Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[pErvinalia]

Being that at no point did I say he was a 'proponent of a relatively unfettered free market' there's no need to address that strawman.

That's what an economic liberal is. I even provided you with a definition ages ago.

So, if he's not a liberal, even a nice liberal who's for regulated markets and progressive taxation and transfers like a social democrat, then what is he?

I've already addressed this multiple times. He's a strong social democrat (a progressive). That's not a "nice liberal", whatever the fuck that is.

Personally I think it's silly idea but it doesn't stop Reich being an economic liberal - and it's not like economic liberals come in one and only one flavour is it?

Words and concepts have actual meanings. This seems to be something you really struggle with. You want your rhetoric to be reflected onto reality, but it's only rhetoric. Words have meanings.

Look, you like Reich but you don't like him being called a liberal. Get over it and talk about his perspective rather than trying to language police the conversation out of existence.

I've talked about his perpestive plenty. But you are still struggling with how intelligent debate works. When you make claims, you get to back them up. You haven't backed up anything you've said. It's just been an unending stream of rhetoric.

Please show you're working out by quoting where I said anything like that - and don't quote mine me while your at it either.

I said he's a social democrat, and you replied with "Indeed. A centrist, a social liberal, like Clinton and Blair, as I said - someone who thinks liberal economics can be harnessed for the benefit of democracy and society.". The only thing to the left of social democracy is socialism or anarchism. You are essentially saying that one is either a socialist/anarchist or an economic liberal. At least in terms of the "centre" and the left. That's a false dichotomy. Social democrats / progressives are not economic liberals.

[pErvinalia]

You are essentially saying that the whole of the mainstream left in Australia (the Greens and Labor; who are broadly speaking progressives and social democrats), and the UK, is centrist. That's farcical.

Edit, on visiting wiki it appears you might be spouting Marxist rhetoric. If you start referring to Reich as the Petit bourgeoisie we'll know the real ideology underpinning your crazy rhetoric.

[Brian Peacock]

I'm saying no such thing. What I have said is that social liberals think the classical economic models of Smith and Ricardo etc are basically sound and only need to be administered with more compassion or fairness.

The biggest influence on my ideas is socialism which, economically speaking, doesn't promote the well-being of the individual or society by promising some people the gift of a larger share in their own exploitation.

[pErvinalia]

You said Reich was a centrist because he is a social democrat. This implies that all social democrats (like the Australian Greens, and Jeremy Corbyn's Labour) are centrists. That's ridiculous.

[pErvinalia]

I'm saying no such thing. What I have said is that social liberals think the classical economic models of Smith and Ricardo etc are basically sound and only need to be administered with more compassion or fairness.

That doesn't make them economic liberals. Words have meanings.

What's clear is that you've set up a simplistic dichotomy where one is either a socialist or an evil capitalist regardless of ideological differences within capitalism. If you are a capitalist you are at the very least an economic liberal, which is simplistic thinking at best, and just plain stupid at worst. Honestly, you sound like a Marxist. You talk like one, and you view all forms of capitalism to be basically as bad as one and other. It's the kind of doctrinaire nonsense you get out of Marxists.

[Brian Peacock]

You cant help expressing your frustrations as strawmen is seems.

You know full well that I never called social liberals or social democrats 'evil' - that's just something you've ladled on for effect, probably just to get a rise. In fact I acknowledged the often good intentions of social liberalism and its fellow travellers on the 'nice' liberalism charabanc, though said I thought their perspectives were rooted in a misguided ethos and ultimately doomed to fail. Perhaps you're also assuming that I'm using 'liberal economics' pejoratively rather than descriptively? No matter. Anyone who locates their economic perspective within the context of free markets principles can reasonably be referred to as economically liberal, even if they believe that properly administered markets can be tamed and harnessed to secure certain social goods. The idea here is that nice liberals assert that economic growth can be guided and encouraged in order to generate revenues which can then be transferred into social goods - it's a position which asserts an ability to balance the needs of free market Capitalism with the needs of society at large. However, we've all seen how this works out because the consequence of that kind of thinking are the times we are living through.

As for my alleged Marxism!

I view Marx in a similar way to how I view Christian millennialism - that is, I think he's overly concerned with catastrophism and apocalypse. Marx is very depressing, but then again I think Marx was probably a very depressed man. For me socialism is first-and-foremost based in a moral conviction that it is better for everyone in society for fewer people to be poor, for fewer people to starve or be homeless, for fewer people to to have their illnesses go untreated or their educational needs unmet, for fewer people to suffer or be oppressed, for fewer people to have little or no control over their lives, and for fewer people to shackle themselves and their personal well-being to economic and social structures specifically designed to increase the asset wealth of those who ceaselessly exploit them. Which is to say, that as far as I'm concerned socialism is founded in compassion, empathy, in acknowledging our shared humanity, and in empowering the systematically marginalised and oppressed so that we can all grow and meet our material needs together.

Honestly, in misrepresenting my views without even bothering to ask me what they are you sound just like a liberal - you certainly leapt at the chance to declare me a Marxist, as if that automatically invalidated whatever I say. 42 would no doubt post a meme congratulating you if he were still here. And you certainly sound like a liberal when you try and counter a point I didn't even make by implying that not all forms of Capitalism are as bad as each other - even if you know that so-called Compassionate Capitalism is a myth and that Capital always tends to serve its own interests before the interest of those it exploits for profit.

Having said all that, I still look forward to you continuing to misrepresent my views in your next post.

[pErvinalia]

Another empty post (in the context of the point at issue). You said Reich is a centrist because he is a social democrat. Does that mean that all social democrats are centrist, yes or no? If 'no', how do you square that with your statement? If 'yes', as I said - ridiculous.

And for about the tenth time, economic liberalism has a definition, and no amount of your empty rhetoric is going to change that. Will you ever actually address the definition of economic liberalism? Or is this another fruitless quest like trying to get you to post a single bit of evidence that Reich is an economic liberal?

[pErvinalia]

This whole "discussion"* is farcical. You've made a series of dodgy claims and steadfastly refused to provide any evidence to back them up. You've instead produced reams of rhetoric in an attempt to divert from the fact that you can't back up the claims you made.


* - "Discussion" implies that you are interacting with my posts in a manner consistent with the point at hand. Something you clearly haven't done.

[Brian Peacock]

Pah. I've given you ample evidence of my perspective, by expressing it. Liberalism in its various forms is the paradigm by which we live our lives. Reich doesn't want to change the paradigm, only administer it in a slightly different way. His reasons for wanting to do that might be reasonable and relevant but that project is misguided and doomed to fail imo. As long as it exists Capital will always win out in the end. You can reduce political and economic relations to an exercise in Boolean logic and fixed constants that just need to be aligned into proofs if you like, but naturalising political and social relations like that is a road to nowhere, and you won't get any of that from me simply because that's not how I see things.

[pErvinalia]

I'm getting that you see things in terms of obfuscating instead of being direct. You've made some distinct claims and refused to back them up. The calculus is pretty simple.

[pErvinalia]

Reich doesn't want to change the paradigm, only administer it in a slightly different way.

And that doesn't make him an economic liberal, like you claimed. It makes him a progressive. It also makes him left wing by most of the world's standards. Not centrist. That's patently ridiculous.

[Hermit]

Words have meanings.

Correct> Liberal =/= neoliberal. The latter is a subset of the former. Robert Reich is a liberal on the social democratic end of the spectrum. His support for unions and such reflects the Adam Smith's quite well. Both stand in stark contrast to the liberals at the other end of the liberal spectrum, laissez faire libertarians such as Milton Friedman and the entire Chicago school of economics.

[pErvinalia]

You haven't followed the conversation. Brian isn't talking about neoliberalism. He's talking about economic liberalism (as an alleged subset of social liberalism). Which is distinct from what Reich is, which is a progressive. He's also farcically claimed that social democrats (and I include progressives in that) are centrist. That would make The Australian Greens and Corbyn's Labour Party centrist. Ridiculous.

[Hermit]

He's also farcically claimed that social democrats (and I include progressives in that) are centrist.

It's not farcial. There's nothing I can see in Reich that JimC would disagree with, and you know what I think of his economic, social and political position.

[pErvinalia]

He implied that all social democrats are centrists. Not that just Reich was centrist.

And Reich isn't centrist by a long shot. As I've said before you clearly haven't followed his writings.

And Jim isn't a centrist. He's centre-left. Calling him a centrist, while a long running comical jab, is ridiculous. As a centrist he would have found himself voting for the Liberals at some point. I'd be VERY surprised if he did that.