Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

Free Marketeerism Isn’t Going Away

Published by

Clarissa

on

In 1990, there was a historic chance to disarm, partition and de-ideologize Russia in exchange for food. That chance was pissed away because of the inane “free market” dogma. The idea was that free markets usher in democracy. It was a majorly stupid idea and it’s been priven wrong.

Free markets are utterly indifferent to political regimes. They don’t have much use for the concept of a “country”, so what countries do politically is unimportant to them.

Still, if another historic opportunity comes by to disarm Russia and bring it to heel, it will once again be pissed away because of the same free-marketeering dogma that refuses to die. We are not learning anything, is the problem. Free marketeering means open borders. It’s in the name. Markets are to be free to transcend all limits and drag workers / consumers wherever it’s convenient at any given time. You can’t be for one but not for the other.

Be a free marketeer, by all means, but at least look at what it actually means.

17 responses to “Free Marketeerism Isn’t Going Away”

  1. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ricardo, retardo.

    Like

    Reply
  2. PaulS Avatar
    PaulS

    Russia doesn’t have free markets since all critical industries are controlled by the Kremlin. A real free market requires private property and rule of law, neither of which exit in Russia.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      This is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

      Russia is a fully neoliberal, capitalist country. Like in every neoliberal capitalist country, the state plays heavily on the side of large corporations against small and medium-sized business. That’s all that “free markets” mean everywhere in the world.

      Like

      Reply
      1. PaulS Avatar
        PaulS

        By this logic the USSR was the world’s most capitalist country since it was completely dominated by state backed corporations.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          Not “state-backed” but “state-owned.” Walmart is privately owned, yet nobody can deny that the US government handed over small business’s share of the market to it during COVID.

          The Soviet “corporations” were not privately owned and did not extract profit. The profit motive was entirely alien to them. Nobody was officially allowed to extract profit from anything. That is socialism. It’s a major,most important difference with capitalism.

          Like

          Reply
          1. cliff arroyo Avatar
            cliff arroyo

            “The profit motive was entirely alien to them”

            Which is why stores were mostly empty. Were store employees in business for themselves? In Poland it wasn’t rare for clerks to hide away most merchandise and customers had to deal directly with them to buy anything (at much higher prices).

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply
            1. Clarissa Avatar
              Clarissa

              It was completely illegal, of course. In rare cases, you could get capital punishment for it. Scroll down to Yeliseevsky affair:

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliseyevsky

              Like

              Reply
          2. PaulS Avatar
            PaulS

            I was trying to decide whether to say state backed or state owned. Either way it is government favored monopolists over small business.

            Like

            Reply
            1. Clarissa Avatar
              Clarissa

              There was no small business in the USSR. Or any business of any sort. There was no private ownership over the means of production.

              Like

              Reply
              1. PaulS Avatar
                PaulS

                Well, how could you be more favorable to big business than by eliminating small business?

                Like

              2. Clarissa Avatar
                Clarissa

                There was no business of any kind in the USSR.

                Like

              3. PaulS Avatar
                PaulS

                Yes, no doubt. But a state backed/owned monopoly is still much closer to the Soviet model than any kind of free market.

                Like

  3. cliff arroyo Avatar
    cliff arroyo

    “There was no business of any kind in the USSR.”

    It is so hard to get across the reality to people with no experience of it (or even fairly broad historical knowledge).

    Like

    Reply
    1. PaulS Avatar
      PaulS

      I don’t disagree with the reality of the USSR. I disagree that Russia could be considered any kind of free market.

      Like

      Reply
      1. cliff arroyo Avatar
        cliff arroyo

        “Russia could be considered any kind of free market.”

        Well no neoliberal system is really a free market… it’s always about favoring some sectors/players over others.

        In early stage neoliberalism (thatcher, reagan) free market rhetoric was used as a distraction but there’s no longer any pretense.

        And of course russia always ends up with an utterly grotesque and dysfunctional version of whatever western trend/idea it’s trying to follow (that’s been the case for at least 300 years).

        Like

        Reply
        1. PaulS Avatar
          PaulS

          Russia as a dysfunctional mirror of the west makes as much sense as any other theory. But state backed megcorporations is just 17th century East India Company capitalism. It’s hardly neo anything.

          Like

          Reply
  4. methylethyl Avatar
    methylethyl

    Was raised with the whole libertarian idea of “free markets” and it was so strange to realize as an adult that we didn’t have them, and that what politicians mean by ‘free market’ has no relation to what individuals on the ground experience. They’re talking about huge companies, and removing barriers to international trade… which we can now clearly see has a lot of downsides. Meanwhile, the average American in his town, his neighborhood, is far less free to engage in ‘free trade’ of goods and services than your average Viet villager (in a nominally communist country), thanks to exciting things like regulatory capture, taxes, and professional licensing cartels.

    I no longer have any idea what people are talking about when they say “free market”. It seems like at a national/international level it just means competing for jobs with whoever is willing to tolerate the most pollution, toxic exposure, and crap working conditions, while almost nobody is even talking about ‘free market’ anything at the local level, where the rules are rigged to make it as difficult as possible for individuals to start and successfully run long-term businesses (licensing, zoning, denial of market access).

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts