they start in on the "free market" and the "invisible hand" my eyes glaze over and I know I am in the wrong class.

Apples, no offense but weren't you the one who posted the sciences on a scale, with sociologists being the lowest and mathematicians being the highest?

Anyways, most of the Business majors and computer science students were some of the most conservative groups of people I have ever met. I expect it is a product of their education OR they pick these fields because they are conservative.

Yes I was.

But that scale was a joke, which was making fun of everybody, and anyway it had mathematics first and not the sciences.

Stephen Gordon,

Do you think Rand-O-Bots constitute a significant fraction of the economics population?

No. But that doesn't stop people who have never met an economist from believing it.

I wonder if there is still a difference between econ and business majors in terms of political views. Survey research from the 1970s demonstrated that econ majors were quite a bit more left than business majors, but this was when Keynesians were still pretty prominent on university faculties and before NAIRU, rational expectations, etc. were that prevalent in undergraduate courses. Although econ is a social science and not a "vocational" major I imagine far more go on to get MBA's than go into grad school in economics.

Why on earth would you think that rational expectations is a 'right-wing' idea? Are leftists supposed to believe that people are stupid? Geez.

Friedman's "natural rate" isn't inherently a rightwing idea either (Marx and Kalecki certainly endorsed similar ideas)...but I think economists perceive themselves to be less "liberal" than they did a generation ago...but how about the rest of my point? My feeling is a lot of progressive-minded people who might have been attracted to economics in the past don't do so today, but I have no way to prove it.

Your feeling may well be justified. But if leftists are content with learning enough to sound well-informed at cocktail parties (or on internet discussion boards) attended by non-economists, then that's a problem for leftists, not economists.

Economics is an important subject, and learning it properly requires investing heavily in specialised skills. Intellectual sloth is not a moral virtue.

But intellectual breadth, and the ability to see the forest for the trees, is.

This is a conceit of the intellectually lazy. "I may not understand anything in particular, but I have strong opinions on a wide range of subjects."

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Your feeling may well be justified. But if leftists are content with learning enough to sound well-informed at cocktail parties (or on internet discussion boards) attended by non-economists, then that's a problem for leftists, not economists.

Economics is an important subject, and learning it properly requires investing heavily in specialised skills. Intellectual sloth is not a moral virtue.

There's some truth to that. For instance a lot of leftists are hostile to the idea of a "natural rate of unemployment, quite understandably I think. Doesn't mean they should just "give up" and say, ah, economics is just rightwing pseudo-science.

That being said, have you found there to be a difference between econ majors and business majors in terms of aspirations, political views, etc.?

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
This is a conceit of the intellectually lazy. "I may not understand anything in particular, but I have strong opinions on a wide range of subjects."
Actually, the conceit is not mine. I claim no expertise in economics - and in fact, Stephen, I am far more likely than most on this board to accept your word on economic theory, though I may disagree with you in terms of policy because i believe the political consequences of a given policy are greater than the benefits or risks you cite from an economic perspective.

There was a time when being "cultured" meant having a breadth of knowledge in a variety of areas, because we knew that history affects literature affects politics affects economics affects sport affects nature affects etc., etc., etc. Today, in fields as "diverse" as literature and economics, experts create insider language that excludes those not inititated into the elite of a given field. Their study no longer contributes to public debate, in fact the public is advised very seriously to "stay out of it".

This obscures knowledge, debate, and I would argue democracy.

but then, maybe i'm just conceited.

quote:Originally posted by Coyote:
Today, in fields as "diverse" as literature and economics, experts create insider language that excludes those not inititated into the elite of a given field. Their study no longer contributes to public debate, in fact the public is advised very seriously to "stay out of it".

This obscures knowledge, debate, and I would argue democracy.

To the extent that is true, is it only a recent development? George Bernard Shaw once remarked that the professions are a conspiracy against the general public.

And that is a good point. I try to remind myself constantly that there is nothing new under the sun.

quote:Originally posted by Coyote:
And that is a good point. I try to remind myself constantly that there is nothing new under the sun.

A lot of very intelligent people have been working a lot of hours on a lot of questions for a very long time.

When Isaac Newton published the principia, other intellectuals were shocked that there was a development they could not understand.

The days of people being experts on all subjects are over, and that is because there is a lot that is new under the sun.

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Economics is an important subject, and learning it properly requires investing heavily in specialised skills. Intellectual sloth is not a moral virtue.Self-awareness is a moral virtue. Hypocrisy isn't.

If you feel entitled to sit back and pass judgment on the economic ignorance of your inferiors here, you are obliged to debate the issues and explain what error you perceive in their approach.

But you don't; perhaps you can't, but most likely it's just 'intellectual sloth'.

As such, you continuously infuriate, and are seldom (and less and less often) seen to make any useful contribution here. This thread is a perfect example of your dismissive and alienating behaviour.

quote: Economists wouldn't make that mistake.
Oh, c'mon, Stephen. Most economists are ideologically slanted. If a theory doesn't fit their ideological beliefs, it is dismissed while those that do are trumpeted. You, yourself, will continue to advocate economic models and theories even when all the evidence suggests the opposite results (or worse the results just aren't tabulated).

Two easy and quick examples:

One, to prove that Friedman-ite economic theories are working, i.e. keeping inflation in check (inflation defined primarily as worker's wages, IMV), food and energy are removed from the US measurement of "Core Inflation". Yes, yes, they have many arguments and rationale to justify this, but it is skewed numbers nonetheless and supported by economists.

There are two messages one can derive from this: One is that the government and their economists don't give a shit about the impacts of inflation on citizens or, more likely, 2.2% inflation sounds much nicer to the economic ideologues than 4 or 5 per cent inflation.

A second example: In Wisconsin, the government did a common sense revolution and tightened welfare restrictions that impacted largely single mothers and their children. The economists and politicians who championed the draconian laws heralded the much reduced welfare rates for the state. Poverty advocates say the new regulations have cast many women and children into deeper poverty and, often, homelessness.

So who is right? Well, the politicians and their economists chose not to track people once they leave welfare. So the only statistic that matters is the one that would indicate welfare rolls are lower.

Sorry, Stephen, economics can, and is, twisted and turned to suit any ideological preconception no matter how bent.

Economists are not free of ideology and as Friedman and his many followers have proved, they have no moral qualms about perverting their academic knowledge in the service of their ideological faith.

[ 05 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Other than Prof. Gordon, are there any other professional economists who post here with any regularity?

[ 05 July 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

I certainly believe that Stephen contributes greatly to this board. He challenges the prevailing wisdom here, and has in fact changed my mind on a number of issues with his arguments. I appreciate him and his contribution here immensely.

That we disagree on some basic starting point issues bothers me not a whit. That he is snarky on occasion does not bother me either; he is subject to much snark himself. That doesn't mean I won't strenuously respond when I think he is far off the mark, and I hope he does the same with me.

If I have ever given another impression, I hope this corrects that record.

quote:That doesn't mean I won't strenuously respond when I think he is far off the mark, and I hope he does the same with me. I hope he does, too. Unfortunately, my point was that Stephen seems to have given up on making any effort whatsoever.

quote: Other than Prof. Gordon, are there any other professional economists who post here with any regularity?
How would we know? Is MikeS an economist?

quote:For simple history, it's gotta be Howard Zinn. I’m in the middle of reading A People’s History of American Empire, his new graphic adaptation of his book A People’s History of the United States. Excellent for those who want or need a history lesson that doesn’t get taught in school. There isn't one for Canada as far as I know. For a Canadian history, Ms. C. might want to try "Reflections of a Siamese Twin: Canada at the End of the Twentieth Century", by John Ralston Saul.

quote:Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Self-awareness is a moral virtue. Hypocrisy isn't.

If you feel entitled to sit back and pass judgment on the economic ignorance of your inferiors here, you are obliged to debate the issues and explain what error you perceive in their approach.

But you don't; perhaps you can't, but most likely it's just 'intellectual sloth'.

As such, you continuously infuriate, and are seldom (and less and less often) seen to make any useful contribution here. This thread is a perfect example of your dismissive and alienating behaviour.

quote:I hope he does, too. Unfortunately, my point was that Stephen seems to have given up on making any effort whatsoever.

Is it at all possible for you to participate in one of these threads without passing judgment on me?

I just want to say that lefties like the letter writer embarrass the crap out of me. Education schmeducation! I try to get some sense of what's in a persons heart, and whatever follows from there follows.

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
... learning enough to sound well-informed at cocktail parties ...

That's a function of how late you arrive.

Okay, this is at the point now where I'm going to tell you, LTJ, to pretend that Stephen Gordon doesn't exist - which means never EVER addressing his posts, either directly or talking about him in the third person - because you seem to find it impossible to address him or talk about him without attacking him.

As for you, Stephen, perhaps people wouldn't get pissed off at you if you didn't imply that they are "intellectually lazy".

quote: which means never EVER addressing his posts, either directly or talking about him in the third person
Whoa! Like ever? Do you guys keep a moderator database? Am I in there?

No. Maybe we should. It's just so frustrating dealing with the same thing over and over and over again. Are we adults here or are we not?

Unfortunately I'm becoming a geezer. Cricks and pains and ornery at them younguns squealing their tires all day.

quote:Originally posted by Michelle:
As for you, Stephen, perhaps people wouldn't get pissed off at you if you didn't imply that they are "intellectually lazy".

I'm sorry about that, especially if Coyote took it as an accusation - that was certainly not my intention. There was a certain amount of abstraction here; I recognised that Coyote was raising a hypothetic argument, and not accusing me directly. My response was meant to be in kind - that is, a response to the argument, not the person who raised it.

Does that make sense? The shorter version: I wasn't aiming that crack at anyone who posted on this thread.

Coyote, my apologies. I should have been as clear as you were.

My favourite economist to read is Paul Krugman at the NYT. He is great at explaining concepts, backing up his point of view, and seems to be fair and intellectually honest.

If SG is 'above us' for lack of a better word, in the field of economics, then he should take the opportunity to educate us and engage in honest debate. I for one would appreciate the opportunity to learn more on the topic.

I have a degree in Mathematics, and have worked in computer sciences for many years. My social circle includes several individual with science degrees who, like me, consider themselves left of center.

If I'm engaged in a debate where mathematical knowledge comes into play, I always try to take the time to explain and simplify concepts. It's usually possible to explain even difficult concepts to most people and web forums provide a good medium for Q&A.

quote:Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
My favourite economist to read is Paul Krugman at the NYT. He is great at explaining concepts, backing up his point of view, and seems to be fair and intellectually honest.

Oh, I heartily agree. Sadly, I'm not in his league.

quote:
If SG is 'above us' for lack of a better word, in the field of economics, then he should take the opportunity to educate us and engage in honest debate. I for one would appreciate the opportunity to learn more on the topic.

You will find that when I am asked an honest, direct question - that is, one that doesn't amount to 'Are you an asshole or a hypocrite?' - I'm very accommodating. If necessary, I will do a literature search and summarise what I find.

quote:Okay, this is at the point now where I'm going to tell you, LTJ, to pretend that Stephen Gordon doesn't exist - which means never EVER addressing his posts, either directly or talking about him in the third person - because you seem to find it impossible to address him or talk about him without attacking him.

...so being smug, patronizing and condescending okay, getting pissed off at smug patronizing and condescending people not okay.

Personal attacks are not okay. Especially when there has been a pattern of it for months on end.

However, I should have made it clear that I would like the avoidance to go both ways. So that means that I'd like to see Stephen avoid LTJ too, which means not responding to his posts nor referring to him in the third person.

I'm just trying to figure out a way to stop this constant bickering by two valuable members of this forum. I can't think of anything else. Suspensions don't work. Warnings don't work. Nothing works.

What would you do if you were the moderator? Pretty easy to criticize, not so easy to be the person who gets all the complaints and has to find a way to deal with them.

personally I find apologists for global capitalism and corporate imperialism rather tedious so I tend to avoid them myself. I really don't need to here more opinions of this type, I am unable to turn on a radio,t.v. open a newspaper or even walk out the door without being assaulted by a barrage of incessant screams of the dominant ideology...THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. It is sometimes pleasant to believe there might be some sort of sanctuary perhaps that is naive.

engaging in conversation with one of the high priests is like talking to an evangelical christian a pointless and frustrating waste of time.

Inclusiveness might be a nice idea but the reality is including some usually means excluding others

Okay. So, what? Anyone to the right of Lenin is out?

I'm a fairly moderate New Dem - on some issues I'm to the right of the party on some i'm to the left. Am i out?

Who do you think should be allowed to come play?

quote:Originally posted by Michelle:
So that means that I'd like to see Stephen avoid LTJ too, which means not responding to his posts nor referring to him in the third person.

Fair enough.

quote:Okay. So, what? Anyone to the right of Lenin is out?

I'm a fairly moderate New Dem - on some issues I'm to the right of the party on some i'm to the left. Am i out?

Who do you think should be allowed to come play?

Do you think its impossible to imagine or discuss an alternative without being constantly reminded of the never ending wonders of global capitalism?

Certainly I do. And I think if you set the parameters of a discussion i.e., a thread entitled "Alternatives to Capitalism" or somesuch I bet that it would be respected.

That's kind of how it works, I suppose. We try to tolerate each other and our divisions and try to make something work between us. If this were an explicitly anti-capitalist board by mission I would likely not contribute; been to those sites, man, they make babble look like a tea party.

quote:Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

Do you think its impossible to imagine or discuss an alternative without being constantly reminded of the never ending wonders of global capitalism?

Your statement is very nebulous.

Do you consider global capitalism to be a monolithic philosophy? What do you include under that philosophy? all trade and all banking?

Some say capitalism became dominant with the rise of the stock exchange. Would you ban people from buying stocks of companies on other continents?

Capitalism isn't a philosophy.

Who's talking about banning anything? I'm sure N.R.K. wouldn't lose any sleep if you decided to buy some stocks.

Personally, I follow oldgoat's approach. If a person has justice and love in their heart, we have common ground, and we can work with that. I don't spend much time with anyone else. Usually I don't have disputes with people who have fundamentally different outlooks than me--they usually come in mindset. For instance, when discussing social justice or policies with lawyers and mathematicians who see the world in a very different light, but no less compassionately than I do. But with common ground, I find I can explain my point of view no matter what leftist theory they come from.

People like the Mikhail, I find, aren't really interested in changing minds or finding consensus anyway. They're more interested in machismo and posturing, scratching as high as they can on the oak tree to mark their territory. They want to be right, not better. I have to admit, that's an activity I sometimes find all too attractive, but it's ultimately a dead end.

quote:Originally posted by Catchfire:
Capitalism isn't a philosophy.

Who's talking about banning anything? I'm sure N.R.K. wouldn't lose any sleep if you decided to buy some stocks.

Iґm not comfortable reading that much into her position. All she said is that sheґs for alternatives to global capitalism. I donґt know how you went from that to saying sheґs probably fine with people owning international stocks, a trait of global capitalism after all. Perhaps youґve seen some other posts of hers I have not seen or that I am failing to remember.

quote:Originally posted by Catchfire:
Personally, I follow oldgoat's approach. If a person has justice and love in their heart, we have common ground, and we can work with that. I don't spend much time with anyone else. Usually I don't have disputes with people who have fundamentally different outlooks than me--they usually come in mindset. For instance, when discussing social justice or policies with lawyers and mathematicians who see the world in a very different light, but no less compassionately than I do. But with common ground, I find I can explain my point of view no matter what leftist theory they come from.

So you must likely disagree with Anne Frank?

[ 07 July 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Whaa? How do you infer Coyote's disagreement with so disparate a figure from mathemagicians and such?

I'm lost.

First of all, N.R.K is male. Second, Apples, you made the strange and apropos suggestion that since N.R.K was anti-capitalist, he would care whether people bought stocks. Which is rather like asking if you're allergic to fish, would you order halibut?

Third, I'm the literature student, and I have no idea what Anne Frank has to do with anything. I'm sure there's something there though, perhaps you'd like to elaborate?

LTJ: "For a Canadian history, Ms. C. might want to try "Reflections of a Siamese Twin: Canada at the End of the Twentieth Century", by John Ralston Saul."

One of the books that made me lose faith in Canadian literary tastes. Wasn't it a best seller? Could my knuckles have been any whiter when I read that book? Mordecai Richler wrote better history than Saul ever dreamed of attempting.

Back to the topic at hand. I find that talking politics, or economics, with anyone is a frustrating experience IF you are attempting to change someone's thinking more towards what you consider proper. Remember when The Guardian tried to get people in Ohio to vote specifically - or strongly suggestively - not for Bush in 2004? The reaction was swift.

Anyhow, if anyone wants to talk with a redneck, often synonymous with right-winger, I'm open to PMs (but not PMS).

The suggestion was for "those who want or need a history lesson that doesn’t get taught in school." Saul's book certainly fits that description IMO.

What was your issue with it, Farmpunk?

quote:For simple history, it's gotta be Howard Zinn. I’m in the middle of reading A People’s History of American Empire, his new graphic adaptation of his book A People’s History of the United States. Excellent for those who want or need a history lesson that doesn’t get taught in school. There isn't one for Canada as far as I know.

I think those who claim to be card-carrying supporters of the Republican Party are somewhere around 36% of voters in the U.S. So I think self-described right-wingers are actually in the minority even in the last bastion of far right conservatism in the world in that country. An estimated 80% of Americans know their health care system, the most privatized in the world is broken and needs fixing. One of every two doctors in the U.S. is now for some form of socialized medicine. And neither of the two prospective cosmetic leaders will give it to them. As Noam Chomsky said recently, U.S. voters have become irrelevant in the scheme of things.

As for capitalism itself, JK Galbraith said that notion of U.S. economy went out of vogue in the 1930's.

And Canada's is a fake "G8" economy. Our fearless leaders have tied our economic fortunes and national security to a dangerous empire whose cold war era extravagance and time for living off the credit of other nations is in decline. It's no wonder to me why some number of Albertans and Quebecois desire to break away and form a real country on their own. Canadians have never had real leadership in Ottawa.

quote:Originally posted by Catchfire:
I'm lost.

First of all, N.R.K is male.

Oops. Checked his profile, mea culpa.

quote:Originally posted by Catchfire:
Second, Apples, you made the strange and apropos suggestion that since N.R.K was anti-capitalist, he would care whether people bought stocks. Which is rather like asking if you're allergic to fish, would you order halibut?

My central point was that being against global capitalism is nebulous. As an example of this nebulosity, Iґm interpreting that as against international stock transactions, whereas you see the link as strange and apropos.

How do you define global capitalism?

quote:Originally posted by Catchfire:
Third, I'm the literature student, and I have no idea what Anne Frank has to do with anything. I'm sure there's something there though, perhaps you'd like to elaborate?

Some of her most famous words,

I still believe that all people are fundamentally good at heart.

And you were saying you had common ground with people,

quote: If a person has justice and love in their heart, we have common ground

which sounds like good in their heart? So assuming you donґt include everyone in that category, you must disagree with Anne Frank.

[ 07 July 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Ann Frank spent her last days as a slave labourer for the corporate-sponsored military machine and fighting for her life against typhus. It's a bad example for pro-kapital side.

Apples, that's pretty tortured so far as logical leaps go. And the point goes miles over my head, anyways.

quote: How do you define global capitalism?
The concentration of wealth into the hands of a primarily Western economic elite through trans-national corporations supported by extra-territorial legislation, as well as treaties that subvert national sovereignty and national democratic movements.

quote:Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
The concentration of wealth into the hands of a primarily Western economic elite through trans-national corporations supported by extra-territorial legislation, as well as treaties that subvert national sovereignty and national democratic movements.

Colonialism and exploitation exceed the invention of the stock exchange and systemized for-interest banking that have made private ownership viable on a large scale. I bet they will outlive it as well.

I donґt see what great positive can arise from lumping all that one views as evil about the world under the umbrella of the term ЁcapitalismЁ.

quote:American Heritage Dictionary
cap·i·tal·ism (kāp'ĭ-tl-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key

n.

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Would global capitalism then not be people owning things across the world?

·············

Definitions matter.

[ 07 July 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote: I donґt see what great positive can arise from lumping all that one views as evil about the world under the umbrella of the term ЁcapitalismЁ.

I don't believe I used the word "evil" in my definition. But is global capitalism evil? In its present incarnation where economic and political rights are concentrated into very few hands, and where exploitation is a critical component, and where environmental degradation - even to the point of jeopardizing human societies on a global scale is a by-product, then I think it is probably a very bad thing. No one argues, for example, the benefits of cancer.

quote:
Would global capitalism then not be people owning things across the world?

It sounds so quaint like someone owning a Royal Dalton figurine. What could be wrong with that?

First it isn't people. It is a small number of people known euphemistically as investors. Their rights, investor rights, trump all others including aboriginal, civil, labour, and environmental.

They have at their disposal state violence and para-militaries, operating under the cover of the state, to employ brutal violence in order to advance their interests.

With their ownership of "investments", they also own, or at least have the freedom to do as they wish, the global commons including the atmosphere, the oceans, fresh water, soil, the minerals, and the fruits of the earth's systems.

The rest of us on a daily basis have our rights - to live freely as citizens of the earth and to take freely from (and return to) the earth - undermined and curtailed until we must turn to corporations, the front organizations of the global capitalist elite, for every aspect of our survival and have it withheld unless we conform to the system that spreads like, well ... a cancer.

[ 07 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

What FM said about globalizing "capitalism" The only thing I might add is the fact that the "new" Liberal capitalism works in reverse to Adam Smithian capitalism for creating competition. Washington consensus, IMF and WTO tend to pave the way for multinational corporations to move into countries and destroy local competition for delivering goods and services. World Bankers themselves have questioned the methods of measuring poverty. One billlion living on a dollar a day as opposed to two dollars in various other countries is a rough measure. Three or four dollars a day in another country may not be all that much better if they're spending a quarter of daily income on free market water, and maybe 80 percent of income goes toward shelter and nothing left for proper nutrition. In fact, billions of human beings are still desperately poor.

And now the writing is on the wall for commodities based capitalism, Soviet in size MNC's want their share of public services: health care, education, and to commercialize child daycare. Those three services represent over $6 trillion dollars in public spending worldwide. And their intentions are to monopolize those important services.

Bush's political support base in the U.S. consisting of a powerful group of Pentagon capitalists, pharmaceutical companies, big sugar, and some large percentage of business handled by big insurance companies have little to do with the free market and relying more on lobbying for government contracts, and-or, lobbying and bribing politicos in order to prevent more efficient and cheaper socialized medicine. Since the 1930's and 40's, laissez-faire capitalism was displaced by a system of socialism for the rich - "Keynesian-militarism" - or upside-down socialism for the rich in North America.

quote:Originally posted by 500_Apples:

Colonialism and exploitation exceed the invention of the stock exchange and systemized for-interest banking that have made private ownership viable on a large scale. I bet they will outlive it as well.

You appear to be invoking an old and popular argument. I have read that Victor Perlo's "People's Capitalism" and Stock-Ownership is a very good reply to this particular argument. You can get it for $10.00 here but I'm going to try the library first.

I can tell you that I wouldn't take my definition of capitalism from any dictionary, let alone an impostor like the New American Heritage.

"People owning things across the world." Heh. I guess so.

Capitalism is an overarching, invasive and insidious system of exchange, ownership and exploitation. It is dependent on the commodity, which as Marx shows, isn't really "people owning things" so much as "things owning people." Look up "reification" if you want more of an explanation. It reduces relationships between people to relationships between things.

This also means that the emergence of the image, or spectacle as a cultural force is directly linked to capitalism. The image that kills the thing--and encourages alienation and separation between people in an increasingly mediatized and spectacular culture while historical context and meaning disappears. See: Alphonso Cuaron's Children of Men (2006).

And as a matter of fact, it could be argued that colonialism cannot exist without capitalism, because it is a necessary prerequisite for capitalism and capitalism naturally follows from colonialism. Mercantile colonialism didn't emerge until 1650 in Europe, which is really when capitalism started to take hold as a global force.

If you want to know where these ideas come from, you should read the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto, which is available online, and is a marvelous and exceedingly well-written piece of literature.

quote: Mikhail asked: ...my question is: how can one explain concepts and simple history to people with such limited mind frames?

Unless there is a need to do this as opposed to a desire to be chatty, say, at a cocktail party or with a co-worker, I don't bother to explain anything to anyone who I think hasn't got a foundation in the basics of history, economics, and politics. I might plant a seed here and there via comments or suggestions but an all-guns-blasting discussion with a person who sees the world so differently than me---nope, I don't have time for it.

If you find yourself feeling lonely because of this you need new friends who think more like you do.

This is my personal daily formula for survival in the real world. I have a different approach when I'm trying to be an activist and want to encourage debate. That's usually something I plan to do in advance, like attending a political rally. But I'm not a walking agitation machine every moment of my life, I pick and choose where I can be most effective.

There is a book on Canadian History/NAFTA that I found fascinating - but I had to read it in small doses because it disturbed me a lot!! Worth the effort!

"The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionisn" by David Orchard
http://www.davidorchard.com/online/fight/fightfor.html

quote:Originally posted by jayell584:

"The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionisn" by David Orchard
http://www.davidorchard.com/online/fight/fightfor.html

I'll have to read it. I see Orchard's book was published in the U.S.

In his book "The Vanishing Country: Is it too late to save Canada?", Hurtig mentions that Canada imports more book titles than any other country in the world, including twice as many as the U.S. on a per capita basis. Well over half the books sold in Canada are produced outside the country by foreign publishers. Over 80 percent of magazines on our newstands are foreign. Over 80 percent of all CDs sold in Canada are foreign, and over 94 percent of film distribution revenue goes to non-Canadians. About 95 percent of screen time in Canadian theatres is devoted to foreign films.

And since 2005, Canada's has become a hewer and drawer economy, once again. This is true even though Brian Baloney promised that free trade with the elephant would deliver "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! to Canadians. So far Canada has the second largest low wage, non-unionized and lowly skilled workforce in the developed world next to the USA.

Interesting - I think there must be correlations between people who choose careers in money and end up getting rich, I don't believe that's an accident. Or folks who choose the military for a career and end up enjoying killing. People gravitate towards what interests them, is my theory. But there are no absolutes in the social sciences and the ideas I've presented above are rather simplistic.

Heuristics like stereotypes are only quick and dirty techniques for thinking though - they shouldn't substitute for thinking.

Evidently, this thread was from back in the day when the intellectual bar was set much higher. I can't tell you how intimidating it was.

Apparently people like Theodore Kaczynski were distressed over this. He realized that there were lefties all around him and loitering in U.S. universities in general. The right are generally critical of academics.

There have been surveys and statistics churned out. Money is a factor in choosing what careers they pursue. Paydays are what motivate a lot of people whether they are engineers or career criminals in banking and finance. Some engineers just like tinkering and will do it whether for charitable causes or where the money is, like the military and private enterprise. Doctors and nurses less so. They mostly have to really like people in order to do what they do.

You must have met different doctors fidel. I know many who dont like people, just money.

Or see it as puzzle solving and never ever consider the human factor

That's interesting Fidel it must be a fright to control all those conditions. These are good reasons not to trust stereotypes. I can see cash being a concern for many occupations but that may be more of a reflection of the instrument and the cohort. And I'm still not convinced a military engineer is in it for the tinkering, esp if he can choose a non military occupation of the same wage and benefits - I guess I find that finding 'very surprising' - I know the military is sought after in the US for the benefits. I think there's something about joining the military and the police that gravitates to tall authoritarian institutions. But I'm willing to be corrected. Hopefully I'll meet some liberal minded military at the NDP convention and we can talk about childcare for single mothers (which I think is in Canada's economic interest).

Almost everyone I know are apolitical or disgusted with it entirely.  No one mentions anything to do with politics in social settings, with the exception of an occasional visceral remark offered up by someone in passing to more pleasant conversations.  My partner votes NDP however; a habit passed down through her family apparently.  We never discuss politics either, and for good reason I've found.

As an English Literature graduate student, I can't relate to doctors or nurses like that at all. I chose my career solely for the imminent and inevitable fame and fortune.

If only it was THE right winger in my life.

I might be able to write the article

"How To Be Happy and Avoid Eruptions with the Nutbars in Your Life."

Rule # 1: forget about "talking" about it. Life is too short.