Capitalism IS the problem

[Taverner]

Not the solution

I've seen quite a few posts here saying we have to tiptoe around capitalism, giving it its due respect, or OWS will fail

Bullshit

Capitalism got us into this mess

"Grow or die" is what caused the problem

We tried Capitalism with regulation

It didn't work

The Capitalists just bought the folks who were supposed to do the regulation

And you'd be crazy to not think that would happen again

Capitalism has failed

Chuck it into the dustbin of history, along with Maoism, Nazism, Fascism, Leninism and Stalinism.

[valerief]

1. Free trade, no tariffs. That fucked us over. nt

[Taverner]

3. But what led to free trade and no tariffs?

It was the "grow or die" mentality

[War Horse]

11. Part of "Globalism" was killing unions

IMO, that was a significant part of the road to Hades

[Unvanguard]

64. Capitalism is capitalism whether national or global.

I've never understood why people distinguish between being exploited and mistreated by domestic companies and being exploited and mistreated by foreign companies.

[dkf]

2. Yet it gives us New technology, pharmaceuticals, entertainment and a lot of the pleasures in life.

How else do you get there without incentives?

[Taverner]

5. Capitalism is not the only way to provide incentives

IN fact you can still reward these achievements with money under other systems

We're just tricked into thinking Capitalism is the ONLY way to reward initiative

[dkf]

7. How do you reward achievements with money and not be capitalist?

Is that just a renaming?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.<1> There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor on how the term should be used as a historical category.<2> There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.<3> The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.<4>

[Taverner]

9. Is the Nobel prize a capitalist reward?

Employees can be rewarded with bonuses even in state agencies...

[dkf]

14. Yes it is...

Alfred Bernhard Nobel ( pronunciation (help·info)) (21 October 1833 – 10 December 1896) was a Swedish chemist, engineer, innovator, and armaments manufacturer. He is the inventor of dynamite. Nobel also owned Bofors, which he had redirected from its previous role as primarily an iron and steel producer to a major manufacturer of cannon and other armaments. Nobel held 355 different patents, dynamite being the most famous. In his last will, he used his enormous fortune to institute the Nobel Prizes. The synthetic element nobelium was named after him. His name also survives in modern-day companies such as Dynamit Nobel and Akzo Nobel, which are descendents of the companies Nobel himself established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Nobel

[Taverner]

16. Nobel was a capitalist, but that doesn't mean the prize is

If the prize were capitalist, there would be a profit motive

[dkf]

21. 0bama got $1.4 million for his prize.

[Taverner]

24. Yes...and?

I don't get your point

[dkf]

36. It's a nice chunk of change.

[white_wolf]

39. Too bad he never earned a penny of that change,

Hedgefund managers are the worst of the capitalists. They produce nothing at all, they merely manipulate money.

[dkf]

56. They produce retirements for state pensioners.

[white_wolf]

59. No they don't.

Every single penny they gamble with was money earned by the working class.

[Synicus Maximus]

47. Exactly what did he do to win the prize?

[dkf]

55. Dunno. Doesn't seem like the ultimate in incentivizing though does it?

[Taverner]

80. It's an example

Let's go with another then - USPS, Alvarado Street Bakery, National Park Service...

[Honeycombe8]

73. If you reward with bonuses, that is capitalism. Money based on work effort and

accomplishments.

[leftstreet]

10. Why does a hedge fund manager get a bigger reward than the person who collects your garbage?

:shrug:

[pipoman]

17. Maybe because anyone who can walk and lift 50 pounds can collect garbage?

[Taverner]

20. ...and anyone with a keyboard can be a hedge fund manager

Come on, do you really think Garbage Collecting is the easiest job in the world?

I'd like to see you do it for a day

[pipoman]

45. How do you know I haven't?

Who said it was easy? Just said the pool of people qualified and capable is far, far larger than people qualified to manage a hedge fund successfully.

[LooseWilly]

100. Who says the hedge fund managers are qualified or successful? Can you say 'bailout'?

If any failure is going to result in a bailout... then we can take garbage men and make them hedge fund managers and they will still be "successful"...

This doesn't seem like a "viable" answer to the question posed.

[pipoman]

105. Unqualified, unsuccessful hedge managers

aren't hedge managers for long, and the trash collector likely makes more. I have to think the person bitching about the compensation of hedge managers was either referring to successful managers or is clueless about the profession...the comparison is silly.

[Honeycombe8]

74. So...go try and be a hedge fund manager. First, spend hundreds of thousands of

dollars getting a great secondary education. They won't let you in the door without it.

Then stand in line to compete for the few hundred hedge fund manager jobs in the world.

Then the hard part: you have to learn how to be a hudge fund manager.

Garbage collector is a brawn, blue collar job. Anyone with a little health can do it. No education required. Minimal training. There are a lot of those jobs around.

Let's say you own a company. You have to hire a manager and someone to clean the office. Would you pay them the same? Of course you wouldn't. You'd be giving charity to the office cleaner by overpaying him or her, or you wouldn't be able to find a manager to work at the office cleaner's salary.

[Taverner]

81. "There are a lot of those jobs around"

Yeah, right

[Taverner]

82. Besides, what GOOD is a hedge fund manager? Anwser: Useless

What GOOD is a garbage collector? Answer: Essential

[snooper2]

122. Oh THIS conversation again...Anybody can do any job

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


I've got a Marketing manager who can't remember his own product features...for a year now :rofl:

Now he probably would be a decent garbage man, but product manager, nope :)

[anneboleyn]

84. Geez, basic Marxism. Perceived value of labor vs. actual value of labor. And yes, a garbage collecto

collector does indeed do a task that is valuable to the community. Obviously it entails different skills. Why condemn a garbage collector?

Whether or not the dominant ideology values that form of labor as much as the efforts of a guy in a bank moving numbers around is another issue altogether. Capital dictates the worth of labor's output.

In capitalism, the people who make the most money put out the least labor (shareholders, etc.) It is a contradiction within the system that Marxists discuss at length.

[pipoman]

106. OFTLOF

Who is condemning anyone? Really....learn to read. If a hedge manager is good at what she does, she will return hundreds of thousands of dollars for every dollar of income. Further anyone who thinks the pool of qualified people to manage a hedge fund is the same as qualified garbage collectors is bathing in the pool of ignorance.. Help yourself, nobody is stopping you from finding yourself a cozy little spot where Marxism is the policy and set up house...I'll pass.

[white_wolf]

121. The point is garbage collectors perform a far more important task than the hedge fund managers,

At the very least, the people who pick up your trash haven't caused a global crisis, but the hedge fund managers you seem to idolize have.

[pipoman]

203. I know some in these parts are die-hard idealists

I said nowhere that I like hedge fund managers, nor dislike trash collectors. I'm simply responding to a silly question with the glaringly obvious answer.

[dkf]

19. Why does he lose half his assets in 10 months whereas the person collecting your garbage still gets

Paid?

Paulson's Biggest Fund Cut In Half
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/07/2011 21:50 -0400

A few days ago we suggested that based on ongoing losses in the portfolio of Paulson & Co, the biggest fund of the firm, Advantage Plus, is down a massive 50% YTD. A few hours ago, Absolute Return confirmed that the firm which has stepped on virtually every single possible landmine year to date, has had its AUM cut if not exactly in half, then surely close enough for Keynesian work, at -47%. And with that the speculations of an imminent terminal redemption event coupled with liquidations of the firm's gold share class (its GLD holdings) will resume, although the one thing unclear is whether Paulson has already sold off the bulk of his winners. We are confident we will learn the answer as soon as Monday.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/paulsons-biggest-fund-cut-half

[leftstreet]

25. lol let me get my violin

:nopity:

[dkf]

38. Well that's how he makes a lot and loses a lot

Sometimes making money and losing money are not tied to fairness but to risk taking.

[AndyTiedye]

204. The People Who Collect the Garbage Do Not Speak English

I think that may limit their job prospects somewhat.

[Billypenn]

117. The Space Program gave us alot of good stuff too.

Government initiative spurs innovation. You can't always depend on the so-called "job-creators" to do their job.

[leftstreet]

4. K&R

[yurbud]

6. capitalism with regulation worked so well that people stopped paying attention to gov't here

or thought it could run on autopilot or be dismantled and everything would be okay.

It's like a kid who doesn't understand why he has to wear a seatbelt until he goes flying through the windshield.

[Taverner]

8. Not sure how well it worked

"Regulation" still allowed industries like the Military Industrial Complex to buy the regulators

[Joe Fields]

98. that is a completely different argument, unrelated to capitalism.

[Taverner]

167. I disagree. I think it is essential in the understanding of Capitalism.

Corporatism is the end result of Capitalism. Monopolism if you go by Adam Smith. Either way, it is the end goal of the Capitalist to find an edge, any edge on their competitors. When the usual avenues have been exhausted (marketing, bells and whistles, price wars, etc) the Capitalists will buy their edge by buying the regulators. Less regulation means more profits. It's inevitable.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[War Horse]

12. So what is the alternative

to something like a mixed economy with regulations? Which might also somewhat realistically, possibly, maybe be implemented? Honest question.

[leftstreet]

15. Yeah, what is the alternative to letting rich people profit from our labor?

:shrug:

[War Horse]

27. So you've reached a level of political enlightenment

which I have yet to obtain. I asked an honest question. Some people still do that, you know ;)

[Taverner]

29. I'll give you a list of alternatives...

Socialism

Social Democracy

Anarcho-Syndicalism

Distributism

Communism (not my favorite, obviously)

...

[white_wolf]

34. A few disagreements.

First of all Social-Democracy,at least in its current form, is a type of capitalism. It maintains the capitalist mode of production. You mentioned socialism and communism both. What are the differences to you, because all communists will also say they are socialists.

[Taverner]

41. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communist

Communism seeks a classless and stateless society as its goal.

Socialism is actually a pretty wide net - and can be anything from employee owned cooperatives to complete state control of all means of production.

I'm not a big fan of Communism, as I find the eventual goal of anarchy to be a bit misguided.

Social Democracy, you're right, is a form of Capitalism. The profit motive is still there, and as you said, the mode of production. However, Social Democracy is a good transition between Capitalism and Socialism. Economist David Ricardo suggested this, and I think it's probably the most pain free way to transition. But its never been tried, so who knows...

[leftstreet]

30. No, I haven't even cracked a beer

:D

I think your question is sincere

There really has to be an alternative to letting a handful of people profit from our labor

[AndyTiedye]

86. Alternatives Are, Be Self-Employed, Work for a Cooperative or a Non-Profit or a Government Agency

Working for an employee-owned company would be another possibility.

I have probably missed a few.

[ChillbertKChesterton]

18. The answer of "what we should do now" is to find an answer to this question

And in the process of answering, we will face failures.

Leftists need to re-embrace certain values that have been renounced by the previous generations of activists. Anti-authority, anti-order, anti-discipline, pro-free love, pro-self actualization through inner experience, ect. ect.

We need to grow past this. Accept appopriate authority, accept following appropriate orders, accept hard discipline and hard work. We need to re-accept family values and moderation.

We need to take back what the conservative movement has claimed for itself, and use it for the Right Reasons. IF the left can take all of these values upon itself and work towards finding an alternative, then it can be done.

[War Horse]

Then you can move along without me

"Accept appopriate authority, accept following appropriate orders, accept hard discipline and hard work. We need to re-accept family values and moderation."

Hard work? Moderation? Sure. The rest will be a damned hard sell...

[ChillbertKChesterton]

71. There's no way real social change can happen without it

This is where the hippy movement failed. When they could have been organizing and working relentlessly to change the system, they found salvation in their inner-experience. Drugs, hedonism, free love, anti-authority and the rest of it for it's own sake is entirely within the realm of the existing power structure. Those things on their own are easily co-opted by the powers that be, and turned against us.

Capitalism turned the values of inner-experience, self-actualization, enjoyment without limits, free sexuality, and so on, into easy commodities. These are the exact ways products today are sold to us.

After the movement in the 60's, leftism fell apart and the progress of working people and social justice has stagnated ever since.

If the left doesn't "grow up" so to speak, nothing significant will happen. Real change will require work, it will require discipline, it will require leaders and authority, it will require a sense of duty, it will require a re-establishing of boundaries, taboos, and limits.

Today's capitalism lets people do anything they want, except for anything that will make a difference. If people want to create real change, they will have to impose their own limits, their own rules, their own authority.

[Taverner]

22. The alternative is to scrap capitalism

As someone else pointed out, you don't keep a failed hypothesis because there is no alternative

[TBF]

28. I wonder if folks said to George Washington "so what is the alternative"

Those folks knew what they were doing. They dumped the fucking tea and went to war. They didn't sit around saying "hey, what is your alternative". They wrote their declaration (just like OWS I might add here) and started a new system.

We could do that too.

[ChillbertKChesterton]

13. People say "well if you don't have an alternative, you shouldn't criticize Capitalism!"

That is bullshit. Criticize Capitalism because it deserves to be criticized. Don't let the lack of a pre-defined path prevent you from seeing that the one you are on is wrong.

If you are a scientist and you falsify a theory, you can't just say "well the theory is falsified but we need to keep it because we don't have an alternative yet" That is bullshit.

In the global capitalist experiment, capitalism has been falsified. The link between Capitalism and Democracy has been broken as well, wonderfully demonstrated in places like Singapore and Hong Kong.

If we want the best things about liberalism (democracy, freedom, ect.) to survive, we must move beyond capitalism.

The lack of a clear alternative isn't an excuse to stop questioning, it's a motivation to question EVEN HARDER.

We need to re-examine the very basics of our ideological foundations, rethink the very questions we are asking, and look for new answers.

Capitalism is unsustainable. The utopianism of today is not saying that we need to grow beyond capitalism, the true utopian vision today is the naive belief that things can keep on going on as they are today.

Do not let people tell you that you cannot criticize capitalism.

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. all systems that totally eradicated capitalism have been impoverished totalitarian nightmares

there has never in the entire history of the world been one single exception that was able to sustain beyond the briefest of periods - ever - not one - ever.

Obviously rampant, unrestrained capitalism that does not include a strong socialist element does not work either.

Only mixed economies work. Social democracy has its problems. But if one wants both prosperity and freedom - nothing else works.

[Taverner]

26. Yet Capitalism itself leads to impoverished totalitarian nightmares

Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, Somosa's Nicaragua, Wilson's USA...

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. l modern Europe has shown a workable alternative - not perfect - but something that actually works

Obviously the power of capitalism like all power has to be kept in check. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - whether capital power or state power. If it were possible to do as the anarchist dream would suggest to eliminate all authority and still maintain a reasonable degree of order along with a prosperous and free society - that would be quite nice. But I see no evidence that any sustainable workable model has ever occurred. Chomsky argues quite eloquently that it did occur during the Spanish social revolution of 1936/1937 - but many other observers were not so convinced. But even if Chomsky was right about the Spanish social revolution - it collapsed over night when confronted with an existential threat which was not primarily from Franco but from Communist and Socialist. And that was only one very brief moment in history in one very limited location and many leftist who were there do not think it worked very well.

[rustydog]

31. No,UNREGULATED Capitalism is the problem

There needs to be rules, regulations and oversight otherwise, greed runs rampant.
Savings and load debacle? Deregulation and hog-tied oversight. Thank you GOP.
ENRON debacle? Deregulation and hog-tied oversight. Thank you GOP

Capitalism is ok, if you keep it in check with sensible rules and regulations.

[Taverner]

32. The problem is, Capitalism provides motivation to buy the regulators

It always happens - regulations are passed, and slowly their power is whittled down by corporations, who don't want said regulation. They buy the lawmakers, the regulators, the media. It's a vicious cycle.

[War Horse]

51. I'll have to give you that

"Capitalism provides motivation to buy the regulators". That's a very good qoute.

[Gregorian]

62. Greed provides the motivation. No matter what system.

It's the love of money, not the system. Any system can be bought.

[workinclasszero]

65. Agreed

If we somehow get politicians to reinstate controls on wall street, the banks and corporations, its just a matter of time until they buy out of it again.

Unlimited private money in campaign chests will screw us again and again.

[Nederland]

66. And there is no incentive to bribe government officials in Socialism? (nt)

[roamer65]

33. Democratic Socialism IS the answer.

[OHdem10]

37. UNREGULATED Capitalism.

[MineralMan]

40. OK. Then, it's time to find a path to a non-capitalistic

system in this country of 350 million people. Keep in mind that the path must not cause more suffering and death that the current system. It must keep those 350 million people alive and moving forward. In thinking about this, as I have done for 40 years, I have yet to come up with any plan that accomplishes that. What's yours? What path do you see that will move toward what you are suggesting that does not end with millions starving to death. Right now, we have unemployment somewhere between 10 and 20%, depending on who you ask. How do you end capitalism without making that situation much, much worse?

You want it? Then explain how to get it in a way that doesn't kill millions of people. I'll wait right here for your response.

[leftstreet]

42. If workers owned the means of production, how would millions starve to death?

wut....?

[MineralMan]

46. Oh, dear. Sounds great. How do you accomplish having the

workers own the means of production, exactly? Those are lofty goals, and you're absolutely right about that being a good thing. So, get me from here to there. You don't have to provide all the details - just the framework with some basic steps in the process. I'll be waiting for your plan. I've been waiting for 40 years for such a plan.Frankly, I'm not bright enough to come up with one, although I've tried. Maybe you have the answer, but it's going to take more than slogans that date back over 100 years, I'm afraid. You've provided a slogan. Now match it with a plan. I've read Marx and Engels, too, and Lenin and all the others. What's your plan to move from here to there?

By the way, I've owned the means of my production since 1974. I produce goods and sell them. The goods change from time to time, but I own the means of production. It's worked OK, but not great. Right now, it's not working so well, but I continue to do as I have always done - make a living by my wits. It's how I live. I'd love it if everyone could do the same. It's not easy. Sometimes, it seems impossible. I'm a bright guy, and I have struggled to make ends meet a number of times in those almost 40 years. So, how does a guy who has worked in a factory all his life do it. What's he going to produce? Where does he get the equipment needed to do that production? What do you do to earn your keep?

Lots of questions - damned few answers. It's time to come up with some answers.

[leftstreet]

53. You didn't answer the question n/t

[MineralMan]

60. Nor did you answer mine. I asked for a path, you provided an

end point. You answer my question, and then I'll answer yours.

[leftstreet]

61. Why do you want a path to a system you say will kill millions? n/t

[AndyTiedye]

68. Howzabout Capitalism Dominated by Worker-Owned Businesses?

Capitalism offers a number of options for worker ownership, such as running one's own business as Mineralman does,
or a cooperative, or even a regular corporation which is owned by its employees.

We may be heading that way anyway by default. Many of the giant corporations are collapsing under their own weight,
usually after having been hollowed-out and looted by their own management. What passes for corporate governance is a joke.
Those corporations that still have money aren't spending it here and aren't even expecting to make it here either.

They are abolishing themselves.

We're still gonna need stuff, and we're still gonna need jobs, so we're going to need some new businesses.
Employee-owned seems better than state-owned.

[Taverner]

78. If *all* companies were employee owned - that would fall under the definition of Socialism

Granted, I don't think that's enough - but it would be a move in the right direction

[white_wolf]

85. That would be Mutualism. An influential early form of anarchism.

[Taverner]

44. Economist David Ricardo suggested Social Democracy as a tranition phase

Thus, avoiding the killing

As for the jobs, if the people, not just the state, had control of the means of production - jobs for the masses.

[MineralMan]

48. And how do you put people in control of the means of production,

Taverner? Again, you're speaking in slogans. We all know the slogans. Social Democracy works pretty well in some European countries. How do we get from here to there? What's the process? Slogans aren't going to get us there, especially slogans from over 100 years ago. There have been nations that professed those slogans. There have. How are they doing?

Get us from where we are from where you think we should be in some actual steps, no matter how broad those steps are. Write them down. Post them. Don't just repeat 100 year old slogans.

[Taverner]

77. How do we get there? Nationalize certain companies. I'd start with Big Pharm.

Include Big Oil.

It won't be easy, but it will be worth it.

[AndyTiedye]

94. When the Oil Companies Fuck Up Big Time, Cancel their Leases

It would be expensive, you have to compensate all the shareholders. The Constitution requires it.
Besides, they're not all wealthy capitalists, many are retired employees of the company, etc.

Then there is the question of what you would be getting.

Why nationalize the oil companies? What you you get? a bunch of run-down refineries and gas stations. Oil leases. They're leases. The government already owns the actual property.
You don't need to nationalize the oil companies. Cancel their leases when they fuck up. BP should have lost every lease they have for the Gulf disaster. Exxon should have lost theirs for Valdez.
What landlord would put up with such careless and destructive tenants?

[Taverner]

164. But that's just it - Capitalism won't let that happen

No incentive for the government to do so

[socialist_n_TN]

201. It's easy to compensate the shareholders

Up to a certain holdings level, compensate them at market rates. Over that level, compensate them with special government bonds that can ONLY be redeemed by the named holder PERSONALLY in 100 years.

Problem solved. :)

[MineralMan]

107. You do realize that there is no current way to nationalize

those companies. We do not have a method that can be used to do that in this country. It cannot be done without some really major legislation, and could even require a constitutional amendment. Eminent Domain isn't enough.

[snooper2]

123. And that's where the conversation ends...

Lofty goals with no real plans to implement

[SidDithers]

126. As a wise DU'er wrote in a different thread...

"That's the beauty of fantasies - you never have to sweat the details."

:thumbsup:

Sid

[MineralMan]

129. That's what's so frustrating to me. I have lofty goals, too,

but I haven't been able to figure out how we can get to them. Apparently, that's a common problem, and finding those paths to the goals is the hard part that must be done before the goals are attainable.

[Taverner]

146. At the rate we are going now, there won't be an "America" in twenty or so years

So we are going to need a new plan anyway

[Taverner]

143. We need a brand new government

Funny how you guys turn a blind eye to our government's shitting on the constitution, yet if someone tries to do something positive, they bring this shit up

[white_wolf]

125. Industries have been nationalized before.

In World War I for instance we nationalized the rail industry. The airport security used to be private, but it was nationalized after 9/11 and placed under control of the TSA. We've done it before, so it isn't without precedent.

[MineralMan]

130. Yes, but getting Congress to authorize such things isn't so

easy. It'd be great to nationalize a number of industries, and I think we should do it. The problem, as always, is in the details of how to do it. Without a Congress that will cooperate in the process, there's really no way to do that. The solution begins with the 2012 election, if we're willing to do the work necessary to take back the Congress. I'm no longer convince that we are willing to do that. Dreaming's great, but we have to find pathways to those dreams that can actually work.

[Taverner]

145. Congress has utterly failed. Fire them all, and then sue them for fraud. nt

[Taverner]

144. Thanks. I couldn't think of the instance, but I knew there was a precedent.

[Taverner]

142. That doesn't stop the government from doing other things it's not authorized to do

Besides, it's not like the government actually follows the constitution.

[socialist_n_TN]

200. Not Taverner, but I'd just wait till they crashed

and buy them up with tax dollars for pennies on the dollar and run them as nationally owned assets, not for profits. Put them in direct competition with capitalist enterprises that have to have profits and see who wins.

I would also offer tax incentives and tax breaks for direct worker owned companies. That's a couple of ways to start.

[moondust]

43. It worked for a while.

As an engine of development relying on base human greed to turn natural resources into material well-being. It served its purpose but that stage is over.

With globalization it has evolved into a system of victimization serving the 1% at the expense of most everybody else.

[Rex]

49. Corporatism is the problem, not capitalism.

TO call what we see today, 'capitalism' is a perversion of the meaning of the word imo.

[Odin2005]

54. Wrong. Corporatism is Capitalism in it's final stage.

[white_wolf]

58. Yep. It's a form of Imperialism. As Lenin said it's the highest stage of capitalism.

[Zanzoobar]

50. Imagine

With computer technology we could easily make sure that everyone had the same number of credits. Everyone.

[Odin2005]

52. I see the Capitalism defenders have arrived. UGH!

[Douglas Carpenter]

57. do you not see a little irony in saying that and having a Howard Dean avatar?

Gov. Dean may have done some great things for the Democratic Party. He deserves a lot of credit for helping reignite grassroots activism - but he is certainly no socialist - not even a social democrat or even a New Deal/Great Society Democrat like most of those here who you might call capitalism's defenders.

[Unvanguard]

63. Absolutely true. The weasel word "corporatism" just distorts this fact.

The core problem is that central economic institutions are owned by a small minority of rich people, and this gives them a wildly disproportionate influence over government that reinforces and entrenches their economic power.

[demosincebirth]

67. Unregulated Capitalism is the enemy of workingmen.

[Vidar]

69. K&R.

[TreasonousBastard]

70. Here we go again. Every time things get tough it's capitalism's fault, but...

capitalism never seems to have a thing to do with the times when things are good.

Just for shits and giggles, explain how the average Joe, or a bunch of them, can design, raise the money, and build and run an auto assembly plant? A chip foundry and factory? The government could do it, after all the TVA was a government project, but no one can see the government coming up with an iPhone. (Although I don't doubt some see that as a Good Thing.)

Capitalism in its present form was invented by the Dutch a few hundred years ago precisely because even government funding wasn't enough to keep things running. Yes, it fast turned into the Tulip Bulb fiasco, but that was part of the learning process and it recovered.

Sweden, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea... Explain, please, how their mixed economies based primarily on capitalism so hopelessly screwed them.

While you're at it, show when in the history of the planet any society that has done squat without the provisions for individual creativity and industry (and, yeah, controlled greed) that capitalism has provided.

[white_wolf]

72. Capitalism works well for a few, but not the majority.

First of all no one is arguing that capitalism doesn't produce massive wealth, but a lot of us are arguing that it concentrates that wealth in too few hands. Capitalism was step up from Feudalism, but it is long past time for us to abolish it and move on to a system that works for the majority of people on this planet. All of the countries you mentioned have been harmed by the worldwide recession, many people have lost their jobs and homes. Secondly, even during economic booms there are always poor, even in first world countries. When you consider the world as a whole you'll find that capitalism reduces the vast majority of the population to slaves. You mentioned the Iphone, well maybe you should consider the fact that the people who made your Iphone did so in horrible conditions for hardly any pay, in conditions so bad that they had to to put nets up to keep them from jumping off and killing themselves. Face it, when you consider the world as whole, it is clear capitalism is a failure for the vast majority of people.

[TreasonousBastard]

75. But still no alternative.

[white_wolf]

76. We have an alternative. It's called socialism.

Besides why don't you address the ills of capitalism? Are the lives of the workers in China worth less than the cheap prices on worthless gadgets? That's what it comes down to, which is more important. Human life or profit and cheap gadgets.

[itsallhappening]

83. What are the ills of socialism?

[itsallhappening]

109. Hello?

[white_wolf]

112. Why don't you tell me what you think they are and I will address them.

I don't think socialism will create a perfect society, no one ever has, least of all Marx himself. However, it will be vast improvement over capitalism. There will still be problems of course, but what specific ills are you worried about?

[itsallhappening]

113. We could start with all the failed socialist states.

Or we could even look at smaller socialist experiments like Brook Farm.

It doesn't work because of its inherent flaw: You can't suppress free will forever.

[white_wolf]

115. Your one flaw doesn't exist.

Socialism is not the suppressing of free will. If you actually think that it's clear you haven't read much of Marx or Engels.

[itsallhappening]

119. That's exactly what it is.

You, as an individual, exist only to serve the collective in a socialist model. You are a subject of The State.

You can read all the theory you want. It's great for classroom conversation. But you won't have an understanding of its implementation until you study the history of socialist experiments, which is littered with famine, repression and genocide.

Those in power in the socialist states still end up with more money and goods and, obviously, more power. And when the masses realize "the great leap forward" only applied to the few in power, they rise up and you get things like the "Red Terror," or the massacre of tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands in Romania. The list goes on and on.

And invariably, those who still advocate for this failed economic model argue that it just wasn't properly implemented.

[white_wolf]

120. Oh, so we are judging an ideology based upon the atrocities committed in it's name, are we?

Let's see what capitalism has caused: The slave trade, the slaughter the whole tribes of Native Americans, colonialism, two world wars and various smaller ones all over the world, the Holocaust,Augusto Pinochet, Robespierre's Terror, massive environmental damage, thousands of deaths from starvation and sickness, people forced to work as slaves in sweatshops. When you look it at that way your precious capitalism isn't too exactly stainless either.

[itsallhappening]

128. No.

The socialist system requires individuals to abandon free will and individual rights. Since those things are inherent in human nature, the people will rise up against the few who make up their oppressive government, and the government ends up killing thousands of their own people to retain power.

Are you implying that Robespierre was a capitalist? Because it looks like you are, which would put you at odds with historians.

Same for the idea that capitalism was to blame for the Holocaust. Perhaps you aren't familiar with Hitler's writings?

[white_wolf]

132. Your first sentence shows you are completely ignorant of socialism.

The French Revolution was a revolution of the bourgeois against the feudal lords, it was inspired partially by the American Revolution.As for Hitler, Fascism was a capitalist response the Depression and the rise of Communism, Hitler was a capitalist, IBM for instance worked with the Nazis, so if you can blame communism for everything Mao and Stalin did then I can blame capitalism for everything Hitler and Mussolini did. Granted, that's hardly a good way to judge an ideology, but that's the road you've started this conversation. Though, I really think I'm wasting my time, it seems clear you really don't know anything about the writings of Marx or Engels or if you do you are choosing to ignore them and frankly I'm sick of arguing with people who get their views of socialism from cold war era propaganda, so I'm done.

[itsallhappening]

135. Wow.

You really need to read more about Robespierre and his alliance with Saint-Just. How anyone could deny that they sought an embryonic form of socialism is just beyond reason.

If you think Hitler was a capitalist, then you haven't studied his ideal form of National Socialism. And obviously you have no understanding of why he used IBM.

I do think you're wasting your time, but you're doing it reading sanitized and heavily spun socialist theory nonsense.

[Taverner]

154. Hitler WAS a Capitalist

You watch too much Glenn Beck

[white_wolf]

156. You know when Hitler was asked about socialism he made it clear that his socialism wasn't Marxism.

He clearly said his "socialism" maintained capitalism and markets. Hell, the communists were the first group he sent to prison.

[itsallhappening]

172. Nope.

His socialism differed from Marx's only in terms of nationalism and cultural fables.

He shared the Marxist-Leninist view of government control of economic matters, and the use of genocide/democide to retain power.

[Taverner]

178. Have you ever even TAKEN a class on economics?

Or studied it?

First thing Hitler did was create a bunch of government contracts with private companies. Hell, even the SS Uniforms were designed by Hugo Boss. That is not socialism.

He did not nationalize a single company.

[itsallhappening]

181. Read some history.

Start with Hitler nationalizing the Reichsbank. Then take a look at the German auto industry.

Your statement that he did not nationalize a single company tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Taverner]

183. He did not nationalize the German Auto Industry

He did give them a lot of contracts, however

And Reichsbank was for all practical purposes, defunct. It was a bailout, not "nationalization"

[itsallhappening]

188. You need a remedial history class.

This is like arguing with someone who says water isn't technically wet.

[Taverner]

189. OK, then by your definition, Obama "Nationalized" the banks.

And he "Nationalized" the Big 3 automakers

:eyes:

[white_wolf]

192. Show sources that prove your claims that Hitler nationalized the majority of industry in Germany.

You won't find any that say that, hell Norway has more nationalization than Nazi Germany did.

[itsallhappening]

137. By the way, I realize you said you were done, but I'm sorry you didn't get to

live in the former USSR or under the Khmer Rouge.

Really. I am.

[Taverner]

157. Wow - wishing death - how...Capitalist of you

I've been to the USSR when it was the USSR. Lived there for a semester. Now true my view was filtered, just as an exchange student here would have his or her view filtered, but there are a few things our teachers didn't tell us about "Ivan."

- Everyone had a job. They might not have liked their job or been very good at it, but they did have jobs.

- Trofim Lysenko was rejected when Stalin died. So all of the stories about "Soviet Science" you read were BS.

- If you were a farmer, you could sell your produce for profit. In fact, the markets were all pretty Capitalist.

- The KGB or Soviet Police were not bugging everyone's home. Most of the time they didn't give a rat's ass what you did, as long as you did it at home.

- Sex was not frowned on. In fact, it was pretty common.

[white_wolf]

You know I put the person your replying to on ignore, but I think I'm missing some funny stuff.

[Taverner]

165. The poster wished you got to experience Pol Pot and the USSR

I wouldn't wish Pol Pot on anyone

USSR, when I was there (mid-80s) I had fun. Then again, the vodka flowed like wine. Vodka was (and I think it still is) a breakfast drink - goes well with morning mush.

[itsallhappening]

168. He's the one idolizing those societies.

You say: "Everyone had a job. They might not have liked their job or been very good at it, but they did have jobs."

That's your lofty goal, huh? Just have a job. Nevermind if you like it or if you're good at it. Happiness and fulfilling dreams? To hell with it!

I don't know if you were raised that way, but it's pathetic to settle. How sad.

[Taverner]

170. Everyone having a job is much better than people starving

Sorry, even if you suck at your job, you don't deserve to starve

[itsallhappening]

173. You've created a false choice.

[Taverner]

177. You cannot feed everyone under a Capitalist system

It takes away the profit motive.

You also can't employ everyone either.

These two things lead to inflation, which throws the system out of whack.

Capitalism is inherently flawed.

[itsallhappening]

182. You can't feed everyone under any system.

That's why we need a sustainable safety net along with the free market.

[white_wolf]

186. We grow enough food to keep everyone on the planet well fed.

We just don't distribute it correctly.

[itsallhappening]

190. Explain the method by which you would accomplish that

without private property and profit. Oh, no socialist slaves or massacres, either.

I'm eager to see your solution.

[white_wolf]

174. That is such bullshit. I've never said I idolize the USSR.

I support socialism, but not the USSR. You support capitalism, is it fair for me to say you idolize Mussolini's Italy? No, it isn't.

[itsallhappening]

179. Judging from your posts, you're going on nothing more than

theory. Again, that's fine for classroom discussion, but you need to face reality.

The system you advocate would invariably end up with those in power controlling the money and goods. Then what? You'd either go along to get along, or you'd be exterminated by your idea socialist government.

[Taverner]

153. "The socialist system requires individuals to abandon free will and individual rights"

Wrong. Although collective and communitarian ideals are stressed, individualism is not abandoned. Don't believe the stories they told us in school about "Ivan."

In the USA, we place way too much importance on individualism. Hence the high rate of Serial Killers in this country (a serial killer is an individualist who has taken his will to an extreme)

[white_wolf]

158. Which is why Ayn Rand idolized one of them.

[Taverner]

160. Yep - William Hickman. She would have loved Ted Bundy too

Another "individualist." And Bundy was a Republican, with dreams of being Governor of Washington.

[itsallhappening]

131. Forgot to ask...

if the flaw that I pointed out doesn't exist in the model, please tell me how free will and individual rights trump the collective. Surely they must, if the flaw I cited doesn't exist.

[white_wolf]

134. The only "right" socialism takes away is the "right" to own private property.

By which I mean a factory or other means of production, not your house. As for individual rights, you can't find a group that promotes individual rights stronger than the anarchists.

[itsallhappening]

136. Yeah, just that little insignificant right. LOL

Do you own the device you're using to post here? If so, why? And I'd assume you'd be okay if The State removed it from your possession?

You of course deliberately ignore the human rights socialism strips from individuals. You know, like the human right to have been born a different nationality than theirs. Yeah, just that minor little detail. No big deal, huh?

[Taverner]

148. The Capitalists have turned the means of production against the workers

They lose their rights, just like a murderer loses the right to carry a weapon

Don't be stupid

[itsallhappening]

169. What a strange analogy.

Equating productive people to murderers.

Actually, maybe it's not so strange considering some of the other "thoughts" in this thread.

[Taverner]

171. "Productive People"???? The only thing they produce IS death

Hedge Fund Managers do not contribute to society. At. All.

They are murderers, they just don't shoot their kill point blank.

[white_wolf]

175. Wow, I think we have an Ayn Rand fan on our hands.

They love to call capitalists the "producers" or "Productive people." The workers are the productive people, the capitalists are parasites living off the labor of the working class like ticks on dog.

[itsallhappening]

176. Okay, Captain Hyperbole.

I can see that you're not serious, but just for the fun of it....

I'm not part of the 1%, but I aspire to be and I'm on pace for it. If you needed a job and I hired you, you'd be happy to be paid just enough to avoid starvation. Correct?

[Taverner]

180. I hate to be the one to break this to you - but you, and pretty much all of us - will never be rich

You will never be part of the 1%

It's their club, and you and I aren't invited

I am dead serious - but I match hyperbole with hyperbole, and there's nothing more hyperbolic than calling the Employer Class the "producers."

Dagny Taggert didn't work a day in her miserable life. And she inherited everything she owned.

[itsallhappening]

185. You might not be invited.

Three years ago my income was $50k/year. Two years ago it was just over $100k. Last year, almost $200k. This year I'm on pace to make over $300k.

How? I found my talent, applied hard work, and with the help of some retailers, I'm making something of it. I work for myself, so I make my own hours.

You could do it, if you wouldn't buy into the talking points you've been feed and are repeating here. Why are you letting other people tell you that you can't succeed? Why give those people power over you?

[Taverner]

187. Um, $300K is not rich

You could double that and you STILL wouldn't be rich

[itsallhappening]

191. Trajectory.

I've more than doubled my income in three years. Also, that's with no investment in stocks, even though the market has gone way up since President Obama took office.

So, yeah, the path I'm on will have me making more each year and make me pretty comfortable.

[Taverner]

193. It doesn't really work that way

You won't double your income every three years. You eventually hit a peak and either go into stasis, or you go down.

[itsallhappening]

195. It can, and sometimes does.

Especially when there's reduced competition because some people think they're doomed to low income, having bought into the idea that there's no way you can make it and everyone who has more money is just stealing, blah blah blah.

[white_wolf]

194. Good for you. I never said capitalism doesn't work for a minority of people.

For the majority of people on this planet it fails.

[itsallhappening]

196. It fails when you think like the other poster.

[white_wolf]

197. So are you saying those working for slave wages in China just need to work harder

and one day they will be rich? Surely, you don't actually believe that.

[itsallhappening]

198. No.

They're working under state-controlled totalitarian conditions. That's your system.

[white_wolf]

199. Bullshit. China is as capitalist a nation you'll find on this planet.

[white_wolf]

163. This computer is personal property.

If we were in an office setting and I was doing some work for a large corporation then maybe you would have a point, but since this computer is my home computer it is personal property. Marx covers this in the Manifesto, which I'm sure you haven't read or you would know the difference between personal property and private property. You really are completely ignorant.

[Taverner]

147. The Soviet states were no more Socialist than Bush was Compassionate Conservatism

[AndyTiedye]

89. Why Has Communism Failed to Protect the Workers in China from Said Evils?

Funny you should mention China.
What kind of government do they claim to have over there again?
It seems that communism is just as vulnerable to corruption as capitalism is, if not more so.

The purported economic system under which an oligarchy rules makes little difference.

[white_wolf]

92. Oh please China abandoned even attempting to build socialism with Mao's death.

[AndyTiedye]

95. Obviously. How Did That Happen?

There was no revolution. The people did not vote the Communists out of power.
What happened?

What they have in China now seems to combine the worst features of both systems.

[Taverner]

149. There is no "Communism" in China

You pay for your own health care, car, house, etc. Let me put it this way: The USA is more "Communist" than the PRC.

[itsallhappening]

110. The former USSR is a better example.

Central planning for the purpose of "serving the masses" is a failure.

Wouldn't it be great to walk into a grocery store and find the shelves stocked not with what you or your neighbors wanted, but what a central committee wanted? And if the masses were demanding something, they had no market power to demand it, they had to bribe bureaucrats and hope the bribe worked. That happened in the USSR.

Wouldn't it be great to have your class stamped on your ID by a central committee, and then have that class designation be a determining factor in what kind of rights you were afforded, even in a court of law? That happened in the USSR.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to have your medical care completely provided by the state and have your procedures OK'd by the same central committee who couldn't properly stock the grocery store shelves? That happened in the USSR.

There are many other examples of socialism failing. Inherent in the socialist model is the idea that people are too stupid and/or weak to think for themselves. Of course, those who are really smart are the "enlightened" ones who come up with centrally planned models that fail. Huh.

[Taverner]

150. Again - the USSR was not Communist

It was a Statist Oligarchy

They heard "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and all they implemented was the dictatorship part.

(actually, this isn't entirely true. In the early days of the Russian Revolution, there was an attempt to implement a form of Anarcho-Syndicalism. Problem is, heads of state ended up taking powers from the syndicates, and merely making them a rubber stamp.)

[white_wolf]

155. Yeah. The very early days of the USSR was the most free society on earth.

Then all hell broke loose when they got invaded by 17 rival nations and they were forced to implement War Communism and Lenin started cracking down on supporters of the Whites. It should be noted that before the Civil War and invasion broke out, Lenin was actually very tolerant of criticism, but when the war broke out and groups started actively aiding the Whites and calling for the restoration of the Tsar, he cracked down hard. Ironically enough it was Trotsky who came up with the plan for War Communism and was the first person to call for its end since when he saw it wasn't working. Lenin's death and Stalin's rise was really the point of no return for the USSR, once Stalin achieved power, socialism was dead in the USSR, and the Marxist-Leninists haven't managed to convince me otherwise.

[anneboleyn]

88. So the East Germans and the Soviets didn't make any great scientific discoveries? Or the Chinese?

[anneboleyn]

90. Uh, no iphone without ARPANET, which was government funded. Many American innovations (human genome

sequencing and dozens of others) were funded by the government. Basic research shows one this. It's just silly to ascribe the history of human inspiration to "capitalism" (Socrates a capitalist?) -- the Soviets had plenty of their own technology and of course beat us to space.

Capitalism "controls" greed???

This is DU? Strange indeed.

[unkachuck]

79. K&R....n/t

[anneboleyn]

87. Yes, Marxism 101: there is no inherent correlation between labor and remuneration. "Surplus value."

Some have argued, in response to your original post and later on in this thread, that one *should* be paid more if one "earns" a higher salary and (therefore) does something of more "value" than -- say -- being a garbage collector (basic pro-capitalism, anti-labor arguments).

Any person can inherit an oil company for example and not do any labor whatsoever but continue to extract "surplus value" of the labor of the employees and make massive profits. In fact that is the goal of capitalism -- maximum profit for as little expenditure on labor as possible. It is by no means obvious that a CEO or head of a board of directors for a corporation has to perform any labor whatsoever, let alone perform it well. The capitalist system is designed to reward them with big pay packages regardless of job performance. There may be no labor involved at all, let alone a "good" job performance. This does not mean that the person making the most money "works the hardest" and/or "earns it." This is Marxism 101.

Most hedge fund managers and stock brokers LOSE money each year for their clients but they make money for themselves on the transactions. This is the way the system is set up -- the bankers, stock brokers, etc. are rewarded regardless of whether they make good loans, etc. This is well known. (I am writing this in response to the earlier post arguing that hedge fund managers contribute more of value to society than garbage collectors). I wonder what the community response would be if garbage collectors failed at their task at the same rate as hedge fund managers?

Classes reward themselves. The dominant ideology arbitrarily assigns value to the labor of the class whose values it represents. So they will reward themselves the most.

[Starry Messenger]

96. +1

[leftstreet]

99. +1

[Initech]

91. Capitalism isn't the problem, Reganomics is the problem.

The idea that the rich get it all, and that the money will "trickle down" to us eventually is BULLSHIT!!! Corporate deregulation certainly didn't help things either, that just made it worse.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nye Bevan]

93. Switzerland: capitalist, 3% unemployment, universal health care.

I guess capitalism *can* work.

[Joe Fields]

97. capitalism with regulation did work.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Altruism]

101. Minimum Wage Petition to White House

I am petitioning the white house for higher minimum wage. please join me in my cause. wh.gov/2Dh (case sensitive) It just requires a confirmation email, but PLEASE DON'T BE LAZY! SIGN IT ANYWAYS! this is important!

[walerosco]

108. Leave capitalism alone

What you hate is crony capitalism.

[The2ndWheel]

111. There's something all ism's have in common

It's that they work only if everyone participates. They can participate voluntarily, or by force, but eventually nobody has much choice.

Capitalism didn't get us into the mess. Capitalism is just a version of the mess.

All the various ism's we've thought up are our attempts to organize the mess. The real question is whether or not the mess has actually been a problem requiring a solution.

[Che Billy]

114. toilet musings

As far as I'm concerned, capitalism as an economic system can only work (and just barely so) when those who provide the labor but do not own the means of production have the same bargaining leverage as those who do.

How to gain this sort of leverage? First of all, we must have full employment. The large pool of idle labor that's desperate for any kind of work at any kind of wages subverts the ability of employees to negotiate for better pay and working conditions.

Secondly, impose import tariffs. Industries that import goods here at lower prices because the cost of their labor is substantially lower than ours should face a tariff that's equal or greater to the labor cost difference. As an aside; if they enjoy a price advantage due to laxer environmental regulation in their country of origin, another tariff should be imposed to compensate for the deleterious impact to our planet.

Third, all workers in this country should belong to a union. When companies want to lay off or reduce the wages of some or all of their workforce, it can only be done with the cooperation of the workers who are affected. This will help ensure at least a small measure of workplace democracy, something that's tragically missing with our current system.

When those with capital hold all the cards and those who rely on a paycheck for their survival are powerless, the kind of injustice we're presently witnessing courtesy of capitalism is a natural result. No one should be surprised by this state of affairs.

There's a million other steps that are needed to rectify this problem, granted, but this is what I could come up with while sitting on the toilet and worrying about being late to work.

[moondust]

159. Well mused.

"The large pool of idle labor that's desperate for any kind of work at any kind of wages subverts the ability of employees to negotiate for better pay and working conditions."

A situation made infinitely worse by globalization and its vast expansion of the idle labor pool desperate for any kind of work.

Feudalism or bust! :sarcasm:

[phleshdef]

116. Americans are a pro-capitalist people. Deal with it.

You aren't going to get anywhere by trying to sell people on the idea of abolishing capitalism.

[white_wolf]

118. Not entirely true.

Eugene Debss got 12% of the popular vote at one point. During the Depression there was a real fear of a socialist revolution in the U.S. Even now after all the Cold War propaganda that people have been subjected to a lot of people are beginning to wake up. Hell, the Socialist Worker's party just opened a chapter in Knoxville and are handing out their newspapers at the Occupy movements and people are being very receptive.

[phleshdef]

138. I never said Americans don't want socialism as well.

The captialist/socialist hybrid model is still the result you get if you were to gauge what American's overall views on how an economy should run. People want the freedom to make a profit and compete in a semi-free market. People also want the government to collect tax revenues and use it to subsidize things that we all need. Thats the model now and its a good model whenever the people in charge utilize it correctly.

[itsallhappening]

139. Agreed. Along with a sustainable safety-net.

The all-or-nothing folks on both sides are unrealistic.

[Taverner]

184. Whether or not we sell the idea is irrelevant

What is relevant is that if we keep heading down this road, we will collapse

[blindpig]

124. And still it's 'anything but socialism'.

Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism, could you explain your definitions and objections?

It's gonna be socialism, ya know, it's that or barbarism.

[white_wolf]

127. I think the OP is a fan of Debs's Socialist Party and the I.W.W.

So he is a socialist, though I think the I.W.W. is an anarchist group. On a side note, what kind of socialist was Debs anyway? I'm just curious, because I've never been able to figure out if he was a Marxist or something else.

[Taverner]

151. He first read Marx while in prison in IL

And that's what "converted" him to Socialism.

But at that time Socialism was uncharted territory. My reading of him is that he wasn't hung up on the details as much as fighting for workers rights - and he devoted much of his time to organizing and leading strikes.

[white_wolf]

162. Thanks. The more I read of him, the more I like him.

He was truly committed to the cause and was a good man. We could use more like him.

[Colonel Schwartz]

133. Capitalism works.

I agree that capitalism is in trouble but I don't agree that it's the system. On paper, capitalism is just fine. It's greed that ruins it. I hear the term "fair-market" used more than once to describe capitalism. Well, there hasn't been a "fair market" for as long as I can remember. As soon as the 1% figured out how to corner the market, it ceased to be fair.

[NeedleCast]

140. No, Not Really

Unchecked capitalism and the ability of the 1% to buy all the government they need is the problem. Our entire society has come to emphasis greed and materialism. Change that, and you can have successful capitalism. Of course, you don't need capitalism to have greed and materialism.

[Cats Against Frist]

141. Capitalism is fine. People suck. n/t

[blindpig]

166. Ya can't get anymore reactionary than that.

That is completely fucked up.

[GliderGuider]

152. Capitalism actually has two aspects that work together to maximize the damage.

As you rightly point out, “Grow or Die” is the underlying mantra of today’s global industrial capitalism. Modern capitalism has a second imperative that is equally important, though. It is simply, “Concentrate” .

To concentrate here means to cause the wealth accessible to the corporation to flow into as few hands as possible. Since wealth is really just the monetary abstraction of power, this imperative means that power and money flow up together from the base of the economic pyramid (aka Us, the 99%) to the tip (aka Them, the 1%).

Either of the principles of growth or concentration is socially harmful by itself, but together they potentiate each other. The more the enterprise grows, the more power is available to be concentrated, and the more concentrated the power becomes the easier it is to ensure continuing growth. Together they work hand in glove to create a complex, malignant, metastatic brew that has poisoned the world’s finances, our environment and our social fabric simultaneously.

Other hierarchical socioeconomic frameworks from feudalism to fascist corporate dictatorships have exhibited such behaviour in the past. Capitalism’s unique claim to fame is that it has become the most efficient, effective mechanism yet devised to turn the world’s resources (from air and water to metals, plants, animals and other human beings) into waste for the benefit of an ever-shrinking power elite.

The power elite has a lock on the political and legal systems, with the built-in guarantee that the teeth of regulation can be pulled before they can bite. In addition, this control of politics and the law gives the power elite access to their monopoly on the legal use of violence, so they have the means to defend their position “vigorously”.

Even worse than that is the power elite's infiltration of education systems world-wide. Thanks to their influence, most of us have been turned into compliant supporters of the existing system. It is difficult for most people even to see there is a problem, let alone recognize the extent to which our society has been suborned by those who claim to be managing it in our best interest.

These effects are equally visible in the industrialized, “democratic” West as in places like Russia and China where state capitalism is now the norm.

What might we replace it with? That all depends on how and when the current system fails, and the extent to which the world’s natural and human systems have been processed into waste before that happens. It’s very hard to predict and even harder to force such a change.

Hard doesn’t mean impossible, though - the future is inherently surprising. For now, we need to awaken as best we can those around us who are still sleeping, rebuild our solidarity and mutual trust down here at the base of the power pyramid, and encourage each other to remain steadfast in our commitment to an ideal – that a more just, compassionate and cooperative world is our true birthright.

[ThomWV]

161. Actually when "We tried Capitalism with regulation" it worked pretty well

It was when those regulations were peeled back away that the system failed.

[socialist_n_TN]

202. The problem with the "Capitalism works with regulation"

meme is that it never works for very long, at least in historical terms. WE ALWAYS WIND UP BACK TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY! It concentrates wealth and so concentrates power to the point where the capitalists buy their way out of regulation.

The question(s) for these folks becomes: "Do you want your children and grandchildren to be fighting this same battle a generation or two from now? Or do you want to try something that might give everybody, not just the ones with inherited wealth, a chance to succeed?"