Will the USA ever have another economic system, other than capitalism?

[mix]

If so, what do you imagine it will look like?

[Skink]

1. Feudalism?

another few hundred years of dark ages.

[mix]

2. Neo-feudalism. That is a terrifying possibility.

The 20th century killed the Enlightenment dream of progress for humanity, war, racism and imperialism ensured that.

History is perhaps circular, in the worst ways.

[andlor]

30. +1

[Swamp Rat]

56. Yes, a new, kinder and gentler form of feudalism.... it's already begun.

First, they have to finish killing capitalism as we know it.

[WinkyDink]

75. Poor working to support the wealthy? Check. Poor as war fodder? Check.

[kgnu_fan]

3. Only when we succeed in establishing true democracy

Capitalism does not allow true democracy

[mix]

4. The two have been ill paired, I agree. nt

[kgnu_fan]

10. Do we want democracy?

Leonard Cohen - Democracy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OETwbVBPI1U&feature=channel

[Poll_Blind]

5. False assumption: We do not have capitalism now. Just in the same way the Chinese do not have...

...a communist system.

What each of us have are perverse realizations of those systems. Especially in America's case, I would argue that we don't have capitalism at all- what might be more clearly-described as a predatory capitalist corporate state.

The extensions of person-hood to corporations forever launches us out of any conventional implementation of capitalism and into a grotesque, greed-driven parody of it.

Nor are my comments meant to be casually received: Any analysis of our adherence to capitalist ideals shows disturbing deviations from that standard of the capitalist wealth distribution model. Again, with corporate person-hood in America, our country is much closer to a sort of hereditary (although corporations don't die, per se) monarchy ruling over a very narrow capitalism-inspired "samdbox".

Most Americans actually perceive this "sandbox" as the entirety of our country but looking at the influence of corporations on every aspect of our capitalist system, I think it's fairer to say capitalism itself is only a patina on a much more predatory system which our country has adopted over time and especially via Supreme Court rulings.

Could say the same thing about Chinese communism.

So I think your poll is based on a false premise, really.

PB

[mix]

6. So what is this ideal capitalism that lurks throughout your argument? nt

[Poll_Blind]

11. The unbalancing factor is corporate person-hood. Corporations become "super-citizens" and...

...have a kind of influence which breaks down the influence of citizens who are private actors, the core of capitalism.

Multi-national corporations, not even founded in America or having to do with or answer to Americans (even as private shareholders) exist as super-citizens in America.

Because of this corporations which exist merely as a front for organized crime, other national interests or interests whose ultimate goal pay off most when America's capitalist markets are subverted or gamed are allowed to infect the entire structure of capitalism, which has enough problems dealing with the monopolies which would attempt to take over even in a much more nationalized ("closed") system.

PB

[mix]

12. Sounds utterly and historically capitalist. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Not at all - corporatist is NOT capitalist.

In fact, Adam Smith was dead set against empowering corporations because of their ulitmately destructive influence on a capitalistic system.

[mix]

15. Since the 18th century modern capitalism has evolved around the corporation,

despite those who feared them. Simultaneously and symbiotically, has grown the modern nation-state, capital's primary sponsor.

I would have to see more direct quotes from Smith, before acceding to your extreme claims about his views. Smith was more concerned with competition and preventing monopolies supported by the state. He recognized that this was a tendency within emerging market economies with one foot in the feudal age. He did not call for the abolition of corporations altogether, just a limit upon their power.

It has never been and will never be "corporatism." This term is an internet misnomer.

This is capitalism and a very Lockean version.

[Goldstein1984]

9. Perhaps revolution will transition the U.S. from

a socialist system focused on the welfare of corporations to a socialist system designed to promote the general welfare.

Or, perhaps the informal economy will become the dominant economy.

My family already does a great deal via the informal economy.

The model would be the marijuana economy, which by necessity thrives outside the formal economy. In Alaska, traditional foods are routinely traded outside regulated economy, as are many other goods and services.

[txlibdem]

22. What? You don't like socialism for the rich and cold-hearted capitalism for the rest of us?

What's the matter with you!

:sarcasm: <--- gawd!

[Goldstein1984]

41. It's disaster capitalism for the rest of us.

It's heartbreaking the number of posts I read saying that my advocating a general boycott of nonessential goods is a bad idea because the marketplace is doing just fine.

What nation do they live in?

I suspect that they are doing fine (as am I), but are blind to the suffering around them.

On edit: Fixed typo.

[txlibdem]

45. Blind to the suffering around them

Amen to that! That attitude (lack of humanity) is even rampant right here on DU. Sickening.

[rucky]

60. There's nothing stopping us from doing this now.

I was just talking to a Dead Head about the same exact thing.

[Goldstein1984]

65. No, there isn't.

[txlibdem]

21. Predatory Capitalist Corporate State... +1 for that

Love it!

Answer: yes. And wouldn't that be accurately called an oligarchy or Neo-Feudalism since "the anointed ones" are the only people who ever get into power in this country, there is already a "nobility" just not based on blood lines.

[Radical Activist]

7. It hasn't been truly capitalist for a long time.

It veered toward corporate fascism under Bush. I don't see a socialist revolution happening in the US. We could move more in the direction of the European socialist democracies over time, or promote something like the Argentine cooperative factory movement. Given the American tradition of populist non-profit cooperatives (rural electric, farmer, credit unions) that's the most likely model for a fair, sustainable economy in the US.
Americans are too anti-authoritarian to support federal ownership of industry. It will never be accepted here.

[JackRiddler]

8. Actually, most of the best stuff in the US is thanks to socialist thinking.

In fact, even the capitalism wouldn't survive for long without a constant injection of socialism for the rich. The costs of all its disasters and crashes, in fact the development costs for most private commercial profit are thanks to public sector subsidy.

[txlibdem]

76. So true. Rich Capitalists are hooked up to a Socialism drip.

I think you need a nurse to start one of those up. :-O

[mix]

77. Since when is an economic system in which the profits go almost

entirely to the owners of property and the means of production, called anything else but capitalism? An economic elite that controls most of the nation's wealth and government, this is "socialism" to you? This is SOP in the USA and entirely capitalist.

[txlibdem]

79. Ok then. Lap it up since you love it so much.

Lap it up.

[mix]

80. If you think the "rich" owe their wealth to "socialism" and not capitalism,

I am simply confused by your analysis. Bailing out banks and businesses over the last few decades has always been intended to perpetuate neoliberalism, why one would assume this to be socialism, as opposed to pure capitalist SOP, hypocrisy and corruption, escapes me.

Neoliberal capitalism (Thatcher and Reagan to Obama) creates wealth inequality and a state that serves the interests of the upper classes primarily. Not "corporatism" or "socialism."

No lapping needed.

[txlibdem]

84. That would be true if

all the bailouts weren't collected from one group and redistributed to another group.

But why quibble, I'll just let you call it what you like --I hate it no matter what it's called. I hate Capitalism and love Socialism and Communism. Capitalism is a temporary illness that will soon be cured, either by an enlightened Humanity or by the death of us all. There are no long term survival prospects for Capitalism (neo or not).

[JackRiddler]

85. Mix: Yes of course you are right, but that's not what I meant.

My point is that the real-existing capitalism of large corporations (in the US especially since the Civil War) cannot exist profitably (in fact, has never done so for even a generation) without constant government intervention to support the system and a public sector on which to dump ("externalize") as many costs as possible. This is entirely contrary to the capitalist mythology of a free market and "private ownership," in which wealth arises solely from the "private sector" and the public sector is merely a necessary evil paid out of the "private sector."

In real existing capitalism, only the profit is supposed to be private. The rest is socialized. In that sense, the usual dichotomy posited between "socialism" (as a loose term applied variably to government or public sector or collective action) on the one hand and "capitalism" (the market, private owners, laborers selling their hours individually, "consumers") on the other is an entirely false map of the world. It's a delusion. A lie, if you will.

Imagine a spectrum with two poles for action, one social and the other individual, and for a moment let's call these the opposing spirits of "socialism" and "capitalism." Most of what's good about the US has arisen from the social spirit. Otherwise we'd still have 14 hour days and child labor, no pensions, private roads, etc. But also, most of what actually works on the "capitalist" side works only because of social interventions to its favor. Otherwise it would have fallen apart about a dozen times in the last 150 years. The "invisible hand" and the Randian superman who creates the world by himself have always been ideological bullshit to justify a collective system that works for the rich first, foremost, and lately ONLY. That collective system is not socialist, of course, but it's also nothing like the mythological picture that capitalism has of itself as a place where individuals make their own decisions and it all comes out magically in a happy equilibrium long as the government and collective institutions stay out of it.

Hope that's clear.

[txlibdem]

91. Couldn't agree with your post more

The lies of the Capitalist ruling class need to be exposed at every opportunity.

I have a post you might be interested in:
"We've finally hit the wall: We cannot afford the rich any longer"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x574339

[Greyhound]

83. This is the fact hat the defenders of exploitation always overlook.

Every society rests on a foundation of community, Thom Hartmann's "Commons". When there is no public investment in these areas, there is no basis for progress.

The U.S. started going wrong in the early 19th century, (circa) 1830, as the original revolutionaries died off and the parasites moved into the power structures.

[murray hill farm]

14. Won't change...also will not survive!

Those who most benefit from Capitalism also control this country...as you can plainly see of late! That power will not be wrenched from their hands by anyone or any cause or any democracy. Those with the most power NEVER will allow that power to be taken from them.

[kgnu_fan]

61. .

:cry:

[jimlup]

16. Er, Eh, we already do.

It's called socialism for the rich and powerful, cruel game-rigged capitalism for everyone else. Seriously, we don't operate under anything vaguely resembling capitalism and the elites know this well.

[mix]

20. It's funny this tendency on the left and right

to call whatever is not liked within capitalism "socialism."

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Here's your 'socialism'.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9686288

That's not socialism? As a socialist, I agree. Socialism for the rich only is called 'fascism' - corporatism.

What it is NOT, is capitalism.

[mix]

27. When was there a time when capitalists did not rob the state's coffers? nt

[txlibdem]

78. OMG -- thank you for posting this

I've been wondering how to track down all of the $$TRILLIONS$$ that went to the big banks and big corporations. Please keep us up to date on any findings!

"What this disclosure tells us, among many other things, is that despite this huge taxpayer bailout, the Fed did not make the appropriate demands on these institutions necessary to rebuild our economy and protect the needs of ordinary Americans.


For example, at a time when big banks have nearly a trillion dollars in excess reserves parked at the Fed, the Fed did not require these institutions to increase lending to small- and medium-sized businesses as a condition of the bailout.


At a time when large corporations are more profitable than ever, the Fed did not demand that corporations that received this backdoor bailout create jobs and expand the economy once they returned to profitability." --from your link/OP

Thank you very much for posting this.

When will the sheep wake up and realize that we have already been led to the slaughter house and the master class are having a champaign brunch on our dime!

[jimlup]

71. Whatever... I'm not interesting in the technicalities of the language

But I think the rich like it quite a bit. Just sayin'

[txlibdem]

52. I used to call it Casino Capitalism America

... where the house ALWAYS wins.

Just look at your 401k balance for evidence of that...

[bemildred]

17. It does now.

What we have now has little to do with what Adam Smith was talking about.

[mix]

19. Then read more Marx. nt

[bemildred]

28. Are you some sort of Commie?

Why are you promoting Marx?

[mix]

31. Who better understood capitalism?

Whose tradition of critical theory, from Marx and Engels to Postone et al, has better understood how capitalism functions today?

There is and always has been more to Marx than his misappropriation by Soviet communism.

[bemildred]

32. I haven't read much Marx, he rants too much.

He was in some ways a profound thinker, ahead of his time. In other ways he was an immature twit. He was good at analysis, as you point out, but not so good at prognostication, and he tended to wallow in immature disputes over control. This tendency to indulge in violent arguments over dogma and who gets to be the big shot have been very pernicious in their effects, and autocratic elites have always been eager to exploit such infantile behavior for their own purposes.

I have read "Empire" by Hardt & Negri, which I found interesting then, and still illuminating now.

[mix]

34. That is a great book.

The squabbles that Marx mostly engaged in were over how to interpret capitalism in order to change it.

I have never thought of Marx as a ranter...Perhaps the Communist Manifesto has given you this impression, a work that was intended to be a political pamphlet and thus populist and strident. Otherwise, it is mostly dry lovely social science.

His basic point is if you do not understand the fundamentals of the economic system you live within, then you will be doomed to exist within it forever.

[bemildred]

38. I was impressed with it, still am, as I said.

I still refer to it at times to elucidate what is going on. A difficult read at times, but the ideas shine through. Of course I was stuck with a translation.

I don't want to argue about Marx. I respect his accomplishments, but I'm not a "believer", and I am skeptical of all utopian visions. The problems the human race faces are not really theoretical, we know what to do, but we don't want to do it.

Nice to talk with you though.

[Recursion]

47. His analysis of capitalism was pretty astute

His imagining of communism got a little silly ("I can farm in the morning, fish in the afternoon, and do literary criticism in the evening")

[bemildred]

57. Exactly.

He reminds me of Freud. A very important thinker, even a creative genius, but ...

[Recursion]

68. It's always the "But...", isn't it?

That said, I love reading Freud, too.

[mix]

69. Freud is a god. nt

[Pyrzqxgl]

18. Do you guys even know what Democracy is?

I'll bet I get several answers here. My guess is that we will keep plodding along with the system we more or less
have now which entails a progressive slip forward every now & then and a fatcat pull back to follow, until the
people get pissed off and there's another slip forward , followed by a lurch back, lunge forward, push back, sneak
forward, grab back, etc. etc. etc. Yawn!

[mix]

23. Plausible, this has been a pattern for two centuries of US history.

But what breaks the cycle?

Something always does.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. And when it comes, it comes in the form of an English Civil War,

a French Revolution, a Russian Revolution.

What breaks the cycle is going way too far, for way too long, in favor of the monied aristocracy.

IMO, we're close to that now.

[txlibdem]

24. Two ways we could go, our current conditions are only temporary

1.) It's likely that TPTB and their cronies in gov't and the military will stage a coup and turn us into a fascist state. The fascists love corporations so nothing will change except the "trouble makers" will be rounded up periodically and sent to "re-education" camps.

2.) It's much less likely that the masses will finally wake the F**K up and realize that we're all tired of carrying the rich dead weight on our backs all our F**KING lives and take them down, break down their mansion walls and haul their crooked asses to jail where they belong.

Americans are sheep. I don't see #2 happening till things get much, much worse for the average person and not without some outside help to get the ball rolling.

[doc03]

26. What we have today isn't even Capitalism, it's an

Oligarchy.

[mix]

29. And neoliberal capitalism is the economic system propping up that oligarchy. nt

[Creative]

35. I hope not, because Capitalism is the only economic system

that recognizes individual rights. Thus, it is the only economic system that is compatible with freedom.

[mix]

37. How might one prove this hypothesis? nt

[Creative]

42. It's not a hypothesis, it is a fact of reality.

Under capitalism, each individual has the right to his own life and property.

Under socialism, communism and fascism, the emphasis is on collective rights.

[mix]

43. That is a dictionary entry assertion. Nothing empirical or scientific about that.

Rhetoric.

[Creative]

55. This is not rocket science. Individuals or either free to pursue their dreams or they are not.

Under fascism/socialism/communism, individuals must sacrifice themselves to the collective. They are not free to pursue their own goals, aspirations or dreams.

"To be a socialist," said Goebbels, the 3rd Reich's Minister of Propaganda "is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."

[mix]

66. Besides your weak defense of capitalism,

that fixates on "socialism" and "communism" you still haven't answered the poll question.

Also, is there such equality of opportunity in our society? Do we all have the same chance to pursue our "dreams"? I think you overstate your case.

[Creative]

73. There is no "fixation" on socialism/communism; rather, if we are comparing capitalism

to other economic systems, those systems must be identified.

And I did answer the poll question (I hope not).

To answer your question, there is not equality of opportunity in any society. Some people will always greater opportunity than others, simply because of the environment they are born into.

However, unlike other economic systems, capitalism provides the opportunity for those who start behind, to catch up and even pass those who started ahead of them.

[txlibdem]

53. What rights to property do you actually have?

When the bank can take away your house even though they can't produce a shred of paper that shows they actually own it...

When your car can be repossessed if you miss even one payment...

What property do you own that you think the oligarchy and the wealthy thieves cannot take away from you? Your socks?

Home owners in New Jersey found out that the town council voted to give their land to a land developer so he could build a shopping mall. Today their homes are flattened, the whole area is a weed-covered field because the developer backed out of the deal --after they had stolen the homes from those low income home owners. Real nice, huh?

You have no rights under this current oligarchy. You just think you do. Good luck.

[Creative]

58. If you don't pay for your house or your car, you do not own them.

The case you cite in New Jersey is a prime example of the rights of individuals being sacrificed on the alter of collectivism.

Much to my dismay, the so-called liberal justices on the Supreme Court made it easier for the collectivists to steal private property. The so-called conservatives made the right call in Kelo. These types of cases make it clear that the only labels that matter are freedomism and slaveism.

[txlibdem]

54. What rights to property do you actually have?

When the bank can take away your house even though they can't produce a shred of paper that shows they actually own it...

When your car can be repossessed if you miss even one payment...

What property do you own that you think the oligarchy and the wealthy thieves cannot take away from you? Your socks?

Home owners in New Jersey found out that the town council voted to give their land to a land developer so he could build a shopping mall. Today their homes are flattened, the whole area is a weed-covered field because the developer backed out of the deal --after they had stolen the homes from those low income home owners. Real nice, huh?

You have no rights under this current oligarchy. You just think you do. Good luck.

[strawberryfield]

36. I love capitalism, but I hate corporatism

My vision would be a return to the Jeffersonian concept of a nation farmers and small business people who are the owners of their own labor. I have built my own life to fit this vision. I don't have a problem with the notion of capitalism, or even with the idea that some people will profit more from it than others. I just have a problem with gigantic corporate interests rigging the playing field.

[mix]

40. Jefferson's vision rested upon the extermination of as many Native Americans as possible.

But I get your point.

[rucky]

62. Is that what the Lewis & Clark Expedition was about?

If so, that passed me by in history class.

[mix]

67. Not specifically, that was more of an exploratory mission

to explain the new conditions of sovereignty to the regions prior occupants.

The real Indian Wars of the time were along the Appalachians and the Ohio Valley, anywhere really were Anglo-American settlement brushed against native territories. Jefferson supported settler land grabs and speculated in these new acquisitions. A quote:

On August 28, 1807, President Jefferson writes to his Secretary of War (the primary administrator of Indian affairs in the Jefferson administration), General Henry Dearborn, that "if we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down until that tribe is exterminated." Later in the letter to Dearborn, Jefferson adds that "n war, they will kill some of us; we will destroy all of them."
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=4863
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=4129

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. No. Capitalism is the part of this society with the most horsepower behind it.

Those with the power will let EVERYTHING go before capitalism.

In other words, the United States will be gone before capitalism.

[mix]

44. interesting point, your last line nt

[Recursion]

46. The American Revolution was a capitalistic response to mercantilism

It's not a coincidence that Adam Smith's book came out in 1776; mercantilism was pissing a lot of people off. Capitalism has always been to some extent part of the US's identity, and I suspect it will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

[mix]

48. I agree with your read of its connection to American political identity,

but does this guarantee its perpetuation?

Despite its periodic crises and innate injustices, capitalism seems more hegemonic than ever.

But fragilities are becoming apparent.

[Recursion]

50. Guarantee? No

But I think departing from that economic model would probably only come with a Constitutional re-write, which we just don't have the discontent to do right now.

[Capn Sunshine]

49. monolithism?

[mix]

74. What did that mean?

[Iterate]

51. I find the notion that we have one single type of economy increasingly tiresome.

In truth we have many types of social exchange that can and do contribute to an overall economy -from farm co-ops, to wikipedia, to improvised local charities, to private entrepreneurship; Some are downright communist, some are anarchical libertarian, some socialist, on and on.

We've outlawed a few types of economic relationships, like slavery, indentured servitude, and criminal entrepreneurship, but there's another that just doesn't play well with others and has decided not only to claim the commons, but to stamp out or subsume all other forms as well: predatory corporate capitalism, especially version 2.0, consumerist, exploitative, and global.

So my answer is a pluralistic economy, with drop dead controls over any form that threatens the greater whole.

[mix]

82. Is it a "notion" or empirical fact that most people do not operate within

the micro-economies you list. And even these are not autonomous from neoliberalism.

The majority of Americans and I daresay the world lives a neoliberal capitalist reality to lesser and greater degrees.

That is the hegemony of our times.

[Iterate]

88. No, quite the opposite.

What I'm suggesting is that people do not live within any single micro-economy and it's hard to imagine a situation where they would.

Even the most hard-hearted broker runs a family by one set of economic rules, and after work may seamlessly and without dissonance volunteer on a library board for the construction of a new building, then go home to write for Wikipedia.

I just don't see an acknowledgment in popular discussion that it's the dynamic and freely chosen variety that is both the reality and our strength -and the hegemony of any one type of social and economic exchange is bound to be distorting. By metaphor, I'm suggesting more of a dynamic and foamy economy than a set of monolithic blocks. Neoliberal capitalism couldn't exist autonomously without the others either, and I can't imagine the horror if we should try.

[mix]

89. The economic, cultural, social and political reality for American citizens

is neoliberal capitalism. These random anti-capitalist gestures and micro-economies are at best reactions to the larger context of predatory unregulated capitalism. They are a step towards the horizon, but nothing more. Their importance may grow, globalization seems to be splintering.

[Iterate]

90. I do recognize that, don't like it, but recognize it,

deeply in fact, and not without pain.

By chance more than design, I've also worked in many different sectors, have noticed how other people's personalities tended to fit the local economic rules, and what a bad fit most of them would be in any other economic structure, especially a corporate/capitalist one. Maybe that explains something about current unemployment and undervalued alternatives.

Anyway, that doesn't address you're original post, will we ever have another dominant system? How about this: convergence crises of fuel, electricity, climate, migration, and brittle economic downturns in 2050 forces North America and Europe into an existential choice, when they nationalize and localize multiple whole sectors in a single week. Russia/China/East Asia retain a form of feudal capitalism and after nearly 150 years of struggle and war we find that we have merely switched sides in the great game.

I can say that because few of us will likely be around to know the difference. Thanks.

[Safetykitten]

59. It will be a Militaristic Kleptocracy with tinges of Corporate Socialism

You will be given a card for the "Citizen Require Access Point System"

Wages, debits and credits.

[Skink]

63. We need a president that can take over hostile news organizations.

nationalize coporations etc.

[tritsofme]

72. Yeah, the First Amendment is for suckers!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

64. 1. = yes - 2. = bartering goods and services in exchange for other.

Once the rich have ALL the money. The rest of us will barter for the most part using our money ONLY for those things that we can not barter.

[Kievan Rus]

70. Feudalism

[timo]

81. barter

food and ammo will be the NEW gold standard!!

[KeyserSoze87]

86. The teatards want neo-feudalism.

[mix]

87. The protection of the manor. nt