The enemy is capitalism

[Fire Walk With Me]

Leasing ports, selling US debt to China, controlling the development and sale of oil, Enron'ing energy prices... The Company Store is alive and well, and will soon reach world-wide proportions (New World Order). There are no checks or balances in place to change this.

If they break the law, well, they own the law, don't they?

Capitalism, evolved to its logical conclusion, is ultimate selfishness. The owner is at the top and there is little between the owner and the worker, who preferably is disposable and unable to resist. And uneducated. If there appears to be a widening gap between most of us and those who make the laws we have to live by, you would be seeing clearly.

The government and the laws they made were once representational of the Americans who voted. Now, law is representational of the corporations who buy votes and benefits. See: oil development freebies and record profits. There are no checks or balances in place to change this.

Don't worry, The Company Store doesn't have to be extremely painful or amazingly difficult to survive. We are, after all, adaptable creatures, and will not revolt unless directly threatened. If the growing threat is indirect and not too discomforting, we will continue to voice outrage and gnash our teeth, yet accomplish nothing other than continuing to survive under the structure the companies and their governmental representatives provide for us.

If it doesn't look like a cage, it's not a cage, right?

The religios that the corporations have offered social control are merely soldiers, and are not the real problem, although they'll have to be considered at some point (no closed system should be allowed to usurp the Constitution).

Continue praying that someone in BushCo lie about getting a blow job. Nothing else looks likely to change the board and the entities represented.

Thank you for listening, from Alarmist Rant Boy.

[JustDoIt]

1. Don't confuse capitalism

with corporatism.

[leftofthedial]

4. corporatism is the inevitable spawn of capitalism

it's greatest creation

[JustDoIt]

5. This is not true

Capitalism and corporatism are incompatible because corporatism implies a powerful govenrment that can dole out preferential treatment to favored friends. In a true capitalist system, the government would be so minimal that this kind of cronyism that we see today would be impossible.

[leftofthedial]

7. capitalism births corporations to turn investor capital into more capital

coprorations buy access to and then control of government to ensure that nothing interferes with the creation of capital for investors

this control looks exactly like what you call "cronyism" while government dies, serving corporations more and more completely, eventually to be replaced by direct control of society by the corporations and their practice of capitalism.

Corporations ARE capitalism.

[JustDoIt]

9. Partially right

Corporations are one of the players in capitalism, but it's only possible to buy access to government today because the government is so big and has so much power. If this truly were a capitalist society, then the government would be so minimal that no one would want to control of it because it would have little power.

[leftofthedial]

13. and that is exactly what we are experiencing

"government" in the hands of the repukes is a subsidiary of the corporations

in the world you describe, the corporate acquisition of what we once knew as government would be complete

in your capitalist world with miniscule government, who provides the services necessary for the citizenry to pursue life, liberty and happiness? Who regulates the corporations in the public interest? Who provides for the public welfare? What part of the currently big and powerful government would you do away with?

I believe in the hands of the repukes, government is far too powerLESS. it is owned and managed for the interests of corporations and no one else. It is still huge, but that is simply to allow corporations to externalize more of their costs by having publicly funded "government" do the expensive and disagreeable work for them.

[cyberia]

18. No such capitalism has ever existed

"If this truly were a capitalist society, then the government would be so minimal that no one would want to control of it because it would have little power."

Nor could it ever exist. Adam Smith posited some such capitalism as a theoretical construct. He was not working "from nature", but trying to understand nature through a model. Libertarians entirely misunderstand the nature of capital accumulation by implicitly assuming that all capitalists are created equal, small and of similar power. It just ain't so and can't be so. As one capitalist accumulates, he will outdistance others who are less efficient. His power increases and so does his ability to tilt the market to his advantage. There is no "invisible hand"; there are deals, combinations and laws that create advantages. There is nothing that you can do about this as long as you accept private ownership of social wealth (means of production, distribution etc.).

[Mme. Defarge]

42. Well said!

I am actually one of the few people I know (I think I qualify for that statement) who has actually read "The Wealth of Nations." To misquote Woody Allen, all I can say is that if Adam Smith came back today and saw everything that is being done in the name of capitalism, he'd never stop throwing up.

[regnaD kciN]

11. I've heard that line before...

In a true capitalist system, the government would be so minimal that this kind of cronyism that we see today would be impossible.

...generally from idealistic if muddled young conservatives, devotees of Ayn Rand, etc.

It parallels, in its own amusing way, rhetoric that you used to get from devoted Marxists that the Soviet Union was a betrayal of communism, not an example of it. In a true communist state, they would say, the government, once it had turned over the means of production to "the people," would dissolve itself and lead to a happy communal anarchy.

It seems convincing, in theory. But, after a few decades of experience, one begins to think that the "ideal" communism and capitalism exist only in theory, and that, when it comes to the real world, "what you see is what you get."

And I would ask you to point to any examples where a state which dedicates itself to "pure capitalism" (as opposed to those who put strict governmental limits on how capitalism is supposed to operate) hasn't, over time, turned into a corporatist quasi-monopoly "sweatshop state" such as we saw in Dickens's England or the America of the "Gilded Age."

[izzybeans]

22. Yep.

These are folks who don't do a whole lot of paying attention to the way the world works.

[AntiFascist]

16. Corporatism amounts to welfare for the rich...

a righteous government (in the judicial sense) would prevent such corruption, but there's nothing righteous about this government.

[izzybeans]

21. There is no way back. Corporatism was spawned by capitalist

production. Big Big Bureaucratic Production.

It's called corporate capitalism. The government grew as the population grew and became more complex.

Twin engines.

There is no such thing as a true capitalist system if that is the case because it could not sustain itself without the foundation for innovation and production provided by the government. No more NSF, National Academies, no more incentive for innovation. None of it comes from the market. R and D is not profitable in the short-term, which is why when the Bushes reduce science funding you see a corresponding dip in R and D in the market (partially because it is subsidized heavily by our "meddlesome" government, i.e. Bell Labs) and then a innovation lag in terms of technology. Our biggest innovation recently has been an IPOD, while a global climite crisis looms and the numbers of people in poverty are increasing within our own country. Sure it generates short-term gains for one corporation, but has done little in terms of long term economic sustainability.

Our economy requires that an organic system operate in such a way that smooths over the contradictions, such as the inevitable polarization of wealth in any mode of capitalist production since the industrial revolution. Without things like Welfare, both for those left behind by the system and the corporations that can not generate enough capital to remain competitive in the global market place, something like an acute crisis would occur and under the right conditions the system would collapse. Bankruptcy in the corporate world and a critical mass of hungry folks who no longer have incentive to give a shit what type of economy we have. They just want one that is more efficient and egalitarian in its distribution of wealth. The capitalists should hope no one is around to organize once the New Deal is fully dismantled by the GOP; which is a recipe for collapse.

CAn't have one without the other no matter what the bleeding heart idealists believe. The market has no invisible hand, which means it does not work like magic and/or natural laws; which is just code word for I didn't do my homework so I'm not quite sure how it works.

[SHRED]

2. Rock on!

:toast:

[Cassandra]

3. Unregulated capitalism, yes it's the enemy.

Privatization is also not our friend. Unrestrained globalization has been a disaster for us. We do need some capitalism, though. The other alternatives don't work very well in a large society.

[Warpy]

6. Exactly. Capitalism does a good job of providing THINGS,

especially when fashion is considered. However, unregulated capitalism has invariably moved toward monopoly and concentration of wealth, producing the greatest misery for the greatest number.

Capitalism fails pretty miserably when it comes to providing services, though, those labor intensive services that so many of us depend on. Just look as what moving health care out of the nonprofit sector and into the profit sector has done. Sucking profit out of a service industry degrades the service. While it's annoying not to be able to find sales help in Walmart, it can be fatal to run healthcare that way.

Obviously a mixed system makes the most sense, and various things can move back and forth. We're overdue to have healthcare move into the public sector; other industries, like parcel shipping, have done very well in the private.

Equally obvious is the need to break up monopolies and deconcentrate wealth. Wealth only works when it's moving through a system. Once it collects at the top, it stagnates. This was done in the past by a combination of progressive taxation at the top and welfare at the bottom. We may see it done in some other fashion in the future, but doing it is essential.

[JustDoIt]

19. All monopolies are governments constructs

Can you show me a case of a monopoly that has existed in this country without the assistance of government on some level? Standard Oil was assisted by the federal government as they built barriers to entry.

[rman]

27. definately, since it's government that makes the regulations

Regulations that deregulate the corporate world ever more. No small surprise because corporations spend millions lobbying for just that.

[JustDoIt]

30. That makes little sense

You can't have a regulation that deregulates.

[Cassandra]

25. I think that corporations might be so powerful right now...

and so global that if we try to re-regulate, they will take all their marbles and leave the country. What will we do for capital then to rebuild industries that have been sent overseas; and we will have to rebuild them when our trade imbalance is so bad that others won't want to sell us what we need?

[Telly Savalas]

32. Most large corporations are already global in nature

But say Sweden's progressive economic policies haven't scared away successful companies like IKEA or AstraZeneca.

Norway too has extremely progressive economic policies and their per capita GDP is pretty much the same as the U.S., so not too many companies could have taken their marbles and left.

[OneBlueSky]

10. yup . . . it's the "unregulated" part that's fucking us over . . .

yet one more thing the Democrats SHOULD be screaming bloody murder about -- "Re-regulate the Corporations!" -- but don't . . .

matter of fact, they don't much scream about ANYTHING . . . even though there's s-o-o-o-o-o much to scream about . . .

[regnaD kciN]

14. But it's the "unregulated" part that DEFINES capitalism...

...at least to its True Believers.

For them (and it is worth it to recall that they control all levels of government plus much of the media), a "regulated capitalism" is an oxymoron. The very fact of the regulation makes it, by definition, "socialist" and thus a mortal enemy of capitalism.

[OneBlueSky]

15. following the Great Depression, capitalism was regulated . . .

rather strictly . . . the Repugs have spent the past 50 years chipping away at that regulation until it's all but disappeared . . .

[Radio_Guy]

47. Exactly!

Capitalism heavily regulated brought us out of the Great Depression. Unregulated capitalism put us in the Great Depression and will soon put us in the Great Depression II.

[IndianaGreen]

23. unregulated capitalism = capitalism without socialism

What many of you extol as the virtues of American way of life are the result of socialism, the little bit of which that was allowed by the capitalists to prevent a social explosion.

Thanks to Bush, all of you are now experiencing capitalism for what it is, a brutal system of exploitation in which people are nothing more than commodities to be bought, sold, and discarded by the elites.

Nothing will prevent the social explosion that will soon come when the empire finally collapses!

[cascadiance]

36. Go rent "The Corporation" DVD on these issues...

It really goes in deeply into what's wrong with our current state of affairs with regards to corporations, corporate charters, and what they are able to get away with. It isn't just about "capitalism" being wrong.

The conclusions it draws that the real reasons we have failures now is the inadequacy of corporate law now on the books that doesn't make companies (and individuals within companies) accountable for "externalized costs" (whether it is the labor force statistics, environmental costs, or other costs that it thrusts on others without having to pay for them). CEO's that find ways of maximizing these "externalized costs" such that the company makes more profits are rewarded, and those CEOs that try to be conscientious and have the company absorb more of those externalized costs (or at least find creative ways of minimizing them) aren't rewarded for their efforts. That is the real crime here. The DVD does interview many real thoughtful and conscientious CEOs that are also frustrated that they have to compete with other companies that don't have conscientious leadership and that at times they are forced into doing things that are negative towards society in order to compete and keep their jobs. We really need to elect a "supermajority" congress to change corporate charters, etc. and other laws to provide this sort of accountability.

I think that capitalism (competition) is fine for helping us get a good market system, but it needs better laws governing it, and capitalism is NOT a political system as some would try to claim it to be. It is a market system, and those in charge of entities in it shouldn't be allowed to unduly control or influence our governmental systems that provide the laws governing corporations. The government should be made to serve the people and not the corporations. That is the part that needs fixing!

We may go through some tumultuous times in transitioning companies to a newer paradigm of being responsible for these externalized costs, but I think in the end we'll wind up with better and more responsible leadership who isn't in it just for the bucks for themselves, a better environment, etc. that perhaps will take better care of things such as global warming, etc. and employees/politicians of governments that aren't "beholden" to corporations for their jobs.

[shance]

8. Capitalism does seem to inevitably broadside Democracy,

and/or perhaps its just the monetary system in general.

When we start pricing natural resources, like how much is a tree really worth? An animal?

Something seems to be wrong when we start putting price tags on living things. And I guess non living things for that matter.

When things are deemed worthy by their monetary value, I think we inevitably breed a level of dishonesty and/or exploitave system that loses a level of respect for people and things.

[ProudDad]

12. Capitalism

is a system that assumes infinite room for "economic growth" on a finite globe -- the Earth.

It's doomed to fail...and, at this rate, it will probably take all mammals with it...

[applegrove]

17. All Western countries are mixed market economies. Even the USA

today. The trick is to keep it that way. And keep regulating - and a transfer of wealth every generation. Which means good strong federal government.

What the neocons want are monopolies for some products. Which isn't capitalist at all.

Don't let them fool ya. They are as desperate for government dollars and control as any socialist. They would just distribute the information to a small elite. Oligarchy. Oligoply.

[SpiralHawk]

20. Associative economy - the wave of the future?

An association is an organisation of consumers, traders and producers whose goal is to influence the prices in such a way that all parties can get on well with them. An association is thus a coming together of different, unequal interests.

http://www.threefolding.org/association/glossar.html

[Jeffersons Ghost]

24. Shakespeare said it best....

"What is in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

"I say, What is in a name? That which we call Democracy is rotten to the core and reeks of the putrid smell of decay."

Call it what you will but understand the impact and end result.

[kitkat65]

26. I know of someone who is an inventor who manufactures in China

He says he HAS to vote republican because if he votes democratic, it hurts his business. He doesn't give a shit about the social issues (Gay marriage, etc), it's just a matter of survival for him. It makes me wonder if he's ever considered that with the widening gap between the haves and have-nots, eventually fewer and fewer people going to be able to buy his goods.

I wonder if America will EVER be able to find a balance between capitalism and social responsibility or if those two concepts are so opposed to each other that it's a joke to even consider it.

[loveandlight]

28. unregulated capitalism knows no social responsibility

Read IndianaGreen's post above. Capitalism at its core is just about profit and nothing else. People, the environment, none of that matter. In this country we have been fooled into thinking that capitalism = democracy and that democracy can't live without capitalism. In fact, "democracy" unregulated leads to the rule of the strongest, and in a capitalist society, that is always about who has the most money.

Money = power. That is the basic simple equation. We struggle as a working people to get what we can out of this system, and force the government to take our side when things are at their worst, as in the Great Depression, when they were afraid that a true social upheaval was about to happen. But the capitalists always are waiting not far behind to take it all back. They have been working at destroying the social benefits that we have here in this country since they were instituted. And with Bush and his buddies in power, they are doing a damn good job of that.

Without a truly strong mass movement, we may never see growth in social responsibility in this country before it is too late. The unions are practically dead, the civil rights movement leaders have been killed off, the only movement that may gain any headway right now is because of the environmental crisis we are about to face, and Bush is doing a good job at ignoring that as well. It is a long road we have to go to get back what has been stolen from us. But it has always been hard, never a given in this society. Too many people don't know enough about the history of any of the things that we take for granted, like unemployment insurance or social security or the 8 hour day even, to realize that it has always been a struggle to the death for many to get these benefits, things we should enjoy as rights but feel we have been given something instead.

So, I would say no, capitalism is not about social responsibility and never will be, only a people's mass movement has ever gotten us anything and only keeping a strong people's movement will keep those things that we have gotten in the past from being taken away. As for getting more from this society, well, you can see how we are doing right now, fighting to keep what we've had in the past. Maybe the Internet has added a little bit to our ability to form a new mass movement, I can only hope, because I truly believe that is the only thing that will bring any change any time soon.

[blindpig]

29. Any system that depends on continual growth is doomed

and dooms us all. The analogy with cancer is unavoidable. Planet Earth is finite and thus no place for Capitalism. Capitalism is the enemy of the Commons, which it would consume. Capitalism is the enemy of biodiversity, which it would destroy as inconsequential to the shareholder's interests.

We must do better. A steady state economy is necessary.

[johnnyrocket]

31. Unmitigated greed and runaway corporate control is the enemy!!

Capitalism is a tool, the governments and the citizens still must behave morally.

[No Exit]

33. I agree. Unregulated capitalism knows NO national borders.

It pays no attention to tradition. It doesn't care about people. It doesn't care about social mores or relationships. It couldn't care less about national identity. It is impervious to beauty or nature.

In short, it is the stuff that this monster, Bush, is made of.

[mike_c]

34. K&R-- this thread illustrates the best of DU-- insight and commentary...

...that is erudite and informed. :applause:

[file83]

35. An example of Pure Capitalism is the King Pin Drug Lord.

No regard for law.
No regard for ethics.
No regard for morals.
No regard for the health of its customers.
No regard for the safety of its workers.

He will corrupt.
He will manipulate.
He will conspire.
He will bribe.
He will threaten.
He will kill.
He will start wars.

He will do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING for more money and more power.

The King Pin Drug Lord is the very embodiment of pure capitalism.

[meganmonkey]

37. Thank you, Alarmist Rant Boy

I can dig it. :thumbsup: Rec'd.

PEACE!

[Thirtieschild]

38. They're taking us back to the Middle Ages

where they're the Lords of the Manor and we're the serfs

[lostnfound]

39. I believe in balance. But it does really annoy me that...

in 16 years of schooling never once was it suggested that democracy in any way might EVER conflict with capitalism. Latin America ought to have been a case study in this conflict. When you ask the question, even educated people are often dumbfounded at the idea. "What? How can there be a conflict??"

[ulysses]

40. oh hell.

More folks that you'd like to realize think democracy and capitalism are the same thing.

[lostnfound]

41. So true and quite depressing.

Where to even start when talking to someone who has so little facts in their head.

[Jamison]

43. I hope that before I die...

that I see the death of capitalism and the re-birth of communism.

[rman]

44. communism is the other extreme

I'd rather see a return to a mixed market economy where capitalism is properly regulated, and where "the commons" are publicly owned.

Besides, there never has been any actual communism - Lenin and Trotsky were trying to establish a transition to communism when Stalin the tyrant took over.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. I'm afraid I'm not going to reply in depth

I contemplated writing either a serious or an abusive rebuttal, but decided that it wasn't worth it; I do however think that it's worth my while posting to reassure anyone reading this thread and worrying that the OP's views are not those of most left-wingers, either in the US or elsewhere, and so *please* don't let them discourage you from supporting or voting for left wing politicians.

[meganmonkey]

46. LOL, I wasn't aware we actually had a "left-wing" here in the US

I guess it's all relative, really, when someone like Lieberman can call himself a Democrat and Hillary is called "left-wing" by the press.

But as for 'elsewhere', I would say they sure do see things that way. Look at the left-wing gov'ts rising in South America right now, Hugo Chavez being the prime example, and tell me he wouldn't largely agree with this?

I think your definition of 'left-wing' is very limited.

Peace.

[Neil Lisst]

48. Capitalism isn't new. It's been the way of the world millennia

The rich and powerful have always used same to further their wealth and power, including the auspices of government. None of this is new. What is new is our concept of checks and balances, and of representative democracy. We now expect some government control of the excesses of capitalism, but excess will always be out in front of control.

Capitalism has problems, but it's better than whatever is in second place. It's not just the wealthy, it's everyone who owns a business.

[donkeyotay]

49. Capitalism gone bad. The Contract on America rewrote history

I BELIEEVES in the market. Market - God - Republicans = Good. Regulation - Liberals = Bad. Simple. Brightly simple world we've been living in and we are reaping what the Gingrich revolution sowed. Pay to play democracy sucks. Unregulated capitalism is social Darwinism. Under this philosophy there should be no state because there is no common good. Every man for himself.

[Odin2005]

50. There are some misconceptions here.

Capitalism does not mean free market and socialist does not mean a planned economy, that is Cold War propaganda. The US diring WW2 was capitalist with a planned economy, an economy based on co-ops would be a socialist free market economy. Capitalism and socialism refer to who controls the means of production, free market and planned economy refer to how goods and services are distrubuted. Countries like Sweden are still fundimentally capitalist.

[happydreams]

51. Capitalism became an ideal foisted upon the public

to justify a ruthless expansionist policy that monopoly capitalists in the late 19th century saw as the only way to save their way of life. It is not laizze faire and hasn't been for close to two centuries. It has degenerated into fascism in the US because the regulatory role of the governemnt has been throroughly corrupted.