Today on Blogcritics
Home » Louis B. Hartz Must Be Laughing (and crying) What’s Left (oh right–there is no left) of his Ass Off!

Louis B. Hartz Must Be Laughing (and crying) What’s Left (oh right–there is no left) of his Ass Off!

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Yes folks, just in case we needed any more proof that, when you really get down to it, there is no (significant) oppositional thought in America, the good folks at Fanboy Rampage (except for James Smith–who is, and always will be, awesome!) are performing supererogatory feats of capitulation to the Man…

You want "Moral Capitalism"? Could someone please explain to me what the fuck that means?

Yeah, yeah–John Byrne is evil. But what makes you think he isn’t right? (and why do you care if people who have enough money to mount massive lawsuits get a little more of that shit?)

my own comments are pretty far down in that thread–so here they are again:

John Byrne is absolutely right (this is a one-time only thing, so let’s not get used to it!)

there’s
nothing "fair" about capitalism, and copyright itself is an abomination
in the eyes of all good folk… anything anyone creates (especially an
easily-disseminated wonder like a story) belongs to the world, on a
need basis… Who the fuck cares whether the Siegel and Shuster heirs
win this petit-bourgeois struggle against Warners? I want to take those
little green shares in oppression away from all of them…

Okay America–resume squabbling over the spoils of war!

Powered by

About David Fiore

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    WTF are you talking about? Get off the glue-sniffing high and try coherency

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    This post makes as little sense as just about anything I’ve ever read.

    My wild guess is: liberals are bad?

    Am I close?

  • http://www.ynot.motime.com David Fiore

    I think it makes a great deal of sense!

    Did you follow the links?

    Dave

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    Nope — please don’t take offense, but I usually have to be really revved up by a post or really interested in learning more to follow outside links.

    I think you’re going to lose most of your audience if you can’t at least partially orient them within the first paragraph or two.

  • http://www.ynot.motime.com David Fiore

    oh that’s alright–you can’t win ‘em all!

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Personally I like the content to be IN the post, rather than the links, but maybe I’m lazy.

    Dave

  • http://www.ynot.motime.com David Fiore

    hey–there’s some content there, but the content can never be wholly contained in any one piece of writing… in this case, I’m relying upon a sample of nearly 40 comments to make a point–i.e. that the most well-meaning critics of big corporations actually give the capitalist order moral leverage by allowing themselves to care about monstrous doctrines like copyright law…

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Even the font is angry here.

    You want “Moral Capitalism”? Could someone please explain to me what the fuck that means?

    I don’t know the technical term, but to me, moral capitalism means capitalism that does not harm others. (While the very concept of capitalism means that someone makes the sale and someone else does not,I take this to be your interpretation of capitalism not being fair). What I am talking about though, is say perhaps a corporation laying people off, just before they get 100% vested in the company, the sole motivation not being labor demand, employee performance or anything, but just not having to pay out what was promised upon hiring. That would be just one example out of a million.

    I would say that is what the fuck moral capitalism is.

  • http://www.ynot.motime.com David Fiore

    that’s setting the moral bar pretty low, Steve S…

    the system is based upon exploitation–no one denies that… money (which gives you the power to make others do your bidding) doesn’t grow on trees–it’s stolen from working people that none of us will ever meet (assuming that you live somewhere in north america)

    meanwhile, we pretend that we have something useful to do (what kind of productive role do telemarketers play?) and people who want a second car act as if they are oppressed…

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Deceit is not immoral to you, especially when it involves an employees hard earned endeavors?

    It is to me and millions of others.

    Also, the largest corporation in the world, getting the taxpayers to pay it’s employees health care through subsidization, so that the stockholders don’t have to pay for it out of their billions, is pretty immoral to me as well.

    http://www.courant.com/business/
    hc-husky0304.artmar04,0,3058369.story?coll=hc-headlines-business

    (link cut in half, links with question marks in them don’t seem to translate well).

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>What I am talking about though, is say perhaps a corporation laying people off, just before they get 100% vested in the company, the sole motivation not being labor demand, employee performance or anything, but just not having to pay out what was promised upon hiring. <<

    That’s not moral or immoral capitalism, that’s just rapacious managerial greed.

    Capitalism is by it’s nature immoral. Morality comes in how individuals involved in capitalistic pursuits choose to treat each other. The capitalism itself is morally neutral.

    Dave

  • http://www.ynot.motime.com David Fiore

    that sounds like “guns don’t kill people, people k–” Dave…

    the truth is that morality isn’t even possible under a world regime like ours…

    Dave

  • sydney

    I don’t know what he’s on about either. Is he left? if so than I think he’s pertty reasonable.

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    I have to vote with Temple and Eric Berlin here. This was just very poorly written. Sorry.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Capitalism is by it’s nature immoral…..The capitalism itself is morally neutral.

    Contradictory, but I think I know what you mean and I agree. Capitalism, I would put at neutral and say that a downside is not always immoral, but people can use it immorally. I also know that what qualifies as moral is subjective.

    Since we both agree that capitalism itself is morally neutral, i.e. dependent on the morality of those individuals in power, I am sure then, Dave, that you would agree with me that regulation for protection of the common man is a necessity.

  • http://www.ynot.motime.com David Fiore

    I don’t think that capitalism is morally neutral–I think it nullifies morality

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Can you elaborate on comment 16, David?

    A shopkeeper sells some apples to a customer, how is that nullifying morality?

    Are you referring to capitalism or corporatization?

  • http://www.ynot.motime.com David Fiore

    selling isn’t capitalism… neither is the much-maligned commercialism… capitalism is a system of labor, which skims profit (“capital”) off of the backs of an exploited workforce… all of us in North America (the shopkeeper and the customer) are “capitalists” at this point (a development which Marx did not foresee)… our purchasing power is directly dependent upon a proletariate that does not even live under the some governement that we do… we could not treat labor morally even if we wanted to–because we don’t make the laws of the lands in which the exploitation takes place…

    and most of the “work” that we do here is just a hangover from the Protestant ethic…we (even me–and I’ve never made more than 12 000 dollars a year) are all aristocrats now…

    Dave

    Dave

  • Eric Olsen

    several issues here: Dave N, by being morally neutral, I assume you mean “amoral” as opposed to “immoral,” and I agree, by the way.

    David F, you know I enjoy your “challenging” approach to writing, but this time it really is too cryptic: the whole thing would work fine if you set it up with some background. We cannot expect readers to go elsewhere for ALL context – they just won’t bother.

    as now as to the assertion that capitalism is inherently immoral: David, you’re an unreconstructed Marxist! Who knew? While the execution of capitalism may be inherently “unfair,” it is not “immoral” because history has shown that socialism, and certainly communism, simply are contrary to human nature: exceptionally destructive trial and error have shown rathe conclusively that the “temporary dictatorship of the proletariat” is neither temporary, nor does it favor the proletariat.

    Capitalism takes advantage of the fact that human beings are motivated by the accumulation of means of exchange – you can try to shape and bend human nature a bit, but you surely cannot alter its core

  • http://www.ynot.motime.com David Fiore

    oh I quite agree Eric–people are contentious…and there’s no reign of harmonious, shoulder-to-shoulder labor coming any time soon (actually–the very idea makes me a little ill! a drone in the service of all is just as bad as a drone in the service of one or a few)

    but I do think that the “game of life” could be reconfigured in such a way that the “losers” aren’t consigned to abject poverty and death… if people in the luxuriant West would only begin to take the whole concept of money and their “earnings” less seriously (i.e. realize that you can’t earn anything, you can only fool someone else into thinking you did), I’d be satisfied…

    there’s nothing worse than a sanctimonious zealot telling the oppressed to “shape up” whilst using their backs for a treadmill… but I take heart from technological developments… we are fast coming to the point at which all of the worst (and most necessary) labor will be done by machines–and then our challenge will be to put aside the notion that a “productive contribution” is what entitles human beings to their share of the pie… there won’t be any productive labor going on–and inequalities in wealth will be that much harder to explain away…

    we need to get away from a “full-employment” model for society before everyone becomes a telemarketer…

    a leisure-based society for all–that’s what I want! (and that’s what Marx wanted too–early on, anyhow…afterwards he didn’t think much about the world that his “revolution” might produce) by all means, let’s compete for “all of the marbles”–but let’s actually play for the marbles, not human souls!

    and I guess you’re right about the incoherence of the post Eric–but look at how many comments it drew! maybe this is the way to go about writing blogitorials… say something arcane (it was my mistake to assume that everyone was rivetted to discussions of the Superman case) and then hash it out dialogically in the threads!

    Dave

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    RE: the “game of life” could be reconfigured in such a way that the “losers” aren’t consigned to abject poverty and death

    There’s no eliminating poverty and death. The poor you will always have with you, as Jesus said.

    However, American entrepreneurism has done FAR more to ameliorate poverty and even put off death than any other way of doing things ever.

  • http://www.ynot.motime.com David Fiore

    “The poor you will always have with you, as Jesus said.”

    even Jesus can be wrong.

    Dave

  • http://www.ynot.motime.com David Fiore

    “However, American entrepreneurism has done FAR more to ameliorate poverty and even put off death than any other way of doing things ever.”

    what I’m proposing, though, is that the only entrepreneurial task left that’s worth undertaking is the transformation of a “going concern” (capitalism) into concern, pure and simple…

    I’m not suggestion that we go backwards… in fact, I’m suggesting that capitalists are clinging to outmoded values that no longer have any real meaning in a post-industrial world.

    Dave

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    Mr Fiore, I can’t argue with you here in that I can’t figure out what it is you’re trying to say to be able to agree or disagree. What “outmoded values” are you even talking about?

  • http://www.ynot.motime.com David Fiore

    the discourse of “ownership”, and, more to the point, the concept of “earning a living”–the protestant work ethic basically… (a fine thing in its day–I study the puritans!–but now an albatross around the world’s neck)

    Dave

%d bloggers like this: