Is capitalism worth saving?

[wookie72]

My parents told me that they had always believed that the New Deal was not socialist but an attempt to save capitalism. Indeed from what I've read of Howard Zinn, it was not a given that capitalism would survive the Great Depression.

I don't believe in single root causes, but capitalism has definitely exacerbated most of our problems, So in the end do we really need it?

[rug]

1. No.

[Vincardog]

3. Not is it currently exists

[Auggie]

2. Regulated capitalism, yes

[Common Sense Party]

11. Do you think capitalism is currently UNregulated?

[Auggie]

30. Of course not...

Apologies if I was unclear. Regulation has come under assualt over the past 30 years or so.

I want stronger regulation. Much stronger. I want regulation until it regulates the crap out of them.

[defendandprotect]

22. Do you notice that they keep knocking out the regulations and are now

regulating the public?

PG&E is spending hundreds of millions, for instance, to keep the public from creating

PUBLIC utility companies!!

[USArmyParatrooper]

39. BINGO

[FiveGoodMen]

4. I think capitalism will save itself (crushing many of us along the way)

The question is: can we kill it?

[Fire1]

14. Well, many seem to think we're already killing it! If that's

the case, it's not dying fast enough.

[defendandprotect]

23. Capitalism can only run its scam with the cooperation of government ....

draining our wealth and pounding out our natural resources --

it's a scam to move the wealth and natural resources from the many to the few!

And, it's entirely based on exploitation for profit -- exploitation of nature, natural

resources, animal-life -- and even human beings . . . according to various myths of

"inferiority."

[Jackpine Radical]

5. I think small, worker-owned enterprises are the way to go.

Each company should have a board composed of workers, consumers of the product of the enterprise, and at-large community representatives.

[Common Sense Party]

13. And what if a company doesn't want to follow that model?

[Taitertots]

19. There are many fields where this would be massively inefficient

I don't even want to imagine the annoyance that setting up global communications infrastructure would be with a system like that.

If our banks did that there would be massive systemic risk and huge efficiency losses.

[phasma ex machina]

36. re: "If our banks did that there would be massive systemic risk and huge efficiency losses."

Surely you jest? Big banksters just got done going all vampire squid on the masses.

[Chan790]

87. As a branch-level banker, may I say...

I don't see how this is any different.

Public leadership would lead to massive systemic risk and huge efficiency losses.

Private and well-compensated capitalist leadership did lead to massive systemic risk and huge efficiency losses.

You say "pot-ay-to" and I say "pot-ah-to".
You say "tom-ay-to" and I say "tom-ah-to".
"pot-ay-to"
"pot-ah-to"
"tom-ay-to"
"tom-ah-to"
Let's call the whole thing off.

The answer is the end of privately-held for-profit banks traded on public exchanges, much the the solution to healthcare is the end of privately-held for-profit insurers traded on public exchanges.

and...guillotines. Shiny shiny guillotines.

[phasma ex machina]

33. +1

[Boojatta]

6. What is capitalism?

If capital is money and salt is worth money, then was mining, distribution, and selling of salt in the Roman Empire an example of capitalism in action?

You could actually make some money by selling salt in Constantinople. You could hire people in Venice to help evaporate seawater near Venice. You see, finding deposits on land and mining them isn't the only approach. Of course, after those SALT talks and treaties between the US and the USSR, it might be too late to make much money processing salt near Venice and selling it to Constantinople.

[wookie72]

37. Capitalism is more than just about money

It's where the one who owns the means of production derives the majority of the profit for taking the majority of the "risk." I think there could be an argument that it's broken right now.

[eallen]

43. Capitalism is an evolutionary algorithm for evolving business processes.

Where fitness is determined by market success, and business process covers everything from market research to engineering and delivery.

The Romans had a lot of trade, and even banking, but they never quite developed capitalism as we would recognize it. A key missing ingredient is that they didn't have much notion of a business corporation, and hence little way to package businesses and business processes in a way that survived family interest, allowed mergers, supported outside investment, etc. To implement an evolutionary algorithm, there has to be something that propagates the elements on which selection works.

:hippie:

[RKP5637]

7. IMO with good strong regulation it could work. Problem is what we have now

is a fascist oligarchy. I always thought some balanced combination of capitalism and socialism could make sense. Problem with anything is, however, that power and money corrupt IMO and no matter what system there will always be someone working the system to corner power and money.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. Capitalism is dead, and has been since about 80's...

It was critically injured by Consumerism, then first Reagan and finally Clinton finished murdering the comotose body.

The system we have now isn't Capitalism. It isn't worth saving, but the question I asked is "what do we replace it with?"

If you have an idea, you then need to ask, "how do we replace it?"

[Initech]

9. Not until we can find a balance between the rich fuckers and everyday workers.

[GreenTea]

10. Fuck NO! - It preys like insects on the weak, the less fortunate, the honest & fair.....

Capitalism only benefits the pigs, the greedy, the selfish, the underhanded, the liars and the elitist!

[SlimJimmy]

16. Sure, let's go with Marxism instead. (nt)

[One_Life_To_Give]

12. North Korea needs it, China thinks so too

The Capitalist Black Market in North Korea is supposedly necessary to provide food. And China had found it necessary to adopt parts of Capitalism. And I doubt that any society will be able to succeed without incorporating some parts of Capitalism along with some parts of Socialism. Neither extreme appears attainable.

[Cal33]

15. Not when too many of the top executive positions are filled by

greedy, scheeming, corrupt and conscienceless criminals.

[Norrin Radd]

17. No. Commerce can exist without single individuals or small

numbers of people controlling most of the money.

[defendandprotect]

18. No we don't need it ....and we should stop supporting it --

especially running out every day with our bank cards to make the bankersters rich!

Capitalism has been 'SAVED' by government many more times than we could count!!

Capitalism is about moving the wealth and natural resources of a nation from the

many to the few.

It is criminal and corrupt at its very core -- and in its exploitation of nature,

natural resources, animal-life -- and even other human beings according to various

myths of "inferiority" -- it is suicidal!!

Unfortunately, the elites can't commit suicide alone!!

[FiveGoodMen]

25. Above all, we should stop worshiping it.

Most 'merkins treat any criticism of capitalism as blasphemy.

No real discussion can be had because you're dissing their god.

[defendandprotect]

35. Excellent point . . . pretty much taught in our schools ...

i.e. -- capitalism and democracy are synonymous --

RATHER capitalism is the very opposite of economic democracy!!

[WinkyDink]

46. Schools?? It's why the GOVT WAGES WARS. Don't need lessons in school.

[defendandprotect]

90. Post I responded to and mine are discussing why the allegiance to capitalism....

and I am saying that the worship of capitalism has pretty much been taught

in our schools --


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9152830&mesg_id=9153304

[Starry Messenger]

20. No.

Emphatically no. Dump that shit.

[Starry Messenger]

50. kick

[laureloak]

21. No. Instead we should make greed illegal. n/t

[izquierdista]

24. It's the default setting for an unplanned economy

When Adam Smith was describing capitalism, he was putting words to the primitive concept of "trade you some of my stuff for some of your stuff". Markets and capitalism pop up anywhere primitive tribes have an imbalance of goods they can correct by swapping stuff. In the highlands of New Guinea, you can swap stone axes for bags woven out of vines, or maybe a pig. It's more primitive when there is no medium of exchange, but just because some fiat currency has high-tech anti-counterfeit features doesn't mean the economic system it keeps running is in any way planned or on a higher level of sophistication.

Capitalism, with its deity The Invisible Hand, is a primitive device. In that way, it is like the wheel, which has come a long way from the Roman chariot wheel to the modern Goodyear steel-belted radial. But it's still a wheel; it can't fly, and it can't hover over the surface of the water. Capitalism has a lot of things it can't do. It can't seem to take care of the poor, sick, and elderly, even though capitalists get to write off charitable deductions. It can't seem to keep from crapping up the environment; that's just a place to externalize costs of your dirty process. People that put their trust in capitalism end up in one of two places: (1) the very greediest end up with enough extra money that they don't need to worry about any material things or (2) the majority who end up looking at an envelope of Zimbabwean dollars or a losing lottery ticket hoping for better luck next time.

In order to take care of all these other things that capitalism can't, there needs to be some control over it (a government) and incentives and disincentives to keep it on track (central planning). Capitalism has been phased out in a lot of places: British hospitals, European railway ticket offices (although the vendors in the station still do a brisk capitalist trade), elementary school classrooms (although in the US, they are trying to make a comeback), most fire departments, and many other enterprises organized for the public good. It will never go away completely, markets are always springing up, like the market in beanie-babies, and whatever new collectible some half-wit offers to a gullible public.

[Spike89]

26. Any viable system is a range of "isms"

Capital, like labor, is a component of an economy...even a highly socialized economy. Even the most hard line communist countries have to deal with capitalism and they all have either allowed a degree of it or failed. Unfettered capitalism never works either--the end result is always revolution as soon as the "losers" gain more power than the "winners".

[blindpig]

27. Bury it.

Before it buries us along with the biosphere.

[harun]

28. The monster that is capitalism is out of the cage, and eating what it will's. Our

government is completely subservient to it, and there is no stopping it.

In the 80's it ate Communism, in the 90's it ate Democracy and in the 00's it ate Europe. It is now eating you.

[Recursion]

29. Sure

As long as things are kept small it's great.

Like anything else, it gets pathological at too great a scale.

Let's let regions solve more problems. Have bermuda-rigged ships plying trade routes between new england and south america for the rare import we need. Within those smaller enclaves, let people be entrepeneurs, without the pressure of competing against the entire world.

[Freetradesucks]

31. Exacerbated most of our problems?

Really?

Like a decent quality of life, like being able to determine your own life, like being able to travel freely, like being able to work hard and see a benefit from your hard work?

Do we really need capitalism? Please show me one system of society that has benefited more people.

Every successful country in the world today utilizes capitalism. Even China is emerging due to adopting capitalist traits.

U.S.S.R.-FAIL
COMMUNIST CHINA-FAIL
CUBA-FAIL
VENEZUELA-FAIL
NORTH KOREA-FAIL

[Terry in Austin]

32. Whose definition of capitalism? Does a cancer need saving?

Most people couldn't give you much of a definition of capitalism -- it would be something like "It's well, you know, OUR system." As opposed to THEIR system.

I'll offer one that covers the crucial aspect, IMO: capitalism is the practice of lending money at interest. Might seem a little narrow, but if lending at interest is absent, you don't have capitalism.

Bankers are the predominant source of capital -- Wall Street only supplies about 5%.

There are strong arguments that interest is inherently inflationary. Economy-wide, business has to grow by the current interest rate just to stay even. Growth is a necessary part of it, even when growth might be inadvisable. We have growth for its own sake -- "the ideology of cancer," as environmentalist Edward Abbey put it.

So capitalism has a built-in arc -- it will eventually saturate its markets and capitalists following its imperative of the endless accumulation of capital will eventually find that there's nothing much more worth accumulating.

If we were to "save" capitalism, we'd only be saving it from being what it is. Better we should save ourselves from capitalism, perhaps. A simple (but difficult!) way to do it: illegalize interest. (I know, fat chance!)

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Lending money at interest started in the 14th century

in a formal way. That was mercantilism, not Capitalism... it is an aspect, but that is not the only definition...

[Octafish]

34. No.

We need a new economic system. Unfortunately, those with the money control those in power.

[AnArmyVeteran]

38. Capitalism not only shouldn't be saved, it should be killed.

It's a completely failed system where financial inequities are almost worse than under the most oppressive regimes.

[TBF]

94. The inequities are inherent to the system -

and destroying it is probably our only hope to save this planet. I have hope people will get there, not sure if it will be in my lifetime.

[maryf]

40. We don't need it...

in fact it steals from our needs and our needy...

[cherokeeprogressive]

41. Threads like this make me laugh...

Capitalism in some form will outlast all of us. It will outlast the United States and the EU. No amount of hand-wringing or whining about it will change that fact. No amount.

[blindpig]

51. Well isn't that cheery...

Guaranteed environmental collapse, the continued suffering of billions...

Good thing you're wrong, what we are seeing today is Capital collapsing under it's own weight. Probably not the finale, Capital is dynamic and might find a way out of this one, guess who pays the costs? But surviving this crisis only sets the stage for the greater crisis to follow. Capital is doomed by it's own internal inconsistencies, the sooner it is put down he sooner we an begin to construct a decent, survivable society.

[HEyHEY]

103. It's also the only reason we aren't dead in a ditch at age forty

[eallen]

42. That depends. Do you like cell phones, WiFi, MRIs, blue jeans, motorcycles, and toilet paper?

I understand the love/hate thing when one looks at capitalism. But never forget that capitalism is the creative engine that makes all the things that make the modern world modern. Think long and hard about life in the 15th century before thinking, "yeah, let's go back to that."

There is a reason that every nation where most of us would want to live has fostered a healthy capitalist economy. Including social democracies such as Sweden and France. It's because capitalism generates both wealth and technological advance. Importantly, technological advance is much different from scientific advance, in that it is concerned with costs. The long, long, long chain of engineering advances, market failures, and business process changes that let's you have cell phone service for a mere pittance a month is but one example of the evolutionary algorithm of capitalism.

Maintaining a healthy capitalist economy is not only compatible with social security, universal health care, and a bevy of other social services, but makes those easier. Social services are mighty meagre without the economic productivity to fund them. Where would you rather enjoy the basic pension when you are 70, Cuba or Sweden? Despite loving the tropics and hating the cold, I'd choose Sweden without hesitation. The difference is that Sweden has capitalism. Indeed, Cuba just announced more moves in that direction, because its socialist economy is proving non-sustainable.

So on this, I agree completely with President Obama: "The market is the best mechanism ever invented for efficiently allocating resources to maximize production. And I also think that there is a connection between the freedom of the marketplace and freedom more generally." That doesn't mean we make it the end-all and be-all of our political thinking. But yeah, I want to keep it healthy. And no, I don't want to live in a nation that has destroyed it.

:hippie:

[WinkyDink]

47. Because these would not exist in, say, Communist or Socialist nations?

[proteus_lives]

48. Read some history.

I seem to remember something about the USSR and breadlines.

[eallen]

52. Show one example of a nation without capitalist economy that made broad advance in technology.

Be careful. The issue is <i>not</i> whether government can make technological advance. There are myriad examples of that, from the Apollo program to Arpanet. Part of what makes that practical for governments where there <i>is</i> a capitalist economy is that they can draw on the technological base of products, workers, techniques, and components that that capitalist economy has made affordable. The Apollo program was practical in the 1960s, but not the 1860s, because of a century of capitalist technological advance.

The question is where is the nation without a capitalist economy that has generated a broad advance in the technology it produces? The Soviet Union? It was able to make pointed advances at great expense, and some advances in military technology, but it overall relied on outside technology, and the benefits even of that rarely trickled down to its people. Which is part of what led to its failure. Cuba is the same story: its government has pushed a few medical advances, but it mostly is remarkable for the opposite.

China has leaped forward in this area, only once it decided some capitalism is a good thing.

:hippie:

[Starry Messenger]

53. One example: Sputnik

Second example: Yuri Gagarin, first human in outer space.

[proteus_lives]

65. But they never made it to the moon.

USSR led early in the space-race but faded in the stretch.

[Starry Messenger]

68. Too bad they didn't think to recruit Nazis for their space program.

Or embargo other WW2 allies. They might have been a contender. The questioner asked for an example and he got two.

[proteus_lives]

80. Nope, they wanted their Nazis on the nuclear weapons program.

Since they weren't embargoing, they must have been too busy oppressing Eastern Europe.

[Starry Messenger]

81. lol

This is just going to degenerate into a slap-fight. I know you dislike commies. I hate capitalism. We could do this all day. Do I need to bring in Dulles and the US oppression of Latin America? Or should we just call it a draw?

[proteus_lives]

83. Ok, draw.

I won't bring up Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Blockade or any number of things.

[Starry Messenger]

84. Sounds fair.

That way I don't have to mention Vietnam, Iraq, the near-genocide of the Native Americans, NAFTA or any number of things.

[proteus_lives]

85. Very fair.

No need to bring up religious persecution, lack of personal freedom, secret police forces, state created famines, massacres, wars or the general lack of freedoms for millions people. (Except for the party elite...in a classless workers paradise.)

[Starry Messenger]

86. Well we have those things under capitalism.

I can see where you'd get mixed up, right wing think tanks adore selling free market propaganda as some kind of philosophy of personal liberty. Seriously pro, this stuff sounds like it's right off of Uncle Miltie's Freedom Fries for Happy Meals. This subthread started out asserting that nothing ever got created in a state that wasn't under capitalism. That is wrong. I gave solid examples. Now you are just shifting your argument. No one ever said the USSR was paradise. It wasn't even close to perfect. It was a time in history when a people tried arranging their lives so they were not at the beck and call of private profit. The countries that existed under capitalism struggled at every turn to undermine and destroy it. It was hardly a level playing field and it all was carried out in a time of brutal war and its aftermath. If it wasn't for the Soviets, we'd all be speaking German.

[proteus_lives]

89. "when a people tried arranging their lives so they were not at the beck and call of private profit."

No, they were at the beck and call of the party bosses. What's the difference?

"The countries that existed under capitalism struggled at every turn to undermine and destroy it."

Which is ironic, considering they destroyed themselves with their failed theories.

Capitalism has problems, a truck-load of them and it's not even close to perfect. But I'd choose this system over the Soviet one any day of the week and twice on Sundays. If you can't see why, well then you're like a lot of folks who choose only to remember failed promises and ignore the blood-soaked gulag-reality.

"If it wasn't for the Soviets, we'd all be speaking German."

Highly doubtful the Nazis could have ever invaded the US, that statement might make sense if you talking to a British or French citizen.

BTW, the Soviet campaign against the Germans was fueled by millions of tons of capitalist supplies. The Soviet juggernaut rolled into Berlin on American trucks and eating Spam.

[Starry Messenger]

91. Well, have a nice day!

You initiated this conversation in this subthread and it went just where I thought it would. :hi: Don't worry, I'll leave your house for last when we are rounding everyone up and taking their stuff. :D

[proteus_lives]

97. Yep, you didn't have any new dance moves either.

Oh well.

I know, it's disappointing for you, right? If we were living in the Soviet system you could just denounce me for anti-party thought and watch the KGB drag me away. But alas it won't happen and you won't get a pat on the head from an authority figure for following the party line.

:hi:

[Starry Messenger]

98. Do you have an Xbox or Playstation?

My comrade wanted to know. If you have the new iPhone put a sticky on it for me. :D


Dude, no one is going to refight and win the Cold War on DU. But if you get talking points other than those promulgated by a stupid fascist asshole like Solzhenitsyn then I might stir myself to care. So far all I've heard is gory fiction. Cough up some links to something other than the Hoover Institute and I might bring my game. Other than that, why waste my time?

[proteus_lives]

105. I did just get a Blu-Ray player.

He can trade it for turnips and vodka.

Solzhenitsyn is a fascist? Gory fiction? Wow, a true believer. What it's like believing in a dead ideology?

Wars, KGB, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Blockade, Cuban crisis, Gulags, repression, the utter failure of the political and economic model....fiction to you?

:rofl: :rofl:

How fun! It's not often I met one so blind. So, what, you're 19-22? You have two or three pol-sci classes and are still jazzed about communism? :rofl:

[Starry Messenger]

107. I'll be 40 next month.

Hey blu-ray, that does sound cool! Too bad the starving children of Odessa will never know how cool. 3 out of 4 of them have HIV and they live on sniffing glue. Since the fall of the Soviet Union they've been "free" though so I'm glad they are no longer oppressed! No food, no homes...freedom! Woo hoo, Capitialism rawks! http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0609/street-kids-in-odessa.html


Sergey Kushnir, 14, holding a plastic bag filled with glue for sniffing, screams in the sewer where he lives on the outskirts of Odessa, Ukraine, on Tues., June 6, 2006. According to the Ukrainian NGO "The Way Home," there are more than 3,000 homeless children living on the streets of Odessa. Almost all street children use drugs.

"Initially, we focused on the adult homeless only to discover that many of them were drug addicts, children and HIV positive. Gradually we have started working on additional programs. The street children program is one of them. According to our estimation, there are 3,000-4,000 children hanging around here and the number keeps growing. Several times per week we deliver food and medical stores and distribute condoms and needles." Kostin explained to us that in the headquarters of The Way Home there were a couple of rooms ready to accommodate children who Sergey manages to convince to leave the street. Such children are not held in the center, though. Anyone can leave whenever they feel like it. "Who stays and shows some interest can be set for a foster family or a children's home. In The Way Home center children can live in clean rooms, attend a school and spend some quality time in hobby groups, as well as, have holidays at camps by the seaside. Yet, unfortunately, a child of the street seldom wants to leave the world of drugs and life with no duties."

The next day we start for the first inspection round. Ina, a one-armed ex-drug addict who started to believe in God, has been abstaining from drugs for several years. In the center she takes care of the children and occasionally she drives around the city – all the children love her as their stepmother. Other members of the team are Andrey, a lawyer, and Yuri, an aid man endlessly cracking jokes.

We carry a hot box with mash and a bag full of dressings and basic medications. We cruise around the spots known as meeting points of various gangs of the street children – desolate houses, sewers, markets where the children usually beg or work. The scenario is always the same – the children are given some mash and dressings or medicines, if necessary. Vitaliy, another member of the team, fills out short questionnaires and photographs the children. Most of them keep burying their heads into their sleeves or t'shirts where they hide a plastic bag filled with glue.

"The world changes before your eyes," laughs an 11-year-old blond boy, Vladik. "You look at a picture of an elephant and suddenly you see that it smiles at you and splashes water all over you with its trunk. You can actually feel your wet clothes." The little sniffer consumes up to eight bottles of glue a day. Sixteen-year-old Seryozha is shouting that he needs 30 bottles but other boys giggle; he is just trying to show off. They earn money for their glue various ways, starting with begging, from little odd jobs at markets or in the bars, to prostitution. "Mostly we beg," claims Vitaliy. He found himself in the street when his younger brother had barely turned 7. "Our mum died. She was using drugs and drank a lot. She suffered from many diseases: cirrhosis of the liver, TB, AIDS, and so on." The children of the street are also hunted by such diseases. According to research done by the Way Home center, 23 out of 38 monitored children the ages of 14 to 18 years were HIV positive, 18 of them suffered from fatal jaundice, Hepatitis C-type, and six of them had TB. According to experts' judgment, one sick child represents a threat in a radius of about 600 kilometers. Deprived children travel to different Ukrainian cities where they meet other children. Lack of responsibility, ignorance, or sheer lethargy leads them to slowly destroy themselves, especially those who use drugs intravenously.

And yes Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a darling of conservatives. They had to distance themselves when he revealed that he thought the Russian Revolution was a largely Jewish plot, but the Hoover Institute put him up in their building and published his trash for years. Stormfront loves him. :shrug:

[proteus_lives]

108. Really, 40?

Then what is with the childish belief in communism?

Yeah, in a communist society, the government would hand-out Blu-Ray players for free. That's how it works in North Korea and Cuba right?

Rawks? No system of government "rawks" some simply suck less. And our system sucks less then communism. If it didn't then communism would be still going strong instead being a ghost.

So keep ignoring what I said. It won't change the reality of it or of the world. Sorry, it's simple fact.

[eallen]

72. You didn't read the question.

At least, not very well. How much did the Sputnik effort increase general technological advance in Russia?

:hippie:

[Starry Messenger]

74. Quoting you:

"Show one example of a nation without capitalist economy that made broad advance in technology." Do you want details on ISS or something? It's all on the internet. There are many examples of Soviet technological advances in the wake of Sputnik. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_inventions_and_technology_records#1950s

[wookie72]

55. Cell phones?

You mean like one of these? Made in Finland, which boasts a sprawling social safety net?

As for China, China is simply an example that capitalism does not lead to democracy or human rights.

[eallen]

73. Yes. Finland is an example of a nation that has a healthy capitalist economy.

The question wasn't whether a social safety net is a good thing. Of course it is. As I pointed out, it is easier in a rich nation than a poor one.

The question is whether to kill capitalism. Finland most definitely has not done that. And doesn't want to do that.

:hippie:

[wookie72]

77. No, the question was whether it was worth saving. nt

[eallen]

78. And Finland very much wants to save it.

Finland without its capitalist economy would be a much poorer place.

:hippie:

[MyNameGoesHere]

54. wow. The brain washing runs deep in this one.

So you discount all the innovations preceding modern day "fuck the poor and keep fucking the poor" also known as capigulism ? Are you seriously going to tell me people are dumb and not capable of innovation if they don't have a fistful of money? Stop feeding the beast.

[eallen]

82. It's not about individual innovation, but about supporting an evolutionary process.

It continually amazes me that those on the far right reject the power of evolutionary algorithms when it comes to biology, and those on the far left reject their power when it comes to economy. Yes, there has always been technology innovation in human history. But the amazing thing about technological progress prior to capitalism is how damn slow its impact was on the economy compared to the modern era. Or to turn that around, what marks the modern era is how fast technology now changes business. Why are the past three centuries so different in that regard than any other three centuries in human history? How do you explain why the industrial revolution, the automation revolution, the electric revolution, the plastics revolution, the media revolution, the solid state revolution, the computer revolution, and the internet revolution all occurred where and when capitalism was, implemented by capitalist corporations, rather than where capitalism wasn't?

The Soviet Union didn't implode because it was an economic success, but because it was economically hollow. China incorporated capitalism to avoid the Soviet Union's fate.

But hey, at least there are still some on the American left that are fighting those old wars. There's nothing like not realizing when an idea has failed.

:hippie:

[Rochester]

44. No. Get rid of it!

And replace it with socialism - real socialism, not what the right wing freaks think they see.

[unkachuck]

45. "Is capitalism worth saving?"

....logic tells me, no....

...if capitalism didn't economically and politically disadvantage the general populace in favor of the wealthy, why would the rich go to such extremes to defend and maintain it at all cost?

[rrneck]

49. Won't matter.

When population finally outruns resources there will be no capital. It will collapse under its own weight.

[wookie72]

56. Wow... I hit a nerve here

I don't think I've ever gotten a response like this from a post.
I personally think that we (by which I'm including North AMericans in general) have to get over our fear of socialism. This, I think, is the central argument of our time. Some people believe that some things are too important to leave to the government. Others (myself included) believe that those same things are too important to leave to the profit motive. It's all about maximum benefit for the maximum amount of people. Some things - the environment, communications, I would include many services - effect everyone, and i feel do not benefit the maximum amount of people if profit is involved.

[Lyric]

57. No. You can't have capitalism without exploitation.

Even a "little bit" of exploitation is unacceptable.

[DirkGently]

58. Your parents were right. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. I get tired of repeating this, but... this is NOT capitalism

Capitalism requires competition... we have monopolies

Capitalism requires small producers... we have monopolies

What we have is much closer to the technical definition of corporatism.

So in effect... yes give me a little Capitalism and BREAK UP all the monopolies.

[wookie72]

60. But doesn't capitalism inevitably lead to monopolies? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Not if you read Adam Smith

he was all for WORKERS RIGHTS, LIVING WAGES, and the break up of monopolies. So no...

In fact, his famous hand was mentioned ONCE in the whole 1200 pages, and with so many caveats it is more like a warning.

I recommend people READ the Wealth of Nations. Not the easiest read, but people should.

And it should be read with The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which came earlier. IN fact, they should be read together with the realization that his economic theory is way bellow his theory of morals in his schematics. An economy without morals is not an equitable economic system.

In fact, the whole argument in Das Kapital is with Smith's theory of labor... and of course the application of the theory which has never been applied as Smith envisioned.

But that is just me. Why I say, give me a little capitalism, and not this corporatist system we live under.

[blindpig]

63. From your post one gets the impression that Smith

invented Capitalism. What nonsense, Capitalism was an evolving economic system well before Smith was born and doesn't give a fig about his 'moral sentiment'. Capitalism is utterly amoral.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. The modern understanding of Capitalism STARTED with Adam

Smith.

This is standard economic history. His critique was against Mercantilism.

That is accepted history... not myth.

And in fact, just like Communism, it is Utopian and it has never fully been applied.

But you are telling me that he did not write that workers need living wages? He may not have used the term living wage, but he did.

And I will write this again... what we have today is NOT capitalism. It hasn't been for AT LEAST a generation, if not a tad longer. What we have has a lot more in common with CORPORATISM.

[blindpig]

67. Write it all you want, you are splitting imaginary hairs.

Yes, he did write that but his 'solution' relies upon sentiment, good luck with that.

And btw, Communism is not Utopian but rather firmly materialistic. Which begins to explain why it is the superior way to describe our reality.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Okie dockie

ideologically we need the big bad wolf to still be around...

And I am not splitting hairs. OUTSIDE the US, or in US Academic Thinking, not in the mythical needs that some folks have, it is understood that corportatism, neo liberalism, et al are not precisely what Smith described. Some specialists are now daring to call it something ELSE... I just happen to be in the leading edge of THAT.

So no, I am not splitting hairs. I am just using the worlds CORRECTLY, but then again I do not need myths to find something that is evil. IT IS... no need to call it such and give it names. Many here need to kill what has been dead for a while, and this is quite convenient, keeps you distracted. TO use classic Marxist thought, it keeps your eyes off the ball. After all you are fighting something that's been dead for a while.

[blindpig]

109. Um, who is doing the distracting?

Fascism is a variant of Capitalism, cannot hold power without the acquiescences of Capital. You try to make it out to be something different from, opposed to, Capitalism. Yet who remains on top of the social heap, reaping even more profits from their cozy relationship with the fascist elite? It is still Capitalism, with shiny black boots.

Yours is the Utopian, idealized view of a Capitalism which never existed, whose existence would be spoiled by the behavior which Capitalism demands, not unlike libertarianism.

[Vidar]

62. Certainly not the American variety.

[phleshdef]

69. I believe the perfect balance of freedom lies within a hybrid of capitalism and socialism.

And thats basically what America is. Our problem is we tend to nurture our capitalism too much and our socialism not enough.

[blindpig]

70. A chimera

Such a critter cannot exist for long, it is not that 'we' nurture capitalism, it is that capitalism cannot abide socialism, too many opportunities for profit denied. It is what we see happening now, as the mild socialist provisions of the New Deal are jettisoned in the name of 'market efficiency'.

[chaska]

75. The second law of thermodynamics: all things decay, yadda....

Capitalism WAS good, now it's done. Entropy is a bitch.

[Nikia]

76. If we removed its political power

Then it might be alright. Public interests are not always business interests. Business needs regulations that are in the public interest, not regulations that are used by some businesses to gain an advantage over others.

[Scruffy1]

96. The problem with that it

it seems they always rechange the rules.

[Orsino]

79. Capitalism isn't going anywhere.

Regulation will ebb and flow.

[blindpig]

113. Not acceptable.....

every time the tide 'ebbs'('the business cycle is inevitable with capitalism) it is the working class who feels the real pain. To the rich it is just numbers on paper, they are not left without a home or means of sustenance. This is why regulation does not work for the majority, it is always rolled back, capitalists must in due diligence seek the highest return, gaming regulation and legislation is part of it.

Kill Capitalism

[MellowDem]

88. It can't be saved as it will always be here....

It isn't going to "die" and even the most die hard socialist nations have elements of capitalism, and most of the successful ones have very large elements of capitalism. Most of our problems are not exacerbarted by capitalism, they are exacerbated by ignorance and the search for "single root causes". Practically every economy in the world now is mixed economy to some degree or another. And global poverty is falling farther all the time. Of course, I'm not naive enough to give props to capitalism for all of this, but you would think if it is as bad as people say it is, none of these things make sense. Just look at China, which is now more uber-capitalist than the US. There are a lot of factors that people seem to ignore, and one of them is politics.

[TBF]

92. Your parents were right.

FDR only enacted the New Deal because of the threat of the growing communist party.

Some history ... http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcommunist.htm

[RadiationTherapy]

93. I am not particularly capitalist or socialistic, but I loathe hierarchies.

I support the systematic dismantling of hierarchy.

[Majikthise]

95. Not 21st century American Capitalism

[Quantess]

99. Is humanity worth saving? Is our ecosystem worth saving?

These are the most salient questions.

[BlueCheese]

100. This question confuses me.

What's the alternative? Central planning as in the old USSR and early Communist China?

In any successful society, people must be able to invent, make, and sell things at the price others are willing to pay for them. Without that ability, there's just no incentive to try anything new. It's no accident that almost all countries with high standards of living have capitalist economies. The only exceptions I can think of are those with some sort of vast resource-based wealth.

This doesn't mean that capitalism as it's currently practiced doesn't need correction. Governments are needed to curb capitalism's excesses--to regulate monopolies, to impose environmental conditions, to prevent the abuse of workers, etc. etc. I think corporations have gotten way too powerful in this country, not just economically but politically. But capitalism as a basic system is still the way to go.

[HEyHEY]

101. Capitalism isn't the problem, not regulating it is.

Brazen capitalism where it's literally every man for himself is the stupidest thing in the world. You need to have business, but you also need to have regulations so that greed doesn't take over and make decisions that screw EVERYONE except the one guy over.

[Kitty Herder]

102. No.

[keep_it_real]

104. We need both capitalism and socialism TOGETHER

There is a saying, GOD does not like extremes. So extreme capitalism or extreme socialism does not work. Human beings are not just individuals but are also collectives. There is a individual part of humanity and a collective part of humanity. The Pharaoh's (individual)could not have built the Pyramids with out the collective effort of the Egyptians to build them What FDR and the New Deal proved is that capitalism needs socialism and socialism needs capitalism.

Human beings need private ownership and no 2 human beings are equal - which is the base of capitalism. But at the same time there are things that individuals can't do alone like provide eduction, so we have public education. We have public fire departments, supported by public tax dollars. We have collective security in the public police departments financed by public tax dollars. We have the highway department financed by tax dollars. We have public libraries supported by tax dollars.

[TBF]

111. Why do human beings need private ownership? nt

[OneGrassRoot]

106. My 17-year-old is taking a government course and just said...

"I think capitalism has run it's course. Kind of like American Idol."

I concur.

:hi:

[TBF]

110. Awesome, nice to see some of the kids are getting this. nt

[Fire1]

112. In short, NO!!!! n/t