That Rolling Stone article is long on innuendo and short on facts. Wall Street is 'cheating', in some fuzzy undefined way, by obeying the law? The author draws the parallel between overburdened mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, yet flip-flops from considering them to be equivalent bets to wanting jail time for bank officers. The tax argument is facile and duplicitious - any public company paying more tax than the minimum it was legally required to do would be guilty of fiduciary misconduct, and open to (at the very least) shareholder lawsuits. That applies equally to Goldman Sachs, Berkshire Hathaway, Coca Cola, General Motors or Ben & Jerry's. The article's lack of research or basic journalism would be shocking, but that boat sailed long ago...
I also fail to see how any article, let alone one titled Capitalism Is Crisis, which says: "By acknowledging how deeply we are immersed in capitalism, how capitalist logic has come to curtail our ability to imagine anything beyond itself, we might open up spaces in which alternative possibilities reveal themselves" is not anti-capitalist. The earlier paragraphs try to dress it up as referring to neoliberal capitalism, uncritically using that meaningless term, but it's anti-capitalist (or, more likely, Marxist) rhetoric with a veneer of postmodernist academia and a pretence that the various different options haven't been exhausted over the centuries. I suspect the author has a very clear idea of what "alternative possibilities" he would like to see, given his PhD topic.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-10-30 12:06 am (UTC)From:I also fail to see how any article, let alone one titled Capitalism Is Crisis, which says:
"By acknowledging how deeply we are immersed in capitalism, how capitalist logic has come to curtail our ability to imagine anything beyond itself, we might open up spaces in which alternative possibilities reveal themselves"
is not anti-capitalist. The earlier paragraphs try to dress it up as referring to neoliberal capitalism, uncritically using that meaningless term, but it's anti-capitalist (or, more likely, Marxist) rhetoric with a veneer of postmodernist academia and a pretence that the various different options haven't been exhausted over the centuries. I suspect the author has a very clear idea of what "alternative possibilities" he would like to see, given his PhD topic.