While I share Mr Katz's lack of enthusiasism for corporate power, his "transcendental ideology of individualism" seems to be a profoundly misguided counterattack.
To begin with, Katz makes the curious claim that "individualism, which has increasingly retreated to and thrived on the Internet, doesn't really have a coherent ideology, almost by definition."
Apparently Katz has in mind an individualism fundamentally different from that of, say, John Locke, Adam Smith, or Ayn Rand. For, contrary to Katz's assertions, there has indeed been a few individualists who proposed what some might consider a coherant ideology. The economic system usually associated with such individualists is capitalism.
Katz doesn't use the word capitalism in his article. Perhaps this is linked to his goal of "transcend[ing] the suffocating boundaries of Left and Right in order to create an ideology of individualism." Transcend all you like, Mr Katz, but individualism as an explicit ideology is essentially what distinguishes the Right from the Left. That much is historical fact, and it might help to realize it before attempting to "transcend" it.
For example, Katz argues that,
We should acknowledge that economics matters (a lot), but it can't be society's only common goal. Nothing could be more morally bankrupt than a culture devoted only to making money, and to diverting work, technology and other institutions to that primary purpose.
I couldn't agree more, but individualism (as it is usually understood) is the cause of such problems! Individualism teaches that the individual will, whenever possible, is to be placed above the common will (whatever you want to define that as). Therefore, a "culture devoted only to making money" is logically acceptable for an individualist, for it embodies the sum of each individual's will. He may indeed find it "morally bankrupt", but as an INDIVIDUALIST he is prepared to respect that decision.
But it's statements like this that make me wonder whether even Katz takes himself seriously:
Free and prosperous markets are important, but corporate entities should also embrace moral and ideological values -- of their own choosing --apart from pleasing stockholders.
Huh? The reason a corporation even exists in the first place is because of the money invested by its stockholders. The stockholders control the corporation. They OWN IT.
So instead of criticizing the "ideology of corporatism" -- which seems to me indistinguishable from individualism -- perhaps we ought to be criticizing actual, existing property relations. Stockholders control corporations -- but should they?
Unlike the "spoiled kid", Microsoft wasn't handed their large empire. Now, I do agree that Microsoft's business practices are questionable (remembering when IE first came out)... but don't forget that they had to fight to get where they are.
Perhaps, but that hardly makes them above the law.
In a country that is so passionate about Capitalism and has a history of being against Communism
Speak for yourself. Perhaps Americans are so "passionate" about capitalism and "against" communism because the communists were jailed and killed. And as for our "history" of anti-communism, do you mean things like Haymarket Square, the labor riots of 1877 (where general strikes in many US cities were stopped only by the National Guard), or perhaps McCarythyism?
(read: government controlled economies)
But the US has a government controlled economy. Are you suggesting that the US has once and for all decided the the government has no authority to "control" capitalists; that business in the US is completely above the law? For it is obvious that this is not the case, nor has it been in the past. Trusts have indeed been broken up, minimum wage laws have been enacted, and racial and sexual discrimination has been made illegal. This is control of the economy.
it's interesting how quickly people want the Government to step in and stop this overwelming Capitalistic success.
It wouldn't be the first time, despite what the Wall Street Journal might tell you.
Slashdot Mirror
To begin with, Katz makes the curious claim that "individualism, which has increasingly retreated to and thrived on the Internet, doesn't really have a coherent ideology, almost by definition."
Apparently Katz has in mind an individualism fundamentally different from that of, say, John Locke, Adam Smith, or Ayn Rand. For, contrary to Katz's assertions, there has indeed been a few individualists who proposed what some might consider a coherant ideology. The economic system usually associated with such individualists is capitalism.
Katz doesn't use the word capitalism in his article. Perhaps this is linked to his goal of "transcend[ing] the suffocating boundaries of Left and Right in order to create an ideology of individualism." Transcend all you like, Mr Katz, but individualism as an explicit ideology is essentially what distinguishes the Right from the Left. That much is historical fact, and it might help to realize it before attempting to "transcend" it.
For example, Katz argues that,
We should acknowledge that economics matters (a lot), but it can't be society's only common goal. Nothing could be more morally bankrupt than a culture devoted only to making money, and to diverting work, technology and other institutions to that primary purpose.
I couldn't agree more, but individualism (as it is usually understood) is the cause of such problems! Individualism teaches that the individual will, whenever possible, is to be placed above the common will (whatever you want to define that as). Therefore, a "culture devoted only to making money" is logically acceptable for an individualist, for it embodies the sum of each individual's will. He may indeed find it "morally bankrupt", but as an INDIVIDUALIST he is prepared to respect that decision.
But it's statements like this that make me wonder whether even Katz takes himself seriously:
Free and prosperous markets are important, but corporate entities should also embrace moral and ideological values -- of their own choosing --apart from pleasing stockholders.
Huh? The reason a corporation even exists in the first place is because of the money invested by its stockholders. The stockholders control the corporation. They OWN IT.
So instead of criticizing the "ideology of corporatism" -- which seems to me indistinguishable from individualism -- perhaps we ought to be criticizing actual, existing property relations. Stockholders control corporations -- but should they?
Perhaps, but that hardly makes them above the law.
In a country that is so passionate about Capitalism and has a history of being against Communism
Speak for yourself. Perhaps Americans are so "passionate" about capitalism and "against" communism because the communists were jailed and killed. And as for our "history" of anti-communism, do you mean things like Haymarket Square, the labor riots of 1877 (where general strikes in many US cities were stopped only by the National Guard), or perhaps McCarythyism?
(read: government controlled economies)
But the US has a government controlled economy. Are you suggesting that the US has once and for all decided the the government has no authority to "control" capitalists; that business in the US is completely above the law? For it is obvious that this is not the case, nor has it been in the past. Trusts have indeed been broken up, minimum wage laws have been enacted, and racial and sexual discrimination has been made illegal. This is control of the economy.
it's interesting how quickly people want the Government to step in and stop this overwelming Capitalistic success.
It wouldn't be the first time, despite what the Wall Street Journal might tell you.