polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13
th, 2019 at 1:35pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 13
th, 2019 at 12:24pm:
I say, G, have you noticed that FD never actually delivers an argument?
The term that popped into my head when reading FD's posts in this thread was 'virtue signalling'. As in:
- you are wrong because capitalism lifts people out of poverty - a fact that needs no explanation
- arguing against me just proves you are swallowing filthy communist propaganda
- would you prefer third world sweat shop workers starve??
- Explain your alternative - you have none - its actually you who is confused here, you naive socialist!
These were the arguments during the Cold War, when the Soviets presented state capitalism as an alternative to liberal democracy. It was easy to clear the floor by bringing up the gulags. Say no more. What do you want? Communism?
But this was just Western ideology. It missed the point entirely. Russia and other countries developed rapidly under state capitalism (they never practiced communism, even Soviet economists said that, communism was always just around the corner). But the Soviet version of capitalism, with its 4 year plans and national targets, often delivered. It was not subject to the economic crises the West had. The Soviets had economic growth throughout the Great Depression. When developing countries or states considered which side to join (if the choice wasn't made for them), the USSR would have looked promising.
Today, it's simply not possible. Without Soviet investment and technical advisors, it's impossible to implement a form of capitalism directed and owned by the state. The World Bank, IMF and foreign capital sees to that. In some countries who've flirted with these policies, a bit of currency manipulation has put an end to that little experiment. North Korea and Cuba are just two examples.
So no, G, no one here's preaching communism, merely the kind of state intervention you pointed out that was used during the GFC.
And if I'm not mistaken, the GFC and these policies caused populations to turn to the promise of populism. Clearly, globalisation had cheated them, as had their governments, who bailed out the banks rather than their home loans.
But populist economic policies have never been spelt out, just a mish-mash of nationalist slogans, anti-immigration rhetoric and support for leaders who talk sht. Since the Cold War ended, capitalist ideology has become so engrained that the US Democrats would choose a Hillary over a Bernie, or in the U.K, anyone other than a Jeremy Corbyn, who only got in with the vote of The Labour rank and file, not the machine.
In the US today, people are actually considering the sort of "socialist" policies that, since LBJ, have ostensibly been unthinkable. In reality, however, these policies are simply what most other developed countries in the world already have: universal health care, carbon reduction policies, free or subsidised tertiary education.
Who knows? If Bernie is able to make that case over the inevitable Trump jibes, fake news and howls from the Fox News presenters, people might be willing to go with Sanders. They've already gone with the unthinkable and elected Trump, and in the U.K, Corbyn would get in if a vote was held today.
The Cold War is over. FD's case, although he won't explain it, is redundant. There are alternatives to neoliberalism as even Trump has shown.