There Is No Capitalism

"Capitalism" was invented by socialists/anarchists: Proudhon (don't know much about him) may be the first, but mostly Marx. Before them, it was known as "how shit works". There is no "free-market ideology". Marx popularized the word "ideology" too, btw. Before him it was called "right and wrong". All this talk of "The Death of Capitalism" makes my eyes glaze. There are no "market forces" or "invisible hands". As soon as you mention capitalism, invisible hands, self-interest, or the like, you've already conceded the "argument".

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," should have been the 11th commandment: big fuck up there, "God". He would (naturally) know everyone's needs and abilities, but why on Earth would I trust another fallible soul to decide what people can do and what they need? The hubris of Socialism is to think everyone would, could, and should agree. To think it possible to decide everyone's abilities and desires is the "fatal conceit" of Socialism, as they say.

So anyhow, you ask if I think Obama is a Socialist. Sure, fine, we can call him whatever we want. I just prefer "promoter of innefectual, pernicious policies, and of self". Palin said "pallin' agound with terrorists" but she could have said any number of different things. The truth is so unbelievably damning to Obama as to not be believed, and so it goes. If Palin was going to bring up the issue, it shouldn't have been sound-bite worthy. The fact that Ayers is teaching anything, anywhere, to anyone is a disgrace to anyone ever "associated" with him. He should obviously be somewhere turning big rocks into smaller rocks for the rest of his days. I'd settle for him locked up, ghostwriting more of Obama's memoirs, I suppose.

I don't even know how to respond to whether I'm worried about "a connection to terrorism". What does that even mean? Do I think Obama ever tried to kill people? No. But Ayers stopped doing that a long time ago. He found something that worked better: "education". Obama and Ayers have the same educational "theory" as far as I can tell. The media code-word for this is "educational reform" btw, as if were undoubtably swell.

I do have to say though, it is an easier talking point when someone looks the other way about the always hot-button issue of terrorism. I can't argue with that.

So, I had actually read that Reason article before you linked it, Reason being my 3rd bookmarked site (non-blog) behind New Criterion and City Journal. I agree with about two-thirds of everything they say, and when I don't, I usually have a pretty good idea why, meaning they present their arguments well. I think that article is an attempt to further weaken the Republian base in order to make room for some Libertarian policies in the future. I think that would be a VERY good thing to have happen, but a little dangerous: the DailyKos guy also calls himself a Libertarian. So anyhow, I think the article is a little translucent, if not transparently self-interested, but they are Libertarians, what else would you expect. You can see this from the title "Must Lose", what is that supposed to mean? Years of being ignored (by both sides) strangely effects one's rhetoric methinks. Mealsothinks it's a little naive to believe that defeat would "put the GOP back on its limited government track" and not just make it even worse.