Guardian: Occupy Wall Street ends capitalism's alibi

[supernova]

I suppose this really belongs in the editorials section, but this is the best supportive piece I've come across yet. Richard Wolff (Prof. Emeritus of Economics UMass Amherst) is talking about a decently doable path between the protests and the formation of a political movement that could run for office and change laws.

This protest pinpoints how dysfunctional our economic system is: we must refashion it for human needs, not corporate aims.
...

Let me urge the occupiers to ignore the usual carping that besets powerful social movements in their earliest phases. Yes, you could be better organised, your demands more focused, your priorities clearer. All true, but in this moment, mostly irrelevant. Here is the key: if we want a mass and deep-rooted social movement of the left to re-emerge and transform the United States, we must welcome the many different streams, needs, desires, goals, energies and enthusiasms that inspire and sustain social movements. Now is the time to invite, welcome and gather them, in all their profusion and confusion.

...

So permit me, in the spirit of honoring and contributing something to this historic movement, to propose yet another dimension, another item to add to your agenda for social change. To achieve the goals of this renewed movement, we must finally change the organisation of production that sustains and reproduces inequality and injustice. We need to replace the failed structure of our corporate enterprises that now deliver profits to so few, pollute the environment we all depend on, and corrupt our political system.

We need to end stock markets and boards of directors. The capacity to produce the goods and services we need should belong to everyone – just like the air, water, healthcare, education and security on which we likewise depend. We need to bring democracy to our enterprises. The workers within and the communities around enterprises can and should collectively shape how work is organised, what gets produced, and how we make use of the fruits of our collective efforts.

If we believe democracy is the best way to govern our residential communities, then it likewise deserves to govern our workplaces. Democracy at work is a goal that can help build this movement.

Much more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/04/occupy-wall-street-new-york

[Blue Meany]

I don't think that it is capitalism per se that is the problem--

except in certain areas like housing, healthcare, and food that should not be left strictly to the free-market. Small scale community-based capitalism (i.e., small businesses whose owners are members of the community they serve) work pretty well. Is is the huge scale corproations, where decision-makers are far removed from those who are affected by their decisions, that are the major problem.

[Blue Meany]

1. I don't think that it is capitalism per se that is the problem--

except in certain areas like housing, healthcare, and food that should not be left strictly to the free-market. Small scale community-based capitalism (i.e., small businesses whose owners are members of the community they serve) work pretty well. Is is the huge scale corproations, where decision-makers are far removed from those who are affected by their decisions, that are the major problem.

[supernova]

2. Actually, I think capitalism

as we now practice it is the problem.

There have been lots of buzz words over the years: laissez-faire, trickle-down, free trade, unfettered capitalism is a problem. It doesn't matter if you have JP Morgan or Mom&Pop's grocery. The major tilt of the society in that existance is still profits at all costs, to human health, to families, to our quality of life including private time and the environment. Our whole society has become tilted toward the pursuit profits and it didn't used to be that way. We had much more of a sense of work/life balance and fair play about it.

And as the protesters show, there is no reason that the majority of us have to put up with it being that way.

[SixthSense]

3. we are not practicing capitalism

we have had nothing more than a kleptocratic oligarchy for decades now

[blindpig]

8. Complete bullshit.

What about current practice is not capitalism?

A 'kleptocratic oligarchy' is the inevitable result of capitalism. Reformism has failed, that is also inevitable. References to some long gone ideal of capitalism, say the 1830's, is likewise futile, capitalism is a process. The only thing left to be done with capitalism is to kill it.

[white_wolf]

12. No we are practicing capitalism.

The means of production are in private hands and are operated for profit. That is capitalism.

[SixthSense]

15. But the other half is not in place

private profit is only half the equation

private losses when these companies fail is the other half of capitalism - and that is NOT happening! Losses are being socialized.

[white_wolf]

17. It may not be Adam Smith style capitalism, but it is still a form of capitalism.

Capitalism is a system of social relations where the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit. Merriam-Webster defines it as the following:

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Is that not what we have here?

[SixthSense]

19. No it's not what we have

We just poured a trillion dollars into investments via government, that's not "determined by private decision". And we poured what, $14 trillion and counting into bailouts for these losers, that wasn't a private decision either.

Nor are our prices, production and distribution determined by competition in a free market. These markets are very far from being anywhere close to "free". When was the last time you saw a posted price at a health care provider of any kind? That sector is 16%+ of the total economy, government is somewhere around 25%, and then throw in the FIRE economy (which is mostly fraud) and we're talking over half of our entire economy is nowhere close to being a free market, just on those alone!

This isn't "free" anything - everywhere you look the allegedly free market is manipulated and more often than not it is the law which is the instrument used to do it. Heck, even our currency is not subject to the free market when Bernanke can flood hundreds of billions of dollars into the system on the decision of a mere handful of non-elected banking insiders.

If we had free markets we wouldn't be in this mess. We might be in a different mess but it wouldn't be anywhere near what we got now.

What we have now is the worst of all worlds for the non-elites: private profits, public losses. Every sector you look at there is some sort of manipulation, collusion, or artificial barrier designed to keep the people at the top where they are and to prevent anyone else from having a prayer in hell of getting there.

[Quantess]

22. Yes, that's another name for unfettered capitalism.

[PETRUS]

7. Who can give me

concise and clear definitions of the following terms:

democracy
freedom
opportunity
the rule of law

and explain their relationship to capitalism, and why, in a country that purports to honor those principles and practice capitalism, that the economic winners tend to work to erode those principles.

[NashVegas]

13. Control, Consolidation of Gains

Once you make it to the top, you fear anything that could displace your ass. Well, some people do, and they will work to insure that doesn't happen. Usually involves some amount of cheating.

[Dover]

23. Capitalism represents a set of values which are changing and do not serve the collective.

The change is, in large part, about how we value one another, the planet, etc. The current system does not accurately reflect how this has and is changing.

So perhaps it is, at its root, the shifting values that are fuelling the desire for change, as much or more than strictly discontent over things like job loss, health care, pensions, etc. I don't think people want to go back, but rather want change based on a new foundation of values. But it is a complex change, not a black and white one. And we are complex beings who are at once all connected as well as individuals. We can come together in all our diversity in order to manifest our new collective values that honors and embraces this diversity. It ratifies polarity.

[femrap]

4. Couldn't he get this published anywhere

in the US....guess not.

Maybe what we are experiencing here is the late-stage of Capitalism where all the major corporations in a specific industry are basically in COLLUSION.

For example, is there a difference between Comcast and Time Warner? Where I live I have NO COMPETITION....just one cable provider.

The Oil Boyz don't compete....and they have all merged into one disgusting family. In my town, the gas prices are ALWAYS THE SAME....and usually 25 cents more than the next town which is 25 miles away.

Maybe Marx was right...it will kill itself.

I mean, come on.....a Corporation is a 'person?' It's beyond human comprehension.

I am one of the 99% and I would love to see some sort of Political Party emerge from this....the 99% Party and lets get Elizabeth Warren to run for President.

[supernova]

5. Guardian has a section for American editorials

The Guardian has two sections: Comment is free (British and International focused) and Comment is free America about US topics. That's where this piece is. I don't know if he tried to publish it here. It probably would fall on deaf ears.

[Blue Meany]

6. Unregulated capitalism will kill itself...it require continued

intervention to save capitalism from the capitalists who would destroy it

[blindpig]

9. So what's the point?

Let's just ditch the goddamn thing.

[leftstreet]

10. When you regulate capitalism, it's no longer capitalism

Why doesn't anyone ever worry about 'regulating' socialism?

[Blue Meany]

14. Not sure you how you do that, which get to the heart of the

downside of socialism: centralization of power. But that is what we have now with corporate capitalism. A mixed economy, with some limitation on wealth and publiclly-funded elections would probably be an improvement on both.

[white_wolf]

16. That is only true in Stalinist nations.

There are many different types of socialism. Some are very anti-authoritarian, such as Left Communism, Luxemburgism, Trotskyism, and Anarchism, which is very anti authoritarian.

[kenfrequed]

18. Actually

that sort of authoritarian statism has little in common with communism or socialism. Consensual democratic equality is a requirement for any kind of proper communism and in the soviet union that did not always exist.

[leftstreet]

11. K&R

[supernova]

20. Kick for the evening crowd

[WillyT]

21. K & R !!!

:kick: