Which is pretty dense because my point is that they didnt say such things before they were perverted into Americanism. We were always that way; we invented car culture, and just because we fucked up in doing so doesnt mean that we should export that fuck-up on others.

Yes, I would because I know what you mean by that: cut the funding and let “nature” sort out the rest.

Oh, and you can’t say neoliberalism = libertarianism (the original post) and then say neoliberal = Clintonism (the Sep 1 5:47 post), because that implies the obvious falsehood that Clinton = libertarian.

You’re not this silly. Clinton’s trade policy was libertarian — or, as Jillian notes, classical liberal. Such doesnt mean that Clinton was libertarian in other areas.

If I suggested we stop propping up that unsustainable way of life with federal dollars, you’d smash your computer in a rage, so I won’t.

The car is something the culture values (indeed as Marvin Harris always said, it, not the Indian Brahma, is the real sacred cow of the world), then, even if the good people at Adbusters or James Howard Kunstler hate automobiles and car culture for the excellent reason that cars are killing the planet. But you have to be able to pay for the car and everything else.

My point is that there are people in China who could say exactly the same thing.

Oh, and you can’t say neoliberalism = libertarianism (the original post) and then say neoliberal = Clintonism (the Sep 1 5:47 post), because that implies the obvious falsehood that Clinton = libertarian.

Not all of our culture values it.

I dont mean personally values it, I mean the society values it in a macro way: its structures make such things necessary or almost necessary; as such, it’s inevitable that the culture places a high value on these things. We have been arguing this shit a long long time, and from the start you’ve never seemed able to do more than shrug in a “dynamist” sort of way about people who lose everything they have because of outsourcing. It’s easy for you to start over if you have to: you’re single with no kids and you probably rent. What about those who have kids or elderly to take care of and a house that would be forclosed? Oh, well! Crapitalism is dynamic and churning! Plus, you.. yes, saved money at Pier 1! Also, your conscience is salved in a bullshit way because you think someone in the third world is being “helped” by being given an extremely degraded version of that job. And no, RETARDO, I’m not a corporate whore, but you’re a protectionist! When, actually, the first best most fellating gift in the world to corporations is allowing them to race to the bottom as they see fit: the neoliberal-libertarian solution; YOUR solution.

If one has kids especially, in most parts of the country one needs a car and a decent one. The car is something the culture values (indeed as Marvin Harris always said, it, not the Indian Brahma, is the real sacred cow of the world), then, even if the good people at Adbusters or James Howard Kunstler hate automobiles and car culture for the excellent reason that cars are killing the planet. But you have to be able to pay for the car and everything else. Good luck doing that being a janitor or working at Mcdonalds! But that’s EXACTLY the “remedy” idiot neolibs advocate! But, they say, all would be well if the minimum raise was raised and infrastructure were changed away from the car-coddling paradigm (or, even more humorously, if former factory workers could be re-trained as… what? some other shittily-paid service industry peon?) Maybe so. But until such is done the conscientious thing to do would be to throw whatever monkeywrench there was at hand into the outsourcing model. Obviously, they ain’t gonna do that, so obviously, in turn, I can tell what they value more, not their fellow citizens fucked into destitution, but the “principle” of free trade itself.

Both the US and China have people who think their country’s material gains have brought greater cultural losses, and both have people who (like me) disagree. It’s fairly presumptuous to point to the largest population in the world and tell us what they really want.

Shall I generalize? Those who think so have been fucked by the wonders of “material gain”, and/or they have a personal value system strong enough to resist said change — they are either religious and fret over the morality of such a system, or ethical and.. feel the same way. Also, their eyes are fucking open. The “Jihad” in the Jihad vs. McWorld dialectic need not be Muslim nor violent.

On the other hand, those who disagree are superficial and crass and no doubt obtain their spiritual nourishment from buying gadgets or playing yuppie meta-games along the lines of keeping up with the Joneses or the Wangs. They are supremely selfish beings who have got theirs, and believe in never giving a sucker an even break because that’s the system and you gotta… IOW, the worst possible version of Americanism, Babbitry on a worldwide scale, culturally colonizing a country near you! The symbol for this crassness is perfect and something you, I recall, defended: the Wal-Mart the Mexican technocrat elitists allowed (no doubt with proper kick-backs) to be built next to the Temple of the Sun; you thought it was wonderful, but then you’re not capable of recognising sacrelige. But then again, you’re of and in-love with a culture that values strip malls in the same way that greener, saner cultures valued temples, so all that goes without saying.

I just could never understand how *you* could understand so well the issues of consent and resistance and blowback and “the Other” with regard to imperialist war, but be so clueless when it came to different, relatively more subtle manifestations of imperialism. Whatever.

Not all of our culture values it. Read Bowling Alone or any Adbusters -type stuff. Both the US and China have people who think their country’s material gains have brought greater cultural losses, and both have people who (like me) disagree. It’s fairly presumptuous to point to the largest population in the world and tell us what they really want.

Oh, my own Sebastian Mallaby chimes in!

You do, basically, say exactly this!

However, to somewhat answer the lame “guh, relativism!” objection. Some are being deprived of what they had within a culture that values what they had. Others are being given a pittance of what the former had, within a culture that heretofore hadnt valued such things until we remade them in our own image.

Though I see what you mean. It is an expression of this Leninist vanguardism I was talking about.

September 1, 2006 at 3:02

…But the point is that neolibs somehow forgot the one fact everyone knows about India and China: that they are the most populated nations on earth, and so the scale being messed with in changing a portion of their people into American style consumers is very scary indeed.

Oh wise neolibs, since you know that America is the most wasteful and environmentally dangerous country on earth, especially in proportional regard to its population, why the fuck didnt you think for a minute before deciding that the Chinese and Indians should adopt the American model of consumerism? Did you expressely *desire* environmental holocaust and the spectre of resource wars, or was that one of the unintended consequences of your innate ethno-centrism which so joyously wears the mask of humanitarian concern?

Careful Retardo. As long as people have had goods to trade, it has been a given that one is free to possess and use as much as he or she can afford–regardless of the resources consumed in production. To imply otherwise is the “third rail” of environmental politics. For Americans and Europeans, who have exploited the resources of the third world for centuries, to simply tell emerging markets that their people can’t consume on the same scale as we have because there are too many of them, requires unmitigated hubris.

While liberals may wholeheartedly agree with Al Gore’s “Earth in the Balance,” how many of these proud Prius owners, who choose energy-efficient appliances and purchase organic foods, are willing to seriously evaluate their consumption of virtually everything else? Americans have “supersized” more than their caloric intake. Does a family of 4 really need a house with more than 4,000 square feet or 3.5 bathrooms? Do any families where the adults work outside the home need a house with separate rooms for 2 home offices? Does everyone in the family need his or her own computer or TV? I won’t even go into what passes for fashion in clothing, these days. And, god knows, do ANY of us really NEED plug-in air fresheners?

On a macroeconomic scale, the issue is not so much jobs as it is the allocation of resources: e.g., is the highest and best use of oil for petrochemicals used in the manufacture of fertilizers for farmland in marginal countries, polyester and other synthetic fabrics for manufacturing goods in emerging markets that are sold worldwide, or plastics so Americans can have a cheaper iPods, TVs and Cuisinarts?

Anyways, the book reminds me of the best Galbraith quote ever:

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s just the opposite.

Insert “Londonist socialism” for the term of your choice. ;)

I personally do have some critiques of London’s work because he was a state socialist while I am an anarchist. For one, his work clearly shows he supported electoralism as a strategy but believed in the inevitability of civil war because this ‘Iron Heel’ would not allow electoral victory for the socialists. As an anarchist I agree with this analysis, except I don’t understand why one would then pursue electoralism as a strategy since it is not only going to fail (because of the oligarchic hold on the electoral process) but is also an unacceptable compromise of the main socialist tenet: to wit, the full empowerment of the workers, which IMO can only occur from below upward and not in a top down manner, whether from dictatorship or the representative democratic sham.

Second, all his heroes are basically ‘converted’ middle class people, except for Ernest (and one might argue that after marrying up, he might have lost touch with the working class a tad). It seems to betray a quasi-Leninist belief in the necessity of an intellectual vanguard of the revolution, outside of the working class itself, which is anathema to the anarchist vision of socialism.

But I am not sure why you consider they are mere exploiters of the working class, when they do seem to be mostly disinterested and altruistic in their goal of bringing about the worker’s society. I personally have issues with their praxis, but I have no doubt with their sincerity (as much as a fictional character can be sincere).

The funniest part about the book, of course, is that London noted quite prominently in the second part of the book that Ernest & Co. were every bit the exploiter of the working class as the Iron Heel ever was. I’ve never been able to figure out if it was a hole in his thinking or deliberate irony.

There is nearly no policy so awful that it can’t be justified by this twisted logic. Indeed, you want us to protect people whose services are in lower demand due to globalization, but why can’t we just say they’re “better off” poor? Why don’t they just pawn the TV and get back to a glorious time when people huddled around the fire telling stories for fun? This simplicity is what you prescribe for foreigners, why not for Americans?

Funny how the working class isn’t mentionned in this great class collaboration. But no one with a brain is surprised that the professional class (lawyers, priests, academics, Wanker Pundits) is getting richer in this class system when their entire schtick is to be paid to provide ideological support for the capitalists’ domination of society.

====
Jack London’s The Iron Heel:

`Oh, I am not challenging your sincerity,’ Ernest continued. `You are sincere. You preach what you believe. There lies your strength and your value–to the capitalist class. But should you change your belief to something that menaces the established order, your preaching would be unacceptable to your employers, and you would be discharged. Every little while some one or another of you is so discharged. Am I not right?’

This time there was no dissent. They sat dumbly acquiescent, with the exception of Dr. Hammerfield, who said:

`It is when their thinking is wrong that they are asked to resign.’

`Which is another way of saying when their thinking is unacceptable,’ Ernest answered, and then went on. `So I say to you, go ahead and preach and earn your pay, but for goodness’ sake leave the working class alone. You belong in the enemy’s camp. You have nothing in common with the working class. Your hands are soft with the work others have performed for you. Your stomachs are round with the plenitude of eating.’ (Here Dr. Ballingford winced, and every eye glanced at his prodigious girth. It was said he had not seen his own feet in years.) `And your minds are filled with doctrines that are buttresses of the established order. You are as much mercenaries (sincere mercenaries, I grant) as were the men of the Swiss Guard. Be true to your salt and your hire; guard, with your preaching, the interests of your employers; but do not come down to the working class and serve as false leaders. You cannot honestly be in the two camps at once. The working class has done without you. Believe me, the working class will continue to do without you. And, furthermore, the working class can do better without you than with you.’

No, I’m not the stupidest man on earth. Silly me, I ascribe intelligence to others, and the ability to choose freely. Society wants me to buy crap, e.g. backstreet boys albums, watch red-neck comedy tour, buy the new H3. Yet I resist.

Is that too much to ask of people from other cultures?

Of course I have shopped — does that make me a hypocrite? Sadly, No! I am of this culture, and while I rebel against it as much as I can, it’s nearly impossible to strip oneself completely of the culture one grew up in while still continuing to live within the unchanged said culture.

I am of this culture. So I can be a hypocrite. Hoping others won’t live like me, hoping they’ll just stay on their farms. Wahhhh.

The Chinese is no longer Chinese. He is actually Chinese-American.

I dare you to go to china and say shit like that. They’ll love it.

Why not just let them choose how to live their own fucking lives? If they think they want to be Jet Lee or Brad Pitt or Pierce Brosnan and drive a fast car, let them dream. I don’t ascribe positive or negative values to a particular culture the way you do. I do believe that having choices and freedoms is generally good, and Chinese, Mexican, and Indian people have many more freedoms and choices than 15 years ago. To me, that’s good, regardless of the choices they make. (maybe decisions are being forced down their throats, but I’ll wait for them to tell the world if that’s the case)

But if they choose American shit, to you that’s bad.

Why, yes, I’m a Freeper! Please continue to ignore my caveats to those Zero sum Game opinions I’m sharing!

Two words: Welfare Reform. I dont remember if Kurgman has ever defended it, but the Clintonoid neolibs sure enacted it.

Your blog profile is hilarious. You know Marx never anticipated the fact that two classes could be beneficial to each other, as the American 20th century showed (the middle class made the wealthy richer and vice versa.)

I think we can generally agree that government intervention into the economy is very necessary, but I could never agree with the zero sum game mentality. To me, that is incredibly sad to hear another human being say that. Usually is is just conservatives who espouse such viewpoints.

Anyway, have a good night guys. I’m sort of sorry to see that there is such an active socialist movement on blogs I have previously enjoyed. People who view Paul Krugman as a right wing economist. Wow, you folks are in a class by yourselves.

Your argument is a strawman because you ascribe an amount of control to me. The Chinese woman left the farm. She worked somplace where she made more money. She bought a cell phone and some Manohlo knock-offs. Who cares?

Are you the stupidest man on earth? You actually had the opportunity to travel, and yet you still cannot see beyond your own culture’s nose!

Of course the Westernized Chinese did not “choose” to by a new face or Lincoln Towncar or Chicken Bucket or whatever on his own, in any sort of sense of free will, he “chose” to buy such things because our cultural hegemony forced him to become like US, and so value what we value, which is, largely, crap.

Of course I have shopped — does that make me a hypocrite? Sadly, No! I am of this culture, and while I rebel against it as much as I can, it’s nearly impossible to strip oneself completely of the culture one grew up in while still continuing to live within the unchanged said culture.

In many ways the Chinese are culturally conservative and it will serve them and the world well, but it’s not enough in the face of the ways their authoritarian goverment, in partnership with our corporate criminals, has chosen American culture as the get rich quick model for its people to emulate. And so it has. The Chinese is no longer Chinese. He is actually Chinese-American. As Globalism has its way with the world, if it is not resisted, there will indeed eventually be no Other left out there. Only variations of Americans. Though pointedly and blessedly for the capitalists, no Bill of Rights or EPA or Department of Labor to go with it.

Thus the Historical Inevitability of the Monocultural Revolution, eh comrade?