Do you believe it's still POSSIBLE to regulate capitalism?

[Ken Burch]

One of the lessons we may have learned with the HCR situation is that corporate power may now have placed itself ABOVE government. If this is the case, it raises real questions about the idea that we can control its excesses and its barbarism through mere regulation.

Which begs the question: If this IS the case, should we even BOTHER to try to regulate it? Should we not, instead, move on directly to getting rid of it and building an economic model that CAN be shaped to reflect humane, democratic values?

Is the notion of "regulating" capitalism something we should still bother with?

[white_wolf]

1. I voted yes

but I am a moderate socialist in the vein of the Netherlands and Sweden and other European nations so maybe I am supporting the total overthrow of capitalism?

[Donnachaidh]

2. when you have the leader of your country making back room deals

with corporations, I don't see how, unless we totally clean house of the corporacrats.

[Captain Hilts]

4. That was VERY disappointing. nt

[Captain Hilts]

3. The strength of capitalism lies in its versatility and flexibility. nt

[babylonsister]

5. Yawn. Google what the insurers lost in this, and then spew. You are

tiresome to the extreme. While you're at it, google the benefits of the HCR. This is flamebait in the extreme. As usual.

[Ken Burch]

7. Nothing that leads to mandatory insurance purchases can BE a loss to the insurers

I was making a larger point. The corporations rolled the people on this, and it means that anything that leaves them in place will ALWAYS lead to them rolling the rest of us. Why would you even pretend otherwise?

And why are you taking this as an attack on anyone in politics when the real issue is that our political leaders are now subordinate to the corporocrats.

This was NOT an Obama-bashing thread, and you're tone here is inappropriate.

[babylonsister]

10. Because there is no bill yet? You just keep jamming and jamming, and

you're trashing me?

Bye. And your tone is, as usual, inappropriate. But you know that, which is why you post them.

[Ken Burch]

14. We already know that nothing not in the Senate bill will be added

in the final bill.

Or at least, with the House caving on the public option, nothing that can matter. There's nothing short of that would be of any value.

You attacked me. I didn't do anything but question whether corporations can be made to even slightly compromise under the current political structure.

[boston bean]

30. your suppose to close your eyes and plug your ears until they come up with a plan

that totally fucks you over and your voice is mute. Then and only then can you form an opinion.

[treestar]

33. Of course it can. that's why they are against it

They take customers they didn't want, including those with pre-existing conditions.

They take the risk of paying out claims, on people who have not been covered, and thus likely have lurking conditions. That they would not have had to cover before.

[Ken Burch]

15. I wasn't spewing. I was making a dispassionate comment.

To fight passionately for what's left in HRC is to surrender. It's enough to grudgingly accept it. You can't fight hard for it and still BE a progressive.

[JVS]

6. Destroy and replace, yes. Regulate, no.

[JHB]

52. How and with what?

If you can't say, then all you're giving is a slogan.

[JVS]

53. The good time tested Marxist-Leninist way

Create socialism by disenfranchising capitalists. True democracy can only exist after we've eradicated the class enemy. Until then, we'll probably have to deal with a suboptimal system of representation. But it is worth it in order to eradicate the bourgeoisie as a class, because any "democratic" system we set up will be subverted and perverted to serve their interests as long as we tolerate their presence.

[JHB]

54. Did you forget a "sarcasm" tag or something?

Name a single "time tested" government claiming to be Marxist-Leninist that qualifies as "good".

[DJ13]

8. Possible yes, but the corruption of our government needs fixing first

[Chulanowa]

9. it's very possible to regulate capitalism. We did it for generations

ANd all socialism is is highly regulated capitalism - a fact a lot of people especially on the right can't seem to figure out.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. Correct answer

So then, what we should do is to restore every last reform passed by FDR (or in other words, pretty much scrap everything after 1980) and go back to what worked.

Problem is that the disease is so embedded in the system now. It's in all three branches of government, and purging the infection from the judicial branch may be the hardest of all. Chimpy appointed John Roberts for a reason, and it sure as fuck wasn't years of judicial experience (as he never even saw the back side of ANY judge's bench until 2002)

The "Citizens United" case currently before the Roberts court will more than likely end up with the usual 5 Bush Crime Family appointed assclowns voting in favor of it, and will pretty much guarantee corporations the "right" to spend any amount of money they want to steal elections and fill the government with more and more corporatist swine.

Dennis Kucinich had 5 primary opponents in his Congressional district in 2008, and with all the hatred he gets from the party establishment, I expect it will be as bad or worse for him next time. Ted Kennedy's seat will not go to a true Democrat in the upcoming "special" election, the "best" they can hope for is a DLC'er who thinks RomneyCare is just swell.

It's a goddamn losing battle and people need to goddamn wake up before its lost for good.

[paulsby]

17. lol. what rubbish

socialism is not highly regulated capitalism. i've never heard anything more ridiculous.

and please, do not confuse social democracy a la sweden with SOCIALISM. they are not the same thing.

[Ken Burch]

20. proper socialism has never actually been constructed anywhere

It would require, not only collective ownership(state or otherwise)but democratic control of resources and democratic management of the economy and of enterprises within the economy.

[paulsby]

25. proper socialism doesn't work

apologists for socialism make this claim, but the reality is that every time socialism is TRIED, it devolves into authoritarian nightmare

[Chulanowa]

26. Paulsby, do you ever know what you're talking about?

You're thinking of communism. Communism is a different critter from socialism.

[paulsby]

29. no,i am thinking of socialism

show me a successful socialist society.

(and don't start with sweden. sweden has well over 50% of its production in private hands, and allows for numerous capitalist transactions to take place)

[Black-Eyed Susan]

41. Show me

A government/movement/society when it attempts to veer towards socialism that hasn't been aggressively attacked/assassinated/massacred/leveraged etc. by the capitalist infiltrators/military/thugs/COINTELPRO-types/ and on and on and on...

Show me one.

[Ken Burch]

44. He can't. He won't. And the class that employs him pays him to ignore truths like that.

n/t.

[Chulanowa]

48. That's what socialism is, you dingbat

Seriously, look up the goddamned word, will you? It won't kill you.

[Ken Burch]

36. paulsby just posts what he's paid to post.

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

27. Leninism is what failed

What we learned was that attempts to build socialism without political and economic democracy(that is, control of decisions rather than mere ownership in name on the part of thowe who create the wealth)is what's doomed to failure.

In the situations where democratic decision making on economic matters and question has been used(such as the Mondragon Cooperatives in Spain)it's actually worked quite well.

[sharesunited]

11. Regulate from within. Own and vote corporate shares and use public interest voting trusts.

[baldguy]

12. It has to be, otherwise it stops being capitalism.

[Jamastiene]

13. Other/Maybe...BUT

The thing is, if we do put regulations in place, the next more right wing administration that takes over, will weaken the regulations or remove them entirely.

That leaves us to start from scratch again when we get in power again.

Until we can figure out a way to reverse that trend and enact legislation that stays in place x number of years, minimum, it really doesn't seem to me we can regulate it for very long at the time.

Maybe there should be review boards to see which regulations have had positive outcomes for both the industry affected and the public and which have not, the adjust the regulations of each sector of industry accordingly. That might work, to some degree.

[1]

18. yes. by all means let's "move on directly to getting rid of it." and then tomorrow...

we'll solve that pesky climate change issue.

this shit is simple...

[Ken Burch]

19. I didn't SAY it was simple

I was simply wondering if we've reached a situation in which the market can no longer be made to honor humane values.

No reason for that thought to offend you.

[1]

22. not offended, bud. but as sun tzu sez (paraphrasing) you gots to know your enemy....

first, the motherfucking market has never, ever, honored humane values. never, ever. that idea is bullshit from the get-go.

and if they are strong enough to override the will of the people? strong enough to make our representatives dance like they do? that is some pretty fucking powerful strong. doing away with that will be an unbelievable undertaking. beyond what you can possibly conceive of. huge.



but then, anything *is* possible. you got any ideas?

[jdp349]

21. I voted "resistance is futile" because a robocracy is our only hope.

[Oregone]

23. Why would you want to regulate it and prolong its existence? Its a scourge to humanity

Depriving the workers the ability to profit from the fruit of their labor isn't right, no matter how many rules you make for the shareholders and execs to follow. You are still fucking workers.

[Ken Burch]

24. It wasn't me making the argument that it's enough to regulate it

The point of the OP was to question whether it was even possible.

I fully agree with what you're saying here.

[SOS]

28. Capitalism maybe

But our current system of state monopoly capitalism? No.
Wall Street and the Senate have fused into one entity.

[Jakes Progress]

31. Oh, it's regulated.

But the regulations work against the public and limit their options and actions, not those of the corporations.

[Ken Burch]

35. OK...THAT kind of regulation DOES still exist.

still...

[treestar]

32. If corporate power were really above government, there would be no

regulation.

[Ken Burch]

34. These days, for all practical purposes, there isn't

The environmental laws are basically gone. So are any laws protecting union workers(and thus ANY workers). Every regulation that survives is too trivial to be of any value.

[Unvanguard]

37. Not as an ultimate solution, but yes as a substantial improvement over the alternative.

Not sure how that fits into your poll.

Capitalist power relations are the root problem, and they will not be addressed on a systematic or fundamental level until capitalism itself is addressed, but regulations can do a lot of good nonetheless.

[xchrom]

38. Regulate -- and start with the financials. Nt

[TheKentuckian]

39. I said yes. In this HCR situation it should be crystal clear they aren't even trying

Toothless regulation with illogical loopholes along with the corporate creature Nelson demanding an anti-trust exemption be left in place and enshrined into the effort.

The OP asks two distinct questions: 1. Is it possible? and 2. Is it worth bothering with? Which is a horse of a different color and the answer is probably not but I can't imagine how we get there without some transition without bloody revolution.

[Odin2005]

40. Capitalism itself is the problem. Wealth is power.

[leftstreet]

42. NO. Capitalism isn't IN crisis, Capitalism IS the crisis

[Ken Burch]

43. There's an interesting historic allusion in the poster on the bottom of your post

It's actually a parody of an infamously deceptive campaign image the British firm of Saatchi & Saatchi created for the British Conservative Party in the run-up to the 1979 general election(the one that inflicted Margaret Thatcher on that country, and gave it the economic policies it still suffers under, policies left unchanged by the allegedly "Labour" government that's been in power since 1997).

Here is the original poster:



Looks like the unemployed lined up for the dole, right?

It wasn't.

It was the EMPLOYEES of Saatchi & Saatchi, who'd been ordered to stand in a "snake line" in the company car park(parking lot)and who hadn't been told why they were doing this.

Even at the worst of the late 1970's recession, Britain under the Labour government never had unemployment lines like that.

The fradulent image essentially "sealed the deal" for the Tories, who then put many, many MORE Britons out of work for several years in the name of a forced transfer of wealth from the workers to the rich.

The poster above is a "repurposing" and subversion of the original image. Thought people here would be interested to know that.

[leftstreet]

45. !!

Interesting! I didn't know that.

Thanks!

[Ken Burch]

46. You're welcome.

These things need to be passed on.

[area51]

47. I voted "yes",

but our government, whether "D" or "R", is far too corrupt to ever want to.

[wuushew]

49. kick

:kick:

[spanone]

50. not with our current pay for play congress

[seabeyond]

51. if we the people and the govt demanded it, knowing that it is the health of our nation

yes, i think the tide can shift. this cycle would not be the first time.