Ok what ails us as an economy needs CAPITALIST solutions

[nadinbrzezinski]

ok so what am I talking about? Let's look at the Wealth of Nations and the Theory of Moral Sentiment by one Adam Smith. What did he suggest as the basis for the wealth of nations? SMALL to MEDIUM producers competing in a REGULATED market place. What did Marx, the other book end of the classic economics suggest? Leave the dialectic to the side since the rise of the workers paradise needs to be preceded by a WELL REGULATED CAPITALIST and INDUSTRIAL stage.

I know the word marxist really scares people, but the solutions to a MONOPOLY economy is exactly the same for both... that is a WELL REGULATED economy.

So you are afraid of Marxist solutions to what ails us? Then you should fear the return of Glass Steegal... which we sorely need.

SO you think we have never had elements of this in the US Economy? What do you think the 1950s were? Leave all names to the side.

They have done an incredible good job in the propaganda department. Alas a WELL REGULATED economy is at the heart of Capitalism. A not so well regulated economy is at the heart of what Adam Smith wrote against, a Monopoly economy...

Alex 1000 for what we live under these days... it is not capitalism...

Oh and this is in response to this thread and the... let's call it what it is, fear of a word.

[socialist_n_TN]

1. Yep. Marx saw a well regulated capitalism as a

progressive stage of developement over feudalism. We actually had that stage at one time, but no more.

But then remember I'm a Trotskyist. Permanent revolution and all that. :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. As I said, I know what the words mean

and I am not afraid of them... alas I bother readying all... I am more of a capitalist... or marxist, depending on what you mean... as in we need an extremely well regulated market place and tear down the monopolies.

The diagnosis though was the same... so I can get away with that...

:-)

And unlike many of the acolytes of the faith of free trade... I have read the holy writ.

[socialist_n_TN]

34. The real problem as I see it is that

the capitalists won't give up what they've worked to gain. Or the government they've bought.

I've said before that I've ALWAYS been a Marxist, but I'm pretty damn old now. I would probably have been happy enough just sitting back and being a "salon" Marxist and let the younger people have a go at it after I'm dead and gone IF things hadn't gotten to this point. But they HAVE gotten to this point and the class struggle has sharpened to razor keeness and I'm still alive to see it.

So the question for people becomes, "What now?" Nadin, you know "what now?" because you've said it before in lots of posts. Strikes, demonstrations, and a revolution. As peaceful as possible, but a revolution nonetheless. Then with the, hopefully, success of a revolution the question would become AGAIN, "What now?" Reregulate capitalism and let the next generation fight the battle all over again in another 50 years? Or smash it and try for socialism? I mean REAL socialism, not the deformed worker's state that the USSR became. After all, we ARE a LOT closer to the ideal advanced state FOR socialism to actually have a chance at success.

It might not happen for a long time, but that question WILL have to be answered.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. You asked... and I will give you an answer that you might NOT like

nor with the elites by the way... not here to raise the issue in a nice way.

Global Weather Change, and a population crash are coming. They are coming down like oh freight trains. You can see the lights in the tunnel. When all is said and done, I don't think we will have a capitalist system (by what these people define the word)... hell not even Adam Smith's or Marx's definition. But neither we will have a socialist, communist, marxist... (The words have different meanings, but not in the US) system either. I think when all is said and done... we are very near a tipping point and a new political and economic paradigm. Population collapses do that. The Renaissance could not have come without your friendly black death. And what is coming insofar as a population crash is concerned... will not be one third of Europe... it may very well be six billion people.

It gives me no pleasure to write that, but peak oil is coming... and without the intense form of energy... the green revolution is done for. And a few people do think that the carrying capacity of the planet without industrial agriculture... is about one billion

When younger we wanted kids. These days we are glad nature prevented me from getting pregnant. WHat is coming is not nice... and yes that paradigm shift will also do something else... like Rome's collapse that saw the death of the Roman Pantheon... this will also kill three particular Bronze Age Religions, as well as a few others. We will not only see a new economic and political system emerge, but I am betting a new religious one as well.

[elleng]

2. Yes, I've said repeatedly, healthy/successful capitalism DEMANDS

regulation. Without it, 'human nature,' 'me, me, me,' destroys it, as we see happening now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Precisely and that is a very CAPITALIST pov

I drive some of the followers of the faith of trickle down crazy. I quote SMITH to them... oh that is Marx, nope, SMITH.

[banned from Kos]

12. Exactly. Capitalism loves order and regulation - that is why Delaware

is where they want to incorporate. The great Soros and Buffett know this.

Only a demented Teabagger or Oil/Finance criminal wants an ABSENCE of regulation!

[elleng]

26. You're basically correct, but many more want absence of regulation.

Its been a rw meme for MANY years, been successful in many places, and here we are, system REALLY messed up by deliberate failure of/lax regulation.

[Taverner]

4. Yes, the best way to cure someone from poisoning is 10x more poison nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. So regulation and breaking up the monopolites

is poison? Let me get this one straight. Problem is that most of our modern day "capitalists" do not realize that regulations are very much at the heart of what Smith envisioned... that is part of the propaganda.

[Taverner]

7. No capitalism is poison

It is the inane idea that a system that rewards greed and antisocial behavior will in turn give us the greatest benefit.

Capitalism had its chance. It failed. Twice.

Fuck Capitalism. It's bankrupt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Alas that is not what Smith wrote about

like the USSR was not marxist, the US is not capitalist. Never has, never will, actually I hope some day it is.

What Smith wrote against is precisely what we have right now. Pick up the Wealth, serious.

I have lots of fun quoting those parts to fans of trickle down who believe they are capitalists... they usually go YOU ARE A COMMIE... then I show them the book, the holy writ, they have not read. I have lots of fun with that one...

I actually had one guy finally stop calling himself Capitalist and a fan of Adam Smith since he finally got it how COMMUNIST it is... so it did not have large sections of Hegel... Hegel had not written his Dialectic yet.

[Taverner]

14. The USSR was not Marxist, but a lot of Das Kapital was put into practice

Hell, Trofim Lysenko was Marxism applied to science.

We have Capitalism here. It may not be "pure" or even the best form, but it is capitalism. And it is doomed to failure.

Capitalism does not work for the same reason Marxist-Lenninist Communism doesn't work. Nobody is watching.

I will agree that regulation can help both Captialism and Communism. It can save lives, and the system. But regulation has to be built into the system from the get go, and when it's removed (like in the repeal of Glass-Steagall) that leaves no one watching.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. It is not,

what we have is a modern version of the East India Company...

With a dash of fascism...

In this case Inverted totalitarianism, and a healthy dose of propaganda... which is invested in calling this dog what it is not.

Read Democracy Inc.

As to the USSR applying some of the solutions from Das Kapital... some of what was applied went all the way back to the Wealth, just saying.

[Taverner]

20. For me, I consider Socialism to be the true "third way"

The "third way" you see in Congress is just a repackaging of the GOP's plan, with a smile on it.

If Capitalism is the first way (and I would argue that although what we have is not Classical Capitalism, it is in fact Capitalist) and Communism is the second way, then Socialism, which is a hybrid of the two, is the real third way.

Yes, there are a lot of Corporatist Policies in our System, and a few Fascist ones as well. But in the end, the corporation dictates the rules. It makes the market bend to its will, rather than vice versa (Classical Capitalism) as opposed to Communism, which denies the market exists (thus creating a black market, which is the closest to Classical Capitalism that you can get)

This "is" a form of Capitalism. Now if someone were to argue that we have to change our Capitalist System, I would be for it. But in the end, trying to tame a tiger is a lot harder than trying to tame a poodle. So why bother with the tiger? Get the poodle.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Use a less ideologically charged word

mixed economy... and you are correct, it is actually what BOTH Marx and Smith (as well as Richardo) wrote about. Alas the propaganda masters are invested in the words...

[Taverner]

23. Love David Ricardo

If we ever go Socialist, that would be the way

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. And he is also a classical economist

my point is that we need to start readying the books and stop falling for the propaganda, which reminds me the master of the universe don't want us too.

[BOG PERSON]

41. how old are you?

[Taverner]

42. 41. And I've been to the USSR.. Your point?

[BOG PERSON]

44. saying something like

"the USSR wasn't marxist but put a lot of DAS KAPITAL into practice"

is pretty much a dead giveaway you never read "DAS KAPITAL". sorry.

edit. i don't know why i asked your age. sorry about that too

[Taverner]

45. Labor Theory of Value

Straight out of Das Kapital

And yes, that was used to determine wages in the USSR. The math Marx uses (yes, there is math in Das Kapital - it's in vol 4, the unfinished one) was used by central planners to determine wages.

[BOG PERSON]

47. labor theory of value is way older than marx

and there is math in every volume of capital. it's just there to illustrate concepts and some of it is sloppy math.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. And Labor theory of value went all the way back

to Smith... why they are bookends of classical economics.

[hack89]

38. Seems to work for Norway, Sweden and other social democracies

they are frequently held up as examples of countries that take care of their citizens. And they all have thriving free market economies.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. The problem with the word, CAPITALISM, is definition drift...

The word doesn't mean what Adam Smith Envisioned, and hasn't meant that since at least the mid-seventies.

But we still use it because it is a comforting part of our national myth, which like Chevrolet, America, and Apple Pie has taken on deep symbolic meaning. We are Capitalists, which means we are not evil Communists, Socialists, Fascists, or any other 'ist that has been put up as the enemy of all that is true and good in our exceptionalist world view.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. +1000 Exactly

and it gets worst, things that are very capitalists, like Glass Steegal, are painted as ugly commie things that we don't need no more.

[AndyTiedye]

9. It's Not Capitalism Anymore When Robber Barons Buy the Government

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. And I know what you mean

look into inverted totalitarianism..

DEMOCRACY INC is a must read on this subject

[Scruffy1]

16. Thanks for the book rec Nadia.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Oh you welcome, I got the recommendation here as well

[Rex]

18. It is so easy to fix...I must assume everyone in power just likes

corporate corruption since Obama decided to let the war criminals George W Bush and Dick Cheney off the hook with no accountability for the largest crime committed against the United States since I don't know when.

We are fucked...no one in charge wants to take any kind of responsibility or hold accountable any of the criminals that got us here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Nobody did either until people took to the streets

during the last major peaceful revolution. THe New Deal came to save capitalism because people took to the streets.

And it is well past time to do that.

[Rex]

24. Protesting doesn't work.

We are beyond that imo.

[Dr Fate]

25. Full on strikes and riots do.

But that wont happen until the TV, beer and ipads/iphones i this and ithats run out.

[Rex]

27. I agree.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Tahrir square relied on Ipads and iphones and facebook

just saying.. they have and will replace the old fashioned hand bill.

[Dr Fate]

31. Okay, great point. I'm being too negative & cynical.

I guess I just assumed that when it gets to the point where Americans would use those devices in such a way, they would already have sold them to buy beer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. They were used that way in Wisconsin as well

Just because our media don't report it... they reported it on Tahrir, but did not report it on WI

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Oh yes it does

it takes time, which a lot of people do not realize.

Look at the union movement... they were ilegal in 1884 during the Haymarket affair... they were liegal in the 1920s... they became legal ONLY during the New Deal.

People misunderstand, we cannot get instant results... and it may take that long, THis is at the heart of MOVEMENT politics, understanding this.

Women voting... neither of the two women who got that ball rolling got to exercise that right.

[Dr Fate]

22. Clear eyed centrism got us into this mess, and clear eyed centrism will get us out!

Dripping Sarcasm thingy goes here

[socialist_n_TN]

32. LOL! And just to add to it

:rofl:

[robdogbucky]

35. I offer Louis Kelso's analysis:

The Father of ESOP, Employee Stock Ownership Program. He noticed that the capitalist model as originally envisioned, workers rewarded for their work with a piece of capital. The Calvinists subverted this notion, created wages and wage slaves instead. Easier to fire and replace when the worker does not have any say in the business:






Kelso long believed that he had not originated a new economic theory but only discovered a vital fact that the classical economists had somehow overlooked. This fact was the key to understanding why the private property, free market economy was notoriously unstable, pursuing a roller coaster course of exhilarating highs and terrifying descents into economic and financial collapse.

This missing fact, which Kelso had uncovered over years of intensive reading, research and thought, drastically modifies the classical paradigm which has dominated formal economics since Adam Smith. It concerns the effect of technological change on the distributive dynamics of a private property, free market economy. Technological change, Kelso concluded, makes tools, machines, structures and processes ever more productive while leaving human productiveness largely unchanged. The result is that primary distribution through the free market economy, whose distributive principle is “to each according to his production,” delivers progressively more market-sourced income to capital owners and progressively less to workers who make their contributions through labor.

Differential productiveness over time concentrates market-sourced income in the hands of those who will not recycle it back through the market as payment for consumer goods and services. They already have most of what they want and need so they invest their excess in new productive power. This is the source of the distributional bottleneck which makes the private property, free market economy ever more dysfunctional. The symptoms of dysfunction are capital concentration and inadequate consumer demand, the effects of which translate into poverty and economic insecurity for the majority of people who depend entirely on wage income and cannot survive more than a week or two without a paycheck. And since, as Adam Smith laid down, economic demand begins with the consumer and consumer purchasing power, the production side of the economy is under-nourished and hobbled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_O._Kelso




Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. I'll offer one more radical view

which is not part of the discussion either. We talk classical economics, in theory... in practice we haven't practiced them either.

Yes that is a problem, which could and should be adressed... but if you look at what it is taught at places like Chicago School, London School, et al... they do some work in Classical, but that is not what they teach as ideal forms, and consider that as a superior way...

The chicago boys are especially toxic... with the privatize all mantra. They play homage to Smith, but as I like to say, have not really read the holy writ.

Truth be told, an ideal system would be heavily regulated, to maintain small to medium producers... with a lot of things we think off as benefits in the US, funded by the state as RIGHTS... health care anyone?

It would take elements of marxism, yes I used the M word, elements of Keynes and a few from Smith and Richardo... we call that a mixed economy and they are very efficient for the people, alas not the corporations who at their heart hate Smith.

[The Big Vetolski]

37. K & R for a thoughtful and insightful post. One quibble: Marx, or if

not Marx himself but Engels or one of the dead Russians, did predict that regulated capitalism would never last because the profit motive of capitalism itself would always seek to destroy regulations on capitalism and would eventually succeed.

It seems the old Communists have been proven right about that one. That's not to say they could eventually be proven wrong, but the ONLY way to do so, as I see it, is to abolish this idea that corporations should be given the same rights as individual human beings under the law. Unless the individual human beings who are responsible for the decisions that guide a corporation's actions can be individually fined, imprisoned, and even executed on a consistent basis, then it is impossible to really deter corporate actions that harm the people, the nation, the community, and the planet.

A good start to this would be to abolish corporate personhood and the corporate veil. That should be the first step that the next revolutionary government should take in that direction. I say revolutionary government because I now believe that only a revolution has any chance of replacing our current kleptocratic oligarchy. And it may get ugly. Cest la vie.

[socialist_n_TN]

40. Good post. I said something similiar up above

And I probably got it from one of the dead Russians, although I don't remember that.

However, even a cursory glance at the history of this subject will show the truth of this observation. Gilded Age to TR regulation. Back to deregulation under Hoover leading to the '29 crash and the Depression. Regulation to Reagan, then deregulation to the '08 crash and the Great Recession. It IS a pattern that is historically repeated.

Which brings up the big question. Comes the revolution, what do you do then? Give it back to the capitalists so they can destroy it again in another 50 or so years? Or try somethng, ANYTHNG, different?

[The Big Vetolski]

43. That decision will probably be out of my hands. Personally, I think

we need to try something else besides capitalism. It is inherently destructive not only to most people but to itself. As to why, as you well know, read your Marx. Nobody analyzes capitalism better than Marx. As to replacing it? I don't know. A successful system would definitely have some socialist elements. The problem with socialism, as I understand socialism, is that it, just like capitalism, assumes infinite resources. We know that is not the case. I think we need something new.

I don't know what that will be. I have faith that somebody will figure it out. Because I have faith that the universe will unfold in the way in which it was intended. Silly me, I know. :)

[socialist_n_TN]

46. Well the advantage to socialism is that resources

would be more equally distributed. And being more equally distributed, the finite resources would last longer when they're not hoarded by the 1%. Maybe even long enough to make a transition to a renewable form of resource.

I just don't see going through all the shit of trying to take our government back, AGAIN, only to give it back to the people who always ruin it. I guess that's why I'm a Marxist though.

[The Big Vetolski]

48. Oh, I agree with you on a fundamental level. Don't get me wrong.

But there will always be classes of people so long as there are human beings. Some people aspire to fortune or fame or power and will strive to gain it. Some people are just happy living what they consider to be a reasonably comfortable life(that's me, BTW). Some people are just lazy, manipulative parasites who would rather live in the gutter than follow anyone else's rules. Some people are shameless mercenaries who will cater to whoever rewards them the most at the time.

The challenge, to me, is to insure that the second group predominates in most things, most of the time. When that happens, history shows that we have the most just and stable societies. Every once in awhile, though, the Universe throws a curve ball, and we need the traits of one of the other groups to show us the way.

The Universe is perverse. Alas.

[socialist_n_TN]

50. Yeah, I'm in that middle group too

:) And as SO many movie characters have said, I'm too old for this shit.

[The Big Vetolski]

51. Tell me about it. I just want beer, BBQ, football and a comfortable

home. But there appear to be those who want to take that away. They really piss me off, dude.

[socialist_n_TN]

53. "They really piss me off, dude"

I feel ya bro, I feel ya. :)

Like I said in another post on another thread, I'd have LOVED to have spent my declining years as a "salon" Marxist and leaving the revolution part for younger folks after I'm safely dead. Alas, it doesn't look like it's to be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. There is quite a bit of pressure now to get rid of personhood

take into account that for Marx the model was the UK of his era, which was quite worst than the US... Dickens comes to mind. The US had a safety valve the british did not have... go west young man. (That is the Turner theory and I think it is quite valid even now)

Reality is we need to change paradigms due to global weather change... and we will reach that tipping point,

[The Big Vetolski]

54. Does that mean you want to abolish corporate personhood?

Changing paradigms is all well and good, and inevitable if we are to survive. Do you have a paradigm in mind? Or do you just think that our current one is doomed?

This isn't really a criticism, because I don't know WTF the next paradigm will be, only that the one I've lived most of my life in is already dead but just doesn't know it yet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. That be a good start, a very good start indeed

But here is what I mean about paradigm shift...According to the UN we will need to produce 100% more food thab what we do right now, yep in a generation. There is no. Way I can think we can do that. This pressure alone, on resources, will lead to a change. Short term we need to highly regulate the beast and yes, get rid of it. Long term we will need to look at far older models than yes, capitalism itself. Economies will have to go local, regional best case, and societies will have to be far more cooperative. As a world I think we are close to a paradigm change. I think this change will also lead to new faith systems as well, since some og our traditional religions, in the most virulent forms, are also part of the problem.

That said, property is at the heart of western culture and that might have to change as well.

Nine billion...that is where we are going as a world population.

[The Big Vetolski]

56. You know, you make WAY too much sense for my own peace of

mind, Dude! Yeah, I looked at your profile. As far as I'm concerned, "Dude" is gender-neutral. You are right. Doesn't it eventually boil down to "Necessity is the mother of invention?" This conversation reminds me of a book I read many moons ago. It blew my mind at the time. "The Turning Point." By Fritjof Capra. He talked about a paradigm shift. I think he was basically right, though maybe not in quite the way he thought. But who is?

We're already seeing the beginning of a shift to more local economies, and this will accelerate as transportation, ie oil, costs rise. As far as population goes...I don't know. Somehow I think it will decrease rather rapidly during the paradigm shift. Horrible thought, I know. But how many people can this planet sustain? 9 billion? 12? I'm not sure it can maintain the current 6. And I remember when we hit 4 billion. This is unsettling. I think I will drink a beer and go to bed. Thanks for you thoughtful posts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. You welcome, book recomendation

The Chrysalis Effect...

http://www.amazon.com/Chrysalis-Effect-Metamorphosis-Global-Culture/dp/1845193113/ref=pd_ybh_13?pf_rd_p=280800601&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1SA2BDSNFJC9CDRYWDF8

And as to how far we can support, sans oil... I suspect one billion. NO, not a happy thought.

[BOG PERSON]

39. uh

karl marx was not a reformist

[Capitalocracy]

57. What is Capitalocracy, Alex?

Did I buzz in on time?

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. You did...

:hi:

My BIL and I have been struggling with the term...

And we have settled on monopoly consumerism, this week. It's not as catchy.

One of these days, never mind I am a historian by training and not an economist, I will finally put all of this in book form. THat will be one I self publish though. Just as, I fear, the history of labor I am working on. So many books, so little time.

[robcon]

61. As a another thread shows, capitalism is reducing poverty across the globe.

The great news is that all people who have capitalist and free trade policies continue to prosper.

[blindpig]

63. Capitalism creates poverty for the majority.

There may be more per capita wealth but but it is concentrated in the hands of very few.

[blindpig]

62. Nonsense

Regulation is antithetical to Capitalism. Why do you think they are always trying to evade it? Marx showed that monopoly and finance capitalism were the natural outcome of the progression of capitalism.

The mistake here is the assumption that the political has control of the economic, quite the opposite. The ruling class wants unfettered ability to make more money and maintain their social position ad infinitum. They use their wealth to insure this by means fair and foul. Only by separating this class from the source of their wealth and power, the means of production, can we end this. Regulation will always be evaded, is that not too obvious, and they got the power to do so, enough of this farce.