Worthy of criticism, but ultimately irreplaceable....
no plus ones
- This really is not scholarship by any stretch of the imagination. To refer to something as "irreplacable" or state that there are "no viable alternatives" without actually addressing those that have been presented is just intellectual laziness. If you want to call something irreplacable, you have to actually address why the alternatives are unsound. And that means you have to study the alternatives. Plugging your ears and shouting la la la la la la is not scholarship, and it's not remotely convincing of anything other than the fact that you have some strange bias that causes you to ignore alternatives. The bias could be laziness, or it could be a conflict of interest, or it could be intellectual ineptness. I actually doubt all three of these in your case, out of respect. But it's something, because otherwise you'd be eagerly seeking out alternatives.
The sticking point, remember, is that even if you address all of the issues even mainstream critics have with capitalism with best case reforms, the problems with capitalism would still be severe and widespread. So the question is, have we exhaustively researched alternatives that claim to usefully address the problems that even capitalism's most optimistic fanboys admit will still be around if we address reform on multiple fronts? Only when you can satisfactorily answer that question can you make claims about the "irreplacability" of a system. You haven't even approached that burden. And to satisfactorily answer it, you have to show your work, and it has to be more recent than critiquing Marx or Trotsky.Sep 2, 2011
- That said, I think I have fodder for my next blog post for you to not read and attack ;)Sep 2, 2011
Add a comment...