I added a whole bunch of Finnish blogs to my Google Reader list that now stands at a hefty 421 subscriptions. Recalling the news back in the end of the year 2008, the Finnish intelligentsia was ecstatic for . . . well, you know why, but as Hannu Visti points out, they have recently been mysteriously quiet about their high hopes of how America will any day now abandon the free market capitalism and turn into a European-style social democratic welfare state. Now, we wingnuts sure like to laugh at the intelligentsia, but the Finnish intelligentsia has always truly been a class of its own, since as Hannu notes, they have been utterly wrong about literally everything over the past fifty years. Whereas their American colleagues merely hinted at the superiority of socialism and communism and took their marching orders and talking points from them only indirectly, the Finnish intelligentsia was proudly a stooge for the Soviet Union, worshipping its raw and brutal power that had no respect for all those pesky individual rights holding back the better world. And since they never really had any ideas of their own, these days this puppet just switched onto a new master that has his hand deep up its ass to move its grimacing mouth . . . or I don’t know if I should rather say two masters, both incidentally wearing the same colour green.
Ilkka, “Dead souls”, The Fourth Checkraise, 2010-07-23
August 10, 2010
QotD: The Finnish intelligentsia
July 29, 2010
Symbols matter, but not as much as reality
Ace puts his finger on one of the key differences between “the masses” and the “governing class”:
That’s why the “Political Class” — the Gee Aren’t I Terribly Enlightened? crowd — opposes this. They talk about that a lot — the symbolism of the thing.
[. . .]
I’m noting this because a few weeks ago I saw a guy at the riots in Toronto who complained that the police barricades were a symbol representing a division between the protesters and the G-20 representatives.
And I thought, “Gee, no, actually it’s not a symbol of a division; it really is, in fact, a physical division.” Because, see, you’re rioting. (And not symbolically in riot, either.) You can tell it’s a real-world division because now you can’t get to the G-20 conference center and throw rock-metaphors through the window-symbols.
I think there is a type of person — well-represented in the “Political Class” and in progressive politics — that has learned, from college, that the Abstract is everything, that Real Smart People are always focused on the Abstract, on metaphors, on symbols.
And they seem to disregard the concrete, the real, almost as a dirty thing, something of concern to the plebians, who cannot of course grasp the subtleties of high representational thinking like they can. You know, with their “symbolic” barricades and all.
June 9, 2010
Book written in 1944 tops Amazon bestseller list
Admittedly, this is an updated and supplemented version of the original text, but it’s still impressive to see it selling so well.
Update: American Digest has pages from the picture book version:
A Canadian Liberal-Democrat party?
Andrew Potter pokes fun at the widely rumoured merger discussions that may or may not result in a combination of the Liberals and the New Democrats:
So here’s what I think, for what it matters to anyone: It’s a stupid idea. Not just stupid as in don’t-eat-that-fifth-taco stupid, but deeply, profoundly, moronic. If it were to come to pass, the only, and I mean only, beneficiaries would be the Conservatives. The NDP would lose, the Liberals would lose, and, more than anything, Canadians would lose.
[. . .]
The problem with the Liberals is not that their voter base it is divided, it is that their voter base has left them. And the reason their voter base has left them is because the Liberals have been acting like humungeous bozos for most of this decade. It is really not much more complicated than that. The former Natural Governing Party transformed itself into the Party of Humungeous Bozos, and if there is one thing Canadians have shown over the years is that you can’t get elected if you are a humungeous bozo. You can be an arrogant jerk (Trudeau), a slimeball (Mulroney), a gangster (Chretien) or a paranoid control freak (Harper), but the Canadian body politic is powerfully immune to bozos.
While I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, I’d expect the NDP rank-and-file to object strenuously to anything more than a tactical agreement to avoid running directly against the Liberals. The NDP, although I disagree with much of what they stand for, at least do believe in something. The only thing the Liberals stand for is their belief that they should be running the country.
Update: Steve Janke thinks it could be an ugly, ugly scenario indeed:
And there are plenty of senior Liberals utterly appalled at the idea of a merger, I think because they realize the NDP, though smaller, is more ideologically pure, and that the NDP would pull the merging Liberals leftward (though the NDP purity would itself be diluted, something the NDP membership would be worried about, and would probably struggle hard against). The new party would be much more NDP than Liberal.
These appalled Liberals would fight hard against a merger at a Liberal convention, and it seems to me that the Liberal Party could tear itself apart in a very ugly and public way.
Let’s say the merger amendment fails. What then? We could see a chaotic abandonment of the Liberal Party by disaffected Liberals (remember, I dialled the chaos way up on the scenario-a-tron). As of yesterday, the existence of Liberal-NDP merger talks is public knowledge. Even if it isn’t true, people now believe it to be true. The pro-merger Liberals in the rank-and-file might not accept a failure of those talks or a failure to accept a constitutional amendment to make a merger official. If they see their dream snatched away, we could see large numbers of Liberals tearing up their membership cards and switching parties, especially if they are led by someone like Bob Rae tearing up his membership card first.
April 30, 2010
QotD: A notable unintended consequence
Hardly a day seems to go by nowadays without somebody with approximately the same kind of political attitude as me scratching his head, publicly, in writing, about President Obama’s bafflingly sensible space policy, which sticks out like a healthy thumb in an otherwise horribly mutilated hand of policies.
Critics are disturbed by the large and unprecedented role Mr. Obama sees for the private sector in space exploration. For a president who is often accused of being a socialist, he has more faith in the ingenuity of the private sector than his detractors do.
Brian Micklethwait, “On the unintended consequences of President Obama”, Samizdata, 2010-04-28
April 1, 2010
Sequel to Atlas Shrugged in planning stages
An official announcement this morning at Locus magazine has the brilliant duo of Charles Stross and Cory Doctorow (both of whom I’ve quoted on the blog more than once) teaming up to write an authorized sequel to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged:
Stross, author of the Prometheus Award-winning novel Glasshouse, said that he and Doctorow (author of the Prometheus Award-winning novel Little Brother) were hesitant at first. “But then we realized that both of us shared one important trait with Ayn Rand: all three of us really, really like money. That made it much easier for Cory and I to cash the seven figure check.”
The sequel, Atlas Rebound, features the teenage children of the founders of Galt’s Gulch rebelling against their elders and traveling out into a world devastated by John Galt’s strike, where they develop their own political philosophy with which to rebuild. That philosophy, called Rejectivism, features a centralized bureau to rebuild and control the new economy, socialized medicine, compulsory labor unions, universal mass transportation and a ban on individual automobiles, collectivized farms, a tightly planned industrial economy, extensive art subsidies, subsidized power, government control of the means of production, public housing, universal public education, a ban on personal ownership of gold and silver (as well as all tobacco products), government-issued fiat money, the elimination of all patents and copyrights, and a cradle-to-grave social welfare system.
“Plus strong encryption!” added Doctorow.
After 1,200 pages (80 of which consist of Supreme Leader Karla Galt-Taggart’s triumphant address), a new Utopia is born. The final scene of the novel features the grateful citizens of the new world order building a giant statue of Atlas with the globe restored to his shoulders, upon the base of which is chiseled “From Each According to His Ability/To Each According To His Needs.”
January 8, 2010
Great satire . . . at least, I’m assuming it’s satire
In the comments to this post at the Library of Economics and Liberty site:
I think American econ textbooks were pro-Soviet for the simple reason that the Soviet system was indisputably superior to the unforgiving ‘free market’ American system.
Make whatever claims about ‘economic growth’ or ‘relative poverty’ or ‘lack of freedom’ you want but the Soviet Union created a large-scale, modern nation state dedicated to providing everyone with a solid, equitable lifestyle. Everyone had access to food, clothing, shelter, health-care, education, meaningful work and other necessities of life. It was guaranteed right there in their constitution. That is still not the case in the US, though with the recent passage of the landmark Health Care Reform bills we have at least made the first tentative steps towards correcting one of those desperate problems.
The thing that economists need to realize is that life is not all about economics & money. Having a satisfying life planned for you with no uncertainty and no crucial needs left unfulfilled is necessary too. The Soviet Union went a good a way towards providing that.
Someday we will realize what a loss it was when the vile, venal capitalists of the West arranged its downfall. After all, no amount of material wealth provided in the willy-nilly, dog-eat-dog, all-against-all ‘free market’ will ever be able to match the simple pleasures of a life dedicated to the betterment of the community, guided by the best & brightest from their commanding perch in the government.
That was commenter “blighter” either doing a pitch-perfect parody or showing that the textbook wars were won by Soviet intelligence services.
December 22, 2009
December 9, 2009
“There is no app for that”
Alex Tabarrok looks at the Chilean “Cybersyn” project:
Cybersyn was a project of the socialist government of Salvador Allende (1970-1973) and British cybernetic visionary Stafford Beer; its goal was to control the Chilean economy in real-time using computers and “cybernetic principles.” The military regime that overthrew Allende dropped the project and probably for this reason when the project is periodically rediscovered it is often written about in a romantic tone as a revolutionary “socialist internet,” decades ahead of its time that was “destroyed” by the military because it was “too egalitarian” or because they didn’t understand it.
Although some sources at the time said the Chilean economy was “run by computer,” the project was in reality a bit of a joke, albeit a rather expensive one, and about the only thing about it that worked were the ordinary Western Union telex machines spread around the country. The IBM 360 two computers supposedly used to run the Chilean economy were IBM 360s (or machines on that order). These machines were no doubt very impressive to politicians and visionaries eager to use their technological might to control an economy [. . .] Today, our perspective will perhaps be somewhat different when we realize that these behemoths were far less powerful than an iPhone. Run an economy with an iPhone? Sorry, there is no app for that.
[. . .] The control room is like the bridge of the Starship Enterprise in another respect–both are stage sets. Nothing about the room is real, even the computer displays on the wall are simply hand drawn slides projected from the other side with Kodak carousels.
December 6, 2009
What if Ron Paul were taken seriously by the GOP?
Howard Fineman tries to analyze the Ron Paul phenomenon:
I have to admit that I kind of like Rep. Ron Paul. Partly it’s that we’re both from Pittsburgh, and both began our careers as paperboys for the Pittsburgh Press. More important, Paul is something unusual in politics. He appears to believe in something. His fundamental views have not changed since 1971, when he decided to run for Congress in Texas because President Nixon abandoned the gold standard.
I don’t like labels, but in this case I’ll use some. Paul, a Duke-trained physician, is an angry, apocalyptic, populist, hard-currency libertarian. He is against paper money, the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and most of the federal government’s role in our lives, from fighting in Afghanistan to printing Social Security checks. Paul never saw an establishment he didn’t loathe. Many of his ideas are unworkable, some are dangerous, and some of his supporters are conspiracy theorists so paranoid, they probably think this column is part of the Plot. But, as odd as it seems, Paul has become a player in Washington and at the grassroots. His emergence should be a lesson to rudderless Republicans. They don’t want to scare away independent voters, but they need to find a way to emulate Paul’s outsider’s anger and his commitment to conservative essentials.
How much of a condemnation of American politics is it that you can tar someone by alleging that they “appear to believe in something”? Politicians are often portrayed as believing in nothing — except that it is critical that they be re-elected — but when it’s a smear to say that they hold any philosophical belief at all? Perhaps we really do deserve the governments we elect . . . as punishment.
December 2, 2009
For deep greens, this isn’t a bug, it’s a feature
The headline says “Green movement in danger of crippling economy“, as if that isn’t part and parcel of hardcore Green philosophy:
A senior Tory attacked the “fixation” of the green movement with imposing ever tougher targets for reducing carbon emissions as having potentially “crippling” costs for the economy.
David Davis, an ex-shadow cabinet member and former party leadership challenger, said the UK was already facing a £55bn long-term price tag for its current policies and warned of a public backlash if more unpopular “green” measures were imposed.
His comments are likely to be seen as a direct challenge to the approach of David Cameron, who has made his commitment to tackling climate change a symbol of the way he has changed the party.
It’s certainly not true of all environmentalists, but it is a common trait among the most deeply committed. If reducing humanity’s impact on the environment is good, then eliminating it is better (and therefore eliminating humanity would be best). Few of them would be willing to state it quite that baldly, but it’s clearly a key factor in their belief system.
November 19, 2009
Venezuela tops the survey
Unfortunately, it’s a survey on levels of corruption in the Americas. It’s not the sort of poll you want to feature in:
The latest Transparency International corruption survey found Venezuela the most corrupt nation in the Americas. Venezuela has also crippled press freedoms, putting increasing restrictions on independent media. President Hugo Chavez makes it clear that he wants to establish a socialist dictatorship for the region. Chavez can’t do this militarily, because he has crippled his armed forces by replacing most of the key officers with men selected for their loyalty to Chavez, rather than their military abilities. Chavez has ruined the economy with similar interference, especially in the national oil business, which represents the major export and largest source of government revenue. To further harm the economy, Chavez keeps closing the border with Colombia, disrupting trade that is vital to people on both sides of the border. The Venezuelans living along the border have become increasingly anti-Chavez because of all this economic damage, and lawlessness. This has just made Chavez more paranoid, and certain that those Venezuelans are secretly siding with Colombia.
In a time honored move, Chavez is trying to increase popular fear of neighboring Colombia by claiming that the U.S. is using Colombia as a base for a campaign to take over South America. The new treaty between the U.S. and Colombia, which allows American anti-drug air patrols to move their base from Ecuador to Colombia, is being used as evidence of an American plot. Ecuador, like Venezuela, has elected a leftist president who promises prosperity and reform. One of the first thing the new Ecuadoran government did was shut down U.S. anti-drug air patrols. As with Venezuela, the leftist policies have crippled the Ecuadoran economy, as well as press freedom. So both countries have been able to push the “an American invasion is coming” line. This has embarrassed other nations in the region, but they are reluctant to speak up. That’s because anti-American rhetoric is very popular, and few politicians are willing to oppose these myths.
November 11, 2009
Reasons to avoid seeing Disney’s Christmas Carol
Jim Carrey seems to be channelling his inner Friedrich Engels here:
Talking with the Chicago Tribune to promote A Christmas Carol a few days before the film’s release, Carrey released the following burst of political flatulence:
“I was thinking about it this morning, how this story ties into everything we’re going through,” says Carrey, who, thanks to the technology, plays Scrooge as well as the three ghosts haunting him. “Every construct we’ve built in American life is falling apart. Why? Because of personal greed and ambition. Capitalism without regulation can’t protect us against personal greed…”
Making certain that many people reading the interview will resolutely avoid seeing the film, Carrey describes the protagonist as follows:
“Scrooge is the ultimate example of self-loathing,” Carrey says, noting that, after playing the title character in Ron Howard’s “How the Grinch Stole Christmas,” he was merely “going to the source” in fleshing out Scrooge. “Beware the unloved, I always say,” Carrey continues. “They’re the ones that end up being the mean guys. It comes from that deep, spiritual acid reflux within them. With Scrooge it infects his whole being.”
Whereas Dickens presented a reasonably nuanced view of the issues the story brings up, and did so with an appropriate narrative tone, Carrey makes the latest film version sound like a ham-fisted socialist diatribe, hardly a strategy for drawing middle American families in great numbers.
October 24, 2009
QotD: Canada and freedom of expression
Some Canadians are rather touchy about criticism from Americans regarding freedom of speech in Canada. The irony of this touchiness is that the Canadian Supreme Court has based its free-speech jurisprudence, at least in the context of antidiscrimination concerns, in large part on the theories of left-wing American academics such as University of Michigan professor Catharine MacKinnon. The Canadian left has a penchant for importing left-wing ideas from the U.S. and elsewhere, adopting them as public policy, and then accusing anyone who objects of being "anti-Canadian" because these policies somehow define Canadian identity. I like Canada a lot myself, but I should hope that there is more to Canadian identity than national health insurance, gun control, and aggressive hate speech laws.
David Bernstein, “Touchy Canadians”, The Volokh Conspiracy, 2003-12-05
August 11, 2009
QotD: Obama critics suffering from “false consciousness”
Got that? If you don’t support Obama, you must be a frustrated, confused halfwit who doesn’t quite understand why the government would give Americans $4500 for a 2004 Dodge Dakota. As an amateur scholar of Marxism who has a pretty clear understanding of “what’s going on,” Fairey is doubtless referencing Engels’ idea of “false consciousness,” but presumes us Obama skeptics are too thick for such profundities.
Michael C. Moynihan, “Shepard Fairey: Obama Skeptics Suffering from False Consciousness”, Hit and Run, 2009-08-11
