Capitalism finally destroyed Democracy

[salinen]

Hyperbole?

- Not 1, but 2 wars of profit brought to you by defense contractors, defense lobbyists, politicians with arms manufacturing in their districts, Wall Street, and a overstuffed military.

- Banks, CEO's, Big Pharma write their own legislation and use their puppet representatives (we call them congressmen) to enact law contrary to the commons.

- A Health Care bill that aided in the financial health of the health insurance industry only.

- Off shore bank accounts.

- Rewarding the practice of outsourcing jobs.

- Killing off the Unions.

- Tax breaks for the Billionaires.

- Austerity for the commoners.

- Crumbling infrastructure.

- No punishment for corporate crime.

- Market manipulations that caused mortgages to devalue.

- Corporate Media control.

- I'm out of breath.

[Hannah Bell]

1. kr

[leftstreet]

2. Can we kill Capitalism now?

K&R

[Initech]

38. I'm completely for it at this point.

[liberalmike27]

74. We'd Do Good

to remember that Socialism, Capitalism, Communism aren't specific places, and that politics is more about direction. We desperately need to move left, back to sanity. Who cares what you call it. It's more important to understand that we need to move left, surge left massively, and not by subtle turns to the left that only make small differences over 20 years. We need some FDR solutions now.

We're not going to do anything with the debt cutting a few percent of a few percent of the budget. We've got mountain sized problems, and we're futzing around with molehills.

The solutions are simple, and they've been done before, albeit not in an environment of such intense corporatism. And Fascism, I know some think it unhealthy to throw the word around. I know FOX has used the word as if calling someone an "asshole," or "dumbass," but it actually means something. In a word it means corporatism. I don't know what we have, democrat or republican as president, now, if it isn't Fascism. We do everything for corporations. They can kill millions, they can shove us into unjust wars, they can spew oil creating massive hardship, they can export American jobs, they can display tyranny by exporting the very jobs we need to pay down the debt, and to more importantly actually employ our real citizens. And with our media, also predictably corporate, they get away with it.

But I keep saying, we need to go way past what serves as the modern day, do-nothing, ratchet theory democrats. All they are going to do is march in place, leaving their base so despoiled and lacking we're filled with deep depression at their lack of real moves to actually try to fix the problem, you know, to just make the argument if nothing else. Get us out of wars, close Guantanamo, call the banks out, push hard and fast to the left. This isn't the time for a faint hearted president.

At this during Clinton's presidency I found I was telling myself "Well, he'll do great things in his second term," naming off this fictional list of accomplishments Clinton would do if he were elected again, without having to worry about reelection prospects. Then the second term came, not much different, signing republican deregulation into law that in-effect led to the real estate disasters, even more onerous drug laws, more of the same. So I can't even look forward to the second term, as the same thing may transpire. George Carlin may just be right. Same old, same old...

[mochajava666]

132. Well said

[slay]

106. Yes please

I am soooo ready to see the end of this horribly unequal predatory heartless economic system! Capitalism is finally showing all of its massive flaws while any benefits that used to exist have rapidly vanished. Hopefully the situation will reach critical mass soon and people will realize that working together towards goals that benefit us all is actually a GOOD thing - instead of fighting over everything, all the time, as c(r)apitalism mandates.

[readmoreoften]

115. Yes. Si se puede.

[rhett o rick]

156. You need and FDR not a Nixon. nm

[jody]

3. What should we try? Russia and China discovered socialism with its central control of production

will not work.

[leftstreet]

5. Russia and China were socialist? wtf? n/t

[jody]

6. Obviously you aren't prepared to debate the economics of production and government. nt

[Matariki]

8. No, Leftstreet is correct. You are confusing Communism with Socialism.

you actually need to be better prepared for that debate.

[jody]

10. ROFLMAO Have a blissful day. n/t

[Matariki]

13. That's a peculiar response.

[Enthusiast]

49. We are all very familiar with

this kind of response.

[Chemical Bill]

152. Some people come here to disagree.... n/t

[AlbertCat]

60. That's a peculiar response.

Not if you're glib and think you know it all.

He probably thinks the Nazis were socialists too. It says they are... right in their name! :eyes:

[Cherchez la Femme]

68. That's the sound of somebody

with ears wide shut

[white_wolf]

25. I love when people use China and Russia as exaples of failed socialism.

Let's look at a few things. First of all Democratic Socialism in Europe has been proven to work very well. Also China and Russia are not/were not communist or socialist. When Stalin took power he betrayed everything the Revolution tried to accomplish. Trotsky even wrote a book about it called "The Revolution Betrayed." Many people use the term state capitalism to refer to the system of the USSR. The only thing socialist about it was its name. Of course going by that logic we should give up on republics since the R in USSR stands for Republic.

[jody]

26. You do know that Europe supports capitalism to control production, don't you? If not then you need

to study a prerequisite course for macroeconomics 101.

[white_wolf]

30. A very regulated form of capitalism.

Besides you said Socialism would not work, Europe has proven it does. Those are Socialist countries.

[jody]

31. Please identify European countries in which govt decides what products to produce & their price. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

37. Socialism can exist in a demand market economy.......

I personally would prefer state control only of businesses that are "general welfare" types of industries OR businesses that have grown too big and need a "board" to be run and operated. One BIG until though. A market economy, but only AFTER EVERYBODY EATS AND HAS A HOME TO LIVE IN. IOW, the state will take care of the basics. After that then we can talk about a "market".

Mostly to me it means the PEOPLE control the government, not the corporations.

[jody]

39. OK but can you answer #31? nt

[Fuddnik]

57. Youre trying to confuse the issues.

Communism, that's spelled C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-M is not Socialism.

You can call a foot an ear, but it's still not an ear.

The Soviet Union and China were every bit as Socialist as The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea was Democratic or a Democracy, same with the German Democratic Republic. That's East Germany, in case you're confused.

[Recursion]

127. Marx used the terms interchangeably

One assumes he would know.

[liberation]

141. Sorry to break it to you but Groucho and Karl were not related.

Groucho was the funny one, and Karl was the serious one who wrote that big Das Kapital book where he, among other things, described the differences between Socialism and Communism in excruciating painful boring detail.

[Recursion]

142. Funny you mention Kapital, since he didn't mention communism or socialism in it

He briefly examines it in the German Ideology, and more fully in his unfinished Manifesto.

[liberation]

148. I wouldn't describe Das Kaptial as funny, more like tedious.

Most people miss the fact that Das Kaptial is not just one book, but 3 volumes. Where he does indeed mention socialism/socialistic currents prior/concurrent to his work, in terms of what he defined the "Petit bourgeois socialism," Poudhon's socialism, heck he even mentions it in terms of native American tribes, etc.

Anyhow, we can pick nits all you want. But claiming that Marx defined socialism and communism as interchangeable terms is a bit disingenuous. Esp. after he laid out the capitalism -> socialism -> communism evolutionary theory (whether that is a correct/practical/utopian approach is not relevant for this context).

[jody]

171. Please study a little about Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel who spawned Left and Right Hegelianism

known today as Marxism and some argue Fascism.

Of course you could be right and 100% of historians wrong, but IMO that's most unlikely.

[liberalmike27]

79. The Commons

Those resources that should be collectively owned amongst the people, stuff we all have to use to survive, housing, utilities, water, and such.

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

It's a great concept, one which we should all refamiliarize ourselves with.

[defendandprotect]

110. Businesses are using 80% of our water -- MIC using 80% of our oil --

[socialist_n_TN]

124. Yes, bro. Those are the ones that, AT A MINIMUM, ......

should be socialized for the people and under the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution. I'd also socialize everything that became too big, ESPECIALLY too big to fail. I'd leave a loophole for big businesses that were worker owned, profit sharing co-ops. To ease the disruption, you could also pay a small "liscensing fee" to the original owners after the companies became nationalized. And I'd leave REAL small businesses and owner/operators alone, EXCEPT for making them easier to open and operate. It's socialism with an anarcho-syndicalist flavor.

[bongbong]

55. Tax policies

The answer to your question is to examine the tax policies of the various countries in Europe & see what industries & specific companies get tax breaks.

[we can do it]

51. +1

[rhett o rick]

159. Agree, but what they tried wasnt even Marxist communism. And today China is

an authoritarian capitalism. Much more effective than a democratic capitalism.

[Matariki]

177. Indeed. Me, I'd prefer a Socialist Democracy.

And abiding respect for The Commons.

[leftstreet]

9. Apparently not. Not if China and Russia are socialist n/t

[lark]

114. Russia and China ARE socialist states

still

[provis99]

144. no. they are state capitalist societies.

But thank you for the right wing point of view. The first thing that Lenin and Stalin did when they took power was go after the socialist enterprises that had been set up by peasants.

[rhett o rick]

160. they are socialist like Hitler's Germany was socialist. Only in the leader's minds. nm

[BOG PERSON]

154. wtf???

[Matariki]

7. Northern Europe is a better example.

[jody]

14. Europe allowed capitalism to control production and then taxed the yield from capitalism to give to

finance social programs.

There are two issues important to the OP:

1. What is the most effective way to use scarce resources to produce the goods and services needed by society?

2. What is the most effective way to use profits from the business sector to meet the needs of society?

[leftstreet]

16. So you're asking - what would a system look like without profit?

:shrug:

[jody]

19. If there's no profit, how do you intend to fund social services and goods that are shared by many

and it's ineffective to charge each citizen for their use of that service?

Good examples are fire and police departments.

[leftstreet]

20. Would you settle for 'profit' not held in private hands?

:shrug:

[jody]

22. See #14. The issue is first make a pie, i.e. profit, then determine who gets a slice of that pie.

Whether profit is temporarily held in public or private hands is immaterial IMO.

The issue remains, who gets a slice of the profits and how big a slice.

[jody]

24. In my studies decades ago, economist used Greek pi to denote profits, e.g. Greek pi = revenue – cost

More on and economics at links below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_%28letter%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_%28economics%29

[W_HAMILTON]

27. You don't need profit to pay for those services...

...special assessments, consumption taxes, a revenue tax, etc.

There are plenty of ways for the government to raise money for the services it provides.

[jody]

28. Interesting idea, why don't you run for president on that platform? n/t

[W_HAMILTON]

46. I'm too young :) n/t

n/t

[havbrush]

122. Capitalism v socialism

Jody, you are confused. You're contradicting yourself. And several European economies are some mixture of socialism and regulated capitalism, and they are doing better than we are with our dog-eat-dog capitalism.

[jody]

172. Please parse #14 and tell me specifically where you and I disagree. n/t

[barbiegeek]

17. USSR-communist, Russia is socialist

China is still communist as far as I know

[jody]

21. OP challenged capitalism, just one way of controlling production. When compared to socialism, one

must support whether government decides what goods and services to produce and prices for them or supports individuals choosing what they want to purchase at what price.

Obviously the issue is much more complex than that but, that question must be answered.

[Igel]

29. You have to watch your terms.

"Socialist" and "communist" have a lot of different meanings, both as they evolved by their adherents and supporters and as they were used by their adversaries.

The USSR was never "communist" in any of the senses that Marx, Lenin, or Stalin gave the term. It wasn't really socialist, either, but was far closer to socialist than communist. At least all property and means of production were held by the state. The sovkhozy and kolkhozy were state run, top-down administered, whatever picayune authority was granted to the plebes on site.

Lenin preached world socialism; the USSR was composed of socialist republics. Stalin preached "socialism in one country" when the world wasn't beating down his door to adopt socialism and he saw that things were going rather badly inside and needed to isolate his turnips from the baleful influence of outsiders. The KPSS that supervised the USSR was supposedly, like the Chinese party, striving to achieve communism--but they all said they'd never see it but their grandkids would. (Boy, did they get *that* wrong.)

China was the same, but more agrarian-based. Still top-down, with a strong central government. Under "pure communism" the government would wither. China didn't make such a big deal over the socialism/communism distinction. For them, top-down communes were communism. In other words, the word meant what they wanted it to mean--just like most other words.

Both countries were "communist" to conservatives who didn't see the need to make a distinction between socialism and communism. Both were bad; the one was to lead to the other.

Northern Europe has been, barring the last few years, democrat-socialist. It's a mixed economy like the US's economy, with a fair amount of government regulation, government taxation of profits and production for governmentally-determined social goals, and government oversight of public welfare and private lives. The mix in Scandinavia and parts of Western Europe was shifted to the left relative to where the bar was set in the US, but there's still not many state-owned enterprises. In other words, the primary means of production are at least nominally in private hands (although in many, as in Italy, the only way they could easily form or tolerate large corporations was through state intervention).

[jody]

33. Now Igel, why bring facts into the discussion! n/t

[reggie the dog]

54. I am with you

we need highly regulated capitalism, not state controlled production of everything. the state could produce and provide certain services though, like energy, health care or insurance, train service, postal service, drinking water, garbage service, infrastructure creation and mainetenence, fire, police, military, retirement funds, and perhaps some others, the rest of the industries could just be under more control than they have been recently.

[stockholmer]

103. China is mostly now authoritarian oligarchic capitalism,with a veneer of Communist party ideology

its the model the banksters looooove

[rhett o rick]

161. They call themselves communists but Karl Marx would disagree. They are capitalists.

They are the largest capitalist country today.

[BOG PERSON]

162. actually russia rejected communism

in favor of an economic system that doesn't suppress the individual or stifle innovation. it's called GANGSTERISM

[JackRiddler]

48. The usual sophistry. As though they're the only alternative, or no new system can ever exist.

With that attitude, we'd still be under the agrarian empires.

[jody]

173. So what new economic system do you propose in lieu of capitalism and socialism? n/t

[BOG PERSON]

176. islamist third-positionism is the hot new thing

[JackRiddler]

184. Socialism with democracy would be a start.

In 2008 I would have let the banks fail, since they did so as the predictable result of capitalism, after shaping the world in their own vision. I'd have covered depositors, and that's all. Fuck the predators. I'd have used bailouts to retire state debts (a mere 1.5 trillion) so they could stimulate freely. All states would start their own development and consumer banks (on the old model of you have to actually keep a mortgage on your books). I'd have set up credit unions for all public sector employees and invited everyone to join. I'd shut down most of the military-industrial machinery and invest that in an infrastructural revolution (sustainable energy and railways, building efficiency). Amazing things become possible when you stop leaving it to the holders of capital to make all the decisions based only on profit, which is not a free market but a dictatorship of the corporate class.

That was a two-minute post. This is a ridiculous conversation to have here. You have your set slogans about labels in mind and think these very difficult matters can be settled here to anyone's satisfaction. Good luck to you.

[SOS]

95. The options are not limited to our current oligarchy and Stalin's Soviet Union.

The Scandinavian model of mixed free market capitalism and democratic socialism is another way to go.
Norway was recently cited by the World Bank as having the best business climate in the world.
And yet nobody is sleeping on a subway grate in Oslo.

[BOG PERSON]

179. indeed

the options are limited to the current oligarchy and... the current oligarchy's children.

[SOS]

187. True

Ideally, the people would have the information, will and power to create
a better, more equitable society.

But you are right. Nothing will change.
On the contrary, the oligarchy is strengthening it's iron grip every day.

The next generation of oligarchs will pay us 0% on our savings, charge us 40%
on credit cards while bank bagmen sit on the lap of every Senator.

[economic_liberal]

126. Chomsky explained fake socialist scam like USSR

Chomsky in 1989 talked about how the USSR wasn't actually socialist. It was a scam that both the USA and USSR were involved in because the scam benefited the elites of both nations. See his explanation here, which was in response to an angry leftist woman who was mad at Chomsky for speaking critically about the USSR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

Basically, the elites in the USA supported the scam because it made socialists look bad, since the USSR detained dissidents and sent them off to the Gulags and tortured them. There was no freedom of speech, the media was controlled by the government, and it was an oppressive state so the US elites had a very easy time explaining how bad socialism was.

The elites in the USSR supported the scam because it generated HUGE support from poor and oppressed people all over the world. The reach of the USSR's empire was expanded with so many suckers who actually believed that the USSR was a good government controlled by the ordinary folks of Russia.

[BOG PERSON]

155. chomsky is an ultra-left philistine though

[economic_liberal]

134. Einstein wanted socialism

Albert Einstein wrote an essay in May 1949 titled, "Why Socialism?" I just learned about this essay yesterday from a post about it on AlterNet:

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/03/12/in-the-shadows-of-wisconsin-here-is-a-saturday-afternoon-thinking-project-why-socialism-by-albert-einstein/

A copy of the entire essay can be found at:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm

Here are some extracts from it that I find very relevant today, especially when he mentioned how in a capitalist system, the capitalists take full control of the government and media so democracy can't work:

"I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society...his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration...The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil.
...
the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product. Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
...
Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all.
...
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy.

In the end though, he shows that he doesn't have complete confidence in a centrally planned socialist economy because he cautions that centralized power can be corrupted:

The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Einstein definitely didn't like US-style capitalism or selfishness. He saw socialism as a good alternative yet couldn't really come up with an answer as to how to prevent a socialist government from being corrupted. The way I see it, this shows that there are real problems with both systems and there isn't an easy solution.

[rhett o rick]

158. Karl Marx is rolling over. Neither Russia nor China practice socialism. China is the greatest

capitalist country today. Russia and Mao's China tried an authoritarian controlled socialism. Capitalism for the wealthy and socialism for the poor.

[Starry Messenger]

4. k&r

Capitalism and democracy are not compatible. The first one always strangles the second. Time to turn the tables.

[salinen]

12. Exactly

Adversaries. Humanity vs. Profit.

[AlbertCat]

64. Humanity vs. Profit.

How are these mutually exclusive?

[AlbertCat]

63. Capitalism and democracy are not compatible.

What if a majority of the people vote to adopt capitalistic ideas?

Democracy is not an economic system. And a government run as a business is called "Fascism".

[Starry Messenger]

107. What if the sun rotated around the earth?

It doesn't. No one voted in "capitalistic ideas", it was a historical shift. If you want to start over on a new planet and play parlor games with "voting for capitalistic ideas" you go ahead and do that. The rest of us have to deal with the reality here on planet Earth, which is being destroyed by fucking capitalism.

[defendandprotect]

119. Our reality could easily be switched away from capitalism and towards a more humane and fair

economic system -- economic democracy --

Democratic socialism --

[drokhole]

11. Don't forget teachers and their budget-breaking pensions...

:sarcasm:

[Overseas]

15. I really didn't think they'd go this far.

I thought they'd retain some Democratic power because they knew they'd need people with decent pay to buy all their products.

But throw away protections for domestic manufacturing, ship the jobs overseas, and push the Free Trade dogma and I guess you just sell your products to other countries workers whose countries still have protectionist trade policies in place to protect their jobs.

[salinen]

23. Yes

They don't need us anymore, they did a work around.

[Overseas]

41. So sad.

We could be having so much more fun working together as a nation.

There's a lot the GOP destroyed that we need to rebuild.

[handmade34]

44. +1

[cui bono]

133. Sadly, it wasn't just the GOP. Clinton played his part and now Obama is as well. n/t

[PufPuf23]

18. The USA has a mixed economy that is way out of balance and has no choice

but to integrate with the world.

Personally, I like the Social Democratic model.

Our performance sucks especially considering what has been squandered.

IMHO we are more a 21st Century "uniquely American" fascist state because the representitives and executive pols and agencies to not represent the interests of the vast majority of Americans.

[Rex]

32. Greed finally destroyed capitalism.

[Shandris]

34. This, right here.

Capitalism could work just fine, provided the need for 'more more moar MOAR MOAR MOAR!' -- greed -- didn't get out of hand. It was quite capable of sustaining people with a good, solid income. Taxes levies against the richest of the rich kept a form of greed-control inherent, as diminishing returns eventually lowered return below effort.

But when the rule for investors is 'MOAR', then you run into a unique problem -- there is not an unlimited capacity to produce more, and there is not an unlimited demand for more. There is a finite point. When that point is hit, you start lowering costs, shipping overseas and what-have-you. But eventually you run out of places to ship TO. Again..it's a finite point.

All that's left is to eat each other. We called that phase deregulation. Once that's gone, the only thing left for capitalism to eat...is itself. Like a snake eating its' own tail, oblivious to the only possible outcome of such a policy.

[loudsue]

59. That is simply the BEST post I've ever seen on capitalism's limitation.

It explains exactly what we have seen in a way that everyone can see. Can I share this post with the world??

[Shandris]

135. Erm...by all means. :-)

[AlbertCat]

66. Capitalism could work just fine,

Indeed.

But it needs to be realistic... like your post points out.

We've had the Laffer Curve/Trickle Down crap.... that is pure fantasy, running things for decades now.... and it doesn't work. Period.

[defendandprotect]

116. No -- Capitalism is suicidal and and evil -- you can't regulate evil ....

[Recursion]

129. I don't know. I like having stuff

Capitalism has proven pretty good at making stuff people want and getting most of us the money to get it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. Yes. Well said.

The problem with US capitalism is an almost complete aversion by government to regulate it for the benefit of the public. What regulation exists (eg Securities and Exchange Commission) is there to prevent one billionaire from exploiting another.

[stockholmer]

105. capitalism, and the monetary system that fuels it, are based on never-ending,always expanding growth

the financialization of capital is what is driving the meta-crisis

It is a broken model in its present form, as all classical constraint laws for supply/demand/energy/production/labour/profit curves have been corrupted and dislocated by leverage, derivatives, high-frequency trading. and dark-pools of psuedo-capital within the monetary system.

[defendandprotect]

118. Capitalism has "failed" repeated historically -- it's an evil and can't be regulated ....

[provis99]

145. that's the standard Marxist theory.

Declining capitalism expands to other countries to lower costs, which leads to declining demand, which leads to lowering costs, which leads to declining demand, etc. The final stage before the collapse is rampant imperialism.

[socialist_n_TN]

35. Greed IS capitalism............

Profit is greed. The market is supposed to control greed, but the rise of corporate fascism has lead to the rise of de facto monopolies which destroyed ANY semblance of market control. Interlocking boards of directors, etc. lead to price fixing and strangling of smaller businesses. But don't say this isn't capitalism because this is the ultimate goal of capitalism. Why? Because it results in the most profit. And THAT my friend IS capitalism.

[AlbertCat]

67. Profit is greed.

No it's not!

Do you work for free?

TOO MUCH profit at the expense of the very company (which includes employees) earning you that over-profit is greed.



Where are you people getting these ideas from????? This blind hatred of anyone making money looks more like sour grapes than anything else.

[SDuderstadt]

70. Do you have a savings account?

If you do, do you expect a return on letting the bank keep your money?

Making broad statements like profit = greed is silly.

[socialist_n_TN]

136. How about a choice?.........

IF I had a savings, I wouldn't put it into a bank at no return in a capitalist system. Why should I allow people who's ONLY concern is profit to make money off of MY money without having to pay for it? I would be helping to set up a system that I HATE at no cost to them. I already do enough of that with my tax dollars subsidizing this system and the wealthy that profit off of this system.

However, I'd DEFINITELY put money into a savings account at a people's owned bank that didn't have to pay dividends, only overhead. But the capitalists won't allow that, just like they wouldn't allow a Public Option. Why not?

I don't need profit, or at least not much profit, if the system took care of everyone's basic needs. If my needs were taken care of why would I need profit? And what little profit I would WANT I would still consider that profit greed. Or maybe I would just consider it the market cost of my individual labor.

[salinen]

40. Capitalism = Greed

nes pas?

[Starry Messenger]

42. Capitalism

Think of it as machine. It is a machine that requires ever increasing profits to run. It is the only game in town as far as living and benefiting. What do you think happens in this system? The system creates humans who service the profit taking. That is how the class system arises. Capitalism creates "greed", or rather a group of humans who service the system. The conditions create the humans who adapt to keep the status quo serviceable. We are mammals, that is a hallmark of our existence. Destroying capitalism will eliminate the need for a group of humans to service and protect its existence.

[hifiguy]

65. And it always will

unless it is carefully and thoroughly regulated the way it is in Scandinavia, Germany and the other social democracies in Europe.

[SidDithers]

36. No. It hasn't...

democracy is alive and well. The world is a big place. You should look outside your borders once in a while, before proclaiming democracy dead.

Sid

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Capitalism + Democracy = Oxymoron

Placing wealth and power in the hands of a few is undemocratic on the face of it.

[defendandprotect]

45. Well, here's the story by Rahm, himself, on why business s/be grateful to Obama -- !!

Rahm .... crowing about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:03 AM

”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care

preserved the private delivery system;

the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18...

If that doesn't make you sick to your stomach, nothing will!!


:nuke:

[cui bono]

137. I was listening to Thom Hartman and he said he expected another financial meltdown and expected

that the GOP (?) - can't remember if he said GOP or not - but he predicted that "they" would make sure it happened before the 2012 election so they could blame it on Obama and he would not get reelected. Then he said that Obama being cozy with insiders may help him avoid that happening.

So I guess getting a second term is more important than actually doing what the country and its people needed him to do.

Blech.

[defendandprotect]

143. Missed Thom Hartmann today -- always interesting ... thanks!!

That would be quite the itnrigue!!

But basically our "economy" is one gimmick after another, imo!!

Ripping off the public one way or another --

sigh -- blech --


:)

[Zanzoobar]

47. Democracy is never destroyed

It is only suppressed.

[Enthusiast]

50. If it hasn't been destroyed

it sure has been made damned unpleasant.

[certainot]

52. and they couldn't do it without 1000 coordinated radio stations getting

a free speech free ride because the left just lets it blast the countryside with coordinated corporate think tank propaganda 24/7 with hardly a whimper in return.

in this country 1000 coordinated radio stations decide what is and what isn't acceptable in politics and media while those it attacks and lies about every day stick their fingers in their ears and walk on by, working twice as hard as they need to to get anything progressive done.

[southshore]

53. Stockholders are the problem

The problem is stockholder ownership of corporations. This puts many board members under the belief that they have a fiduciary responsibility to always deliver more, more, and even more profits quarter after quarter. The idea of long haul success has been abandoned for a suicide game of "what have you done for me lately", and by lately, I mean today in many cases. I have a family member who works in retail for a national chain, and their corporate HQ calls them in the middle of a shift to direct people to be sent home because it doesn't seem busy enough to the MBA geniuses 2,500 miles away. Not a quarterly plan, or a monthly plan or even an weekly or daily plan, but a minute by minute state of constant crisis management.

[Roy Rolling]

56. the alternative?

Separate systems for different people. Let the capitalists compete with the capitalists, let socialists work in a socialist structure, let anarchists exist without regulation (like the clergy and non-profits today---they don't pay taxes) and let labor just work without having to compete like a Harvard-graduate with others trying to separate them from their money.

The problem is, some people are inclined to be capitalist, some socialist, some anarchist, some just wanna work for a wage and go home and drink a beer until tomorrow. But, in America, all of these groups must be beholding to the group in charge---in America it's the capitalists, in Russia it's the communists---and all 300 million must act as captialists or communists, even if they just want to be a non-profit charity.

That is the basis of exploitation---wealthy captialists who can out-compete in business ordinary workers who just want to make a living, but not have to shop, shop, shop every day for a better deal. The capitalists will always win when they must compete against the non-capitalists. It's like having a pro football team that will only play games against elemetary shcool teams.

[AlbertCat]

58. I'm out of breath.

You forgot the most blatant blow of all!

-A president, who we know LOST, was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2000.

[salinen]

87. Yep

how could I forget that. The day Democracy died.

[blindpig]

61. Not so much destroyed as exposed.

This has always been in the cards, conditions have just reached the point where the velvet glove comes off. The lost democracy which you bemoan was always nothing but window dressing deemed necessary in the Cold War but now obsolete. They are setting the clock back 100 years and we should too, but this time no half measures.

[bobbolink]

78. No Half Measures

Doing that will require a much better effort at getting information to the general public.

Overcoming propaganda takes work.... just calling people "stupid" won't get us there.

[blindpig]

83. The people aren't stupid and they know.

It's been there all the time but they have worked mightily to distract us. At a point the distractions no longer obscure the reality. To cop a line from DUer Here Since 1628;

But more importantly there is the sudden emergency that brings that awareness. It's a blitzgedanke
in whose flash everything that was long unseen is suddenly known in stark awareness.

Very apt.

The lessons our enemies teach are 1000% more effective than all of the proselytizing, preaching, screaming and imploring.

[bobbolink]

84. Yes, most people aren't stupid, as many DUers like to claim, but they HAVE been hoodwinked.

We aren't doing much to reach out and counteract that.

[blindpig]

86. Not to worry, they do our work for us.

I suspect that this is just the way it works. Appeals to altruism might fall on deaf ears but the real necessity of solidarity, imposed from outside, brings survival instincts into play. That might strike you as a cold assessment but it behooves us to not impose our preconceptions and predilections upon the reality with which we must deal. The stakes are too high for us to engage in wishful thinking.

[bobbolink]

93. Whatever floats your boat.

"The stakes are too high for us to engage in wishful thinking."

And that is what I am saying from my side.

[hifiguy]

62. And Marx is proven right once again

Can't say much for his prescriptions, but his analysis of how capitalism eventually destroys everything and ultimately cannibalizes itself was spot on the mark in every detail.

[dthigpen4]

80. Marx was right...sort of

Yeah, sounds a lot like socialism as well

[dthigpen4]

69. Really, capitalism is the only problem?

Capitalism has problems, but I guess we could replace it with the alternative. We could allow elcted officials (which many have already pointed out some inherent problems in the system) to make all of our economic decisions for us. Which would drive all of the money interests to concentrate all their efforts at fixing the system to benefit themselves. We would make it that much easier for them by putting all the decision making and power in one handy-dandy location. Years down the road we will look back and say "whoops, why didn't we see that coming?" I have an idea. How about limiting what the government hands out in money and takes in in money. Decentralize the power and create true democratic momentum. By spreading out the power, business has to actually listen to the individuals, because government cannot control the decisions. But, give the government enough power to smack down business when it doesn't play fair and tries to "fix the system." Set up some basic rules that the goverment and the businesses and the people have to all respect about each other.

[salinen]

88. Regulated Capitalism

is what you're saying. Anything would be an improvement.

[SDuderstadt]

92. Let me make my usual pitch for democratic capitalism

http://www.democratic-capitalism.com/

http://www.kellysite.net/

[dthigpen4]

96. We already had regulated capitalism

It was called the US Constitution prior to the income tax amendment.

[SDuderstadt]

97. Huh? n/t

[blindpig]

98. Impossible.

In a system where massive accumulations of wealth are the norm to pretend that wealth does not have a bearing on politics is ludicrous. It is the delusion of bourgeois democracy that the existence of great wealth and political power can be separated, a delusion foisted upon the masses but one that the ruling class does not share. That is how they ride roughshod over us and we don't even know what hit us. If we want democracy then capitalism must go, and I might add that if we want nature and survival then it is equally necessary that capitalism be abandoned asap.

[SDuderstadt]

99. Why don't you read the information before you...

pronounce it D.O.A.?

[blindpig]

109. Because it's the same old reformist bullshit.

"Capitalism would be lovely, only if..."

But you see, we have Capitalism as it is right now, ain't no aberration, it ain't the result of bad actors, this is how capitalism develops. Marx described the ascent of finance capital almost presciently. There is no point in attempting to fix something inherently flawed.

[SDuderstadt]

112. Oh, bullshit...

ever hear of the concept of "complex cause"?

[blindpig]

117. Why don't you explain this 'complex cause'?

I'm all ears.

[SDuderstadt]

168. Do you understand the concept of...

"complex cause"?

[white_wolf]

111. I could be wrong so forgive me if I am

but isn't the term "democratic capitalism" simply a new name for the "democratic socialist" nations of Europe? I saw a post on here talking about that a few weeks ago, and if it is then why change the name? Those nations call themselves socialist so why should we try and re-brand their system?

[SDuderstadt]

169. No, it's not...

why not educate yourself and read the links I provided?

[tpsbmam]

71. No punishment for heinous crimes perpetrated by one administration and

many continued by another, all of which are intertwined with your list.

:cry:

[salinen]

89. Bush

and the new guy suck.

[starzdust]

100. Boy, Do I Have PIISD!

I am still waiting for my first SSDI check and no word at all for my federal employee disability retirement benefits. I've been waiting now for over 6 months. I have no savings left, no income, I can't work anymore, I have no close relatives.

And I have to take a boat load of medications as I am constantly in pain both physical (severe neuropathy in both feet) and psychological (severe depression, dysthymia, PTSD, anxiety disorder, borderline personality disorder...and more). I have federal employee medical insurance including a prescription plan. But since I have no money, and I mean ZERO, and still have an outstanding bill with Caremark, they refuse to refill any of my medications until I've paid the outstanding bill and then only with payment up front.

Yes, I've tried to get free medications directly from the manufacturer without ANY success. You miss doting an "i" or miss crossing a "t" you get denied. Their regulations are so picky that almost no one can meet them.

My primary care doctor is 180 miles from the desert 3rd. world hellhole wasteland and I have NO money for gas to get there. My good doctor is now saying no more prescriptions until you make an appointment with him. Of course he is aware of my situation but is too busy or seems to not care. I applied for a free supply of Lyrica that I use to help control the 24/7 pain caused by neuropathy. The form required my doctors signature and a NEW prescription sent with the application. I made sure in the letter I included with the application for free Lyrica that the good doctor MUST WRITE A NEW PRESCRIPTION. In order to save time I asked the doctor to forward the application WITH A NEW PRESCRIPTION materials directly to the company. Guess what happened next. If you guessed that the good doctor forgot to write a new prescription and include it with the application, you'd be CORRECT! Two weeks later my application was returned to me because there was no prescription. After some wrangling with the doctors office they agreed to send the prescription directly to me. So, another week goes by and I finally get the new Prescription and I am now ready to send the application to the company once again.

My point here? Don't be hoodwinked by those corrupt corporatist tools. For the rank and file federal workers our health insurance not only sucks because of bi-weekly premiums (20%), out of pocket expenses co-pays for well, everything from doctors visits to necessary equipment to drugs, and because of many things not covered by the policy such as vision and dental. Just recently federal workers could sign up for separate benefits for vision and dental. Again here with additional premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.

You know what I gripe about the most? There is a federal agency (BIA) hospital 13 miles from where I reside (awaiting my federal employee disability then I can get the hell out of here). Since I am a single white man I can not get a primary care doctor there nor can I get any of my prescriptions filled. All they will do is patch you up and give you maybe a few pills and ship you to another hospital off the reservation. AND I AM A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE. I was told my an administrator at IHS that all the benefits and services are exclusively for the American Indian population. They wouldn't even give me a flu shot unless I was Indian or worked for the hospital or had a spouse that was Indian and/or an employee of the hospital.

Therefore you can not imagine the pain and suffering, frustration and stress this situation has caused me.

[Blue_Tires]

72. 100th rec

[Raksha]

73. K & R

[swilton]

75. No punishment for crimes against humanity

[salinen]

90. Good one

to add.

[JokerAllstar]

77. We don't have textbook capitalism anymore...that's an illusion

What we have is corporate capitalism or a soft plutocratic capitalism. It's highly exploitative, allows for rampant corruption, and pro-monopoly.

[rucky]

81. Socialism is more compatible with Democracy

As far as economic systems and government goes.

[dthigpen4]

94. Not, really, only in idealistic fantasyland

Yesterday, I bought an organic, fair-trade, bag of coffee...at a big corporate grocery store. Do you know why they had it there. They were responding to the democratic demands of people like me who wanted it. We were spending our money at more expesive, small, health food stores. The corporate store heard our voice (money) and responded with amazing agility and sensitivity. Socialism (non-private ownership of production) does not allow for true democratic response. Centralized power drowns out individual voices in the money awash from corporate interests who don't have to listen to me anymore because they can focus their cash in one place.

[Recursion]

128. Even the USSR made use of the price signal towards the end there

I think an all-out repudiation of private ownership of the means of production is a little insane, personally.

[rucky]

138. Who says socialism needs centralized power?

[Nye Bevan]

82. How has democracy been "destroyed"?

I get that you don't like some of the policies of the current administration. But I hadn't heard that the 2012 elections have been canceled. Surely you are still free to campaign and vote for politicians who will pursue policies more to your liking?

In fact, I don't see how if democracy has been "destroyed" you can start threads contemplating whether or note to vote for Bernie Sanders in 2012:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9694588&mesg_id=9694588

[hifiguy]

85. The facade of democracy remains

But its essence is gone. There is one party, the MONEY party, with two slightly different faces. The range of choices has never been narrower. In most industrialized democracies, the modern Democratic Party would be seen as the conservatives and the Repigs would be seen as candidates for the booby hatch.

It is not possible for someone like Senator Sanders to effectively run for the presidency. Look at what the corporate media did to Howard Dean in 2004.

[Raksha]

101. It might be possible if we'd all stop saying it isn't possible.

I'll never forget Dennis Kucinich saying during the 2008 presidential campaign, "I'm electable if people elect me."

I've been thinking about the recent post by The Doctor about the perception of value and how it inflates the price of something (dot-com stocks in this case). About how the perception or even the illusion of an increase in value can function like a real increase in value, at least temporarily. Maybe it works the same way with "electability."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x635610

What if we ALL ignored the naysayers at the same time? Ever notice how quick they are to jump in and throw cold water on the idea the second anyone suggests we support an alternative to the officially annointed Democratic candidate? Bernie Sanders could become electable overnight if a significant number of progressives simply agreed that he's electable.

[salinen]

91. Is almost destroyed?

People like Bernie will slowly disappear, like Feingold and Greyson. I think anyway. Then we'll vote for asshole 1 or ass whole 2.

[Raksha]

102. No, the 2012 elections haven't been cancelled,

but I'm sure they've already been rigged.

[KansDem]

108. "Bought," more likely

With "Citizens United" and the US Chamber in action, I imagine the next election is already "in the bag."

[OhioChick]

104. K&R n/t

[kenny blankenship]

113. Again.

It had democracy cold and stiff towards the end of the 19th century. But capitalism's inhuman excesses, called normal business procedures by some and dictates of the marketplace, revived the corpse. One day these dry bones will walk again. They'll walk and dance and kick ass.

[Taverner]

120. Now you know why I hate Capitalism

I'm not a Communist, more of a European Style Socialist (Thanks Lawrence :))

[jtown1123]

121. This pretty much sums it up. Big kick and rec

[WiffenPoof]

123. It May Not Be Easy To...

eliminate Capitalism. There is a mindset that says "it may be evil, but it is the least of the evils."

Don't get me wrong...Capitalism is broke. The questions is...can we fix it?

-PLA

[liberation]

146. You can try to fix a system which is flawed at a systemic level all you want

but eventually you will end up inevitably back where you started: trying to fix it.

BTW, this is nothing new. When feudalism was collapsing, plenty of the serfs were the ones actually defending the very same system which was exploiting them simply because that was the only system they had known all their lives, most people could simply not fathom a different socio-economic approach. A similar situation/frame of mind was shared among many slaves. People generally tend to dislike uncertainty, and when inertia is great they will stick with the devil they know. And they will do so will all sorts of leaps and bounds in terms of logic and justification, even if it implies defending the very system which is exploiting them. It is a weird aspect of human nature.

[RedCloud]

125. Does this mean the wealthy have to get callouses on their hands?

[jobycom]

130. That's not capitalism. That's feudalism. That's what happens when capitalism disappears.

Capitalism to survive needs a strong government. When that government is weakened, you have private interests take over government functions--that's the exact definition and description of feudalism.

What you are lamenting is feudalism.

[blindpig]

140. Sure, capitalism needs strong government....

How could they extort 1 trillion dollars from the people otherwise? How could BP get away with murder otherwise? Capital require government to control the masses, fight for market and resources, and be the "lender" of last resort. But it is capitalism, there it is in front of us, big as life, pretending otherwise is fantasy.

[Hubert Flottz]

131. K&R

I take it that Park Place and Boardwalk are probably not giving any senior discounts again next year.

Gotta bust those unions, ASAP, So our CEOs and Bankster pResidents don't "fall through the cracks."

The way the powers that be seem to see it is that, there's only room for two classes in America, the Greedy Class on the top and the Needy Class in the ditches. To hell with any middle class anymore.

Give your I-Pod to your brain dead POD people in the tea party and see if their babies also cry when the mother of all tits goes dry, for them, you and I.

The GOPer faithful have pulled on their bootstraps so hard over the years, that they have all pulled their heads up their ass.

[OneBlueSky]

139. that all you got? . . . psha-a-a-a-w-w-w . . .

how about capitalism and it's allies (i.e. stupid rich humans) destroying the land, the air, and the water? . . . essentially laying waste to the entire planet that is our home (and that of every other known life form) -- at least until we make it completely uninhabitable . . . which will likely happen a lot sooner than we might think (on the rare occasions we actually do think, that is) . . .

some call it "shitting where you eat and sleep" . . . and it's just not done by species that simply listen to and heed the instincts and/or common sense bestowed upon them by the Universe/ Creation/God/the Flying Spaghetti Monster/Whomever . . .

"Peace on Earth, good will to men, women, children, cats, dogs, trees, rocks, flowers and bears." Anonymous

[KansDem]

147. "It was the Beast who killed Beauty"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6kTVBPVSyE

[BOG PERSON]

149. it makes sense

it was the bourgeoisie that gave us democracy-as-we-know-it. who else was going to snuff it out? the bourgeoisie has to take all the initiative in pushing history forward these days.

[calimary]

150. I think it's called Neo-Feudalism.

If not, it certainly qualifies.

[femrap]

151. Serfing, USA.....nt

[calimary]

163. LOVE IT!!!

[BOG PERSON]

153. feudalism has a little style

no, ours is just a society in decay. it's not neo-anything. it's american liberal-democracy in all vulgar glory.

[Corruption Winz]

157. Capitalism isn't the problem.. It's capitalists I'm bothered with.

It's like anything else. You can't just blame the system, just the people operating it.

[socialist_n_TN]

164. I hear this a lot, along with "socialism" being.......

"too idealistic". But think about it. The capitalists are OPERATING the capitalist system and they're doing EXACTLY what the system calls for.

I like to go back to the GOALS of a system since we all know that people can fuck up a wet dream.

Socialism's goal: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Capitalism's goal: Make as much money as possible. Period. End of story.

Now which system is likely to be fairer to the most people judging by the GOALS of each system.

[SDuderstadt]

170. "Capitalism's goal: Make as much money as possible"

What a stupid caricature.

[white_wolf]

174. Whether that is the goal of capitalism or not is irrelevant

That is the end result of capitalism and proves the flaw in the system.

[socialist_n_TN]

180. Of COURSE that's the goal of capitalism............

Wasn't it no less of a capitalist proponent than Milton Freidman who said that a business has NO other goal than to make money for the business?

[SDuderstadt]

182. I don't think Friedman spoke...

for capitalism. That's his theory.

[Corruption Winz]

178. If I'm answering according to your description....

The answer is obvious. However, that's not a realistic description of capitalism. It might be how it's "used"/run in this country, but that isn't any reason to blame the system. It's like a gun. Too much of guns or a gun is a bad thing. And it can be used for horrible things. However, in the right hands, it's completely harmless and can be used in a much better way.

Granted, if no guns existed, blah blah blah. That's beside the point.

Capitalism is about private ownership, with the intent of making profit. The investors/owners collect the profit and distribute it to the workers. That is how the system is run. While, in this country, it's been warped. The owners keep more and share less. Due to greed. However, capitalism doesn't breed greed. This is a cop out argument to me. It's what weak people use to describe what they're doing or what people who simplify issues will say in order to debunk this economic system. People are either greedy or they aren't. They'll SHOW more greed with more money involved, but they're still greedy.

Greedy people would still be greedy in a socialistic environment. You could make an argument that they would be in a system that is less opportunistic. This would only serve to make them more dangerous/ruthless/conniving.

Once again, it's rarely the system. It's the people running it.

[socialist_n_TN]

181. Ask any capitalist what the goal of capitalism IS........

and you're going to get some form of "make money for the owners/shareholders".

[SDuderstadt]

183. Only if you only talk to some capitalists....

I'm a "democratic capitalist" and I would give you a much more detailed answer.

[white_wolf]

185. Okay I'm open minded.

Let's hear your answer. I'll admit the idea of democratic capitalism interests me.

[SDuderstadt]

186. Here's a good starting point...

http://www.kellysite.net/

http://news.rutgers.edu/medrel/news-releases/2010/04/rutgers2019-school-o-20100401


http://www.democratic-capitalism.com/

[socialist_n_TN]

188. Well obviously you're not in control of the captalist........

mindset. Because make as much money as possible IS the mantra of today's capitalists. And the capitalists for the last 30 years (since Reagan).

Now I believe that this is ALWAYS the goal of capitalism, but I recognize that this statement CAN be argued. What CAN'T be argued is that this Milton Freidman/Grover Norquist view of capitalism is what's been instituted as POLICY in the economy for the last 30 years.

Capitalism is what the capitalists who make economic policy SAY it is.

[SDuderstadt]

190. Government makes economic policy...

dude.

[Silent3]

191. Capitalism doesn't have any goals. People have goals.

Capitalism is also more of a descriptive word than a proscriptive word, regardless of the fact that so many around DU speak of capitalism as if it is a system imposed upon us from above, with a fixed set of must-follow rules.

Capitalism describes what happens when people, especially ambitious people, have a right to private property, when they have private assets which can be exchanged and bartered and a fair amount of freedom in how they do so. Like all freedoms, this freedom can be abused. Since such freedom can lead some people to have great wealth, and since wealth leads to power, this freedom is especially ripe for abuse.

[BOG PERSON]

165. for your information

if you want to resolve the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat WITHOUT abolishing class society you are necessarily a fascist. (FYI)

[Little Star]

166. No regulation of Capitalism finally destroyed Democracy!

Capitalism can work within a democracy if it is regulated.

[DirkGently]

167. Corporate capitalism, taken to the hilt, is a Ponzi scheme.

[FreeJoe]

175. Markets with safety nets

When I look at countries around the world and the quality of life that their people live, the ones that seem the best are the ones market economies, progressive taxes, and a strong social safety net. I cannot, off the top of my head, think of any non-market based economies that aren't terrible. In fact, many terrible planned economies that have added market reforms have done much better after making the reforms. I think that, to an extent, Hayek is right that too much socialism morphs into totalitarianism.

[closeupready]

189. Wish I could rec, but I'm too late.

So I'll give this a big kick.