Look up the book, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, at Amazon and watch the related 6 min 47 sec video. Notice how the shock doctrine ties in with 9/11. I think Naomi Klein has a good theory about governmental methodology, but, of course, capitalism per se is not in that category.
She seems to lack understanding of free markets vs. corporatism, however the book doesn't look that bad. At any rate, I think Mises called Friedman a socialist once.
For an "investigative" journalist she sure has not done much investigation into how markets function. I think foster is right - she probably describes the phenomenon of corporatism, but attributes all the blame to... capitalism. Predictable.
On Mises calling Friedman a socialist, I thought that was more of a rumour than an actual fact?
Inquisitor:I think foster is right - she probably describes the phenomenon of corporatism, but attributes all the blame to... capitalism. Predictable.
I think foster is right - she probably describes the phenomenon of corporatism, but attributes all the blame to... capitalism. Predictable.
I just finished the book a few weeks ago. Great analysis of corporatism and various authoritarian governments, and how shocks are used by governments to coerce people. But that's no surprise to anyone here who realizes that governments use coercion even in the absense of shocks.
But yes, I had to shake my head every few pages at least, as she confuses "free market ideas" with outright government corruption and corporatism throughout the book.
I'm pretty new at all of this, but it doesn't take a genius to see the contradictions in arguments resting on a thought process concluding in "the government decided to implement free market ideas at the expense of the people."
If she explained that the perpetrators of these concepts used the terms "free market" but it was in reality government-sponsored corporatism, then so much confusion would be cleared up. But either she missed the distinction, or decided to appeal to that portion of the population who buys into this obfuscation of terms.
Inquisitor:For an "investigative" journalist she sure has not done much investigation into how markets function. I think foster is right - she probably describes the phenomenon of corporatism, but attributes all the blame to... capitalism. Predictable. On Mises calling Friedman a socialist, I thought that was more of a rumour than an actual fact?
Hello, Im just starting to study economics, and have a quick question.
Whats the difference between corporatism and capitalism? and where can I find more indepth writings on that?
HRoth:Whats the difference between corporatism and capitalism? and where can I find more indepth writings on that?
Check this very website. Corporatism is when government power is given to, well in our current model, corporations. But trade guilds, industrial powers, that kind of thing. It's rule by The CEO of Wal Mart as opposed to socialism, which is rule by Wal Mart register clerks and customers. And as opposed to capitalism, which in a practical sense is when the government does not grant power to anyone, and simply protects people and their property from aggression and fraud. Or in an ideal sense a purely voluntary society which is, by definition, based on voluntary trade and in which aggression is, if not absent, dealt with through private means, be it a shotgun or a private police force.
xahrx:And as opposed to capitalism, which in a practical sense is when the government does not grant power to anyone, and simply protects people and their property from aggression and fraud.
Wittgenstein argued, at times, that there were no philosophical difficulties, only disagreements over language. While I don't agree, I do think that a lot of what seems to be a disagreement turns out to be disagreement over language. "Capitalism" is a prime example. We libertarians use it to refer to the free market, Marx used it to mean what we call "corporatism." The term, though, originated with Marx, and his usage seems to make more sense than ours. Why should "capitalism" mean free markets, as opposed to rule by those who control capital? I myself have given up the word "capitalism" and prefer to say "non-violence."
To address the poster with a question, forget the words for a moment and just clarify the idea. What libertarians and Rothbardians and the like support is simply freedom - the prohibition of coercion, and the insistance that a man may do as he wishes with his property. Corporatism, Marxian "capitalism", and the various other "isms" are various ways of opposing this. In this context, what they wish to do is the following:
1-Take property, use it to form schools which prepare obedient employees.
2-Coerce children into going to those schools.
3-Take property and use it to enrich certain businessmen.
4-Use force to consolidate industries, pushing out all but a few large concerns.
5-Use force to create markets for industry in various ways. Outlaw and prohibit substitute goods (cough, big pharma and the war on drugs), require the use of products (mandatory vaccinations, mental health screening), and create labor markets through military force (sweatshops.)
The biggest challenge facing libertarianism, and preventing it from being more popular, is the tendency of libertarians to reflexively identify with the right wing, since they perceive the right as being "friendly to business." Libertarians are apt to praise sweatshops as voluntary products of the free market, when in fact they usually are not.
Libertarians also suffer from a lack of radicalism. The idea is often seen as "hold the world steady, but just eliminate this one problem." It is ignored just how much of the way the world is results from the institution of government.
JAlanKatz: Libertarians are apt to praise sweatshops as voluntary products of the free market, when in fact they usually are not.
Libertarians are apt to praise sweatshops as voluntary products of the free market, when in fact they usually are not.
what is not libertarian about sweatshops? libertarians would love everybody to drive an audi just as much as socialists, only a sicko could like poverty. providing workers can walk at will, i can see no objections. as per "inquisitor", better the workbench than the bordello bed, the begging bowl, or the bandit's gun. strange how "sweat" in the western world has almost become a term of deprecation.
on the front gates of the concentration camp at dachau (munich, germany) there's a sign that reads - "arbeit macht frei" ("work liberates"/"work frees you"). i'm still dumbstruck at the evil of this message. not just the obvious outrage of dressing up a deathcamp as a workshop, but the way that even today you cannot say "work ennobles the human spirit" without risking caricature.
newson:what is not libertarian about sweatshops?
Depends on just what you mean by a sweatshop. Libertarians, (including myself until recently) tend to picture some shop, owned by a company which arose in a free market, perhaps led by a Randian hero, where employees learn the nature of the work, apply for a job, and are voluntarily employed. If you mean that, then there's nothing wrong with it at all.
On the other hand, there's the sweatshops that actually exist in the real world. In those, the owner is a corporation which is little more than an outgrowth of the American government. The location is a country controlled by a School of the Americas graduate, who uses his military to drum up employees. In that case, there is a problem with it.
JAlanKatz:On the other hand, there's the sweatshops that actually exist in the real world. In those, the owner is a corporation which is little more than an outgrowth of the American government. The location is a country controlled by a School of the Americas graduate, who uses his military to drum up employees. In that case, there is a problem with it.
no, that's not sweatshopping, that's slavery, and i don't dispute there's plenty of that around. are sweatshops necessarily a life-enforcing environment, run by your "randian hero"? of course not, but if people work these terrible conditions of their own volition, then it's because it's the best of a bad lot.
remember that in singapore fifty years ago, there were rickshaw drivers, who sweated blood in the tropical sun to peddle people around. the fact that now people are whisked around in air-conditioned mercedes cabs is a testimony to the achievement of generations of sweat and respect for property.
newson:no, that's not sweatshopping, that's slavery, and i don't dispute there's plenty of that around. are sweatshops necessarily a life-enforcing environment, run by your "randian hero"? of course not, but if people work these terrible conditions of their own volition, then it's because it's the best of a bad lot.
If being the operative word. Find me a sweatshop that is actually a product of the free market, with workers not held in by force. The point of the Randian hero jab is to emphasize that we cannot pick and choose little things that would be changed if there were no government, or even under minarchy. The entire market structure would be different. Corporations are essentially products of the state - plus sweatshops, even if voluntary, are a step in the economic development, and that development would be more complete, further along, and proceeding faster without government.
JAlanKatz:Find me a sweatshop that is actually a product of the free market, with workers not held in by force.
Find me a sweatshop that is actually a product of the free market, with workers not held in by force.
"Sportswear made by Puma, Umbro, Fila, Adidas, Reebok, Nike and ASICS is being produced by workers around the world whose rights are being regularly violated, according to a major report by Oxfam and trade unions."
i'd say that the above companies, much maligned by oxfam (above quote) and unions, are using sweatshop labour. i see them guilty of no more than paying appalling wages and conditions when judged from a rich, western-world perspective. even oxfam doesn't mention slavery in regards to these "rights abusers". whether a sweatshop is an incorporated body, partnership or sole-proprietor is not relevant as to the coercion aspect.
Here is that short film
I met a man at work that says he wants me to read it. I get really emotional when I hear about folks getting tortured. I'm no freidmanite, however the author should have looked more into the man's work, before straw manning him.
I blame myself, that I can do nothing to stop government atrocities. This attitude of controlling other folks, is parrallel to 'every planner thinks, that his plan is the best one'. I'm sure that in the authors utopian dream, the state would only just do well and charitable things, that if the state was not supreme authoritarian, that people would hate each other and naturally work against each other. Well simply the interactions that people have, talking and meeting people, is an example of the beauty of the free market. So far, folks can go about sayin' what they please. To make an observation; it seems even that sociopathic behavior, such as sadism, elitism, narcissism, and the like, are acceptable to the very misanthropic society that the tyranny of the state has created.
There is still alot of love in this world and it sure isn't the government that inspires it.
I loaned him my copy of The Road to Serfdom, here is a better short film
Individualism Rocks
Johan Norberg does a great job debunking the shock doctrine. http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp102.pdf
Magnus: Johan Norberg does a great job debunking the shock doctrine. http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp102.pdf
Here is Tyler Cowen's critique and you can find another debunking here.
"Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it." -Milton Friedman
"It is a mistake to think businessmen are more immoral than politicians." -John Maynard Keynes
foster: She seems to lack understanding of free markets vs. corporatism, however the book doesn't look that bad. At any rate, I think Mises called Friedman a socialist once.
That's because capitalism is not free market.
Mises can go ahead and equate the two all he wants - he's simply wrong on that point.
I think Klein's book, overall, is impressive and raises a fantastic point about American capitalism. It is the blood that fuels the American empire. See Kevin Carson.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
HRoth: Whats the difference between corporatism and capitalism? and where can I find more indepth writings on that?
Nothing.
If only she read some Marx and Engels. Maybe she'd think twice about smearing Friedman...
-Jon
The chill that you feel is the herald of your doom! Irenicus' Diaries.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap