Tenets of the political right?

Yomama

There is an argument that has been set out here several times that corporatism comes about because the market isn’t free enough.

I’d say, don’t get fooled again.

The reality is that any move toward free market principles strengthens the hands of wealth and if that route continues to be taken wealth gets strong enough to corrupt the system to its own wishes.

To me the ‘free market’ model always seemed like a lie, a con game meant to fool the gullible. This was because it proponents seem to be claiming that they were a complete model that could deal with boom or bust, when in fact it wasn’t anything of the sort, it was in fact not even half a model, it wasn’t very good in boom times (except for wealth) and didn’t have anyway of dealing with busts.

That is why when the neo-liberal model inevitably fails, Keynesian ideas are brushed off and used. All the supposed supporters of neo-liberal ideas like Nixon, Reagan, Bush and many others all turned to Keynesian ideas when the free market ones failed.

So you end up with the untenable – Keynesian ideas in the low periods meaning the general population pays for the recovery and neo-liberal ideas in the up time which not only create the conditions for a down turn to happen but also means that wealth gains the profits and the general population gain little.

So why did such a bad model gain prominence?

It was funded and promoted. It opponents failures were screamed loudly its own failures were white washed over or spined to look like others failures (the old chestnut being that failure was due to the system not being ‘free’ enough) while even the tiniest success on its part were trumpeted as a triumphs.

(try reading ‘A brief history of neoliberalism’ or ‘The shock doctrine’ for more details)

Now some argue that some strands of ‘free market’ thinking were always about creating a corporatist system but others are pure but that doesn’t seem to fit in with the history and it certainly doesn’t explain why there are still many on the right who cling passionately to free market ideas.

I think many people became corrupted along the way just as the system was, but the problem wasn’t the type of ‘free market’ solution; it was the free market solution.

Because all free market systems favour wealth, the freer a ‘market system’ becomes the more wealth takes over power until a tipping point is reached and that’s when wealth re-orders things to its own interests and if left unchecked forms a tyranny of the wealthy.

So in fact there never has been a totally and completely ‘free market’ because long before that could be achieved wealth has taken over and taken control, subverting the levers of government to do its bidding.

As observed in ‘The Predator State’ by James K. Galbraith about wealth’s recent behaviour
Quote:
What did the new class - endowed with vast personal income, freed from the corporation, and otherwise left to the pursuit of its own social position - set out to do in political terms? The experience of the past decade permits a very simple summary explanation: they set out to take over the state and to run it - not for any ideological project but simply in the way that would bring them, individually and as a group, the most money, the least disturbed power, and the greatest chance of rescue should something go wrong. That is, they set out to prey on the existing institutions of the American regulatory and welfare system.

Oh wealth and it’s cronies still claim that a ‘free market’ is what they want and what would ‘really make things work’ properly. You only have to look at all those well financed free market think tanks and well paid lobbyists still out there and unbelievably still being listened to and taken seriously even when what they have been claiming for has only ever resulted in wealth becoming more wealthy and powerful and the supposed ‘freer’ system coming more under there control and corrupted to their interests.

The mirage of a real ‘free market’ is a trap set up by wealth to ensnare the gullible.

Because take that road and long before the destination is ever reached the real drivers take a fork to somewhere completely different.

*

 

I very much disagree – the type of right wing thinking that seems to define ‘libertarianism’ in the US would only make the rich and powerful, richer and more powerful.

It’s such an obvious dead end that I’m surprised people fall for it.


*

 

You all raise such good points!

First off, I agree with you Skyle.

I agree, but, when you look at individual provinces, the ones that are most free to private ownership, are the most sucessful.

 

Sadhu


So can you actually address the criticisms raised?

*

So as I’ve said, to you it doesn’t matter what kind of regime is in place as long as it is ‘free market’ in nature?

 

You are not wrong Gardener!

 

i'd say libertarians have the right idea because i think most of their thinking isn't actually that right-wing 'libertarianism' of the u.s., but its more like the motion of anarchy. They just don't want to be associated with 'street punks' and that kind of radical thinking, and that's from what i've seen in people i know. those people seem to fear anarchy, and it should be feared as long as there is money involved. people imagine one business owning everything kinda like wall-e. yes that'll happen! thats why more people need to adopt the belief in the resource-based economy. what it basically is, is anarchy, without money, with technology. enough technology to spread the resources in an intelligent manner using facts and science.
when i try to explain it to people, everyone always claim that its communism. NO! its anarchy! what libertarians believe is that government should be out of our lives. even to the extent that libertarianism supports open borders because their problem with immigration is welfare babies and such, basically giving free things out. i'd say that mentality is the closest to the purest thinking i've ever heard besides the RBE thinkers.

 

Libertarianism in not anarchism. There's a difference between small government and no government. There's also a different between idealism libertarianism and pragmatic libertarianism

 

Boguskyle

This is what I’ve been saying, the problem as I see it is that in the US ‘libertarianism’ has become dominated by right wing ideas (money based free market, and a weak government). But what is seen as left leaning ‘libertarianism’ is to me just plain anarchy (post money and government society based on equality, co-operation and consensus).

It seems to me that some on the right are trying to ‘hijack’ libertarianism, as a way of claiming they are ‘not of the right’. Many have come here claiming they are not ‘of the left or right but libertarians’ who then go on to push a right wing viewpoint and agenda.

Neo-cons fall, who’ll rise on the right?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=333692&f=36

I recommend reading ‘Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism by Peter Marshall

Here is an extract -

The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=2266805&postcount=10