Free market false idol after all

[peaccenicked]

Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/weekinreview/30goodman.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin)

Hardly news for socialists, but it is good to see commentators waking up.

[FireFry]

Isn't saying things like this a political crime in the united states? I always thought it was pretty regressive anyways, and against the class-interests of the ruling class, to abandon keynesian economics, as well as the New Deal.

[pusher robot]

Isn't saying things like this a political crime in the united states? I always thought it was pretty regressive anyways, and against the class-interests of the ruling class, to abandon keynesian economics, as well as the New Deal.

Are you serious?

[funkmasterswede]

I skimmed through the article and the conflation of NAFTA as well as the actions of vulgar friedmanites is beyond absurd.

I fail to see how SAP's and NAFTA reflect a free market aesthetic, in the sense of a group of party's interacting voluntarily to exchange goods and services. However, these ideals certainly do reflect a ruling class ideology, too bad that an unregulated market, being unregulated is run by no single individual. So ruling class sentiments clash with a free market. It is good to realize that nothing has changed and the conflation of current existing capitalism to a free market still happens continually.

[kromando33]

Isn't saying things like this a political crime in the united states? I always thought it was pretty regressive anyways, and against the class-interests of the ruling class, to abandon keynesian economics, as well as the New Deal.
Once upon a time 'New Deal' welfare capitalism was in the interests of the bourgeois dictatorship, but that was a different time, that was the years preceding the Russian Revolution and the explosion in Europe of Marxist parties. The bourgeois dictatorships across Europe were then feeling threatened by the working class and thus yielded to creating a welfare state to placate them, they weren't willing to resort to arms and risk a 'Russian' result in their own countries.

These days on the other hand 'globalization' and the free-market have strengthened the bourgeois dictatorship ten fold since the welfare days, now they have such power they can openly cut back the very concepts that they promised to retain power, 'welfare', 'civil liberties', the 'rule of law', all are dispensable now that the bourgeois feel they are in control.

But on the other hand 'globalization' is also a curse because it reveals the true nature of the bourgeois dictatorship. Where once the ruling class could hide behind concepts of 'nationalism', even the once fooled people now see that was a ruse, the bourgeois hold no national allegiance but only an allegiance to capital profits, the transnational nature of capital now show this.

This will probably see the bourgeois transnationals even more isolated, abandoned by the 'unconscious' bourgeois supporters (those that support the bourgeois state but don't know it), such as nationalists when the nation is sold off, liberals when civil rights go down the drain, and even old-school conservatives when they see the market is unethical machine.

The next 50 years or so will be very interesting in this regard, just as the old feudal classes in Marx's lifetime were finally overthrown and replaced by the bourgeois, the future itself of the bourgeois today looks more unstable than ever. And the continued proletarianization of the working class will ensure a good challenge to whatever class tries to take the place of the bourgeois.

[FireFry]

Fuck yeah, I get a hoxhaist nut and a capitalist nut... man, talk about extremes on this board.


And the continued proletarianization of the working class will ensure a good challenge to whatever class tries to take the place of the bourgeois.

What the fuck...? The working class IS the proletariat, dumbshit. I think you mean lumpenproletariatisation.

But that's too big of a word for a pea-brained vanguard-ist like you, isn't it?

[RedCommieBear]

.? The working class IS the proletariat, dumbshit.

Actually, not necessarily. Here's a quote from the Principles of Communism. (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)


No. There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions.

(My Own Emphasis)

In other words, in each historical stage, there has always been a working class. The proletariat is the dominant working class force in modern capitalism, but we still do see some fragments of the working class who used to be the majority, but are now in the process of becoming proletarians in a capitalist society. Example: The small farmer, who is not proletarian (but still considered a member of the working class), goes to the city and works as a wage slave. The small farmer used to do be the working class in a former historical stage, but is seeing his numbers dwindle as capitalism advances. And yes, that is called "proletarianization".

[FireFry]

The small farmer used to do be the working class in a former historical stage, but is seeing his numbers dwindle as capitalism advances. And yes, that is called "proletarianization".

So, the proletariat, is somebody who works for an hourly wage? But, somebody who works for a salary would be considered a member of the working class, but in an advanced stage that isn't the proletariat?

Gotcha.

[MT5678]

This article pretends that the democrats are pro-worker. They are not. I have given ample evidence on the topic in other threads already, but lets just say that niether Carter nor Clinton was pro-worker by any stretch of the imagination. Obama has asked wall-street stockbrokers to build "a kinder, more just America". This is like asking a fox who has eaten 20 chickens to ressurect them.