|
adog262 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Neo-liberalism is a dangerous idea indeed. I have not found one liberal who would promise low taxes and low government spending. All these liberal whackos want is our money in our wallets.
wikicross (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
PS.They did protest in the 50's and 60's. Just check out the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, or the "Prague Spring" in 1968.
wikicross (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I wasn't trying to criticize center-left positions, I'm just saying that she swings a lot to the left if she considers the old failed communist regimes as being a model for fairness and equality, or on how the left should go around doing it's business. And indeed, there was much economic mismanagement in those states, as predicted by Friedrich von Hayek by the way:). The cry for freedom was more on the intellectuals side. Although, the rest of the people were no better of.
kewlkewl12 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
exactly. no one is trying to dismantle capitalism here, but neo-liberalism and its mind-boggling faith in the invisible hands. There is a third way, in which the government intervenes to provide a workable space for capitalism to flourish. The government is still a necessary institution unlike many of the far right believes.
kewlkewl12 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I'm not a communist, but giving the amount of people killed and tortured in capitalist friendly regimes, I think it a bit hypocritical to accuse communism of crimes and yet absolve neo-liberals of bloodletting.
Secondly, it wasn't so much the cry for freedom but a cry from economic mismanagement that was the case in the communist world. Why did they not protest as such during the boom times of the 50s and 60s?
wikicross (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. He was referring to economic crisis."
I'm not sure exactly why, but whenever I hear that, Barack Obama springs to mind.
wikicross (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yeah, it was a war with real casualties.I mean, just think of the millions imprisoned or killed in communist regimes, just for speaking out their thoughts. This is the paradise she invites us to.
The Left wasn't defeated mainly by capitalism, it was defeated by the peoples cry for freedom, that was what the euphoria back then was all about! Now though, as the memory of the Soviet Union slips away, the Left is becoming strong again.
HappyDuder43 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Read the book then comment on the thesis. Look at Chile and the way the radical privatization in conjunction with violence and torture under Pinochet benefited our markets back in the 70s. China is not relevant to what she is saying because they are socialist not capitalist. She is referencing China only in the context that world events were influencing public opinion about milton friedaman's ideas about capitalism.
alc2748 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Please tell us what shock caused China's and India's transition to a market economy. The state socialist regimes simply saw their system wasn't working. Thanks to embracing market economies, currently 70 million people per year worldwide are escaping poverty about 40% from China and India. There has been no external boogie man coersing these changes. The coersion occurs in leftist regimes controlling people's lives and telling them how they should help their fellow man. What arrogance.
adog262 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
That is true, the government should not be doing surpluses anymore, or at least they should lower them. It was necessary for the country during the 1930's, but it isn't needed anymore.
However,sometimes interference is needed by the government to promote commerce. If every farmer had an attitude and just grew crops everywhere in the land, wouldn't that interfere with landowners trying to build restaurants?
Complete capitalism does have its flaws, though it is better than any other systems. |
