djadonis206 wrote:glu wrote:
Fuck that. Love you Ad, but the system is only working for a small fraction
of the world. Just because I get to enjoy the fruits of the world doesn't mean
that captialism (in it's current form) is "working" unless you specify who it is
working for or against... and that is what I take issue with.
Now that's a much larger jagged pill to swallow, because millions of people around
the world are not willing to give up their big screen TVs, favorite shows, computer
music programs,etc. so that kids from Senegal to Guatemala can go to school, drink clean water, etc.
As I said (I didn't talk down capitalism, only the changes in capitalist markets
in the post-Fordian era), social democracy and capitalism had a falling out.
Capitalist markets worked better for the common worker in the Fordist era.
Now we are living in a new era of market financialization, property entrepreneurship, and the privatization of social rights.
I didn't talk down democracy either dude. In fact, I stand for real social democracy,
not some warped Bourgeois system of exclusion/inclusion of public sphere. I study
democratic theory and acknowledge that it is an unfinished project. When does
democracy become dominance? When does liberty become discipline? Read some
Nancy Fraser if you don't understand where I am coming from.
And I didn't talk down "monopolization" itself, but rather monopolization of
normative violence and political power.
FYI-I would say it's a bit naive to say that there are no true monopolies in the world, you are going to have to explain that statement to me and distinguish
between the type of monopolies I talk about and this idea of "true monopoly."
Normative violence is "truly monopolized" by the state, legitimized by our votes,
and carried out on nations that are too weak to properly defend themselves.
Love you too - this is just time wasting conversation so...no hard feelings taken or implied
so
A monopoly - from 2 Greek words meaning "one seller" - the problem with using the word monopoly is the concept of substitutes.
The word monopoly is extraordinarily ambiguous. For everyone or no one is a sole seller depending on how we define the "commodity" (normative violence in this case) being sold. There's no real way to decide in all cases just how broadly or narrowly the concept of a "commodity" (normative violence) ought to be defined.
anywayz - we live in a free market country and deal with other free market countries. Yes, there are winners and there are losers, but overall everyone is better off. - It's not a lop-sided game. How one country deals with it's OWN problems is their problem. They enter into agreements expecting to be better off - otherwise they wouldn't do it.
on the subject of our own backyard - it would help if you didn't think about people and classes of people as STATIC things. Some one who is poor today may not be poor tomorrow. Take a 18 year kid. By definition he is poor. If he goes to college, or works hard at his job over the next 4 years he will not be poor anymore. If someone is rich today and invests poorly and looses all their money they will not be rich in that same 4 years. You can apply that to all sorts of situations. Look at China and India.
and why should someone give up there television set or new car. That television set probably employed people who otherwise wouldn't have been employed - that car probably gave people jobs. So lets stop making buying televisions and cars. By my argument those are people losing jobs. Jobs that they probably need.
The idea that we enjoy a "free-market economy" is not entirely accurate, it is
in fact a misrepresentation of the way the State articulates with the markets.
The State used to be a central agent in economic affairs in much of the Western
world, but that has changed in the post-Fordist era. Now the state is responsible
for creating trade environments. So free-market economy is a capitalist ideal,
but it isn't the practice, nor would we want it to be if we believe in the social
contract and the existence of social rights.
Economic conditions are not static, indeed, incipient homelessness is on the rise, recent feminization of poverty in the US has surpassed that of other industrial nations, a growing economic disparity between rich and poor has become more
present under the Clinton/Bush regimes... so I do not argue against how we should view economic conditions, I never said anything about it being static. In fact, I say the worst has yet to come.
To say that everyone is "better off" is a contentious statement that deserves
more attention. We can go in circles with this argument because such a claim
cannot be proven or disproved. This is a political tactic that has been used
by the Bush admin throughout the past 8 years and it really just confuses
everyone. I don't think the hundreds of thousands IDP in Iraq think they are
better off.
Lastly, normative violence is monopolized by the state because the state has
the ultimate authority to legislate and thus deem what is illegitimate or deviant
violence. The State deems what is normative and deviant, therefore the State
has the ultimate control of violence as a "commodity" and whether it is legitimate
or not. I do not believe that Clinton or Obama will hestitate to use illegitimate
violence against other parts of the world, they both aspire to win votes so they
have to appear taugh of 'terror' similarly to how Clinton witnessed executions
during his presidential candidacy to prove that democrats were 'hard of crime'
since republicans had previously claimed that as only endemic to their
party's platform. Clinton also used illegitimate violence during his presidency,
but not too many people remember or care to remember NATO in the Sky.
cool, peace.
I'll be gentle. I can't/don't take this political stuff seriously and what happens in these threads stays in these threads.