General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Why do people still defend capitalism?
I can see acknowledging some of the good things capitalism has done, but it appears that capitalism is on the decline. And yet people staunchly defend. Why? I am seeking serious input, because I have hard time fathoming this?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Logical
(22,457 posts)
Deep13
(39,154 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)flourished and helped more than just the wealthy. Let's start with Haiti. Now there is an example of what capitalism does.
hack89
(39,171 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)with excellent health care and education?
Sweden is what I would like America to be like.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)credit for their strong social programs to capitalism. Capitalists dont like to pay for social programs. IMO Sweden is a great example of strongly regulated capitalism. The capitalists are forced to share their wealth with the masses. Haiti is an example of unregulated capitalism. The land an people exploited for hundreds of years by the capitalists.
hack89
(39,171 posts)capitalism generates the wealth that makes Sweden so livable. No other economic system could generate that kind of prosperity.
It would appear they have a different type of capitalist in Sweden.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)invest in infrastructure, education and the people. Unregulated capitalism is like Mittens Rmoney. Harvest what you can and run.
hack89
(39,171 posts)so Sweden is proof that capitalism can work. We just need Sweden's form of capitalism.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)They mix socialism and capitalism. Sometimes they have more of the one. Sometimes more of the other. But one thing is pretty consistent based on my experience living there and reading about their law and economies, they protect workers' rights. It is not a matter of great conflict. Those countries have centuries of experience with good labor relations starting with the guilds of the Middle Ages. I think that is why they have a very successful form of capitalism. The capitalists are not given the green light to oppress working people and the middle class but are rather required to work as partners. We should consider how we can better protect working people within our capitalist system. There needs to be a balance.
The advantage of capitalism is that it promotes creativity and some risk-taking.
In my view, our capitalism has degenerated into gambling. Too many of our "capitalists" are really just gambling on the stock market for their money. They wouldn't understand the nitty-gritty of handling the productive parts of the economy. They just take a big slice off the top.
We also have too much "free trade." We need trade, but we need to foster the creativity and investment within our own country.
I am interested in seeing more cooperative workplaces. I would like to see how that works. There is an interesting biography of Steve Jobs that explains how he promoted creativity in his company. Creativity and positive innovation plus respect for all involved in the economy from the janitor to the CEO -- that's what I believe would be good for our country. We can solve any problem including our faltering economy if we work together from the micro- to the macro-level of our society. If a boss is disrespectful of hard-working, productive employees, the system is not working. Cooperation is the key -- just like it is in our families and other segments of society.
I think that Germany proves that cooperation is not incompatible with capitalism.
That is my opinion.
hack89
(39,171 posts)
mainer
(12,022 posts)Without people building businesses and generating capital, there would be no capital to use for the common good.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Indigenous peoples lived in harmony with nature since the beginning of humans. The desire to acquire more and more wealth is not sustainable.
Without social programs, capitalism would burn itself out quickly.
mainer
(12,022 posts)It's putting money in the bank. Saving for retirement and kids' colleges. Paying off the house. That's why we work, to ensure the security of ourselves and our loved ones. "Building capital" is not a dry or abstract concept; it is as much a part of our lives as a simple savings account. It's what we all do when we get up in the morning to go to work.
Now, would it be nicer if we could just grow fruit and catch fish instead of earning symbolic pieces of paper to use at the grocery store? Of course it would be nice. Which is why so many of us grow vegetable gardens and fruit trees.
Indigenous peoples had that kind of harmony with nature, because they trusted that nature would always provide. But we don't have that assurance in our contemporary lives.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Labor (making things, doing things) is part and parcel of socialism and communism. Do you think that factories couldn't exist in a communist society?
mainer
(12,022 posts)That's why the Yugo was such a rip-roaring success.
They couldn't compete with capitalist businesses, because in principle, no individual was working for himself, only the collective. And no one had the incentive to go the extra mile.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Do you think there's ANY incentive for the typical low wage worker here in the good ol' U S of A to "go the extra mile" when it will do them no good? If a temp worker opens 20 extra envelopes at the sucky office job they're doing, will it put one more dime in their pocket?
mainer
(12,022 posts)Not everyone wants to go the extra mile. Not everyone invents and invests or starts a business. But take away the incentive, and NO ONE will.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)One model I've toyed with is a cooperative model, which is explicitly NOT a capitalist model. While I rejected it, I'm not necessarily going to follow the "lord and master" model typical of capitalist businesses. Employee ownership? Maybe.
And to say that nobody would do anything unless they can get filthy rich is ludicrous.
What do you define as "going the extra mile", by the way?
mainer
(12,022 posts)I have a small business (one employee, me, so I'm the only one being exploited.) I go the extra mile because I can see the direct results in my income. I am not "lord and master" as you put it, unless you count me as both.
Getting filthy rich by your definition may be, for me, merely having a comfortable retirement and getting to see the world. But yes, I've gone the extra mile to build that retirement nest egg.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)If your extra effort probably wouldn't be rewarded?
mainer
(12,022 posts)I think that's human nature. There'd have to be some secondary or emotional gain.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)mainer
(12,022 posts)Wealth accumulation? Higher income for more effort?
Is that what socialism means to you? Because it sounds like capitalism to me.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)their love of what they do.
In my family, a lot of the people are extremely interested in mechanical things. This interest shows up when they are just really little. They aren't interested because the mechanical things will make them rich. Combine that interest with the opportunity to make and sell the things they make and you have someone inventing and investing in a business. The money is not the real motivation. It is something you have to have. Doing what you love is what makes you successful.
One of the problems today is that too many people do what they think will bring them money. All too often it doesn't. You have to eat and it is very hard in our society to earn enough to eat not because we are a capitalist society but because only a very few people can obtain enough capital to start a business and the bosses do not know the people who work for them.
In a society like ours, we need laws that protect those who work for the big companies. Germany has shown that regulating the big employers is good for the economy and for society.
mainer
(12,022 posts)And those who worked harder got to keep more? Doesn't that square more with capitalism?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)And that it is just that, their socialism, that makes them prosperous.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is an economic system. There is hardly any government ownership in Sweden - they believe in free enterprise with appropriate regulation.
Capitalism and strong social intuitions that respect human dignity and workers can coexist - that is the lesson Sweden teaches us.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Oxford English Dictionary
hack89
(39,171 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Nope.
mainer
(12,022 posts)We're down to only one Communist country left in the world, since Vietnam is now moving toward capitalism.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Forever? That's a long long time.
Communism? is that the only alternative to Capitalism?
Socialism has fared quite well, and provides much more benefit to the greatest number of people while doing less damage.
mainer
(12,022 posts)I'm trying to think of one.
Can you name a strictly capitalist country that have no socialism allowed?
mainer
(12,022 posts)The point is, capitalism DOES have its function. And that's why it can't be dispensed with, even in a country that relies on socialism.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)and why "can't" it be dispensed with?
mainer
(12,022 posts)As it turns out, people work hardest for themselves -- not for 'the collective'," as East Germany discovered. Without self-interest to spur productivity, to invent new products, to take risks in hopes of high returns, there's far less capital to pay for the social good.
Capitalism and socialism, it seems to me, need each other.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)are you for real?
mainer
(12,022 posts)if not from our earnings? The only reason I pay taxes is because I have business income.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)mainer
(12,022 posts)There are none. Wealth is generated by capitalism, and it pays for social structures.
Compare Socialist East Germany and Capitalist West Germany before the wall came down. Same people, just a wall dividing east and west -- and an economic divide as well. Which country thrived, and which faltered? Which had higher productivity? Which needed to come to the other's rescue after the wall fell?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)The two are not the same thing at all.
theKed
(1,235 posts)He is saying capitalism generates higher revenues and thereby higher taxes
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I think he's saying that trade/manufacturing/production/etc. = Capitalism.
mainer
(12,022 posts)Capitalism generates revenue which generates taxes to pay for social welfare.
Of course trade and manufacturing existed under socialsm. That's why I mentioned the glorious Yugo.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)mainer
(12,022 posts)All you have to look at is GDP, and little Sweden (capitalist!) would easily beat formerly socialist eastern european countries.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)
Bake
(21,977 posts)You're good at lobbing grenades, not so hot on history. Socialism worked out so well in the USSR, right?
Bake
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)Pure socialism doesn't work. I favor capitalism IF (and it's a big IF) it's strictly regulated. You can't trust business, left to its own devices, to do the right thing. But centrally planned economies don't do so hot either.
Bake
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)and North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the only part they got right was "Korea".
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)do. I've had jobs that I absolutely loved. In fact my first job out of college was one that I really loved. It was not particularly well paid, but I just loved doing it.
Some people work for love of their family.
Other people work for the love of the prestige that earning a lot of money gives them.
Those who don't work for love are miserable.
The money is important, but it is not the main incentive for most people.
Steve Jobs -- wanted to make money but mostly wanted to build good products. That's an example of someone who enriched himself by doing what he really loved. Many people just enjoy doing a good job. I do.
I like to earn a good living, but most important I like to do a job I enjoy, produce a good product or result and contribute to society while doing it.
Why do people cook good meals for each other? For the money? Only if they are professional cooks. No. We do that because we enjoy cooking for others and because we like to cook well.
It is self-interest, but broadly defined. Self-interest is not just a matter of making a lot of money. Artists and musicians work and work. You never hear of them. They work to produce something beautiful whether they are paid or not for what they produce. It is self-interest but not what Republicans understand as self-interest. Some work to satisfy their greed, but many more do not.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Mao's centrally planned economy was an absolute disaster that resulted in lots of people dying needlessly from starvation. China today still has a substantial amount of poverty, but many of its people have risen out of poverty since they adopted capitalism.
That said, it's not as though central planning and capitalism are the only things that exist. I'd like to see more experimentation with worker-owned businesses.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Worker owned businesses is. In my book, anyway.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)The world's major powers today are all capitalist, though the European ones practice more regulated capitalism with a strong social welfare state.
Soviet Russia and Mao's China are the only other big powers that tried something other than capitalism. They tried central planning and it was a disaster.
As I said, I'd like to see more experimentation with the worker-owned business model of socialism that you are talking about.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And during the Middle Ages we had feudalism. So capitalism and socialism are not the only choices.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Even Marx thought that capitalism was superior to feudalism.
brooklynite
(94,517 posts)If the workers share the profits, you've got capitalism.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)brush
(53,773 posts)Here's a link to an egalitarian form of government that works and has lasted since the 50s.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/alternative-capitalism-mondragon
It could work here, starting locally and expanding out if the one percenters and their employees (repugs legislators) don't get in the way. That's a big "if" though. But there it is, a working alternative to capitalism.
And then of course there are the social democracies of Europe which combine socialism and capitalism, not bad either if you get the right ratio of each.
brooklynite
(94,517 posts)If this was created in the fifties, why hasn't it taken root more broadly? Is every capitalist nation conspiring to repress alternative economic models?
brush
(53,773 posts)Do you really think capitalists would be frothing at the mouth to see something like that installed? Their power would be no more.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)The dynamic economy we have in the United States has been fueled by the massive socially funded infrastructure projects which created a possibility for private sector growth. Capitalism by itself functions more like the economy of Somalia.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the Tennessee Valley Authority -- the railroads (land grants helped them) -- nuclear energy (the basic research was done by the government) -- pharmaceuticals (again, basic research funded by the government) -- the Erie Canal (state governments helped with this one). Yes, capitalism needs government and private investment to succeed.
If you have only private ownership, it merges with government into a monarchy. I can't think of a time or place in which you have private ownership without government control or promotion. Maybe Somalia. Sweden has been cited as an example of a capitalist society, but it has a huge social safety net and a lot of rules.
A mixed economy is what I favor. And that assumes flexibility in the ratio of the mix.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)for business to work have a hard time imagining a Worker-Directed Enterprise in which the people who create the surplus decide what to do with it. Democracy at work, in other words.
Private capitalism has never been seriously questioned in the United States. 'Course, there are some very good reasons for that.
dkf
(37,305 posts)I appreciate that we all have a say in electing our leaders, but our system is dysfunctional.
That is the price we pay so that people can feel they are not ruled by a tyrannical government.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)Perhaps if more people developed democratic skills in worker-directed businesses, they'd do a better job choosing elected leaders.
Private capitalism (and state capitalism, too, as in the USSR) have failed in building a healthy and high-functioning world. I think it's time to get people involved, really involved, at every level.
dkf
(37,305 posts)It had a profit sharing plan and a pension plan and the owner wanted to retire and use the Profit Sharing plan to buy himself out.
This would have made the employees the owners of the firm and theoretically a democratic run one.
By your post I suppose you would have wanted the employees to hand over their profit sharing funds to the owner.
My view is that this was unacceptable as there was no assurance the employees who were left would be able to run the company and keep it viable. And if it failed, they would be left with nothing. Moreover they would then be liable to make sure the pensions got properly funded putting more pressure on the business.
So would you prefer the employee owned option or would you rather keep the financial assets for your retirement?
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)about the buy-out, they should be able to run the company. If the owner had engaged them fully in the company's operations, this ought to be entirely doable.
dkf
(37,305 posts)I assume the employees weren't interested.
If you want to be a part owner you need to contribute to the purchase of equipment and all that. I bet most people prefer a salary rather than the risk of business ownership. Otherwise we would all start our own business.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Maybe the business was not doing well. Maybe the employees didn't like their jobs but were just working for the money. Personally I think that one of the reasons companies don't do well is that their employees are miserable. You can't do good work if you don't like your job at least reasonably well.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)from being confiscated when the employer sells the company.
Ironic that you would choose that example.
If you had an employee-owned option, the employees could choose either to invest profits in the company, pay themselves well and save their share of the profits individually or diversify the pension and other savings as a group of employees. It would not be any different from having any other company except that the board of directors would include employees as well as outsiders.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Authority. The National Institute of Health also does a great job.
Without government, we would have chaos, not capitalism. Capitalism grew out of the 17th and 18th centuries when government, more specifically democratic government, was an arising concept.
Prior to capitalism we had mercantilism.
Mercantilism is the economic doctrine that government control of foreign trade is of paramount importance for ensuring the military security of the country. In particular, it demands a positive balance of trade. Mercantilism dominated Western European economic policy and discourse from the 16th to late-18th centuries.[1] Mercantilism was a cause of frequent European wars in that time and motivated colonial expansion. Mercantilist theory varied in sophistication from one writer to another and evolved over time. Favours for powerful interests were often defended with mercantilist reasoning.
High tariffs, especially on manufactured goods, are an almost universal feature of mercantilist policy. Other policies have included:
Building a network of overseas colonies;
Forbidding colonies to trade with other nations;
Monopolizing markets with staple ports;
Banning the export of gold and silver, even for payments;
Forbidding trade to be carried in foreign ships;
Export subsidies;
Promoting manufacturing with research or direct subsidies;
Limiting wages;
Maximizing the use of domestic resources;
Restricting domestic consumption with non-tariff barriers to trade.
Mercantilism in its simplest form was bullionism, but mercantilist writers emphasized the circulation of money and rejected hoarding. Their emphasis on monetary metals accords with current ideas regarding the money supply, such as the stimulative effect of a growing money supply. Specie concerns have since been rendered moot by fiat money and floating exchange rates. In time, the heavy emphasis on money was supplanted by industrial policy, accompanied by a shift in focus from the capacity to carry on wars to promoting general prosperity. Mature neomercantilist theory recommends selective high tariffs for "infant" industries or to promote the mutual growth of countries through national industrial specialization. Currently, advocacy of mercantilist methods for maintaining high wages in advanced economies are popular among workers in those economies, but such ideas are rejected by most policymakers and economists.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
As I have often said on DU, I think we have ventured too far away from some of the principles of mercantilism. We should have a more favorable trade balance. We are weakening ourselves with the constant international debt we have to deal with.
dkf
(37,305 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Silent3
(15,207 posts)As long as you have private property, the right to work and the right to hire, any sort of roughly free market... capitalism happens. We've created institutions that support capitalism, that amplify its good and bad points, but it's not (as some people imagine it) like we've instituted or installed capitalism itself.
If you don't like capitalism, you pretty much have to outlaw it, and you'd better think about what kind of impositions on personal freedoms that would entail.
nt
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)The root of Socialism is SOCIAL. There is no "ME" in socialism.
It's about the people, not the person. The needs of the many outweighing the wants of the few.
Silent3
(15,207 posts)The OP asked why people still "defend" capitalism. It's because, for all its flaws, it comes pretty naturally to people. I'd much rather take my chances with trying to regulate capitalism, enforcing rules a democratic majority are comfortable with, even if it doesn't work out perfectly, even if things time and again swing too far in favor of the rich before (perhaps due to a nasty economic crash) we fix things again, than trying to take away all the personal freedoms that have to be taken away to enforce strict socialism -- especially given the miserable historical track record strictly anti-capitalist socialism has.
European-style democratic socialism -- which allows quite a bit of capitalism -- that I have no problem with, that I'd like to see more of in the US. But defending that is defending capitalism.
CTyankee
(63,911 posts)Silent3
(15,207 posts)I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me, or didn't realize that's what I was saying.
CTyankee
(63,911 posts)Glass-Steagel reinstated. I think we need legislative protection against capitalist excess because of all the misery that it brings down on people before it gets fixed (again). We don't need to go on a roller coaster and we didn't for a chunk of time before all this de-regulation took place and look what happened...
Silent3
(15,207 posts)...and for many other reforms. I don't see how anything I've posted so far would make it sound like I'd disagree with that.
CTyankee
(63,911 posts)Now if only our voices could prevail in Washington...
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the wealthiest 1 % of our society owns 40% of our wealth. I don't think that private property has much of a chance if most people don't have any.
The recent housing crisis and student loan debts as well as the damage that the recession did to people's savings and pension funds have decreased further ownership of private property. That is a great shame because one of the founding principles of our country was that ordinary people would be able to obtain private property especially farms and real estate. I look back into my family history and see how important that was.
I believe in private property but not just for the few. And there is the central problem we now face. How do we insure that a broader segment of our society has the opportunity to own private property and thus share an interest in protecting the right to property.
As it is, so many people are utterly impoverished that I'm not sure that the right to private property is considered that important in our society. Rather just having enough to get by has become the norm.
Silent3
(15,207 posts)First, if we're talking about the US, wealth distribution is definitely skewed, but such distributions are not unique to capitalism or only caused by capitalism.
Second, the last stats I've read about net worth (which combines property and money, so not quite the same, but close enough for this) it's not until you get down to the lowest 10-20% where people start having negative net worth, so I'd say that most people in the US do own some private property, even if it isn't much.
None of which has much bearing on whether capitalism is "defensible" or not anyway, since it's possible to have such skewed distributions of wealth without capitalism, and possible to improve distribution of wealth when capitalism is well-regulated and combined with a social safety net.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And many middle class Americans pretend they "own" things, believe they "own" things when all they "own" is debt. That is a fact. And more and more Americans who are not really poor have a negative net worth. The housing crisis did not help this.
Many, many Americans, perhaps most Americans, don't make enough to buy a house or save a meaningful sum of money.
I favor a well-regulated capitalist system, but I don't know whether it will succeed or last if labor continues to lose its importance. We recovered our labor market after the Great Depression, but it wasn't easy and we had to have a lot of government spending and borrowing to do it. I don't know whether we can recover a decent labor market this time. Technology has rendered so many jobs obsolete and so much labor unneeded or commercially not viable.
Do you think that capitalism can survive in a society in which labor is very, very poorly paid and wealth is not shared by the rich? I wonder.
My question does not concern whether capitalism is desirable. I like it because, if regulated to insure fairness and honesty and to prevent poverty, it makes creativity possible and encourages independent thought, lifestyles and people. But I really don't know whether we will be able to sustain capitalism in the future. How will we do it?
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)If Capitalism is the engine that makes the economic train go, then socialism is the builder of the train. All of America's accomplishments would not have been possible without the socially funded infrastructure which created the possibility.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Silent3
(15,207 posts)...between capitalism itself and corporatism, the current banking and financial system, industrialism, and the corrupting influence of wealth.
Capitalism doesn't take much more than trade, recognition of private property, and enough personal choice in what kind of work you do as an individual that your family or your tribe or your government isn't assigning you a task you have to perform. As soon as trade and work are complex enough that you can talk about "means of production", employers and employees, and analyze how businesses survive (or fail to survive) in terms of profit and loss, you've got capitalism.
As simple a situation as a farmer hiring someone to help him on his farm, where the farmer ends up making more money when he sells his crops in the local market than he would have without the hired help, and without the farmer being required by law to either grant partial ownership of his farm to the hired help or pay the help so much that all profit would be cancelled out (otherwise it's "exploitation!!!"
, is capitalism.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Silent3
(15,207 posts)The farmer and the farm hand should be free to come to whatever arrangement they find mutually agreeable.
As the size and power of business ventures scale up, however, I'm fine with laws and regulations aimed at giving workers more bargaining power, minimum wages, protection for unsafe work conditions, etc. And as soon as a business wants to gain the advantages of incorporation -- a socially supported set of benefits, including reduction in liability for losses -- I'm definitely for stricter regulation and imposed responsibilities because incorporation is a bargain between the owners of the business and the general public, one in which the public hasn't been demanding nearly enough for their side of that bargain.
All of this is a bit aside, however, from the type of viewpoint I think the OP is pushing: That capitalism is somehow so utterly, completely devoid of redeeming qualities, so inherently rapacious and unstable that it amazes the OP than anyone would ever defend it.
I think this idea that capitalism is so indefensible arises from blurring the lines between the basics of capitalism and so many other related and not-so-related aspects of our current financial and governmental institutions, that and blaming specifically capitalism for the basic ability of humans to distort and corrupt pretty much anything they ever do, to which capitalism is in no way uniquely vulnerable.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Silent3
(15,207 posts)While I get the ironic intent of the phrase "wage slave", and I know there are real problems that phrase is meant to point out, nothing about working for a wage, even when someone else (gasp!) makes profit from your labor is inherently like slavery.
To excessively liken paid labor to slavery requires an appalling diminishment of the real horror of actual slavery.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 3, 2013, 09:39 PM - Edit history (1)
contract with no regulation of their contract cannot work unless the demand for workers is greater than the number of workers. That is because when you have high unemployment as we do today, labor becomes too cheap.
Read about the effect of the plague on the British labor market. So many people died that workers were in greater demand than their supply. That is when wages rose.
Right now, we are deliberately allowing wages to fall in my opinion by using so much foreign labor from countries in which their is a glut of labor -- in which there is too much labor supply for the demand.
Silent3
(15,207 posts)And what "system" is this that you speak of? Just saying "capitalism" won't do as much of an answer.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)contract in employment. The ordinary individual worker who must work to eat is not in a position to negotiate a fair contract with an employer who has capital. In most cases, the negotiating partners' economic positions are too different.
Contracts for employment should not be negotiated by a worker under the duress that comes from not being able to feed himself or his family without certain protections.
Also, the safety of the worker should be protected by regulation. And the employer should be protected from a worker who steals. Each should have the right to a legal remedy, the worker if injured on the job and the employer whose employee steals from him.
Silent3
(15,207 posts)I only spoke against the diametric opposite, someone being so fiercely anti-capitalist that they'd outlaw contractual employment of any sort, as in the simple example of a small farmer hiring a farm hand.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:03 AM - Edit history (1)
Is that still capitalism? Or does capitalism necessarily involve having subordinates who do the work or at least assist in doing the work? What about sole entrepreneurs? A lot of big companies started out when one person began making and selling a product, kept the accounts, etc. Is that not capitalism? The owner is using his or her own capital to sell for profit. Seems to me that you can have capitalism that encourages far more really small businesses although today you need a mix because of the complexity of the products we use and produce.
Wouldn't it still be capitalism if people worked together as equal partners to produce a product or provide a service without having employees?
Just trying to clarify, not to be sarcastic.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If you look at the experience in Eastern Europe as I observed it from a not too great difference, both seem to come at the same time. Actually, what comes first is the ability to do something, provide a product or a service that other people feel they need or want. Without that, you can't have business. People who need things or services and have some ability to or at least are willing to buy or use your things or services -- those are also important.
Most Americans have no private property. It's all mortgaged. Even the clothes on their backs.
On the street near us today, we saw an older woman sitting on the sidewalk. Her hair was messy and she was surrounded by objects, couldn't tell what they were but they seemed to be her possessions. On the street beside her sat a big, old car. Our guess, and a pretty accurate one most likely, was that she is living out of that car, that she sleeps in it, eats in it, lives in it and maybe begs for her subsistence. She was across the street from us. There are so many like her in Los Angeles that as an individual you can't help them all. You can't even help very many of them.
When impoverished people like this woman become pretty prevalent, you can forget about starting businesses. You can forget about expanding your markets. You can still have capitalism, but it won't develop freely.
We have capitalism, but unless we work together through our government and other organizations to keep our citizens above the poverty level, we can forget about capitalism. We might have feudalism or some other unknown economic form, but not capitalism. We aren't that far now, but we need to remind ourselves that we cannot allow our society to become so poor and incapable of helping the needy. We hurt all of our society, rich and poor, when we do not provide a decent safety net for people.
Silent3
(15,207 posts)...that I'm against a strong social safety net?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Not sure it will survive, but I like it.
Silent3
(15,207 posts)...that would make you feel the need to ask.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)What they are too lazy or too scared to research is that Stalinism was, itself, a perversion of Marxism. There's also over a century and a half of capitalist propaganda pushing the line that there is no alternative TO capitalism.
Marx said it best. Capitalism is a system that was an advance over feudalism, but it had inherent weaknesses that would lead to it's own downfall. We're witnessing that downfall now. The question becomes can the working class lead the world to socialism? It can, but it won't come without a rise in class consciousness and the organization required to take power FROM the capitalists. The collapse of capitalism WILL happen. It's what follows it that's up in the air. But there's only two choices- socialism or barbarism. Take your pick.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Stalin regimented the workers, forced the kulaks to turn over agricultural production, and sent prisoners into the Urals and Siberia to develop an heavy industrial economy that could extract raw materials and turn them into weapons.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)And I agree an anarcho-syndicalist commune would have been easy pickings for the fascists at any time. That's WHY I'm a Bolshevik and not an anarchist of any type. Nonetheless, Stalin and his bureaucracy perverted Marxism to the point where it lost all credibility with a majority of people,
There was another road that could have been taken to applying Marxist thought and would have NOT led to the perversions of Stalinism while still maintaining the discipline necessary to take on the capitalists AND the fascists. However, that road WASN'T taken and Stalinism is what most people today think of when they think of Marxism. I don't believe it's ruined it forever, but it's a hard slog to rehabilitate Marx when he's (unfairly IMO) equated with Stalin.
pediatricmedic
(397 posts)Communism was an utter failure. Maybe libertarian decentralized communism could work, doubtful though.
The jury is still out on socialism, give it another 50 years and see how well it works.
Capitalisms dark side is showing now, but may run for awhile longer thanks to the former communists embracing it with a gusto.
Nobody has really proposed a better system yet that is workable with human nature.
I think we will ultimately settle for a hybrid capitalism/limited socialism in the long run.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)pediatricmedic
(397 posts)Should we kill the self-devouring beast, or do we chain and shackle it? Can we use it as a force for good?
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)It's hard to do and you're always in danger of being eaten.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)If we took the roads and hiways from being the greatest socialistic program the world has ever seen, and turned it over to private businesses.
Any big truck that wanted down my toll road, I could charge them so much they would eventually go out of business. As owner, i could decide who trucks goods and who doesn't.
Yep, roads are socialism. Owned by the workers, and made available to everyone, pure socialism.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Great insight into the way you think.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)If it wasn't for the roads we have being freely socialistic, capitalism as we know it would not exist.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Bulk transport during the initial growth of capitalism was first on water (by sea, river and then canal - and private money went into canal building, as well as organisation by governments), then rail (again, with large amounts of private investment of capital, as well as government involvement).
Of course, streets in cities and towns, and low-quality tracks between them, have always existed - but it's a stretch to call those 'socialistic'. They predate both socialism and capitalism. They're a feature of any culture that lives in permanent settlements.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Could the British East India company have operated without real and implied protection of the British Navy?
The first national roads in the US, like the Cumberland Road, were funded by the federal government. The Erie Canal was state funded I think.
Railroads received massive subsidy from governments. In all cases they received the protection of the police and army. The army also helped clear the areas of Native Americans so transportation could operate on the rivers, roads, and rail.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)A central power that takes taxes, or military/naval service, as its due to keep power.
A lot of people seem to be equating the state with socialism, and capitalism as somehow part of a system where there is no state. This isn't the case, and never has been. Capitalism has only existed in organised states.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)That's not necessarily strictly correct, but I think the point that the other poster was trying to make is correct.
That point is: Without government building roads, capitalism as we know it would not exist.
You countered that with: No; the development of significant commercial road transport was fairly late in capitalism
And I responded with: But still it's true that government built the highways, canals, and railroads that allowed capitalism to flourish.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)game and a government of some sort. The choice is not between libertarianism which is anarchy or close to it or Communism which is an extreme form of government control. That is not the choice at all.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)No attribution, no quotes?
treestar
(82,383 posts)That's what a lot of people would do - that's how the rich thing, the banksters and the corporatists.
The poster was just trying to illustrate that, come on.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 2, 2013, 08:43 PM - Edit history (1)
The last time we talked, here's what he wrote to me. 'Tweren't no love letter.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=37482
Thanks treestar, for reading it correctly.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You cannot have profitable capitalism where the full cost is borne by the business. The cost of doing business is thus outsources, dispersed among the community and world, to ensure profitability for the capitalists.
Without this socialization of costs, the need of profit would result in an economic collapse as everyone drove everyone else's prices sky-high until a crash.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)If that is not parasitism, I don't know what is.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the damage to health, the retirement of their employees, etc. without government help, there wouldn't be much activity in our economy.
dkf
(37,305 posts)And if you stubbornly kept your prices high you would not be able to recoup your investment.
Meanwhile the Government charges you a real estate tax while you have no customers.
You would be the idiot who loses everything.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Those are socialist!
And owning land would make a person very powerful. There might be other roads, but they'd go farther. Land is unique in that it cannot be increased - the other landowners would make very high charges too.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Pricing everyone out of the market doesn't work.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)If we charged more for using the roads we would just as you say, be pricing everyone out of the market.
The market being capitalism, if we didn't have socialized roads the masses would be priced out of the market and capitalism as we know it would die.
You want capitalism as we know it to die? Of course not. Therefore you love the socialism of free highways for everyone!
dkf
(37,305 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Electric cars? Walking? Riding a bike? No gas taxes collected from those uses.
Besides, gas taxes did not build all that. It was bond money that all are obligated socially have taken as a debt. And we all own the roads. The workers own the roads. How socialist can you get?
Shirley you are not saying capitalists built the roads from sea to shining sea?
If they did there would be tolls everywhere and if there were tolls everywhere capitalism as we know it would die.
dkf
(37,305 posts)That is why they built our H-3 even though its not very highly travelled. They wanted a fast way to get from Pearl Harbor to the Kaneohe Air Force base.
This is why the Romans built roads.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)From "Capitalism built this country" to "Socialism, under the auspices of the government by the people and for the people, built that there road."
Take a bow, dkf, you're learning fast. Gold star for you!
mainer
(12,022 posts)Since the leeward end of it ended up nowhere near Honolulu, where most people wanted to get to. It always struck me as a big government boondoggle. In a place with such population concentration, too bad fixed rail never got anywhere.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)matter what community they propose to destroy in order to build it, people complain. The freeway expansion is extremely unpopular. Ordinary people don't want or need it.
The business community, specifically the trucking companies, want that freeway built. I don't think it will ever happen because all the communities are united against it. We shall see.
But the trucking companies do not buy all the land themselves and build it. Theoretically they could, but they haven't tried. They want the government to build it. The government has the power of eminent domain I suppose. If private businesses tried to build it, they would pay premium prices to buy the land.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)There could never possibly be a competitive market for roads. The barriers to entry into that market are too high. At best you would have a cartel. At worst you would have a monopoly.
Even the most ardent capitalists generally agree that roads and national defense are areas where markets fail and therefore it's more efficient to leave them to the government.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)toll roads, they would use too much of the land. The cost would also be enormous. It would be ridiculous. The toll roads would be more likely to cooperate and agree to monopolies on the roads in certain areas.
It's strange how Americans assume that people will always compete. I disagree. People cooperate. That is how the Midwest was won. People cooperated. They had their own individual farms, but they helped each other out. One woman was good at midwifery. Another was good at handling horses. Another could teach the children. Cooperation in the right measure; competition also in the right measure. That's what makes a society function efficiently in my opinion. The middle road is the wisest. The same is true in a family. The family members have to cooperate and support each other at certain times if the family as a whole is to survive and do well. That does not mean that all members of a society or a family have to work in lock-step. That just means that they cooperate. Even the squirrels in my backyard cooperate.
Some animals emerge from an egg or the mother's womb and are self-sufficient. Human babies rely on their mothers for milk and everything else for many months if not years. Human babies are thus programmed to be social. They cannot survive unless they learn certain social skills. The baby's smile is a ticket to survival. The idea that everybody competes all the time is not human. Doesn't fit our nature.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Socialism writ large, from sea to shining sea!
From Baxter State park in Maine, all the way to San Diego. Free as a bird! USA!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I guess taxes have always been a part of our society even in the period right after the Dark Ages.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)with economist/professor Richard Wolff:
http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-taming-capitalism-run-wild/
RICHARD WOLFF: For 50 years, when capitalism is raised, you have two allowable responses: celebration, cheerleading. Okay, that's very nice. But that means you have freed that system from all criticism, from all real debate. It can indulge its worst tendencies without fear of exposure and attack. Because when you begin to criticize capitalism, you're either told that you're ignorant and don't understand things, or with more dark implications, you're somehow disloyal. You're somehow a person who doesn't like America or something.
BILL MOYERS: That emerged, as you know, in the Cold War. That emerged when to criticize the American system was to play into the hands of the enemies of America, the Communists. And so it became disreputable and treasonous to do what you're doing today.
RICHARD WOLFF: And for my colleagues, it became dangerous to your career. If you went in that direction, you would cut off your chances of getting a university position or being promoted and getting your works published in journals and books, the things that academics need to do for their jobs. So yes, it was shut down and shut off. And I think we're living the results.
....
RICHARD WOLFF: In most universities, in all those I've been at, the economics department is in one set of buildings, and across the campus in another is the business school. And there's actually tension in the university about who teaches the basic courses to students that they're required to take and so on....Here's what I discovered. The job of economics, to be blunt but honest, is to rationalize, justify, and celebrate the system. To develop abstract theories of how economics works to make it all like it's a stable, equilibrium that meets people's needs in an optimal way. These kinds of words are used. But that's useless to people who want to learn how to run a business, because it's a fantasy....So they are shunted someplace else.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Stressing "Competition" over "Cooperation", for example. Stressing "Laissez-Faire" over "Regulation", for another. And it just gets meaner and more ruthless with each passing year until you're a fully operable clone of Martin Feldstein. That's why so many people who work in finance and banking suck. I should know because I'm one of them. I share not one political or economic view with anyone in the room I'm in . . . in a couple of cases, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Frankly I think that is what is so messed up nowadays. People cheer on their team and their ideology, not cooperation.
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)located within business schools. This is where some of the corruption of the ideas originates.
Business students only get a brief glimpse into to basic econ concepts without exploring a broader, more philosophical understanding with courses like history of thought, marxian analysis, public finance, and comparative systems.
Unfortunately universities have been taken over by bean counters and profit maximizers so they all toil in the same manure--corrupting even econ depts outside of business schools as history and poly sci and philosophy degrees don't pay so well these days.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)We are hucksters making a living by lying to one another and hiding behind fine print and corporate liability shields when the truth reveals itself.
We all know, whether we will admit it or not, that the biggest and most successful Americans are the best liars and thieves, and being Americans ourselves, we all believe that we will someday be one of the best liars and/or thief and then, we too, can make that big bundle and retire to some tropical island.
American Capitalism and religion are the ultimate con games, they allow anyone, no matter how dim or unsuited, to believe that someday they can make it, they too will get their reward. For many of us, this is the only hope we have in life, and so like any desperately deluded human being, we will cling to that delusion even if and/or until it kills us.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)moondust
(19,977 posts)Unlike cars or computers, it's not easy to test drive or experiment much with other economic models, so it just keeps going and going and going.
It's also easy for hard-core capitalists to use the same argument against more collectivism that is used against gun control: it won't solve every problem so forget it! Look at the failure of communism!!!!
A lot of people are ignorant and/or brainwashed when it comes to macroeconomic models.
Lots of entrenched special interests to prevent serious discussion of change. Similar to the fossil fuel industry preventing action on climate change/renewable energy.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)It had more in common with Rockefeller than with Marx, in that the surplus created by workers was appropriated by a small group of elites.
I believe the Mondragon Company in Spain is the closest anyone's come to a real socialist operation.
Stardust
(3,894 posts)I wasn't familiar with them. Pretty hopeful stuff.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)SO true. That does NOT however negate the need for that surplus in the undeveloped countries in order to bring them to the point where socialism on a grander scale can actually work. Just because Marx was corrupted by the Stalinists doesn't negate Marx OR Lenin's concept of democratic centralism.
The problem with anarcho-syndicalist systems is that they cannot stand up against a united capitalist counterattack on the workers. The capitalists will ALLOW some experiments of cooperative enterprises, but they certainly wouldn't allow this model to spread to all areas of the economy. That would be suicide for the system itself. That's also the reason that they fight against ANY sort of "socialist" endeavors in safety net programs. They can't compete against a system that doesn't have profit or "private property" as the core of existence.
That's why there is a need for a democratic centralist vanguard during the initial stages of any revolution. For self defense against the inevitable counterattack.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)a period of transition from an "unlimited growth" private capitalist model to a steady-state, sustainable model. Otherwise, as you point out, private predatory capitalism will thwart worker-directed enterprises.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)as well as economic power.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)they will NEVER take power. If they impose subservience upon themselves they will always be begging for crumbs at the master's table.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)a consciousness of being a class OF itself and then of a class FOR itself. If it doesn't nothing will stop this capitalist onslaught on worker's rights. But that's where we come in. For example, WE have to show how bankrupt the model of "business unionism" actually is. A class consciousness does not develop on it's own. It has to be suggested and argued for by the vanguard OF the working class until it seeps into the mind and heart of every worker. Whether that's an "official" vanguard party (my choice) or an unofficial vanguard of folks who SEE and KNOW what's going on and what must be done, it will still take a vanguard.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)which it clearly isn't, but..
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)doesn't mean that they don't ACT like they are.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Thank you!
cbrer
(1,831 posts)Capitalism in America is responsible for the greatest amount of wealth ever created in a single nation.
If we were able to seize power back from the Plutocracy, regulate Capitalism properly, and grow the middle class back to health, Capitalism would do just fine.
That's a tall order, but like any other "ism", it boils down to the people, the practitioners, and the honesty of the system.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)Here are some disconnected points:
Capitalism took several hundred years to develop into a worldwide system. It's been about 140 since the Paris Commune, the first major attempt to hold the means of production in common. In 1917 when the Russian revolution occurred, the country was still largely Feudal - only a handful of cities were industrialized. The law of the land was still Monarchy. China's revolution took place in 1947! So there are two things about this spate of revolutions: 1) They were within the last 50-100 years, roughly. 2) The global capitalist system was just being completed when this happened, and many of the countries that had successful revolutions were poor countries that were just undergoing industrialization.
Capitalism was a progressive force, when Feudalism was the dominant economic system. The Capitalist revolutions had tasks to carry out, barriers to break down so that society would progress. Many of the countries that had "socialist" or "communist" revolutions still needed these tasks to be done, since they had never had a capitalist revolution! Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution says that they could just have the capitalist revolution, and then keep going with socialism and communism. It seems it didn't work that way. In fact, it looks like most of these revolutions were just capitalist revolutions, infused with the ideals of the time. Sure, there were lots of concessions to workers based on idealist philosophies. But were we really ready to skip capitalism altogether?
Today, Capitalism does hold back productive forces to some extent. We have idle workers and capital that could produce. We have demand for more goods. Yet production doesn't occur because it isn't profitable. But that doesn't mean we're ready to take the next step.
Some of it is technical. What would capitalism be like without trains, automation, and so forth? It would make little sense to have capitalist revolutions in, say, the year 1200. Much was made in the past century of the "calculation problem" - the idea that it is impossible to gather enough data to plan an economy. Well, 19th and 20th century economists... Google would like a word with you.
We workers also need the capacity to self-organize, as a class. My organizational skills are garbage, and the same can be said for the vast majority of us. Yet every one of us will need to be able to organize and engage in society's decision making.
Why defend Capitalism today? Maybe we're not ready... or maybe we have a generation of brainwashed, traumatized folks who will need to clear off before we can start the work.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)that Trotsky himself proscribed for these worker states in undeveloped countries that had undergone Permanent Revolution. He postulated that the underdeveloped states would need to undergo a period of "primitive socialist accumulation" analogous to capitalist accumulation in the developed countries BUT UNDER WORKER'S CONTROL! What this would have done is used elements of the capitalist system, mostly some form of surplus value, in order to build the economies and industries to the point where basic socialism COULD work, but without the human by human exploitation inherent in capitalism and private property.
The second thing to consider is that Trotsky and Lenin BOTH thought that world-wide worker's revolutions were right on the doorstep and that the new socialist republics that developed under Permanent Revolution needed to do all that they could to spread said revolutions TO the more developed countries. Since a world socialist state (or even a major first step like a United Socialist States of Europe) would have been based on classic Marxism ("Workers of the world unite" and the proletariat has no country), then the more developed countries would have assisted the underdeveloped countries IN their socialist accumulation.
Unfortunately, NONE of these necessary proscriptions were applied, at least not in a proper time frame, under Stalinism and the growth of the Soviet bureaucracy.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)While accumulation ultimately leads to the dispersion of the state, in the "short" term of decades or centuries it may well ossify into an entrenched bureaucracy of the type that arose in all those states. There was a good quote by Trotsky actually, which I cannot remember well enough to quote, something to the effect that one can't have a law beyond the development of the culture. I will look it up when I have some time, please PM me in a few days if I forget.
This doesn't mean Trotsky was wrong either, necessarily. But it's a huge what if. What if the soviet bloc had been able to produce consumer goods on par with the west? What if the Red Army had had command of a massive navy at the end of world war II? What if the German revolution had succeeded? We'll never know.
I say this is academic because I can't see permanent revolution coming into play again. Unless you are a third worldist or something, we are firmly bound by the chains of the global capitalist system... the links can be made stronger and more numerous, but the basic rules are in place everywhere. The next revolutionary period will be very different from the last.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)I haven't discussed it with the group) as coming into play with a GROUP of un and under developed countries in mutual support. I suppose that's something of an utopian and optimistic outlook, but I DO think that it's a possibility. That mutual support could, in some measure, take the place of the developed world's proletarians assisting the undeveloped world. Plus, I think that a lot of First World leftists would be happy to assist in any way they could these new underdeveloped worker's states. As to the ossified bureaucracy, I don't think that's inevitable either as long as the democratic part of democratic centralism takes a larger role in overall policy discussions all down the line. But as a Trot, I DEFINITELY am aware of this potential problem. 
I'd like to think that we've learned since the 1920s/30s, but I guess we'll have to see.
As to being a Third Worldist, well, Third World countries would be the candidates FOR Permanent Revolution as the First World countries would have already accumulated enough to make socialism work AND they would be more along the lines of what Lenin and Trotsky, as classic Marxists, would have expected from a revolution. So to conclude this part, these are the countries Permanent Revolution was actually developed to include, in theory.
I definitely agree with your last sentence though. It will be different because more of the world HAS been developed since 1917, ergo it SHOULD develop along more classic Marxist lines. I also think it will be different because of the difference in communications today.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)The reverse is true. Even third world countries, even China, are getting into the capitalism business.
Capitalism isn't bad in and of itself. What is bad in this country is that there is an oligarchy - the corporations are running the country. There's also an over emphasis of "free market." Not EVERYTHING should be in a free market, and markets in some instances aren't really free, though corps. pretend they are. The corporations are running the market.
Capitalism is a good thing, in my view. You work hard, and you can prosper from it. The more hours you work, the more education you get, the more risk you take...you can end up prospering from that more than if you didn't do those things. There are no guarantees. But you have the opportunity to better your situation. This is not true in some other economic systems.
Think of it in terms of waiting on tables. You work all night waiting tables, and you are super busy. You bust your butt and get a lot in tips. You have prospered from a busy night. The other waiter had fewer tables, so his work load was lighter, and he got fewer tips. Less work, less money. That is capitalism, in a pure sense.
But if you put all the tips into a jar, and you and the other waiter split the tips, you each get an equal amount. But you busted your butt all night, while he was able to smoke a couple of ciggies out back and rest a bit during the night. That is a form of socialism.
But enter some corporations, who take control of the situation. They will dictate where the patrons sit in the restaurant, how much in tips the patrons will or can leave, and will decide they deserve a cut themselves for doing the heavy work of making decisions for the patrons. You still get paid more, since you worked more, during the night. But now, someone is driving the situation. That's not true capitalism. And it's not the free market.
Also...health care cannot be considered a free market, IMO. It should be taken out of that equation. Any time someone gets sick or dies because of lack of health care, that is not a thing to be thrown into a free market. Also, ins. cos. run the market, as well as big pharma, so it's not really a free market, anyway.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)work and society.
Computers have rendered a lot of jobs obsolete -- as did the steam engine and then the combustible engine. When a new technology is introduced, jobs disappear.
But the resources and wealth, the financial incentives in our society, under capitalism are allocated according to work including labor and decision-making about investment.
Unless we find a way to allocate resources and wealth that does not involve work and that is compatible with capitalism, we will have a new system. I don't know what it might be, but we will find a way to allocate resources and wealth.
So, capitalism could end whether it is a good system or not.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)it's just possible that it's part of the nature of man, so that capitalism will always exist in some form. The need to feel that if you work harder or better than someone else, that you will be compensated more for that (or have the opportunity to be). Without that, humans (history has shown, I would argue) will not work as hard, since there is no reason to. Only a chump would bust his butt and get paid the same as someone who has a light work load. A smart human would not work as hard, and get paid the same.
If everyone stops busting their butts, not as much will be accomplished. The society would spiral downward, with less innovation, less pride in work, etc. No reason for anyone to open a business, for example, since they won't be able to prosper from capitalism. Why risk savings to fund a business, or work 24/7 to get it off the ground?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I loved to work. I don't understand why people think that you work more for $200 million than for $50,000. I don't think that you do. I worked as hard when I was earning minimum wage as I did later in life when I earned a lot more. Money is not the only and maybe not the main incentive for working. I've had jobs I just loved. I never loved getting up in the morning or having to keep a strict schedule, but I generally loved working, and I did many different kinds of jobs.
I disagree with your take on work and why people work. I feel sorry for people who just work for the money or who start a business expecting to make a lot of money. Things don't always work out that way. We all need to make a livable amount of money, but what is so great about just having a lot of money if you don't love what you do to make it. I am here differentiating between doing a job of minimal interest to you just to eat and have a place to sleep and working really hard at something. I think people work the long hours because some way they enjoy what they are doing and love the satisfaction of knowing they are doing it well. People complain about how much they work, but the reality is they enjoy their work. That is my view.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)In parts of the world, people only get by...eek out a living. Try to get enough money for food and the basics, if they're lucky enough to get it. No, they don't work for funsies. Not that they don't get enjoyment out of their work.
I wasn't stating a fact, though. That was my guess. Although I did read an article once that explained why communistic societies don't prosper as much as others. There is that factor that no matter how hard you work, it doesn't make a difference. You all get the same. Work is not rewarded.
I do think it makes sense that it's part of being human to work harder for more compensation...it's the sense of fairness. And pride. And recognition. Even dogs recognize fairness. If I tell each of my dogs to sit, and I give one of them a treat, the other one notices the unfairness of it. He sat, too, after all.
I take pride in my work and am pretty good at it. But if I feel I'm underpaid (as I do right now), I don't have as much incentive to give 110%, since I feel they're only paying for 80% to begin with. When I was paid more, I did give more of myself. I think it may be human nature.
Pay is linked to recognition, reward, appreciation. If you don't feel appreciated, over time you lose the willingness to go above and beyond. And ther'es the practical aspect: if you don't get capitalistic rewards from a business, there's no incentive to risk your life's savings opening up a business.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)is given in the form of money.
But, think about the Soviet Union. They had incredibly good athletes and artists. Wonderful ballet dancers, wonderful musicians. In areas in which people were allowed to develop and express themselves freely, they excelled.
The problem in the Soviet Union was not entirely that they rewarded everyone with the same material benefits. As a matter of fact, they did not do that at all. The top bureaucrats in the government and the Party and society were compensated far better than other people -- had their own country villas, cars, etc. The problem was that they repressed verbal expression that did not toe the party line and their system allowed very little creativity. Money was one of the symbols of that repression, but it was the psychological repression that was the real problem.
People in the third world are poor, but if you have ever traveled in a poor country, you will see the poorest, peasants who have only primitive transportation and who work their fields manually, who are happy and feel creative in their work.
People work for the joy and one part of that joy is feeling self-respect and the respect of others. Money is one aspect, one sign that you are respected. But, no, I don't think people work harder if they earn more money or even to earn more money. People will try to earn as much money as they can, but the amount of money they earn influences only slightly if at all how hard they work. Waitresses earning less than minimum wage plus tips really work hard, but they earn very little. Janitors earning minimum wage work very hard, probably harder than CEOs. The paycheck does not govern how hard you work. More money does not mean that you work harder.
napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)The corporations are always running the market, that's the problem. Unbounded capitalism actually gives birth to states, its a funny relationship between governments and markets. But yeah, you eventually get cartels that say who can do business, and they extract "taxes" in their own ways. (Protection money, etc.) So you get regulation and taxation out of free markets.
Yet Republicans have this romantic idea of what they are. But what does a real free market look like? No taxes no regulation? It looks like a black market. Like Mexican drug smuggling. But if you go down down there and start that, without paying the cuts and following the rules laid down by the Mexican drug cartels, your body will be found somewhere. The cartels form a state within the state, to ensure their profits remain high. This will always happen with free markets. No one wants to compete if its more profitable not to, and its profit, not some principles, which drive the most rich and powerful. States can and will form to protect the interests of market cartels.
So I bash Republicans for not seeing that, but an aspect of the same blindness effects us too: If we increase revenues, when those revenues are simply being redistributed to corporations, are we really moving away from capitalism, or are we selecting a more cartel driven codification of the same thing? That's why it seems worth pushing for fundamental change, rejecting the incrementalism which really just keeps things the same.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)have universal health care, low unemployment and generous social protections.
Got an example of a non-capitalist country that you would like to live in? Cuba?
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)So it will lose out against the U.S. and Europe.It's a tiny island facing an embargo. Of course most people(myself included) would choose the U.S. or Europe or several Asian countries. Now compare to a similar country such as Haiti and I think you might get a different response? Cuba or Haiti, if forced to choose at gunpoint I'd probably go with Cuba.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 2, 2013, 08:54 AM - Edit history (1)
What they've accomplished, despite half a century of outright economic warfare waged by the greatest power on earth, is much more remarkable than what we've done here with genocide and historically unprecedented criminality.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)
brooklynite
(94,517 posts)Using technology that the capitalist system developed and made affordable, AND making use of an uncensored internet to post your opinions.
Must be hell.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)I'm using technology developed by a wide variety of sources, nearly all of them evil socialist government and military, for which I've paid only a fraction (25% - 30%) of the usurious rate that others are forced to pay to support their Capitalist masters.
I'm transmitting these words over a network developed by academicians and paid for by that socialist military, for no profit whatsoever, and delivered through an infrastructure paid for by the evil socialist government with taxpayer dollars. And I'm doing all this with software developed for free for which I've paid nothing.
In fact, the only factor in this entire process that has anything at all to do with capitalism is that that same government turned this huge public investment over to half a dozen incompetent, greedy corporations that have allowed the system to deteriorate for 20 years and have taken this nations information and networking technology from first to worst while charging us 3 to 10 times more than those in civilized, socialistic nations.
As an American I cannot go to Cuba, except possibly as a tourist, provided my authoritarian government allows it and that only in the last 3 years.
You're also wrong about that uncensored part as well, my right to expression is not granted by government, but merely recognized by the Constitution. Another bit of ignorance you've obviously
But you're right in one thing, I am sitting.
brooklynite
(94,517 posts)....wonder how that's working out?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Between Cuba and Haiti I wouldn't have even a second thought about picking Cuba.
Yavin4
(35,438 posts)When you're not protected from the cold, then winter threatens your life.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden
Perhaps you could fix that page when you have time.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)accompanied by a joyful obtuseness in all things not conservative.
Care to try again?.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3752
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Thank you for a good laugh.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)that Sweden is not capitalist, because things are actually pretty good there. Despite the open markets, free trade, thriving stockmarket and big private sector. You know perfectly well that Sweden is capitalist just like the US, except that it has higher taxes and a better social safety net.
And expressing your fervent desire to move to Cuba does not exactly improve your credibility.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Or the rest of the world, for that matter.
To call it "capitalism" because their RW government says it is, tells me a lot about your mindset.
When it comes to Cuba, I can't think about anyone else who managed to survive decades of boycott and economical sanctions and STILL build something worth admiring. It's far from perfect. I am not even going to start talking about institutionalised homophobia that they just started to overcome. But they DO. They bloody try, and try, and try. They do not give up. They managed to build one of the best healthcare systems, they SHARE their expertise with everyone. You don't die on the streets in Cuba from for luck of healthcare, from hunger or simply because you are homeless.
One damn good thing to remember - Castro was willing to cooperate with US. YOU refused and repeatedly tried to destroy that little island and its people. There is a damn good argument that worst of human rights abuses might not have happen if fucking CIA just left them alone.
Sorry if Cuba pisses you off but I find a hell of a lot to admire when I look at Cubans and realise what they managed to overcome.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Worker productivity in Sweden is unsurpassed, and per capita income now rivals
that in the United States, in spite of reduced incentives that many people consider vital to
hard work. Only about 5 percent of Swedish enterprises are government operated. More
than 90 percent of all businesses are private; roughly 5 percent operate as producer or
consumer cooperatives.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/byrns_web/PrinEcon/PrinText/CE47.pdf
They are highly taxed, and that runs their extensive welfare system. But the economy is capitalist.
mecherosegarden
(745 posts)regarding Cuba, I do remember when I was growing up, and not long ago, friends used to tell me that everything that a person wanted to buy ,was controlled by the government. I mean, families had limits on what they could buy , so elemental necessities, such as toilet paper, became luxury items . Yes, it is a beautiful country, but I want to be free to buy what I need and what I want without the government telling me what I can buy and when.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)they had to ration a lot of stuff to make sure they survive. It got much worse after the collapse of USSR.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)The government gave the 'solid market economy' quote. The rest is from the author, Per Olsson of Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna.
hack89
(39,171 posts)They do a lot more than "tolerate" capitalism - they enthusiastically embrace it.
In other words; one out of every 200 Swedes is now a millionaire in US dollars.
In oil-rich Norway the amount of millionaires was 74,900.
http://www.swedishwire.com/economy/5099-number-of-millionaires-booms-in-sweden
Sweden is 10th in the world when it comes to millionaires
http://money.ca.msn.com/savings-debt/gallery/countries-with-the-most-millionaires?page=1
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)a framework of a socialistic society. These countries do not tolerate any of the ills we suffer from. They provide cradle to grave health care and education, Poverty, hunger, and homelessness are not tolerated.
hack89
(39,171 posts)socialism = government control of the means of production. By that standard they are not socialist. They are enlightened capitalist societies.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)and America calls itself a Democracy. What they all were/are is authoritarian hierarchies.
You can call those nations an egg salad sandwich for all that it matters. But please do continue to evade the point.
Silent3
(15,207 posts)...this country is not an "authoritarian hierarchy", no matter how much that makes you feel like the big, bold rebel to say.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)I think you should go out and assert your equality on some of those non-existent authorities. We'll be here waiting for your report.
Silent3
(15,207 posts)...of wealth in politics.
That's not the same thing as living in an authoritarian regime.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
Silent3
(15,207 posts)...have to do with whether we're in an authoritarian system?
Perhaps you toss the word "authoritarian" around very casually, meaning any situation where all people do not have perfectly equal social, political, and financial power. For me the word carries the connotation of a brutal despotism and insistence on blind obedience to authority. For all of our problems, we're pretty damned far from that.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Silent3
(15,207 posts) Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Silent3
(15,207 posts)...as one of the few who see what the other poor, deluded souls around you can't see, because the others are dupes or co-conspirators who refuse to see The Truth as you do?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)how this absurdity has and must end. Adam Smith himself wrote on this, though I doubt you've ever actually read any of his writings as so few of his most ardent fans have ever bothered.
And once again, finding your quiver empty of ideas, you resort to nothing more than impotent insults. Rale on, your words cut me deep.
Silent3
(15,207 posts)...that tells us that we're currently living under an authoritarian regime.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)Silent3
(15,207 posts)...but we're still far from being in the grips of an authoritarian regime. Unfair distribution of wealth and power is as old as the history of humanity, unfairness that can and does easily happen without authoritarianism.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)is coming damn close ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
hack89
(39,171 posts)is the core of Sweden's economy - stop evading that point.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)just because they regulate it the way it should be regulated doesn't change that basic fact. The OP implies that capitalism can't work. Sweden shows that it can.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)when in fact they enthusiastically embrace capitalism. A country that produces so many millionaires has a culture that believes that accumulating individual wealth is a good thing. It just so happens that their millionaires are more civic minded then ours.
But you are right - you never did say they were not capitalist. Sorry.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Check out this chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
hack89
(39,171 posts)that is why I wish America was more like them.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)There isn’t one particular way that these principles should ideally be instantiated. That is going to vary from one society to the next, perhaps depending on factors like size and technology. But when the exchange principle is coupled with money and with a system of lending and recording debt, the possibility exists for a kind of tyranny that is inimical to normal human sociality, to love, care, and friendship and which drives human beings to extremes of tyranny and degradation, always under the guise of meeting moral obligations. Such is the logic of the market backed by the state: those who find they have borrowed too much must repay, and must either subject themselves directly to their creditors or act in ways that promote the discharge of their debts to those creditors whatever the deeper human costs. As Graeber tries to explain the moral catastrophe of the Spanish conquest of the Americas he writes “For the debtor, the world is reduced to a collection of potential dangers, potential tools, and potential merchandise.” (319) Creditors (who, in turn may themselves owe to others) are similarly caught in a web of amoral calculation: ”… at the key moments of decision, none of this mattered. Those making the decisions did not feel they were in control anyway; those who were did not particularly care to know the details.” (319)” Such episodes and calculations recur though the book as slaves are sold and debtor parents consign their children to debt peonage or sexual exploitation.
Central to Graeber’s historical account is a transition from what he calls “human economies” to “commercial economies”. Both are societies with some form of monetary equivalence, and with the possibility of debt and credit. But in a human economy, an individual is part of a network of particular social relations (as mother, brother, cousin, wife) and the principal function of exchange is to maintain that system of relations and to effect “moves” within it. Debts may be incurred as the result of harms and get repaid with appropriate compensation. A marriage may require the bride’s family to pay or receive some token (in cows or sheep perhaps). Similarly, gift exchange is a way of affirming and reproducing a system of social relations. In a commercial economy, by contrast, money is used to buy and sell things and the commodification of the necessaries of life (housing, clothing, food) raises the possibility of the oppressive subjection of the needy to their creditors, a subjection that is all the more humiliating because is between supposed equals.
Thought it might be of interest...
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)I've studied economics, both in the course of my degree and subsequently for years because it interests me, and one of the first things he writes about that I didn't know was the myth of the barter economy. Just as he says, every intro to economics text sets up the need for and "inevitable evolution" of currency as a solution to a problem that has never existed in human history.
I highly recommend reading the whole book. Like several other books and thesis I've come across, the idea of looking at one discipline through the lens of another can lead to many "Ah ha" moments.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)The discussions/reviews/citations are intriguing, but I haven't put my hands on a copy yet.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)our public library!
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)But feel free to keep stating it. *sigh*
hack89
(39,171 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Happy to see that we seem to be coming to agreement here.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)you didn't whose people are all much better off than we are, don't have "safety nets", they have the foundational systems wherein the citizens are the priority and business is obligated to support those systems in return for their existence.
The success of those nations is the evidence that capitalism only works within that tightly controlled governmental environment. They operate under very strict conditions within their own nations, they pay much higher real taxes, and when they are caught violating the laws that tolerate their existence, they pay very heavy prices, which I believe, was the point of the OP.
The opposite of what America has.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Using Sweden as a reference, we have established that capitalism can be made to work well, with appropriate safeguards (whether you want to call it a "social safety net", "tight controls", or "strict conditions" . The OP asked why people defend capitalism. I think we have answered this question.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)You view capitalism as a good that simply needs to be controlled, I say it is an evil with the potential to be useful when constrained within a system that places benefit of the people above it.
It's a somewhat subtle, but significant difference.
And I think we both agree that America is doing it wrong.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)average wages of the poorest 10% in the US is 15. In Sweden, it is 6.2.
In Germany, a healthy economy, it is 6.9 -- slightly higher than in Sweden.
In Greece, a troubled economy, it is 10.4.
Note that the disparity in the US is much closer to that of the troubled economy, Greece than to Germany.
In Iran, the disparity ratio is 16.9 -- even closer to that of the US.
So, there is more economic equality in Sweden than in the US regardless of the number of millionaires.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
hack89
(39,171 posts)more equality, stronger worker rights, strong social contract.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
Yavin4
(35,438 posts)Because of programs like unemployment insurance, social security, medicare, medicaid, the GI Bill, deductions on mortgage interest, public universities, etc., most Americans have been largely shielded from the true effects of capitalism.
Since Reagan, these protections have been eroded. America's poor have felt the effects the hardest, and now the American middle class will start to feel its effects.
Bottom line, most people defend capitalism because they have not truly experienced it, but they're doing it now.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Doesn't much of Europe suggest that too?
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)It's happening in the U.S. and in Europe, though slower there. Furthermore, can we give that to the whole world? Can we bring this sort of prosperous well-regulated capitalism to the poorest parts of Asia and Africa as well as Europe and America? I'm not sure you can.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)And that is the REAL crux of the problem. Capitalism as a system encourages those safety nets to be taken away because they are not subject to the profit motive. And whenever capitalism is NOT in ascendency, it's the nature of this competitive system to BECOME ascendant. Because it has all the tools ("private property" leading to economic dictatorship over the average worker, i.e., who has the gold makes the rules) then it will inevitably become ascendant and there goes all of those safety net programs. This model IS THE BASIS OF THE NEOLIBERAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT'S SWEEPING THE WORLD.
The "kinder and gentler" capitalism of Scandinavia will also fall eventually if this goes on.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Yavin4
(35,438 posts)have left, their numbers. The people won't politically support an economic system that does not satisfy their need for basic survival, and using racial, ethnic, gender, and other such scapegoats won't work in an interconnected world.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)We can only hope.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Such as Glass-Steagall.
Yavin4
(35,438 posts)Europe, Canada, and Australia all have strong social safety nets because their populations vote their class interests over everything else, whereas Americans vote based on racial, ethnic, religious, gender, and sexual orientation differences.
There are just as many racists, homophobic, sexist, ethnocentrists, etc. in Europe, Canada, and Australia as there are in the U.S., perhaps even more, and in some instances, they've voted in right of center leaders. However, their social safety nets remain intact.
Jack Sprat
(2,500 posts)Some will defend it until then. But once they know they have taken that last breath, I feel certain a quick flash of light will come over them and the truth will come down hard.
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)Freedom - there is no substitute.
Jack Sprat
(2,500 posts)Nobody has advocated for brown shirts and fascism that I have observed. As for pure capitalism, freedom can also mean freedom to starve and die without pity.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)actually use capitalism in his country, theoretically.
Socialism and communism involve economic systems, as capitalism does.
America, like most industrialized countries, uses a capitalistic system with some social programs.
Republicans want a pure capitalistic (free market) system, while Democrats want to enlarge the socialistic aspects of the economic system. Therein lies the rub and the stalemate.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Check out Chile under Pinochet or Germany under Hitler. The Brownshirts were capitalists by the way. The industrialists of Germany supported Hitler in order to avoid a socialist revolution.
Trascoli
(194 posts)Obama would never have been elected if not for Moore. Moore sowed the seeds for this one and it's great.
Down with all types of capitalism!!
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Nationalised Health Care System. Right fucking away you have people thinking how someone else
Will take advantage of it, how someone else might not pay their share, how all those other people will neglect their health and use resources that could be allocated to "More Deserving".
Now, change that for a minute. Think it doesn't matter. Think it's YOU who has fallen on hard times and doesn't have means to pay into the system. ALWAYS think "there but for the grace of god go I".
That drug abuser on the street could have been a professor of physics who had such a severe depressive episode he was not able to recover and finds living on the street preferable to anything else (I know person like that). Think about that alcoholic you saw yesterday who never had a chance because of where and how he was raised and born.
So friggin what if they use NHS (I'll use UK example). I WANT them too. If I need to pay more taxes I WILL. Gladly. I do not want to see anyone on the street dying because they don't have access to healthcare when and if they want it. I want them to have a choice. I do not care if I don't agree with it, not my business to judge. My business is to make sure that I pay my taxes because I can.
Hope it would explain to you why I am a commie and proud of it and why so many people defend capitalism instead and hate people like me.
Jack Sprat
(2,500 posts)
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)Yes, and mixed in with some good democratic socialism. So people can still get to wealthy, just not obscenely so and not on the backs of the non wealthy.
We need to pay for single payer universal health care, repairing and updating all our infrastructure, and education through a doctorate for everyone who wants it, not just for those who can afford it or can dunk a basketball.
The serious lessening of stress on the middle class, not worrying about educating their children, not worrying over going bankrupt if they have an accident or cancer, should lower health care costs over time.
Raise the tax rate incrementally, someone with an income of 5 million should pay more than one with 500,000. Loopholes should be closed, companies like Exxon Mobil and Bank of America should be paying taxes, not getting huge tax refunds. Add a VAT like other nations have.
Our system is broken, Washington is a cesspool run by big money and lobbying. Some state and local governments are bad as well, too many in influential positions are religious quacks who think "The Flintstones" was real, that the earth is 6,000 years old. Sooner or later the people have to think things through, wise and rise up, and demand a new New Deal for the 21st Century.
Our system now is only good if you're one of the privileged. The ruling class have been able to attract middle class folks with social wedge issues to get them to vote against their economic well being. One of them is going bye bye, the gay issue, so we're down to the Welfare Queen myth/Racial/Taker con. Sooner or later enough of the conned should realize that the rich are playing them and ripping them off way more than a few welfare queens.
Chisox08
(1,898 posts)Without strong regulations, corruption and greed takes over. Not only is our capitalist system threatening to destroy itself but it is threatening our democracy. It's a revolving door on Wallstreet and the SEC. The regulators often worked for the people that they are supposed to be regulating, and then once they leave they go back to a cushy job at the companies that they were responsible for regulating. The rules a fixed in the favor the rich and powerful. If you steal a cookie you go to jail, but if you steal billions through fraud you get a bonus. Capitalism needs strong regulations and people who is willing to do their jobs as regulators in order to function until that happens the downward spiral that we are currently on will continue.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)1. Innovation, and
2. Inheritance of the fruits of your labor.
Take 2 away, as the communist countries found out, and people just don't work very hard and even worse than that, won't invest in something that takes a while to pay off. Put it back, and suddenly people are willing to invest both their hard work and their capital, because they know it's theirs.
The experience of the world shows these things:
1 - Capitalism needs to be kept,
2 - You need a strong social safety net, and
3 - Strong anti-trust laws and regulation of business.
Put those three together and you're done. That was the US from 1945 to 1980, that is, after FDR and Teddy Roosevelt put the latter two in place, and before Reagan got to them.
Going to either extreme, unfettered capitalism or complete socialism, leads you to stagnation. The former leads to total control by a few, which you can see in some local places where a single company dominates the economy (Battle Creek and Kellogg, or Rochester and, until its recent demise, Kodak), while the latter leads to stagnation under total domination by a different elite.
What you as a little guy DO NOT want is total domination by either capitalists or the gov't. You want each one to be a check on the other. Without that, you get screwed by the ruthless, and the ruthless can be found everywhere, at the top of whatever organization you care to name.
Distribution of power, and tension among the powerful. Think of it as divide and conquer.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Silent3
(15,207 posts)Quite well compared to what?
I don't see people in droves are eagerly lining up for their chance to live the same way Native Americans lived a few hundred years ago.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Americans didnt live well. They lived for thousands of years without capitalism. In fact it was capitalism that wiped them out.
Silent3
(15,207 posts)If your argument would be that westerners never would have come to the New World (new to them) except for "capitalism", that would be absurd.
Capitalism and the desire for territory, resources, wealth, and commerce are not, by the way, the same thing.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)We are getting away from my point which is that unregulated capitalism will implode. The end-game is upon us. This country has turning into an oligarchy. The wealthy elite wont stop until we are just like Haiti. As capitalist Mittens Rmoney would say, after the middle class is harvested, off to the next victim.
Silent3
(15,207 posts)I also understand that regulation will fail from time to time (or all of the time to some degree), but I don't think societies that feature capitalism are particularly more or less prone to running off the rails. That's a generic human problem.
In the context of the OP, I think disdain for capitalism of any type, regulated or not, was being expressed. The idea that capitalism is somehow indefensible in any form is what I'm objecting to here.
cali
(114,904 posts)It's not a practical solution to try and live in largely hunter/gatherer tribal structure- at least not for the vast majority of humanity.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that capitalism will eventually destroy this materialistic world we live in and we well may have to learn to hunt and gather. I would like to see a computer model that plots out the capitalistic end-game.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Even had the Europeans never come over, eventually the population would have increased to a point where they needed more organization.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I wouldnt doubt that they would have lived for thousands more. They lived in concert with nature so I believe their numbers would have stopped increasing when nature wouldnt support them without technology. Probably wishful dreaming on my part.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Which means living in permanent settlements.
Europe was once occupied by nomadic tribes, too.
It just seems to be human nature to advance from nomadic to settled to making cities. In South America the Native population was much larger and therefore more organized and settled.
So my argument is that it would have happened, but the clash of cultures occurred.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)And this is a progressive area. I imagine that it gets worse in more conservative areas. You have douchecanoes like John Stossel who are given free rein to teach free market garbage in public schools, and people don't hear more about alternatives while they are younger.
starroute
(12,977 posts)The purpose of capitalism was to accumulate large amounts of capital to invest in large, expensive, and somewhat risky undertakings -- factories, railroads, mining operations, printing presses. Big stuff. Stuff that a mom-and-pop business could never manage.
But that same rationale is precisely why capitalism is so destructive now. From its exploitation of natural resources to its inevitable tendency towards monopoly power, its faults grow out of its initial premises.
And what we need most today -- things like universal, cheap, broadband internet -- are things that capitalism is peculiarly ill-suited to deliver.
Capitalism is also not doing a very good job of maintaining all that fancy infrastructure that it built 50 or 100 years ago. Building stuff for the first time is a way to rake in profits. Keeping stuff going -- not so much.
I could see a future where all the big, boring stuff -- as well as the stuff that needs to be operated under the control of the commons -- is operated on a more-or-less socialistic basis, while there is still lots of room for individual entrepreneurs to invent new things. But I can't see the monster corporations of the moment surviving very much longer.
And for that reason, much of the battle will be over copyrights, patents, and "intellectual property" in general. That is the main tool the corporations are using to keep control when they no longer have any organic purpose. And it's going to get pretty bloody.
Purplehazed
(179 posts)It is a mistake to only associate capitalism with large expensive undertakings requiring large investments etc.
Consider a carpenter who owns a truck, borrows a thousand dollars from family member to buy tools, hires a helper and goes into business. He negotiates a fair price with a customer, performs the work, gets paid, pays the helper, pays his family member some, pays his bills and himself. The carpenter doesn't split the money 50/50 with the helper. The carpenter takes more because he is assuming all of the risk. If there is a problem with the work or if there are no customers. The helper walks away with nothing but the carpenter walks away owing money. The family member who essentially invested in this enterprise may or may not recover his loan.
Is there anything wrong with this picture? It is pure capitalism and pure free market. I don't see anything wrong with it. Multi-millions engage in this simple form of capitalism every day. The deli, the pizza place, the small farmer, the machine shop, hair salon you name it. I for one, will defend this "pure" capitalism. (Referencing the response below) Is still capitalism if we regulate it. We recognize that capitalism alone won't do some things to the extent that the we want, like prevent pollution or provide a safe work place. So we write regulations and hope they don't cost the businesses more than they can pay. We also should write regulations for markets that become so complex that few know all their details or can directly affect the countries economy IE big banks.
Anybody at any time can set up a worker owned business and manage it how they choose. Again, still capitalism with a unique set of investors/stakeholders but with more social aspects. Even if we had state owned business to exploit natural resources for a profit like Norway, it would certainly be socialistic but yet would be very capitalist with the government replacing private shareholders.
Sorry for being so wordy. Capitalism and Free Markets don't have have to be bad words. They do need ethical guidance though. If we want better social nets, better education for all, we need to find the means. Profitable businesses directly translates to higher income for all and increased tax revenue.
starroute
(12,977 posts)There were small businessmen like the carpenter your describe all through the Middle Ages -- but they weren't capitalists and the economic system of capitalism.
You try to equate your carpenter to present-day capitalists by saying, "The carpenter doesn't split the money 50/50 with the helper. The carpenter takes more because he is assuming all of the risk." But no, that isn't the rationale. The carpenter takes more because it's his operation. He has the expertise, he owns the tools and the premises, he's bringing in business and setting the terms of agreements with customers. The helper is just showing up and providing raw labor -- or perhaps is an apprentice still learning the trade.
But perhaps the biggest difference between what you describe and capitalism is the factor of profit. Your carpenter is just trying to make enough for himself to live on comfortably and for a helper or two to live on more frugally. He isn't trying to accumulate profits in order to enlarge his business or to pay off investors. But capitalism is all about generating profits -- which means it's a Ponzi scheme. It always has to put out more than it takes in, which can be done only by exploiting somebody or something -- the workers, the customers, the environment, or the commons. And that's what makes it unsustainable.
Purplehazed
(179 posts)I believe you don't consider this to be capitalism. That is why I used this example. A dear friend of mine who is a carpenter and rails against capitalism and profit motives did not recognize that he was in fact a capitalist making and maximizing profits.
It is true that the medieval carpenter was probably not a capitalist because that was not the economic mode of the time. He likely would have been involved in a guild which operated by the permission of a monarch or operated in a land where every thing is owned by the king. It's just different economics.
But you actually make the point when you say "it's his operation, he has the expertise, he owns the tools and the premises". There it is: private ownership of capital and private ownership of the means of production. You also acknowledge that the carpenter is just trying to live comfortably with the helper or 2 living more frugally. Thus economic profit (revenue less expenses). In a few short words there are the 3 hallmarks of capitalism. Lastly is the difference on pay which you seem to accept, is often criticized by some as the exploitation of labor.
The carpenter is working for profits. He's living better than just survival. He might be saving to send a kid to college. He might want to buy a tile saw next year and start doing flooring which would expand his business. In fact the carpenter seeks to maximize his profits by saving scraps of wood to use on the next job, making one trip to the lumberyard instead of two, offering free beer to his employees if they get the job done early etc.
So there is the real and admittedly idyllic face of capitalism that is so common that it's rather unremarkable. 90 + percent of the businesses in the US have less than 10 employees. I believe what you are really referring to is profiteering and greed. Unethically taking excessive profits which usually comes at the expense of the workers is indeed is an unsustainable ponzi scheme but it doesn't define capitalism.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)to capitalism. The building of our highway system, all roadways, most railroads, bridges, tunnels, damns etc etc has been by socialist economic financial outlays, not private sector capitalism.
mainer
(12,022 posts)For governments to procure funds, they need tax dollars. For taxes to be generated, doesn't there need to be business and profits and income?
applegrove
(118,636 posts)is what the world is made up of and what works best. A mixture.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)There have to be some things the government does. The military, for example.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I'm sure there's some nickels in the sofa cushions.
gtar100
(4,192 posts) Ligyron
(7,632 posts)
JohnnyRingo
(18,628 posts)Oh wait... That's die. We're all gonna die someday.
Now I don't know why Barstool Republicans defend the like of Steve Forbes.
FreeJoe
(1,039 posts)ALL of the countries with relatively high median incomes practice some flavor of capitalism. Which countries have non-capitalist economic systems that you prefer that we switch to? North Korea? Cuba?
Look at China. They were a non-capitalist country for several decades and were extremely poor. They have been moving away from communism and towards capitalism and their median incomes have become much, much higher.
Private ownership of property and prices being set by agreement between willing buyers and sellers seem empirically to be essential ingredients to high standards of living. That doesn't mean that we don't need economic regulation, safety nets, and other government assistance in the economy. I'm just saying that in the modern world, no one has shown an ability to make a successful economy work for people without those ingredients.
It also pays to remember that, in any system that isn't primarily reliant on property rights and free enterprise, someone will decide who owns what and what they can do with that. However good peoples intentions are at the start, that never ends up going well. I think it is a little like regulating speech. It would be great to get rid of all the bad speech (hate speech, climate denial, etc), but who do you trust to regulate speech?
mainer
(12,022 posts)And not have a centralized authority tell them where those fruits should go instead?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Thank you for the laugh.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)That's capitalism for you, you can't talk about capitalism's benefits and simply ignore it's failures.
mainer
(12,022 posts)As a small businessperson, I have only one part-time assistant whom I pay $30 an hour for doing clerical work from her own home, so I don't think I'm abusing anyone. I do strive to make a profit, though. And I do like getting to keep at least some of it.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)as a whole. What about all the banks, oil companies, and other large corporations? Let's look at BP oil company for example! Or AIG, what about Bernie Madoff and Apple computer. Virtually every large corporation cheats or frauds in so way or another, that is the down side of the greed motivation. You can't pretend that capitalism does all good and no bad. If we only had a capitalist society in the U.S., our economy would look much more like Somalia.
mainer
(12,022 posts)Most of us are small business owners. And no, we don't cheat and we pay our taxes.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)Their fraud and cheating displaces the functional capital system, without social (government) regulation, their combined greed destroys our economy. Enough with the small business thing, I run a small business myself and the oligarchic insurance companies, banks, and energy corporations are what account for the problems with the economy, not the safety net.
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)The historical record of failure, loss of freedoms and human suffering is batting at a 100% failure rate.
What we need is a good new-fashioned progressive-ism that treats the poor fairly and caps the 1%ers from accumulating more than they actually produce - while still allowing them to accumulate what they truly earn and rewarding them for contributing more than those who choose to just suck on the govt tit.
Restricting anyones freedoms or leaving anyone out for bad life choices are not solutions to any problem.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)What we have in the US is a mix of capitalism and socialism, the roads you drive on were built by socialist economic dynamics.
Capitalism in it's pure form also fails miserably, with loss of freedoms and human suffering, take a look at Somalia for example!
stillcool
(32,626 posts)can probably be defended, and corrupted. I don't think it's the ideal..it's just the human thing that messes everything up.
Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)
umeed Message auto-removed
treestar
(82,383 posts)Appears to be no alternative.
There has to be a mixed system - capitalism with a safety net. Seems the only thing that will work.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)The needs of society can not possibly be met by a monoeconomy, because different needs can only be met by various market dynamics.
In a purely Capitalist economy we would have no public roads and no police protection, in a purely Communist economy we would have no incentive to produce or conceive new products to meet new demand. What is needed is a hybrid economy, which is what most economies already are with very few exceptions, how we decide which market functions are fulfilled by which economic dynamic is what sets each country apart from another.
Somalia is as close an example of a Capitalist country as there is in the world, they have a very small central government with almost no power, almost all market functions are supplied by peoples greed.
Soviet Union is probably the closest example of a Communist country, they have a very strong central government and almost all needs of society are fulfilled through the government.
We can easily see the problems of both systems.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Socialist, yes with a hell of a lot of distortions and abuses. Definitely not communist.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Not even the USSR claimed to be Communist so for you to use it as an example of communism is just silly.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)There is no exact example of either Communism or Capitalism in the world today, because neither economic system in it's pure form works. Anyone who thinks America is a Capitalist system, must have flunked economics 101.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)If you don't think America is a capitalist country then I don't know what to say.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)and none of them are supplied by the government, in a capitalist economy the government is miniscule and has no real power.
I'm not sure how you think the united states built a national highway system through the free market system, it was built by the government (socialism). How do you think the transcontinental railroad was built, socialism built it. Our national defense is funded socially, not privately.
You need to educate yourself about economics, you obviously don't know what capitalism is!
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)If you want to argue over the degrees that's fine, but for the most part America is firmly a capitalist state. The government may provide infrastructure, but for the most part the economy is in private hands. If we go by your definition then capitalism has never existed because even during the industrial revolution governments provided some infrastructure. Reading over your post it seems like we may be trying to say the same thing, but arguing over terminology. I think we would both agree that capitalism in any form can't exist without government aid, at least that's what I think you are saying and if so I agree. Now if only I could get Ron Paul to see that...
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)Capitalism is a system where all the needs of a society are fulfilled by the free market!
I'm tired of people confusing America's economic system as Capitalism, it's not, it is a mixture, a hybrid, a mutt, and for good reason, Capitalism does not work on it's own. Capitalism's greed consumes itself and destroys the dynamics of a healthy economy, which is exactly why we need government to regulate greed and build infrastructure socially.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)USSR was no where close to that. Not even remotely.
At best it was really fucked up socialism, with a large proportion of plutocracy that fed on the backs of regular workers.
Communism is not just economical system, it's a mindset. Without that mindset it will never work.
Just like one can't force democracy on unprepared masses, one can't just force communism on people. Even more impossible because communism demands absolutely free participation for it to work properly. One MUST learn to care for others more than they care for themselves before communism will have a chance.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)capitalism is not just an economic system, it's a mindset, in which each person must think of him/her self as the only person in the world that matters. But real people don't think that way, and they don't live that way!
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)difficult to think about others.
Of course people don't just think purely about themselves. They care about the family, they care about the close group of unrelated friends, people they share the same town with, same country. But further away from "me" it gets the less they are willing to forgo for the benefit of others.
I used US Health Care debate as a good example of it in another post here. To me it was a huge eye opener into the mindset of people who were born and raised in US type capitalist mentality. People who would sooner go without themselves than even entertain a possibility that someone "undeserving" from their point of view, might use the system.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Under Cum... or Com?
If you can't spell it, how did you look it up?
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)avarice.
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Or, defend the Catholic Church (add almost any other religion). If I make God happy, He'll make me happy.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Conservatives will always defend the dominant institution, system or belief, regardless of its untruth, because it has and/or is the symbol of the most power. Conservatives are competitive and afraid to lose.
Capitalism is the dominant economic system so conservatives and the politically and economically naive will throw all their support behind it.
Actually, a mixture of Capitalism and Socialism is the dominant system but the defenders of Capitalism don't want to admit what makes Capitalism palatable is the softening touch of Socialistic programs.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts).
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)The government should provide the essential services, security and organizational bedrock of the country.
Private companies can provide the more frivolous things so we have a choice of different types of donuts (for example), restaurants, entertainment etc.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)We, as a society, either have to conclude that we're all ok with that, or we have to agree we want something better and scrap it.
I'm for the latter.
upi402
(16,854 posts)works!
chickens vote for colonel sanders = proof
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Going through this thread, the most apparent answer is that very few people understand the definitions or history of any of this.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)Every single thing that capitalism has given the common man has been as a result, not of the free market and the invisible hand, but of unionization, blood, sweat, tears, and enlightened control.
Capitalism isn't on the decline, precisely. What is on the decline is the general belief of everyone but the oligarchy that capitalism is benign. It isn't, and it can't be.
Apart from the damage it is doing to the ecosystem (enough damage that we are looking at a drought that may last for eons), the fact remains that unlimited growth funds capitalism, and we live in a finite system.
There is no God involved here.
mainer
(12,022 posts)After the wall fell, West Germans bemoaned the downside of reunification, which was the sudden addition of nonproductive and dependent countrymen. Under communism, east Germans had never worked for themselves, their infrastructure was a disaster, and they were accustomed to the government providing for them regardless of their own productivity. I heard many a West German tell me they wished they could close up the wall again.
It took years, and the introduction of capitalism, for East Germany to catch up.
Let's take a look back at what it was like:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3672712.stm
"After the collapse of the Berlin Wall, political heavyweights including former Chancellor Helmut Kohl pushed hard to merge two very different societies.
In the west, a European powerhouse that had led the region's industrial recovery; in the east, a bloated, state-planned economy that was as wasteful as it was forgiving of inefficiency.
The argument that togetherness would ensure prosperity all but drowned out the doubters who questioned whether the task might prove too difficult and too expensive.
More than a decade later, the merging of the two Germanys into a single economy has proved anything but seamless.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... bears little resemblance to a real capitalism. Government intervention where it is not needed, no regulation where it is needed, our entire economic system has been co-opted by big business.
Some would say that such a state is the inevitable outcome of capitalism but I disagree. We as citizens have allowed this to happen and it will be difficult if not impossible to unwind it now.
But as a basic economic system I don't think there really is anything that would work better. It just needs a firm hand and we might get one once things get bad enough that even joe six pack can figure out he is being lumbered - we're getting close to now or never on that one.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Also, why is "real" capitalism defined by exception rather than rule?
I would think somethings "real" would be it's natural order not a comparably brief period of exception that counters the natural condition and checks it.
I also tend to believe both sides of the debate are a mix of dishonest and are fighting the last war.
Capitalism cannot function without a commons to exploit nor can it be maintained politically without the downside being handed back to the commons to clean up/suffer with and socialism of any worth to the people requires resources to distribute that it is very hard pressed to generate without capitalism.
Capitalism and socialism are not enemies, they are partners ever locked in conflict of who decides and amount of relative influence.
Both are offspring of plentiful resources, much lower drain on global carrying capacity, and I'd argue a much less developed technological period. Neither are very efficient and effective at distributing resources throughout the population.
The seeking of permanence is the ultimate flaw built into our systems, we as a civilization are very uncomfortable with the probability that we are very much developing and that old tools become less usable with time and require re-tooling and eventual replacement. Our "isms" are just tools to move to the next level and eventually must be cast aside. With luck both systems will be laid down as conditions evolve but the sides in the debate believe we are evolving to some perfect variant of what we know as opposed to beyond or at least different than what we have.
The capitalists are a bit more rigid in this but that is the nature of establishment. If the socialists had more hand on the wheel, they would be less flexible and experimental ideologically but being less tied to the set order they can entertain a wider range of concepts and applications, they do not have to protect the turf.
At present we are a bit blind to what is around the corner as is human habit, this makes us creatures of the past in our ideas which has us trying to restore what is passing away rather than preparing for the next epoch (a preparation that I think will require some greater penetration of socialist school of thought to process the emerging world but less centralization than past models that will rely on individual initiative and self determination that has to evolve from the capitalist mindset).
Our traditional roles, division of labor, scale of populations, technology, and access to resources is changing very quickly. Times are coming soon where most labor will have no substantial value and we are already at the beginning of the devaluing of capital formation, what will we do then? Collapse if we attempt function within the same patterns.
What happens when a product can be constructed at the user end by cheap and available automation? Where is the value of labor? Where is the value of capital? Where are the multipliers each counts on? What happens when folks can produce all their own food and water? What happens when everyone has all the power they could ever use? Hell, what will we do as our tools become sentient?
What happens is our current best tools for advancement become chains holding back evolution.
sendero
(28,552 posts).. this would merely devolve into an argument over semantics. Certainly, in any sustainable capitalist system there is some 'socialism' and in any socialist system there is SOME capitalism.
Folks who wrote the book on capitalism ie Smith (not the idiot libertarians whose philosophy is anything BUT capitalism) would not permit monopolies, cartels and things like the MIC.
But that is what we have today along with regulatory capture and a "democracy" sold to the highest bidder. Blaming "capitalism" is pointless, and wishing for any system that does not involve some doing better than others is utopian delusion.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)has to do with much here. Your fairy tale by sustained observation is just as much fancy as any utopia you'd lay at anyone else's feet.
The religious type element that isms take on is problematic. Economies are tools to generate and distribute resources. There is probably no such thing as perfect and if there is, it isn't necessarily related to even though distribution has importance or circulation collapses and there can logically be little to no growth backed by actual value unless it is so great that object poverty is created and the functional economy is replaced by other markets and so all other value is separated.
It is what happens not by books just like other ideologies.
sendero
(28,552 posts).. but human nature being what it is, I hold out little hope of any big changes for the better happening.... ever. You say economics are for generating and distributing resources, but the 1% sees it as a tool for gleaning wealth from everybody else.
The closest thing I know of a fair functional economy would probably be Norway or other Scan country, and Norway is only decent because it has oil IMHO.
I'm a lot more concerned about where the US is going in the next decade, and I'm not really very hopeful in that I thought we'd get some real change but we have not. The theory is that we have to have the presidency and both houses of congress but I'm not really sure that would even do it.
The other side has done a fantastic job of convincing the ordinary citizen that what is in his best interest is a long slow decline of his economic health. Until that is undone, if ever, nothing is going to change.
mainer
(12,022 posts)Wikipedia (granted, not always accurate) only lists four: China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam. I would take issue with China, since it certainly is turning capitalist, and so is Vietnam. All you have to do is walk the streets of Beijing and look at the high-fashion stores.
Wikipedia also lists a whole host of formerly socialist countries such as Bulgaria, the Congo, Kampuchea, etc. Note: FORMERLY socialist. Why did they abandon that system?
I know many here think of socialism as utopia, but I'm having trouble coming up with countries that are purely socialist without some element of capitalism to support it. Cuba is the only one I can think of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)including an ossified bureaucracy along the Stalinist line which was ANTI Marxist no matter what it said. But you also can never discount the absolute hatred of the capitalists FOR any worker controlled states, even the degenerated ones. The fact is that, FROM IT'S INCEPTION, the USSR and ALL of the worker states, were under military, economic, political, and social attack by the capitalist powers and NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO DEVELOP under any other conditions than outright warfare, overt or covert. And since the capitalists were ascendant and the worker's states were new, it was an uneven battle from the beginning.
What if the Allies hadn't have invaded Russia right after the October Revolution? What if they hadn't supported, armed and trained the White forces during the Civil War? WHAT IF THE USSR COULD HAVE DEVELOPED WITHOUT A CONSTANT BATTLE FOR SURVIVAL??? If this had happened and it STILL failed, then people could have had more of legitimate argument that socialism was a failed system. But it DIDN'T happen, so ALL examples of failure have to take into account active efforts to undermine the new system. The problem is, because of a lack of historical perspective, supporters of capitalism never take these actual FACTS into account.
mainer
(12,022 posts)that does not have any capitalism at all? Certainly, after all these centuries, there'd be one that has had lasting success.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Socialism has barely been a economic/political concept for A century. The transition from feudalism to capitalism took centuries to play out. Who knows what a socialist system could do if it weren't undermined at every turn from it's inception. It's kind of amazing to me that ANY of the worker's states survived as long as they did considering the circumstances of their inceptions and the roadblocks that were DELIBERATELY put in front of them by the old system.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Imagine if there was a thriving, successful purely socialist country somewhere, how often DUers would be citing it in this thread.
Instead, all we have is a couple of DUers expressing their desire to move to Cuba.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Little resemblance to Capitalist or Socialist.
theKed
(1,235 posts)Marking to come back for a more thorough read
gulliver
(13,180 posts)That's one good reason.
Capitalism is simply the natural expression of people wanting to be free to make their own choices. It is only Republican Capitalism that is bad. Republican Capitalism says that Big Capital gets to make choices outside the democratic process, whether the democracy likes it or not.
Capitalism should serve the will of the people at all levels. I get to decide where I work and what to buy. At a higher level, I get to vote on the rules that corporations have to live by. I get to vote on what my local, state, and government buys and who works for it. Capital does what it's told and makes the wealth. That's its job. It gets a say in the process, and then the democracy decides.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Those who are 100% against either, will never be happy.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Because several people benefit from it and don't see (or refuse to see) the utter destruction it is bringing to the US and other countries. 1 in 3 children in the US live in poverty and don't have enough food, and people think the USSR had problems? Sheesh.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)that is, in households with an income under half the median income: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/29/491443/un-report-child-poverty/
An attempt to show absolute poverty (for people in general, not just children), measured in a consistent way, compared with some European countries put the USA at 8.7% - a bit worse than France or Germany, but slightly better than the UK, and significantly better
than Italy: http://www.diw.de/sixcms/detail.php/57598
According the the USDA, 10% of households with children had food insecurity affecting the children, and another 10% with the adults, but not the children, affected: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx#children
Where does the 1 in 3 figure come from?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)One in three children live below the federal poverty line in New York City, the worst ratio since 2000, according to a report released yesterday.
Between 2008 and 2011, the official city poverty rate for kids rose from 26.5 percent to 29 percent, according to the Citizens' Committee for Children, which produced the study.
The nonprofit crunched data based on children's success factors such as child poverty rates, child abuse rates, literacy rates, and other indicators.
The federal poverty level measures a family's total income and compares it to the national threshold of what families need to live, based on the number of members in a family and the ages of those people. If the threshold is higher than the total income, the family is considered in poverty.
<snip>
With nearly 1.7 million children, the Big Apple has the most kids of any U.S. city.
Poverty has risen 37%, highly affecting children of color, who are now living 1-3 in a state of poverty:
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/national/government-and-politics/face-the-facts-childhood-poverty-on-the-rise/article_c461f896-7f8c-11e2-b986-0019bb2963f4.html
The recession has hit American children hard. The percentage of U.S. children living in poverty has risen 37 percent over the past decade -- to 15.6 million today. That's more than one out of every five kids.
The numbers are worse for African-American children; 38.6 percent of them are poor. 33.7 percent of Hispanic children live in poverty. Children of single moms of any color are four times more likely than their peers to be poor.
http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html
Nearly 16 million children in the United States – 22% of all children – live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level – $23,021 a year for a family of four. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses. Using this standard, 45% of children live in low-income families.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)And the people who benefit the most from capitalism, who have the most to lose under socialism....they happen to have power.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)It is all right here.
Stryder
(450 posts)The law is named after the bank robber Willie Sutton, who reputedly replied to a reporter's inquiry as to why he robbed banks by saying "because that's where the money is."
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Else you end up where we were in the twenties and where we are now.
brooklynite
(94,517 posts)brooklynite
(94,517 posts)No objection to an open discussion, but the Democratic Party has never espoused a replacement for Capitalism.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)nm