Is It Inevitable that Unbridled Capitalism will Consume Itself and Come to an End?

[Wiley50]

Malloy just said something to that effect
and said that it's possible that the elite has seen it coming
and that's why they have been "looting the ship" and stealing anything not nailed down.

and it made me remember that I've heard that kind of talk around these parts

I'm just a goodhearted old hippie and have strong socialist proclivities
but I kinda play it by ear (heart)
and haven't spent a lot of time reading Marx or learning the theory of the thing.

So, can someone edumacate me a bit?

[aspergris]

1. No

We hear the same naysaying crap every single time this kind of stuff happens.

And the cry is "it's different this time"

and it's not.

This a nasty bear, but it is not the end.

Capitalism will survive.

Fwiw, we don't have "unbridled capitalism". We are in many respects less regulated than many european countries
though

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. Something tells me...

That some heavy-duty rebridling is on its way. I get the sense that the party's over and it's just a matter of time and governmental inertia.

[Wiley50]

3. well, if we don't have it yet, it's not because the Free Market Mouseketeers haven't been trying.

man, since St Ronnie I have seen nothing but Greed, Greed, and more Greed
in my once happy homeland.

And, without winning the Greed Game, the Homeland has not much Security anymore.

Sometimes I think they are trying to liquidate the "Losers" too

in fact, I'm having real trouble surviving anymore

[aspergris]

6. greed is nothing new

See: the Great Tulip Bulb Swindle, or the market crash of 1929.

1929 was WAY more parabolic than this bubble.

Memory is short in the markets

[Political Heretic]

9. I believe that the historical progression of American capitalism doesn't support this

In my opinion, it seems that you can trace the continuing trajectory of american capitalism toward its own collapse. Right now we're in what certain critical theorists term late-capitalism or late-late-capitalism which has some very distinct features.

It has always been true that the more wealth is consolidated at the top, and the more the disparity between richest and poorest increases - in any system - the more likely it is that the system will fail. It simply can't sustain itself forever.

I also disagree with you that we don't have "unbridled" capitalism. While there are "rules" to our capitalist system, it has been tilted overwhelmingly in favor of excess over sustainability in the last century. When someone uses the word "unbridled" what I think they mean (certainly what I mean) is american capitalism is a capitalism gone wild, or out of control. And when I say "out of control" I mean that it is not sustainable, and that the focus of those with resources and power is on immediate gratification at the sacrifice of sustainability - environmentally, socially, even economically when considering the whole of America.

It is "plunder capitalism" and that kind of partisitic "taking" without "replenishing" can never last forever.

[Wiley50]

13. That's what I'm seeing too

and no mater how many flag pins they wear on their lapel
or how furiously they wave the flag
it's anything but truly patriotic

unless your country is some defense contractor you own a part of

[jobycom]

15. But

plunder capitalism reaches a limit where it can no longer sustain its plunder, and stops. If there are other capitalist forces at work, as there are, they can take over when the plunderers collapse. Unbridled capitalism means no one can put a stop to the abuse. We have the ability, as capitalism begins to falter, to marshall resources through government to redirect the economy. New forms of energy, different industries, even recycling programs which can make the wastes of plunder capitalism into a new industry and resource.

To me, collapse means the Dark Ages. We may wind up in the Great Depression again (though I doubt it this time), but we aren't ready for the Dark Ages, by a long shot.

One of the best and worst features of democracy is that people vote their pocketbooks. It leads to selfish misspending when the economy is booming, but it leads to complete changes of direction when the economy is failing. Our government is often overpowered by corporate wealth, but is still has the tools available to defeat it. Usually the people running the government lack the will, not the means. Recession makes people vote in leaders with that will, while at the same time limiting corporate power by chewing up its wealth.

But things can get ugly before they get better.

[spag68]

12. less regulated

leads to unbridled capitalism. So much for the standard double talk when blue collar people challenge the uber wealthy and their motives. I'm a proud marxist and I believe that workers are entitled to a fair share of any company's profits. After all without the input of labor, how could you get a 400 million retirement bonus like the six chinned fat bastard from enron? Please wake up, those european for all you may Criticize them have education for all, cradle to grave health care and don't hear them being called whiners by a capitalist pig. Assholes that abound in rethuglican country don't deserve our sympathy, they deserve the lock-up in our best prisons.

[Bob Dobbs]

19. Yes.

Constant growth is unsustainable in a finite environment.

[BlueJac]

4. no....

We are toast

[Selatius]

5. It's a bad situation out there. It'll compare favorably to the 1970s stagflation. But...

If there is a war with Iran, the stagflation will turn much worse with oil shortages rippling through the world economy. If oil tankers refuse to traverse the Hormuz Strait, dominated by Iranian shores to its north, because of fears of being sunk by Russian-made Sunburn missiles sold to Iran, then that will reflect pretty quickly in oil prices and then gas prices.

People think gas prices are pretty high now. They would get schooled in the new definition of high prices during the onset of a major Middle East conflict.

[malaise]

7. Inherent in everything is its own contradictions

Marx and dialectics.

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/dd_ch01.php

[MannyGoldstein]

8. It Does, Once A Generation

Then there's a rebirth of carefully-controlled Capitalism. Then we get stupid/forgetful, and get rid of the controls. Then BANGCRASH, and then another rebirth.

Depending on your context, it's either Shiva's cosmic dance, or the "Same as it ever was" from Rolling Rock bottles.

Om.

[Wiley50]

11. have to admit I'm more familiar with the Rolling Rock bottles

and the I Ching hexagram "Return"

----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
----- -----
------------

RETURN

[jobycom]

16. Good explanation!

[jobycom]

10. Unbridled capitalism leads to feudalism.

where all government functions are controlled by private interests. Including basics like coining money.

But we aren't close to that. Skeptics have been predicting capitalism's downfall since the dawn of capitalistic thought. The thing is, capitalism consumes itself to the point where it is too weak to fight off the will of the people (meaning, government), and government regulates capitalism to take away its worst abuses, and it makes a comeback under tighter control.

Unbridled capitalism, which we still don't have, stifles competition in the way that one person destroys all others in Monopoly. Over time, if not regulated, a couple of people or corporations gobble up everything, and then they are stronger than the government. That was one part of the problem in the Roman Empire. We see that now a little with the oil companies, and the telecoms, for instance. But once they become the master, they undercut the value of money, by undervaluing labor (which is all money really is), and then they suffer, too. If unbridled, they try to reclaim their wealth not by paying labor, thus stimulating the economy from the bottom, but by using resources more destructively--over-farming cleared lands instead of clearing more lands, for instance.

So they use up their resources, enslave labor, and destroy wealth, and government is too weak by then to stop them, since government is only paid by taxes, and there isn't enough wealth to pay them.

In our system, though, once corporations get too powerful, they began to lose power as the economy sags, and democracy takes over, putting politicians into place to re-regulate capitalism. Taxation, anti-trust laws, consumer protection laws--all the stuff Republicans hate and fail to understand. If powerful enough, government revalues labor through wealth redistribution programs like Social Security, Welfare, and even works programs. Think FDR, building America by using taxes to put the unemployed to work and stimulate the economy. More money circulates, our infrastructure is improved, and corporations are curtailed. They can be curtailed too much, and damage the economy by over-regulation. But that's not a problem these days. Money tends to take care of itself in that regard.

Strong socialist proclivities injected into a well-regulated capitalist system is the best of all worlds. Capitalism is the best system ever devised (maybe because it most closely follows natural economic laws of supply and demand) at creating wealth and allocating resources effectively, and it's the worst, least sustainable system ever devised for maintaining long-term economic health and preserving resources. Proper management can limit its shortcomings and take advantage of its strengths. Nothing will ever make it all perfect, of course--although I'm open to trying any good ideas anyone comes up with for that.

My theory, anyway.

[Selatius]

17. The system almost failed in the 1930s. They hatched a plot to overthrow FDR and institute fascism.

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

[jobycom]

18. Almost is right.

I deleted a paragraph before posting that, where I was going to point out just what FDR accomplished. The Depression split the world between fascism and socialism, and both forces were competing in America. I don't mean the Nazi human abuses of fascism, just the economic policies (which lead to the abuses, but that's another topic). Unlike most of the rest of the world, FDR found a middle path, introducing a lot of socialism to help people and just enough fascism (economically) to stimulate industry. By playing to both sides, he angered the edges, but kept the middle from falling for either extreme.

That coup failed because there was not enough support for it. Loyalty to the country, and the lack of a revolutionary base to tap into, defeated the coup. The plotters had to seek allies where they could, and at least one of those "allies" wanted nothing to do with them. In a more revolutionary time, it might have worked, as in Russia and Germany.

Close call. FDR's middle ground policy may have tipped the scales. Or maybe Americans just felt enough in control of their government, just barely, to reject the idea of revolution.

[rug]

14. Yes. Every system has ended and evolved into something else.

[Firespirit]

20. We don't have pure capitalism... we have fascism

"Pure" capitalism would be based on product or service quality driving the price engine, and if any business, even a megacorp, began producing shit products, then a competitor would be able to seize the opportunity. I think the cycle goes something like: Good product --> successful company --> industry leader --> getting lazy while on top --> overcharging --> slipping in quality --> rise of another company. Often this would coincide with economic crashes and recessions after the decline of one megacorp began.

We, however, have the government stepping in at the "megacorp begins to suck" stages and bailing these companies out, but providing NO initiative for them to clean up their act OR make their crap more affordable, either by wage increases or price cuts. The government seems to recognize that the natural cycle of pure capitalism is dangerous, but their idea of how to break the cycle is even worse. Heaven forbid that the corporations should be made to act differently. Let the Third Estate deal with their bad behavior.

[ToeBot]

21. Is it possible that 'resources' can be both scarce and inexhaustible?

It's a necessary condition for capitalism to indefinitely continue as it has . The system will break, eventually.