The Sincere defense of right-libertarians toward capitalism?

[RadioRaheem84]

Just what is it? I watched an interview with a man named Johan Norberg of the CATO Institute totally lambasting Naomi Klein's flawed, yet good book, on neo-liberalism. He seemed to have a sincere defense of capitalism and globalization, and that it provided the maximum benefit to people everywhere. He also claimed that he used to be an anarchist but left the camp because of the collectivist nature of some of the readings he found (why do people always assume that anarchism = ultra-individualism and anti-collectivism?).

But what is the defense that they have about capitalism? Sometimes it's obvious when someone is a corporate lackey but this guy actually believed in the doctrine of free markets. I've run across a lot of these people that insist on globalization, neo-liberalism and capitaism as the only ideology that guarantees maximum liberty for all, and they're sincere about it. What makes them think this when all evidence points to the contrary?

[Die Rote Fahne]

People don't always assume that anarchism is = ultra individualism and anti-collectivism.

Some people certainly do, but true anarchists know the socialistic basis of anarchy. Anarchy and Capitalism is something that CAN'T mix, they are antithetical.

They think this because they ignore the facts. They are people who fear change and want nothing but the status quo.

Their defense is that the free market will fix the problems as people will "vote with their dollar". But what they fail to see are variables such as people having more votes because they have more money, or corporations becoming huge monopolies (and in the case of "anarcho-capitalism" would eventually become a new government). Libertarians fail to see that only the wealthy have sway with corporations, but the public DOES have at least some sway with government.

The majority of these people would argue against communism by using the USSR and China as examples of how it cannot work.

I'll leave you with this:

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/libertarian_freedom.png

[GPDP]

These "sincere libertarians" are what I like to call "useful fools;" that is, they are employed and funded by segments of the ruling class solely as propaganda factories from whom they can take all the rhetoric of free markets that serves their interests, while ignoring that which does not.

While corporate stooges can also do this job, a lot of people can usually smell the bullshit. It's a bit harder with hardcore ideologues, though, since they tend to be actually passionate about their subject and may be able to argue it much more eloquently and convincingly without sounding like boring old PR spokespeople.

[RadioRaheem84]

Very true and that's what threw me off about Johan Norberg. The sincerity seems to lie in some respect for private property rights and misinterpretation of the state's role in socialism.

But how it is that we know so much about their ideology and they know so little about ours?

[Dimentio]

Just what is it? I watched an interview with a man named Johan Norberg of the CATO Institute totally lambasting Naomi Klein's flawed, yet good book, on neo-liberalism. He seemed to have a sincere defense of capitalism and globalization, and that it provided the maximum benefit to people everywhere. He also claimed that he used to be an anarchist but left the camp because of the collectivist nature of some of the readings he found (why do people always assume that anarchism = ultra-individualism and anti-collectivism?).

But what is the defense that they have about capitalism? Sometimes it's obvious when someone is a corporate lackey but this guy actually believed in the doctrine of free markets. I've run across a lot of these people that insist on globalization, neo-liberalism and capitaism as the only ideology that guarantees maximum liberty for all, and they're sincere about it. What makes them think this when all evidence points to the contrary?

He is Swedish and is known as a sort of celebrity within the Swedish libertarian circles. I think he got an own article on wikipedia.

They don't need to know anything about progressive currents, they only need to attack strawmen. The same in most of the left actually.

[bailey_187]

I can see in theory why these people love free markets. In theory a compeltly free market (so perfect information, complete mobility of all factors of production, many small comepting firms, not barriers to entry or exit to or from market) can be justified as a good thing. But who cares about such speculation? The fact is that a compleltly free market can not exist, and even were it possible would not be desriable to capitalists. A total free market would mean consumers would be able to squeeze producers to such a low price that profits would be minimal or incredilby low. Capitalists favour monopolies, but usually only get oligopolies and quasi-monopolies but they are happy with this.
Those who adovocate completly free markets are either: 1) intellectuals who are not actually capitalists - idealists basically. 2)Capitalists who do not enjoy the position of a monopoly and would through the doctrine of free trade gain access to a market, which would sooner or later become monopolists themselves.

[GPDP]

But how it is that we know so much about their ideology and they know so little about ours?

Like Dimentio said, they don't need to know. Their whole purpose is to create talking points against socialism, not to actually struggle against it.

Such is the nature of those who, in the end, whether they realize it or not, whether they intend to or not, serve power.

[CartCollector]

(why do people always assume that anarchism = ultra-individualism and anti-collectivism?)

The same reason that people think any government action = socialism. They see the government and the economy as competing with each other for power, and if only the government would leave the economy alone, the economy would flourish and everything would be wonderful.

Furthermore, they believe anarchy means "no laws" and that people follow capitalist psychological principles (ie people only care about getting as many things as they can for themselves). Combine these things together and you get people screwing each other over for money and power even more so than you do now. Also, they see collectivism as a form of government.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I can see in theory why these people love free markets. In theory a compeltly free market (so perfect information, complete mobility of all factors of production, many small comepting firms, not barriers to entry or exit to or from market)

According to Michael Hudson (http://www.revleft.com/vb/classical-economic-rent-t103273/index.html), the real definition of a free market (already including your details above) means freedom from rentier privileges of any sort, whether the economic rent is derived from land (Ricardo), monopoly (Smith), finance (Keynes), or the broadcast spectrum (brief remarks by Hudson).

These fanatics are useful idiots for those who wish to keep rentier privileges.


A total free market would mean consumers would be able to squeeze producers to such a low price that profits would be minimal or incredilby low.

It's funny that this rhetoric approximates "full value of labour" as advocated by proponents of economics based on one form or another of the Labour Theory of Value.

[RadioRaheem84]

One argument that they like to throw around is that people would be worse off if there weren't sweatshops in their area. They would resort to prostitution and crime instead of working in the NIKE factory for a dollar an hour. They say that this also raises the living standards around the area and soon wages will rise.

I am guessing that there has to be a logic and rationale for this type of thinking.

[RED DAVE]

Another crucial factor is that these --[fools][swine] (choose one)-- are, on a world-scale incredibly privileged and shielded from the consequences of capitalism. For them, the economy is a supermarket, the their world is an exotic vacation spot and the purpose of life is so that they can live well.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Like Dimentio said, they don't need to know. Their whole purpose is to create talking points against socialism, not to actually struggle against it.

Such is the nature of those who, in the end, whether they realize it or not, whether they intend to or not, serve power.

Really, libertarianism would never be installed and those at the Cato institute know that. The reason why they support libertarianism is that they then could pretend to wage an offensive war against progressives and paint themselves as progressives in the same time.

[syndicat]

Just what is it? I watched an interview with a man named Johan Norberg of the CATO Institute totally lambasting Naomi Klein's flawed, yet good book, on neo-liberalism. He seemed to have a sincere defense of capitalism and globalization, and that it provided the maximum benefit to people everywhere. He also claimed that he used to be an anarchist but left the camp because of the collectivist nature of some of the readings he found (why do people always assume that anarchism = ultra-individualism and anti-collectivism?).

well this is a utilitarian argument. in neo-classical economic theory, competitive markets ensure maximum efficiency, that is, maximum well being. the argument is flawed, tho. They leave out the fact that capitalist markets encourage massive, widespread cost-shifting...shifting of costs onto workers (exposures to chemicals, other unsafe practices, speedup) and to people in surrounding areas via pollution, for example. In reality capitalism is horribly inefficient. It underdevelops the capacities of the working class, for example, which is a form of inefficiency.