Global Financial Crises: Capitalism is going down

[gareb]

---

I am not afraid of regulations. I am afraid of excessive regulations that most probably will escalate towards absolute control of every human being. Some leaders in some countries, whether in the past or at the moment, have tried and are trying to exert control over others, as they think that absolute control is the only way to prevent anarchy. In their minds, they think that the only way to maintain order is for humans to become walking/talking robots who do everything programmed for them without an ounce of spontaneity and autonomy.

I am mostly afraid of being implanted with a chip, so the "government" can track and monitor my every move.

the present chaos that the world economy is experiencing is precisely because of having the regulatory powers of government slowly being dismantled by the private sector. it is, in social, political and economic parlance referred to as "deregulation". it is the shrinking of the influence of governments which are at least more accountable to communities rather then trans-national corporations.


i understand at how you can suddenly raise the spectre of "big brother" hegemony of governments, because where in the economic arena deregulation in favor of free-enterprise is the mainstream ideology, political rights are slowly being curtailed one by one, and the widespread social malaise is being left unchecked.

[The_Child]

the present chaos that the world economy is experiencing is precisely because of having the regulatory powers of government slowly being dismantled by the private sector. it is, in social, political and economic parlance referred to as "deregulation". it is the shrinking of the influence of governments which are at least more accountable to communities rather then trans-national corporations.


i understand at how you can suddenly raise the spectre of "big brother" hegemony of governments, because where in the economic arena deregulation in favor of free-enterprise is the mainstream ideology, political rights are slowly being curtailed one by one, and the widespread social malaise is being left unchecked.

i dont think i would go so far as to equate classical liberalism or neoliberalism, with tsome strains of anarchism.

and that although, we maybe seeing neoliberalism and the peak of capitalism in our current times: as the dominant discourse and praxis; many do not realize that it would hardly be intelligible to consider a neoliberal society (Hegel, Kojeve, Bloom and finally, Fukuyama) like now, without having to consider a marxist logic.

succinctly, the neoliberal society the world is facing today, globalization et al, is not purely neoliberal in its spirit, in its theory-form,but more importantly and quite paradoxically, it is also marxist.

[pinkvelvet_room]

mga estudyante ni ms.ligan... anybody here?!

[gareb]

i dont think i would go so far as to equate classical liberalism or neoliberalism, with some strains of anarchism.

they aren't equals, as the name would suggest. i believe we have already shared views of that matter here.

and that although, we maybe seeing neoliberalism and the peak of capitalism in our current times: as the dominant discourse and praxis; many do not realize that it would hardly be intelligible to consider a neoliberal society (Hegel, Kojeve, Bloom and finally, Fukuyama) like now, without having to consider a marxist logic.

succinctly, the neoliberal society the world is facing today, globalization et al, is not purely neoliberal in its spirit, in its theory-form,but more importantly and quite paradoxically, it is also marxist.

true. hence the hypocrisy of certain institutions who, name of ideological purity, insists on deregulation and decontrol, especially with third-world economies, when in fact their own economies are now being kept afloat either by government spending through war efforts, or massive subsidies, a form of protectionism.

we have, in the past, seen how one form of capitalism, reaching its limit for providing sustained growth rates, imploded in itself. we have classical liberalism in the pre-Depression era, Kynesian economics after World War II, and supposed neo-liberalism (with huge concessionary doses of big government support every now and then) since Raegan.

many have pointed out that the problem is systemic, and that the cyclical boom-bust that the different versions of capitalism exhibit is symptomatic of its inherent instability, because no matter how its proponents would say that these are just hiccups that everybody can learn something from, we seem to be repeating the same errors all over again.

oh well, marxist? interesting. care to expound?

[The_Child]

they aren't equals, as the name would suggest. i believe we have already shared views of that matter here.



oh well, marxist? interesting. care to expound?

i know you wont concede with classical liberalism as synonymous with neoliberalism.but oh well.

Marxist. so where do i start? Consider that: "Communism" has been institutionalized by the dogmatic ideologists as the opposite pole of western liberal democracies, which is seen in the very existence of the the then Soviet Union and to which both poles meet at their margins in the Berlin wall.

Why is our contemporary global society, even though it is considered by people from Hegel, Kojeve, Bloom to FUkuyuma - The End of HIstory and the Last man- as an actualization of the Spirit, the actualization of liberal democracy, necessitates certain visitations of Marx's ghosts, i.e, for our times to be intelligible there is a need to factor in marx in our contemporary global society. That the only way to understand our times is through the logic of Marx. thus neoliberalism would not be possible without Marx.

HOw is it done? (for brevity sake, i will summarize it, just ask if its oversimplified

1.) the dominant discourse in our times: is the death of marxism, the end of history and the triumph of liberal democracy. justified through the destruction of the berlin wall and the collapse of the ussr. '89 and '92.
2.) the german term "manifest" (manifesto in the communist manifesto) n can be equated to french as "Conjurement" which has two meanings to conjure as in to exorcize away and to form an alliance a conspiracy, and to conjure as in to summon.

3.) this play of words, tells us that in the first line of marx, his manifesto : a spectre is haunting europe... (ein gesphent geht um in europa...) could also be understood with a spectre being at the same time exorcize away from the powers of europe that has allied itself with one another- a conspiracy to rid of itself of this ghost, and at the same times it is a summoning of these ghosts.

4.) the ghosts of marx therefore, in our times, could be understood as a conjurement, that is,in these two meanings at the same time: an exorcizing away and a summoning.

5.) neoliberalism exorcizes away marxism, as an "obsolete" dead ideology, and yet at the same time it summons it inorder to understand its very own self, i.e, the logic of dominant v. dominated. the privilege over the marginal discourses, Fukuyama v. Marx.

6.) this play of difference can further be supported through the hallow promises of a perfect state of liberal democracy, since, it is only through liberal democracy and free-market capitalism that issues such as "cartels" "unemployment" "trafficking" etc. is possible which are manifestations of imperfections within the system and can also be understood not in terms of neoliberal theory-form but through marxist analysis.

7.) ergo, Neoliberalism could only be understood through marxism and without marxism, there might not just be a concept of neoliberalism to consider in the first place.

i dunno, quite a short-cut in explanation. but thats the gist. did i oversimplify everythng?

[brownprose]

Economic systems fail not because they are inherently flawed. They fail mostly because of inept leadership. The subprime bubble only indicates the lack of oversight by government regulators.

[Dorothea]

^Economic systems fail because nothing created by humans is foolproof, or failure-proof, if we can call it that. Nothing that humans create will ever be perfect. Sooner or later, it'll crumble. And there lies the greatest misery but the greatest comfort of all: in the knowledge that there is an end to everything. We are not blessed with perfection. We will all die.

PS. I'm just blabbing here because obviously I didn't get a single word of The_Child's discourse, neoliberalism ek-ek is too much for me to handle. To The_Child and gareb, can you dumb down your soliloquys a li'l bit, para makasabot pud ko'g gamay ba. In short, layman's terms, people!

[Dorothea]

the present chaos that the world economy is experiencing is precisely because of having the regulatory powers of government slowly being dismantled by the private sector. it is, in social, political and economic parlance referred to as "deregulation". it is the shrinking of the influence of governments which are at least more accountable to communities rather then trans-national corporations.


i understand at how you can suddenly raise the spectre of "big brother" hegemony of governments, because where in the economic arena deregulation in favor of free-enterprise is the mainstream ideology, political rights are slowly being curtailed one by one, and the widespread social malaise is being left unchecked.

wiretapping fiasco, anyone? LOL

[The_Child]

^Economic systems fail because nothing created by humans is foolproof, or failure-proof, if we can call it that. Nothing that humans create will ever be perfect. Sooner or later, it'll crumble. And there lies the greatest misery but the greatest comfort of all: in the knowledge that there is an end to everything. We are not blessed with perfection. We will all die.

PS. I'm just blabbing here because obviously I didn't get a single word of The_Child's discourse, neoliberalism ek-ek is too much for me to handle. To The_Child and gareb, can you dumb down your soliloquys a li'l bit, para makasabot pud ko'g gamay ba. In short, layman's terms, people!

im sorry.

there seems to be a common belief, that: communism is dead, that Marx is dead, that marxism is no longer plausible. this is the contention. diba?

ok. neoliberalism is the name we term for our current political situation after the so-called fall of communism. it is described as a society with more and more "freedom" to do this and to do that. A neoliberal scenario, (with the indulgence of gareb who does not want to consider it as the same with classical liberalism, pero para nako pareha ra na, for this, lets just consider neoliberalism nalang) is what we see today, we have the freedom to buy this, to do this, as long as we do not harm the rights of the other. (that is to put it very briefly)

during the cold war, this was not the case. because there were two sides trying to contend with each other, the liberal democracy of the west and the so-called Communism of the USSR, China etc. It was a time, what political students would call, a bi-polar world order. now, many historians and scholars consider that when the USSR fell it also signal the fall of the other pole in global politics. so it happened that, when USSR fell, the world became mono-polar, that is, there is no longer a counter-tension with western liberal democracies (US, NATO, etc.) So, what we have is the "triumph of Western Liberal Democracies" which we are experiencing now. A Hegemony of Western liberalism - a one world order if will.

thats the background.


now, what i am trying to point out is that, although Marxism is dead, Communism has fallen, the current global situation - the triumph of liberal democracies - could not be understood without some sort of Marxism involve. So in short, even though marx is dead and communism gone, it is still important because it is the very logic of marxism that allows us to understand our current society - the triumph of liberal democracies - neoliberalism.

So even though neoliberalism and marxism are opposing concept at the first glance, where marxism lost to neoliberalism during the fall of the USSR and may have been considered dead, the very triumph of neoliberalism still necessitates us to use marx in order to under it in the first place.
At the end, Marx is still indispensable, that so much we are experiencing liberal democracy (the only opposing is the scandivanians social democracy still belong to the same tree though) we still look at it, we still understand or even further, the ONLY WAY TO UNDERSTAND IT IS THROUGH THE PERSON NEOLIBERALISM KILLED IN THE FIRST PLACE, MARX. the only way to understand it is through certain logics and memories of marx.


that is why i argue, we are still marxists in the times of neoliberalism. which is a paradox.



how this is so, the particular manifestations of this indispensability of marx in our current times, is more technical, so i leave it out.


cheers. i hope i have made it simpler.

[brownprose]

^Economic systems fail because nothing created by humans is foolproof, or failure-proof, if we can call it that. Nothing that humans create will ever be perfect. Sooner or later, it'll crumble. And there lies the greatest misery but the greatest comfort of all: in the knowledge that there is an end to everything. We are not blessed with perfection. We will all die.

Right. And no matter how much we blabber on the best ism for an economy, it brings you back to the idea of who's in charge. If the one in charge is not going to act like the doctor that he is supposed to, he therefore becomes the disease. And that's exactly what's happening today. In all their grandiose and the seeming coherence of the economic systems they (governments) so arrogantly flaunt, it makes you wonder why we always find a decent man ashamed of the government he lives under.