This article may be the easiest explanation of the debt crisis I've ever read. It's so well written and informative I almost missed the author's most important omission. But to be sure I did not, the author assures me in his closing paragraph, that the people of the world must: ".. work together to promote true progressive and humane change.."
Throughout the article Marshall provides quotes that show global financial leaders expressing their "concern" about the instability and chaos the state austerity programs already caused in the EU and around the world. He quotes economic thinkers who say they are worried what these drastic measures (higher taxes on the poor and middle class, cuts in public services, etc) will cause in North America. Almost to a man the experts foresee a time when Americans choose Marxist street chaos and protests as a way of redress. Prediction or prophecy, all the soothsayers agree, social unrest leading to riots and street protests is going to happen here next.
The communitarian's economic and social solution to the financial dialectic is truly progressive and humane, and the use of these terms raise a giant flag with me, almost as much as the progressive UN term Human Rights.
And yes, I've heard more than once about my "obsession" with my "little pet peeve" (called communitarianism) and that it's egotistical of me to judge others based on my pet theory. Maybe that's all true. But isn't is strange that Marshall opens with a description of the banker's Hegelian dialectical method yet he never mentions Hegel or explains false dialectics at all? (He did quote List, as if List were an advocate of universal unions aka globalization?).
Marshall's purpose for warning us of the dangers to our financial freedom does not include how they are being curtailed by the established supra-national model for global governance.
I don't know Marshall and I'm fairly certain he could care less what I think of his work. Being anti communitarian doesn't make me many friends or associates, and probably loses more for me than any gains I might have, that's for sure. As much as I want to champion the writers at global research, I can't trust anyone who so openly asks me to embrace a Hegelian solution.
Maybe to Marshall and so many other great writers of our time, the word communitarian is just not important. The fact that it's a key word in rebuilding a true progressive, humane society may be part of their avoidance. Why bother to mention that the trade union/EU/WTO laws that successfully destroyed the European and global economy are called, in the EU court records, communitarian laws? Is it only a coincidence that violent street riots are considered to be the best avenue for effecting radical social changes? Or did Hegel really teach that violent conflict is the ultimate human evolutionary tool?
The engineering of a social system that has a name and a philosophy is never very important.