Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Let's Look At China Now

It is simply a matter of getting capitalism right. If the U.S.A. cannot do it, China (with no historical depth to their tradition of capitalism) will ---- this is so, because China merely has to peek over at what the U. S. does ---- and learn the lessons. And this they will do, because one is no more rational to do than the other. The right thing is as rational as the wrong thing --- they might as well do it right.

Somehow that made sense. Trust me. In other words, capitalism is hybrid (Bhabha). It is fungible. It can be modified, channeled and steered. It means the anti-regulatory position is completely incorrect. It does not mean we twist ourselves into pretzels and create weird social programs. I didn't say that. My position, for some six or seven years, is that it means we look at capitalism for what it is. This is my characteristic position and it means we should employ --indulge --neither in knee-jerk pro-capitalist quasi-lies --- nor in quaint liberal "anti-capitalist"" views. Is that hard for you?

Well, look. It's not gonna be hard for the China. Why? They have a cinemascope version of the real thing to watch and learn from. They have a large book open on their laps. All they have to do is look from page one to page two to page one and back again. But let's look back at the U. S. again.

What kind of person, exactly, is it that cannot see their own world nor themselves? Neurotics.

It is not a choice between neurosis (U. S.) and totalitarianism (not the Chinese version nor any version including our own home-grown fascists like Blackwater security guards). China can respresent the totalitarianism here. Right? They have repressed and imprisoned many. They support Burma and incarcerate Tibetans for protesting their oppression of that country. As for the U. S., we should not think that our option is that of being neurotic. OK? And neither can the world afford for us to do this. Neither can the world afford the neurotic mistakes the U. S. makes.

Capitalism must be regulated. Understand that I do not think this is a 'bad' thing to say. I say it: straightforwardly, as does James Galbraith and many others perhaps. Times are changing. They should change under our system --- and they do. Didn't Dylan say "the times they are a changin'? Yeah.
Well? Are they?

The idea that regulation is always wrong - and this is the dominant idea in the relevant debates, this courtesy the "Right" folks - or wrong folks - is suicidal.

"Dead Certain" --- that is the title of a book about the Bush regime. It you are "Dead Certain," what does it mean? That you are right or that you are totally, totally deluded and are going to drive the country to disaster? Which?

No comments: