Re: Vulgar Wal-Martism (was: Vulgar Anti-Corporatism)
- "I seriously wonder if Mike's arguments seem as weak to others as they
do to me."
They don't seem as weak to me as they apparently do to you. On the
other hand, they *do* seem weak to me. So we're talking about fairly
subtle gradations here.
--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Dan Clore <clore@...> wrote:
> MikeHolmesTX@... wrote:
> > In a message dated 3/1/2008 6:53:09 PM Central Standard Time,
> > clore@... writes:
> >> I've been very unimpressed with Mike's performance on the Wal-Mart
> >> issue. He seems to have little to offer by way of fact or argument,
> >> and so resorts to cranking up the rhetoric (the attempt to equate
> >> Kevin with a Stalinist or worse above provides a good example, as
> >> if he literally cannot see any difference between
> >> anarcho-individualism and North Korea). In short, in his posts on
> >> the subject I see little but Vulgar Libertarianism, Vulgar
> >> Corporatism, and Vulgar Wal-Martism (to coin a phrase).
> > Putting up links to anti Walmart union front groups isn't much of an
> > argument either.
> As I wrote before (and Mike snipped):
> >> It is not good enough to
> >> point out that a union funded a study, without challenging the
> >> methodology or conclusions of the study, or to say that other
> >> corporations would like to have done the same as Wal-Mart
> >> (as if that somehow lets Wal-Mart off the hook).
> That would seem to address the entire substance, such as it is, of
> Mike's remarks.
> > I haven't called anyone a Stalinist here but gripping about consumer
> > spending habits seems rather pointless. Either you let people make
> > their choices or you don't.
> The identification of a factual description of the actually-existing
> situation, in which the state has massively interfered in the market on
> behalf of Wal-Mart, as "gripping about consumer spending habits", as if
> these consumers were actors in a truly free market, looks to me like a
> pure example of Vulgar Libertarianism.
> > My view has always been that Walmart is neither better nor worse than
> > their competition. The fact that they are bigger is what draws the
> > critics. And anti union.
> Wal-Mart is currently at issue because it was presented as an "acid
> test" for "Vulgar Anti-Corporatism", including the (false) factual
> that the corporation receives "little or no" subsidies from the state.
> > What is more disturbing than this puerile left whining is the mistake
> > that large corporations are as dangerous as the government.
> I don't believe that anyone has made this mistake, at least not
> don't know the work of, e.g., Naomi Klein well enough to judge, but she
> comes to mind as a possible candidate for a leftist who does make this
> > Since no one here can point to a single subsidy Walmart received
> > which the competitors do not (or can not) I fail to see why they
> > should be uniquely seen as evil.
> I fail to see why as well, and commend Mike for presenting an argument
> that should lead one to oppose corporations in general, rather than
> simply Wal-Mart in particular.
> I seriously wonder if Mike's arguments seem as weak to others as
> to me.
> Dan Clore
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
> immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
> -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
- MikeHolmesTX@... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/3/2008 8:34:43 PM Central Standard Time,Oh, brother. I guess you could say that I'm beating the topic to death,
> clore@... writes:
>> Mike's claim in this case seems to me to typify the accuracy of his
>> claims in general.
> Well, I "m not the one beating this topic to death.
since I keep insisting on correcting Mike's false factual claims, straw
men, and so on. At least Mike provides something new for the reader each
time, making up new claims to replace his old ones as they become
indefensible (though he's often very slow to recognize this and clings
to many of them).
I would particularly like to know who, if anyone, has presented Wal-Mart
as "some unique creature of statism" -- it certainly isn't anyone
posting on LeftLibertarian2, and it certainly isn't the group (Good Jobs
First) whose study
(http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate_subsidy/walmart.cfm ) I
referenced, which is demonstrated by the fact that this study is just
one part of their "Corporate Subsidy Watch", which includes information
on state subsidies both for corporations in general and for many
specific corporations in particular.
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"