Comments on: Herb Gintis on Naomi Klein

By: ashwagandha

ashwagandha — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:04:45 +0000

Woah, thats what i call good post.

By: lane

lane — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:14:58 +0000

I don't think he'd completely wince. Neither would Bowles either–at least he said that in class the other day. Yet, I'd think think identify more with the libertarianism of say Kropotkin than the libertarianism of the American political party. I think Democracy and Capitalism speaks to that a little in their conception of “post-liberal” and workplace democracy, and perhaps in their current work that has theorized community governance (as opposed to state or market). I think Gintis has a thoughtful and provocative radicalism. One that's never predictable, and for that reason is always interesting.

By: T.I.

T.I. — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:55:22 +0000

I love Herb Gintis as a thinker AND Paul Krugman. Both share this virtue: they're intellectually sophisticated and effin' blunt. Why the need to be blunt? Because the world is full of bullshit ("real estate will always go up!") and bullshitters (e.g. Donald Luskin). When you're honest, trying to talk above the noise, and looking to make a point in a memorable way, you're going to sound a little loud, a little grating, even a little rude. Doesn't matter. Ideas are important. It's important to remain civil in discussion. But calling a lie a "lie" isn't uncivil. Gintis and Krugman are both good at it. The rest of The Left (and Right) should have their virtues.

If anyone from The New York Times is reading: Bill Kristol and Thomas Friedman are both embarrassments. I mean they're huge, humiliating, deeply shameful excuses for columnists. (Everyone else is at least passable.) Please replace BK and TF with Herb Gintis and Fareed Zakaria, post haste. Thanks!

By: webgrrl

webgrrl — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:34:45 +0000

Ms. Klein et al would just like to live in France, that's all they mean when they say social democracy. But at the same time they do have not the ability to articulate the issues with France, such as the persistent high unemployment, the stifling technocracy and the lack of economic flexibility.

These are things with which the French struggle every year – read any French paper. I agree France is a lovely place to live, but it's a tad sclerotic. I would have more respect for Klein if she would address how to make a more diverse France work for a larger group of people in the 2st century.

By: Hibiscus Monkey

Hibiscus Monkey — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:45:40 +0000

Naomi Klein isn't a socialist in any genuine sense, and nor is the mid-far left in general. In their view, communism failed and capitalism is failing, and the middle ground, the social democracy, represents the best of both worlds. Point out that America's interventionist economy is already a “middle ground” between socialism and capitalism and has been since the Roosevelt era, and they will likely contend that Reagan, influenced by Friedman's “shock doctrine” philosophy, ushered in a new dark age of laissez-faire that has directly lead to all of our modern day ills.

By: John Meredith

John Meredith — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:41:03 +0000

“Just goes to show that “socialism” gets stretched and pulled as much as “capitalism”. “

Actually, I think the problem is worse with 'capitalism'. I have had many long conversations about the evils and/or virtues of capitalism during the course of which it became obvious (to me at least) that nobody present really had a clear idea what the term meant beyond some vague accumulation of factors like 'markets', 'big business', 'free trade' etc. The bafflement you can create by suggesting that free markets need not be capitalist is a sight to see.

By: kevin

kevin — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:29:53 +0000

Last time I checked, socialism meant a centralized planned economy from which market forces have been banned and the state owns the means of production

Just goes to show that “socialism” gets stretched and pulled as much as “capitalism”. The terms are so flexible now that the USA qualifies as socialist by some standards (like John Birchers), and dog-eat-dog capitalist according to the Kleins of the world.

By: mari dupont

mari dupont — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:42:50 +0000

I wish someone would ask Naomi Klein to define “socialism” if for no other reason than pure entertainment; the woman doesnt understand even her own fantasies. Last time I checked, socialism meant a centralized planned economy from which market forces have been banned and the state owns the means of production (i.e. private property). There has never been a socialist democracy and it is unlikely there ever will be, for the simple reason that in socialism, the state is ALL and (real) democracy acts as a limitation on that state. No matter how many times all the happy comrades of the former USSR went out to vote, their vote was meaningless, as no changes in state power were allowed. Therefore, you can't have a socialist cooperative that competes in a market situation, because then (yes!) it wouldn't be socialist! NO markets allowed! Geez, woman, buy a dictionary….

By: Books and Magazines Blog » Archive » Herb Gintis on Naomi Klein

Books and Magazines Blog » Archive » Herb Gintis on Naomi Klein — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:44:47 +0000

[...] Original post by Some Rights Reserved [...]

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:25:44 +0000

You think that Gintis is a libertarian? Krugman is a John Bircher compared to Gintis. Did his recommendations about what Krugman ought to stress strike you as libertarian? Cause that would be weird. Read this: http://books.google.com/books?id=8CUOAAAAQAAJ I love the guy because he's brilliant, challenging, wide-ranging, and goes where the evidence leads him. But I think he'd wince at the thought that somebody out there thinks he's a libertarian.