If capitalism sucks, what do we replace it with?

[Cyrano]

I started a thread on a different topic, yet the subject of getting rid of capitalism came up.

Regulated capitalism works fairly well as we saw between the end of WWII and 1980. Then, St. Ronnie came along and started to destroy oversight of any kind. The result it that today's unregulated capitalism is as evil as any fascist system.

Let's say that we had the power to dismantle it. What would we replace it with? How would we organize a society/community in which a fair and equitable system was in place? Just tearing down capitalism isn't enough if it were to be replaced by anarchy.

So I'd like to hear any and all theories of what kind of system would/could be put in place once capitalism was gone.

[Lucian]

1. I love the bartering system.

Think of how many things can be recycled if we all just bartered with each other!

[Hestia]

9. Too true - Egypt built an empire without coinage, which came with Alexander - they bartered for

everything

[brooklynite]

15. You and Sharron Angle...

[Cerridwen]

50. And pioneers in the "Old West" and "hippies" from the 60s...and, gee, I bet

you could find a lot more if you were doing something other that guilt-by-association, drive-by snark.

[Lucian]

59. Why the hell would you associate me with her?

[brooklynite]

171. You've forgotten her "health care for chickens" ides?

[jwirr]

68. Yes, I was thinking about what I could trade to big pharma for my

medications. I live in the city limits so I don't even have two chickens.

[FarLeftFist]

104. Capitalism 2.0 involving heavy regulations and much less tax loopholes

Let them move to a different country, at least we'll know who the enemy is and we could avoid/boycott them and support those who support America.

[defendandprotect]

146. FDR regulated capitalism in order to save it -- they used wealth/violence to overturn it -- !!

As Michael Moore makes clear, "Capitalism is an evil and you can't regulate an evil" --

Vatican invented capitalism when feudalism was no longer sufficient to run their Papal

States --

Capitalism is intended to move the wealth and natural resources of nations from the many

to the few -- and it does that very successfully!

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime --

It's over -- Americans now understand what the rest of the world has long known!!

[KharmaTrain]

141. FTR It Was Sue Lowden Who Made That Remark...

...and it cost her the rushpublican primary...losing to Angle.

[Honeycombe8]

81. That's a type of capitalism, isn't it? If what I have is money...

I offer to give you $10.00 for that thing you have, and you give that thing to me. Or if what i have is another thing, I might offer that.

But it won't work to barter just between individuals. That's inefficient for multiple millions of peope in an advanced, industrialized civilization.

You still have to have manufacturing, businesses that service equipment, etc. They have to have employees that get paid money, since they need to be able to count on obtaining a certain amount of $, and there has to be a way to pay someone the same thing each payday, and to compare wages.

Bartering would work in the country, at a farmers' market or something.

[kentuck]

133. Very true.

Money is bartered for a product. If we think money is the only thing of value, then we are stuck with the capitalist system.

[JanMichael]

85. That only works for people with something to trade.

After a while it becomes monopoly.

[leftstreet]

2. Any system that meets human needs, not profits n/t

[defendandprotect]

147. Exactly --- and you can't have democracy without economic democracy -- !!

Most of all we have to stop judging everything by the yardstick

of a dollar bill!

[Dover]

156. True dat. n/t

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. Regulated or restrained capitalism appears to more preferable to

serving corporate overlords that have purchased our political process.

[Scuba]

6. Bingo. Get money out of politics and capitalism will work fine. n/t

[RKP5637]

10. Yep, our problem is we have corrupt tyrannical capitalism today. n/t

[leftstreet]

12. What does 'good' Capitalism look like?

:shrug:

[RKP5637]

18. I would say highly regulated capitalism. I would see highly regulated

capitalism + socialism, as a hybrid, as working system.

The problem, of course, is that with any '-ism' corruption at the top levels still ruins the system for the majority ...

[leftstreet]

20. So it looks something like....this?

[RKP5637]

27. Yep, if it's necessary to muzzle the evil side, yes. n/t

[defendandprotect]

148. +1000% ---

[Cyrano]

30. Yep. If only we could find a way to keep human beings (and pit bulls) out of the process

[RKP5637]

37. It's really a fundamental human problem, isn't it, wherein I will always contend that

capitalism (out of control) has created and highly rewarded sociopathic like behavior and in not a small number of cases sociopaths have benefited greatly from the system.

[Cyrano]

41. The sociopaths will find a way to thrive under any system conceivable

So I guess what I just said is that it's the sociapaths that are the problem, not the system.

I think I just answered the question I set forth in my OP. All we have to do is get human nature out of the mix and humanity will do just fine.

Ouch. That concept hurts my head and my ability to reason. Nonetheless ...

[RKP5637]

53. Yep, I guess that is the root cause, human nature. Let's see, maybe we need the

perfect humanoid to keep us all in line. Now, I'm getting a headache. Who will design the perfect humanoid. We already have Cheney, he seems to be a developing cyborg ... that's not a good one. Back to the design table...

[leftstreet]

56. Blaming greed for capitalism's failure is like blaming gravity for a bridge collapse

You design your system around it

:-)

[RKP5637]

57. Yep, Excellent!

:)

[Cyrano]

61. Yeah, I have that system on the drawing board. The problem is that

I can't find anyplace to put the humans.

[RKP5637]

74. I guess under the bus? LOL n/t

[Confusious]

97. Good one

wish I had thought of it.

[sabrina 1]

76. We take sociopathic criminals out of society every day.

We do it with laws.

There is no reason why, with proper regulations, economic terrorists cannot be kept out of our system of government.

I do not believe that it is 'human nature' to rob, steal, pillage, murder and torture for profit. That is deviant behavior. And the current system rather than preventing such deviants to rise to the top of our system, actually gave them the keys to the kingdom.

They are, as the numbers show, relatively small in number compared to even the numbers of people now in the streets. The people were too trusting, now they're not, so it is possible to get rid of them and to keep them out just as you would keep such warped individuals out of your house.

However, the non-psychopaths in society are also to blame because they allowed party loyalty and fear eg, to prevent them from taking action against these criminals even when they were uneasy about what they were doing.

When the people no longer enable them, then we can begin to change things. And I think the moment has arrived and if everyone sets aside temporarily their fears and misguided loyalties, we can still have a decent society.

[RKP5637]

79. Agree, if we could get them out of the system it would be massively better, they

are the rot in the system. IMO that would be a massive step in the right direction.

[sabrina 1]

84. We can do it by using the words 'Wall Street candidate'

to smear any politician running for office who is funded by Wall Street. This should become a litmus test for elected officials.

If a campaign is launched by the people who are now showing up in increasing numbers on the streets in greater numbers each day, listing the donations of every candidate next to their photos, after a while, some of them may become afraid to take such donations. And that will make it possible for honest, non-corporate-funded candidates to run and be supported by millions of Americans now determined to take the money out of our system.

The words 'non-Corporate funded' should become a rallying cry to support non-corporate funded candidates who normally wouldn't have a chance, in the next election.

Good people do not run because they know they cannot win against the corporations' candidates.

For too long these well-funded tools have not been called out on their bought and paid for status. But things have changed and people are now aware of the harm this has done to our system of government.

In every state now, there are 'occupywallstreet' groups forming and building at a fast pace. Those groups can start making lists of candidates running in 2012 and challenge them to refuse corporate money or face a People's candidate who will not need it anymore.

Make it popular to be able to say 'I am not funded by Corporations'. And we need to start now.

[RKP5637]

100. Excellent!!! I agree with this very much. IMO I think many Americans often

vote without really knowing what a candidate is truly about. This brief description, as you described, in today's emerging vernacular would make it readily apparent what a particular candidate is about!

[BrendaBrick]

125. EXACTLY!!!!!!

Who knows...maybe Colbert's Super Pac SHH can not only run ads listing the donations of every candidate next to their photos, as you said - but also get behind "non-Corporate funded" Progressive candidates, aka the CPC or Congressional Progressive Caucus :-)

Great ideas sabrina 1!!!! By gosh, I think this would work!!!

[sabrina 1]

142. Thank you BrendaBrick. This movement is big enough to

have the power to influence elections now. And if it keeps growing, things could change faster than we had hoped.

Also, we don't need corporate money to expose them. So many talented and enthusiastic people are willing to volunteer their time and talents to make this happen.

Each district soon will have its own version of OWS. And just listing their funders, without making it Partisan, should become like a badge of shame which I think now the time is right for. 'Wall St. Candidate' V 'People's Candidate', your choice'.

[Raksha]

130. An excellent idea, Sabrina. Thanks. n/t

[defendandprotect]

145. Interesting suggestion --- and points to the TWO-SIDED reality of Citizens' United ...

One side is corporations trying to buy government and candidates --

Other side is candiates and elected officials who are SELLING themselves to corporations --


Also about time we began using opposing propaganda -- some left wing reality!!

"Wall Street candidate" --



:hi:

[sabrina 1]

151. All it needs to do is point out the facts.

Voters often do not know these facts about the people they vote for. But if there is a list available to them of all the candidates, left, right, whatever, and the list of their donors next to their names, it's just a little more information for voters to have. And hopefully it will have the effect of making such donations poison for a candidate. And the current atmosphere, I believe it might.

Each state and dist. should probably take out full page ads in the major newspapers, and print up fliers, bumper stickers etc. listing the candidates and their donors close to the election. It should not be partisan. Michael Moore had a scene in Sicko where he placed pricetags over the heads of Members of Congress as they walked into the Capital Bldg showing how much was paid for them by Corporate America. Maybe he would get his art dept. to print up posters like that. I found it shocking at the time as even though I knew they took corporate money, I had no idea how much and how many in both parties, were bought. That graphic illustration was very effective.

This would make it easier for a decent person to have a shot at an election and they could run on 'I am NOT a Wall St. candidate, I will be working for the people'. Bumper stickers, fliers, radio ads etc. could possibly be enough, once people become aware, to create an opportunity for non-corporate-funded candidates to actually have a chance of winning.

I hope a lot of them run as Independents which I think is probably going to happen. Then they will not be beholden to any party who can twist their arms when there are votes like the Bailouts eg. Much harder to herd a group of non-affiliated Representatives than party members.

If things continue as they are nothing will change. The Corps will keep buying candidates and no Campaign Finance laws will ever pass. The only way to do it is to get non-Wall St. candidates elected, and I think making corporate funding poisonous, might help with that. The time seems to be right.

Once we get enough of them elected, then some real change can take place. Like a reinstatement of Glass Steagal, Campaign Finance laws, restoring the Fairness Doctrine etc. But until we do something different, nothing will change.

Nice to see you as always ~ :-)

[defendandprotect]

165. Think voters have to keep asking politicians -- "Who did you sell yourself to today?" ---

As Al Gore pointed out in his Rolling Stone article this summer, Congress' schedule

is being set around the constant and DAILY needs of incumbents to raise funding for

their next race!

We also have a situation within the parties where the party's need for $$$$$$$$$$$ has

a gatekeeping effect which is permitting only the very wealthy to run for office!

At the beginning, the independents who run without corporate money will have to be very

"white hat" -- kind of like Sen. Bernie Sanders -- where the public has implicit trust

in them and where you almost have a word of mouth race.


Keep in mind also, that the corporate-press gets 80% of the campaign funds -- so they

are a natural enemy of any candidate not taking corporate bribes!


Agree re time being right -- Obama and Dems saw the warning and message of 2010 and ignored it.

In fact, Obama reversed the message claiming he was too far to the left and needed to compromise

with the right more! I notice still many here suggesting that the LEFT will vote for the right --

whether Obama or the GOP! Really I think that they've been hit with so much RW propaganda over

the years that they just can't fit it into their minds that this is a liberal nation --

radically so -- and that what they believe is simply RW lies/myths!



Just want to add that predatory capitalism has so poisoned both politics and nature that it

has effected every daily issue -- and beyond the most essential needs of the nation -- i.e.,

to end the wars and to attain universal health care -- we have the very urgent issue of

Global Warming moving faster and bringing ever more chaotic events.


:hi: :)

[Scuba]

101. Good post. Thanks.

[walerosco]

114. me buying $700 sony PC

for $400, back to school sales when I can buy $100s worth of schol supply for $10, iphones, pruise etc etc etc. Dont confuse capitalism with crony capitalism

[Starry Messenger]

16. Money is in politics *because* of capitalism.

Our entire country functions for the benefit of the big corporations. They aren't going to let go of that power just because we say so.

[RKP5637]

23. Yep, they aren't going to change, they will

just dig in and suppress the masses with their tremendous wealth. It's going to be a nasty affair in this country today to change it for the better ... I think. That, does not mean we should not try, I just question the most appropriate means ... OWS IMO is an excellent start. Hopefully that will grow and grow ... as others have said it's a shame winter is coming.

[Starry Messenger]

40. In the short term, all we can do is educate on the nature of the system

and support the rights of workers, and mass actions. This country is in the heart of imperialism, and the world that will come about is several years out, IMO. But the more we keep saying, "we just need to regulate it" the more the capitalists smile. They know they can slip that leash anytime they want to. Soon however, capitalism is going to run out of fictitious financial dodges to keep their wealth. Real wealth comes from labor, and the more they skin that down to the bone, the more they dig their own grave. When *that* day comes, people will have to decide which way they will jump: saving the owners from themselves and putting us back under their boot again? Or will they let the workers take their historical role?

[RKP5637]

43. Yep, I think similar ... in essence they are really starving themselves. Given the

nature of unbridled capitalism, I expect to see outright corporate wars as corporations strive to be total monopolies. However, I think many citizens are finally waking up to what is going on. I really think many R's, D's and I's have more in common than they realize. I think some people are finally starting to realize how propagandized they are, finally. Yes, it will take a few years, but it certainly can't continue as is. 2012 will be an amazing election, I think. After that, we'll know better (I think) what the future holds.

[socialist_n_TN]

109. "They know they can slip that leash anytime they want to."

And THAT is exactly the rub with any form of capitalism. The only way to even be halfway sure about regulating it is to, to borrow a phrase, keep it so small we can drown it in a bathtub.

ALL general welfare industries should be run for the people and by the people and be not for profit. And that's just a start.

[JanMichael]

106. sometime decent things happen in october. nt.

[Odin2005]

25. Yup. Economic power is political power.

[Zorra]

14. +billions. Strictly regulating capitalism is the necessary first step.

And the first step toward strictly regulating capitalism would be removing all influence and control of our government by wealthy private interests.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. yes.

[philly_bob]

86. +1

[seabeyond]

157. agreed. which everyone knows, yet still.... nt

[Starry Messenger]

4. Socialism.

It's a common misunderstanding that Socialism is a "start from scratch" system. It would dismantle the capitalist power structure in favor of worker control, but you get to keep your stuff.

Regulated capitalism only "worked well" if you were white, and you were fucked if you lived in a country that had stuff that capitalism wanted to control. If that's "regulated", count me out.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/burns-emile/1939/what-is-marxism/ch06.htm

Perhaps the most a sense the most obvious, point made by Marx was that the organisation of the new society would not begin, so to speak, on a clearer field. Therefore it was futile to think in terms of a society “which has developed on its own foundations.” It was not a question of thinking out the highest possible number of good features and mixing them together to get the conception of a socialist society which we would then create out of nothing. Such an approach was totally unscientific, and the result could not possibly conform to reality.

On the contrary, an actual socialist society, like all previous forms of society, would only come into existence on the basis of what already existed before it; that is to say, it would be a society “just emerging from capitalist society, and which therefore in all respects – economic, moral and intellectual – still bears the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it sprung.”

In fact, it is the actual development within capitalist society which prepares the way for socialism, and indicates the character of the change. Production becomes increasingly social, in the sense that more and more people are associated in the making of every single thing; factories get larger and larger, and the process of production links together a very large number of people in the course of transforming raw materials into the finished article. There is greater and greater interdependence between people; the old feudal ties and connections have long been broken by capitalism, but in its development capitalism has built new connections of a far wider character – so wide that every individual becomes more or less dependent on what happens to society as a whole.

But although this is the steady tendency of capitalist production, the fact is that the product, made by the co-operative work of society, is the property of an individual or group and not the property of society. The first step in building up a socialist society must therefore be to give society the product which it has made; and this means that society as a whole must own the means of production – the factories, mines, machinery, ships, etc., which under capitalism are privately owned.

But this socialisation of the means of production itself takes place only on the basis of what the new society inherits from the old. And it is only the relatively large concerns which are so to speak ready to be taken over by society. Capitalist development has prepared them for this. There is already a complete divorce between the owners and the production process in such concerns; the only link is the dividend or interest paid by the concern to the shareholders. Production is carried on by a staff of workers and employees; the transfer of ownership to society as a whole does not alter their work. Therefore these large concerns can be taken over immediately.

The position is different in the case of smaller enterprises, especially in those where the owner himself plays an important part in production. It is obvious that the management of a large number of separate small factories is a very difficult thing – in fact, it is impossible in the early stages of a working-class government. What is essential is to prepare the way for the centralised management of these smaller enterprises, including both town industries and small farms.

"What is Marxism", Emile Burns, 1939

[otherlander]

121. Thanks.

Exactly.
Well, I mean, there are other legitimate class-struggle traditions besides Marxism, but I'm not hatin.

[Starry Messenger]

136. Well, I'm an old-timey Marxist-Leninist, but thank you for reading. :)

nt

[leveymg]

5. A well-regulated economy is one that invests in & meets human needs first, and then spreads rewards

and dividends among the exceptional from whatever surplus is left over. In other words, the opposite of how the system in America now works.

Something like Norway, but bigger.

[RKP5637]

8. +1, n/t

[TBF]

7. Engels referred to the Paris Commune as the first the first "dictatorship of the proletariat",

and Marx described it as the prototype for a revolutionary government of the future. They both had criticisms of it as well, after all it only lasted two months.

Wiki on the Paris Commune for background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

Marx on the Paris Commune: http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm

[leftstreet]

22. Communes?! Hippies?!

Nice links!

:hi:

Yes, gentlemen, the Commune intended to abolish that class property which makes the labor of the many the wealth of the few. It aimed at the expropriation of the expropriators. It wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land, and capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labor, into mere instruments of free and associated labor.

[TBF]

29. In my commune we will have soap :)

but we learned a lot from the first try - I think it's time to re-build.

[RZM]

49. Funny anecdote about Lenin

When two months passed after the Bolshevik seizure of power, he happily remarked that: 'we've lasted longer than the Paris Commune!'

[coalition_unwilling]

90. LOL. One thing I'll give both Lenin and Stalin: each had a great

sense of humor.

People around him asked Stalin whether the Pope should be invited to Yalta to decide the fate of post-war Europe. "How many divisions does the Pope command?" Stalin acidly replied. I've always gotten a kick out of that :)

[Ikonoklast]

99. Enough to help demolish the Soviet Empire.

A Polish Pope > All of Hitler's armies.

[gulliver]

65. They were both nuts, but not nuts enough to...

...continue to believe what they believed given what happened after they died. Marx would have corrected himself had he been reincarnated in the 20th century and seen the Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and North Korean catastrophes. He would have been a Keynesian, residing in London. His old 19th century windbag ideas have one big flaw, homo sapiens.

[TBF]

71. Nonsense. You may call them "windbag ideas" but I can't name a time he was wrong. nt

[rugger1869]

169. Selfish implementation of an ideal

doesn't negate the ideal.

[leftstreet]

73. Are you saying he'd change his description of Capitalism?

:shrug:

[coalition_unwilling]

92. "old 19th century windbag ideas"??? as compared to "new 21st

century soundbyte ideas"???

Give me a friggin break.

[white_wolf]

111. Care to point out where they were wrong?

I'll be waiting.

[otherlander]

122. Keynesianism and neoliberalism

are just flip sides of the same coin, alternate ways to try to keep a fatally-flawed system based on *constant growth* chugging along for a bit longer.

The nightmare that the new bureaucracies turned the USSR, etc, into, really have very little to do with Marx's theories.

I'm not saying those theories are perfect- I think, for instance, his stance on the lumpenproletariat was wrong, he may have done some things undemocratically in the First International, Bakunin may have had relevant critiques of his thought, and his "predictions" of revolutionary progress were based on *current* social setups at the time, directly contradicting his *own* understanding that the rules of society are *always changing*.

But to use the horrors of those dictatorships- which happened to be led by "Communist parties"- as an indictment of communism as theory and practice, doesn't really fly. How is "state regulation" going to make endless growth any more possible in a system that tends to become less profitable with time, or address the fact that the ruling class is ready to kill whenever its interests are threatened, and that representatives of market interests ultimately have more power than elected officials?
(Fortunately, strong, democratic social movements can be more powerful than elected officials, so, we're not fucked.)

[bobthedrummer]

11. Democratic Socialism works for me....

[moondust]

58. If it's good enough for Bernie...

Count me in. I'm not sure exactly what that means, and apparently there is more than one definition, but some form of eqalitarianism would seem to be the right idea.

[Blue_Tires]

162. That's a start at least...Works in Europe and elsewhere...

Works for me, too

[Mr Deltoid]

13. Supply side economics is NOT capitalism

Borrowing money and handing it out to rich people is not Capitalism.

[sfpcjock]

17. It's laissez-faire capitalism that is bad. But the answer is to replace...

what we've got with more democracy. People are trying to do that now.

How to Support #OccupyWallStreet
Peter Rothberg on October 2, 2011 - 11:15pm ET, The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/blog/163749/how-support-occupy-wall-street

[wuushew]

21. Eco-socialism

The current system is killing us and the planet.

[Hydra]

62. This is what I was going to post

It's not just our system that's screwed, it's our priorities.

What if our priorities were a clean and healthy planet, everyone fed and sheltered, and a sustainable population system?

[Cyrano]

67. That was tried. And then Eve had to go and take a bite out

of that apple that some snake offered her.

[Hydra]

75. That was after Adam got pissed that his first wife wouldn't do missionary

So God cloned him into his own perfect woman, and thereby forcing all of us to be incestuous couples after that.

Logical pretzels thought up by old perverts. Holy!

:evilgrin:

[Odin2005]

24. Socialism.

[Hutzpa]

26. I think the focus should be non profit

no one is saying don't make profit but be reasonable.

In my opinion the problem with capitalism is organized crime, organized crime was allowed to move from the gutter
into wall street, once that transition was made, you now have criminals that used to pedal prostitution, drugs etc
seeing how easy it is to rip the people off using intelligence acquired from the streets into legitimate process by
using that same method.

Until you eradicate that, we will for ever be confronted with the haves and have not.

Greed has become the order of the day, the greedy has become more greedier and ugly too.

There are books out there that touched on this subject and many other regarding wall street.

[RKP5637]

32. Well said IMO!!! "...problem with capitalism is organized crime, organized crime was allowed to move

from the gutter into wall street ... seeing how easy it is to rip the people off using intelligence acquired from the streets into legitimate process by using that same method."

[Hutzpa]

64. Thank you. n/t

[KansDem]

28. Perhaps we can start with taking five national security concerns out of private hands

Health care
Education
Defense
Environment
Energy

No more private-corporate oversight.

Capitalism is great if you want to sell pizzas, CDs, and shampoo, but not for these five national security concerns.

[katsy]

34. +1

[ChazII]

55. Agree 100%. n/t

[madrchsod]

31. well regulated capitalism.

[BiggJawn]

33. Democratic Socialism or well-regulated Capitalism, either one's good by me.

But I mean REGULATED Capitalism, not the failed fox-in-charge-of-the-henhouse bullshit we have now.

A functional unregulated "Free Market" exists only in a Libertard's wet dreams.

[Zorra]

35. Wow, this thread is being massively unrecommended! nt

[RKP5637]

38. DLC. n/t

[Cyrano]

110. Of course it's being massively unrec'd.

What else would you expect?

Sorry to destroy any illusions you might have. But do you really believe that many DUers don't have money in the stock market?

[Rabblevox]

36. Democratic Socialism, but small-scale, de-centralized. Large State Socialism is no picnic. /nt

[SHRED]

39. It's Corporatism that sucks

[ProgressoDem]

42. Capitalism doesn't suck.

As you said, regulated capitalism works well. Corporatism sucks.

[democracy1st]

45. thanks I hate when people loose their freakin minds

[JHB]

44. There is no capitalism, there is no socialism. There is a mixed economy.

The question is "what is the mix?"

Do you want a mix that favors people trying to get ahead, or those who already are?

For the last 30 years, we've had the latter.

[ProgressoDem]

47. That is a great way to put it.

I often say "I am a socialist, and I am a capitalist." It makes my grandparents' heads explode (big O'Reilly fans).

[blindpig]

46. There is no need to re-invent the wheel.

We shall have socialism, and then communism.

If regulated capitalism is so great how did we get here? That period was an anomaly, the result of the US being the only industrial power standing after the war. So there was plenty money to spread around if one was motivated. And the motivation was the Soviet Union, the alternative. It was not enough to slander, subvert, use any and all means to destroy that alternative, had to show the superior ty of capitalism materially. And so capital put on a pretty face while at the same time beginning the subversion of union power.

The wheels of this charade started to come off when the other industrial powers got back to snuff. That's when wages here started to stagnate. All of the bubbles and scams of the past few decades were the result of capital seeking a higher return than the declining profits of manufacturing could provide. When the socialist East was defeated the stage was set for capital to resume full bore capitalism with no restraint. The New Deal expedients became redundant as there was no alternative, it was 'the end of history', capitalism uber alles.

But of course it ain't the end of history, we have but begun to fight.

[leftstreet]

54. ++1++

[Hydra]

63. +1000

This period, which I never grew up in or saw, had to have been a complete aberration based on the nuts and bolts of capitalism. What we're seeing today is capitalism in its natural state...not unlike the Nixon tapes.

It's not as cute and fluffy as most people thinks, and it's certainly not "The best system we've had so far."

[TBF]

77. Agree. nt

[RKP5637]

78. Excellent analysis IMO!!! n/t

[Starry Messenger]

115. Bingo.

[elleng]

48. Has to be regulation, imo.

Sorry, not creative.

[Motown_Johnny]

51. Necessities should be socialized, luxuries should be capitalized

For instance, public transportation should be socialized so that people can live a normal and productive life within our society. Private transportation, such as owning your own car, should continue to be left to private industry as a way to create upward mobility within our society.



Capitalism doesn't suck, it simply has limits which need to be addressed.

[socialist_n_TN]

167. Well that would be a start.........

:)

[Nye Bevan]

52. Switzerland is capitalist. 3% unemployment; universal health care.

Capitalism can work well.

Or does anyone have an example of a non-capitalist country that is better?

[Gregorian]

60. Absolutely. Nature is capitalistic. Competitive. What we have is unfair capitalism.

The other forms of economy are centralized. That sounds like just the thing authoritarians love.





I think it was one of your previous posts that enlightened me, along with an economist out of Paris who I respect. He was mentioning how phones are an unsubsidized form of capitalistic product that has shown us that price and variety benefit from that kind of system.

[wickerwoman]

72. Their economy is based on money-laundering.

It's not a scalable economic model. Not everyone gets to be Switzerland.

[Honeycombe8]

82. Capitalism, with a few socialist programs (like Social Security) as a safety net....

and such as universal health care.

[corkhead]

66. anarcho-syndicalist commune

Take turns to sort of act as a sort of executive officer for the week. All the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major...

[TheOther95Percent]

69. We replace it with true democracy

Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, publicly financed campaigns and limit participation to actual human beings not corporations and that will go a long way towards leveling the playing field.

[truedelphi]

70. Study the Scandinavian countries, and

Do as they do.

And take the suggestion from Australia that higher education be free and not an on-going liability for students of all ages.

[A wise Man]

80. REAL AND TRUE AMERICANISM

not these phoney pretend american rethug separatist

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[jimlup]

87. How about "Democracy!"

And by that I mean real democracy - not what we have now.

[meow2u3]

88. A tightly-regulated mixed economy would be the best solution IMO

Well-regulated capitalism, i.e., a real free market characterized by lively competition among sole proprietorships, partnerships, associations, cooperatives, and mid-sized manufacturing firms, without under influence from multinational conglomerates. A domestically-owned means of production is of utmost importance, along with wages high enough to afford to pay taxes, buy domestically, and not be compelled to rely on government assistance to make ends meet.
Tight regulation of large corporations and the financial markets.
Close the gaping loophole in the Sherman Anti-trust Act that gave rise to the ogilopolies. Break up the big conglomerates, and pass laws making it more difficult for companies to merge.
Nationalization of the central banking system, i.e., dismantling the Fed in favor of a Federally-run Bank of the United States.
Outlaw the ability for corporations to own other corporations, or corporate subsidiaries.

State or local government ownership of state or local utilites, libraries, banks, etc. No privatization of public works.
End all "free trade" agreements. They do nothing but ship our jobs to third-world dictatorships, and give a license for employers to blackmail us with job exportation if we don't accept poverty wages and no benefits. We shouldn't be doing business with dictators. Can you say, "China"?

This is not an exhaustive list, just an outline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

[RegieRocker]

89. First this country is not totally Capitalism get that straight and

then get back to me.

[Hutzpa]

93. What is it then? n/t

[RegieRocker]

117. Think hard about the word "totally" and then get back to me.

[Hydra]

95. What do you want to call what we're doing then?

This is how capitalism works in the realm of non-fairy tales. Awesome, isn't it?

[RegieRocker]

118. There are bits and pieces of a wide spectrum of lables

but as I said it's not TOTALLY capitalism.

[Bigmack]

91. You say "... what do WE replace...."

WE may not replace it with anything. The WE implies that we will have a choice.

Capitalism may just go away and some synthesis of systems may replace it.

Why do I think WE are fucked ... with or without capitalism.

[David Sky]

94. How about the capitalist systems of Canada, the UK, France, etc, where executives

earn 20 times the wages of the workers?

In the USA, major banking and financial capitalist enterprises pay their executives 400 (FOUR HUNDRED) times that of the average worker.

Secondly, how about we forbid anyone but individuals from contributing to the campaigns of politically elected office-holders, and limit contributions to any one office-holder to 1% of the high paid executive's annual wage, 2% of the average worker's wage.

Get corporations out of political lobbying, and campaigning for any candidate. Keep candidates responsive to real human beings, with a limit on high-earners' influence upon the lawmaker's potential corruption of the capitalist system.

As a post-script, let's endorse what Obama promised but never delivered, as far as health care, ALL Americans deserve the publicly funded health care services available to any federal elected official. Let's have the corporations pay for the health of their workers and potential and future workers, no more people left out of the loop. Everyone gets the same insurance, at an equal cost to all people, paid for by all, according to their ability to pay. If 1% of Americans earn or hold 40-50% of the GDP and/or wealth, they can afford to pay 90% of the cost of health care for the uninsured, and 50% of the cost for everybody else.

[NickB79]

96. Are there any economic systems that don't require ever-increasing levels of growth?

It seems that pretty much all economic systems available to us, whether they be capitalist, socialist, or communist, call for infinite growth in a world of finite resources. Short of inventing economical space travel and mining other planets or asteroids, what options do we have to live within our means here on this planet?

[TNLib]

98. A balanced regulated economic systems that is mixed between socialism and capitalism.

We use to have that but the pedulum swang to much towards capitalism in the last 30-40 years. So thigs are out of balance. They just needs to swing back. Unfortunately that won't happen until will have campaign finance reform and take back our government.

[Romulox]

102. I would set up a strong government back-stop for banks and other corporations.

I would couple that with for-profit prisons, an aggressive military policy based on private contractors, and mandates to purchase products from corporations.

[War Horse]

103. A mixed economy seems to be working reasonably well

I think one of the main problems in the U.S. right now is that the Overton window is so out of whack that even something like Keynsianism is viewed as Socialism.

[begin_within]

105. Free pizza and naked pool parties.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[Locrian]

108. David Korten

http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/david-korten/a-real-market-alternative

# Buyers and sellers must be too small to influence the market price and must honor basic principles of honest dealing.
# Income and ownership must be equitably distributed.
# Complete information must be available to all participants, and there can be no trade secrets.
# Sellers must bear the full cost of the products they sell and incorporate it into the sale price.
# Investment capital must remain within national borders, and trade between countries must be balanced.
# Savings must be invested in the creation of productive capital rather than in speculative trading.

[OneGrassRoot]

160. Yes. "Agenda for a New Economy"

http://livingeconomiesforum.org/agenda2

:hi:

[TransitJohn]

112. I'd go for the economic system of the United Federation of Planets in the Star Trek Universe. n/t

eom

[Cid_B]

161. Never really got that one...

Money went away.. and then there was gold pressed latinum...

I dunno...

[Zanzoobar]

113. Something that doesn't suck, obviously.

[truth2power]

116. I would suggest economist Richard Wolff's website...

www.rdwolff.com

View any of his short videos (about 5 minutes long, each) on a variety of topics. Or click on the links to his Saturday radio programs on WBAI.

If you have the time, watch some of his lectures on Marxian (yes, that Karl Marx) theory. Americans have been sold a bill of goods on Karl Marx.

Rick Wolff is very entertaining.

[AdHocSolver]

119. The politico-economic system in the U.S. is not capitalism. It is a form of corporate feudalism.

Actual capitalism requires that there be competition among businesses which means that new businesses can grow and increase market share, and existing businesses can lose market share and even fold.

Companies that are as vertically and horizontally integrated, as are many corporations today, do not compete, rather they collude.

Furthermore, many seemingly independent corporations are controlled through investment companies that own large blocks of stock in multiple corporations preventing competition.

When corporations become "too big to fail", you no longer have capitalism.

At the same time, many politicians and government employees are little more than retainers to the largest corporations.

What we have today are government sanctioned monopolies controlled by a power elite. The American public is in the same situation today that our Founding Fathers found themselves back in 1776 with the British crown and government sanctioned monopolies such as the East India Company.

Until these conglomerates are decentralized so that they are forced to compete, and the government reestablishes regulation to promote competition AND protect the public interest, the U.S. will not experience classic capitalism that promoted innovation and created new wealth.

Protest marches are a beginning, but they are not enough. Electing progressives to public office, is helpful, but is a plan for the long term. If you want to get the attention of the corporations, you have to hit them in their pocketbooks. That means avoiding the stock market. Avoid doing business with banks that pull scams. Buy American-made products or forgo purchasing imports from cheap labor countries. Buy local rather than from big box stores. Demand retailers to offer American-made goods for sale.

In other words, vote with your wallet. And, you better start soon while you still have money to spend. Once the corporations have all your money, you become irrelevant, and there are all of those new growing markets in China and India to tap into.

[socialist_n_TN]

149. Or the working class could strike for a month to

six weeks. I figure that would be enough time to bring it to it's knees. Of course, because we're on strike we would have the money to pay our bills to the banks, so it would be a "payment" strike too.

[Bloke 32]

120. Sex

Raw, insane, utterly-unhinged sex!

[johnaries]

123. There are several different kinds of Capitalism. "Pure" Free Market

Capitalism has only one inevitable outcome - Monopoly. The monopoly eventually controls the government, because of the concentration of power. "Pure" Socialism begins with a monopoly although it is supposedly controlled by a pure democratic process, but eventually it dissolves into the same result. However, a well-regulated caveat vendor (let the seller beware) approach to Capitalism as opposed to the unregulated caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) helps keep the stated goals of Free Market Capitalism closer to the promises. On the other hand, I, personally, don't want my house to burn down simply because I picked the wrong Fire Department. Therefore, for essential services I prefer Socialism.

Actually, in such cases Socialism and Capitalism work in tandem: the competitiveness of Capitalism drives innovation to insure that the best tools are available at the best price for the firefighters. The firefighters then use these tools to keep my house from burning down. They are not concerned with the price or profit/loss figures of saving my house: they simply do their best to save my house.

History bears this out. If you look at the Soviet Union that attempted "pure" Socialism, they failed. Cuba attempted Pure Socialism, and they are extremely poor despite their resources. North Korea is extremely poor. China, despite having the largest population on the planet, is now emerging as a great economic power because they are embracing some Capitalist pollicies in addition to their Socialist policies. Same with Vietnam.

Many Northern European economies have found success with a "blend" of Capitalist and Socialist policies.

Randian/Austrian School/"Trickle-down" economics is simply Social Darwinism which has been proven to be wrong time and time again.

The fundamental redeeming process of Capitalism is competition which drives innovation. Proponents of Free Market Capitalism keep saying that this innovation will result in better products. However, they are ignoring the innovations that also incur in marketing and also letigation. The argument is that if a company produces an inferior product, people won't buy the product. History proves the opposite. The company that wins is the one that spends the most in marketing, not product development. Also, if your product kills people you can only sue, usually only as part of a "class-action" suit. Corporations keep lawyers on salary, so it costs them nothing extra for each hour they spend in court. Not so for the victims. First of all, they have to find a lawyer willing to take their case. Then, they must win. All the companies have to do is keep delaying until the victims run out of money. Occasionally, they will settle with a confidentiality clause: which means the company can keep selling the inferior product rather than fixing it.

This puts the LIE to the Free Market rationale.

Basically, what I support is the same thing that Keynesian economics calls for.

I want a BLEND of Socialism and Capitalism: with Socialism controlling all essential service. I want Capitalism to continue so that it can continue to produce innovation via competition, but I want that competition to be fair which can only be accomplised via a well regulated caveat vendor market.

Does that make sense?

[Mr Deltoid]

124. Democratic socialism

[ChillbertKChesterton]

126. It's going to be replaced with Chinese-style State Capitalism

Or a totally new (stronger) version of Socialism (unlike the kind found in European nations)


Capitalism as we've known it is dead, it just doesn't know it yet.

[Chan790]

127. Social Democracy with a strong hedge to prevent degrading into socialism.

Look to Germany and Scandinavia. That is the goal.

[yoyossarian]

128. What's wrong with what we've already replaced it with?

http://steponnopets.dxstoneweb.com/peo/fascism.html">Fascism is FUN!

[Cats Against Frist]

129. Where the hell all are you people when I post?

Capitalism is just great, but it needs checks -- like anything else -- to function properly. OWS isn't getting any traction because most people don't want state socialism. They want capitalism with a few checks in place. This goes right along with our Constitution and the idea of freedom and personal destiny. I am in favor of free-market capitalism, with a few caveats, namely a limited basic social welfare system with rigorous oversight, including single-payer health care, Social Security, and nationalization of U.S. natural resources -- coal, oil, natural gas, etc. I'm in favor of states' rights and competition and a populace that makes responsible choices.

I'm in favor of what it takes to be awesome. The Englightenment was awesome, the Constitution is awesome, competition is awesome, personal responsibility is awesome, making sure people don't suffer is awesome, giving a hand-up is awesome, spotted owls are awesome and clean air is awesome. Technological advance is awesome, being super comfortable because you worked hard is awesome, sweater tights and baguettes are awesome. I think we need the full spectrum to really advance as a civilization and a culture.

We have to take responsibility for our country, our democracy -- and if we do that, we should be able to make capitalism work for us.

[yoyossarian]

132. Love your post!

Well-reasoned and cogently communicated... and I enjoy the whimsical humor element of your writing, and just wanted to say so...
Actually, I also noticed your name, and thought you might find this ol' piece I did years ago at least somewhat amusing (though it is kinda gross):




It is October, after all... and I wanna point out, no actual cats were harmed in the making of this nasty lil' gif!

[ChazII]

134. K&R your post

[white_wolf]

135. Oh please capitalism is riddled with crises and contradictions.

It has a crisis every other decade. Any system based on unlimited growth on a planet with finite resources is unsustainable. Millions live and die in poverty to keep the profits of a few people high. Let's say we create a strong social-democracy in this country. There are still problems with this: 1. Even in the Scandinavian strongholds of social-democracy there are calls for cutbacks and austerity measures, reform never lasts. 2. Even if things are good here in the U.S. and Europe, millions of people live like slaves in other parts of the world. I'm sure capitalism works great for you, but for the vast majority it has failed.

[BOG PERSON]

137. wow, you're not awesome at all

in fact, you're the opposite of awesome. you're awful.

[Cats Against Frist]

139. What are you, then? n/t

[BOG PERSON]

140. i'm definitely a little better than you

[BOG PERSON]

131. new-feudalism

i cannot countenance the end of class society. it is human nature for us to divide ourselves into various strata. smart and dumb, landed and landless, and so on.

[inna]

138. great thread (not the OP), several enlightening posts! this is why i love DU :)

[rucky]

143. I don't think the economic system matters as much as a healthy democracy.

If we really had one, I think we'd all be set-up like the Scandinavian countries.

[blindpig]

158. That's completely backwards.

The material circumstances will dictate the social organization.

[Terry in Austin]

144. First, agreement on what "capitalism" means

My candidate: the practice of lending money at interest.

There may be other characteristics that make up capitalism, but if you don't have that one, you don't have capitalism.

Fortunately, you don't have to "replace" moneylending with anything in particular -- you can have an economy very nicely without it, thank you.

[blindpig]

159. Naw, that's money as a commodity.

Capitalism is when you have one class which owns the means of production and workers are paid a wage for their work. The wage earner does not recieve the full value of his work, the difference, after expenses, is the capitalist's profit. Thus property is theft. In that formulation 'property' refers to the means of production, not your home, bicycle or puppy dog.

Usury was around long before capitalism and while it is extensively employed in capitalism it is not definitive.

[Terry in Austin]

164. Even though we're basically on the same page here

I would also note that overclass ownership of the means of production is every bit as old as usury -- serfs didn't get the full value of their work when they tilled and cultivated the means of production.

Property is indeed theft!

We might have some variation about what we consider most definitive about capitalism, but I think taken together they offer a more operational definition and understanding of this beast "capitalism" -- moreso than a lot of the discussion we're seeing about it.

:hi:

[Hippo_Tron]

150. Here's a better way to go about this than arguing about capitalism vs socialism

Make a list of economic and political changes that you would like to see happen in this country. Then we can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of your ideal system.

[Rex]

152. Capitalism is like a gun.

Capitalism doesn't kill people, people kill people. Greed kills all.

[socialist_n_TN]

166. Not quite an apt analogy

Capitalism ALLOWS and even ENCOURAGES the greed that "kills all". The SYSTEM (and that includes the laws) says that the ONLY thing that matters is profit.

[Safetykitten]

153. Tupperware

[JCMach1]

154. socialism is also based on unit labor... there has to be a complete

paradigm shift that re-defines work, allocation of resources due to the technological advances that have been made.

[Dover]

It's all tied into how and what we value. And our values are changing in a big way.

For instance, sustainability has to do with producing what is consumed. That is a very different way
of existing in the world. I think it was Alvin Toffler that coined the term "pro-sumer" (producer and consumer).
It's very difficult to say what will take the place of the current system, but it does seem that sustainability
is a kind of hybrid of the agrarian and industrial. But as I said, I think the new system will reflect the
our changes in values. It is important that we dictate that change rather than have others who don't share our
values dictate them to us. If we can trust our gut even when the way through this is not entirely clear, I think
we will be okay.

[Dover]

155. It's all tied into how and what we value. And our values are changing in a big way.

For instance, sustainability has to do with producing what is consumed. That is a very different way
of existing in the world. I think it was Alvin Toffler that coined the term "pro-sumer" (producer and consumer).
It's very difficult to say what will take the place of the current system, but it does seem that sustainability
is a kind of hybrid of the agrarian and industrial. But as I said, I think the new system will reflect the
our changes in values. It is important that we dictate that change rather than have others who don't share our
values dictate them to us. If we can trust our gut even when the way through this is not entirely clear, I think
we will be okay.

[L. Coyote]

163. Capitalism DOES NOT suck, whereas, concentrated, unregulated capitalism REEKS and BLOWS

The problem is not the system, the problem is an unregulated system thart allows capital to be hoarded and concentrated in very few hands.

[Douglas Carpenter]

168. I was still a teenager many years ago when I lived in Europe and first saw a workable model

that could be modified and adapted to America - social democracy. Capitalism is very good at facilitating the creation of wealth. It is not very good at distributing it in a fair or equitable manner. One can certainly find plenty of faults with the European social democratic model. Not everything that works well in France or Sweden would necessarily work well in America. Still, the human condition has simply not created a better model that European style social democracy. Nothing else even comes close.

[kctim]

170. "Let's say that we had the power to dismantle it"

That would require a change in the Constitution AND for the vast majority to NOT be benifiting from capitalism.
Not going to happen without a war between We The People.