If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

Noam Chomsky is hardly representative of the modern anti-capitalist movement. He recently came down hard on Antifa which I really appreciated as it's what so many other people have been saying for so long by now, that Antifa actively creates reactionaries on the right and poisons the well of the left.

"True" free markets don't exist. That's the grand illusion.

True free markets would be analogous to absolute free societal interaction--meaning people do whatever they want, and their actions conform to whatever they find to be socially acceptable. Of course, this isn't how our society works, nor should it be.

Even hypothetically speaking, as soon as you have free markets you will have platforms for political intervention. Free markets mean a demand for protectionism, and that's exactly what corporatism offers. Corporatism is the free market extended to complex systems, which means it appears un-free at the individual level. It's all about scale.

Defining capitalism as free markets is all well and good, but it's beholden to an eighteenth-century vision of individual entrepreneurship and innovation that simply isn't tenable anymore.

Of course truly free markets don't exist. I've never pretended that libertarianism wasn't a kind of utopian vision, which is why I've always felt a bit apprehensive about favouring the ideology myself as it just isn't realistic.

However, like most things, it's not so much about reaching 100% [insert idea here] but rather getting as close to it as is possible and I'm not sure anybody could deny that in every single country, the closer it moves towards a free market capitalism, the more it flourishes and develops. I don't know of any place that improved as a whole by moving away from free market capitalism.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, America flourished by moving toward corporatism. Trying to approximate eighteenth-century visions of free market liberalism is a recipe for disunion and disaster.

And Chomsky is indicative of a large percentage of general academic leftism. You're focusing on the antifa fringe, it seems to me.

 

[CiG]

Chomsky is indicative of a large percentage of general academic leftism. You're focusing on the antifa fringe, it seems to me.

I'm focusing on the youth movements like the Occupy movement, BLM, Antifa, the Bernie Sanders supporter base etc, rather than crusty old leftists taking up space as they desperately attempt to remain relevant to the younger people they hope to influence.

Well, America flourished by moving toward corporatism. Trying to approximate eighteenth-century visions of free market liberalism is a recipe for disunion and disaster.

So you say, but I'm not quite sure I agree. Furthermore, the nature of corporatism has left so many people feeling disenchanted and disenfranchised with America that it will probably blow up in the country's face.

The far-left and far-right movements can basically both be attributed to the track record of corporatism in America.

 

[Einherjar86]

Corporatism has been the implicit tendency in America since the late-eighteenth century, when it was in nascent but acknowledged form (Alexander Hamilton explicitly advocated it in 1791). It grew in importance with the development of the railroads, and by the twentieth century was the lay of the land. The increase in corporatist policies and practices is almost directly parallel with the cultivation of massive industries in America.

Yes, individuals have felt left behind because of this, and it might blow up in the country's face. Part of the reason for this is that America promotes a set of conflicting values when it comes to the economy: corporatist organization on one hand and liberal individualism on the other. Our cultural ideology is still that of economic individualism, among both democrats and republicans, but it's not a good description of how the country's economy has actually developed. It's the angle of "folk politics," and it's still how politicians try to connect with their base--it's how Sanders connected, and it's how Trump connected. It's not how Clinton tried to connect, and she alienated people because of it. Ironically, her view of (post)modern economic complexity and organization is probably more accurate than either Sander's or Trump's. People don't like to think of themselves as part of systems, but we are--we need to try and see that as a potentially good thing, as long as we don't ignore those who feel abandoned or alienated.

 

[rms]

if we're using Hamilton's On Manufacturing, wouldn't it be more fair to suggest he was pro-bank rather than pro-corporation?

 

[Einherjar86]

Maybe? I don't know honestly, I haven't read that text; Hamilton was in favor of the government supporting new and developing industries, which is why I mentioned him. Strictly speaking, pro-bank could still qualify as a form of corporatism, if one places emphasis on the bank as the unit of social organization. A corporation isn't necessarily a multinational conglomerate; small local businesses, including banks, can also be corporations.

Additionally, non-corporate businesses can benefit from corporatism, depending on the distribution of government support.

 

[rms]

Oh, it's a short read by Hamilton that basically establishes our interest based and pro-bank economic system that facilitated the rise and dominance of the U.S. (and the survival, in the short term -- along with Washington squashing the Whiskey Rebellion if memory serves)

https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Favor-Government-Constitution-American/dp/0195374169

there's a great book I read that argues this and really persuasive argument

 

[HamburgerBoy]

When people talk of "corporatism", they aren't talking about the existence of hundreds of thousands of LLCs operated by a handful of people, who tend to participate in the public process as individual voters. It is almost always understood to mean the consolidation of major business forces to influence public policy, which in turn almost never results in more efficient market outcomes. The correlation between market growth and corporatism is akin to the correlation between mammalian abundance and mosquito abundance.

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh, it's a short read by Hamilton that basically establishes our interest based and pro-bank economic system that facilitated the rise and dominance of the U.S. (and the survival, in the short term -- along with Washington squashing the Whiskey Rebellion if memory serves)

https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Favor-Government-Constitution-American/dp/0195374169

there's a great book I read that argues this and really persuasive argument

Cool, I'll look into it if/when I have time.

When people talk of "corporatism", they aren't talking about the existence of hundreds of thousands of LLCs operated by a handful of people, who tend to participate in the public process as individual voters. It is almost always understood to mean the consolidation of major business forces to influence public policy, which in turn almost never results in more efficient market outcomes. The correlation between market growth and corporatism is akin to the correlation between mammalian abundance and mosquito abundance.

I agree--or, as I said above, the correlation between the abundance of cars and the abundance of traffic jams.

But the traffic jams are a necessary component of everyone getting to work, albeit maybe not always on time. I would say that corporatism has contributed to a lot of grief and woe, but is also inextricable from many of the large-scale advancements since World War II, including the emergence of global telecommunications (which involved cooperation between academia, corporate businesses, and the military) and the development of modern aviation.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'd agree that large corporations are/were needed for certain large-scale applications, though the extent to which those corporations holding power over government helped said applications is questionable. Airlines were notably inefficient and expensive until Carter privatized them, likely partially inspired by Southwest Airlines being able to outskirt corporatist interstate regulations. Telecoms are more complicated in that for much of their history they relied on using large amounts of public land to connect potential customers, and that most cities don't wan't to dig up sidewalks every few months for a new competitor, but that's more a consequence of the first-to-market advantage than being able to form because of corporatism.

 

[Dak]

Well, America flourished by moving toward corporatism. Trying to approximate eighteenth-century visions of free market liberalism is a recipe for disunion and disaster.

But corporatism seems to also be an ingredient in a recipe for disunion. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing.

And Chomsky is indicative of a large percentage of general academic leftism. You're focusing on the antifa fringe, it seems to me.

I don't buy this anymore. Chomsky is of a dying breed, and academic leftism is significantly represented by those in social sciences, gender studies, and "fine arts", all of whom are much more likely to sympathize with Antifa and read an ignorant intellectual troglodyte like Coates than care what Chomsky has to say about anything. Coates' latest wall of mostly incoherent but certainly jingoistic/copy-pasted-from-every-liberal-pundit screed might have taken the cake, but of course it only serves to justify the self-righteous indignation/flagellation expressed by virtue signaling Bobos.

 

[Einherjar86]

But corporatism seems to also be an ingredient in a recipe for disunion. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing.

Well, I definitely agree that it's not a unifying concept.

I don't buy this anymore. Chomsky is of a dying breed, and academic leftism is significantly represented by those in social sciences, gender studies, and "fine arts"

Actually, plenty of academics in history, philosophy, English, political science, the natural sciences, etc. etc. lean left. But their leftism isn't sexy.

 

[Dak]

Actually, plenty of academics in history, philosophy, English, political science, the natural sciences, etc. etc. lean left. But their leftism isn't sexy.

Leftist philosophy isn't sexy? Judith Butler's tiddies disagree! If the natural sciences can be politicized, it's not natural science*.

 

[Einherjar86]

Leftist philosophy isn't sexy? Judith Butler's tiddies disagree! If the natural sciences can be politicized, it's not natural history.

Chomsky's variety isn't. My variety of systems-theory leftism isn't. Post-Butlerian leftism is.

My point is that there are many different kinds leftism, and not all of them are equal.

 

[Dak]

Chomsky's variety isn't. My variety of systems-theory leftism isn't. Post-Butlerian leftism is.

My point is that there are many different kinds leftism, and not all of them are equal.

But you've quoted Butler so much. Leftist system's theory seems to always ignore micro-economics, which seems an immediate disqualifier and typical of communist/socialist apologetics..

 

[Einherjar86]

I like Butler. I don't always care for her disciples.

There isn't really a leftist systems theory. That's just how I describe myself. And I think macro-economics are more important than micro. I'm not apologizing for communism though, since communism and systems theory are at almost direct odds.

 

[Dak]

I like Butler. I don't always care for her disciples.

What separates "people who like Butler" from "her disciples"?

There isn't really a leftist systems theory. That's just how I describe myself. And I think macro-economics are more important than micro.

A. I don't think macro-economics is very applicable to anything other than "higher level" B. The "higher level" doesn't actually help any particular person.

I'm not apologizing for communism though, since communism and systems theory are at almost direct odds.

But both are, most likely, leading to suffering when used prescriptively.

 

[CiG]

Another element of corporatism (or so I always thought) was a union of the government and the biggest corporations collaborating to rig the market against smaller businesses. Regulations that smaller businesses are broken by, but that big businesses can survive or work around.

That, on top of corporations influencing policies, is what I thought corporatism basically was.

 

[Einherjar86]

What separates "people who like Butler" from "her disciples"?

Butler eschews the metaphysics of identity politics.

A. I don't think macro-economics is very applicable to anything other than "higher level" B. The "higher level" doesn't actually help any particular person.

It isn't applicable to anything other than the higher levels. I guess that's why they call it macro.

The highers levels do help individuals, just not in ways that are directly observable or immediately beneficial.

But both are, most likely, leading to suffering when used prescriptively.

Everything leads to suffering when used prescriptively.

As HBB said, there's no way to know whether corporatist policies were absolutely necessary in the development of modern technologies and systems; but, descriptively speaking, they played a major role.

 

[Dak]

It isn't applicable to anything other than the higher levels. I guess that's why they call it macro.

The highers levels do help individuals, just not in ways that are directly observable or immediately beneficial.

I put higher levels in scarequotes because I'm still skeptical that it's applicable. I think the credit/savings issue is a good example. It accelerates national/global spending to push credit over/without savings....until the meltdown.

Everything leads to suffering when used prescriptively.

As HBB said, there's no way to know whether corporatist policies were absolutely necessary in the development of modern technologies and systems; but, descriptively speaking, they played a major role.

Caroll Quigley argues that intense accumulation of capital is necessary for major civilization. However, such accumulations seem to set up said civilization for the fall in ways that may be orthogonal to wealth and technology development. Maybe just because of regression to the mean, or maybe because of human needs beyond the basics.