Kevin Carson
http://c4ss.org/content/27328
Climate Change and Corporate Welfare
Note: I’m glad Kevin doesn’t agree that the State should do anything about “anthropogenic climate change.” He is probably right that the current American way of life is itself a product of state action. His problem is that he believes the lies about climate change. For the alleged collapse of the Antarctic ice shelf, look at this: http://m4gw.com/alarmist-headlines-on-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-obscure-truth/ SIG
It’s been a pretty bad couple of weeks on the climate front. Two separate teams of climate scientists warn that the collapse of the western Antarctic ice sheet has already begun and is now too late to stop. The six glaciers already in retreat are enough, by themselves to add four feet to global sea levels. Although total collapse will probably take 200 years or more, the loss of the whole sheet could bring the total sea rise to between 14 and 17 feet — over and above previous predictions, which assumed the western sheet would remain intact. In California alone, this would put LAX, the San Francisco airport and the San Onofre nuclear plant underwater, according to governor Jerry Brown. North America is entering its third summer in a row of extreme drought — the worst in centuries in the southwest US.
Meanwhile, Harvard Ph.D. student Vanessa Williamson suggests Tea Partiers are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change because of two beliefs: “First, the coastal elite looks down on people in Middle America; second, the government wants to exert ever-more control, and will use any pretext to do it.” The goal of the “global warming hoax,” Tea Partiers believe, is “to undo the American way of life — big cars, big homes, suburban sprawl — and make the heartland look more like the coasts” (Christopher Flavelle, “Climate Change is Stuck in the Culture War,” BloombergView, May 9).
What’s most striking is the belief that the Middle American lifestyle of SUVs, split-level ranches in cul-de-sacs, strip malls and Big Box stores is some sort of spontaneously emergent behavior in the free market, and that this could only be “undone” through increased government control. The truth is just the opposite.
Car Culture and the sprawl lifestyle was created by massive government intervention and only survives from massive ongoing government intervention. It lives, moves and has its being in big government. Local governments subsidize freeways from general revenues and get still more subsidies in the form of federal grants. Government — in cahoots with the local real estate industry — uses eminent domain to bulldoze low-income neighborhoods for new freeways. Building codes mandate giant golf-course front lawns. Zoning laws criminalize mixed-use development, corner groceries and affordable walk-up apartments downtown. Downtown gentrification projects replace large amounts of nearby housing with mandated parking, make much more of housing unaffordable to original residents, and destroy small businesses that previously served the ordinary daily needs of the surrounding neighborhood instead of out-of-town yuppies.
Federal government created and continues to heavily subsidize the Interstate Highway System, without which the Walmart “warehouses on wheels” logistics system that destroyed Main Street couldn’t exist (and, oddly enough, the Red State politicians who are most vocal about “big gummint leaving us alone” are also likely to see their main job as bringing home federal highway pork for the Chamber of Commerce). Government uses eminent domain to steal farms and Native American territories protected by treaty for pipelines. It sets liability caps for oil spills. Its courts, from the mid-19th century on, have weakened the earlier strict tort liability standards for corporate malfeasance (like pollution from fracking and mountaintop removal).
And don’t forget the murderous wars the US fights and the costly military establishment it maintains to keep fuel cheap. It’s amazing how many recent wars to “defend our freedom” involved creating military bases and installing puppet regimes around the Caspian Sea or Persian Gulf oil basins. By far the biggest portion of America’s “defense” [sic, sic, SICK] budget goes to maintaining a Navy of 11 Carrier Strike Groups, whose main purpose is to subsidize shipping via oil tanker and container ships by keeping the sea lanes open at general taxpayer expense (Adam Smith observed over 200 years ago that merchant shipping itself should justly bear the cost of its own protection).
Add to all this the fact that Red States are mostly net tax consumers. Their regional economies are dominated by military bases, military industries or extractive industries (mining, logging, fossil fuels, ranching) that are heavily subsidized by the federal government. So what Red Staters call “the American way of life” is nothing but corporate welfare, and the SUV and monster truck are its poster children.
The implications are obvious. Climate change is not something for the government to combat by prohibiting or taxing various activities that contribute to CO2 emissions. Just the contrary: The best way to combat anthropogenic global warming is for government to stop doing stuff like actively subsidizing or mandating sprawl, subsidizing long-distance shipping and transportation, and subsidizing energy consumption. Government is the problem, not the solution.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
The Climate Change Scam: Not Collapsing, Just Ending
Britain’s Welfare Empire: A State that Feeds Strangers and Starves Its Own
Welfare and the Luxury of Abstraction: A Polite Critique of Alex Zychowski’s “Britain in Decline”
Libertarian Delusions and the Machinery of Empire: Welfare as Alibi, Not Engine
Robert Jenrick: Welfare Reform and the Curse of AI Prose
Finland and the “Slanted Eyes” Outrage: When Moral Weapons Change Hands
Oil Shocks and the Acceleration of Economic Change
Fabricated Heat and Frigid Homes: The Real Cost of Britain’s Climate Data Scandal
Examination in the Philosophy of Liberty: The Headmaster’s Report
Who’s a Fascist?
Fallacies of Wealth Redistributionism
Ninety-Five Blasts from the Past
Powered by YARPP.
I notice that Kevin is coming out with his normal drivel.
For example that large retail chains could not exist without government roads – as if private roads could not exist, and (even if private roads were banned) such things as railways could not exist.
If most people and goods went by rail (not road) then big shopping centres (and housing) would be near the railway stations – not near the (non-existent) big roads. That is all.
As for zoning (planning regulations).
Kevin must love “Agenda 21” – which pushes for the sort of “high density” stuff he likes (but have no fear – Newsweek says that Agenda 21 is just a “conspiracy theory” so-all-is-well….).
By the way Houston (not known for; lack of suburbs suburbs) does not have “zoning”.
Is Kevin saying that “the capitalists” have less power in Texas than they have in California?
That does not seem likely as California has some of the highest taxes and some of the worst regulations on “big business” in the United States.
And the United States (these days – NOT in the past) has some of the worst regulations and highest taxes on “big business” in the Western world.
What the United States (and the rest of the Western World) actually needs is a vast number of nuclear power stations – but the government (with its endless regulations that do NOT improve safety) makes that uneconomic.
None of the above should be read to mean that government road systems (in Texas or anywhere else) are a good idea, or that the terrible land use regulations in California (denounced, for example, by Walter Williams in “Housing: Boom and Bust”) are a good idea either.
By the way – my favourite bit of Californian perversity……
The railway does not reach the port in LA (not in recent years – it did once of course) so the goods trains have to unloaded (a few miles from the port) and the stuff loaded onto trucks (to go only a few miles) and then the trucks have to be unloaded to put the stuff on ships (or off ships – depending on whether the stuff is going in or out).
Once again, Kevin demands a world without roads. This is beyond comical.
The interesting thing is how narrow his view is; roads only bring bad things. Walmart, that is. They are just a conspiracy to enable that great evil- commercial competition. As I have often said- and Carson’s defenders, notably Thomas Knapp deny, but here it is again- Carson’s vision is an intense local autarky, imposed by an inability for goods and services to compete even within nations let alone globally, or indeed within states, counties or even boroughs.
You have your local community bakery, hope you like the bread, it’s all there is. Except if you don’t live in a grain producing area, you don’t get any bread at all since, without the evil government roads, you only got what you can haul on a donkey locally.
It’s terrifying that this man can not only believe this tripe, but desire it. Truly terrifying. I would say it’s mediaeval, but that would be unfair. Even mediaeval peasants had roads to travel on; all the way to Constantinople and beyond, on their pilgrimages.
Paul and Ian,
It used to be rude to lie about Carson.
Now that everyone knows you lie about Carson, it’s just boring to lie about Carson.
What lies exactly?.
Carson craps on endlessly about “govt subsidies” on roads and the car lifestyle. When the first decent roads in England were privately built toll-roads back in the pre-railway early 19th century. Infrastructure is made very expensive by govt (and esp by govt corruption). There is no special extra cost to infrastructure that puts it beyond private market means. Carson is just an oddball leftist and semi-ecofreak. No friend to any sort of personal freedom.
Thomas I have not lied about Kevin – the liar is you.
Mr. Ecks,
You write:
“What lies exactly?”
In this particular case, the following two.
“For example that large retail chains could not exist without government roads”
and
“Kevin demands a world without roads”
I suppose there are alternative explanations — for example, that Marks and IanB never learned to read English, while they somehow did learn to write it — but those alternative explanations seem unlikely.
Occam’s Razor says the most likely explanation is the one requiring the fewest assumptions. And the explanation requiring the fewest assumption while actually explaining the phenomenon is:
Marks and IanB lie.
Corollaries to that might include “Marks and IanB don’t care about the truth,” “Marks and IanB think that other readers of this blog are too stupid to notice that Marks and IanB are lying,” etc.
But if you prefer an alternative, less likely explanation to the Occam’s Razor dictated one, I’ll be glad to modify my claim and allow for the possibility that Marks and IanB are fucking idiots, illiterate or whatever.
Thomas – Kevin has repeatedly blamed the government road system for Walmart (he regards Walmart as a bad thing).
The claim being made (not just in this post – but in many of his posts) is that large retail chains (such as Walmart) could not have grown up without the government roads.
Paul,
OK, so now I do have to seriously consider the possibility that you’re illiterate rather than dishonest.
What Kevin claims — with 100% irrefutable factual accuracy — is that the ACTUALLY EXISTING “large retail chains” were made possible by the ACTUALLY EXISTING “government roads.”
That is claim is very different from the claim that “large retail chains could not have grown up without government roads.”
So now you know how and why you were completely incorrect in your claim.
Thing is, I can’t make myself available to hold your hand all the time. You might want to look into a remedial reading class so that you can avoid these mistakes instead of hoping that I happen to be around to rescue you from them.
Have a nice day.
Thomas I repeat what I have already said (so many times).
As for the idea that Sam Walton’s success was somehow not his own because there are government roads, that is as daft as saying that Jon Huntsman’s (of Huntsman Chemical) success is not his own because there are government roads – indeed Kevin would, no doubt, make this absurd claim as well (Mr Huntsman being a “capitalist” after all).
If you really are too stupid to understand that Kevin is an anti capitalist (a “Social Justice” supporter – i.e. a collectivist) then, Thomas, that is your problem – not my problem.
Paul,
You can repeat what you have already said so many times as many times as you like. When you start being truthful (or become literate enough to distinguish truth from falsehood) it might get interesting. Until then it is, like I said, increasingly boring.
At this point I’d almost rather watch J-Wwow and Snookie or whatever horrifying crap is on TV than continue reading and correcting, re-reading and re-correcting ad nauseam your constant reprises of “baby fingerpaints on the wall with the contents of diaper.”
As I have pointed out for more than six years – Kevin can play his game even when there are not government roads.
What about the 18th century – is Kevin an admirer of big landowners (and supporters of industrialisation) such as the Marquis of Rockingham? Of course not – he hates them.
He will do the 1066 tap dance (the land is not really theirs because of William and 1066). And if an estate goes back BEFORE 1066 (as with the example I gave of an estate in Staffordshire) does Kevin change his tune?
Not a chance – because “1066 and all that” is not really what upsets him. What upsets Kevin is large scale private land ownership – “period” as you Americans say.
Does Kevin even admire industrialists who have emerged from humble backgrounds such as J. Wedgewood in the 18th century (one of so many industrialists from humble backgrounds) or Jon Huntsman (and others) in modern times?
Of course he does not.
Kevin is an equal opportunity hater – he hates large scale employers who were born rich, and he hates large scale employers (“capitalists”) who were not born rich.
And the excuses Kevin comes out with (government roads, the invasion of 1066 – or whatever) have got naught to do with it.
OMG … I finally figured out where I know you from.
Still no real arguments from you Thomas.
Perhaps you should stick to smashing up cars and breaking shop windows with your “Occupy” friends.
After all Kevin openly admits being a friend of the Occupy crowd. Do you deny being on their side also?
As for your slogan.
That would be.
“You did not build that”.
The standard leftist lie – directed at any successful businessman.
“You did not build that” – because of government roads.
“You did not build that” – because of 1066.
“You did not build that” – because of whatever……,,,,,,,
Paul,
I’m always happy to offer arguments.
But the only proper argument to people lying (or not knowing what the hell they are talking about) is to point out that they are lying (or that they don’t know what the hell they are talking about).
When and if you’re ever ready to argue about what Carson actually says, instead of just making stuff up and pretending he said it, I’ll be ready as well. Until then, stop lying (or bother to know what the hell you’re talking about before you talk).
Thomas.
Actually what Kevin is really talking about is ENVY.
His envy of anyone who has more than he has – whether they were born rich or born poor.
All his “arguments” (historical, economic or philosophical) are simply excuses he offers to cover this envy – this lust of his to loot what belongs to others (by pretending it does not “really” belong to them).
In all this Black Flag collectivists are, fundamentally, not different from Red Flag collectivists.
Oh I forgot……
“You did not build that” (the leftist slogan against business people) – because of state education.
The absurd claim that American government schools systems were created to produce “wage slaves” under what Kevin calls “contract feudalism” (he pretends not to understand that real serfs were not paid – and that feudalism was actually a legal and military system NOT a “mode of production”, one can have serfs or slaves without feudalism, and one can have feudalism without serfs or slaves).
As for the Father of the American Public School system – Mr H. Mann was actually copying the Prussian system, he (like so many statists over the centuries) was inspired by the example of Frederick the Great.
Neither Frederick the Great or Mr H. Mann were really the puppets of evil “capitalists”.
Paul,
I’ll be willing to debate Kevin’s motivations when and if you decide to stop lying about his statements.
Noticing that you lie and calling you out for lying is BORING, BORING, BORING.
I’d much prefer a real argument over what he actually writes/says and what that might say about his motivations to yet another boring round of “there goes Marks, lying his ass off again.”
Any time you’re ready, sir.
I have not lied about the statements of the Social Justice supporter who calls himself Kevin Carson.
If you read the exchange that started between myself and Kevin Carson after Sean Gabb (or someone at his urging) put “Contract Feudalism” in the conference packs at the Libertarian Alliance conference some years ago, you should know that.
Ian has also cited the collectivist “Occupy” fan Kevin extensively.
No doubt you claim that Ian is “lying” as well.
It would seem that to quote Kevin is support of “Social Justice” is a lie.
To quote Kevin against “capitalism” and “capitalists” is a lie.
To quote Kevin pretending that paid employment is some form of servitude is a lie.
And on and on.
Actually the person who lies is KEVIN CARSON.
He made his name quoting Ludwig Von Mises (and others) out-of-context to pretend that they reached anti capitalist conclusions – the opposite of the position they really held.
People who had dedicated their entire adult lives to the defence of capitalism were enlisted (after they were safely dead – and so could not contradict Kevin) on the anti capitalist side (i.e. the side they had dedicated their lives to opposing).
That makes Kevin just about the lowest creature on God’s Earth.
I would not cross the road to urinate on the man – even if he was on fire.
You’ve lied repeatedly about Carson. You may recall our last outing. If not, here’s a summary:
Marks: Carson doesn’t acknowledge economies of scale.
Knapp: He dedicated the first 50 fucking pages of Organization Theory to an analysis of economies of scale.
Marks: Well, he says economies of scale are of no importance.
Knapp: After 50 pages of analysis, he concludes that economies of scale were “probably” less of a factor than state intervention in directing the specific course of the Industrial Revolution.
Marks: Well, he REALLY THINKS …
Knapp: What he REALLY THINKS is debatable, but when you lie about what he ACTUALLY SAYS, I’m probably going to notice. As you should have figured out by now.
Marks: If he doesn’t acknowledge that [insert random collection of industrialists here] are the greatest human beings who have ever lived, he’s not a libertarian! And he doesn’t, so he isn’t, QED I am not lying! Also, if the state is responsible for the Industrial Revolution and the Agriculture Revolution as they actually happened, we should all be statists!
Knapp: You seem to have a strange definition of what constitutes lying. But thanks for admitting you’re a statist.
Marks: BRB, gotta go get something done about this cerebral hemorrhage.
Ian: Carson just wants to tear up the roads.
Knapp: No, he just wants the markets to handle the roads instead of state-privileged capitalists being able to hide the actual prices of their goods by externalizing transportation costs to the consumer via state taxation. If there are still roads after that happens, I’m sure he’ll be fine with them.
Ian: But then I wouldn’t be able to have an iPad! Carson won’t let me have my iPad!
Knapp: Well … suffer.
Thomas your response is pathetic – utterly pathetic.
I have never talked about “Organisation Theory” in my life – so I certainly can not have “lied” about it. I have never even been sent a copy of this work (unlike “Contract Feudalism” and the posts that Kevin has on this site).
As for how many pages Kevin spends talking bullshit about economies of scale – I do not care if it is 50 pages or 500 pages (the number of pages is not important).
What is important is that Kevin pretends (in post after post) that the industrial revolution was based upon state intervention – which is nonsense.
The industrial revolution was based upon economics of scale, private investment and new inventions.
But if you want to talk about “Organisation Theory” then answer me.
Where in this supposedly wonderful work does Kevin praise J. Wedgewood and the other industrialists?
Either give me the page numbers where Kevin admits that that industrial revolution was based on economies of scale, private investment and inventions (both technological and in how to run a business) – where does he praise (for example) Mr Wedgewood?
Or – STOP WASTING MY TIME.
So in other words, you weren’t “lying” about Carson — you were just making shit up without having any way of knowing whether or not it was true?
That explains a lot.
Your time is your own. Only you can waste it. Lying about Kevin Carson is a particularly unproductive way of wasting it.
To me the point of the piece seems, really, to be a lambasting of the so-called Red States, with some spewing of bile upon moi and the rest of the Tea Party movement.
This proceeds by pointing out all the things the Gov is wrongfully paying for and involved with, and then stating that this is what the Red States (and Tea Partiers) are supporting and, more importantly I guess, are supported by. Actually I agree to at least some extent with most of the complaints about the Gov’s having gone way beyond the bounds of its remit (certainly not in the matter of the military of course; the ethical government does look with the greatest dedication to the protection of its citizens — in fact real libertarians understand that that is its basic function). Eminent domain, however, is another kettle of horse puckey. The whole foul doctrine should be abolished. The cost to individual self-determination and the corollary of property rights is too great. (Except in the catastrophe of a war of self-defense that is, or is likely to be, fought on home ground. And even then the land s/b returned at the end of hostilities.)
But the thing boils down to an anti-Red-State, anti-government piece. Well, the latter is common enough in certain circles. But if Kevin is anti-Red-State, why? In this piece he sounds to me like a rancorous Southern Agrarian, mad as hell over the fact that WalMart and, yes, roads exist and spoil the landscape. Is there some explanation in his family history? All this righteous indignation…. No, he doesn’t say in so many words that he’s complaining about the existence per se of roads, but everything he seems to hate about the fading and passing of rural lifehe blames on the roads. We wouldn’t have WalMart, we would have the Mom ‘n’ Pop stores instead, if we just didn’t have these roads. Instead, his excuse is that the Gov shouldn’t be paying for them (and I agree, in a more perfect world than this there would still be roads and highways, but privately owned and run). But the fact is that Paul, Ian, and Mr. Ecks are quite right. The man does blame some huge proportion of the conditions he hates on the existence of government roads, but there’s nothing in what he hates about the roads that couldn’t be done just as well if they were private, including providing supply lines for WalMart and the other “big box” stores. Suppose such were the case: would he then still rail against the roads? I’ve never seen him address this question directly, but he sure gives the impression that he hates their existence at least as much as he does their governmental provider.
Julie,
I have no idea whether or not Carson hates roads.
I have no idea whether or not Carson hates Wal-Mart.
What he loves or hates is irrelevant to whether he’s right or wrong in his claim. And his claim, summarized, is:
“Car Culture and the sprawl lifestyle was created by massive government intervention and only survives from massive ongoing government intervention.”
COULD Car Culture and the sprawl lifestyle have been created without massive government intervention?
Maybe, maybe not.
COULD Car Culture and the sprawl lifestyle have been configured in that alternate means of creation so as to not require massive ongoing government intervention for their survival?
Maybe, maybe not.
But what happened, happened. And when it happened, it happened in the way that it happened, not in some other way.
If you want to talk about Wal-Mart, we can. I grew up in southern Missouri, perhaps a thousand feet from one of the early Wal-Marts that Sam Walton built after renting a small plane and scouting out the routes and interchanges of the Interstate Highway System as it was being being built.
The growth of Wal-Mart AS WAL-MART ACTUALLY EXISTED was made possible by the construction of the Interstate Highway System AS THAT CONSTRUCTION ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
If things had been different, things would have been different. But they were how they were, not some other way. No matter how ideologically inconvenient Mr. Marks finds reality, it’s still reality.
Thomas, my point remains. Carson says what he says, and he says it the way he says it; the particular argument we’re discussing hinges on the fact that government-provided roads helped create big-box stores, that these out-competed small Mom ‘n’ Pops, and (by the whole tone and thrust of the piece) that he rues this. [Also he argues (if not here then certainly elsewhere) that the success of these depends on government subsidies in the form of its provision of roads (if nothing else)….] He also indicates displeasure with the “Red State” lifestyle and the Tea Party movement. But here, his main thesis against government-provided roads doesn’t seem to depend much on the fact that they’re way beyond its remit, but rather that he deplores their actually-existing result: The existence of big-box stores, the “car culture,” the (alleged) suburban Red-State lifestyle of cul-de-sacs, split-levels (ugh) and SUV’s. (What, he’s never heard of Scarsdale, Shaker Heights, Winnetka & Highland Park, Malibu? None of these are Red-State, although sometimes Penns. is a swing state, and Chicago & ‘burbs is at least “bounce” as opposed to flyover country.) It is these actual facts of his writing, in this piece anyhow, that argue that what bothers him most isn’t the fact that they are government-provided roads, but rather that they are roads at all; since the same arguments would obviously be pertinent to private roads that had the same deplorable results.
Within any usual meaning of the terms, when Obama says “You didn’t build that” of the executor of some successful project, the statement is false on its face. But taken in context of other statements, elsewhere even were it not in that exact speech, it takes on a different meaning, namely “you didn’t build that ALONE and solely by your own efforts, so you should be expected to give part of it or its proceeds to the society that enabled your success.”
So, one can pick apart what a person says sentence by sentence or word by word, and claim “that’s not what he said!” and PROVE it too, if one ignores tone and the general context of the speech or writing as tacit indicators of position. And, of course, this pick-apart technique can be used either to denounce or defend a given piece.
Julie,
Yes, Kevin derides the Red State/Tea Party “massive state welfarism, but let’s pretend it’s free enterprise” mindset. He doesn’t spend as much time doing that as he does attacking “progressives,” though.
What can I say? We at C4SS are anti-state libertarians and equal opportunity haters of pro-state authoritarians, regardless of whether they describe themselves as “right” or “left.”
I suppose I should take that back: We tend to be a little harder on the statist faux-left, since the authentic left-wing tradition is known as “libertarianism.”
It’s completely false to categorize indiscriminately the people of the so-called “Red States,” let alone the Tea Partiers, as being “pro-state authoritarians.” We might as well say that the people of the U.S. are “pro-state authoritarians” without any qualification (that is, no pointing out that in fact there is a substantial number who are not–such as Messrs. Knapp and, oh, what, Keith Preston for instance). Surely you understand that the Republican Establishment appeals only to a distinctly proper subset of people who end up voting Republican.
Thomas I was not “lying” and I was not “making stuff up”
I was replying to “Contract Feudalism” (at first) and then (later) to what KEVIN POSTS HERE (in this site).
Perhaps you, Thomas, should actually try replying to what KEVIN POSTS ON THIS SITE.
As for “Organisation Theory” – a book you insist that I “lied” about (although I have never reviewed on commented upon it – it is not even in this house, Ian has a copy).
Where in “Organisation Theory” does Kevin say that the Agricultural Revolution was a good thing?
Where in “Organisation Theory” does Kevin say that the Industrial Revolution was a good thing?
Where in “Organisation Theory” does Kevin say that the industrial revolution was caused by economies of scale, private investment and noble inventions (both technological and in how to run a business) NOT by state intervention?
I do not care how many hundreds of pages Kevin spends saying things are FALSE – I am asking you where he says things that are TRUE.
Where does Kevin OPPOSE “Social Justice”?
Where does Kevin OPPOSE “Rational Justice”?
Where does Kevin OPPOSE “Gender Justice”?
Where does Kevin OPPOSE any of this Frankfurt School of Marxism evil?
Thomas in a former a life (before you became the backside of a horse) you were a marine – so I will put the basic matter in terms you should be able to understand.
If someone wrote a book saying that a matchlock musket was GENERALLY a better weapon than an FN FAL would you care how many pages he spent “arguing his case”
The case is WRONG, it is FALSE – it does not matter how many pages the person spends throwing dust.
It is like saying “1+1=16”
I+1 does not equal 16 (regardless of how many pages someone spends “arguing the case” that it does).
1+1 = 2.
The industrial revolution was a good thing (not a bad thing).
Industrialists such as .J. Wedgwood in the 18th century (and big landowners such as the Marquis of Rockingham) were (generally) good guys, not bad guys.
The achievements of people like Jon Huntsman (senior) today are their own (they DID “build that”).
Paul,
Maybe some day we’ll reach all those questions you pose.
The first step down the road toward a productive argument about whethe Kevin Carson is right or wrong about this or that is to stop lying about what Kevin Carson actually says.
Until you do that, I’m simply going to take notice when you lie, publicly out you for lying, and let you bluster to your heart’s content.
I’m willing to have productive arguments with those who earn them by being truthful. Liars get nothing.
Julie – quite correct.
If Sam Walton built his supermarkets near railroad stations (the normal method of interstate transport up to the 1950s) Kevin would still have hated him. The “government roads” thing is a EXCUSE (nothing more), and an envy driven person like Kevin will always find an excuse (as Edmund Burke tried to warn in the Duke of Bedford in “Letter to a Noble Lord” the Duke’s Revolutionary “friends” would find some excuse to rob him, and murder him, if they ever came to power – REGARDLESS of how much support the Duke gave them now).
There is a Walmart (under the name of Asda) in Kettering (although at the other end of town) – there are corner shops within a short walk of it. So the idea that Walmart destroys all the little shops is nonsense.
There is a large Tesco within five minutes walk of where I am writing this – there is also a small general store within five minutes of where I am typing this.
As for where Kevin stands in the conflict between the Tea Party movement and the Occupy movement.
Well I have not got a copy of “Organisation Theory” so I can only judge on the basis of what Kevin posts on this site (I ask Ian to check his copy of “Organisation Theory” for opposition to the “Occupy” vermin, if you wish).
On the basis of what Kevin posts here – Kevin supports the Occupy movement not the Tea Party movement.
In short Kevin is an enemy, not a friend.
Thomas – you are the liar.
Paul,
“I’m rubber, you’re glue, what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you” really only works if you use it early, before it’s been irrefutably established that what Glue said was in fact true.
You don’t even get a “nice try” for that lame maneuver, liar.
Thomas.
Is Kevin an admirer or John Huntsman (senior) – yes or no?
I have no idea. I’ve never hear or read him mention John Huntsman, Sr., nor have I had occasion to ask him about John Huntsman, Sr.
I’m not an admirer of John Huntsman, Sr. I might or might not be if I had ever studied his life in career, but I haven’t. The only fact about John Huntsman, Sr. that has ever come to my attention is that he’s the father of that sniveling little “moderate” social democrat who bears his name with “Jr.” appended.
Thomas you were the one who insisted on talking about “actually existing” “capitalism” – I give you an example of an “actually existing” “capitalist” (I man I have often mentioned on this site before – for years).
And you know nothing about his life and work – and show no interest.
Let me make a guess – about both you and Kevin.
You are not really interested in “actually existing” capitalists (such as Mr Wedgewood) during the industrial revolution.
Neither of you would ever look into their lives to celebrate their work – only to find something to smear them with (so you could clam “they did not build that”).
On Russia Today – a collectivist women (an Occupy movement Red) just finished her “Breaking the Set” show.
The women ended the show with a bit of standard Jew bashing (Israel – boo-hiss). But she started the show with America bashing (American voters think it is good for a Presidential candidate to have served in the military and to believe in God – horror of horrors!).
Then the woman went on to Walmart bashing – war-on-women bullcrap, celebrating the foes of Walmart and on and on…….
The attack on Walmart (from Putin’s lady) was in just about the same terms that Kevin uses – in post-after-post.
Perhaps he should have his own show on “RT” – he would be in his spiritual home.
Paul,
There have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of “actually existing capitalists” of stature over the last 200 years.
I’ve read extensively on some “actually existing capitalists” and little or not at all on others. Among those whom I have read extensively on, there are some I admire (among them Sam Walton).
I’ve been looking back through my records, and can’t seem to find the contract obligating me to share the obsessions of Paul Marks with respect to this or that particular historical figure.
And now for your homework assignment — learn the difference between “taking a guess” and “making shit up.”
“making shit up”? What I have said about Kevin has been accurate (both on “Contract Feudalism” and on the Social Justice evil he posts on this site).
However, I did not peg you for an admirer of Sam Walton.
It would be hard for me NOT to be an admirer of Sam Walton. I grew up in his back yard. Never met him, but saw him once or twice.
Quick true story: I once worked at a boat factory, and for a brief time (before he quit or got fired, being a not very industrious bum) worked with a guy whose immediate previous job had been as a stocker at Wal-Mart.
One day he came careening down an aisle pulling a pallet jack with a bunch of merchandise on it and yelled at an old man in overalls to get the hell out of his way. A few minutes later, the store manager found him, told him his final paycheck was available at the customer service counter, that he was fired and that he was never to enter the store again.
The old man in overalls was Sam Walton. He had a habit of going around and personally checking out his stores without announcing himself. In this particular case, I can reasonably speculate that the reason he was touring THIS store was to decide whether to keep it when its lease expired or replace it with one of the new “Super Centers” that he started rolling out a couple of years later (the latter is what happened).
Walton was a genius. At the time the Interstate Highway System was being built, he was not a guy with the kind of political pull to affect that decision. He merely EXPLOITED the decision, and I have no reason to blame him for it. He realized two things:
1) With a reliable new road network capable of carrying lots of heavy traffic, he could support a large number of stores from a small number of warehouses; and
2) That that same reliable new road network would result in towns along it becoming area “shopping centers.” Where before people who lived in rural areas would do most of their shopping at small general stores within a couple of miles of home and reserve “trips to town” for special occasions, now they would be far more likely to hop on the freeway and drive 10-30 miles at least once a week.
So he got on a plane, overflew northern Arkansas and southern Missouri, picked out the towns likeliest to become such “area shopping centers,” and bought or leased property near the freeway exits to put his stores in.
When I was a kid, Wal-Mart was just beginning to be a dominating regional chain.
When I was 10 years old, it was not uncommon for my family to order an item by mail from Sears Roebuck or Montgomery Ward, then go down to the little local hole-in-the-wall offices they ran to pick it up a week later.
By the time I was 20, Sears and Ward were gone from my home town. If you wanted it, there was a 95% chance you could get it at Wal-Mart.
By the time I was 30, the first crop of Wal-Mart employees who had been offered the opportunity to buy stock in the company a little at a time from their paychecks (I think the minimum was $5 a week) were getting ready to retire, a number of them as millionaires. I knew a lady who had worked there the last 20 years of her career as a cashier. She retired with six figures worth of stock.
Are there things I don’t like about Wal-Mart? Sure.
But it’s not about whether I admire Sam Walton or don’t admire him, and it’s not about whether I like Wal-Mart or don’t like Wal-Mart.
Sam Walton made good, smart business decisions and built a business in the circumstances that existed. I don’t hold that against him, nor do I doubt that he would have made good, smart business decisions and built a business in other circumstances.
But in a free market, that business would have been built differently than it was in the un-free market in which a huge state subsidy made the decisions he DID make possible. That’s what Carson and I agree on, and I don’t really care whether he loves or hates Wal-Mart because the facts are the facts are the facts.
A lot of interesting background information in your last comment – and not how “Russia Today” presents Walmart.
Of course distances in Britain are much smaller – the big stores and the small stores have always been within in a short walk of each other (so the corner shops know how to compete – what niches to go for).
And mail order has always been a smaller thing here.
As for adapting to the circumstances one finds oneself – I agree up to a point.
If the main means of transport is road – then one builds the store near the main roads. If it is rail – then one builds the store near the station.
However. (and here horror of horrors – I actually agree with the people I normally attack) there comes a point where one has to say “I could make a lot of money from this particular bit of statism – but it is a step too far, I am going to walk away”.
I am dirt poor – but I am not sorry that I said that to myself.
For example, the financial markets are too rigged (too statist) to be involved in.
One has to be able to look at the person who stares back in the mirror.
Yes, one has to be able to look at the person who stares back in the mirror.
I can’t say for certain that Walton never did anything morally reprehensible. These days, Wal-Mart is sometimes known to get pet politicians to use “eminent domain” to take land it wants to build stores on, to lobby against any reduction of the subsidy collected from small passenger vehicle drivers to make it profitable for large trucks to use the roads, etc. I don’t know if that was the case when Walton was still alive and running things.
But from a big picture point of view — the basic model he built his empire on — I don’t see any reason for condemnation. He didn’t go bribe Eisenhower to build that road network. He just saw what was happening and figured out the best way to turn it to his — and to his customers’ — advantage.
I cannot speak for Carson, but personally I have no urge to forcibly dispossess the owners of subsidized industries. I just want to cut off the subsidies (by abolishing the state).
If the previously subsidized industries can compete in a free market where they have to bear the full costs of their operations instead of large portions of those costs being secreted in taxes, more power to them. If they can’t, they’ll find different business models or they’ll go out of business. Which is exactly as it should be.
Fair enough Thomas.
Agreed.
I concur.
“Left” is an interesting one – as it can mean socialist and it can mean anti socialist.
Fred Bastiat sat on the left hand side of the French National Assembly and the socialists certainly did not want him there. But his argument was that “left” meant radical change and he wanted radical change (just the opposite sort of radical change from what they wanted).
The Progressives – G. Kolko argued that they were the tools of big business (and some libertarians took up that line – much to Kolko’s amusement, he being a socialist) however, it is historically false (it just is not true that the Progressives were the tools of big business).
The Tea Party movement – anti big government, but not anti big government enough.
And it is not just Thomas who finds it frustrating – I do as well (and I am the moderate sell-out type).
For example listen to someone complain (for what seems like hours) about socialist propaganda fed to their children at school.
“Well then let us end tax funding – and you can choose what school you send your children to, or educate them at home”.
Look of total horror – “oh no – we could not do that”.
Ditto so many other points of principle.
Even when there are real world examples (for example New Zealand showing that the sky does NOT fall in with an end to farming subsidies) it is an uphill struggle – very hard slogging.
At least with some people – not all.
By the way these comments are coming to me out of sequence – I only just got Thomas’ reply to Julie.
Or perhaps it just seems that way to what is left of my brain – I am dog tired, and my stupid neck has failed again.
Paul,
I’ve been getting comments by email out of sequence too, so it’s not just you.
When Louis convened the Estates General, the political class (the first and second estates — the clergy of the “Established” church and the aristocracy) gathered on the Right and the productive class (everyone else, from common laborers to skilled laborers to the emerging bourgeois — traders and shopkeepers) gathered on the left.
Religious “Establishment” doesn’t carry the same ominous image now, in America as it did in Europe, then, but American left-libertarians hearken back via Comte and Dunoyer to that basic division: The Political Class on the Right, the Productive Class on the Left.
Although they did not identify themselves as Man of the Left and Man of the Right per se, that division not yet having hardened in political taxonomy, another way of looking at it is Thomas Paine as Man of the Left (although he did side with the Girondins rather than the Montagnards in France and was only saved execution due to an error and then Thermidor) and Edmund Burke as Man of the Right. American left-libertarians are far more likely to name Paine than Burke as one of their inspirations.
You’re not the only one who is frustrated by the Tea Party movement’s fits and starts, Paul. But look at the uphill battles we have to fight. The Rep. Estab. has the $ and the people-networks, and is full of people who want to be in the Inner Circle and many of whose aims are the same as the Proggies’. In fact by now I’m beginning to see talk amongst the more elite right-punditry (not that I have much use for most of them) about the Progressive Right.
I hear that Indiana, which refused to adopt Common Core, instead put together Common Core v. 1.0.1, which is so close to the original that some of the advisors on the project warned that the drafters might be accused of plagiarizing from the original.
–This might seem to strengthen Thomas’s point. But if the money power (motivators) and the status-quo (result: inertia) are on the side of the evil or stupid or utterly ignorant folks who promote such B.S., it’s hard for those who are more level-headed or who intuitively reject it.
. . .
If people really want to see Progressivism and big-state-ism and authoritarianism defeated, they had better shout for all they’re worth against this doctrine of so-called “Rational Ignorance,” with its implicit message that political activism is a fool’s errand because “the chance that your vote will make a difference is practically zero,” wherefore trying to get people to vote at all is senseless.
And Star Parker is right. If the Right won’t engage the Negro voters one-to-one and on their own ground, and the same with the Puerto Rican and Latino U.S. citizens, we will lose. Whereas the Dems/Libruls/Proggies/Leftists/Socialists/Communists court them as though they were Cinderellas to a man (and, of course, woman).
It just makes me sad that if children must go to schools and have something be required reading, that it isn’t Bastiat. If I’d been exposed to him as a child, it would have saved me all those years believing in nonsense about economics and their relation to the State. I learned so much guff at school, 95% of it forgotten. If they’d only taken one lesson away from religious studies, futile sports, or the French I never learned to speak to teach the Broken Window Fallacy, I’d have been much improved.
Ah well.
No Thomas – the division in the French “National Assembly” (technically it was an unlawful assembly – as non one had been elected to a “National Assembly” they had been elected to an “Estates General” which was supposed to sit in three houses, each with an equal voice) was not between the “productive classes” and “non productive classes”.
Some of the clergy and aristocracy (if you count them as non-productive) sat on the left (indeed most of them sat on the right) – but most of the rest on the left were lawyers, officials and other such (certainly “unproductive”) There were very few factory owners or working farmers in the “National Assembly” (on either side).
Both Edmund Burke and John Adams looked for the big farmers and businessmen who were so important in both British and American politics – and could not find many (on either side). In France running your landed estates as a business (as in England) tended to be considered “low” behaviour (someone like the Marquis of Rockingham was perfectly normal in England – in France he would have been considered a “low” money grubber) and what factory owners and big traders there were in France tended to “keep their heads down” (a tragic mistake).
As for the polices of the Revolution – there was one good day. August 4th 1789 – when a lot of old taxes and restrictions were swept away (although one should not over egg this – as, for example, the religious restrictions in France had already been abolished, years before by Louis XVI, as had torture).
However, after August 4th 1789 it all went wrong – largely because the new government showed no interest in controlling government SPENDING.
Indeed it kept INCREASING the number of officials and so on (perhaps because this was the “class” that most of the new government came from).
Each petty (and not so petty) official viewed himself as one of Plato’s Guardians or as Rousseau’s “Law Giver”.
For people in Britain and the United States the popularity of Rousseau among the French “left” was a clear warning side – although Jefferson choose to ignore it (as he ignored all other empirical evidence that in the way of his a priori assumptions).
The key date is 1790 – when (to deal with the fiscal crises – at a time of PEACE) the French government decided to plunder the Church and introduce FIAT MONEY.
It is often forgotten that it was the decision to introduce fiat money (and to plunder-the-Church) that got Edmund Burke to write “Reflections……” (the threat to the King and Queen was a secondary consideration for him).
It was obvious (to those who were not wearing rose tinted glasses) that the new government was no friend of property – and that the Church would not be the last to be plundered (it would be anybody those in power disliked).
As soon enough the trials started (with the verdicts in advance – of course).
As a Roman landowner said when he spotted his name on a list of “traitors to Rome” that Sulla’s supporters put up in Rome thousands of years before……..
“I see my vineyards have informed on me”.
Short version.
If “the left” means “a bunch of Rousseau reading officials and lawyers” then RUN.
Ian – Bastiat.
Of course he argued he was the best friend of the very manufacturers who denounced him.
His reasoning (as you know) went as follows…….
You hate me for wanting to end the subsidies and trade protection the government gives you – BUT……..
Remember that if it is O.K. for the government to give stuff to you (wealthy people) what is to stop the government giving stuff to EVERYONE ELSE?
And who is going to pay for that?
YOU ARE.
Some businessmen like a big active government – because they think they will benefit from it. But it always ends badly.
After all – that is the history of California Which now has the highest taxes on “the rich” and on “big business” of any State – and the worst regulations.
Once you let government grow (hoping to benefit from sweetheart contracts and the like) it will turn round and EAT YOU.
Bastiat was the best friend of the very businessmen who denounced him – but they were too dumb to see it.
If you want a government that is big enough to give you what you want – it is big enough to take your stuff (and order you about) and that is exactly what it will do.
As for “left” and “right”.
Bastiat lost the war of definitions – and the socialists won that war.
A “left wing” State in the American context is a State such as California, New York or Minnesota (a big government State).
And a “right wing” State in the American context is a State such as South Dakota or Texas (a relatively smaller government State).
And in Europe a “left wing” country is somewhere like modern France (big government) and a “right wing” country is somewhere like Liechtenstein (small government).
This is NOT how Bastiat wanted language to develop – but it is how language has developed.
I do not think there is any chance of turning language around – and calling Progressive Presidents who made government bigger, such as Woodrow Wilson or Franklin Roosevelt “right wing” and Presidents who have made government smaller, such as Martin Van Buren or Calvin Coolidge, “left wing”.
Language just did not develop that way – Bastiat lost the war of definitions and the socialists won that war.
South Dakota is not going to be called a “left wing State” and California is not going to be called a “right wing State”.
Wilson, Roosevelt, van Buren and Calvin Coolidge were all right-wing.
The furthest left an American president has ever been is the center-right.
“Wilson, Roosevelt, van Buren and Calvin Coolidge were all right-wing”.
Then the term “right-wing” is totally meaningless Thomas.
By the way – were Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot also “right wing”?
How about Canning and Robinson (two British Prime Ministers from the 1820s) were they “right wing” also?
How about the cat who sometimes visits my garden – right wing also?
If the term “right wing” applies to Woodrow Wilson and to Calvin Coolidge – then it is meaningless.
Julie – your comment has just reached me.
Yes the fake “end to Common Core” in Indiana was depressing – but a least people spotted it was a fake, Michelle M. (and others )were all over it.
It was especially depressing as the Governor there (and the last Governor) does not have a bad record.
The budget is balanced (more or less) and taxes are being cut – and the Right to Work law (ending people being FORCED into unions) has been restored – having been repealed back in 1965.
I think the “end to Common Core” example shows how much politicians are in the hands of the administrators.
Anthony de Jasay (“The State” and many other good works) is correct.
The state (the government) has its own interests and its own agenda – quite separate to any “economic class” or the will of elected politicians.
For example say one pushes for a commitment to “zero increase in the Council Tax” (which means, as the Council Tax is measured in money not as a percentage, CUTS in the tax each year as rising prices push on) one finds this policy has been turned into the “three zeros”.
The “three zeros” being – zero increase in the Council Tax (i.e. a CUT in the tax each year) – but with “zero cuts in front line services” and “zero reductions in aid to voluntary groups” added on.
Now those two policies may be good things or bad things (that is not my point), my point is WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
They did not come from elected politicians – they came from the administrative structure itself.
Much like the Governor of Indiana.
“Get us out of Common Core”.
“Certainly Sir – we will come up with a new system”.
And the “new” thing turns out to be ………..
Common Core.
And “of course” – Agenda 21 (on land use) marches on.
This “paranoid conspiracy theory” (Newsweek) is actually hard policy in many areas all over the Western World.
Yet most local politicians have never heard of it – let alone know they voted for it.
When one rubber stamps a big policy document (“we have just put your policy in the correct formal language – to make sure it is accord with the law and national policy”) one is rubber stamping Agenda 21 (on local land use) – without even knowing it.
Because it (de facto) is in the administrative structure – of both national governments and local ones.
The state has its own policies – totally independent of “economic class” or the ideas of elected politicians.
The policies slip past people – so “packaged” that one often does not even notice them.
Yes, Paul, exactly right on every point. So the Administrative State is also the Bureaucratic State. (You did SF in your youth, I trust? Murray Leinster wrote a wonderful short story — I mean, he got the idea exactly right — called “Plague.” The point of which I won’t tell you if you haven’t read it. It was one of the ones that got reprinted here & there. Anyway, brass hats came under heavy fire.
I wish I could remember where I saw things. I read somewhere, just in the last few days, that Newsweek, which had been failing and was at death’s door, was bought by some communist or Communist or similar outfit or other. It intended to follow the associated line in its articles and op-eds.
I didn’t think any program within the bounds of present practical reality (currently, i.e. before I shuffle off) could possibly scare me (or outrage me) more than Agenda 21.
Then they came out with Common Core….
Paul,
Check your premises.
The essential characteristic of the right wing is that it is conservative — as William F. Buckley, Jr. put it, its essential function is to throw itself down across the railroad tracks of history, screaming “stop.” Once the American political establishment solidified, it became by definition impossible for an American president to be anything BUT right-wing.
Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot, on the other hand, were not the titular leaders of firmly established states, but intent on breaking established states and establishing new ones. They clearly weren’t rightists. They were evil and misguided — as opposed to libertarian — leftists.
Yes Julie – but politicians must not allow themselves to think it lets them off the hook, one CAN reduce the size and scope of government (if one makes the effort). And one is still to blame if one does not.
Also administrators (even spooks) are still human beings with moral responsibilities.
“I will not do that” is always an option – and one must be prepared to take the consequences.
Even in the most extreme circumstances (such as “O.K. what street corner do you want me to stand on so you can take me out without causing a mess”) there is always a CHOICE.
Thomas – if someone on the “right” wants to keep things the same, then people like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and LBJ were NOT “right” they were “left” – as they wanted to change things and they did change things. Government has massively grown – and that is what these people wanted it to grow.
Of course “Teddy” Roosevelt and his admirer Richard Nixon also wanted to change things(for government to do new things) – to “be remembered”. That is the point of a Progressive – to change things.
And (yes) people who want the government to do less would also (by this definition) be on the “left”.
About the only recent President I can think of who did not change things and did not want to, would be G. Ford.
That makes President Ford “on the right” – and everyone else “on the left”.
Both Bushes were certainly “on the left” – both wanted to be the “Education President” and all the rest of it.
Paul,
Yes, people like FDR were willing to make minor changes around the fringes of things in order to preserve the existing system. They were more center-right than hard-right.
“minor” changes – and the changes did not “preserve” “the system” – they undermined it (especially the new schemes under LBJ). For example to say that Franklin Roosevelt was “centre right” is nuts.
You are just wrong Thomas – historically wrong (the expansion of the Federal government from 2% of output a century ago to around 30% now is not “minor”). And economically wrong – government interventions (such as the Great Society schemes do not “preserve” things they destroy them).
For example Detroit was not “preserved” by Progressive polices put in place from the early 1960s onwards (Detroit was very much the model cities for Progressives) – it was destroyed by them.
By the way – by your definition any person who wants to change things regardless of whether they want to make government bigger or smaller, is “left”.
That makes me “left”, but also (for example) some Red “left” – even though we do not agree on anything (other than we want to change things – in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS).
The definition is useless.
Paul,
The Socialist Party presidential candidate went from about 250k votes in the 1928 election to nearly 900k votes in the 1932 election, to 187k votes in the 1936 election.
This was following three decades in which Socialist and Communist candidates had won numerous political offices and during a period when revolution from the state-left was not an impossibility.
FDR saved capitalism — from both the Reds and the free-market advocates.
Franklin Roosevelt did not “save capitalism”.
His policies (like those of Herbert “The Forgotten Progressive” Hoover) prolonged the depression.
Had he (or Hoover) acted as Warren Harding did after the 1921 bust – then the economy would have in recovery within six months.
As for the Socialist Party – there best showing was in 1912.
In 1932 they got about 2 or 3 per cent of the vote.
I repeat – Franklin Roosevelt did not “save” anything, his ignorant (and often contradictory) economic polices promoted chaos.
Just as those of Hoover (massively higher taxes especially at the top rates, more government spending, big taxes on imports, desperate efforts to PREVENT wages adjusting to the depression) did.
What should have been done is what Warren Harding did in response to the 1921 bust (the collapse of the World War One credit bubble – just as 1929 was the collapse of the Benjamin Strong credit bubble).
Taxes and government spending should have been CUT – and (most importantly of all) prices (including wages) should have been allowed to adjust to the bust.
Paul,
In 1921, Harding acted in an at least nominally free market manner, as opposed to a capitalist (state-regulated mixed industrial economy) manner.
FDR ran as something of a free-marketeer in 1932, proposing to cut federal government spending by 25% and so forth. But once elected he decided to go with capitalism instead of free markets.
Thomas you are using your own (or Kevin’;s) definition of “capitalism”.
By your definition the Socialist party platform of 1928 (as Milton Friedman was fond of pointing out – most of it has been enacted) was “capitalist”.
And “capitalism” (by your definition) is “left wing” – because it means lots of change.
By your definition both Warren Harding (who cut taxes and government spending) and Franklin Roosevelt (who massively increased taxes and government spending – and regulations) were “left wing” – because they changed things.
By the way – your description of Franklin Roosevelt as “on the right” makes no sense, even by your own definition of words.
“Thomas you are using your own (or Kevin’s) definition of ‘capitalism’.”
Actually I am using the definition coined by Thackeray, popularized by Marx, understood as definitive by the vast majority of human beings and codified in _The Dictionary of Free-Market Economics_ (by Fred Foldvary, Edward Elgar Publishing, 1998): “A mixed, state-regulated industrial economy.”
“A mixed state-regulated industrial economy” – what does that actually mean?
Does it include both the United States of 1912 when total Federal spending was about 2% (two) per cent of GDP and Federal regulations could be contained in a few volumes AND now – when Federal spending is around 30% (thirty) per cent of GDP and you would need a large building to contain all Federal regulations?
But your calling Franklin Roosevelt “centre right” still makes no sense – none at all.
For example the new Mexican government (which is busy increasing taxes and government spending) is hardly “centre right” – nor is the government of Chile (which is doing the same thing) or the government of Brazil (ditto).
So how can Franklin Roosevelt (who also increased taxes and government spending) be “centre right” – his polices (which included arbitrary and CONTRADICTORY regulations) did not “save capitalism” , they were just a mess (a total mess) that kept changing as different New Dealers got the President’s ear (for wildly different and contradictory ideas).
The basic point of the New Deal period in the 1930s was that there was no stability – no one could predict what crazy scheme the government would do next (contradicting its previous schemes) – no business could plan, could invest for the future (as everything might be totally different the next day).
“Does it include both the United States of 1912 when total Federal spending was about 2% (two) per cent of GDP and Federal regulations could be contained in a few volumes AND now – when Federal spending is around 30% (thirty) per cent of GDP and you would need a large building to contain all Federal regulations?”
Yes — because the definition of the word has nothing to do with the amount of government spending.
It’s a Marxist term referring to a specific stage in Marx’s theory of history. That’s one reason I’m not a capitalist … because I’m not a Marxist.
“mixed” – mixed what?
“regulated” – by the rule of law, or by arbitrary (and endlessly expanding) regulations?
The definition makes no sense.
About the only word that makes any sense is “industrial”.
This would mean (for example) that the Britain of Prime Minister Sir Robert Walpole was not “capitalist” because it did not have many factories.
But that the Britain of Prime Minister Lord Salisbury was “capitalist” – because it had lots and lots of factories.
However, as Sir Robert Walpole and Lord Salisbury had similar limited government opinions (and Britain was a limited government country under both) I do not see what use the word “capitalist” is.
Thomas – in which case the word “capitalism” is useless.
As for Karl Marx – he also thought that “feudalism” was an economic system (actually it is a legal and military system – perhaps a key period in its creation was the weakness of Charles the Bald of France that led him to make legal concessions that no Roman Emperor would have dreamed of, and which no of Charles the Bald’s successors were ever able to fully reverse) , as in the “feudal mode of production” (there is no such thing).
There can be serfdom without feudalism and feudalism without serfdom.
The late Roman Empire (from Diocletian onwards) was dominated by serfdom (peasants forbidden to leave the land, craftsmen forbidden to leave their trades and places of work – and so on) yet it was not feudal.
And many counties of Feudal England had few (if any serfs) – the whole institution of serfdom broke down (in England) with the Black Death and so on (but many areas had few serfs even before this).
If one defines “capitalism” as Karl Marx did – defining value in terms of labour and claiming that “capitalists” “exploit” “workers” by extracting “surplus value” then no such system exists (or has ever existed).
It reminds of the Marxist effort to fit (for example) Norway into their scheme.
There never was a time when farming was communal or when farms were equal) – so no “Primitive Communism”.
At no time were most of the population slaves – so no “slave mode of production” (actually that was also true of Roman Britain,, although there were most slaves here than there ever were in Norway, – indeed of most of the Roman provinces, slaves were a minority even in Italy, the most slave ridden area of the Empire).
And at no time was there much “serfdom” either.
Yet (somehow) there are Marxists in in Norway – even though they live in a living refutation of Marxism.
And (as you know) there are American Marxists – and so on.
As for the specific concessions that Charles the Bald made.
Accepting the independence of the Church (Valentinian had come close to that – but no other Emperor) – this made the Western Church fundamentally different from the Eastern Church (made it an independent power in society – not the handmaiden of the state).
Accepting (indeed formalising and encouraging) land holders to have private armed forces (and castles and so) and a say in the councils of the Realm (shades of John Jay’s “those who own the land should rule the land” – although it could be argued that this only fully existed in England from 1688 to 1832). As only the local landowner was on the spot to resist both Viking and Muslim raiders (and Charles the Bald also desperately needed their support against his own family).
For a thousand years the nobility of France (the landowners – the only people who could really afford the armour and horses) defended the Realm against all threats (and from the front – violent death was normal). Only when (for example) the “Sacred Blue” evolved from being a group of knights sworn (by God) to defend the King till the blue sashes they wore were turned red by their own blood, into being a dining club (I am not kidding – translate “Sacred Blue” into French) was it clear that the system was doomed (indeed “enlightened” Kings and ministers had done their best to undermine if – for a very long time before 1789).
And accepting (as an “old right”) that a King did not have a right to take a “fief” of land from one family to give to another one.
Which made (paradoxically) the de facto private land ownership much more real in France (and elsewhere in “Feudal” Europe – from Britain to Poland) than the official private land ownership of the Roman Empire – where an Emperor could take what he liked (as the law was whatever he said it was).
Kings such as Charles the Great were trying to recreate the Roman Empire (with unlimited power for the ruler), Kings after Charles the Bald had lost the chance to do that.
In Islamic society things evolved very differently.
Rulers became absolute – and private land ownership (indeed private anything ownership) was at the mercy of their whims.
This can be even seen in buildings.
The home of a rich man in the West looks impressive – it was meant to (even if he was not a noble).
In the East the home of a rich man is normally very plain and humble on the outside – so not to attract the attention of the ruler.
Last point ……
In old Scots law – a “noble” was simply a land holder (regardless of where the money came from to buy the estate) no grant of nobility from the King was required (not even for the first generation).
That is why Dr Johnson was puzzled by his friend Boswell being treated as a noble in Scotland (addressed by the name of his estate and so on). Boswell was not an aristocrat……
The law had changed – but Scots attitudes remained influenced by the old “Feudal” law.
Had Johnson ever bought an estate in Scotland he would have been regarded (at least by non lawyers) as a noble – even though he was a poor boy from Lichfield who had once been so badly off he could not afford shoes.