Skip to main content

View Diary: Geithner and his pseudo liberal critics (231 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  so you just threw out an insult (0+ / 0-)

    in order to try to annoy me.

    Impressive.

    self-appointed intellectual cop

    by citizen k on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 03:35:06 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  No. (11+ / 0-)

      I encapsulated 100 years of economic wisdom to embarrass you.

      You should really try to learn the difference.

      •  just the usual contentless insults (0+ / 0-)

        from the enforcers of the doctrine

        I doubt you know how to spell IS/LM let alone why it fails to capture Keynes theory very well.

        self-appointed intellectual cop

        by citizen k on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 03:42:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Number One... (5+ / 0-)

          I'm not a liberal, I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.

          You can tell I'm not a king because I'm covered in shit.

          Number Two (told you this was about shit) Krugman is not very liberal either.

          And I've told him so to his face.

          •  I suppose you learned to cite Samuleson (0+ / 0-)

            from Malatesta.

            self-appointed intellectual cop

            by citizen k on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 03:58:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              angel d, TheMomCat, Shotput8, Pale Jenova

              I'm a History major and Methodist, just like W.

              Samuelson is a required text.

              •  you would have been better off (0+ / 0-)

                reading Malatesta. A history major should learn that Anarcho-Syndicalism is not just a gag in a Monty Python skit.
                But clearly knowledge is not your thing.

                self-appointed intellectual cop

                by citizen k on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 04:08:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Umm... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TheMomCat, Shotput8, JesseCW, Nada Lemming

                  what part of this do you not think I get?

                  Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as an appropriate vehicle for subjugated classes in capitalist society to regain control over the course of their own destiny. Syndicalism is viewed both as a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as being an alternative co-operative economic system upon which to base a democratic regime of production for the satisfaction of human need once the injustices understood to be inherent to capitalist society have been overcome. Adherents view it as a potential force for revolutionary social change, combining general defense of rights and advance of interests in the present with longer term strategies designed to facilitate development in workers of the class consciousness and capacity for self-activity necessary before capitalism and the state can be replaced with a new democratically self-managed society.

                  This strategy is viewed as necessary on the basis that means employed determine outcomes achieved, and that since outcomes desired must be consistent with the means used to bring them about, only workers capable of freedom can actually bring about a free society. This is also why self-activity is viewed as a primary value and why anarcho-syndicalists seek to nurture it through modes of organisation and action such as solidarity, direct action (meaning action undertaken without the intervention of third parties such as politicians, bureaucrats and arbitrators) and direct democracy, or workers' self-management. The end goal of anarcho-syndicalism is to abolish the wage system, which adherents regard as wage slavery being as it is based on economic compulsion and hierarchical control, and state or private ownership of the means of production, which they argue lead to class divisions, with all that follows in terms of unequal distribution of decision-making power and oppressively hierarchical and autocratic relations of production. Anarcho-syndicalist theory therefore generally focuses on the labour movement, though there have been moves in recent times to broaden anarcho-syndicalism in the direction of a syndicalist intersectionality.

                  Anarcho-syndicalists regard the state as a profoundly anti-worker institution, ironically agreeing with James Madison that the primary function of government is to 'protect the minority of the opulent from the majority.' They view the primary purpose of the state as being the defence of private property and therefore of economic, social and political privilege, even when such defence denies its citizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy which springs from it. In contrast to other bodies of thought (Marxism–Leninism being a prime example), anarcho-syndicalists deny that there can be any kind of workers' state, or a state which acts in the interests of workers, as opposed to those of the powerful.

            •  Oh and... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              angel d, TheMomCat, Shotput8, JesseCW

              I'm actually proud you've associated me with Errico.

              The first of a long series of arrests came at age fourteen, when he was apprehended for writing an "insolent and threatening" letter to King Victor Emmanuel II.[
              I'm really not worthy to lick his boots.
              •  at last - we can agree on something (0+ / 0-)

                but you don't have to remain an ignnramous who cites Samuelson and shouts  "Econ 101" like some RedState savant explaining why welfare is bad.

                Malatesta had some very clear explanations of why economics was such a misleading discipline.

                self-appointed intellectual cop

                by citizen k on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 04:17:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh my... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TheMomCat, Shotput8, JesseCW, Nada Lemming

                  Well you've really shoved a boot in your mouth now.

                  A purism argument?  Here?

                  Malatesta was a committed revolutionary: he believed that the anarchist revolution was coming soon, and that violence would be a necessary part of it since the state rested ultimately on violent coercion.
                  I am all about self organizing.  OWS all the way except for "consensus leadership".

                  It's an oxymoron (note, that has moron in it).

                  I eschew violence in all forms and a have a severe distaste for bullies.

                  •  really? (0+ / 0-)

                    You don't like bullying, but think that coming into this diary and shouting dim insults is ok?

                    As for what you mean by purism above, I'm intrigued. It appears that your argue-by-keywords algorithm is starting to sputter.

                    Read some Malatesta and some Keynes for that matter.

                    self-appointed intellectual cop

                    by citizen k on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 04:37:35 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How about some you? (4+ / 0-)
                      In the dominant neo-classical school of economics, the kind of direct government investments in manufacturing that the Obama administration has pursued just cannot work - even though they do and did. Belief in this theory is widespread and people like Dean Baker and Christine Romero are in the faith as much as the "freshwater" Chicago scholars, the Hayekians, and the Libertarians. This makes the "liberal" or "left" critics of the administrations economic record unable to even admit the existence of the most important part.

                      Ignoring the auto-rescue's unfortunate departure from theory, Ms. Morgenstern is mostly exercised about what she calls "kid-glove treatment of the  big banks", asserting in an oddly worded phrase, "banks recovered quickly and the Dow is around 14,000". The odd wording sidesteps the fact that Citigroup shares are 83%  down even after a good last couple of weeks, Bank of America is 70% or so down, HSBC is 20% down, and even Goldman-Sachs is 20% down. The Dow is back to 1400, but a number of the biggest financial players  pre-crisis are gone or deeply wounded. The provisions of the Obama administrations banking law reform that allow the government to fold up big non-bank financial institutions like AIG or CitiGroup (much more than a bank) and claw back benefits from management in the even of failure are also not mentioned.

                      We agree more than you think, but calling Geither's critics 'pseudo' liberal is missing the point.

                      They are liberal.

                      Neo-liberal.

                      Which is to say that they dangle the bright and shiny objects of social liberalism in front of you to distract from the fact that they are complete captives of Chicago-school freshwater economics.

                    •  BTW... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      TheMomCat, Nada Lemming

                      Not Liberal.

                      Anarcho-Syndicalist.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site