A lot of people might agree with you. I would have once. Nor do I think it is inequality in and of itself necessarily, but rather the reasons behind the inequality, the direction that inequality is moving, and why.
Well I guess I’m left more baffled than I was before by your response. Your understanding of neoconservatism - and of my politics - both seem extraordinarily skewed. Maybe some neoconservatives hold those beliefs, but I’m pretty sure what you’re actually describing is paleoconservatism. So I’m confused on that point quite a lot actually.
As far as my politics go, how you could think I am culturally or morally conservative is also fairly startling. After all my pro-gay-marriage writing specifically I’m confused how I could be classified as culturally conservative. I am certainly pro-family, but I hardly think family values is limited to conservatives (certainly you would not say so, being a family man yourself).
I have written recently about how I am a Romantic, and how I came to realize that I was much more of a Romantic than a Conservative - that it was a point of confusion in my own political evolution.
So, yeah, I’m just pretty much entirely baffled by your comments. I’m not really suspicious of capitalism, just unfettered capitalism; nor am I suspicious of consumer culture, only consumer culture as the be-all, end-all of our value system. I do think there are more important values. I think a lot of people would agree and I think most of them would be equally shocked at the neoconservative branding, which is just bizarre quite frankly.
I’m not sure if you’re being snarky or serious. I’ll say this: nothing I’ve written in any way even remotely puts me close to neoconservatism. If you’re being snarky here, fine. If not, please explain what on earth you’re talking about.
Last time I checked neocons didn’t support organized labor and were full-fledged hawks. I’ve written one post where I say I can understand the impulse to intervene but still come down on the side of doves. I say I’m almost a pacifist, but not quite.
So I’m pretty much thoroughly baffled by your comment. How does anything I’ve written qualify me as neoconservative? I don’t even have any shred of interest in calling myself conservative at all.
You're so right Scott. I really hate America. I mean, my goodness, that's the only explanation for disagreeing with our foreign policy isn't it?
If only the world were truly comprised of all your simplistic little stereotypes, things would be so simple. You could sink further into the comfort of your prejudices, further and further down until not even the flicker of a thought penetrated your skull. Ah, life could be so simple then.
And you just keep telling yourself that: people you disagree with actually hate America. They are evil, wicked, malicious people. If you say it enough times, you might even forget that you're lying to yourself.
Bob/Heidegger - you do read like parodies. The alternative is that you're both racists. Either way, enough is enough. I've had about all I can take of the anti-Muslim nonsense. There are plenty of other blogs you can spew this crap at. Please, if you feel so inclined to do so in the future, show yourselves the door.
Yes, that's conventional wisdom. But Russia is a unique duck. Everything it does turns to ash and death. Why not look at other more successful attempts at socialism? Why is Stalinism always held up as the bogeyman? Honestly, why?
Raven - I think you're on to something. There's no reason at all that internationalism ought to be limited to global capitalism, or that unionism ought to be limited to nationalist movements. And yes, Stalinism did set back internationalist socialism a few decades. What bothers me about pointing to the USSR to prove that socialism can't work is that I find it much more likely that in fact it is Russia that can't work. When has Russia ever really worked?
Sam, I agree that drug testing for safety purposes is important. I think most union members would agree. saying this is how cooperation will work in the real world seems kind of silly though.
Also, I want to say it again: I’m not against globalization in theory. I understand all the benefits both Sam and North are arguing for here. But process is important. The default answer seems to be “Well, the end-result is the same so who cares about the process?” But I’m not sure that’s a satisfying answer. It’s fine in theory, but in practice I think a lot of damage is done along the way. Why should we ignore the damage simply because in the long run those Chinese workers will be better off than they were before? We leave a lot of ugly facts out of the picture when we simply look at this through a sterile, detached, theoretical lens. So my critique is not one of end-goals, nor am I unaware of the many benefits of globalization. I’m saying that perhaps we should rethink the process of globalization, not necessarily the point of globalization.
Sam, I'm not so sure protectionism is even necessary. I'm just thinking out loud here. Would you describe the economies of Sweden or Denmark or Germany as highly protectionist?
hose terrible manufacturing jobs are often replaced then by merely horrible jobs which are in turn replaced by bad jobs and in turn lead to jobs that are unpleasant but tolerable and onward up the sliding scale. Once upon a time we employed Japanese to make shoes for us. Then the shoe making jobs moved to Korea and the Japanese started buying shoes. Now the shoes are made in China and the Japanese and South Koreans are on the shoe buying bandwagon with the rest of us.
This is not always the story of globalization. The Japanese, for one thing, did not just make other nations’ shoes. They had their own companies and an industrial policy. Ditto South Korea. What about countries that simply play host to foreign multi-nationals? A bag-making company moves into some Eastern European nation, sets up shop, and then when they figure out that they can do it cheaper in China, they close the factory and move to China. So now an American plant has closed, putting those workers out of jobs; then an Eastern European plant closes, putting those workers out of jobs; and then a plant in China opens, where labor is as cheap as it comes. Did having a factory in that Eastern European country for ten years really lift them out of poverty?
I’m not arguing here for a protectionist regime. What I am saying is that government and big business work together to outsource American jobs and provide an un-level playing field that benefits capital and hurts workers. At the very least, we need to figure out how to create a counter-weight to this.
I’m also not so sure that the pro-sweatshop argument is sound. Subsistence farming might be worse, but just because something is the lesser of two evils does not make it right.
Also what about retail and the service sector? What’s stopping Labor 2.0 from setting up shop there?
On “The Death and Life of the Great American Middle Class”
Or the other way around.
"
Love the scare quotes, Bob. Where'd you get those, I might like to get a pair?
"
A lot of people might agree with you. I would have once. Nor do I think it is inequality in and of itself necessarily, but rather the reasons behind the inequality, the direction that inequality is moving, and why.
On “US Intervention in Libya”
Yes, what Will said.
Fist bump right back at you Greg.
"
Well I guess I’m left more baffled than I was before by your response. Your understanding of neoconservatism - and of my politics - both seem extraordinarily skewed. Maybe some neoconservatives hold those beliefs, but I’m pretty sure what you’re actually describing is paleoconservatism. So I’m confused on that point quite a lot actually.
As far as my politics go, how you could think I am culturally or morally conservative is also fairly startling. After all my pro-gay-marriage writing specifically I’m confused how I could be classified as culturally conservative. I am certainly pro-family, but I hardly think family values is limited to conservatives (certainly you would not say so, being a family man yourself).
I have written recently about how I am a Romantic, and how I came to realize that I was much more of a Romantic than a Conservative - that it was a point of confusion in my own political evolution.
So, yeah, I’m just pretty much entirely baffled by your comments. I’m not really suspicious of capitalism, just unfettered capitalism; nor am I suspicious of consumer culture, only consumer culture as the be-all, end-all of our value system. I do think there are more important values. I think a lot of people would agree and I think most of them would be equally shocked at the neoconservative branding, which is just bizarre quite frankly.
"
Jason,
I’m not sure if you’re being snarky or serious. I’ll say this: nothing I’ve written in any way even remotely puts me close to neoconservatism. If you’re being snarky here, fine. If not, please explain what on earth you’re talking about.
Last time I checked neocons didn’t support organized labor and were full-fledged hawks. I’ve written one post where I say I can understand the impulse to intervene but still come down on the side of doves. I say I’m almost a pacifist, but not quite.
So I’m pretty much thoroughly baffled by your comment. How does anything I’ve written qualify me as neoconservative? I don’t even have any shred of interest in calling myself conservative at all.
"
Bob - I never played the "race" card. Quote me.
I will, however, play the 'bigot' card. Which is a fitting term for someone who so glibly welcomes the death and slaughter of his fellow human being.
Tom - I have no idea what you're talking about. When is Christianity mocked on this blog?
"
You're so right Scott. I really hate America. I mean, my goodness, that's the only explanation for disagreeing with our foreign policy isn't it?
If only the world were truly comprised of all your simplistic little stereotypes, things would be so simple. You could sink further into the comfort of your prejudices, further and further down until not even the flicker of a thought penetrated your skull. Ah, life could be so simple then.
And you just keep telling yourself that: people you disagree with actually hate America. They are evil, wicked, malicious people. If you say it enough times, you might even forget that you're lying to yourself.
"
Bob/Heidegger - you do read like parodies. The alternative is that you're both racists. Either way, enough is enough. I've had about all I can take of the anti-Muslim nonsense. There are plenty of other blogs you can spew this crap at. Please, if you feel so inclined to do so in the future, show yourselves the door.
"
You do a wonderful job at convincing me you don't want to be taken seriously, Scott.
On “A Basic Conflict”
Oh you never know. Get enough monkeys typing away and they might stumble on the same graph after a while.
On “Labor 2.0 (initial thoughts)”
Apparently modern Sweden (and the rest of Europe) is a collectivist hell-hole. They have Gulags too.
"
Yes, that's conventional wisdom. But Russia is a unique duck. Everything it does turns to ash and death. Why not look at other more successful attempts at socialism? Why is Stalinism always held up as the bogeyman? Honestly, why?
"
Raven - I think you're on to something. There's no reason at all that internationalism ought to be limited to global capitalism, or that unionism ought to be limited to nationalist movements. And yes, Stalinism did set back internationalist socialism a few decades. What bothers me about pointing to the USSR to prove that socialism can't work is that I find it much more likely that in fact it is Russia that can't work. When has Russia ever really worked?
On “The Death and Life of the Great American School System (part one)”
That's for sure.
On “Government Spending and Liberty”
Very well said, Jason.
On “Labor 2.0 (initial thoughts)”
Sam, I agree that drug testing for safety purposes is important. I think most union members would agree. saying this is how cooperation will work in the real world seems kind of silly though.
On “Down the Rabbit Hole”
Yes, but I need to do more research before posting.
"
Also, I want to say it again: I’m not against globalization in theory. I understand all the benefits both Sam and North are arguing for here. But process is important. The default answer seems to be “Well, the end-result is the same so who cares about the process?” But I’m not sure that’s a satisfying answer. It’s fine in theory, but in practice I think a lot of damage is done along the way. Why should we ignore the damage simply because in the long run those Chinese workers will be better off than they were before? We leave a lot of ugly facts out of the picture when we simply look at this through a sterile, detached, theoretical lens. So my critique is not one of end-goals, nor am I unaware of the many benefits of globalization. I’m saying that perhaps we should rethink the process of globalization, not necessarily the point of globalization.
"
Im pretty sure that cuts both ways though.
"
Sam, I'm not so sure protectionism is even necessary. I'm just thinking out loud here. Would you describe the economies of Sweden or Denmark or Germany as highly protectionist?
"
North:
This is not always the story of globalization. The Japanese, for one thing, did not just make other nations’ shoes. They had their own companies and an industrial policy. Ditto South Korea. What about countries that simply play host to foreign multi-nationals? A bag-making company moves into some Eastern European nation, sets up shop, and then when they figure out that they can do it cheaper in China, they close the factory and move to China. So now an American plant has closed, putting those workers out of jobs; then an Eastern European plant closes, putting those workers out of jobs; and then a plant in China opens, where labor is as cheap as it comes. Did having a factory in that Eastern European country for ten years really lift them out of poverty?
I’m not arguing here for a protectionist regime. What I am saying is that government and big business work together to outsource American jobs and provide an un-level playing field that benefits capital and hurts workers. At the very least, we need to figure out how to create a counter-weight to this.
I’m also not so sure that the pro-sweatshop argument is sound. Subsistence farming might be worse, but just because something is the lesser of two evils does not make it right.
Also what about retail and the service sector? What’s stopping Labor 2.0 from setting up shop there?
"
A good point and one I've heard before many times. But again, there's no reason this couldn't be changed.
On “Pigford: A Tragedy and a Non-Troversy”
Once again, very well said Mark.
"
Excellent post, Mark. Very well said. Facts are useful, no?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.