Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Meta_Digital t1_iwdhp3c wrote

Reply to comment by DrakBalek in Why liberals cannot escape intolerance by ThomasJP1983

I've seen it referred to as essentially zombified, actually. This is essentially what David Harvey argues in his A Brief History of Neoliberalism.

The source of the rot is indeed capitalism, and that also happens to be the most dominant aspect of neoliberalism (and its current alternative, neofascism).

6

iiioiia t1_iwh0zh7 wrote

Did the author say anything about how government could be (but is not) a moderating force to minimize the harmful side effects of capitalism? Granted, one can blame the ineffectiveness of government on being compromised by capitalist forces (it seems extremely true to me), but then do the people who continue to unthinkingly support "democracy" have no responsibility here? Do they expect capitalists to suddenly change their character?

/rant

1

Meta_Digital t1_iwh1znu wrote

Well, liberalism is built on capitalism to serve and maintain the capitalist system. Neoliberalism is a more extreme form of that. Many of the critiques of liberalism, from both the right and left, concern the capitalist aspect of those political ideologies. Not every critique realizes this, though, especially from the right.

For instance, intolerance is intertwined with exploitation. Capitalism needs exploitation, so it finds a source. Maybe that's black slaves, maybe it's women, maybe it's immigrants, etc. Once the source is found, racist, sexist, and other bigoted beliefs get reinforced and structurally integrated into law, thus perpetuating it. The thing spirals downward, and in the end, until the economic structure of society is addressed (or even acknowledged), the issue of tolerance remains unresolvable.

Ultimately, liberalism (and conservatism, an aesthetic variation of liberalism) cannot resolve this problem because it exists to serve capitalism. So here we are in a world where a lot of "tolerance" from both groups doesn't amount to much, whether its tolerance for oppressed groups or even each other. Tolerance isn't materially possible under capitalism, which depends on the exploitation of someone for its existence.

3

iiioiia t1_iwh4pjk wrote

> Capitalism needs exploitation

It may prefer it, but it can function without it.

> Once the source is found, racist, sexist, and other bigoted beliefs get reinforced and structurally integrated into law, thus perpetuating it.

Two can and do play at this game though.

> Ultimately, liberalism (and conservatism, an aesthetic variation of liberalism) cannot resolve this problem because it exists to serve capitalism. So here we are in a world where a lot of "tolerance" from both groups doesn't amount to much, whether its tolerance for oppressed groups or even each other.

Agree, but this is kind of my point: why does do people act as if there's nothing that can be done about it other than complain about evil capitalists and demand that "someone" does something about it? Did the author get into anything like this?

> Tolerance isn't materially possible under capitalism...

This seems unlikely. For example: is it not physically possible to start "taking out" prominent capitalists and see if that alters their attitudes a bit? I mean, they do indeed love money, but they may love living even more. And one might protest that killing is wrong, but are most people not pretty ok if not often downright enthusiastic about our military and geopolitical adventures overseas that result in the death of a lot of innocent people.

> ...which depends on the exploitation of someone for its existence.

It utilizes and benefits from it, but claims that it is necessary for its existence at all seem to be meme-based. Capitalism can be moderated, but if our society and the people within it choose to not even try, I think they share some of the guilt.

(Note: I'm not ranting at you personally but more so at the collective hive mind.)

0

Meta_Digital t1_iwh5y6f wrote

Capitalism is about profit extraction from private property. Can't do this without exploitation of at the very least natural resources, but this ends up extending to technology and workers because wealth is extracted out of them. That's the entire point of capitalism. Exploitation is defined as making less than you produce, which is another way of talking about wealth extraction. We might be able to limit exploitation, but it can never be eliminated under capitalism. And so as long as it continues, exploitation is a given, and this will always empower justifying ideologies for that exploitation.

The author doesn't get into this, but is complaining about the intolerance from liberals. This intolerance is real, but the reason for it's existence isn't just bad people. It's the way our society is materially structured.

3

iiioiia t1_iwhjdtw wrote

> That's the entire point of capitalism.

Technically, it is your perception of what the entire point of capitalism is.

I don't disagree that capitalism has many negative side effects, I am merely suggesting that we concern ourselves with accuracy of our beliefs and assignment of guilt - government could moderate capitalism, but capitalism itself is often the only entity taken into consideration.

An important question: does the government set school curriculum so as to keep the masses dumb, so capitalism can function without informed resistance? It is certainly plausible!

> We might be able to limit exploitation, but it can never be eliminated under capitalism. And so as long as it continues, exploitation is a given, and this will always empower justifying ideologies for that exploitation.

That future you're seeing: do you realize that it is virtualized?

> The author doesn't get into this, but is complaining about the intolerance from liberals. This intolerance is real, but the reason for it's existence isn't just bad people. It's the way our society is materially structured.

The metaphysical organization of our society (essentially: how people think, which generates the "reality" they consider) seems much more important to me.

0