We need to get rid of Capitalism

[Stargazer99]

Its not working....have you noticed? It works fine for those with wealth and power. Who died and made the wealthy better than others?
We have a monetary system working against each other the capitalist and the worker. When a system destroys human life as the capitalist system has done and is doing, it is time to get rid of it. To require a person to educate and produce and then have no employment that meets common human needs as our nation is experiencing now is downright evil.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. That's (gasp!) Socialism!!1!!

And the whole notion works for me.

[newfie11]

4. me too. n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

41. And me three........

Look here's the deal. A well regulated capitalism was a step up from feudalism, but IT NEVER COULD BE THE SYSTEM THAT WAS ETERNAL! There are WAY too many internal inconsistencies and unfairness involved in capitalism for it to work forever. And at it's base it relied on continous expansion. We don't live in an infinite world, so at some point, IT HAD TO BECOME OBSOLETE and even dangerous. It's there. Time to take the next step.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. The OP didn't actually specify what should happen in its place

so it may not be socialism. After all, socialism has never been tried in the United States.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. I disagree that socialism has never been tried here.

It was "tried" in Milwaukee:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/42448437.html

Before the Socialists took charge, Milwaukee was just as corrupt as Chicago at its worst. Our mayor at the turn of the 20th century was David Rose, a political prince of darkness who allowed prostitution, gambling dens, all-night saloons and influence-peddling to flourish on his watch. Grand juries returned 276 indictments against public officials of the Rose era. "All the Time Rosy" escaped prosecution himself, but district attorney (and future governor) Francis McGovern called him "the self-elected, self-appointed attorney general of crime in this community."

In 1910, fed-up voters handed Socialists the keys to the city. Emil Seidel, a patternmaker by trade, won the mayor's race in a landslide, and Socialists took a majority of seats on the Common Council. The election was not a fluke. Seidel served from 1910 to 1912, Daniel Hoan from 1916 to 1940 and Frank Zeidler from 1948 to 1960. No other big city in America entrusted its government to the Socialists, much less kept them in office for most of 50 years. That record makes Milwaukee unique in the nation.

What did the Socialists stand for? In his tellingly titled memoir, "A Liberal in City Government," Zeidler described the party's tenets as a hybrid of lofty thoughts and real-world concerns: "The socialist movement was inspired by the hope of a brotherhood of workers, the Cooperative Commonwealth; by a fierce opposition to war; by a belief in the rights of people; by a passion for orderly government; and by a contempt for graft and boodling."

Where had Socialism come from? It came, first of all, from Germany, in the baggage of assorted intellectuals who had fled a failed revolt against royal rule in 1848 and transplanted their ideals in Milwaukee. It also came from the city's huge population of industrial workers, many of them German, who were attuned to any and all appeals to class consciousness. And it came from the fertile mind of Victor Berger, the Austrian immigrant who became the movement's chief strategist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. It's almost impossible for one city to implement socialism in a capitalist country

If Milwaukee tried socialism, what businesses did it take over? How did it significantly increase the control of commerce and industry by the people? a fierce opposition to war, a belief in the rights of people, a passion for orderly government, and a contempt for graft and boodling are pacifist liberalism. A "hope of a brotherhood of workers, the Cooperative Commonwealth" just means they wanted to try socialism, at some point. But, as your article says:

Contrary to popular belief, they did not try to socialize everything in sight. With the exception of the streetcar company, whose services they felt belonged in the public domain (and eventually got there), they accepted the American premise of private ownership. When one of Zeidler's 1948 opponents charged that he would socialize the corner grocery store if he were elected, Zeidler promptly went out and got the endorsement of the Independent Grocers Association.

It goes on to say they were about providing public facilities. But that's not socialism; it's a decent welfare and education system. Especially when the subject of this thread is 'get rid of capitalism', accepting private ownership is not a socialist alternative to capitalism.

Some of the New Deal might be said to be socialist, but it was really more about providing jobs until private enterprise started hiring again; it was Keynesian, not Marxist (nor any earlier socialist). I don't think FDR intended to replace capitalism permanently.

[Douglas Carpenter]

111. about thirty years ago I personally asked Frank Zeidler what had they accomplished in the socialist

direction while he was Mayor of Milwaukee. He answered me very frankly and directly, nothing - absolutely nothing. He went on to say that they had accomplished a lot of very progressive legislation that was years ahead of the rest of the country - but they certainly did not take any steps toward socialism.

(I was at that time involved with the SPUSA and attending the national conference in Iowa City while he was at that time national Chairman)

[defendandprotect]

126. Capitalism is fascism --

Even when it was regulated as part of the new deal it still wasn't economic

democracy -- and if you want democracy, you need economic democracy --


Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime --

a Mafia way of doing business -- !!

Fascism --

[RegieRocker]

2. Capitalism is fine. It's the Federal Reserve that is the problem.

We need to own the banking system. At least the level of the Main Banks.

[Taitertots]

15. Name one thing the Fed has done that has harmed you n/t

[RegieRocker]

21. You're joking right?

The list is long and wide. How about the HUGE bailout at the end of the term of Georgie boy. Bailout tally: $3.8 trillion and counting. They even threatened the U.S. Congress with Marshall law. You think that's OK right?

[Taitertots]

23. The bailout helped you after the collapse caused the Republicans

Even with your claims being baseless, you still have done nothing to show how that would actually harm you.

"They even threatened the U.S. Congress with Marshall law"
The Fed has no power to institute MARTIAL law and would not benefit if it was imposed. Supply some evidence for your wild claims.

[RegieRocker]

27. LOL you didn't pay attention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeVY7JH_xVU

Your claims of my claims being baseless are baseless.

[Taitertots]

35. None of those people work for the Fed

Who does he even claim said this? He doesn't even directly attribute this to the Fed.

Nothing they said supports anything that you have said.

[banned from Kos]

52. You are correct, The Ron Paul Teabaggers have recruited a few

gullibles on the left to buy into their anti-Fed conspiracy after progressives worked so hard for a central bank.

[RegieRocker]

160. It amazes me how some in my party suffer from the same

illogical ostrich type of behavior the right suffer from. They then in order to throw up a smoke screen accuse others of being right wing in some fashion.

This video shows Marcy Kaptur definitely linking the FED to the problems. I presume you think she is NOT a Democrat or has been brainwashed by the right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eteiCoYvKF0

Bernie Sanders hammering Ben Bernake. He's brainwashed also right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_QyqGAvNvE&feature=related

Take the time to contact these two Democratic Congress members before you throw out wild uninformed accusations.


:rofl:

[TexDevilDog]

113. That is called a credit UNION.

I'm a union member, why aren't you?

[defendandprotect]

128. FED is making decisions on our economy, unemployment, stimulus ... why do we have Congress?

We need to have our elected officials making these decisions --

people we can elect and un-elect!!


Everything is being taken into back rooms and private deals --

corporations can't afford to have any of this discussed in public --

like Obama's back room deals with Big Pharma and the private H/C industry!!


The FED is a private bank -- and should nave nothing to do with making decisions

which Congress should be making -- and our president!!

Who are we kidding -- ?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[MineralMan]

5. And what's your plan to do that? How is it that people are

going to get food? Where will they work? There are 300+ million people in this country. Before you get rid of something, you're going to need something else ready to step in immediately, or the suffering, misery, and death will be horrible to behold.

And, no, people can't just plant a backyard garden. That is not a solution.

For pete's sake. Think for a moment.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Mnpaul]

6. I don't think we need to get rid of capitalism

We just need to do a better job of regulating it. Electing corporate toadies and expecting them to do it just isn't working. Our mixture of capitalism/socialism has worked in the past and can do so again. We just need to abandon the failed policies put forth by centrist Dems/Republicans and return to the ones that work.

[buddysmellgood]

13. Exactly. We've always been a mix of socialism and capitalism.

We used to use taxes to level the playing field between those that are overpaid and those who are underpaid. We don't do that anymore.

[TheKentuckian]

20. A brief period of improved operation in an era of ideological competition

huge population explosions, little competition for finished products, absurd environmental policy, and low hanging fruit in the area of resources is not as excellent a model as is often made out.

Why are you judging a system by a historical blip that had very special external conditions that are unlikely to be recreated?

A system that by nature bends itself to undo any and all restraint, even that which would preserve it.

At minimum, it can never be lost in the calculation that capitalism is not a benign system that must be regulated but a perverse one that is being harnessed as a transition step in absent better options.

[defendandprotect]

129. Except that it has been 50 years of rightwing violence --

assassinations which succeeded in their rise and the eventual overturning

of those regulations!!

Capitalism is an evil -- it can't be regulated --

[NYC_SKP]

7. That would mean the END of every major holiday, end of Christmas, death of Santa.

Which makes me very SAD!

:sarcasm:

Unable to take opportunity to snark on what consumerism has done to us.

I'll recommend this post.

[Starry Messenger]

8. Oh yes indeed.

[Jim Warren]

10. Predatory capitalism, yes

and the methodical dismantling of regulations that guard against it.

I just got finished watching "Inside Job", I suggest everyone watch it or watch it again.

[blindpig]

14. It's all predatory

It is theft from start to finnish.

[blindpig]

11. It works fine for capitalists

For the rest of us, not so much.

Ending Capitalism is a matter of survival.

[tex-wyo-dem]

12. I agree with you...

but I will add that Capitalism would work fine for most IF it is WELL REGULATED by the government. What we have now is a complete breakdown of the great experiment and people are suffering.

Also, there needs to be a firewall between private interests/corporations and government.

What we are seeing now is the marriage of industry with government, which does not serve the people well and destroys the evironment...

...hmmm, there's a word for that system...oh, yeah...fucking fascism.

[Rex]

16. No, we need to regulate the hell out of it!!!!

Tools don't kill people, people using tools kill people. Your economic system is only as good as the people in charge making the decisions.

[tinrobot]

17. We need to get rid of corporatism.

Capitalism is fine with a level playing field. It is not fine when corporations fix the rules in their favor.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

18. YES. I have noticed. nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. Life after Capitalism by Robert Skidelsky

LONDON – In 1995, I published a book called The World After Communism. Today, I wonder whether there will be a world after capitalism.

That question is not prompted by the worst economic slump since the 1930’s. Capitalism has always had crises, and will go on having them. Rather, it comes from the feeling that Western civilization is increasingly unsatisfying, saddled with a system of incentives that are essential for accumulating wealth, but that undermine our capacity to enjoy it. Capitalism may be close to exhausting its potential to create a better life – at least in the world’s rich countries.

By “better,” I mean better ethically, not materially. Material gains may continue, though evidence shows that they no longer make people happier. My discontent is with the quality of a civilization in which the production and consumption of unnecessary goods has become most people’s main occupation.

This is not to denigrate capitalism. It was, and is, a superb system for overcoming scarcity. By organising production efficiently, and directing it to the pursuit of welfare rather than power, it has lifted a large part of the world out of poverty.

Yet what happens to such a system when scarcity has been turned to plenty? Does it just go on producing more of the same, stimulating jaded appetites with new gadgets, thrills, and excitements? How much longer can this continue? Do we spend the next century wallowing in triviality?

For most of the last century, the alternative to capitalism was socialism. But socialism, in its classical form, failed – as it had to. Public production is inferior to private production for any number of reasons, not least because it destroys choice and variety. And, since the collapse of communism, there has been no coherent alternative to capitalism. Beyond capitalism, it seems, stretches a vista of…capitalism.

There have always been huge moral questions about capitalism, which could be put to one side because capitalism was so successful at generating wealth. Now, when we already have all the wealth we need, we are right to wonder whether the costs of capitalism are worth incurring.

Adam Smith, for example, recognized that the division of labor would make people dumber by robbing them of non-specialized skills. Yet he thought that this was a price – possibly compensated by education – worth paying, since the widening of the market increased the growth of wealth. This made him a fervent free trader.

Today’s apostles of free trade argue the case in much the same way as Adam Smith, ignoring the fact that wealth has expanded enormously since Smith’s day. They typically admit that free trade costs jobs, but claim that re-training programs will fit workers into new, “higher value” jobs. This amounts to saying that even though rich countries (or regions) no longer need the benefits of free trade, they must continue to suffer its costs.

Defenders of the current system reply: we leave such choices to individuals to make for themselves. If people want to step off the conveyor belt, they are free to do so. And increasing numbers do, in fact, “drop out.” Democracy, too, means the freedom to vote capitalism out of office.

This answer is powerful but naïve. People do not form their preferences in isolation. Their choices are framed by their societies’ dominant culture. Is it really supposed that constant pressure to consume has no effect on preferences? We ban pornography and restrict violence on TV, believing that they affect people negatively, yet we should believe that unrestricted advertising of consumer goods affects only the distribution of demand, but not the total?

Capitalism’s defenders sometimes argue that the spirit of acquisitiveness is so deeply ingrained in human nature that nothing can dislodge it. But human nature is a bundle of conflicting passions and possibilities. It has always been the function of culture (including religion) to encourage some and limit the expression of others.

Indeed, the “spirit of capitalism” entered human affairs rather late in history. Before then, markets for buying and selling were hedged with legal and moral restrictions. A person who devoted his life to making money was not regarded as a good role model. Greed, avarice, and envy were among the deadly sins. Usury (making money from money) was an offense against God.

It was only in the eighteenth century that greed became morally respectable. It was now considered healthily Promethean to turn wealth into money and put it to work to make more money, because by doing this one was benefiting humanity.

This inspired the American way of life, where money always talks. The end of capitalism means simply the end of the urge to listen to it. People would start to enjoy what they have, instead of always wanting more. One can imagine a society of private wealth holders, whose main objective is to lead good lives, not to turn their wealth into “capital.”

Financial services would shrink, because the rich would not always want to become richer. As more and more people find themselves with enough, one might expect the spirit of gain to lose its social approbation. Capitalism would have done its work, and the profit motive would resume its place in the rogues’ gallery.

The dishonoring of greed is likely only in those countries whose citizens already have more than they need. And even there, many people still have less than they need. The evidence suggests that economies would be more stable and citizens happier if wealth and income were more evenly distributed. The economic justification for large income inequalities – the need to stimulate people to be more productive – collapses when growth ceases to be so important.

Perhaps socialism was not an alternative to capitalism, but its heir. It will inherit the earth not by dispossessing the rich of their property, but by providing motives and incentives for behavior that are unconnected with the further accumulation of wealth.

[Jim Warren]

22. It strikes me little understood

upon close reading of Das Kapital that Marx was really proscribing a socio-economic system that would follow the inevitable excesses of over-ripe capitalism, not any other way round. It occurs to me that's why we've seen failures so far such as with the Soviets, they were not working from a principally matured economy but one burdened with widespread scarcity from the start.

[Ichingcarpenter]

28. Marx thought it would happen in Germany or England

never in Russia since it hadn't reached a socio-economic evolutionary development.

This article here is a good place to start on the academic
aspects of Marx evaluation of socio-economic evolution and the study of the historical-political context


http://moro.twoday.net/stories/3340883/comment

[joshcryer]

46. Yeah, but that's a cop-out.

[blindpig]

37. Very well said.

kudos.

[joshcryer]

47. I think Kronstadt showed promise, but I think The Party decided that it was untenable.

No other way about it.

[socialist_n_TN]

48. BINGO, Jim!!!!!!!! Got it in one.............

Russia, of necessity, went from feudalism to an attempt at socialism. It MIGHT have worked too after a few decades of socialist accumulation, but between capitalist sanctions, the civil war, other wars, and bureaucratic overreach after Lenin's death and Trotsky's exile, it was a VERY hard row to hoe. Also, if Europe had followed in the footsteps of the Bolshevik Revolution, it could have been guided into a true socialism by the other more developed countries of Europe. That also didn't happen.

Marx envisioned socialism as a system to FOLLOW capitalism, as you said. A way to solve the inequities of capitalism after capitalism had done it's job of developing the means to assure ENOUGH for everybody. Socialism would be the means to DISTRIBUTE that "enough" TO everybody without the elites hoarding it all to themselves.

We're there. Capitalism has done it's job. Now it's time to distribute what we have fairly.

[hifiguy]

54. Exactamundo!

What the Soviet experiment proved is that stages, specifically the capitalist one, cannot be skipped. Pre-revolutionary Russia would be considered, in today's terms, a third-world country, economically speaking. The national infrastructure necessary to implement a genuinely democratic socialism did not exist at all in Russia. Ergo, the distorting doctrines of Leninism and Stalinim were invented to try to rationalize how a leap from feudalism to socialism could be possible.

[socialist_n_TN]

58. Well, under the dictatorship of the proletariat

and WITHOUT outside interference and WITH an international socialist movement, I believe it would be possible to move a backward country into socialism by skipping the capitalist accumulation part of the process. But there WOULD have to be SOME sort of an accumulation process to get to the same point that a capitalist system would be before socialism could be successful. I think Trotsky called it "socialist accumulation". But in general, it's going to be tough to skip that step.

However, in this and other developed countries, we don't have to worry about that. We DO have the developed means of production to transition into socialism. We just need the will to TAKE those means of production.

[joshcryer]

93. Accumulation of capital *is* capitalism, full stop, period.

As such the dictatorship of the proletariat merely becomes the corporate control mechanism from wince forth all power is derived. It is, in effect, no different from the Rothbardian result of unfettered capitalism. A large functionary entity controlling everything with power concentrated in the hands of a very few. Only the dictatorship of the proletariat denies anyone democratic control over their existence and for its very survival (as history has shown) requires that all individuals cede their rights to it, otherwise the individual desire to have a democratic say is too overwhelming and it will dissolve the dictatorship in due course.

[socialist_n_TN]

102. It would need to be for a limited duration

(a few decades at MOST) and I would have put some breaks in there too. Say a five year plan, with five years to recover and assimilate the gains for the good of society afterwards before another one.


And the difference between capitalist accumulation and socialist accumulation would be the difference between accumulation that's socked away into some fatcat's hedge fund and into the greater society.

But in reality in this country today, we don't need accumulation. What we need is fairer distribution.

[joshcryer]

115. As was shown by history though, once you have it, there's enormous pressure to *keep it*.

The party itself does not feel the need or the desire to dissolve so you wind up with a perpetual party corporation that does indeed continue to control things. I don't care where you look, class still remains and there's zero pressure to abolish it, because those in the power class do not want to cede it, and they justify it through their propagandastic redistribution message.

[socialist_n_TN]

117. That depends on the vision of the leaders more than

anything else. Anarchist that you are, I know that you don't like Trotsky or Lenin, but BOTH of those guys would have brought along "socialist accumulation" in a non personal aggandizement way. Neither was in it for personal power. They took power with the goal of economic democracy. They could have done what Stalin did WITHOUT the tremendous personal disruption and in half the time because they weren't focused on themselves and collecting personal political power. It wasn't about power, it was about getting to socialism.

Also, in a true worker's democracy, everybody would have been able to take a look at what went on and recalled them when or if things got out of control.

And as I've said several times on this thread, accumulation of resources and means of production is NOT a problem in the USA today, so this is a truly moot and academic argument. Not that I mind those types of discussions though. The whole point of socialism in 2011, IMO, is making sure that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

[joshcryer]

120. Actually, I don't think Trotsky ordered the crush of Kronstadt, for example, because of power.

I think it was the power concentration of those within the party and those who also had fears themselves. Power becomes a herd mentality. I don't even think that politicians in the House or Senate act the way they do because of the individual power that they hold, but they get caught up in ideology and the results are probably much different than they would have wished as people.

We saw what happened to Trotsky after that point, after he started having criticisms of the party, he was exiled in due course. Not because of Stalin's power alone, but because of all the cronies who led the party and who all, individually, likely believed, in themselves, that ultimately they were doing the right and just thing. Trotsky's statement to remove Stalin was suppressed for decades, and many in the party knew about it (it was read aloud to the party congress, the plebs knew nothing about it). It required a genuine conspiracy of epic proportions to suppress something written for so long! This is why it's necessary to reject all forms of non-directly-defensive power as immoral and unviable, otherwise it will, I guarantee you, happen where ever you try it out.

There's an old adage, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[socialist_n_TN]

121. We've had this discussion before...........

I'm not particularly comfortable with the centralism involved in a vanguard party and neither was Trotsky, but I don't see any way around it. Once again, just like Trotsky. I've thought about this for 40 years now and I STILL can't see a way around it. SOMEBODY needs to lead the transition to socialism AND prevent a counterrevolution that would make all the work of an original revolution wasted effort. Anarchists are tempermentally and philosophically unable to do so. And without the leadership of a revolutionary vanguard party, ANY revolution against capitalism is doomed to a bloody counterrevolution that takes EVERYBODY, vanguard and anarchists BOTH, out. Unless you think that the capitalists will just capitulate and not try to take over again just as soon as they can?

Trotsky crushed Kronstadt not because of a lust for power and a distain for dissent, but BECAUSE THE ENTIRE REVOLUTION WAS AT A TIPPING POINT. If Kronstadt succeeded, then they might as well have just given it back to whatever Tsar relative was still alive at that time because the revolution was done.

If Kronstadt had happened even 10 years later (and LD was still a force in the USSR), I feel EXTREMELY confident that the outcome would have been completely different. Hell, Lenin and Trotsky BOTH were in favor, ONCE THE DANGER OF COUNTERREVOLUTION WAS DIMINISHED, of giving anarchists enclaves to try out their ideas. I BELIEVE that I even read where one of them considered that the anarchists might be able to lead socialism into stateless communism. But the timing of the Kronstadt revolt didn't leave anybody any choice in the matter.

FWIW, Trotsky regretted the NECESSITY of supressing the Kronstadt rebellion for the rest of his life. He didn't think he had any other choice, but he regretted the necessity of the action.

[joshcryer]

See, I think that's our fundamental divergence, I don't believe counterrevolution is relevant.

If you believe that your revolution is strong, if you believe it is sound, you will not be afraid of counterrevolutionaries. In fact, you'll embrace them as insignificant pawns for whatever imperialist or authoritarian power they support, and pity them for supporting those powers. In Kronstadt we had Soviets wanting to truly transition to a democratic socialism, and they were denounced as supporters of the Whites, they were the ones who were slandered as counterrevolutionaries.

Yes we've had this discussion before, at least in part, but I think between then and now you've not read up on Kronstadt! I'm not trying to be mean here or trying to "stalk you" as you claimed before. But it underlines, absolutely, the pure folly of approaching socialism in this manner. The vanguard is very very iffy, hell even the anarchists have issues within their own groups of the "vanguard" (this is why I'm not a syndicalist who have vanguard-esque ideas, I love the idea of the vanguard, but I've realized that it's just another way to say "power concentration").

I'm not sure how 10 years of Kronstadt just sitting on its hands and "waiting" to announce their implementation of democratic socialism matters. If the Bolsheviks wanted to, they could've allowed Kronstadt to actually do their little implementation, let them have their party, and hell watch them and see how their experiment played out. But instead the very idea, the very concept was shrieked at and it had to be ended at all costs.

I just found this interesting piece, I disagree with the White movement slanders, but yeah: http://www.marxists.org/archive/brendel/1971/kronstadt.htm

[socialist_n_TN]

127. Well firstly, I never claimed that you stalked me

You must have me confused with another commie. But regardless, the biggest problem I have is with the dismissal of a counterrevolution, ESPECIALLY in this country. That's just foolish because sure as the night follows the day, it WILL happen, And unless there's an ORGANIZED way to fight it, it WILL be successful and we ALL hang. Literally.

What the vanguard needs is intraparty watchdogs and TRUE democratic centralism. I have a pretty wide definition of working class myself, so I don't think this watchdog would be a problem.

And as I've said several times, the whole idea of this argument is moot. A socialist revolution today in the United States or any developed bourgeoisie state will NOT follow the pattern of Russia in '17. Yes, these discussions will tell us what to watch for, what pitfalls to avoid, but it will of necessity be different.

Unfortunately, what I'm most afraid of and what I think that we're closer to, is a socialist style uprising on an anarchistic model WITHOUT an organized vanguard. There's too many commie groups of just a few members and different versions OF Marxism. They can't agree on much more than the NEED of a vanguard, much less what form it will take. So if it happens very soon, you're version will be MUCH more likely than the Bolshevik model.

[joshcryer]

148. My apologies, you're correct I confused you for another commie. ;)

I was thinking of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1393010&mesg_id=1394593">this.

In any event, I have rejected the vanguard, so we can agree to disagree on that point. I don't believe that the United States or any of the worlds most powerful nations can reform themselves, and I don't want revolution for those countries because it would be extremely bloody if there's not an international pressure from the outside to stop these countries from doing internal crackdowns. It's true that revolutionaries would hang if they were allowed to be subverted by counterrevolutionaries, so my view is that if you're going to do it you gotta start new, somewhere where no governments are (say Greenland, Antarctica, or seasteading or whatever). If then these countries like the United States had internal uprisings there would be external pressure for the governments and the people within the society to frown upon a major crackdown. So you'd have intentional communities working socialistically and they wouldn't be forced to pay taxes or wouldn't be forced to follow more draconian laws. Some would say it's "cultist" and the like, but I think there would be enough pressure for these communities to grow in all the states.

The problem with being "anti-counterrevolutionary" is that ultimately it means the suppression of counterrevolutionary speech. That would be like suppressing speech on the industrial revolution or on the information age revolution, etc. It's preposterous. A true revolution can deal with anti-revolutionary speech and indeed, is stronger for it by allowing such speech. The only thing that need be defended against is violence, but said violence is going to be extraordinary if there isn't an international force to back you.

[socialist_n_TN]

155. Well who really knows what path it will take.........

But it will happen on one scale or another. The trick is to make it as internationalist as possible, ESPECIALLY in the developed world. And that's where being a Trot comes in. We're the ONE communist group that's used to thinking internationally. It's in our bones. We don't think in terms of votes in any particular country, we think in terms of revolutionary class struggle world wide. That was one of the two BIG theoretical differences between Trotsky and Stalin after all, internationalism vs socialism in one country. If one or two (or more) countries in Europe go over, then they can help each other. And I would expect them to get some help from some of the Latin American countries too. That will be the key. Each socialist country assisting each other socialist country.

And you're idea of Antartica is impractical for a lot of reasons, including the one about us old folks who can't or won't move. In addition, someone my age has invested a lifetime in THIS country and feel like this cause is worth fighting for. IOW, I won't give up and run. I have to stay and fight. It's my country too.

[joshcryer]

122. dupe

dupe, sorry, double clicked, hope they fix that :P

[David__77]

105. How can accumulation be transcended?

I don't understand how that it possible. Marx called it "extended reproduction," but Luxemburg more fully developed the concept. It necessitates that investment rather than consumption assume a large proportion of the economy. It is capital-intensive. It requires PLANNING or some sort of state intervention to guide economic choices (it would not be the result of either "free markets" or anarcho-syndicalism).

So accumulation in itself is "capitalist?" Because there is surplus value being appropriated? If so, then sure: "state socialism" is identical to state capitalism. The party is the bourgeoisie. I won't argue that too much. But please elucidate another vision of a socialist choice that does NOT involve accumulation or extended reproduction. How can there be economic development under those conditions? What mechanism would exist to facilitate growth? Is growth bad?

I think that socialism requires extremely advanced productive forces. Indeed, for alienation of labor to cease, there have to be such plenty that the idea of class itself is rendered antiquated: "there's so much to go around, no one could possibly consume at the expense of another." So we need capital-intensivity, we need accumulation, we need focus on advanced science and technology as a productive force.

[joshcryer]

116. Capital is defined by the accumulation of goods. The accumulation of goods is inherently capitalist.

So to abolish capitalism you must abolish the accumulation of goods, hold it, the accumulation of goods in a group or in individuals, more precisely. Obviously the accumulation of goods in society as a whole is good, and I don't think that could be considered capital because its marginal use is not as an accumulated good.

Let me be more clear. A capitalist has accumulated goods which sit on a shelf for distribution to society at large. The value of the goods themselves can be derived from the labor and energy and technological requirement to create that good, however, for the capitalist the primary value of the good comes from the fact that it's sitting on a shelf and you're not allowed to remove it from that shelf without a value exchange, be it monetary or otherwise. If the literal value of the goods (the labor etc, that went in to make it) was observed, then monetary or exchange profit would be impossible. Only through force is the value of those goods upheld, because otherwise anyone could just walk into a store and remove a good from a shelf without having to pay anything other than the energy it took them to enter the store and pick up the good!

An undemocratic communist state, likewise, would have accumulated goods controlled by the "peoples committees" which themselves would be actually controlled by a specific set of individuals, like the capitalist owners in society. If, however, democracy was applied and everyone genuinely had a say on the distribution of those accumulated goods, there's a possibility that in the end those goods would not actually be accumulated for long if at all in the "peoples committees." So far we've yet to see democracy applied as it has been implemented (as the libertarian Marxists would want). And that is precisely why I am an anarchist (note my avatar is Kropotkin, I how many people know that!). One should be able to enter a store and take a good without having to pay anything other than the energy it took them to enter the store and pick up the good! As such "accumulated goods" would be non-existent, because as soon as a good is created it is immediately distributed to society at large and is no longer, be definition, accumulated in the context of capital.

I agree that socialism does benefit greatly from advanced production sources (as an anarchist it is only the idea that high technology can liberate us that keeps me sane, as otherwise I cannot see it happening). However, I have to strongly disagree that socialism or even communism or whatever you want to call it requires such technological leaps. What is necessary is a rejection of authoritarianism. When the primitive tribes endowed the greatest hunters with more respect and power simply because they're better hunters, there were pragmatic reasons for it, but it resulted in a mini-hierarchy, which was just "practical" enough to exist to this day.

At any point in human history I believe we could've rejected this power dynamic, particularly as technological advances have occurred (each technological advancement I would argue was a moment in history where change was happening fast enough so that society could move beyond the chains of this culture of authoritarianism). So I have to reject the "capitalism is required to have socialism" sentiment. You look at agriculture for example, brilliant idea, planting seeds and cultivating them. What's even more brilliant is being a warlord or king and simply taking whatever people cultivated! And that is precisely the idea that persists to this day, be it actual kings (who have mostly been neutered except in a few places) or rich plutocratic politicians who make lucrative deals despite their constituency. It's the same thing.

Sorry for the walls of text, just wanted to ramble.

[Jim Warren]

94. As well as lettered in sociology and ,economic history

Marx was a philosopher, and I believe knew well the hearts of men.

It goes unremarked and little noted but with interest, because I lived there, I followed Marx's writing on his visit to the US, particularly the textile mills of Fall River and Lowell and to the General Court of Massachusetts. There he researched and noted in his writing the child labor laws, or lack of them actually, as well as those for adults current at the time. A child under 14 was limited to working only 60 hours a week IIRC.

[joshcryer]

70. So the Chinese are going about it the right way?

:shrug:

[dionysus]

84. da comrade, a workers paradise with the strictest of enviromental regulations... and equality

;)

[SDuderstadt]

85. Why, dionysus!

I didn't know you was back in town!

[dionysus]

87. why SDuderstadt, i thought you were pondering the mysteries of the ancient church of rome.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Apparently...

my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[joshcryer]

91. It's proposterous. Capitalism is not a "necessary stepping stone" to socialism.

I'm sorry, but whenever someone says that they lose all credibility. It's why I find Marx's writings to be inherently damaging to the socialist critique and wish that he never existed. There were many many others whom Marx based his writings on.

[David__77]

104. Marx built on Ricardo and Hegel, principally.

Yes, his political economy and epistemology were not mainly original creations. His main contribution, variously viewed as positive or negative, was historical materialism (progression from primitive communism to slave-holding to feudalism to capitalism to communism) and understanding state as vehicle of class dictatorship.

Now of course I have a different ideology than you, but I think you are on to something in your critique of Marx. He was, in my opinion, a capitalist revolutionary as well as a socialist revolutionary. His contributions have served capitalist development in the main. In a sense, he was a left Adam Smith.

[dionysus]

83. why do you avoid the word communism and use socialist instead? when you hear communism,

you think of the ussr system, which sucked. you hear socialism, you think of sweden, which is pretty awesome.

there seems to be a big difference between socialism and communism.

[joshcryer]

90. Russia went from fudalism to vanguardism, with all attempts of democratic socialism squashed.

It would have worked, I posit, had the party leaders allowed democratic socialism to flourish. I think in fact the world would be a very different place (Russia may be the worlds superpower now rather than a country that festered for three quarters of a century fighting back against democracy; only to turn into full on capitalist).

Paul Avrich has a unique view on the Russian Revolution and I recommend his works, particularly Kronstadt.

[Jim Warren]

92. We're there. Capitalism has done it's job. Now it's time to distribute what we have fairly.

Beautifully put, almost a credo even!

[TBF]

98. Yup, I agree, Capitalism has run it's course and we're now ready to move on. nt

[Howzit]

159. "without the elites hoarding it all to themselves"

There lies the problem, no matter who is in power.

[defendandprotect]

131. New Deal was confirmation that capitalism's constant "crisis" was actually organized crime ....

That's what the New Deal regulations were all about --

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime --

and FDR regulated capitalism to save it!


We'd be foolish to save it again -- it should have gone done last year --

and the corporations should simply have been nationalized -- especially the banks!


Capitalism is basically fascism -- thinly disguised --



See Catherine Austin Fitts --

and we should be calling this thing what it has been from the beginning --

A DEPRESSION -- !!

[Taverner]

24. I can't reccomend your point enough

I wish there was an infinity character, so I could + infinity

[ashling]

31. delete

[moondust]

25. Start with the Wall Street casinos.

They create too much organized predation.

[defendandprotect]

132. +1 -

[dbonds]

26. I agree.

Capitalism is a means to control the masses by their innate greed. Some people don't even have the ability to conceive of a system outside of working for pittance to live. We do need some imagination to form the next evolution in a goods creation and distribution system. There should be no way anyone can claim control over it. The Venus Project has some good ideas on that front.

[kestrel91316]

29. Capitalism per se is not evil, IMHO. UNFETTERED free market capitalism is.

It needs to be tightly regulated to ensure that the rights of We The People are not harmed by corporate moneygrubbing policies.

[TBF]

39. It doesn't work to regulate it. Never has, never will. We are ready to evolve to the next level -

socialism.

[defendandprotect]

133. Did you miss the 50 years of rw political violence which permitted them to overturn

the New Deal regulations?

Capialism is an evil -- it is fascism -- when unregulated --

[lovuian]

30. Capitalism is a dead system ...its a Screw the worker system

and Marx said it over and over again

the Worker will Rise up

[Fire1]

33. Ya think?? n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Read this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1434965

I honestly wish we had a capitalist system... we don't... and that is at the heart of the problem.

In fact, I wished we had a mixed economy... like the 1950s

[hifiguy]

40. Laissez faire and crony capitalism will destroy the world

and is well on its way to doing just that. Only social democracy offers a hope of human survival.

K&R

[joshcryer]

44. Like I said in post #43, it's a "magnificent experiment in Rothbardian madness."

And it sure did almost cripple the entire planetary economy and cause WWIII.

[Shagbark Hickory]

42. Careful. A post like this could end you up on the no-fly list.

[joshcryer]

43. The US is incapable of ridding itself of capitalism, but it could sure use regulation again.

Things were just fine until the de-regulators decided to slowly kill the country in a magnificent experiment in Rothbardian madness.

Myself, I don't see the solutions happening.

[defendandprotect]

134. FDR regulated capitalism to save it -- from itself -- for elites --

However, 50 years of rw political violence allowed them to overturn the

New Deal and its regulation of capitalism -- and that's where we are here

again now -- victims once again of capitalism's crimes --

See Catherine Austin Fitts on the financial coup --

[Rebubula]

45. Unrec'd for fantasy

Humans are the problem. There will be no system that will be good for everyone.

[socialist_n_TN]

51. That's just an excuse. As I said in another thread

where this same meme was trotted out, since humans are the problem we're going to go with a system that ENCOURAGES the very WORST of humanity. That doesn't make sense.

[slay]

66. Excellent point

[socialist_n_TN]

68. Yep. That's the quote I ALWAYS think about

when somebody trots out this old bullshit. It's cognitive dissonance of the first order.

[banned from Kos]

49. Get rid of markets? LMAO! Get rid of farmers selling veggies?

Get rid of musicians selling songs? Get rid of car dealers?

Yes, pure fantasy.

[hifiguy]

53. Those are not the things that are destroying the world

Einstein. Bankers and monopolists are destroying the world. The monopolies need to be smashed to bits or regulated so tightly that they need permission to fart in the case of natural monopolies. The banksters should, by and large, be shaved with the National Razor and their institutions demolished.

[banned from Kos]

55. shifing definitions now! Capitalism is simply the private ownership

of production. Any dry cleaner, lawyer, farmer, mechanic, etc. is such.


Now if you want to talk crack-downs on predatory lenders or monopolists? Hell yeah! I am good there! But that is not an indictment of markets!

[socialist_n_TN]

60. Private ownership of production depends on where

you draw the line between private property and PERSONAL property. A lawyer, mechanic, musician's skills and tools would be considered PERSONAL property.

[defendandprotect]

135. If nothing on this planet had ever been "sold" we'd still have the planet and humanity -- !!

In fact, if you've read anything about peak oil and where we could be

headed it will only be non-profit cooperation between citizens in communities

which will help us survive --


Who says a musician has to sell a song - it's something that enriches the community --

Same with growing food -- more people need access to land to grow their own food.

Kitchen gardens --


How does capitalism work in a crisis and for whom -- Think of our immense destruction

in Iraq and who but Halliburton is profiting from the "reconstruction"?

How much did capitalism matter in Fukushima AFTER the event?

What role did capitalism play in the event itself and before the event?

We have to STOP judging everything by the yardstick of a dollar bill -- it's insulting

to common sense and sensibilities!

[defendandprotect]

136. We don't have "farmers" selling vegetables -- except in our town markets ....

We have huge conglomerates controlling not only our food supply --

but our seeds and our water!!

[daleo]

50. If the human race is to persist and progress, you are right

In the longer run, a social system based on the need for endless growth must fail on a planet with finite resources. A drastic modification is necessary. I don't know how long the long run is, though.

[defendandprotect]

137. +1000% ---

Our futures are in the hands of Global Warming now --

[unkachuck]

56. I'm ready....

....with all the great minds in the world we have today you would think we could invent a system that would deliver the basic necessities of life fairly to everyone....

....although being educationally challenged, I would like to think developing a simple fair economic system wouldn't be as difficult as going to the moon, splitting an atom or performing brain surgery....

....one of my greatest disappointments I have with the Left is our failure to produce a new modern economic blueprint and system, easily understood by all, for us to implement....

[GliderGuider]

57. No worries. I expect that over the next 5 years the bottom will fall our from under capitalism ...

... along with an increasing number of the other large political and economic systems around the world. In case we havent' realized it, that bumping, jolting feeling we've all noticed over the last 4 years is a signal that the global gravy train of industrial civilization is already off the rails.

I suspect a revolution may not be needed. The "normal course of events" may be about to turn revolutionary on us.

The chart below is from the World Economic Forum's publication Global Risks 2011 (PDF). Notice the six risks in the top right corner (meaning very likely & very high impact). There are: two economic risks (fiscal crises and extreme energy price volatility); two political risks (geopolitical conflict and governance failures); one societal risk (economic disparity) and one environmental risk (climate change). This is world-class nervousness by a fairly sober body. I actually think they're scared spitless and are warning anyone who can hear to hold on tight.

[joshcryer]

69. Damn I only have 5 years? :P

:P

[defendandprotect]

138. As confirmed by the Pentagon, Global Warming is the greatest threat ...

and I imagine that the elites/oil industry - ExxonMobil -- didn't spend tens of billions

of dollars on propaganda which lied and disinformed and misinformed the public re Global

Warming over 50 years so that they'd get caught now!!

That warning came to W Bush 7-8 years ago -- and recently more military have come on the

record restating that message --


Everything will be effected -- we're in Central NJ -- tomorrow will be 94 -- we've had temps

in the 90's since May! Food supply has been suffering from weather conditions for up to

about 10 years now where it has been noticeable - presume women are noticing this more than

men -- but it ranges from bananas to potatoes -- every crop.

Today, I left my car outside a store for an hour and when I returned I couldn't actually get

into the car it was so hot! Couldn't touch the steering wheel -- couldn't sit on the seat!


The HEATING of the atmosphere is bringing chaotic weather conditions -- droughts/floods --

storms, hurricanes, cyclones, tornados -- Global Warming has the power to change weather

systems -- oceans -- wind patterns -- no one knows how all of this will compound.

And -- do to a 50 year gap in Global Warming where we were not yet feeling the full effects

of it -- though the glaciers were melting -- we are now only feeling the effects of human

activity up to about 1960! Imagine all we did after that time!


The melting of the glaciers is also changing pressures on the tectonic plates --

glaciers the size of Rhode Island have fallen -- the last one a glacier the size of

Manhatttan! The weight then shifts onto other plates -- the water weight moves on to others.

This is causing increasing numbers of earthquakes -- and increasing severity of earthquakes.

Earthquakes also generate new volcanic activity.


Everything else has to be judged with Global Warming in mind --

Especially if the public should wake up from ExxonMobil's propaganda -- !!!

[Quantess]

59. Getting rid of capitalism entirely is unrealistic.

But you are right, what we have now isn't working.

[leftstreet]

63. Why is it 'realistic' to extract profit from my labor?

I've never understood that

[dionysus]

80. depending on the business, there's risk. especially in technology. in the old days, not so much.

tech companies or companies that have to do a lot of research and development need a lot of money up front, often borrowed. almost always borrowed. only the largest of companies could pony up their own millions for pure research. and the lenders are going to want a cut of profits for taking the risk to lend. because sometimes a lot of money is lent and the business folds.

in small companies like mine, (<20 ppl), the owners deserve (some) profit because in part because they pay our health insurance and help with 401ks, they also never cut our wages when it was a bad year and the company was losing money.

that said, profit can be deserved, but it should always be fair. these days, there's tons of obscene profit taking going on, mostly by huge internationals and conglomerates.

i'd like to see more worker owned endeavors, but it doesnt always work that way. i can program, but i cant drum up sales, which they do. then again, our corporation has less than 20 people in it.

[craigmatic]

61. We need to try socialism for about 30 years.

[defendandprotect]

139. If we want a democracy we need a system of economic democracy -- capitalism ain't it -- !!

[craigmatic]

150. exactly.

[Nye Bevan]

62. Switzerland is captalist. 3% unemployment. Universal health care. (nt)

[defendandprotect]

140. Well, their capitalism has not been permitted to become organized crime ... ours has -- !!

And, needless to say, 50 years and more of right wing political violence -

assassiantions -- had a great deal to do with that in the US!!

As the Europeans say --

"Liberals and progressives in America have an odd way of getting assassinated

or otherwise eliminated" --

[leftstreet]

64. K&R

[slay]

65. It is key to our survival that we get rid of Capitalism

before it destroys the planet. Capitalism knows only one thing - profit. It will seek profit until the earth is but a cinder. Capitalism is the root cause of our problems - and socialism is the answer. Smart people know this. John Steinbeck knew this.

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
— John Steinbeck

[SidDithers]

67. Viva la revolucion!!...

:rofl:

Sid

[BDavinciNY]

71. Capitalism has failed us because we had 30 years of BS policies

Capitalism in the US has failed us because of deregulation policies adopted by Regan, Daddy Bush , Dubya and even Clinton. Among other things the last 3 Republican presidencies held and continued in this absurd plan of trickle down, voodoo economic plan of giving tax cuts to the wealthy that will bring jobs to the middle class. It didn't work then and it still doesn't work now but that don't stop the Repugs still thinking that this ass backward plan will still work. I think its code word for "F the middle class we're just stealing their money for our (rich) people." We have always been a mixed economy since the 30's and we need to return to strict regulation and get over the notion that regulation is bad for the "American businesses". We also have to show that some elements of socialism is good for us and the difference between good socialism and bad socialism. We want to endorse and enforce the good kind of socialism for our country. The more we keep doing this repeatedly we can combat the FOX News definition of "socialism" Another thing we must stop electing people that do not serve our best interest. Time and time again we keep sending the wrong people to government so they can dismantle it. We need to educate ourselves about the candidates if the media won't or can't. I think we shouldn't be so dependent on the MSM and rely on ourselves for that info.

[socialist_n_TN]

73. RE: elections. In the bourgeoisie "democratic" system

the odds are HEAVILY stacked that the "choice" you're going to get in an election is between corporate candidate A or corporate candidate B. So you vote and elect a corporate candidate who supports and benefits from the system. Throw in unlimited money and the only ones who are going to even be able to TRY to run are the ones who can finagle $$$ from the elite. And the capitalists aren't going to give money to a candidate UNLESS SAID CANDIDATE HAS THE BACKER'S INTEREST AT HEART.

I'll still vote for a few reasons, but I have no illusions that elections are going to make a damn bit of difference. The chance of electing a REAL working class candidate were always slim to none and slim's rapidly walking out the door.

[defendandprotect]

142. True -- but the rw political violence came first ....

assassinations -- 50 years of political violence which moved the rightwing

into power -- THEN they were in position to overturn the New Deal regualtions --


Capitalism is basically fascism -- as is the force behind it -- as we can more clearly

see every day in America.


I'd also recommend that you read Al Gore's recent Rolling Stone article re Global Warming

but which mainly focuses on our Goebeels' style corporate press -- and what he is

describing of our government is basically fascism without his actually using that word!

"Dysfunctional government" -- a Congress under the control of Oil and Coal industries --

setting Congress' schedule based on their daily fund raisers!!

[JCMach1]

72. Neither Socialism, or Capitalism will work in a globalized world

Both systems are based on unit labor...

That concept, among others, is becoming obsolete.

[TBF]

99. How do you suggest we move forward then?

I believe Capitalism has run it's course and the next level would be socialism. Can you explain what you mean by "unit labor" being obsolete - from my view it looks like production has simply moved from rich countries to poor (in order to take advantage of cheap labor). Keep in mind I'm not an economist ... but I would like to hear your ideas about where we go from here.

[dionysus]

74. actually, it worked pretty well when we had proper regulations and a fair tax structure.

[socialist_n_TN]

75. Yeah, and for every regulation and fair tax they had

a BUTTLOAD of money and power to tear it down. As soon as the New Deal was implemented they were trying to dismantle it. Capitalists have the money and power to ALWAYS tear down regulations and lower taxes. Eventually. That's history. EVERY time capitalism is regulated, it slips it's bonds and overreaches.

It's a system that was a step up from feudalism. But now it's outlived it's usefulness.

[dionysus]

77. here's a question for you, or maybe just a comment. no country has a pure system.

america is "capitalist", but programs like SS are socialist in nature. in "socialist" countries like sweden, there's a more fair system, in place, but you can still own property, and there's still money to be made, and rich people. and "communist" china is actually a huge player in the capitalist game, also with lots of money, rich people, and more poor people than we could imagine here.

it's nice to think and contemplate th differences between ideological systems, but has any successful country had a pure system of any 3 of these different ideologies?

wouldn't the ideal system have components from all 3 in reality?

[SDuderstadt]

78. Why, dionysus!

You madcap! Where you going with that economic system?

[dionysus]

79. why SDuderstadt, i've been on the tilt a whirl and seen fireworks at a carnival, suh. ah have not

yet begun to defile myself. i'm right as the mail (thud)

[SDuderstadt]

82. I guess the strain was just more than...

he could bear.

[roomfullofmirrors]

76. Yes, we need to all be more like the glorious Chinese peasants, working to make their govt. strong

and getting just enough to survive in return. If we're really lucky, maybe we can be like North Korean communist peasants. sounds like a blast.

[JonLP24]

81. I think

we need more socialism, specifically in areas of higher education and health care. Not sure if we need to get rid of capitalism. It seems like too much of one thing isn't good.

[dionysus]

86. i agree, and i also dont think these labels apply totally. social security and the VA are examples

of socialist ideals. and communist china is a huge player in the capitalist market these days. they use their money to lend to us, rather than using it for their own people.

[TBF]

100. The problem with that is the capitalism always strives to privatize

everything around it. In this country we are going towards even more privatization of health care (in the form of the discussion of cuts to programs like Medicade) and certainly in the area of higher education (all education right now is being subject to privatization - including big business funding higher education).

I hear your argument a lot when I talk to friends/family members who are unemployed. They assume a "mix" is the reasonable way to go. We could try to go in the direction of the Scandinavian countries, but that's going to mean turning everything completely around from what we're doing now. May be less violent than overthrowing the whole thing, I'll grant you that, but in the end I wonder if Capitalism will fight every step of the way and put us right back where we are now?

[socialist_n_TN]

106. Yeah that's the thing about it TBF............

I can think of three times historically in the last 100+ years that capitalism has run amok and then been regulated. AND EVERY FUCKING TIME AFTER A FEW DECADES OF REGULATION IT'S BACK TO RUNNING AMOK AGAIN! That's why it can't be regulated.

It'll take a revolution now to regulate capitalism and if you're going to the trouble and EFFORT to make a revolution why the FUCK would you want to keep the same ones in power that caused the problem it the first place? What? Do our grandchildren need the exercise of doing it AGAIN for the FOURTH time?

Regulating capitalism is like riding the tiger. It's hard to do and you're always in danger of being eaten. Fuck it. Just get RID of it already and try something else.

[defendandprotect]

144. +1000% ---

Nice post -- :)

[JonLP24]

107. That is a good point

Capitalism does seem like a beast that is difficult to control. Michael Moore in his film highlighted that when the for-profit prison industry gave that judge kickbacks for handing out sentences to juveniles, often for petty offenses. I think he highlights capitalism as the reason for this happening in the first place. Also there are huge disparities in CEO pay compared to worker pay.

I'm not really sure what the answer is as I have a lot to learn when it comes to economics. A "mix" seems reasonable but you make interesting and great points.

[TBF]

108. That's where I am as well JonLP24,

not an economist so I look to others for that expertise. But even I can see what we're doing now is not working for most of us.

[defendandprotect]

143. We need to move back to concepts of a commonwealth, univent the dollar by not using it --

and if you've seen any of the video on Peak Oil you understand that's the only

way that communities can survive -- by working together in the common interest.

The value has to be to preserve nature -- end pollution -- protect animal-lie

WITHOUT EXPLOITING IT IN ANY WAY --

We have to stop judging everything by the yardstick of a dollar bill which is

meaningless --

It's an insult to nature and human spirit to suggest their value can be equated

to dollar bills -- it's an offense to common sense and sensibilities!!

[Cereal Kyller]

89. Capitalism isn't the problem

What we have now is anything but a free market, especially on Wall St!

[defendandprotect]

145. What we have now is organized crime as an economic system ... and it's systemic thru

economic hierarchies -- FED, IMF, Obama's team -- and corporate/fascism!!

[B Calm]

95. I've always said we need capitalism with a sprinkle of socialism to keep

it in check. Without the sprinkle of socialism, you have unbridled PREDATORY CAPITALISM like we have now!

[Long Shadow]

96. If we did that, there would be no way to pay for our socialism.

[Jim Warren]

97. That you Harry? lol

Nice try but it's already bought and paid for.

[TBF]

109. Oh there are plenty of resources in this country,

particularly since Reagan started cutting taxes for the most wealthy (including Bush's cuts to capital gains). I think we'll find plenty of resources to re-appropriate.

Now enjoy your stay, that is if your head hasn't already exploded.

[defendandprotect]

146. Rather, if we did it, we might still have the planet -- and humanity -- !!!

Capitalism is not only organized crime --

it's suicidal in its exploitation of nature and humans!

[upi402]

101. Never thought I'd agree with a statement like that

But it's no longer capitalism, it's corporatism - so I agree reluctantly.

[David__77]

103. No, not yet.

Capitalism has a specific historical role, just as Karl Marx stated. It is a limited role - but it has not been exhausted yet. The global economy and culture are indeed still developing under capitalist economic relations. Places like Afghanistan, Congo, Guatemala, need more capitalism, and not less. That said, developing a social sector is still important. The bottom line is that we will not have socialism until humanity grows up. You have to create the cultural conditions for socialism first and foremost, and that means having an advanced, class conscious political movement. We have none of that; instead, there is a limp, post-modern "progressive movement" that is nearly totally bankrupt ideologically and politically.

[Douglas Carpenter]

110. the world has yet to see one single workable and sustainable better alternative

I agree that socialism has worked fantastically as a reform movement within capitalism. The American New Deal and European social democracy has produced the greatest good for the greatest number of people of any system ever devised. But capitalism very much remains as the dominating economic force with all the contradictions and delusions of democracy that come along with it. Now we are witnessing a retreat from social reform given these contradictions and the power capital retains. To actually eliminate capitalism and create democracy and socialism would require a very violent and worldwide class war. So far all attempts at this have either resulted in deeply impoverished totalitarian nightmares or orders which may have shown some potential for success, but could nor sustain themselves in the face of external and internal pressures and organized assaults. Could a sustainable and workable alternative develop in the future? It is possible, I suppose. But the cost would be dear, to say the least and currently it is not the way the wind is blowing.

[TBF]

112. Not the way the wind is blowing? Maybe not yet in Peoria -

but have you heard of Greece? Spain? England? France, Italy, Belgium, Ireland, Portugal, Bulgaria, Latvia, and Poland ..

Pictures from my journal: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TBF/22

No we ain't there yet in this country, but others are ahead of us. And we may just spring forward when President Obama, a democrat no less, pushes for austerity measures in the form of cutting Social Security and other social programs.

[Douglas Carpenter]

114. fighting to hold on to the remaining remnants of the welfare state within capitalism is a far cry

from moving toward replacing capitalism with socialism. The only role the left has been able to play for the past decades is that of desperately attempting to hold on to gains from the past - not expanding social democracy or even the welfare state within capitalism - much less replacing capitalism with socialism. That goal is pretty much completely off the radar screen worldwide - at least for the foreseeable future. Could that change? Perhaps, but it certainly not the way the wind is blowing. The simple reality is that the lightning speed of capital transfer in a global economy that contain a virtually unlimited supply of very cheap third world labor makes resistance to the power of capital almost ineffectual beyond meager moves to minimize the damage and stall the inevitable.

[socialist_n_TN]

118. Ah, this sounds like a "Resistance is futile" post

Borg much? :) Well if we don't resist somehow, we're all dead anyway. Except for the capitalist elite of course. I'm old and I wouldn't make a good slave, so I might as well go out fighting.

[Douglas Carpenter]

123. well,,,what can I say...at this point in time it pretty much is

I'm getting old too and I have been preaching socialism most of my life as my parents and my grandfather did before me. Of course things can change and there is no telling when and how. If we look at the course of human events over the last hundred years..the world has been turned upside down many times in ways that no one would have predicted. Logically though I think one can make an educated prediction that at some point within the next decades (its hard to say how many) dramatically skyrocketing energy cost will make the transport of agricultural produce and manufactured goods across long distances prohibitive which will likely have the effect of re-localizing economy. Needless to say, by the time we get to that point I expect to see numerous and extremely violent resource conflicts and a lot of other chaos as well. But as long as a few minutes on the Internet and the simple push of a button can satisfy the needs of the owners of production at far less cost and bother than dealing with organized labor - resistance is pretty much futile. I wish my bleak predictions were not true. But I think the facts speak for themselves. Of course things can change rather quickly and in unexpected ways. Maybe the future is not as bleak as all the evidence suggest it is. I hope you are right and I am wrong. I really do.

[TBF]

119. At some point the cheap labor will be as saturated as the production -

and enough of us will be protesting that the unthinkable may become reality. Granted it will take longer in this country, given that the leftists who remain are pretty unorganized (thanks to the purges that have occurred about every 50 years or so). Lack of leftist organization is probably our greatest impediment to replacing capitalism with socialism.

[Douglas Carpenter]

124. well if we look across Western Europe even in places like France, Italy and Sweden where

leftist organizations of all sort were everywhere - a great deal of social reform was accomplished. That is for sure. But a transformation of capitalism to socialism never even came close to happening. Besides most workers in spite of decades of socialist education were satisfied enough with the reforms and a voice in management thus curtailing the once sacred held goal of replacing capitalism with socialism. How much they can hold on to these reforms and for how long remains to be seen. But as we know the new economy has their much fought for way of life under a great deal of threat.

There are still hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indian peasants anxiously desperate to work at salaries so low that even impoverished countries like Mexico or the Philippines can no longer compete. Remember all the clamor about exploited oppressed workers from China and the Philippines working in clothing factories in the U.S. Territories of the Northern Mariana Islands at sub-minimum wage conditions with little protection? Those jobs ALL gone now. Every single single factory, every single job. Their labor cost simply could not compete with China and India where there are hundreds of millions waiting in long, long lines for jobs that pay in a week less than what an America or European worker is paid in an hour.

[defendandprotect]

147. Capitalism has only been around a few hundred years and has destroyed the planet ...!!

And, the native American seemed to be doing fairly well without it --

What the White European brought to this continent was violence driven by desire

for wealth/dollar bills and property!! And enslavement of others -- domination.

[Douglas Carpenter]

151. I agree

That capitalism in the modern sense of the term is only a few hundred years old and that it has wrought a lot of destruction. That makes it particularly tragic that there has never been a more progressive workable and sustainable alternative system adaptable to the modern industrialized world. I have never been anywhere where the absolute overwhelming majority of the local indigenous did not want the things that capitalist society has to offer. Go anywhere from a Native North American reservation to a village in the Middle East or tropical Island in the Pacific and they want more and more of it - not less.

Perhaps someday their will be a workable and sustainable model that is more progressive. I certainly hope there is. Modern capitalism in its current form has an insatiable and self-destructive apatite.

[defendandprotect]

157. Well ....

Rather, I think if we reflect on where Native American were when we arrived, most of

us would want that existence --

And certainly it was taken from the Native American by force -- by the violence of the

"discoverers" and the "Christianity" they brought with them -- which was true evil.

With the violence which they had perfected and set precedents with from the time of the Crusades.

From spreading disease to giving them alcohol, from kidnapping their children and using

every kind of brutality to destroy their language and culture and natural wisdom --

to stealing their land and natural resources -- which continues on even today --

Elites/Capitalism has shown itself more a system of organized crime than economics.



Think of Hawaii and the theft of that land -- and how again "Christianity" was used as tool

to fool the people. And the threat of imperialistic violence.



Think of Haiti -- and what we're still doing there -- and how many other nations and their

people we have destroyed --


That some Native Americans might want to escape such persecution, ioslation and hardship,

I could understand!!!


What you're saying about the evils of capitalism, I agree with --

However, you'd have to ignore that all over the world nations have rejected capitalism --

and usually it has been forced on them. Same with Christianity.


The greatest gift of our lives -- every life -- is our connection with nature -- and

capitalism has especially worked to disconnect us from it in its full power --

plants are our drugs -- our medicines. Nature is our spiritual renewal.

For capitalists, nature is the enemy to be subdued -- natural resoruces pounded down for profit

-- plants and the knowledge of them to be kept from the many -- including seeds!


And most especially and always, taking from the people the right to limit population through

their knowledge of plants --

We are now more than 7 Billion --

They were 40 million -- with another 7 million on the out islands --


Who would not go back -- even if only to reverse what is the greatest threat to humanity now -

Global Warming?






. . .

I have never been anywhere where the absolute overwhelming majority of the local indigenous did not want the things that capitalist society has to offer. Go anywhere from a Native North American reservation to a village in the Middle East or tropical Island in the Pacific and they want more and more of it - not less.

Perhaps someday their will be a workable and sustainable model that is more progressive. I certainly hope there is. Modern capitalism in its current form has an insatiable and self-destructive apatite.

[SDuderstadt]

152. "Capitalism has only been around a few hundred years"

Capitalism has been around since the Middle Ages.

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

Duh.

[defendandprotect]

125. Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill System" ...

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

to the few --

It's dead -- we simply haven't buried it -- but every day it reeks more!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

130. LOL Good luck with that.

[Cleita]

141. Capitalism works as long as it's not laissez faire capitalism,

which our Republican overlords have brought to us.

[rdking647]

149. the capitalist system

has led to the greatest wealth the world has ever know. In case you havent noticed the US despite its problems is still the richest country on earth.
Ive yet to see a country with a better system..

[TBF]

154. You forgot to point out that most of the wealth in the US is concentrated

in just a few hands ...

In just a quick wiki search I turned up this info: "In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."

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

Yes, there is wealth - but most people are nowhere near it. You like that system?

[Howzit]

153. Should we replace it with this model of central planning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPILhiTJv7E

[socialist_n_TN]

156. You know, all capitalists and their supporters

like to whine about "central planning", but if it redistributes the goods in such a way that nobody's hungry, nobody's homeless, everybody's got clothing, education, a share of energy in order to work (and all the other general welfare items that I've forgotten), well, you can give me a little or a lot of central planning.

[Howzit]

158. That is a big if.

China does not exactly manage to supply all these needs without also poisoning its people with industrial effluent.

If all the people's needs are supplied by default whether they work hard or smart or not at all, many are going to choose the latter option. If you don't reward people who are motivated to work harder and smarter they will give up and the supply you wish to redistribute will suffer.

Or would you have slackers reduced to their elements as advocated here:
http://youtu.be/7WBRjU9P5eo

[socialist_n_TN]

161. Yep, everybody's a lazy fucker and wouldn't work....

:sarcasm: Let me ask YOU personally. If you had a system where you had an assigned apartment suitable for whatever your needs are, but not opulent and enough food for you and your family for a certain number of hours worked for the state, is that all you'd want? Or would you work a few more hours for some luxuries?

[Howzit]

162. The answer to your question depends on specifics.

Do I have to live in an assigned apartment, or could I work to live in the country?