Ah, history will be the final judge...but who will judge history? Which ideas are in the "dustbin of history", preserved only by those guttersnipe thinkers who find truth in officially discarded concepts... and which ideas sit upon the mantle, nobly looking down upon those intellectual guardians of what the comfortable classes call "reality"?
The Times recently ran two illuminating pieces in this regard. The first was a yet another look at Milton Friedman’s work – a kind of half-hearted attempt by the “paper of record” to recognize the general world-wide rejection of free-market absolutism…although in the end, the article leaves us with the feeling that Friedman’s beautiful truth – that the “market”, on its own (read: those with economic power) will always function more effectively than an economy subject to government oversight and regulation - will in the end prevail. Poor Milton, the article suggests, would be filled with sorrow to see, after a few little economic storms, how quickly the world resorts to government interference.
Well, to hell with that. From the beginning, free-market doctrine was no more than a throwback to an earlier stage of capitalism, when crafty and unscrupulous elites erected massive fortunes on the backs of millions, and finally drove their own economic system into the ground…to a time before capitalism itself was saved by more intelligent and far-seeing leaders. The application of this “neo-liberalism” from the 70’s onward has caused untold suffering around the world, while leading to greater accumulations of wealth (and, importantly, media power) in the US, Europe, and among the tiny elites of developing countries. And finally it has come home to roost in Friedman’s home country, as first seen in the savings and loan scandal of the 80’s, driven clearly home by the atrocity of New Orleans during and after Katrina, and finally convincing even the Wall Street Journal types that uh, ok, government intervention was needed, now, to stave off a complete financial collapse. Free-market discipline for the mass of citizens, indeed, but instant government bail-out when the financial elite fuck up, which they inevitably do…
In short, it is quite difficult to understand how anyone at this point can still accept Friedman’s basic view. It simply goes against logic, common sense and repeated experience throughout history. Economic power, when left to itself, serves its own interests. And why not? That is indeed its purpose and goal – to increase itself, as fast as possible and to the greatest possible extent. Good arguments can be made that a corporation is not acting properly when it makes decisions based on any other criteria than that of the maximization of its profit, of the value of its shares (and of course of the pornographic remuneration amounts to its chief executives). Corporate social responsibility, corporate spending on “culture”, corporate charity, etc., corporate self-policing in terms of the social impact of its operations (fair pay to employees, workplace safety, local investment, environmental responsibility, financial prudence, etc.) – all of this makes sense only if these activities somehow reflect on the bottom line. And thus, we see what we see – a world in which humanity holds the key to universal well-being through reason, technology and cooperation, yet a world that plays host to massive unnecessary suffering, poverty, exploitation and injustice. The unfettered (or less-than-effectively-regulated) “free market” is driving us directly over the edge at breakneck speed. And one has to have those ideological blinders firmly locked in place to not see this…
What could possibly account for the willful wearing of such blinders?...one quite useful explanation can be found, if we are willing to go back to that “dustbin of history”…or as that haughty imbecile who also appears in the Times, William Kristol, put it the other day, to a book “that now must lie, unopened and un-remarked upon, on an awful lot of rec-room bookshelves.” He is, of course, referring to Marx, the memory of whom he hilariously resurrects when addressing Obama’s supposed elitism (old cold-warriors never die, they just get more and more absurd). Quickly taking the cue and acting on ideological reflex, Kristol equates Obama’s comment on how economically oppressed citizens “cling to guns or religion” with Marx’s famous “religion is the opiate of the people” line. Fantastic. Tacking Obama to the (albeit quite accurate) words of the preacher of his church (what the fuck?), and linking Obama with an ex-member of the Weatherman…hmmm, you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing here…when all else fails, might as well red-bait the guy…even 20 years after the end of the cold war. For Christ sakes, have they no shame? Well, uh, no. They don’t. And the egregious Hillary is as bad or worse than the Republicans on the matter.
One looks upon all of this, at the state of political discourse in the U.S., and is simply dumbfounded. Why has the “official line”, or those parameters within which mass media discourse can occur, become so utterly incapable of seeing, hearing…feeling? Well, the Marxist would not find this at all difficult to understand. Elite power views things in its own interest. And elite power also has the ability to greatly influence, if not completely form, mass opinion. From this perspective, of course free-market doctrine makes so much sense – what elite wouldn’t want complete freedom to do what he or she wants with their power? What elite doesn’t trust his or her own judgment in doing things right? Governmental interference in the economic activities of the elite, by definition, goes against those interests.
In the end, it doesn’t matter how utterly idiotic it is to remove all kinds of objective (public) power from economic activity. It sounds and feels good to those whom that kind of freedom serves. And they are the very people who have the power of influencing mass opinion.
Yeah, Marxism can be pretty useful in understanding things. Unlike the irrational drivel that passes for admirable economic theory under the name of Friedman-inspired free-market doctrine.
