We're Living In The Final Years of Capitalism

[Yavin4]

All systems fail when the benefits of that system are not fairly nor adequately shared. Since the beginning of the new century, less and less people are benefiting from capitalism. New job creation has been negative. Incomes, housing valuations, and the stock market have all lost significant value and/or declined. Capitalism has not given the average American any real reason why it should be continued.

Sure, there does exist massive pro-Capitalism propaganda networks from Fox News, CNBC, AM Talk radio, etc., and thanks to the Citizens United decision, major corporations have free reign to spend even more money on electioneering propaganda. However, just as in the former Soviet Union, the rhetoric cannot compete with the reality of life. The people mentally tune out the propaganda and focus on survival while preparing for a chance to over throw the system.

Our jobs are Progressives is to think beyond Obama and the entire Democratic party. Our jobs as Progressives is to offer America a clear, precise, unambiguous vision of how our future can be under a strong set of Progressive principles. Our job is to be the light at the end of that tunnel.

[marmar]

1. And that's OK.....A paradigm shift is needed.

nt

[Swamp Rat]

12. Anyone who has read and regarded Khun knows a paradigm shift is inevitable.

[MineralMan]

2. I don't think so.

I think capitalism will outlive me by decades. For it to change will require much more public outrage that we're seeing now. The numbers simply aren't there. Your idea of educating the American people is the right one, but it's going to be a much harder task than you can imagine, I think.

[DailyGrind51]

3. You're correct, it would take a total economic collapse for the country to take a "hard Left"!

[socialist_n_TN]

22. And that total economic collapse is coming...........

at least for all but the rich capitalists. It's a cliche, but people who have nothing, have nothing to lose. If even your LIFE is nothing, you don't mind losing it, ESPECIALLY if you lose it FOR something. Cliches are cliches because, in most cases, they're true.

Hey I'm old. Most of my life is over and I'm not that scared of dying. However, I WILL figure out a way to die FOR something. I do hate it for my kids though.

[Poboy]

55. Agreed on all points, sir. -nt

[DailyGrind51]

75. I hear ya man, nearing 60 with a cancer history, no kids.

[Yavin4]

5. 20% of Americans Are Either Unemployed/Underemployed

The Americans that are working full time are not seeing their incomes grow, losing their benefits, and they're seeing their retirement plans put on permanent hold.

Every year, the benefits of the system get confined to fewer and fewer people, and every year, educating the American people on alternatives get a little easier.

[LiberalLoner]

7. One thing that I think is a good sign is that younger people no longer view the word

socialism with horror and fear like the people did years ago.

[cilla4progress]

11. Yeah -

it needs to come out of the CLOSET!

[MineralMan]

14. That's true. And, yet, about half of those people vote for

Republicans. We're a long way from converting them to anything but what they know - or think they know. I'm just saying that you're being overly optimistic. There's a long educational road before anything like you're discussing can happen. Along the way, we may just be able to get progressives elected in numbers large enough to make significant changes.

There will be no uprising from the left that overthrows the system. That is simply not going to occur. Much more likely is an uprising from the right that would try to install a government that would suppress any such uprising. The only route that can succeed, quite frankly, is an educational one. And the people who have to be educated are not those already on the left side of center.

Please note the statement in my signature line.

[socialist_n_TN]

23. I don't think that half of younger people............

(the ones the reply was talking about as not being scared of socialism) voted for Republicans. Everything that I've seen shows that younger people prefer liberal principles, not necessarily Democratic Party principles, but left wing POSITIONS overwhelmingly over Republican positions.

[Silent3]

42. And a lot of them don't bother to vote...

...so there's no deep passion for liberal or socialist principles among our youth in evidence. While their attitudes may be a lot different from, say, the Tea Party, plenty of young people are most concerned with their own personal success in life, with "success" being in large part defined in capitalist and consumerist terms. Politics of any sort is pretty extraneous in their minds to their plans.

It is by no means clear that if things get worse for younger people and their hopes for the future sour that merely starting out a bit left of Mitch McConnell will result in their transformation into socialist revolutionaries.

[Hydra]

85. There is no "Success" to be had for us "Younger" people

And many of us weren't converted by the red scare, so the terrorism thing doesn't do much for us either.

You know what the real problem is? You don't WANT us talking unless it's your platform. I don't support centerism or whatever passes for being a "loyal" Democrat these days.

I'm a socialist. I'm a true believer in the the farthest left. I fight for those principles and for critical thinking.

And I get shouted down.

It doesn't matter, though. The people who are destroying our world do so with the help of those who do ignore the truth. The truth will still be there. It needs no advocate.

[Silent3]

92. I haven't seen much that passes for both critical thinking...

...and being "a true believer in the the farthest left" in the same place at the same time. Self declaration as a "true believer" itself is a good giveaway that critical thinking isn't likely one's strongest trait.

My ideal political and economic system is a bit to the left of what passes for the Democratic party these days too. I'm not sure how to go about changing our system to improve it, but I sure don't think shouting out far-fetched predictions about the "final years of capitalism", and acting like a naive ideologue who's not merely predicting, but practically cheering on a collapse that would cause great pain and suffering is the way to win a significant number of people over to any useful cause.

[Hydra]

95. Thanks for proving my point

You want what you want, you want support for what you believe in.

Those of us who are active and paying attention aren't looking for people like you to lead. You can follow us.

This isn't the final gasp of capitalism- there's always more to steal.

More's the pity.

[Silent3]

96. Follow you where?

I have yet to see any coherent direction toward any coherent goal come out of DU anti-capitalist ranting. Issuing dire predictions and conspiratorial rants is not a direction or a solution. There's nothing to follow.

[Hydra]

100. Of course, because you aren't listening

Mostly because you don't want to go there.

A most interesting insight you've given me. You claim to want the younger generation to "help," but you'd rather we be asleep the way you are. I'll keep that in mind as we continue down the long road to hell.

[Silent3]

102. Here was a golden opportunity to spell it out...

...but instead you took the cop-out route of saying something like "because you aren't listening".

So go ahead, oh self-styled leader of the coming revolution. Tell me right where you want to lead. Don't just what you want to stop, but what you want to start. How it would be accomplished. How well you think it would be received. Would your solution arise from popular support, or have to be imposed?

Or will you weasel out with one of those "it's just not worth it" kinds of evasions?

[Hydra]

117. Golden opportunity?

Are you looking for a new vision? Because elsewhere you said you couldn't see anything better than the social capitalism they have in Europe. I often hear that from people who aren't looking for solutions, they just want their mild-seeming system back.

I've already gotten insight from you. I'm not a cult leader or someone running a movement. I'm someone who is showing people what the box is made out of. Some people want out, and other people like the comfort of the 4 walls.

Which are you?

[Silent3]

119. I want something that allows for a lot of freedom and opportunity...

...as well as a good standard of living for the greatest number of people, all while making humans good stewards of the environment.

Keeping in mind there will always be ambitious and greedy people in every human system and in every human institution, sometimes getting out of control, sometimes so far out of control that any system or institution might break, it's enough for me that within normal foreseeable conditions, with normal levels of vigilance, that some rough approximation of fairness and everyone having to follow the same rules applies.

As long as there's a decent lowest level of support for everyone in terms of things like food, shelter, clothing, education, medical care, etc., I'm certainly not opposed to there being different standards of living above that level for different people. Mostly I'd like it if wealth usually came as a result of hard work and risk taking, of benefit to other people, but I don't mind if sheer dumb luck plays some part in it. Life is more interesting that way. There are some people who would like to enforce not only equality of opportunity, but equality of outcomes. That I don't believe in. Strong progressive taxation, and maybe some explicit limits on just how far disparity of wealth is allowed to go, would be enough for me.

How best to do that? Well-regulated capitalism functioning within a democratic framework still looks like the best bet to me, even with an imperfect record at this point. As practiced so far, capitalism in democratic societies hasn't met all of my hoped-for criteria, but it has come closer than anything else, and has had a few especially promising moments I think one can build upon. I'm certainly willing to consider alternatives. Even somewhat theoretical and as-yet untried alternatives, as long as some of the elements have some historical substance and historical track record behind them. I hear very few alternatives, however, mostly just bitching about what's wrong with capitalism, and most of that being things that are wrong with humanity in general, not the sole province of capitalism.

I've already gotten insight from you.

I've certainly given you more substance than you've provided in return. As predicted, although I didn't guess the exact form it would take, your response was an evasion. Looks like you went with Plan G -- don't provide any answers, just ask if someone is "ready" to receive your answers, setting the stage for the false dichotomy that if someone turns out to be unreceptive to your ideas, it's their failure of readiness and openness, not the failure of your ideas that will be to blame.

I'm not a cult leader or someone running a movement.

I never said that you were a cult leader, I was just responding to your boastful posturing about how you were going "lead the way", or something very like it.

I'm someone who is showing people what the box is made out of.

You haven't shown a thing yet, not in this thread at least. Skip asking if I'm "ready" to go oh-so-far "outside of the box" and my comfort zones -- get on with it already. I'll try to be strong and endure your no-doubt startling challenge to my limited point of view. :eyes:

[Hydra]

120. *Laughs*

You could have looked up my journals. But I'll start with a basic.

You want a basic level of existence provided for. That's a nice start, and one we can both agree on.

You seem to be worried about upper limits put in place, but would like the people who do have what would be considered "overwhelming amounts" not get there by the usual aristocratic method.

How about this, then? Why don't we rethink how capital is created. Right now, Banks are empowered to make capital. Frankly, they suck at it. Why don't we have someone who isn't making money off it grant work credit in order to provide the services that are needed rather than the capitalist method of creating a product and then creating a need for it.

If everyone has access to it, and the system stays flush, there won't be any power in sitting on 5 Trillion work credits, the way our system is now.

Frankly, I argue against the base principles of capitalism. Growth, exploitation, and making capital more important than actual goods helps us how? If that's the best we can do, we're all in trouble.

[Silent3]

122. Can you explain this "work credit" idea more?

Is it a grant of access to a pool of labor or something like that, rather than money?

How about this, then? Why don't we rethink how capital is created. Right now, Banks are empowered to make capital.

Being able to lend out more than have on reserve increases the money supply, and banks make loans of course, but that's not quite the same thing as "making capital". To the extent that banks have turned into investment houses that's a corruption of what banks should be.

That's a problem that can be fixed by regulation. It's also practically inevitable that after some period of time any regulatory system will eventually fail, but like I've said before, that's endemic to human institutions of all kinds.

Frankly, they suck at it.

Suck compared to what? I'd say banks were doing a fairly decent job of what banks are supposed to do from after the Great Depression and up through the late 90s, when we stupidly began to dismantle the regulatory apparatus inspired by the Depression, when crazy "financial instruments" began to outstrip regulatory oversight, and worse after Bush got into office, with more deregulation and deliberate lack of enforcement of remaining regulations.

Why don't we have someone who isn't making money off it grant work credit in order to provide the services that are needed rather than the capitalist method of creating a product and then creating a need for it.

How would this someone be be selected? What expertise would he/she be expected to have? What would prevent this person's decisions from corrupting influences?

And what exactly do you mean by services that are "needed"? I don't want some political apparatus, especially if it turns out to be a non-democratic apparatus, deciding what I "need" and only allocating capital toward doing the things it thinks are necessary.

I frankly enjoy the fact that people are out there in the world coming up with clever ideas for new things that I never knew I needed, but wouldn't want to live without once I do know about them.

If everyone has access to it, and the system stays flush, there won't be any power in sitting on 5 Trillion work credits, the way our system is now.

What does it mean for "everyone" to have access? Surely some criteria would have to apply for determining who was worthy of getting "work credit" and how much they should get. Capital can't just be dispensed for the asking with no regard for the purpose to which it will be applied.

In our current system, banks make loans and investors make investments in people and enterprises which seem most likely to succeed and produce a profit. The reality is of course less than completely egalitarian, but everyone has "access" to banks and investors, and at least it's partly a matter of merit, merit of people and of ideas, that decides where capital gets directed.

To the extent it's not a matter of merit, that it's connections, favoritism, the "old boy network", politics, etc., that decide who gets capital, those again aren't particular failings of capitalism, they are failings common to all human institutions.

[Hydra]

124. Here's a partial answer

The reasons the Banks have ALWAYS sucked at making capital(and that is indeed their job by making loans) is that they are looking at having the capital increase, not the benefit.

Their only job is to determine if the money they create will come back with interest. When you are trying to actually accomplish something, say, reducing poverty, there isn't always a direct money return(or on the level that is demanded). That's why we have public services and charities, but that's deliberately limiting ourselves, rather than our system working as an effective tool.

When the banks held us hostage, the option came up to have the Fed lend to everyone. While I have no love for the Fed itself, the idea of of such source of capital is sound. Someone who can be controlled by votes and public input, but is accessible to everyone for projects.

Like the way we vote for bond issues, large projects or blocks of work credits could be voted on. Want the credits to go to open space? A new dam/recreation area? Schools?

Of course, those are the optional projects. Blocks of work credits will need to be set up for basic needs providers- water, farming/agri, firefighters/public services, etc. Also, everyone would need to get a basic grant of living credits.

The current biggest weakness with such a system is, surprisingly, overwhelming growth. The best counter, IMO, is focusing most of the effort on going green. Green energy, green building, green production, efficiency. Someone pointed out to me recently that we may not be able to control our population and environmental footprint, no matter what we do...but we won't know until we try, will we?

[Silent3]

125. Maybe some of what you say might work...

...but the only reasonable way to find out would be to try it on a small scale somewhere and see what happens -- as opposed to, say, plunging the entire world all at once into this new system and hoping that works out.

My comments so far have all been made in light of the OP for this thread, especially the fairly naive notion that all of the current discontent in the world, further magnified by the OP's prediction of some sort of imminent final collapse of the current system, would take the form of a massive rejection of capitalism.

Another point that I'm trying to make that I went into elsewhere in this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9684786&mesg_id=9707565

...is that if you don't want capitalism, especially if you don't want any capitalism at all (I often get mixed messages on that account), that probably can only happen by coming down pretty hard on personal freedoms, a fairly high degree of government interference blocking mutually agreed-upon exchanges among consenting adults.

[nckjm]

101. Hydra, keep the faith...you

and other young people are the true hope for a new America. Seriously, I hope that many of my generation can help light the way and ready the path, but it will be the youth who will usher in a better America...with a higher level of consciousness needed to perserve life on planet Earth.

[Hydra]

116. Ty and welcome to DU

It's not always easy to keep the faith, but the open eyes I see here and there are worth it O8)

[napoleon_in_rags]

80. I disagree with one of your points.

"The only route that can succeed, quite frankly, is an educational one."

That's the strategy, the hill, everybody is trying to climb. But the really amazing thing when you stand back and look at everything is how completely powerless the masses are. That's the thing about capitalism, a very small elite really do get a great deal of power, and really what everybody else thinks doesn't matter that much. Change will not come from a herd of sheep, no matter how large is their size.

But the issue is that this small elite is no longer unified against the common enemy of communism, and are increasingly taking over functions previously done by governments. So when you say you stand for competition and free markets, does that mean you stand for competition between the two competing restaurants in town, or you stand with the company who owns the infrastructure that lets people access the restaurants in town and decides to shut down one of them by denying customers access, because he doesn't like the owner's political views?

Isn't it strange to hear the liberal attacked most by the right is the capitalist billionaire George Soros?

"Capitalism" was the unifying identity during the cold war, and that unifying identity already has collapsed. The fact that the vast majority is not yet aware of this fact has no effect whatsoever.

[Silent3]

94. Power in the hands of a small elite is common to the human condition...

...hardly just capitalism. Monarchy, feudalism, communism, socialism, capitalism, democracies and dictatorships, all have histories of great power being concentrated into the hands of a few.

Frankl,y it's hard to imagine things ever being otherwise, not for very long spans of time at least. I can imagine systems that have checks and balances that will usually (but not always) keep the excesses of the greedy and the power hungry from getting too far out of hand, but truly well-distributed power would require a very informed, very engaged, and very dedicated general populace. One can strive for that as an ideal, to get as close as possible to it, but I just don't think it's in human nature for a significantly large portion of the populace to shake off their collective apathy and ignorance to attain the required degree of engagement in their own political affairs.

Incomplete and as flawed as it has often been, however, histories greatest moments of individual freedom and economic prosperity for the largest numbers of people have come under democracies with strong market-drive capitalist economies.

[social_critic]

21. You need to find a better alternative first

Capitalism as practiced in European nations seems to be a reasonable answer - what they call social democracy. The key is to have a more benign smaller government with less rules (legalizing drugs would help), with much less militarism (this means we got to get rid of Hillary and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan). And the focus should be on lifting the poor rather than destroying incentives, as communists like to do. But I'd like to hear serios alternartives, rather than dreamy "let's go left" comments.

[ThomThom]

89. when it falls it will be from it's top heavy nature, it will fall of it's own weight

and it will not be a pleasant experience
I don't know if it will be weeks or decades but the longer it lasts the more suffering there will be
Maybe we should speed it's demise and give the capitalists everything they want....

[LiberalLoner]

4. Yes! Plus a million! Oh I hope together we can do this! n/t

[NuclearDem]

6. I think capitalism will still exist, but just not the capitalism we're used to

I think that the tide of history is with us, and that capitalism will be reformed into a much more fair version.

Child labor didn't stand.
The trusts of the early 20th century didn't stand.
And Citizens United won't stand.

History is on our side, people. Even if it takes years, we'll come out on top.

[dixiegrrrrl]

84. Except we have come almost full circle

and child labor is back, most visibly in foreign countries run by OUR capitalists, the ...trusts.
There has been a rebuilding of trusts ( monopolies).
4 of the Big Banks now own 80% of the mortgages.
Most of the money is now concentrated in the hands of very few people.
Government function, services, and buildings across the country are being privatized, thus no real accountability.

I think it will, indeed, as you say, take years.

It is up to a younger generation to re-discover the history of what happens when greed runs rampant.

[cilla4progress]

8. I hope so!

[Angry Dragon]

9. This is the second post tonight I have seen like this

Not disagreeing, just wondering where you would like to start.
If you wait, as one poster here thinks for decades, we will be
in a civil war with burning cities and blood in the streets.

For at least twenty years I have watched as this country has drifted
further and further to a tipping point. i am not sure where that tipping point is,
but each day it comes closer and closer.

[provis99]

10. we're moving back into a feudalism/barter economy.

Where the feudal barons have all the land and wealth, and dole it out to us poor serfs when they feel like being generous.

[Imajika]

13. Some of what you say is true, but...

...I am just not sure why you think further decline couldn't just lead to a rise of the right and, effectively, more capitalism.

I really don't think most people are associating "capitalism" with the current problems. Just as many, perhaps more, blame government. I think it is just as likely the American people end up embracing the idea of "austerity" right here at home and buy into the idea that "big government" is the enemy.

Lets take Europe as an example. Poor economies, debt crisis, etc, seems to be leading to the election of MORE right of center, free market governments - not less. It may have seemed to many that the banking crisis would lead to populist outrage at capitalists, but instead Europeans seem to be going along with "austerity" and a more corporate friendly environment. Sure, there have been some protests in Greece, France, Ireland - but lets be honest here, the strikes and unions failed utterly at stopping deep cuts in social programs, public sector cuts and increases in the retirement age.

"Our jobs are Progressives is to think beyond Obama and the entire Democratic party. Our jobs as Progressives is to offer America a clear, precise, unambiguous vision of how our future can be under a strong set of Progressive principles. Our job is to be the light at the end of that tunnel."

Here is agree with you. While I personally really like President Obama and certain Democrats in the House and Senate, a movement really has to be about something much bigger than specific people.

[MrScorpio]

15. The End is Nigh

The Rapture is soon upon us.

Repent.

[Terry in Austin]

16. Ending capitalism is simple: outlaw interest

I said "simple," not "easy." :evilgrin:

No interest means no lending; no lending means no debt; no debt means no fiat money.

Not gonna happen without a fuss, of course, but it's a good way to identify where the hub of this whole system is. Turns out that there are some pretty good reasons that "usury" -- i.e., charging any interest -- was forbidden until modern times.

[social_critic]

19. Just like in the Bible, I suppose

Are you deeply religious?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[social_critic]

66. I was wondering if opposition to interest was driven by religion

I was wondering why the guy would attack the concept of earning interest on bank deposits, loans, etc. I do know the Bible (Old Testament or Torah) specifies charging interest is forbidden, and this was taken up by Mohammed when he invented Islam.

I prefer to get paid some interest when I put money in the bank, and I don't mind paying interest when I borrow money to buy a house, or start a business. It makes a lot of sense. The issue is wether one should be able to file bankrupcy, or have its bones broken by lenders (this is a common practice for Mafia lenders, also known as loan sharks).

[Terry in Austin]

98. They happened to get that one right, whether by chance or otherwise

>> Are you deeply religious?

Nope, not a bit.

I couldn't say where the Judeo-Christian ethic against charging interest came from, or why, but I think it's interesting to note that while the taboo was in force, until about the 15th century, capitalism was pretty much marginalized. Then came the Renaissance, banking and the Medicis, and you know the rest.

I personally take the view that charging interest is a "stupid money trick" that has a long-term toxic effect on the human activity we call "an economy." Apart from being just plain unearned gain, interest is exploitative, it distorts the accuracy of money as a measure of value, and it allows an additional and ultimately parasitic power class, bankers.

Interest is arguably the essential element of capitalism. You can have a market economy just fine without capitalism, but you can't have capitalism without interest. That's why I find it, well, interesting.

[rhett o rick]

104. And just who are you going to get to make such laws? Those that are profiting from the status quo?

i bet you think we still live in a democracy. Wake up and smell the oligarchy.

[Terry in Austin]

110. Preaching to the choir, my friend

>> Wake up and smell the oligarchy.

Awake and wrinkling the nose since 1968.

Obviously, outlawing capitalism has about as much chance of success as repealing gravity. But as with gravity, there's a certain way that things fall of their own weight.

The point was not how to kill capitalism, but to spot its most vital organ. The beast will die when its time comes -- there's not much that humans can do about it, pro or con.

[PufPuf23]

106. Renewable resources and innovation and fair insurance justify

a fair time value of money and acumulation of capital and resources accumulation efficiency, best if countered by a strong public commons.

Our economy and those of western social democracies are a mix of capitalism/socialism/black markets.

An economy that is monopolistic, globalist and facist/coporatist in nature has passed the bounds of laissez faire capitalism and is not efficient nor humane nor ecologically sustainable nor of political integrity.

[social_critic]

17. Progressive Principles?

And what, if one may ask, are these vaguely defined progressive principles you would like to propose?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[social_critic]

67. The deleted message must have been a doozie

Sometimes I wish they wouldn't delete them even if they're gross, until we get a chance to read them.

[kestrel91316]

18. Fine with me. I'm sick to death of it.

[Shandris]

20. The problem lies in human nature

If the 'austerity' measures begin to take hold (and there is little indication they won't), then we have to consider one overriding question: When people have little, are they MORE inclined to share? Or less?

The progressive mindset relies on people answering 'more'. If they don't, then the best arguments of our side - and of civilization itself, for they are essentially one and the same - will lose to the FUCK YOU I HAVE MINE mentality. This is only exacerbated by people who believe that this is the cause of 'Big Government', because they are (unfortunately) legion and they are VERY FUCKING EASY to convince. The mind doesn't want to believe that it voted, for years, for the very people who caused this. It MUST have been that elusive yet unnamed 'Big government', the bleeding hearts who want to take what we have, those thrice-damned smarty-pants librul elites who 'dont got no common sense'.

Remember, it took a full blown war to change the way ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE were seen by others, and over 100 years AFTER that war for it to truly begin to make a difference. It is likely that it will take no less to change our ENTIRE SYSTEM OF LIVING. I hope and pray I'm wrong, because I don't want to live through something like that - if I even DID live through it. But thinking that as people have less, they'll turn to socialism? No. I don't see that happening at all.

[social_critic]

24. Count me out

I don't see socialism (aka communism as defined by Marx and Castro) as an answer. It destroys value, and it also has a tendency to destroy freedom. I am still waiting for a better alternative to social democracy with capitalism as the main work horse for the economy.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Silent3]

39. Please define "work"

If "work" means "works for everyone, all of the time, and has an unblemished history of complete success" then NOTHING works and nothing ever will work. If "work" means automatically and completely self-regulating so that it is inherently incorruptible, then no human enterprise, no human institution will ever measure up to such a standard.

For plenty of less extreme, more pragmatic definitions of "work", however, capitalism as "worked" quite a bit.

Could something else work better? Perhaps. But the best life standards of living for the widest number of people with the greatest individual freedom so far in the history of this planet have been in societies with a fair amount of capitalist activity going on.

Can capitalism go bad, very bad? Of course that's true too... we're obviously in a shit storm of capitalism gone bad right now.

That does not prove, however, that "capitalism does not work". It certainly doesn't show that anyone out there ranting against capitalism as a feasible, historically proven alternative.

[Shandris]

43. Why does every solution have to be historical?

There's no goddamn law that says it has to have been done before or it won't work. Neither is there a law stating that capitalism-only or socialism-only or ANY -ism-only is a requirement.

What we DO know is that when capitalism is the predominant factor in society and is NOT tempered with some kind of social awareness and weal (social-ism), then it is incredibly destructive over a period of time, that period of time being defined as the length of time it takes to consolidate the power in the top %'s. Several watermarks along the way likely could have prevented what has happened to American Capitalism, and almost to a one they are tied to the proper and adjudicative use of socialism.

This leads one to believe that there is a possible outcome where capitalism and socialism, in the a combination that has not been done YET, would beat the decay that infects either system when used alone.

Of course, all this presupposes a fresh start with capitalism because as it is now, it doesn't fucking work. IT CAN'T WORK. By definition. It's a snake that eats its own tail, ever seeking a lower cost. Now what will happen when it reaches that 'lowest cost'? It will eat itself and fall apart; profits can no longer be 'raised' when all manner of cutting costs is gone, and since the pursuit of pure profit in the short interim is what capitalism has become, there IS a definitive point of stagnation. It's an endgame with NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.

[Silent3]

44. If you combine aspects of capitalism and socialism...

...then it's not THE FINAL YEARS OF CAPITALISM!!!

Unregulated capitalism isn't "by definition" part of capitalism. When seeking lower costs turns into corruption of government power to lower those costs, that's not "by definition" capitalism. If reasonable government regulation survives the search for lower costs, that's not self-destructive, that's the desired outcome of market-driven system, the equilibrium where goods and services are the cheapest for everyone, when "by definition" the rich can't be all that rich, because the cost of whatever is supposed to be valuable about their investment and entrepreneurial and managerial skills as been minimized along with everything else.

"There's no goddamn law that says it has to have been done before or it won't work."

Completely true. Recognition that it (whatever "it" might be) hasn't been done before, however, is a good reason for cautious and tempered predictions, for toning down the strident anti-capitalist rhetoric and smug absolutist predictions like the OP.

[Shandris]

79. A breakdown...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:...then it's not THE FINAL YEARS OF CAPITALISM!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the context of capitalism as we know it, it is. As I mentioned, working in the vast amounts of change necessary to 'fix' capitalism to a more stable state are realistically no longer feasible. Too much damage has been done.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: Unregulated capitalism isn't "by definition" part of capitalism. When seeking lower costs turns into corruption of government power to lower those costs, that's not "by definition" capitalism. If reasonable government regulation survives the search for lower costs, that's not self-destructive, that's the desired outcome of market-driven system, the equilibrium where goods and services are the cheapest for everyone, when "by definition" the rich can't be all that rich, because the cost of whatever is supposed to be valuable about their investment and entrepreneurial and managerial skills as been minimized along with everything else.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, I get that you didn't like my 'by definition' line. But if you're going to try to mock me with it and put it in quotes, at least have the temerity to not ~reverse~ the manner in which I used it. I ~clearly~ said it in reference to 'capitalism as we know it now' 'cannot work' 'by definition'. The manner you describe -- the desired outcome of market-driven system, the equilibrium where goods and services are the cheapest for everyone, when "by definition" the rich can't be all that rich, because the cost of whatever is supposed to be valuable about their investment and entrepreneurial and managerial skills as been minimized along with everything else -- is not capitalism as we know it. It's the theoretical.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: "There's no goddamn law that says it has to have been done before or it won't work."

Completely true. Recognition that it (whatever "it" might be) hasn't been done before, however, is a good reason for cautious and tempered predictions, for toning down the strident anti-capitalist rhetoric and smug absolutist predictions like the OP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're clearly intelligent enough to realize that 'it' was a reference to your use of 'alternative', which you used along with 'historically proven, feasible'. Clearly my contention was with 'historically proven' - there's no law that says it has to have been done before (ie, historically proven). I agree with you that such a combination would require careful foresight, with the full weight of experience to guide us this time about where the biggest pitfalls lie. But again...none of that will happen as capitalism exists at this point in time. It would have to be built that way from the ground up. We're in Capitalism 1.0alpha, and at some point this alpha-testing needs to end because we've identified the bugs. Unfortunately, the bugs are killing off the system.

Note: There's no < quote > command? Really?

[Silent3]

97. Even with your clarifications like "capitalism... as it is now"...

...I'd still take issue with talk like, "IT CAN'T WORK. By definition. It's a snake that eats its own tail, ever seeking a lower cost," because by talking about definitions of systems like capitalism it sure as hell sounds more like you're talking about an inherent flaw in capitalism, not "capitalism as practiced now". Definitions of things usually describe idealized or generalized forms, not particular flawed instances. If your dog has fleas and a bad temper, that problem has nothing to do with the definition of "dog".

And, whether you meant it or not, it also sounded like you were saying that seeking lowest costs in an inherently self-defeating or self-destructive thing. If you really do think regulated capitalism with a social safety net and some aspects of the economy being socialized could be a workable system (as do I), then I see no point in demonizing the search for lowest costs. If you get to lowest costs within a framework that insists on worker safety, living wages, environmental safety, etc., the search for lowest costs is a good thing.

Note: There's no < quote > command? Really?

Not exactly, but you can use:

(div class=excerpt)quote text(/div)

...just replace the parentheses with square brackets.

[social_critic]

68. Shandris, just got to come up with a different term, that's all

The problem is socialism is too linked to marxism or communism - ie "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" run by the Marxist Leninist self styled Bolzheviks, who called themselves communists.

I have studied this subject, know some of these guys very well, and I can confirm most corporate leaders do not really seek lower costs. They seek higher profits, an above average return on capital employed, and power. Lower costs, lower taxes, higher prices, more market share, organic growth, all of those are just indicators they send downstairs to get the prime results. If a corporate leader starts focusing only on something like lower costs, it usually lands him in the garbage heap of history - it takes time, but he'll get there. The same thing applies if he focuses on highest quality, or ever increasing market share.

Now that you know a little bit about this topic, I suggest that, thus far, capitalism seems to be the most productive engine we've seen. Capitalism, of course, requires a legal infrastructure, and this includes things such as adequate protection of the environment, workers' rights, taxation, and of course regulation to avoid monopolies, predatory management, and other evil deeds.

But I would not say "socialism" is a word I would use anymore, it's too tainted. A more reasonable option is to call it social democracy with capitalism as the economic engine. And may the gods save us from the greedy psychopaths who tend to run companies.

[Shandris]

82. I see where you're coming from...

...and you're probably right that socialism is the wrong word. I even alluded to it by using social-ism in a previous post, because 'socialism' itself has a terrible context these days.

I do believe capitalism requires much more than just a legal foundation to work, though, or the very definition of a 'legal infrastructure' needs to be altered; as it stands, it merely exists as inconveniences to be worked around or outright bought. It would take a meeting of minds on the scale of the Constitutional Convention to see this done, and they would need to address the economy much more in the documentation as well as laying the foundations of a new order - iow, it's not likely to ever happen unless something truly fundamental changes about the nature of our nation.

Capitalism as we know it now may be the greatest engine we've ever seen, and it does generate the most money. It does not in any way generate equality or even the semblance of equality on any scale, nor does it have any moral attached to it. Thusly, while corporate leaders may seek higher profits, the lowering of costs is one of the most effective short-term methods of achieving that goal. But again, there is a limit to how much costs of any kind can be lowered, and when that is achieved then there will be no more method in which to generate profit. It's an endgame with no other alternative. The only question is how long it takes to reach that point, and how much destruction will be wrought along the way.

[social_critic]

87. I look at this more holistically

I'm looking at it in a generic sense. I would agree that US capitalism is pretty screwed up as it exists today. But this is to blame on both the Democrats and Republicans, on left wingers and right wingers, because both of them continue to behave as corruptly and idiotically as can be. It's got so bad, I don't really think this can be fixed anymore.

But I do like to point out to people living elsewhere it's not too late for them. And if they have to pick, going communist sure is a lot worse than going capitalist. At least under capitalism power isn't concentrated as much, and it's more difficult for the state to evolve into a 1984-like behemoth.

[blindpig]

49. What is 'human nature'?

Human nature as commonly understood is an artifact of the society in which it is formed. Capitalist society does indeed encourage the attitudes which you describe, our goal is to change the parameters of society, the relationships of production. All follows from that.
Capitalism, by it's bedrock operation alienates the workers who are it's basis, sowing the seeds of it's own destruction. Change is coming whether we like it or not.

[bobbolink]

111. "Human nature" means "universal". There are many societies which do NOT act as you describe,

so it CAN'T be "human nature".

Cop outs aren't working.

[Still Waters]

25. We the People no longer matter to our ruling elite

The only time we matter to them is election time. Then they can use propaganda and sloganeering to appeal to our fear, racism, religious beliefs, and patriotism to get us to vote for people who will smilingly cut our throats for the next 2 or 4 years. The American people, the American middle class are obsolete. We are in uncharted territory here--I don't know how to classify it, perhaps it is post-industrial? Business no longer feels the need to provide good jobs that pay a decent wage and benefits. Desperate people trying to hold on to some semblance of our parent's standard of living are trying to figure out how they can maintain a home and car, pay for insurance, try to pay for a college education for their children and save for retirement--all the emblems of comfortable middle class--are now scrambling to try to make a $12/hr job with no benefits magically stretch to cover these things. Well, it can't. And we have no leverage to stop them. How can we risk striking--how can we survive with no paychecks? And if we struck business would just hire someone else who is desperate for a job, or laughingly outsource the jobs.

There have been numerous articles posted here that businesses foresee a future offering few full-time jobs--we are meant to be a rag-tag bunch of part time free-lancers. Why haven't our politicians been forced to answer this, and square that with their dream of cutting our social security benefits? Why didn't the Catfood Commission address the stark reality that corporate America pushes their employees out the door at 50, and that 50-somethings are highly unlikely to ever be employed again, and if they do manage to get another job it is for a drastically lower salary? I'd like to hear foul mouth Simpson tell us how his fellow Americans can survive from 50 to 70 with no job. The truth of the matter is that our elite don't feel like ants like us are worthy of receiving our SS, not when it can be put into the stock market for them to hoover it up. Our ruling elite have no conception of struggling for survival, of looking and looking for a job and not being able to find one, of making a choice between food and medicine, and it my belief that they find those of us engaged in the struggle beneath their exalted selves and that they blame us--we are too lazy or too stupid--for the straits we find ourselves in.

I was angry and uneasy when the election was stolen from Gore. I was in despair when Kerry lost. I have truly felt that Obama was our last chance. I now just feel some nihilistic profound loss and with each capitulation by the Democrats I just feel a sick feeling in my stomach that the "game" is over.

[social_critic]

26. Relax

It's all going to end when the sun turns into a red giant.

[Laelth]

28. Well said. My experience has been similar. n/t

-Laelth

[Raksha]

40. Very well said.

As depressing and realistic a summary of our predicament as any I've seen.

[pecwae]

46. Too true.

I see a disconnect with reality in posts predicting the death of capitalism. Considering the escalating class war and creeping fascism in government I see no way how anyone could come to such a conclusion.

[meow mix]

52. +rec

[DeSwiss]

27. K&R

Excerpt from:

Algorithms and Red Wine
Is the 'digital hive' a soft totalitarian state?

By Joe Bageant
Ferrara, Italy
October 25, 2010


Flatworm economics

...

But the truth is that each gallon of fossil fuel contains the energy of 40 man-hours. And that has played hell with the ecology of human work, thanks mostly to the money economy. For instance, a simple loaf of bread, starting with the fossil fuels used to grow the wheat, transport, mill, bake, create the packaging materials and packaging, advertise and distribute it, uses the energy of two men working for two weeks. Yet this waste and vast inefficiency is invisible to us because we see it only in terms of money, jobs and commerce. Cheap oil allowed industrial humans to increasingly live on environmental credit for over a century. Now the bill is due and no amount of money can pay it. The calorie, pure heat expenditure as energy, is the only currency in which Mother Nature trades. Period.

Despite that America produced such thinkers on the subject of living simply as Thoreau, modern hydrocarbon based civilization has driven expectations of material goods and convenience, and the transactions surrounding those expectations, through the stratosphere. Money has abstracted the notion of work to the point where, I dare say, there are not 100,000 people in America who truly understand that, although there are at least a few million trying to understand and liberate themselves.

I’m gonna take a wild shot here and say that understanding and liberation, come through self-discipline and self-denial, and that it’s nearly impossible for Americans to practice self-discipline. They cannot imagine why self-discipline, and a more ascetic life, becoming less dependent on the faceless machinery of algorithm driven virtual money, is necessarily liberating.

If there can be a solution at this late stage, and most thinking people seriously doubt there can be a “solution” in the way we have always thought of solutions, it begins with powering down everything we consider to be the economy and our survival. That and population reduction, which nobody wants to discuss in actionable terms. Worse yet, there is no state sanctioned, organized entry level for people who want to power down from the horrific machinery of money. There are too many financial, military and corporate and governmental forces that don’t want to see us power down (because it would spell their death), but rather power up even more. That’s called “a recovery.”

When viewed from outside the virtual money economy, and from the standpoint of the planet’s caloric economy, probably half of American and European jobs are not only unnecessary, but also terribly destructive, either directly or indirectly. Yet what nation or economic state acknowledges the need for a transition away from jobs that aren't necessary. None, because such an economy could not support the war machines or the transactional financial industries that dominate our needs hierarchy for the benefit of the few. Loaning us money we have already earned, stuffing us with corn syrup. And I won’t even go into the strong possibility that everybody does not need to be employed at all times for the world to keep on turning.


http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/10/algorithms.html">MORE

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

29. do you really think so?

I mean, people have predicting the fall of capitalism for a long time, and it manages to create itself anew and last.

Do you really think that with the rise of places like China and India that capitalism is really over? Or is the center of it just going to move somewhere else and it will change a little?

[Odin2005]

30. K&R. I will see you guys at the barricades.

[applegrove]

31. Certainly the rich person's mantra "rich people create jobs" is going to fall

flat until jobs are created when the baby boomers start to retire. And then of course the GOP and the rich will take credit for it.

[BzaDem]

32. To many people here, we will always be living in the final years of capitalism. n/t

[laughingliberal]

33. K & R nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. We are? First this is not capitalism but COMSUMERISM

and please, give me some Capitalism.

Some of the things Adam Smith stood for:

Living Wages...

Regulated market place.

No Monopolies.

So yes, give me some good ol' fashioned capitalism.

[blindpig]

50. Myopic

What you describe is a blip on the radar, a unique historical period with some very specific features. Specifically, the US as the only industrial power left standing after WWII and the Cold War which required Capital to disguise it's nature in the face of an alternate system. Those conditions are past and the contingencies of that time abandoned as an impediment. What we are experiencing is Capital as it is, Capitalism as the capitalists want it to be. AS long as they control the power which is the means of production this will be the way of things, which is why they must be relieved of this power.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Myopic to use the ACTUAL meaning of the term

by the person who actually WROTE the Wealth of Nations?

WOW!

You know it is like questioning what Karl Marx meant in Das Kapital.

By the way the Wealth was published in 1776... slightly before oh World War II. I'd say by a couple centuries.

[Silent3]

38. Only if it's also the final years of human life on the planet

There is no catastrophe short of annihilation of the entire human race that will end capitalism forever. There's no likely scenario where the vast majority of human beings will suddenly, and for all time thereafter, view the world and its problem through a leftist, anti-capitalist prism.

There's plenty of evidence that many people turn hard right, not hard left, when faced with fear, hardship, and desperation. If you imagine some sort of terrible economic or environmental or military collapse where, out of the ashes, rises an invincible, enduring, and united anti-capitalist force as the most likely outcome, you're not living on the same planet I'm inhabiting.

[BzaDem]

41. "There's plenty of evidence that many people turn hard right not hard left, when faced with fear"

Exactly. The "revolution" people who think otherwise are incredibly naive.

[Still Waters]

51. We have an example of people turning left-FDR & the Depression

I have often wondered how FDR managed to keep the country from turning hard right during the Depression. He provided bold leadership and offered truly imaginative solutions in uncharted historical waters. He did not destroy Capitalism--he regulated it. Removing those regulations have led us to our current disaster.

The key is still jobs. If the private sector will not or cannot create jobs, then the government must step in. We do need a new WPA. There are untold numbers of projects that need to be done, in the areas of infrastructure, health care, green technology, research and development, education, the list goes on. The wages paid through these jobs would allow for taxes collected on these earnings and immediate spending by these workers as they pay to support themselves in the community.

[Silent3]

60. That's why I said "often", not "always"

The big problem now is that we're coming off a much higher standard of living for the average person than the average person had before the Great Depression, far fewer of us can sustain ourselves independently through farming, and we're terribly dependent on complex supply chains for our most basic needs.

If there was an all-out economic collapse now, the Great Depression would look like The Good Ol' Days. People could starve by the millions, and it could well be that nothing short of martial law would save us from the worst of the catastrophe. Unfortunately, as I see the American culture at the moment, the most zealous people ready to step into such a power vacuum are Tea Party types and (often the same people) rabid Christian Fundamentalists. Illegal aliens, anyone who looks like an illegal alien in the eyes of these bigots, gays and non-Christians would become targets like Jews in Nazi Germany.

We could hope that people would rally together in a positive way, but I just don't see the Fox News crowd allowing that to happen. FDR had his detractors to deal with, but they weren't such a large, organized force with such a strong propaganda machine. Fox et al could go completely off the air during a big economic collapse, but even if they did, I think they've already done most of their dirty work planting the seeds of right wing extremism, something that's much closer to ready to ignite than any imagined left-wing, anti-capitalist uprising that so many DUers fantasize about.

[Martin Eden]

58. Yep.

The OP has engaged in wishful uninformed thinking.

If we don't want our children and grandchildren to live in a nightmarish post-apocalyptic America, the best route is to steadily transform our current system into something more sustainable and equitable -- but this would still include a for-profit economy with private ownership of businesses. That doesn't mean we can't end personhood for corporations and the purchase of elections recently enshrined by SCOTUS.

[backwoodsbob]

45. blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah...*take breath* blah blah blah

[cali]

47. Don't tell me what my job as a progressive is. I'll decide that for myself

thank you very much. As I see it, my job as a progressive is work locally and to choose the issues that I want to work on. And bromides like "our job is to be the light at the end of that tunnel" are just empty rhetoric.

As for predictions, I try not to make them and I don't buy into them. Your prediction is no more pertinent to my life and my beliefs than someone telling me that jesus is returning in May.

[Silent3]

48. +1 n/t

[conspirator]

53. My fear is that it will be replaced with explicit fascism or feudalism

While capitalism was a feudalism light, which survived based on the exploitation of less developed countries in the Southern hemisphere,
at least people had some freedom to choose the master they wanted to work for.

[social_critic]

61. Capitalism "was"?

I believe capitalism is doing quite well. Why use the past tense? Also, I am curious, do you think fascism is arising in the Southern Hemisphere? Latin America or Africa, for example?

[dotymed]

54. I think it is obvious to most people

that Capitalism is a failure. Only a very few percent actually benefit from this system. Those that do, do so outrageously. It is amazing that people allow this. The obscenely wealthy and the rest.....
Capitalism is continually propped up (mainly by our government) or, I believe, it would have necessarily "morphed" into a more equitable system.
Many of our young people have, by necessity, joined the military to survive. Those young adults have been so brainwashed that it often lingers even after their military experience. Those young people often do not see capitalism as the culprit. Often they think it is all because of the liberals and the (haha) liberal media. Brainwashing does that...
Any thinking person (IMO), realizes that unregulated capitalism (or under regulated) is comparable to continual warfare. It is unsustainable and only benefits the few.
I wish capitalism (at least in its present form) were dead.

[social_critic]

62. Propose an alternative?

I was wondering, if it's a failure, then what do you propose as an alternative?

[dotymed]

121. Okay. The most (in America) acceptable

alternative would be to return to a regulated form of capitalism, like the style that FDR helped create after the Depression. Citizens were encouraged to join Unions and their were protections in place for the consumer. Also, the taxes were truly progressive. Ironically, the countries that were rebuilt after WWII used FDR's blueprints for a just society and now their citizens enjoy a much better social contract with their government.
Universal health care, people before profits, Union representation as the norm, etc...
That is a tried and proven alternative, right from the US of A.
Of course, now that proven system is touted as pure socialism by business and ironically, that mantra has been continually repeated through our corporate MSM, and turned into propaganda that people believe...

[WillyT]

56. K & R !!!

:kick:

[cbdo2007]

57. The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!!!

Of all of the misinformed and alarmist economic posts I've read on DU over the past 3 years that I've been here, this has to be right up there as one of the Greatest.

We should have the Mods create a "Greastest Ridiculous Topics" page, but then again the rest of DU is so economically uninformed that I'm sure I'm in the minority here in trying to see things in a realistic way and then seeing how ridiculous this topic is.

[NOLALady]

64. OK. We are not in the final years of capitalism.

Please explain the reality of capitalism. Please explain why this topic is ridiculous.

[cbdo2007]

81. Basically, this is just like the post about the billboard predicting the return of Jesus...

For the past 2000 years Millions of people think they know when Jesus is coming back and they all think it's within their lifetimes.

Same thing for capitalism, though on a smaller scale. For the past 150 years that the Stock Market has existed in the United States, people have been talking about how evil it is and predicting the end of capitalism. More people were even saying it in the 1930's than are saying it now, and our economy has grown an unfathomable sh*tload since then.

Sure...we're in the final years of capitalism, and Jesus is coming back, and the world is going to end in Nuclear war. Same old bullshit, different decade/century/millenium, but hey, you're going to believe whatever you want to believe and there's no amount of explaining I'm going to be able to do convince you otherwise. I also can't explain to you why the boogeyman doesn't exist, you're just going to always believe it.

[Yavin4]

86. Unregulated Capitalism Lead To Wild Swings In The Market

and various boom and bust cycles. From the start of the industrial revolution, our economy went through a series of boom and bust cycles which lead to numerous bank runs. This is why the Fed was created in the first place. However, even the Fed could not prevent the Great Depression.

And, if you study the Great Depression at all, you'd know that FDR injected a mild form of socialism into our economy to even out the effects of capitalism. He regulated the banks and allowed unions to collectively bargain. This lead to a 50 year run of financial security.

In the past 30 years, there's been a concerted effort to remove all of the work that FDR did, and we're back to boom and bust cycles. I'm only 46, but I've witnessed three huge market sell offs in my lifetime, 1987, 2000, and 2008-9.

Hey, I'm sure that there were smart people like yourself who never thought that Communism would ever fail.

[Octafish]

59. If it's too expensive to create jobs and there's big money in war...

...how long before the Reich's Think Tanks come up with their solution?

[JCMach1]

63. Capitalism and Socialism are dead, or dying because they are systems based on

unit labor...

What will come next? We just don't know yet.

[social_critic]

69. I don't get it, they are based on unit labor?

What do you mean? Unit labor costs are just something one considers when running a company. Evidently there has to be value added.

There's a lot of blurring between socialism and capitalism. I have watched communists very close (I have served as a consultant for communist-owned corporations), and they don't seem to grasp the unit labor cost topic at all.

Roughly around 1994 I had the opportunity to go to Russia and teach their managers on these topics, and it was really interesting. They had very senior dudes with PhDs and economics degrees galore, and they didn't understand simple concepts such as discounting, risk weighted profit outlook, worker training and turnover, and other things we worry about (or ought to worry about). Their sheer ignorance of these basic topics is what led to the USSR's inability to get ahead in spite of its low population density, huge oil and gas and mineral reserves, and other goodies which can lead to econommic supremacy if the system is tweaked right.

[JCMach1]

108. Workers own the means of production, but what if workers aren't needed?

We already know we are redundant under capitalism...

Technology and globalization are making work obsolete. The problem is we distribute resources on that basis.

So, what does that leave us in the future.

We are on the cusp of a paradigm shift...

[BrentWil]

65. "All systems fail when the benefits of that system are not fairly nor adequately shared."

Which system shares "fairly and adequately" in practice?

[Capn Sunshine]

70. Are you a time traveller from 1930?

Didn't happen then, not gonna happen now, comrade. Capitalism is the natural state of man. Not fair, I know. But it's the way things are.

[social_critic]

71. The natural state of man depends on this and that

We are born naked. If we were living 20,000 years ago, we would be hunter gatherers. I could do real good if you let me turn a few thousand people into slaves, and I get to use their labor for free so I can build me a palace, fill it with cute women, eat fine food, and lay around in the sun. Wouldn't need any ism's at all.

[Capn Sunshine]

73. maybe not slaves, but if I trade you some Rabbit for your berries, that's basic capitalism.

Let's not even get in to the tendency of man to gamble. But there is no question in my mind capitalism is a natural state.

[social_critic]

83. Sorry, but that's not capitalism

That's trade. Maybe we need to go back to basics.

Capitalism: Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.

Trading rabbit for berries doesn't really qualify, that's just simple barter. If I have a berry farm I own for profit, and you raise rabbits in a plot you own, then we may have capitalism. Note that capitalism requires individual property rights, a legal system to regulate trade, a currency, and relatively free markets. This isn't the case under communism, for example.

[Capn Sunshine]

107. Sorry. Wrong

Capitalism, Barter. Same thing. Production = privately owned. I get Rabbit. My labor is the means of production. You've got Berries. Your labor is the means of production, unless you mugged someone for them, then you are one notch up the ladder productionwise. Trade occurs when each feels that their desire has been met. That desire is the motor of trade. You enact the trade when you feel the price is fair. Your profit is intangible often, but you have traded for something you did not have to YOUR BENEFIT. You WANTED. That benefit is profit, amigo. The thing that oils the wheels of trade.

Don't get hung up on the perversion of capital, call it what you will, capitalism is a natural state.

[social_critic]

113. That's not capitalism

There's a long way from barter to capitalism. Barter, in principle, can be carried out by tribal groups with community property being traded. Therefore, trade as such doesn't mean capitalism. A capitalist can trade by barter (rather than sell for currency), but so can a communist. You are confusing the notion of barter with the more clear definition of capitalism, which requires individual property and the ability to sell in a (relatively) free market.

The fundamental conflict here is between community property (as they practiced in the Soviet Union) and individual property (as practiced in the USA). Communism doesn't work, capitalism works a lot better.

[Silent3]

123. Capitalism might be more than just barter...

...but it doesn't take a whole lot more than that.

I'd say the basics you need for capitalism are:

1) A monetary system. Nearly all human societies from agricultural to industrial develop money as an abstraction of trade.
2) Recognition of private ownership. This again is common to many human societies.
3) A fair degree of personal freedom. That's been lacking for much of human history and in many societies.

If I have the right to sell my labor and my goods, if I'm allowed to claim ownership of a little bit of land, food I grow on it or minerals I extract from it, things I make, we're on the way to capitalism.

The "means of production" can be a whole lot of different things, things that are reasonably considered personal property. Given the existence of that kind of personal property, you don't need to institute capitalism or enforce capitalism, capitalism will simply happen. These few simple conditions are enough to set up a farm that has an owner and hired laborers to create a for-profit farming business, enough to buy a boat and higher sailors and establish a for-profit shipping business, etc.

The only way NOT to end up with at least some capitalism given these few basic conditions is to explicitly outlaw many things that people would naturally, freely decide to do with their own time, possessions, and money.

[anaxarchos]

115. Hah...

"The economists have a singular manner of proceeding. There are for them only two kinds of institutions, those of art and those of nature. Feudal institutions are artificial institutions, those of the bourgeoisie are natural institutions. In this they resemble the theologians, who also establish two kinds of religion. Every religion but their own is an invention of men, while their own religion is an emanation from God.... Thus there has been history, but there is no longer any."

Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy

[sarcasmo]

72. Which is why the elite want to pilfer what is left of social security and the pension systems.

We are witness to the fall, right on Yavin 4.

[rhett o rick]

74. I agree, but we need a specific plan. We need a leader, strategy and tactics.

I think many of us agree and want to fight back. Our "democratic process" is fucked and no longer an option. We need strikes, boycotts, etc.

[social_critic]

88. BS- that won't work

It just takes time. Start out by insisting they vote in a Constitutional amendment to block gerrymandering by any party. Then move on to term limits, and then move to have all ballots show another choice: None of the above.

[rhett o rick]

103. "Start out by insisting..". Just how do you do that? They dont listen to us.

Vote them out is what you will probably say next. And vote in who? The system is corrupt to the roots. In 2008 we did what we could and it turns out to be minimal. Some things have improved a little but 2010 showed that we can swing back in a heart beat. Democracy is dead in America.

[Jack Rabbit]

76. I don't know about capitalism per se, but I believe the US is about to go the way of the Soviet Unio

I'm serious.

We very nearly didn't survive the Bush super-recession and we aren't anywhere near out of the woods yet. We needed much more reform than we got, thanks largely to GOP nihilism, to President Obama's failure to properly respond to their obstructionism, and to opposition from crooked Democrats who took corporate money and played ball they way they wanted it played.

So what we have is a House controlled by the very people who want to return to policies that failed disastrously from 2001 to 2008. Gridlock is the best we can expect of the situation, and gridlock is still something we cannot afford. As a nation, we will not survive that.

I admit to being part of the failure myself. I voted for Obama thinking he could drive through the reform that needed. Of course, it's a tall order to ask anyone to be FDR, but nothing less was demanded by the crisis. Unfortunately, Barack Obama was not up to the task.

Corporations may be artificial persons, but they are the real tyrants of our time. Look it up in Plato's Republic if you don't believe me. Plato said that a tyrant is one whose appetites rule him rather than he controlling his appetites, that the tyrant would respect nothing sacred, no code of honor and no relationship to friend or parent if any of that stood between him and the satisfaction of his appetites. Uncontrolled his appetites become insatiable. The corporation that plays dangerously and irresponsible in the market with other people's money and expects the taxpayers to fork it over when it gets in over its head fits this model to a T.

It is time to overthrow these tyrants. Large corporations must either be reined in or dismantled. If Declaration of Independence declares that the people have the right to alter or abolish a form of government that is destructive to the ends of life and liberty, then the people have as much right to dismantle too-powerful, self-serving economic entities as to behead a king who thinks he can rule like a god. Corporations, and more to the point the people who run them, shall be held accountable for the damage then have to the environment, to the economy and to the common people themselves.

To the useful fools of the corporatacracy, such as Dennis Prager, who said that equality is not an American value, I say that equality is the root principle of all that is American. To those fools who, like Rush Limbaugh, propose to disenfranchise poor citizens of their right to participate in the political system, I say that that no law passed by a state as unrepresentative of its people as you would make the America of your warped, twisted dreams is worthy of the respect you would expect of its subjects. Only a police state can maintain such an order, and we will have none of that. To those fools who assert that America is a mere republic and not a democracy, I say that is a deficiency that we will soon remedy.

[social_critic]

90. Equality defined

I think it means equal under the law, not necessarily equality in resources, or good looks, or luck, or ability to lie good enough to be a politician :-)

[Jack Rabbit]

112. Democracy defined; equality defined in the context of democracy

This is my definition of democracy. There has been no democratic state in the history of the world under this definition.

Democracy is a state where:

• Citizenship is universal. Each person born within the boundaries of the state is a citizen, as is one born abroad to at least one citizen parent or who swears allegiance to the state in a rite of naturalization.
• Citizenship is equal. Each citizen has an equal opportunity to participate in and influence public affairs. Every adult citizen shall be enfranchised with the right to vote. Decisions are made by a majority voting based on the principle of one man/one vote.
• Citizenship is inalienable. A guaranteed set of civil liberties is in place to assure full and open public discourse of civic affairs. No citizen may be stripped of his citizenship or otherwise punished by the state for expressing any point of view, no matter how unpopular or even absurd.

[social_critic]

114. What we have in the USA is close enough

But we should not confuse capitalism with democracy. Communism does tend to lead to dictatorship (because it concentrates power, and it has to be imposed on the majority by a zealous dogmatic communist cadre). But it's possible to have capitalism without democracy, and theoretically communism can be practiced with democracy as well. it's just that communist nations don't usually practice democracy, due to the structural problems which arise.

[Jack Rabbit]

118. It is not relevant whether we are presently "close enough" or not

The near future looks bleak for the survival of the US as a nation. What we have in the USA is not likely to survive a resurgence of unbridled, free market capitalism. The relevant question is what succeeds it if it falls to pieces? It will either be a state (or states) with enhanced corporate control and a brutal, authoritarian government to maintain that control or a state (or states) closer to the democratic ideal.

There can be no doubt as to in which I would rather live.

Our mission, as progressives, as humanists or even as liberals is to make sure that the democratic future prevails out of the coming crisis.

[bluestate10]

78. I am a moderate.

That puts me a few steps out of line with many on the DU. But I love everyone. We are all democrats.

The most effective way to deny corporations money for political electioneering and to start leveling the economic playing field is to start up or fund the start up of companies that compete against them and promote those company's products to like minded citizens. If progressives continue the vote and governance only push of the last two decades, the only outcome in my estimation is failure, with corporations growing ever stronger. Work to start up and nurture companies that put workers and their customer's well being first. Profits are necessary for any company to survive, but progressive companies put most of that profit back into workers and product safety improvements.

Upset about pollution of water and air? Start a company that researches cost effective and efficient abatement methods.

Upset about off shoring of jobs? Support companies that refuse to build their products anywhere except on the mainland USA.

Upset about automobile safety? Start a company that builds ultra safe, fuel efficient automobiles. Just building and selling a handful the first time around is a start. If the cars are well built and fuel efficient, more orders will flow in.

Upset about how multinational hotel chains treat workers and customers? Many cities have abandoned buildings that can be turned into boutique hotels.

[social_critic]

91. Moderate here too

But I sure would like to see our troops brought home. I've found the ultra liberals here seem to be more pro-war than I expected. I, on the other hand, I'm a hard core anti war type. I protested when Clinton was bombing during the Kosovo war he started, and I haven't stopped protesting. Problem is it doesn't do any good.

[maryf]

109. 58% of the federal budget goes to the Pentagon

including the new nuclear weapons program, (and still way over 50% without that)and we need nuclear weapons why? Because they are so profitable of course!! (oh and good for fear mongering...)

[Ken Burch]

93. We can but hope.

"Market Values" and "Free Trade" are killing all of us, one way or the other.

[madinmaryland]

99. Good riddance to the Steinbrenner family, then!!

[rhett o rick]

105. Final years of capitalism in the US of A. Capitalism is flourishing in China, the new empire. nm