I completely give up on every last vestige of capitalism - you tell me why I shouldn't

[Taverner]

Capitalism has failed

Fuck it, its dead son

[villager]

1. It's the whole people-and-the-planet are-expendable thing that gets me...

n/t

[Ishoutandscream2]

41. +1

[Kievan Rus]

69. In no-holds barred capitalism like what we have, only the top 1% matter

[Lost4words]

96. +1 , I'm there!

[PDJane]

2. I agree with you.

Stick a fork in it.

[democrat2000]

3. I agree with you... we need democracy, not capitalist oligarchy

x1000

[readmoreoften]

4. Something about invisible hands, a slippery slope about Stalin, then "this isn't capitalism"

this is "corporatism", a bit of nostalgia about 19th century shopkeepers, liberty, dreams, chutzpah; then I'd move onto buzzwords like "innovation", despite the fact that most "innovation" occurs at the (often public) university level. I should add some anti-democratic weirdness about "it's been tried", "people are lazy", "no one would work if they weren't facing starvation."

How's that for a start? I should probably finish with equating capitalism with democracy, even though the system began to take form under kings and emperors.

[LBJDemocrat]

5. Me too.

It's had its chance, and it's failed.

[Taverner]

10. Yes it has

And LBJ would have said so long ago - despite my animosity towards him

He was a smart guy

[Birthmark]

6. Do you throw out a screwdriver...

...when you stab yourself because you used it as a prybar? Of course not! Capitalism is a fine economic tool when used properly. Like any tool, when it is used exclusively and for jobs for which it's unsuited bad things will happen. Additionally, like all tools some common sense safety rules should be observed when using capitalism.

Capitalism is neither good nor bad.

[readmoreoften]

20. I'd throw out a screwdriver if it was shaped like a chainsaw. /nt

[Birthmark]

37. Why wouldn't you just use it as a chainsaw?

[Mika]

86. Because some corporation removed the safety features to make an extra buck for the stockholders. n/t

[BootinUp]

44. lol. Modified capitalism worked reasonably ok

for awhile until Americans stopped reading the paper and elected Reagan, and there is that problem we have with overusing fossil fuels.

[socialist_n_TN]

29. Bullshit..................

Capitalism is based on human greed and unregulated capitalism is unregulated greed. Name ONE religion (other than the RELIGION of capitalism) that says greed is good.

ANY company that's too big to fail is just the right size to nationalize.

[Birthmark]

42. "...unregulated capitalism is unregulated greed"

Correct. Hence my comment about using proper safety measures, in this case regulation.

With such regulation in place, capitalism becomes a very useful tool. Without it...not so much. It becomes a kind of economic cannibalism.

[Sherman A1]

81. The key word here being

"unregulated" . We still have a regulated system in any event, not a properly regulated on in my opinion, but nevertheless one that is still regulated. So while I agree that one that is unregulated is all about greed, I don't think the term "Bull......" applies.

[Sherman A1]

36. Precisely

Just as the computers we use to type our messages on this discussion board, Capitalism is a tool and can be used for good or evil purposes. It is nothing more than a tool.

[Birthmark]

46. I don't know why...

...so many people have a hard time with that concept. It seems obvious.

[Sherman A1]

59. I do believe that we should regulate corporations

(and their CEO's) pretty much into the dirt and take away corporate personhood. But, that is another discussion for another time.

[Birthmark]

60. Absolutely!

There should be close regulation on corporations. And "personhood" should be relegated to the scrap heap of history.

Additionally, there should be a guaranteed Minimum Income to all Americans, and a Maximum Wage based on some reasonable multiple of the Minimum Wage.

I think that those taken together would quickly rebuild our Middle Class --which is essential for self-governance.

[Sherman A1]

80. Agreed

I am not sure on the minimum income part (just can't wrap my head around it at this early hour... no coffee yet as it's still brewing), but the maximum for CEO's and the elites based upon a multiple of what their lowest paid worker makes is more than reasonable. We need to shift the benefits of our continually increasing productivity to a greater number of workers who will in turn help to boost the overall economy. The way we do things now is just beyond stupid.

:fistbump:

(must now go find......:donut:)

check out this thread.....http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x538310

[Odin2005]

72. Don't confuse the market and free enterprise with Capitalism.

A market economy and entrepreneurship existed before Capitalism and will exist after it. Capitalism and Socialism refers to who owns the means of production, NOT how goods and services are distributed.

[Birthmark]

83. Okay, I'll try not to do that.

[socialist_n_TN]

90. Good point................

And I think that workers should own the means of production. Or at the VERY least co-own it as in a hybrid system.

[Odin2005]

107. I'm a big supporter of a market economy based on co-ops.

The claimed "benefits" of Capitalism have actually nothing to do with Capitalism and everything to do with competition and entrepreneurship, and those are perfectly compatible with co-ops. Small business owners work their asses off along with their employees so small, family-owned businesses with 5 or 10 hired employees are themselves already far more similar to co-ops sociologically than to large corporations.

[laughingliberal]

109. I think they'v more than shown they will not properly care for their tools.

Time to get the fire and sharp objects away from them.

[Greyhound]

7. Can't help you except to say that what we have is not capitalism.

But that is what people call it, so I guess maybe it is.

Just one of the many benefits to the concerted effort to make Americans dumb enough to eat the shit they're fed. Nobody knows what words mean anymore.

Adams and Marx both wrote entire books defining their systems, both of which have been reduced to a single, monosyllabic, sentences which are then used as definitions to discount them.

[readmoreoften]

9. Nope. This is capitalism.

Capitalism means things operate according to the "morally neutral" flow of capital, which comes from wealth extracted from the difference between the cost of an item and the pay of the workers involved in creating the components of said item. Marx and Smith AGREED on this. Smith said that it was in the worker's interest to create profit for the owning class as it contributed to the overall wealth of the nation. Marx called bullshit on this. He saw a new class of exploiters gaining power over the old class of exploiters. He predicted that American "democracy" would be impossible, because eventually the nation would turn into a plutonomy with the wealthy exploiters owning the government. Sounds about right to me.

[Catherina]

18. What she said

:yourock:

[Greyhound]

26. But both capitalism and communism rest upon a social foundation

of securing necessities for all, a social baseline. In capitalism, this fundamental security allows for the risk-taking that entrepreneurship requires, IOW a system of commerce based on need and desire with the freedom to decline that this current system of economic servitude denies. In such an environment exploitation is simply not possible as there is no necessity or force to compel the exploited to participate.

When you wrote "Smith said that it was in the worker's interest to create profit for the owning class as it contributed to the overall wealth of the nation", you left off the last part, that being that the worker shares in the profits generated by their efforts in order to continue the generation of profit. That's where the system was perverted, by removing the social baseline and introducing an unlimited supply of competing, and powerless, labor, we arrive at Marx's predicted conclusion, but it's not capitalism that does this, it is fascism and that's the closest definition of what we've had here since the 1830's or so.

America is no more a capitalist nation than Russia was communist.

[unblock]

40. wrong. would you still call it capitalism if corporations were just plain stealing money?

actual capitalism requires regulation, the most basic of which is that companies can only gain money by engaging in mutually voluntary trade. no one can just plain steal money. that's not at all controversial.

where you do get more (political) controversy is just how much fraud or coersion can companies get away with before it's criminal? how much damage can they cause to people who didn't participate in voluntary trade before they're liable?

to the extent that corporation are in a position to extract unearned wealth through deception or fraud or by imposing uncompensated costs and risks on third parties not related to the voluntary trade (e.g., fishermen in the gulf), THEN WHAT YOU HAVE IS NOT CAPITALISM, IT IS SIMPLY THEFT.

bp has been able to extract unreasonable profits at least in part by imposing huge risks (and now hard costs) on millions of businesses and individuals and consumers without paying for them (at least not in advance, and most assuredly whatever they pay afterwards won't be a fraction of the actual damage).


if a football player gets tackled, then gets up and keeps running anyway and claims a touchdown, and hands a few bucks to the official to agree, they can call it football if they like, BUT IT'S NOT.

[socialist_n_TN]

63. But every proponent of capitalism

says that a capitalist system doesn't work like it's supposed to with regulation. Hence if it's not deregulated, it's not "true" capitalism.

[unblock]

66. nonsense. you're listening to politicians with an agenda, not economists who understand capitalism.

politicians who want to cut regulation abuse many economic concepts, capitalism among them, in order to gain credibility for their discredited ideas that are inspired more by lobbyist campaign contributions than by substantive philosophy or economic reality.

what they push is a laissez-faire system, which is essentially to let companies do whatever they can get away with. that system was largely discredited over a century ago, and thoroughly consigned to the trashbin of history by hoover.

until reagan and his evil minions dusted it off, that is.


in any event, it's not capitalism without proper competition and without marketplace participants playing by reasonable rules.

[socialist_n_TN]

89. Capitalism is what it's proponents

SAY it is. I don't CARE what economists say it is because what economists say it is is NOT what's going to be adopted by policymakers.

[Scuba]

91. They are just plain stealing money.

[fascisthunter]

49. this is a form of fascism

government and corporation have just about become one in the same. When Wall Street wants something, it gets done. And that my friends is why this country is slipping into an oily abyss.

[jtuck004]

8. I can't decide if the problem is capitalism or the greedy, avaricious

people who take advantage of it. In a combination with democracy it created one of the most powerful nations in the world (think of what France or Denmark would have been like without it). We do have problems - half of all kids have to use food stamps to eat sometime during the year. But they do have food stamps - many other places have nothing. We have people losing their homes and moving to shelters and apartments. Other countries distinguish their better places to live by how much cardboard and tarpaper they can scrounge. The "poor" don't even have that.

Maybe it's not the system. Maybe it's the lack of people who won't (or can't?) become intimately involved with governing?

[readmoreoften]

12. Capitalism operates on creating profits from suppressing the value of labor.

<"Maybe it's not the system. Maybe it's the lack of people who won't (or can't?) become intimately involved with governing?">

It's a systemic character of capitalism that without checks and balances those who profit off the labor of others (capitalists) will run the government for their own benefit. This becomes a Catch-22. We could have a democracy, if the capitalists didn't subvert it for their own uses--and we could stop the capitalists from subverting the system if only we had a democracy. Having "good capitalists" who don't subvert the system is not a realistic option.

[William Z. Foster]

57. you are talking to a brick wall

People "believe" that the word "means" something else, and any attempts at rational discourse about it will lead them to assume that you are pushing some doctrine or something, and they are thoroughly trained to then attack anyone who questions capitalism.

Decades and decades of relentless propaganda - not so much to promote capitalism, but rather to so confuse people that they don't know up from down anymore, can no longer accurately perceive reality - has rendered almost every person in the country completely unable to think critically about this, and since it is capitalism that is on the verge of destroying the human race, and since it is an omnipresent force in every aspect of our lives, that means that people are to one degree or another unable to think critically about anything.

It is the oddest thing. As we watch this horror show unfold, as it becomes more and more clear that capitalism is and always will "eat its own," right here at the heart of it all - where we could really do some good - you cannot drag people kicking and screaming to have a calm rational discussion about the subject.

Anyone taking a clear view and a firm stand about this is immediately seen as "one of them" - commie-stalin-mao-polpot-chavez-castro-whatever - and since we can't have THAT, then not only must we accept things the way they are and go meekly to the slaughter, all the time debating the "true meanings" of words and comparing beliefs as the world burns all around us, but we are not even able to think or speak intelligently anymore.

There are two prerequisites necessary before any discussion about this can happen. First, we need to know what capitalism is. Not what the word means, or should mean, or might mean, not what people feel about it, not what people believe about it, but what it is. Secondly, we need to be willing to recognize and examine the deep and profound ways that our thinking has been corrupted and perverted on this subject by decades and decades of massive and relentless, sophisticated and pervasive propaganda.

People have been trained- it is as though on pain of death - not to question the sacred beliefs regarding capitalism. This has resulted in a people clinging to a faith-based, irrational doctrine that is far vaster and more pernicious than any fundamentalist religious dogma ever was or ever could be.

[jtuck004]

74. But dang, you mean we can't just go home and watch the Simpson's or something ;)

You are right, of course. But why people who could change this don't is beyond me. 'Cause it could be markedly different and better for most.

I wonder if history, which hasn't been made yet, will show we (as a perople) allowed it to continue, or blew up, or ...?

thanks

[jtuck004]

75. But dang, you mean we can't just go home and watch the Simpson's or something ;)

You are right, of course. But why people who could change this don't is beyond me. 'Cause it could be markedly different and better for most.

I wonder if history, which hasn't been made yet, will show we (as a perople) allowed it to continue, or blew up, or ...?

thanks

[WeDidIt]

11. Cool, can I have your stuff? n/t

[Taverner]

13. What's my 'stuff' is it the writings of Socialists?

Ones like, say, Ricardo - a Classical Economist who envisioned a path to socialism via capitalism without violence?

Just change hands already - it will happen eventually

[WeDidIt]

14. Pure socialism is dead.

It's as nutty as the pure libertarian view of unfettered capitalism.

[readmoreoften]

17. Well, there you go! You shur prooved yer poynt with facts didden ja?

Some Obama supporter days socialism is dead! So it must be!

[readmoreoften]

15. OOO. Knee-jerks, I love it. So how would getting rid of capitalists--who produce nothing--

lead to the OP having "less stuff"?

Oh, I know, you're going to make some snarky and uneducated comment about Stalinist bread lines (ignoring the material conditions of Russia, the poverty under the tsar, the fact that he killed off 50% of the males in WWI, the fact that everyone was starving already, the fact that the Bolsheviks had to fight 7 major nations as a fledging Republic, including the US; the fact that the city of Seattle was so disgusted by the US's attempt to overthrow the new workers' republic that it engaged in a massive general strike in 1919.

Capitalists make not one thing on this planet. Only workers make stuff. Capitalists invest in stuff with the profits they take from suppressing wages.

[socialist_n_TN]

33. FINALLY! Somebody who knows a little something

about Russian history in the early part of the last century.

[Soylent Brice]

84. hence their username. n/t

[Catherina]

47. I love you

:loveya:

[fascisthunter]

50. BAM, BAM, BAM!

nice shot

[proteus_lives]

79. "killed off 50% of the males in WWI"

Source please.

:eyes:

[laughingliberal]

110. +1000 nt

[villager]

21. Sorry! My stuff's been repossessed by the bank!

n/t

[fascisthunter]

51. hey, the kids need trust funds... I mean, they can't compete on a level playing field

ya know?! Gotta get the money from somewhere...

[laughingliberal]

111. Oooo Good Answer!! eom

[sabrina 1]

68. If you can get it back from the Wall St. Capitalists. Isn't that

what Capitalists do? They gamble with tax payers money and when they lose, they go back to get more because we can't let them fail.

They start wars and use our money and loved ones to go take other people's stuff.

Now, they want the Social Security fund to gamble with. That's our stuff. Do you plan to make excuses when they come for that, right after the November Election?

'Privatization' is 'Capitalism' which includes, private armies, mandated for-profit private health insurance, mandated 'savings accounts' invested in the Casino on Wall St. instead of SS protected from greedy, Wall St. criminals. Privatization of prisons, of schools, of everything. Except that the money that pays for all this 'capitalism' is not private money, it is the people's money.

You could have some of our 'stuff' is you needed it but your capitalist friends don't want 'social programs' to help the old and the needy, they want it all for themselves. And we are seeing the results of Capitalism every day, with each new catastrophy like the collapse of the economy and the wars, and the oil and insurance corps buying our government, making it impotent when a catastrophe happens. Because 'government' is bad.

Let the market take care of it!

[laughingliberal]

112. +1,000,000 nt

[HughMoran]

16. again?

[DevonRex]

19. Well, better stop buying stuff then.

I don't much care for it either, but I'm not finding anyplace that's not capitalistic to move to.

[readmoreoften]

22. Capitalism is global and can only be stopped by an international labor movement.

It can't be stopped by anti-consumerism. You have to "buy stuff." And if you don't, the rich will.

[Taverner]

102. Exactly. I always hate the canard people throw out "why don't you sleep on rocks then?"

The only way to stop it is an international (or at least a really powerful National) labor movement

Workers of the world unite isn't just a catchy slogan, you know.

[Oregone]

32. That makes no sense

You don't need capitalism to buy and sell stuff. You just need it to make sure 1% of the population benefits disproportionally from production

[DevonRex]

95. Of course you're right about that. It's just that it's impossible to

buy anything currently that doesn't benefit capitalism in some way - unless you live in a commune that's totally off the grid.

A regular person might be able to grow their own food and even barter that food for some necessities. But at some point, something has to be bought from capitalistic vendors. And then that person would be participating in and perpetuating capitalism.

We all do it because that's the system we live in, unfortunately. We've lost the ability to take care of ourselves. We can't even produce the tools needed to tend our own gardens, much less generate electricity or any of the other things we depend on.

Unless there's a huge economic upheaval that forces the US to change to a different system, we're left with doing what little we can in order to minimize our participation in capitalism. And it's not much when you get right down to it.

[Taverner]

103. Egggggggggsactly!

[laughingliberal]

113. Spot on!! :bowing: eom

[mynameiswhat]

23. what would you offer up instead?

[BootinUp]

24. Any system run poorly will give undesirable results. nt

[Oregone]

38. So will poorly designed systems

[bergie321]

25. Capitalism is fine

It's the people that are the problem.

[Oregone]

35. Just like nuclear weapons

Sitting in a vacuum without a human in sight, they are actually quite harmless

[Capn Sunshine]

27. so send me your money

Since you're renouncing capitalism and all...

[BootinUp]

28. lol. Why should you get it all?

I think we need a survival contest or something to determine the winner.

[readmoreoften]

30. Fiat currency and capitalism are two entirely different things.

Capitalism is a system where an owning class creates wealth by suppressing the wages of workers and reconstituting it in the form of capital. According to Adam Smith, this was a wonderful thing because it helped nations develop and was a "rising tide that raised all ships." Marx disagreed and said that the profit would not trickle down to society at large. Socialism is nothing more than workers owning the means of production and running a society on their own terms. It is not the search for some hippie commune lifestyle that renounces pleasure or progress.

[villager]

39. Pleasures were renounced on hippie communes!?

Man, what was I thinking I was seeing/hearing in my Berkeley/60's upbringing!?

[socialist_n_TN]

31. That would depend on your need

and my need. From each according to ability, to each according to his need.

[Oregone]

34. Capitalism already diverts most wealth workers produce to other people

Why would sending away more wealth help?

Having wealth is not incompatible with the alternatives of capitalism. In fact, its rather more compatible, being that the mechanisms of capitalism only allow a few to ever really increase their wealth.

[fascisthunter]

52. you really believe money can not exist outside of capitalism?

you can't be that uniformed...

[laughingliberal]

114. As another here said, "If you can get it back from the banks." As well as my house, car, dignity,

and everything else I worked my ass off for 27 years to try and have. Have at it.

[ShortnFiery]

43. You're spot on! Especially UN-REGULATED capitalism by the full ...

integration of government with the corporations, i.e., economic fascism.

[BootinUp]

45. What you really have a problem with is Laissez faire capitalism

and I join you in loud objections.

[truedelphi]

55. Or as Stieglitz himself called it,

"Ersatz capitalism"

[glitch]

58. I love him.

His willingness to use the word ersatz is only one of my reasons. :hi:

[unblock]

48. don't give up on capitalism until we actually try it.

whatever we have in place now, it's not capitalism.

capitalism is caveat emptor -- let the buyer beware.
what we have is futuo emptor -- let the buyer be fucked.

[Fire1]

53. You're late. n/t

[William Z. Foster]

54. the battle of the brand names

Terms are not defined, there is no context for the discussion, people have the words confused with the things the word connotate, and each person gets to have their own meanings, their own feelings, and their own theories. Wheee!! This is what the end of the world looks like.

"Grandpa, what were people doing back in those days when the world was collapsing?" "Well, they were arguing ideologies and theories - or actually they argued about certain words that once had meaning, but were by then merely brand names in people's minds."

"Well, I feel that capitalism means this."

"No, no it really means this!"

"I think it could be a good thing, but not the way it is being run now."

"Capitalism is just sales and trade and nice things like that. What's the problem?"

"Capitalism is inevitable, it is human nature. It has always been here and always will be here."

"Capitalism is OK, it is corporate capitalism that is bad!"

"Well if we had REAL capitalism things would be different."

"Oh yeah? Socialism is no better."

"We need regulated capitalism, Yeah that's it!"

Capitalism is destroying the planet and taking the human race down with it, we are facing the greatest crisis ever as a result, and right here in the heart of the empire, in the headquarters for global capitalism, otherwise intelligent people can not even see it, do not even know what it is. But they are "for" it, by God!

But people have been so heavily propagandized about the word that they are unable to think, say or hear this statement - Capitalism is destroying the planet and taking the human race down with it.

[socialist_n_TN]

61. You make a lot of sense Mr. Foster

The biggest problem with capitalism, IMO, in ANY of it's forms (and you touched on this briefly in your earlier post) is that it cannot allow itself to be regulated or else it's proponents don't think it's "True Capitalism". Ergo the ultimate goal of ANY form of capitalism is ALWAYS deregulation. But when you DO get deregulation, you get a system THAT CAN'T EVEN SAVE ITSELF FROM ITSELF, much less the world or the humans therein.

V.I. Lenin said that the capitalist would sell the rope used to hang them. Or something to that effect. It's a systemwide defect of that system. Profit matters over EVERYTHING and, more importantly, IMMEDIATE profit matters more than delayed profit. That's why I don't think that they can't even save themselves from themselves. ANY capitalist will take immediate profit over even MORE profit delayed. It's a sick system and I'm PAST ready to try something else.

[glitch]

56. The sickness goes much deeper than Capitalism.

We do have to think of a political-economy that doesn't glamorize psychopaths and fosters community without killing innovation. Although maybe innovation ain't all that anyway -- certainly not worth extinction.

Capitalism was a step up from Feudalism, which is what some capitalists would like to return to. Let's not go back to that! Authoritarians love both, we need to think of something truly Democratic. And I am NOT talking DLC Democratic.

Heard this guy on the radio the other day, most interesting on the history of money:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0609801724/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&qid=1274923616&sr=1-1&condition=used

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. As I lke to remind people CORPORATISM

has failed...

Adam Smith is doing somersaults in this grave. THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT YOU FOOLS!

[Downtown Hound]

64. Welcome to the club

I joined right about 2008.

[dem mba]

65. tell that to 1929

yawn.

Hey why you're at it, tell that to China and India. You really think Capitalism isn't helping these countries rise out of 3rd world status?

Or is your problem Capitalism in America? Even if we enter a 10 year recession, that's hardly the "end of capitalism". It will suck, but it's hardly the time to cry the 'End is Nigh!'

[girl gone mad]

77. China and India are two different animals.

One has strong central planning and a dictatorship, the other is a Democracy. In one nation, many people are seeing some improvements in their quality of life. In the other, poverty is absolutely rampant and very few are sharing in the success.

[philly_bob]

67. Feeblest possible defense: 1950's Eastern European Communism is worse.

Warlord anarchy like Somalia is worse.

How's that for a rousing defense of capitalism?

[Taverner]

101. We're getting more and more like Somalia every day

Quick! Where's my pirate hat?

[Starry Messenger]

70. I can't tell you any reasons either.

Although I'm not sure it "failed". It seems to have done what it was intended to do: make a lot of assholes very wealthy at the expense of the rest of us.

[Odin2005]

71. Meh, I gave up on it back in high school, along with Religion.

Stuck a fork in it, it's done.

We have only two choices now, Fascism (tyranny) or Socialism (freedom).

[jgraz]

73. The good news is that capitalism is dying on its own.

They bad news is it will probably take us with it.

[JeffersonChick]

76. Why? Because conservatives love it, they're ALWAYS right!

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Electric Monk]

82. Short sell it?

I've tried, with mixed results...

[chillspike]

85. Capitalism & Socialism both require dependence

We have to have a mixture of Capitalism and Socialism until we've acquired enough technology to create self-sufficient living models so people can lessen their dependence on government AND corporations both. Capitalism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin. Capitalism leaves people dependent on an employer, employee, a socially suffocating monetary system and, by its own practitioners admissions, pits the individual against the individual. Under Capitalism, it is in an individuals self-interest to see their economic competitor fail. When Capitalists say Capitalism is "natural" I take them at their word. As natural as in the jungle it is in the self-interest for a predator to triumph over its prey. In fact, Capitalism is the food chain, the law of survival in its most developed expression but still, at its heart, a zero sum game. Some win, some lose. Too bad. Is that what we want? Socialism leaves the individual dependent on the State and the State is dependent on and slowly bleeds dry industry. Both have their flaws and both have their values.



Developing alternative technologies and not being afraid to explore the advances in cloning will bring us closer to a self sufficient society. The Democrats want that kind of research more than the Republicans do...The Republicans only pay lip-service to alternative energy and science. They are full of it and will never explore or do anything new in these areas. They want to keep us stuck in a Capitalistic system where the individual who is unable to innovate in the marketplace is eternally the wage slave of big corporations. The world can do better than that! The Dems and Progressives will mandate exploration and development of these areas and THAT will bring us closer to a truly self-sufficient society. The less people must work for others to support themselves, the less social discontent there will be. And the corollary of that is (which die-hard capitalists might approve of), the more self-sufficient and independent technology enables people to become for their basic subsistence, the less they will rely on your (other people's) tax money to survive. So here's a shocker: if you want LESS taxes in the future, vote for a tree hugging liberal. Their advocacy of eco-friendly and sustainable living models will eventually bring your taxes down. Why would you want to fight that? I advocate what can best be described as a "self-sufficient" socialism that uses technology, the products of capitalism, to provide sustainable living models to humanity and thus eventually free up people from the dependence on each other.


But it has never been entirely about socialism...It's about combining the mutually flawed systems of Capitalism and Socialism until the technology and advancements are sufficient enough to free humanity from the dependent nature's of both.

[Blue_Tires]

87. ttt

[HughBeaumont]

88. I just wish we practiced it.

Back before the Reaganite Greedmongers took over in the mid-to-late 70s, it was working just fine.

Of course, that was when we still made shit here. Since there are pretty much no blue-collar opportunities anymore, we all have to go back to college . . . again and again and again, whether we need to or not. Everyone has a degree; therefore, no one stands out. Free enterprise & entrepreneurship is a crapshoot that you cannot even begin to pay bills with unless you hit the jackpot and people actually buy what you sell. The operative word being "unless".

That was also when workers had a say in how business was conducted. Now, it doesn't really matter how much education and experience you have - we're all at the mercy of the Bottom Line & QUARTERLY PROFIT MARGIN and the handful of vastly overpaid rulers who dictate their acceptability.

That was when wages actually kept pace with the cost of living. The top marginal tax burden was on the rich instead of the regressive model we have now. People had money to spend and buy the products they made. They were able to go on vacations. They didn't get thrown out on their ass if they got sick. Homes were a 2:1 steal. Dual incomes were a luxury, not an absolute must.

"Capitalism" when regulated, policed, backed by a progressive tax structure and boring, can operate fairly and serve as a reliable growth engine.

It's when it turns into a house-always-wins casino (that uses tax dollars to bail out it's failures) that it goes to crap.

Funny thing about that there Unbridled Corporatism . . . Socialism always seems to be available to bail it out when it crashes and burns so spectacularly.

"Free Marketz" at work, indeed . . .

[NorthCarolina]

92. The Oligarchy is in place and, barring a revolution, is here to stay.

Liberalism has been demonized so successfully that many Liberals are afraid to even identify as such, and instead feel it necessary to quietly call themselves progressives. Even then they likely only admit to the progressive label when amongst those they feel to be like minded. Liberalism is the way out, but even here on DU, anything that hints at Liberal ideas is immediately discredited, ridiculed and unrec'd by those who benefit from a continued conservative corporate-friendly agenda.

[socialist_n_TN]

94. LIberal identity USED to be denied

Not so much anymore. Although the word itself is more rarely used even by leftists today, it IS making something of a comeback and progressive/liberal IDEAS are DEFINITELY making a comeback. It's PARTIALLY the "Liberals" fault though. They allowed themselves to be characterized as wishy-washy and knee jerk. And at times they were. When I was a kid and developing my political identity, I didn't want to be considered "liberal". I was WAY farther left than that. I was not some mealy mouthed liberal, I was a Trotskyite. That implied, to me, taking a MUCH firmer stand than "liberals" did.

Speaking pragmatically, the word AND the ideas WERE demonized for decades and it's going to take a while (hopefully NOT decades, but a while) to get the word cleaned up. The ideas are already popular and that's the main thing because it's the ideas that become policies, not the words.

[Lost4words]

97. that about sums it up pretty well, IMO!

[Snarkoleptic]

93. A second awakening?

[Martin Eden]

98. First, you need to DEFINE CAPITALISM

If you define it as corporatism and authoritarianism, I agree with you.

However, I think it would be a huge mistake to put all owenership of business and all economic decisions in the hands of government.

I want the person who builds a better mousetrap to profit from his innovation and hard work. I want small businesses to have a fair chance and to reap some rewards when they succeed. Marxism sounds good in principle (from each according to ability; to each according to need) but it ignores basic human nature. People are ambitious and want to get ahead for themselves and their family, but why work hard when you don't reap the rewards of that effort?

The Soviet Union didn't collapse because Ronnie Raygun spent billions on Star Wars. It collapsed under the weight of a dysfunctional and uncompetitive economic system; from the the restraints it placed on individual freedom; and from its inherent corruption.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Put all the power in the hands of private corporations or in the hands of a giant government bureacrcacy that dictates the economy, the result is tyranny and oppression.

Our current system is dysfunctional and unjust not because of free enterprise but because the true elites of wealth and power exert tremendous influence over elected officials who cannot get elected without huge sums of cash, and because too many American citizens are ignorant and/or disengaged from their own self-government.

Eliminating capitalism will not eliminate ignorance and apathy. Without an informed & engaged citizenry, no political/economic system will function for the benefit of the people. A relative handful will sieze the lion's share of wealth and power in any system not ultimately run by its citizenry.

We need the best of both worlds -- a thriving economy fueled by the hard work & innovation of individuals seeking a better life, and true self-government by an informed & engaged citizenry who understand that regulatory oversight and government intervention are necessary to direct this economic engine towards sustainability and to ensure that every citizen has equal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity.

[BrentWil]

105. Very Well put...

And fully agreed

[izzybeans]

106. You need to define socialism then.

Because if the person who actually built that mousetrap was given his or her just reward then you are likely talking about a specific form of socialism that has been erased from collective memory. It's merely a democratized market economy that transforms the contemporary corporate form into a democratically run business.

After the industrial revolution, mass production, the formation of mass markets, and now globalization, there is very little room in the economy for small artisans to make a living. The builder of the better mouse trap will likely only find a small niche market and then get gobbled up by the poorly produced mass manufacturers who underbid the market. Mass volumes have to be produced, managed, and distributed through large bureaucratic machines. The question is, do you install a dictator at the top of that machine who uses the bureaucracy to siphon off value and distribute it to unproductive shareholders, or do you democratize that machine and distribute the surplus value to the people who produced the good or service in the first place? All socialism is or can be, is a way to reward the architects and engineers of a quality mousetrap. There is no need to eliminate markets, competition, nor the corporate form. There is a need however to ensure that the builders of goods and the deliverer of services have ownership in the value they create. Democratize the economy and you will finally have your free market. Until then our market economy will remain grounded in authoritarian organizational forms that Rob Peter, the craftsman, to pay Paul, the succubus of profit. You are still accumulating capital, and there will still be investments to be had, but they will have to be more value driven and less credit driven. That's where those old socialist theories tend to fall flat IMO. How does the initial investment happen?

If you start a business and you give each and every worker a proportional equity share based on your organizational census, then you'll have a purely socialist business entity. Of course you can set tiers based on value added over one's work life as well. All other rules of exchange remain the same (e.g. mutually beneficial exchanges, competitive pricing, value-added competition, etc.). Imagine the engagement and attention a worker would pay to work knowing that the more quality widgets they produce and get sold (without being recalled or sold back) the more they earn. Instead we live in an economy where productivity is no longer tied to wages. Pay a living wage and reward a job well down with equity. Pennies on the dollar go a long way with mass exchanges.

[Martin Eden]

115. A person investing his/her money to start a business ...

... would then be required to give all the hired employees "proportional equity shares"?

The investor's money was their own until they invested it in a business, which would then become a democratically-owned entity?

Who makes the key business decisions ... does it come to a vote? Is it assumed that all the shareholders are equally qualified to make those decisions?

I'm trying to get a handle on how this is supposed to work in the real world. I've worked for the same company for 17 years, starting out as a temp and holding hourly wage positions for 11 years. Now I'm in management and report to a Senior Vice President. I have a wide range of experience throughout the ranks. I am 100% in favor of profit sharing and better wages & benefits for all employees, but I can tell you that most of the hourly wage earners should not be making important business decisions. Businesses are heirarchichal organizations for a good reason, and where I work promotions are very much a meritocracy. We are a successful company that has grown considerably during my time there.

You say there would still be a marketplace and competition, but I have sincere doubts the model you describe would be competetive against differently-structured organizations.

[MellowDem]

99. You tell me why I should...

Communism has failed

Fuck it, its dead son

[BrentWil]

100. Well one reason to keep it around is reduction of poverty.

The examples are remarkable.

For Example, China.

From the UN.

http://www.undp.org.cn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&catid=10&sid=10

China’s rapid economic development in the past two decades has generated the most rapid decline in absolute poverty ever witnessed.
Both national and international indicators show that China has already achieved the goal of halving the number of people in extreme poverty by 2015 set by the UN as one of eight Millennium Development Goals.

http://www.undp.org.cn/downloads/nhdr2008/NHDR2008_en.pdf

China’s population is wealthier, better educated and healthier than it has ever been. The population en- joys unprecedented mobility within the country, and access to travel, work and study in the out- side world. And opportunities to develop one’s human capacity to the fullest are vastly greater than ever before. The benefits of the economic growth in the past 30 years have reached the whole society, including the poorest groups in the population. By any measure—whether the official national poverty line or the global US $1 per day line—several hundred million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty in less than half a lifetime, truly an historic achievement.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Feb/56694.htm


World Bank

The number of persons living in poverty in China was reduced from 250 million at the start of its reform process in 1978, to 80 million by the end of 1993 and to 29.27 million in 2001.

Next India

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/India-on-track-to-meet-poverty-reduction-goal-World-Bank/articleshow/5850202.cms

India, the number of such people living on less than $1.25 a day is expected to go down from 435 million or 51.3 percent in 1990 to 295 million or 23.6 percent by 2015 and 268 million or 20.3 percent by 2020.

Both the 2008 food price crisis and the financial crisis that hit that year have played a role in exacerbating hunger in the developing world.

The critical MDG target of halving the proportion of people suffering from hunger from 1990 to 2015 appears very unlikely to be met as over a billion people struggle to meet basic food needs, the report says.

[katsy]

108. Jobs.

Jobs, education and the opportunity for upward mobility (reward) reduce poverty.

If China and India outsourced all their jobs to the US, I'd bet we'd reduce poverty in America also.

Capitalism is the economic system that should be regulated heavily by government.

[inna]

104. kr

[Zavulon]

116. Well, in a completely socialist or communist society,

you'd be supporting me. Why the hell should I work if a roof over my head and food are a given? Why should I work if there's no hope of getting ahead?

In such a society, hope and pray that your doctor thinks differently than I do.

[slackmaster]

117. And there you are using a COMPUTER built by corporations, and runs on

ELECTRIC POWER provided by corporations, and communicating via an ISP that us almost certainly run by a corporation, over the INTERNET which is largely run by corporations; and paying for it all with money that came from whatever segment of the market economy you presumably worked in until you quit your job...