The Capitalist Threat ( George Soros speaks)

Atlantic Monthly ^ | February 1997 | George Soros

[haroldeveryman]

“The supposedly scientific theory that has been used to validate (laissez-faire) turns out to be an axiomatic structure whose conclusions are contained in its assumptions and are not necessarily supported by the empirical evidence.”

Laissez faire (free market economics) is driven by the voluntary collective judgments of all participants ( entrepreneurs, consumers, investors, etc.). By definition, the practice of Laissez faire is therefore a grass roots (bottom up) driven. The decisions made in a free market are made by a huge number of people acting upon their personal observations and specialized knowledge. It’s decision makers look primarily at available facts (i.e. empirical evidence). Since they sink or swim with the effects of their own decisions, they don’t spend much time debating abstract theories in coffee houses. George Soros may not always agree with particular decision made by most stock holders but the market’s empirically based decisions are almost always economically superior to those made by the government.

On the other hand, command economies (socialism and its communist and fascist offshoots), are based on abstract theories imposed (top down) by the government. If people acting in their own self interest (like trying to hang onto their life savings) get in the way of their plans, those in government will do whatever it takes to end their foot dragging (and there goes “rule of law”). That’s why “well meaning” socialist ideologies invariably lead to totalitarian governments. In in order to push their “reforms through, they start by playing fast and loose with property rights and the limits of freedom of speech. And if the “Fairness Doctrine” doesn’t end the foot dragging, maybe a more little brutality will get it done.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"Popper juxtaposed with these totalitarian ideologies another view of society, which recognizes that nobody has a monopoly on the truth; different people have different views and different interests, and there is a need for institutions that allow them to live together in peace. "

It's a false dichotomy and utopian based on the denial of truth which, as can be seen, he doesn't really follow because he is claiming to have the truth. What a mess! The Obammunists are pushing the totalitarianism. Obama's socialism is NOT the "open society."

Take "the Fairness Doctrine" as an example. Would the "open society" favor limiting the free speech of conservatives on the radio? Does the Bergsonian-Popperian "open society" model require censoring conservative speech on the radio?

"IN The Philosophy of History, Hegel discerned a disturbing historical pattern -- the crack and fall of civilizations owing to a morbid intensification of their own first principles. "

Let Obama start talking about the Hegelian part of the agenda.

[TheThinker]

Soros isn’t concerned about redistributing his own wealth but consolidating it. He’s only concerned about redistributing America’s wealth as to weaken it and prosper from it.

[Marine_Uncle]

I thought it was well established at this point that GS financed the mechanisms for Zero to get in.

[Cacique]

The Friedrich Engels of the modern age.

[Kackikat]

Aha...identity theft.

[CowboyJay]

Soros should lead by example rather than hypocrisy. He should distribute his wealth to the poor and become equal with them. If that way is truly best, why hasn't he done so already?

Because he doesn't have to. He's a despot. He's figured out he can redistribute your wealth to keep the mob from roasting him on the spit. He's figured out he needs a weakened America to fully realize his despotic wet-dream. He's tricked the 'free-trade' crowd into willing participation with the whole 'globalism' scam.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Perhaps on Free Republic;

Not so at CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC,...NY Times...etc...

[TChris]

He's tricked the 'free-trade' crowd into willing participation with the whole 'globalism' scam.

???

Umm, non-sequitur dude. George Soros != Globalism.

You're confusing yourself.

Capitalism = Free Trade.

Socialism = George Soros.

[CowboyJay]

You're confusing yourself.

No. George Soros and his pals have confused you.

Our current system of 'free trade' is an illusion. The deck is stacked from the get-go, and you'll find Soros' sticky little fingers all over the cards if you care to look.

It's a massive wealth-redistribution scheme. What's happening to this country now is the result of the ideology of 'free-trade' meeting the reality of despots like Soros.

As an earlier poster mentioned, capitalism and trade are only economic tools to be used for the benefit of a society. It's an invisible hand that can be used to build or to tear down. When it's elevated to the level of religion and displaces morality it becomes just another form of despotic totalitarianism to be exploited by the most cunning.

Soros is one cunning devil. He and his cohorts have 'free traders' crawling over one another in a race to industrialize Red China. In turn, he's turning the passions of 'free traders' against them to turn America into Red China. I'm sure he thinks it's hilarious.

Hope he enjoys the char-broil when he quits wasting our oxygen.

[TChris]

It's a massive wealth-redistribution scheme.

Listsen to yourself! You may as well be saying "Black is white!"

Free trade is not a "wealth-redistribution scheme".

Yes, Soros is a hypocrite of the highest order, making billions in a capitalist economy even as he seeks to destroy it, but George Soros' actions don't define what "Free Trade" means.

[CowboyJay]

Free trade is not a "wealth-redistribution scheme".

Well, you swing away at enough pitches and you'll make contact eventually...

Globalism is a wealth distribution scheme. It means, literally 'Global Socialism'. 'Free trade' is a modus operandi of globalism, as are Keynesian Economics and internationalist groups such as the UN and the WTO. Free trade has been sold as a panacea for everything from genital warts to head lice to dupe and radicalize ideologues. It's all an illusion. Try to sell something overseas. You'll find out in short order, there is no such thing as free trade or free markets.

The only place free trade exists is fairy tales and yard sales. Might as well nominate the Easter Bunny for Trade Secretary. For Soros, it's a way to dupe the United States of America to act in a manner directly contrary to its' own best interests, and that of its' citizens.

By advocating for laws hostile to business within our borders, and simultaneously breaking down barriers to capital flowing overseas, Soros and his pals are deindustrializing the USA. Don't even get me started on the WTO. May as well let the UN sit down and divvy our economy up amongst them...

If the Free Radicals would pipe down on the jingoism and quit scavenging everyone else's oxygen long enough to actually listen for a sec, they'd realize they're being led around by their short-hairs.

Read up a little on Fabian Socialism:



It's so easy looter-guy could do it!

[TChris]

Well, you swing away at enough pitches and you'll make contact eventually...

Yes, I've heard all the "anti-globalism" monster stories before. They're no more true and no more scary than before.

Free trade is still a Good Thing; protectionism is still a Bad Thing. Economic studies have proven the relationship over and over again, but such empirical evidence cannot convince those who base their judgments in fear and anger.

The more free the trade, the wealthier the nation. The more protectionist, the poorer. It really is just that simple.

[betty boop]

Although I have made a fortune in the financial markets, I now fear that the untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values into all areas of life is endangering our open and democratic society. The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.

I just have a couple questions for Mr. Soros. When did the United States ever have "untrammelled laissez-faire capitalism" in the past, say, 100 years? What exactly does Mr. Soros mean by "market values?" Markets don't have "values"; only market participants have "values." Based on such squishy allegations, Mr. Soros avers that it is capitalism that puts our "open and democratic society" at risk. Yet how does Mr. Soros define an "open" society? Indeed, how does he define democracy?

I didn't realize the United States was an "open society." Indeed, on Mr. Soros' definition, it is not one, and has never been one:

IT is easier to identify the enemies of the open society than to give the concept a positive meaning. Yet without such a positive meaning the open society is bound to fall prey to its enemies. There has to be a common interest to hold a community together, but the open society is not a community in the traditional sense of the word. It is an abstract idea, a universal concept.... Moreover, the open society as a universal concept transcends all boundaries. Societies derive their cohesion from shared values. These values are rooted in culture, religion, history, and tradition. When a society does not have boundaries, where are the shared values to be found? I believe there is only one possible source: the concept of the open society itself.

I still don't see a definition here. But it seems clear to me that what Soros is arguing for is the delegitimation and ultimate extinction of culture, religion, history, and tradition in the American consciousness, so to clear the decks for the implementation of the as-yet undefined values of the open society.

To fulfill this role, the concept of the open society needs to be redefined. Instead of there being a dichotomy between open and closed, I see the open society as occupying a middle ground, where the rights of the individual are safeguarded but where there are some shared values that hold society together. This middle ground is threatened from all sides. At one extreme, communist and nationalist doctrines would lead to state domination. At the other extreme, laissez-faire capitalism would lead to great instability and eventual breakdown....

I envisage the open society as a society open to improvement. We start with the recognition of our own fallibility, which extends not only to our mental constructs but also to our institutions. What is imperfect can be improved, by a process of trial and error. The open society not only allows this process but actually encourages it, by insisting on freedom of expression and protecting dissent. The open society offers a vista of limitless progress. In this respect it has an affinity with the scientific method. But science has at its disposal objective criteria — namely the facts by which the process may be judged. Unfortunately, in human affairs the facts do not provide reliable criteria of truth, yet we need some generally agreed-upon standards by which the process of trial and error can be judged. All cultures and religions offer such standards; the open society cannot do without them. The innovation in an open society is that whereas most cultures and religions regard their own values as absolute, an open society, which is aware of many cultures and religions, must regard its own shared values as a matter of debate and choice. To make the debate possible, there must be general agreement on at least one point: that the open society is a desirable form of social organization. People must be free to think and act, subject only to limits imposed by the common interests. Where the limits are must also be determined by trial and error.

Okay. Now I get it! The shared moral values of the "open society" are matters to be determined by "debate and choice": That is, by the political process itself....

Soros dismisses communism, capitalism, and a raft of other things he doesn't like as "dogmas" — and because they are dogmas is the reason he gives for his dislike. But what could his own rant about the "open society" be but a dogma?

At least he doesn't pull his punches. I wonder how many people will notice this stunning self-revelation of a leading behind-the-scenes Democrat operative and deep-pocket. I do believe that Soros' article in The Atlantic Monthly is "chapter and verse" of the New Doctrine that the progressive Left hopes to implement under the Obama presidency.

We have been well warned.

[CowboyJay]

Once again, for the naive. 'Trade' is good. It's the art of making a deal. It's the method by which we better our lot in life. Buy low, sell high. It's real. You can do it. The more trade the better, so long as you're not in the habit of trading real-estate for costume jewelry.

There is no such thing as 'free trade'. It is an artificial construct. You cannot touch it, feel it, or see it. There are trade treaties, trade regulations, labor regulation, monetary agencies, trade courts, trade organizations, et c., ad nauseum.

You can pretend to 'measure' it by using whatever metric causes your data set to fit your hypothesis, and then spin it to sell whatever agenda you're trying to hide. It's very much like 'anthropogenic climate change' in that regard (another Fabian construct).

There is nothing, and I mean N-O-T-H-I-N-G you can purchase that does not involve directly or indirectly some type of governmental tinkering; be it our government or another government, or some nebulous internationalist NGO setting the policy.

By throwing our hands in the air, and refusing to act in our own interests, the only thing we've done is put socialists and other governments in de facto charge of our domestic economy.

Anybody who believes that's a good thing has been brainwashed into lumping economic self-defense and self-interest in with isolationism.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the comments...this guy has been confusing to me.....but I know I don't like his machinations....

And I focus on this:

Where the limits are must also be determined by trial and error.

I think we are launched on the way regarding Trial and Error...with the Porkulus Bill!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

He's definitely trying...not sure he measures up:

Friedrich Engels

********************EXCERPT from Wikipedia*********************

Friedrich Engels (28 November 1820 – 5 August 1895) was a German social scientist and philosopher, who developed communist theory alongside his better-known collaborator, Karl Marx, co-authoring The Communist Manifesto (1848). Engels also edited the second and third volumes of Das Kapital after Marx's death.

[betty boop]

...this guy has been confusing to me....but I know I don't like his machinations....

You've got great instincts then, Ernest_at_the_Beach! With Soros, it's really pretty simple: He is a one-worlder, a globalizer who understands that no international regime can be erected — to be run, of course, by (and for the interests of) a more-or-less self-selected set of elite, "expert" politicians — while the United States remains strong. So the object of the game is to everywhere undermine the real interests of the United States, be it in the economic, national security, or foreign relations fields. Just keep wearing away at it and, gradually, over time, you'll bring America down. There's a gradualist approach involved here; but these people are very patient. The point is, their goals are well defined. Obama's obamanation of a bail-out bill is just a tiny down payment.

It seems to me that Obama is plainly sympathetic to Soros' views regarding traditionalist structures in society that must be "overcome." How else to interpret his disparaging remark regarding gun-toting, Bible-clinging rubes in the boonies?

Well, my two cents worth, FWIW. Thanks so much for writing, Ernest_at_the_Beach!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your illuminating essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

Seems to me that those who choose to reject absolute truth are in fact rejecting God. It will not end well for them.

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying], Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. – Psalms 2:1-5

To God be the glory!

[betty boop]

Seems to me that those who choose to reject absolute truth are in fact rejecting God. It will not end well for them.

Seems that way to me, too, dearest sister in Christ!

Yet it is because they reject absolute truth that they cannot see the peril they face, in the now and the hereafter both. For God is Truth, and He is a Just God. (Indeed, science itself depends on this understanding.)

Such folk laugh at us for saying such things. But it seems to me, God always has the last laugh in such matters. And so, as you say, quite possibly "it will not end well for them."

Thank you so very much for excerpting Psalms 2:1–5. It is the perfect cite on this question. And thank you so very much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!