epiphany Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Last night's Question Time once again highlighted the pure ignorance and myopia of certain politicians when it comes to the true grievances of many protesters on both the left and right. The absurdity of the Starbucks argument - that you are a hypocrite if you protest the current system whilst on a caffeine rush from a coffee purchased at Starbucks - is revealed when you observe that there are pro-capitalists speaking out against the very same system. How can this be? Simply because free market capitalists, whether or not you agree with them ideologically, believe in the clear separation of state and private power as a primary means of protecting society from the failings of the market. The system we have today socialises the risk of large institutions, many of which are subsidised and granted numerous legal privileges by the State, and puts an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer to prop up poorly run businesses that would have failed and been liquidated into the marketplace under a free market capitalist system. Pro-capitalists also agree that, if a bailout is to be made, it should be direct to the people affected - not the institutions who took the risk in the marketplace and FAILED. So if you do defend capitalism, I question why you do not align yourself more with the key issues raised by the protesters, because they ultimately want the same parasitic elements removed from the system as anyone who believes in a fair and free market. Some of the protesters may take it a step further, but ask them what their true issues are with the current system and they will put aside their ideological differences. Perhaps it's time to re-read Adam Smith and his negative views on what is now referred to as corporatism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 To be fair it is questionable whether the Occupy movement is only against the casino style investment banking and the kind of wreckless behaviour that caused a financial crisis, or if they are against our capitalist/freemarket style economy as a whole. Presumably, if they are against the behaviour of big banking corporations, you'd think they'd favour a move of the economies away from financial services towards manufacturing that give us "real jobs" and create "real wealth". Yet yesterday, they occupied one of the busiest ports in the US, preventing the orderly import and export of manufactured goods. By protesting there, we can only assume they are against the import and export of manufactured goods. So what about all the American jobs that depend on exporting goods, and all the jobs outside the US that depend on US imports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RABBIDDOG Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 From what i've heard from the mouths of the protesters is that they are anti-capitalists, full stop. Many remind me of the Socialist Worker / Communists you used to see frequenting the city centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 The protesters seem to be a mixed bunch; in the main they are not anti-capitalist per-say, but are against excessive corporate greed, which I think we all are; but amongst them is a silly element that are communists and want to do away with the capitalist system all together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Absolutely, there will be some protesters who let their dogmas blind their critical judgement and give politicians such as Theresa May a legitimate target for their gross generalisations. I think it's crucial that this debate over "what is wrong with the current system" doesn't turn into a capitalist vs socialist dichotomy. I honestly believe that there is more common ground to be found on the key issues than we are being led to believe by the people who should know better. A proper critical analysis of the status quo requires a certain degree of objectivism, which in turn requires us to put our ideological differences aside while we identify the most glaring problems that society AND the economy would be better off without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RABBIDDOG Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Do you remember when you popped into the local cafe and got a good cup of coffee for 50p? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 From what i've heard from the mouths of the protesters is that they are anti-capitalists, full stop. I can't help but wonder if some of them only THINK they are outright anti-capitalist, when in fact they are merely anti-"actually existing capitalism". In other words, the same misunderstanding of what constitutes free market capitalism exists on both sides of the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RABBIDDOG Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I can't help but wonder if some of them only THINK they are outright anti-capitalist, when in fact they are merely anti-"actually existing capitalism". In other words, the same misunderstanding of what constitutes free market capitalism exists on both the part of the protesters and the defenders of the status quo. Do you mean similar to those "we are anarchists" but really just trouble causers and rioters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Do you mean similar to those "we are anarchists" but really just trouble causers and rioters? Well there does exist a distinction between revolutionary schools of anarchism and reformist anarchism. Those that wish to "smash the system" are more likely to be reactionaries of Bakunin's theories than those of Proudhon, for example. I do think some "anarchists" need to fully appreciate the breadth of anarchist theory before they start getting all smashy smashy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RABBIDDOG Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 ... Those that wish to "smash the system" are more likely to be reactionaries of Bakunin's theories than those of Proudhon, for example. Are you serious, they'll have never heard of 'im... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.