Syria is not a new cold war, it is nothing like the old cold war.
There is no possible way for a factory to generate more money than a war between two modern nations would cost.
Nations that are a part of global capitalism have more to lose than nations that are not. That gives the governments of these nations constraints that they did not have before.
I don’t see why. OK you have a few people like Kordokovsky jailed, mostly though if you’re in the gang you’re in the gang.
[/QUOTE]
No he’s well informed on all those things.
Democratic impediments like worker’s rights, environmental controls, nosey, loud mouthed journalists, document leakers, congressional oversight, peace-loving anti war activists, restraints on policing. Arms companies want none of that.
You touch on all that by saying they would like to open a plant in China - well those are the things they would be able to take advantage of.
If you’re Lockheed-Martin, do you want Amy Goodman in jail, or on TV blabbing about how evil you are ? Do you want dozens of youtube vids about how crap your F35 is, or do you want a solid censorship of such things ?
There’s a little bit of an ideological component in that Russia and especially China are providing a more “no questions asked” alternative to western investment and developmental aid. Even when it’s strictly private investment, western economic development generally expects that at least lip service is being paid to democracy, civil service, anti-corruption, and things like that. China is a lot more willing to just work with whoever and grease whatever palms need to be greased. Which of course ties back to the bigger question of whether democracy and all that really are preconditions of capitalism.
[QUOTE=MrQwertyasd]
No he’s well informed on all those things.
[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I have not seen any evidence supporting this. I skimmed the video and I didn’t get the impression he was well informed on this subject, and from what you’ve said in this thread concerning his theories and assertions it doesn’t seem so either. He seems to have a very simplistic and superficial view of China and Russia, their governments and their economics and stability.
Those things aren’t in and of themselves ‘democratic’. You are confusing democracy with workers rights…they aren’t the same thing. For instance, the US was undoubtedly a democracy for over a century before some of those things came into wide spread use. Other countries were democracies as well before they came into use.
And you base this on…what? If LM, to use your example, REALLY doesn’t want those things why doesn’t it pick up and move to China or Russia then? They could…nothing stopping them. Why doesn’t any large American company do this? Or any large European company?
Certainly. No doubt workers rights and environmental laxity (in practice) are part of that. Low worker wages is probably the biggest part. But, yes, US and European companies certainly do want to take advantage of lower costs that such countries offer. However, if they REALLY wanted to go whole hog towards some new model of Capitalism offered in China or Russia then they would be moving more than a few plants there.
Leaving aside your assertion that the F-35 is ‘crap’, again, if they really want that stuff then why aren’t them picking up and moving to China or Russia? You can keep handwaving this, but it cuts through all of the horseshit…why aren’t they moving there? They could. Hell, the Chinese in particular would love it if they did and would do everything they could to get them. THEY don’t think the F-35 is ‘crap’, since they have been trying their best to steal the plans and reverse engineer the thing for all they are worth.
Come now, you won’t get anything but superficiality if all you do is skim…
They are. Workplace democracy. Having a say from bottom to top rather than top down.
These are strategic rivals. I don’t know why you’re saying this.
Point is I would be very much less likely to be able to say it was crap in Russia or China. whether it’s crap or not is another argument.
Of course it’s not. If the guy in charge thinks that capitalism is good, then he can force his subjects participate in it.
That’s not the question. It’s whether said capitalism is superior. And all evidence points towards no. It seems that autocracies can’t resist dipping their hands in and distorting the market, not to make it function better (as happens in regulated capitalism), but to assert control and gain money and power.
You can regulate the market, but you can’t do so in a corrupt manner. Corruption corrupts the data the market gives you, making it less efficient. But that doesn’t mean it won’t function at all.
It’s true that democracy tends to create capitalistic societies, but it is not true that capitalism creates democracy.
I suppose, yeah, a fair point considering that authoritarian capitalist countries obviously do exist. However, I think it is still an unsettled question as to whether that arrangement will prove sustainable or rather if it’s a case of economic and political liberalization proceeding simultaneously with economic liberalization simply grabbing a bit of an early lead.
Zizek is saying it’s sustainable. Really I can’t see that things are going in the direction of democracy in US and Europe. The bank corruption and bailouts being the most obvious point - too big to fail etc, but growth of surveillance and law enforcement apparatus too.
In the UK loss of economic success is definitely being accompanied by loss of rights.
How would something like the TTIP project, which is so secretive, fit in with his outlook ?
[QUOTE=MrQwertyasd]
Come now, you won’t get anything but superficiality if all you do is skim…
[/QUOTE]
What part of that linked article do you feel supports your case that he knows what he’s talking about wrt China, Russia, the US and democracy? Could you perhaps quote the parts you feel are relevant? I’m certainly not going to go through and parse the article to pick out all the parts I feel are wrong since I have no idea which parts you feel support your assertions.
No…they aren’t. Democracy has existed just fine in the past without those things.
No idea what you are getting at, to be honest. LM is a ‘strategic rival’ of China??
I don’t see the point at all. If it’s crap here but not crap there, then that seems to indicate that they aren’t exactly on the cutting edge. If it’s not crap here and isn’t crap there, then, again, it shows they have to copy what we have with a crappier replica, which, again, indicates they aren’t exactly cutting edge. Regardless, it indicates that their new model is not exactly breaking new ground, but instead following our lead…badly.
Disclosure: didn’t watch the video. However I am somewhat familiar with Zizek. He’s pretty much a straight up Marxist politically, so I doubt he’s arguing that authoritarian capitalism is sustainable in a good way, but rather that the descent into authoritarianism is a natural consequence of capitalism, which will inevitably be replaced by something else.
One of the major problems facing 21st century intellectual Marxists is that they claim to be radically democratic, but the experience of the 20th century has shown that free societies tend to go hand in hand with free markets. There’s still ample room to criticize capitalism as practiced, but making the case that capitalism itself is an inherently and inescapably oppressive system that needs scrapping is pretty difficult these days. Suggesting that China’s system of authoritarian politics but increasingly free market economics represents the future of capitalism as a whole is likely just some wishful thinking on the part of a Marxist thinker who would find his case a whole lot easier to make if capitalism really were as oppressive as Marx said.
As for bank failures, market crashes and whatever else, there are ample grounds to criticize capitalism as practiced in the 21st century. At the same time, though, western capitalist democracies have continually weathered crises and managed to evolve and reinvent themselves to deal with them. To paraphrase something Winston Churchill probably never said, democratic capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the other ones that have been tried. China may be on the cusp of its first really major economic crisis as a primarily free market economy; we’ll see how they do.
All of it, and a years of visits and lots of clever Chinese friends.
Yes they are.
Come on you trickster you know perfectly well.
Most entertaining, sir, a bit of crap rap to lighten our hearts.
Anyway, got to dash over to other posters.
Hmm, can’t speak for him here. I’m afraid you’ll have to get into his actual work if you want to give an informed answer.
Hmm, not really convincing. To an extent, in some rich countries. In others the push for capitalism has been done by brutal dictatorship, as we all know. As we all know how brutal resource and manpower acquisition can be. I hope we all know these things.
I think that’s a fair point. Could be worse. But people do tend to turn a blind eye to the bad side of whatever system they live in. I never take what pro or anti capitalists say at face value because there’s always bias one way or the other.
Mention the gulag to a communist and it’s “pah!”, mention the IMF to a capitalist and it’s “bah!”
Anyway, so you think in China capitalism will eventually lead to a US inspired democracy ?
Eventually the very frequent street protests and citizen dissatisfaction will become a viable push for democracy, and will one day bring about open elections ?
And the US will be able to reverse it’s own move away from democracy and civil rights?
Okay, I watched your dang video and I pretty much stand by my earlier points. It’s basically just Zizek’s laundry list of things he doesn’t like about modern liberal democracies. The “unfortunately that’s the way we’re heading” line with reference to Russia and China are basically a throwaway line. Where exactly he draws the line from complaints about things like banking regulations, gated communities, and intellectual property to totalitarianism is I guess left as an exercise for the viewer.
Dude, just read the wikipedia page about him or something. He is probably the closest thing to a still prominent traditional Marxist intellectual these days, although he’s definitely better known as a philosopher than necessarily an economist.
Could you cite some examples of where dictatorships have “pushed for capitalism”? The word “capitalism” can be a little confusing in this context because of course there’s been lots of dictators who were aligned with the political interests of the western capitalist democracies, but that’s not the same thing as enacting domestic policies likely to foster a functional free market economy.
Of course I think more to the point, can you think of a liberal democracy that wasn’t basically a free market economy with some degree of a welfare state? I can’t.
I think it’s the other way around. People are far more critical of the system under which they live. As the memory of the atrocities and horrific economic failures of the various alternatives to capitalism tried during the 20th century fade, you get these hyperbolic claims that all the niggling little problems we’ve had with the system in recent years are in any way comparable.
(Suggesting that the various shenanigans pulled by the IMF are apparently on the same level as the mass murder committed in the gulag system is a great example!)
I think China’s totalitarian government is a drag on its free market economy. It’s difficult for capital to move freely if people and ideas can’t. Eventually China is going to reach a point in which they either have to loosen their grip on the populace or backpedal on their free market reforms. I think it’s possible that the coming economic troubles could lead to that point.
And I think anyone who thinks the US is “moving away from democracy and civil rights” has a very funny understanding of history.
[QUOTE=MrQwertyasd]
All of it, and a years of visits and lots of clever Chinese friends.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a completely meaningless non-answer, so I’ll just move on assuming you didn’t have a point in your drive by link since you can’t be bothered to directly answer the question.
sigh So, I’ve explained why they aren’t, and all you’ve done to ‘debate’ the point is just to keep saying yes, they are. Again, non-answer, so just going to move on considering that you don’t have a substantive answer.
No, actually, I don’t. I don’t see LM as a ‘strategic rival’ to China. What I see is that in or out of the defense industry, no major US or European corporation has decided to up stakes and move to either China or Russia as their country of operations.
So, you gots nuffin then? Well, ok.
Sure man…whatever you say. 
Feel free to answer more substantially to GreasyJack’s post since he actually seems to know who this guy is you are so hyped about. I’ve read his Wiki page and I’m not seeing where the faith is. Skimming the video and reading your drive by cite don’t seem to be bolstering your argument, such as it is, either. The guy is listed as a philosopher, is obviously a Marxist, and doesn’t seem to really have the economics chops to even be a good MARXIST economist, which wouldn’t’ be saying much even then. Certainly he’s not at a level where you can trot him out in a drive by post as a supposed authority on, well, anything, without bothering to make any arguments of your own.
I’ve read his dang books.
You could start with Chile. Or go back further and pick a South American country at random you’ll probably find one.
Don’t really see the relevance.
I didn’t say that. I said people react badly to criticism of their favoured system.
Sounds like reasonable statement that would oppose Zizek’s point.
Didn’t just mean black civil rights. Sorry to say but the rest of the wold thinks the US has become less democratic over the last couple of decades.
I’ll give you 6/10 for form, 2/10 for content.
Cool daddio, let’s be chill-cats and ease with the breeze maaaan, have a toot for me…
Okay, well, discussing his economic ideas without mentioning the trifling little fact that he’s pretty much as close to a dyed in the wool Marxist as you’ll find these days to me doesn’t suggest a very through understanding of his ideas.
Are there any of his books (or maybe preferably a linkable article of some sort) where he lays out his ideas about authoritarian capitalism more thoroughly than just a throwaway line on a TV interview?
I think you have to make a distinction between a kleptocratic dictatorship that basically gives away the shop to foreign corporations and one that’s genuinely trying to effect free market changes. Chile under Pinochet is a pretty good example of the latter, but the former is a much more common situation. Chile is also a great example of how economic liberalization without political liberalization can work… for a while, until the political and social institutions don’t keep up and the economy basically stalls.
If you follow the chain o’ quotes back on that, you’ll find it leads to my claim that modern Marxists have a hard time arguing capitalism is oppressive when basically every free society that has ever existed has been capitalist. The way to rebut that would be to point to a society that was relatively free and wasn’t primarily capitalist.
Sure, I get that, but critics of capitalism mostly point to things that aren’t fair or are sort of existentially troubling, whereas critics of the various alternatives to capitalism have basically the biggest disasters in human history with huge loss of life to point to. It’s not that capitalism is immune to criticism-- far from it-- but I think you have to take all the critiques of the system as a whole in perspective.
Well, what evidence does the rest of the world have for that assertion? I’ll admit our rather heavy-handed foreign policy over the last 15 years has someone jeopardized our claims to be the torchbearer of democracy internationally, but domestically it’s pretty much been business as usual.
I have no idea what a dyed in the wool Marxist means, to you or to anyone else.
Are there any of his books (or maybe preferably a linkable article of some sort) where he lays out his ideas about authoritarian capitalism more thoroughly than just a throwaway line on a TV interview?
He’s prolific. Anything in the last few years. Living in the End Times. Maybe if you have access to journals https://www.dukeupress.edu/the-chinese-perspective-on-zizek-and-zizeks-perspective-on-china
Chile was about foreign corporations. I covered this at uni with a lecturer whose family was disappeared. Whether Pinochet had his hand in the cookie jar I don’t know. I don’t think it really matters much.
Sounds fair.
You’re going to get arguments about clearing the entire American continent of natives, vast tracts of colonised lands around the world, and all sorts of related bloodshed because capitalism is hard to unpick from Imperialism, and Empires are rough.
I’ve checked the democide figures, and communism was short and ugly in an unprecedented way, never have so many been killed so quickly, but then it went away.
If capitalist liberal democracy is the final system then that will be causing blood shed until the sun swallows the Earth.
Patriot act ? Ball fondling at the airports ? Billions dropped into internal security ? Humungus NSA bunkers eating the entire world’s data ?
But OK the USA is still pretty good. I doubt that Mr Zizek says the USA is in imminent danger of authoritarian coup, it’s assumptions about the course of the rest of the world that he has issues with. I’m trying to figure out if he’s right.
Yes, that’s correct. I think (I haven’t seen the video, but I’ve read his books), the point is that what happens in China today “merely repeats our own forgotten past” (Living in the End Times, 154). In other words (and this is a historical insight that I’m not sure is in much doubt): historically, capitalism developed in countries which were anything but democratic necessarily, and some of its key economic roots, such as the expropriations and enclosures that produced the first proletarians (i.e., a substantial class of people in need of wage labor); and this is also what happens in China and Russia today (and what South Korea did after 1950). Zizek is especially interested in China in this regard, because, as he argues, the purpose of its brand of ostensibly Communist, but really merely totalitarian rule is to control the workers for the benefit of the corporations–which is, ultimately, the ideal form that capitalism takes if left to its own devices.
A couple of things: Marxism is radically democractic as a thought project, no matter what historical experiences indicate may happen to ostensibly Marxist-inspired governmental projects. Or in more simple terms: Stalin doesn’t make Marxism a dictatorial philosophy. Second, while there are many Marxists and some may certainly make the claim that capitalism is an inherently oppressive system, most would claim rather that capitalism is an exploitative systems, largely because this is an economic category. Marx certainly believes that it will if left unchecked lead to oppressive conditions, yes, but Marx is well aware that it is not different in this from what preceded it. And Marx is also well aware of all the success (inventions, breaking with structures of feudalism, decentering the power of the churches) that capitalism has brought.
The Marxist case, not to put too fine a point on it, is superbly easy, if more people understood what Marx, and most contemporary Marxists, really are saying, rather than engaging the bogeyman version of Marx. Capitalism is necessarily, logically, an inherently exploitative system (the only question being, these days, who the people being exploited are), which need not necessarily, but will in the absence of strong controls, become oppressive, simply because it is in “its” interest to be oppressive. Democractic controls are counteracting this tendency in some places, such as much of the Western world; but that’s not a feature of capitalism.
The fundamental difference between Marxist and virtually all other understandings of “bank failures, market crashes and whatever else” that is criticizable about capitalism is precisely Marxism’s sense that that it is not about how capitalism"is practiced in the 21st century," but rather that these things are fundamental features of capitalism as an economic system; in other words, you can practice capitalism, and then you will have these things, or you can create an economic system that won’t have them, but then you won’t have capitalism. Whether in lieu of capitalism, you need to have socialism, is a different issue of course…
this is a very strange pleading in contradiction to the actually historically observed cases of marxist led government, as the assertion, strangely followed by some extreme left assertions in the other direction.
define “inherently exploitative” please.
provide evidence that " economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are privately owned and operated via profit and loss calculation (price signals) through the price system" is of necessity oppressive.