Capitalism is not sustainable over the long term.

[Yavin4]

The definition of capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

There is no mention of a middle class. No mention of socioeconomic mobility. No mention of protection of the environment. No mention of access to education/healthcare/housing/or even food. No mention of social justice. None of that. Simply put, it's those with capital get to make the rules, and everyone lives in service to them.

The more valuable you are to the capitalist class, the better your chances are at survival. But, here's the rub. The capitalists need fewer and fewer laborers each passing day. IT automation, which has actually been around for decades, continue to render entire professions obsolete. We're rapidly headed to a world without any work.

What then? What happens in a nation of obsolete workers? We've actually seen this already. Look at some of the inner cities right after de-industrialization in 1970s and 80s, NY, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore. Back then, and even now, we looked at their plight as if it were a moral failing instead of seeing these populations rendered as obsolete workers. Fast forward to today and we see the same plight through the Opiod epidemic. Masses of people rendered obsolete turning to drugs.

Depending on the capitalist class for our very survival is simply not realistic.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. It's been around for 500 years so far.

[Yavin4]

3. So, 500 years in human history is not that long.

In fact, it's a blink of the eye.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

6. It is a long time in the lifetime of humans.

Not a blink of the eye. If you take a lifespan of 70 years, it's been around for some 7 human lifetimes. Most of us, even if we know their names, have pretty much no connection to our ancestors who lived 500 years ago.

If you want to be picky, we were hunters and gatherers for many thousands of years, and somehow I don't see that lifestyle making much or a return.

[Yavin4]

10. Modern humans have been around for 200,00 years.

500/200,000 = 0.0025 or blink of an eye.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

16. But we don't think in terms of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.

And if you think capitalism is not sustainable, what economic system do you propose will replace it? That trusty ancestral system of hunting and gathering? Or early farming, where 90% of people needed to farm so that 10% could do other things? What do you think will replace capitalism?

[qazplm135]

102. we haven't had civilization for 200K years

we've had civilization for about 8-10K years arguably.

We've had complicated economic systems for a fraction of that time.

But of all the ones we have had so far, capitalism (properly managed) has been the most successful one we've had.

No one is proposing unfettered capitalism around here. Unfettered anything is usually a bad idea.

[brooklynite]

28. Try 5,000...

[sfwriter]

36. And how many market failures have we seen?

How many times have the capitalists relied on the state to bail them out?

How many people hav had their lives destroyed in the requisite "creative destruction" admired by capitalists?

Setting aside the global failures and the 19th century American market failures, Capitalism would have failed in the face of the depression, World War II, and the 2008 housing crisis. Hell, the capitalists were subdividing their businesses so they could sell The Germans computers and soft drinks.

Capitalism hasn't "been around" for 500 years. The word has existed, but the meaning is constantly being changed.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

72. Capitalism isn't just the stock market.

I have noticed that people here love to post gleefully whenever the stockmarket declines, but rarely notice when it goes up.

Here's something else about the stock market: It frequently posts new highs. You might want to look up the last time it posted a new low.

[Humanist_Activist]

58. No it hasn't, Capitalism is a product of the Industrial revolution, so maybe 200 years so far...

do you even know what Capitalism is? Or what it replaced?

[Codeine]

69. I think most economic historians

would trace the emergence of capitalism to the 16th Century in the Netherlands. It was certainly firmly established when the English launched the East India Company in what, 1600 or thereabouts?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

71. And some are willing to say that there are

even earlier origins in the Middle Ages.

[Humanist_Activist]

75. Where is the line between Mercantilism and Capitalism?

The establishment of Crown companies was generally limited in ways that modern Capitalistic corporations are not.

[Codeine]

93. That's a fair enough question.

And who knows? I’m not so much disagreeing (I’m a lefty-left, after all) as pointing out that bright lines and absolute statements don’t work for these subjects.

[Humanist_Activist]

95. True, though Mercantilism I would say is a type of Proto-Capitalism...

in that it gradually was moving slightly away from the Feudal agrarian method of wealth accumulation, using land, and beginning to use Capital/production instead, though in most cases, it was still tied to land, for example, the Cotton Trade in Southern US/India.

[Humanist_Activist]

81. I was trying to be generous, by the way, after all, if Capitalism does date back that far....

then you could lay the Atlantic Slave trade, genocides and imperial exploitation of most of the world at the feet of Capitalism, as a necessary outgrowth of that economic system. At least if you are using the same standards to judge it that many use to judge Socialism today.

[Codeine]

94. I would entirely lay most of that

at the feet of capitalism.

[Humanist_Activist]

97. Yeah, true, it does seem like Capitalism, at the very least, requires the existence of a large...

underclass of people to exploit for profit, don't know if that can be regulated out of it.

[thesquanderer]

108. Slavery and genocides existed long before capitalism (n/t)

[Humanist_Activist]

121. True but I was rltalking about recent chattle slavery and European imperial genocides. Nt

[DanTex]

112. Sort of. But it hasn't been the world's dominant economic system for that long.

Arguably, anytime two people made a trade, that's a form of capitalism, which means capitalism has been around since the beginning of time. But in something resembling the present form, probably 200-300 years. Feudalism had a longer run that capitalism's current run.

[JI7]

2. it has lasted longer than other systems

[Yavin4]

4. Not as long as hunter/gatherer societies of early man. n/t

[JI7]

7. im referring to economic systems based on how we live now

[Humanist_Activist]

59. Not really, its just the most recent in a long line of differing systems that humans have used...

from bartering to Mercantilism, Capitalism is one of the most recent systems.

[Codeine]

70. Earlier systems lasted a long time.

Palace economies ran for six, seven hundred years. Feudalism even longer, considering it hung on in Russia until the overthrow of the Czar. Mercantilism has been around in one form or another since the opening of the Bronze Age.

[DanTex]

113. I'm pretty sure that feudalism lasted longer.

Although it's not exactly a fair comparison, because societal change is going on much faster today than during the middle ages. So even though capitalism's run isn't yet as long as feudalism's was, it has survived through a lot more social change.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. What do you propose to replace it with?

[Yavin4]

11. That's what we're faced with.

What to replace it with. We still have not figured out what to do with inner city populations left jobless after de-industrialization other than prisons and gentrification.

[Joe941]

23. We need socialism.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. As practiced where?

I have the same question of people who say we need libertarianism.

Where has socialism or libertarianism been practiced and proved successful? The former leads to authoritarianism and the latter leads to anarchy.

[Adrahil]

38. Exactly.

I want to hear actual plans, not slogans. I thought no the reason we don’t hear plans is because there are noo easy answers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Democracy is a political system. Socialism is an economic system.

There has never been a nation that had a democratic political system and a socialist economic system. And before somebody brings up the Nordic Model the nations that practice that form of economics are capitalist economies with strong unions and a robust welfare state.

[PETRUS]

77. Some thoughts:

First, it's not possible to disentangle politics and economics. That seems self-evident to me, but I don't know if it's the case for others, so if you'd like an explanation, let me know.

Second, socialism and democracy are also effectively inseparable. I know you don't think so, or you wouldn't have written "There has never been a nation that had a democratic political system and a socialist economic system," so I'll explain. Socialists have a number of different ideas about methods, but the intention is always the same: worker control of production and distribution, and/or democratic (i.e. "social" ) control of production and distribution. That can't be a reality without some kind of democracy.

In every nation with a government that is at least somewhat responsive to the will of the people, there is some democratic control over production and distribution. For example, health, safety and environmental regulations, minimum wages, and certain aspects of fiscal policy are all ways of exerting some (indirect) social/democratic control over production and distribution. It's not just a coincidence that the kinds of policies we associate with the New Deal or Europe's social democracies were often first proposed by socialists and socialist parties. That doesn't mean liberal democracies are socialist - they are mixed economies - but socialism is part of the picture. Norway is more socialist than the US (and it's more socialist than Venezuela, for that matter).

There isn't a consensus among modern American socialists about how best to proceed. But most of the energy is going into pushing policies that move the US closer to the Nordic model. Other ideas include rewriting the rules of corporate governance to encourage worker-cooperatives and/or require co-determination for businesses above a certain size. Although most socialists would like to see more public funding/administration for some things (e.g. education and healthcare), nationalizing industry doesn't have much currency these days.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. And before:

And before somebody brings up the Nordic Model the nations that practice that form of economics are capitalist economies with strong unions and a robust welfare state.

I read Politics and Markets by Charles Lindblom for a graduate political science course back in 1983. Lindblom was very critical of the undue influence big business had on politics. The whole structure is set up to support capitalism. Lindblom was the president of the American Political Science Association so his book was a big deal. I believe the American Enterprise Institute wrote a critique of it of which the thesis was that big business was just one of many interest groups without outsized power. I wrote a paper lambasting that theory.

That being said his book reveals there has never been a socialist economy alongside a democratic political system. If there is a nation that has a socialist economy and a democratic political system I'm unaware of it.

[Humanist_Activist]

98. There have been, but most of the time they were crushed by one of two forces...

the Authoritarian Soviet system or by the Capitalistic west. Think of the Spanish civil war. There are a few current examples in the form of Autonomous communes or city states within countries, such as the Zapitista movement in Mexico, but mostly because the higher levels of government decided to leave them alone.

Nowadays they are still crushed by the Capitalistic west but also by Chinese Dengiism.

[PETRUS]

106. Thanks for the reply. Some clarification:

I do not disagree that the Nordic countries are fundamentally capitalist - they are capitalist at the root, so to speak. But there are notably socialist elements to their economy. Apart from the obvious things like their state owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds, there are the welfare state and labor components you mentioned. There were socialists behind both strong labor organizations and much of the legislation that constitutes a "welfare state," as they were seen as ways to empower workers and make society more democratic and egalitarian. Quite a large number of people who were pro-capitalist also supported the same batch of polices, for what I'd call practical reasons. The New Deal and Europe's social democracies wouldn't have happened without that kind of broad support. Ironically, the resulting arrangements ended up functioning as a near-consensus about how best to "do" capitalism. But that started unwinding sometime around the late 70s and early 80s. I'm sure you've noticed the kinds of policies many of today's socialists are promoting: higher marginal tax rates, higher minimum wages, single-payer health care, etc. As a batch, it's mostly an extension or reanimation of the institutions characteristic of "social democracy. Karl Polanyi wrote "Socialism is, essentially, the tendency inherent in an industrial civilization to transcend the self-regulating market by consciously subordinating it to a democratic society." If majorities support these policies and they come to pass, that would represent a small amount of democratic control over questions fundamental to production and distribution. Would it make the country socialist? No, of course not. And among socialists there isn't even agreement that it represents a path forward. But these kinds of policies do have a genuine socialist pedigree.

True, no democracy has gone (entirely) socialist. No democracy has failed to implement some degree of socialist policy, either. Honestly, I don't know of any nation past of present where all large scale production and distribution issues are managed by collective decision making - that's what socialism is supposed to be. Maybe it isn't possible to run a complex industrial society that way (iron law of oligarchy?). But at least some of the policies socialists are pushing right now don't seem to be particularly risky (and they poll well). Whether or not people agree on what term they represent matters a lot less than whether or not anything is actually done.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but you strike me as honest, friendly, and open-minded, so I thought I'd try to explain a point of view that doesn't seem to be well understood.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. They experimented with voluntary collectives in Israel.

Some do exist but most of the members left. Folks respond to incentives, both negative and positive ones. I disagree with Ayn Rand in that I believe altruism exists. However I don't believe it exists in a large enough form to power an economy. I prefer to use the profits capitalism creates to ameliorate want.

[Sgent]

8. Quoting John Maynard Keynes

"in the long run, we are all dead."

[marylandblue]

17. He said that to make fun of economic forecasters

who said that depressions were okay because in the long run the economy will fix itself. His point was that it was both an easy prediction and totally worthless.

[Aussie105]

9. Capitalism?

Nothing wrong with it.
The term simply means money is involved.
Buy something in a shop, and you are actively involved in Capitalism.

But there are different versions.

There's greedy capitalism, where the providers of a product or service want to maximise their profits, and keep them, by paying low wages and saving on material costs.

Then there's socially aware capitalism, where the industry spreads the profits down from the top to the workers.
Now, if that sounds familiar, it's called 'trickle down economics'.

I need not explain which is most common in the US of A.
The fight against a living wage and social security might be a bit of a hint though.

[Yavin4]

12. There's no such thing as "greedy" capitalism

What you're describing: "There's greedy capitalism, where the providers of a product or service want to maximise their profits, and keep them, by paying low wages and saving on material costs. "

is capitalism. He who has the capital makes the rules.

[exboyfil]

76. Yes. In our form of capitalism

employees have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits for the shareholders. Without laws and regulations it will consume itself.

[roamer65]

13. Capitalism fits humans like a glove.

Greed, fear and exploitation.

[marylandblue]

14. Trade and Industry have always been for profit, even in the Middle Ages

The difference then was that 90% of the economy was in agriculture controlled by the land-owning nobility.

There was never a time that trade and industry were controlled by the state prior to early capitalist/mercantilist systems, when states partnered with private enterprise to create trading empires. Then later there was a complete takeover in Communist systems.

So I don't see state ownership as a viable alternative. Rather there should be a guaranteed basic income. If robots are really going to do everything, then we all become part of the leisure class, with an army of robot slaves to do our bidding.

The biggest danger is not going to be that we all are poor and drug-addicted, but that our smart robots will figure out they don't need us around.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

15. unregulated capitalism is brutal and suicidal

This is why we form governments. If you want to play in (benefit from) our society, you play by our rules. The governments we form need to adapt to changing conditions.

[Puzzledtraveller]

18. We don't have capitalism

We have government enabled monopolized corporatism, we used to be the anti-trust folks, but those behemoths like Amazon, Google etc figured out that all they have to do is pay lip service to liberal causes, social and economic and we would just forget about that whole monopoly thing.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

21. there are frogs singing outside

Gotta go.

[safeinOhio]

20. Greed is the only rule of our

present form of Capitalism. Democracy is its enemy. All rules are to be for, and only for the capitalist.

[riverine]

19. If automation is killing jobs and we are getting more automated every year -

Why is the UE rate at an all time low of 3.8%?

And this is not one of Trump's lies. The BLS has measured UE the same way for many years.

Why 3.8% with all this automation?

[Yavin4]

29. The UE rate is currently low because of low interest rates

which makes borrowing easier and in turn boosts demand. Borrowed money is replacing wages and that money is being spent which creates more jobs.

[Hortensis]

22. :). Boy,...no. It might help to read

Last edited Sun Mar 10, 2019, 10:02 PM - Edit history (2)

Different viewpoints on this topic. Maybe search on mixed economies, capitalism, regulation for a start Until you are able to refine your searches.

But maybe pass on class resentment since you already have some exposure there? Perhaps note, though, that privileged ruling classes are neither inevitable nor Especially intrinsic to capitalism but can arise under any system. Including socialist utopias, not that we have any of those.

IMO, we really have to base these decisions on very practical foundations, not emotional. With that in mind, you might find it useful to also search on things like poverty, oppression, authoritarianism, hunger and even famine under centralized governments as a little kick off to examining alternatives to mixed economies. They are, generally speaking, far from uncommon in places like Russia, but quite uncommon in advanced Western liberal democracies, almost all of which utilize mixed economies, including our nation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Exactly. They have privileged classes in socialist societies.

[Yavin4]

30. I did do a search on capitalism.

And it's not class resentment. You just cannot handle the truth about it. Capitalism is a system where the capitalists make the rules.

Okay, so you say it can be regulated. Well, regulated by who? Government? And, who controls the government? The capitalists.

The only time that capitalists gave back and allowed a middle class to flourish was out of fear of Communism taking over the world in the first half of the 20th century.

[Lurker Deluxe]

57. uhhhh

You mean the first half of the 20th century where the the US and other allies defeated socialist dickheads across the globe who were killing hundreds of millions of people?

Not only once ... but twice.

That "first half of the 20th century"?

I hope that is not what you are talking about ... perhaps it would have been better if we lost.

Not.

[aidbo]

66. Nazis were not socialists. That is a false right wing talking point.

[Hortensis]

114. Yes! Importantly, socialist supporters did HELP right-wing extremists

gain power, though. Inadvertently, not realizing just what they were part of (no wonder -- several parties had "socialism" in their labels). Hitler then executed his socialist co-leader fairly early on, after it was too late for socialism-leaners to have second thoughts.

THAT point is hugely important in these days when populist leaders on both right and left are trying to draw antagonistic people from both right and left into a majority that can overwhelm sensible people trying to protect our democracy.

And no matter what form the ensuing extremist government takes or label its leaders use, conservatives ultimately end up controlling. Conservative extremists are far more ruthless and they are able to draw far more normal conservatives to them than left-wing extremists are able to draw among liberals. Just look at Trump -- high 80s approval after 2 years of trumpism.

[aidbo]

116. No. I was replying to a person who seems to think nazis were socialists - they were not.

You seem to think socialists ‘helped nazis gain power’. This is also not true.

Nazis are fascists. Fascism is an anti-left ideology and gains power through the assent of centrists and business interests who see the fascists as ‘protecting’ them from the power that workers would have under socialist policies.

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302

Peter van Onselen's error is one of fact, not interpretation. Any analysis of the electoral platforms, internal party dynamics and political actions of the Nazis between 1921 and 1945 makes this clear. Perhaps the German Workers Party - the party of around 100 members led by Anton Drexler that preceded the Nazi Party (NSDAP) - might have sought to cobble authoritarian anti-capitalism (which is not the same as socialism) onto biological racism. The early, pre-Nazi party that Hitler joined toyed with forms of market control to benefit small businesses and to halt ostensible "foreign" - that is, Jewish - control over markets. But such dalliances would not last long. Yes, Mussolini had been a socialist early during the First World War, but broke with his comrades to support Italian expansionism, and then formed his fascist party to crush them. As in fascist Italy, Nazi ideas were self-consciously formulated to negate those of the left, not to imitate them. When Hitler took over the party in 1921, he shredded the anti-capitalist parts of the old party's platform.

...

Under Hitler, the party looked squarely to the middle classes and farmers rather than the working class for a political base. Hitler realigned it to ensure that it was an anti-socialist, anti-liberal, authoritarian, pro-business party - particularly after the failed Beerhall Putsch of 1923. The "socialism" in the name National Socialism was a strategically chosen misnomer designed to attract working class votes where possible, but they refused to take the bait. The vast majority voted for the Communist or Social Democratic parties.

People were not ‘fooled’ by Nazis at the time.

The minority anti-capitalist strand of Nazism (Strasserism) on which van Onselen fastens was eliminated well before 1934, when Gregor Strasser and the Storm Trooper (SA) leader Ernst Roehm were murdered with over eighty others in the "Night of the Long Knives." In fact, Strasserism had already been defeated at the Bamberg Conference of 1926 when the Nazis were polling under 3% of the vote. Here, Hitler brought the dissidents back into line, denouncing them as "communists" and ruling out land expropriations and grassroots decision-making. He heightened the party's alliance with businesses small and large, and insisted on the absolute centralisation of decision-making - the "Fuehrer (leader) Principle."

...

For their part, businesses welcomed the Nazis' promises to suppress the left. On 20 February 1933, Hitler and Goering met with a large group of industrialists when Hitler declared that democracy and business were incompatible and that the workers needed to be dragged away from socialism. He promised bold action to protect their businesses and property from communism. The industrialists - including leading figures from I.G. Farben, Hoesch, Krupp, Siemens, Allianz and other senior mining and manufacturing groups - then contributed more than two million Reichsmarks to the Nazi election fund, with Goering tellingly suggesting that this would probably be the last election for a hundred years. Business leadership happily jettisoned democracy to rid Germany of socialism and to smash organised labour

[Hortensis]

117. I've forgotten the socialist co-leaders' name, but it's in

the history books. Some credit his skills and organization as being key to drawing enough people to enable the National Socialist Party's takeover. But in any case "socialist" was added to the party's name to draw people who thought socialism must be part of the answer to Germany's problems.

Of course, most were the kind of socialist-leaners who just chose not to notice or could excuse joining political forces with people who claimed Germany's liberals and Jews were a major problem, but we've had discussion of how people leaning socialist can be that way just this week on this forum.

[aidbo]

120. Again, that's a false talking point. The contemporary socialists were not fooled..

..they “refused to take the bait. The vast majority voted for the Communist or Social Democratic parties.”

The Nazis secured their power with help from industry and business who saw the Nazis as protecting them from organized labor.

Re-pasting this paragraph because you seem not to have read my reply.

For their part, businesses welcomed the Nazis' promises to suppress the left. On 20 February 1933, Hitler and Goering met with a large group of industrialists when Hitler declared that democracy and business were incompatible and that the workers needed to be dragged away from socialism. He promised bold action to protect their businesses and property from communism. The industrialists - including leading figures from I.G. Farben, Hoesch, Krupp, Siemens, Allianz and other senior mining and manufacturing groups - then contributed more than two million Reichsmarks to the Nazi election fund, with Goering tellingly suggesting that this would probably be the last election for a hundred years. Business leadership happily jettisoned democracy to rid Germany of socialism and to smash organised labour

[uponit7771]

24. This is false on its face, fettered capitalism can be beneficial

[Yavin4]

31. Who does the "fettering"?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. The government.

[Yavin4]

33. And who makes sure that the right people control government?

The capitalists.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. We don't get to vote?

[Yavin4]

41. Your vote has been engineered not to count

Or to have a very limited effect.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. If capitalism and socialism were on the ballot the former would win.

Now you can argue that a lot of that is manufactured consent and I would tend to agree but how do you propose to change people's consciousness? Every attempt to do so has ended in pain from Stalin's forced collectivization to Mao's Great Leap Forward to Pol Pot's killing fields. And before somebody brings up the Nordic Model the nations that practice that form of economics are capitalist economies with strong unions and a robust welfare state.

[uponit7771]

55. AMEN AND AMEN!!! I've been studying this for some time and every one of those have ended

... up with ultra totalitarian governments

not that America's government is perfect but those under communism or the aforementioned have very very oppressive governments even after the haves property is taken and then nationalized.

Gorbachev proved empirically that if people had a choice they mostly would choose the West even with the jewel of Communism East Germany's existence.

[uponit7771]

54. Says the Russians, we've seen it work correctly too many times

[Adrahil]

39. So.... I'm waiting for your plan

What is it?

[Yavin4]

42. I don't have a plan. But we should start a discussion of a post-capitalism nation. n/t

[Adrahil]

48. Well, start then.

What does that look like.

In my opinion, a regulated market economy works best. That includes capital investment. I have yet to hear of alternative that works for the consumer segment.

[Yavin4]

52. We need a gradual movement away from capitalist control of govt. to citizen control.

Start with guaranteeing everyone healthcare, education through college/trade school, affordable housing, and a guaranteed public sector job paying a living wage wherever they live. We pay for it by re-prioritizing spending and taxes on the private side of the economy.

[Adrahil]

53. I support almost all that.

I’m less enthused by a guaranteed public sector job. I prefer a UBI.
But that doesn’t (and shouldn’t, IMO) replace private sector companies. We should socilaize those things the market cannot support. But we should not socilaize the entire economy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. If you are saying government should be the employer of last resort I agree with you.

[MH1]

74. I agree with the title of your post (#52) here.

(not everything else you've posted on this thread - but definitely the title of this post).

I think to move from capitalist control of government to citizen control we need to focus on removing the influence of money in politics. That has met a hard road with our Supreme Court, due to "corporations are people" and "money = speech" nonsense. We need to figure out how to get past those issues and implement real controls. Also correct the elections process so that third parties can be viable (and not spoilers as currently the case).

The other items you mention in the body of this post (52) are potentially good goals, but will not likely be achieved in any meaningful, fair sense, without first addressing money in politics.

Money in politics IS the "capitalist control of govt." that you mention and hobbles all attempts at doing anything else constructive.

That doesn't mean get rid of capitalism completely. Just implement the laws that minimize its influence in government.

[brooklynite]

27. Capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the others.....

[democratisphere]

35. Free Market Capitalism is the ongoing transfer of ALL of the

wealth to a smaller and smaller group. This process has been accelerated since the 1970's and today has reached a level of ownership, by the few, that is nothing short of obscene. It has proven itself to be disfunctional as the wealthiest are hell bent on not only controlling all of the wealth, but also controlling all of the highest leadership that can serve their missions needs. The level of arrogance of the resulting corruption is like nothing ever experienced in our country before. And still this corruption persists and grows larger. As usual, the whole economic and financial system will have to collapse before anything of true substance will lead to meaningful reform for all.

[Doodley]

40. Jesus knew this 2000 years ago, and I say that as an atheist, but Republicans need to read the bible

[moondust]

45. Unregulated "greed without conscience"

is certainly unsustainable, and the amoral Dump is the king of that. He's the Republican's Republican.

[harumph]

46. Insufficiently regulated capitalism is unsustainable over time.

Capitalism can be restrained and rules made and maintained by law. It's just that
we don't do that very well. And...sufficient regulation is not even possible without a critical mass of voters
who are educated about basic market/labor theory. That's the problem in a nutshell.

You make a good point regarding automation. They'll (the wealthy humans in control of the now automated
labor) will probably try and "exterminate" us somehow. Maybe they'll create a pandemic virus and
inoculate themselves. Maybe they'll find a way to isolate themselves and let everybody else
fend and fight amongst themselves. I think that would be risky unless they have a very good
security state/system protecting them...so probably the former solution...or a version thereof.


No, I'm not kidding.

[Yavin4]

50. You cannot regulate capitalism because the capitalists control the government

And your voting power is very limited. I live in NY, one of the largest states in the union, but my vote has very limited power over who gets elected president, who controls the senate, and who sits on the SCOTUS.

[thesquanderer]

109. Then it sounds like your issue isn't capitalism...

...but rather that capitalists control the government, rendering regulation weak. Maybe that is fixable without disowning capitalism (HR1--which admittedly won't pass without Dem control of both houses--is a step in that direction).

[raging moderate]

122. We can change that. We have to work together to stop the trend toward fascism.

We have to get back our government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Abe Lincoln knew something about struggle against almost insurmountable odds. We have to rock the vote. I remember, back in 2004, how GW Bush looked so worried and then, after a phone call, he suddenly looked so smug. He knew some kind of fix was in. And so did the other right-wingers. And I remember, in 2008 and 2012, the shock on the faces of the right-wing pundits. They thought they knew some kind of fix was in. I think we the people surprised and overwhelmed their schemes, just by massively showing up.

[pnwmom]

47. Socialism is not sustainable over the long term.

That's a claim that makes as much sense as the OP.

Few here would disagree that unbridled capitalism is unsustainable. But you haven't shown why well regulated capitalism, such as in the Nordic countries, isn't sustainable.

[Humanist_Activist]

61. Mostly because they rely on their natural resources or a large amount of "free trade"....

to sustain their economies. Norway has oil, a lot of it, and a huge slush fund to help assist in fueling their welfare state. And no nation is an island, these countries rely on the cheap labor provided by much of the third world to sustain their economies. Much of that labor is exploitative.

[pnwmom]

62. And what would socialism rely on? It would also need natural resources or trade with other countries

[Humanist_Activist]

78. True but such trade, without there being a profit motive, wouldn't have to be exploitative...

Imagine an economy where every company is owned by the workers, as worker co-ops, from the supply chain on down, the primary motive would be to make sure the workers' labor is given back to them, surplus labor would be limited to having these companies pay taxes and operating costs. Not one dime to a non-productive shareholder, so none of this money is wasted on profit.

[pnwmom]

88. That would only make theoretical sense in a case where we had a single socialist government,

covering the whole world.

Ain't. gonna happen.

[Humanist_Activist]

90. I would call it a misnomer to call it a "Socialist" government, Democratic is preferable...

but, not to put too fine a point on it, that is technically the goal of Communists, a worldwide "stateless" economy. Now whether such a thing will ever happen is up in the air, who knows what hill happen in hundreds of years.

[pnwmom]

91. Yes. You described a government that sounds like what they had in Communist China.

Been there. Done that. Few people worldwide would consider that a good model.

[Humanist_Activist]

96. Wait, how is that like Communist China? Be specific.

Don't fall back on very basic red scare bullshit, that stuff doesn't work anymore.

[pnwmom]

99. YOU just said it. Did someone else write your post?

I would call it a misnomer to call it a "Socialist" government, Democratic is preferable...

but, not to put too fine a point on it, that is technically the goal of Communists, a worldwide "stateless" economy.

[Humanist_Activist]

101. So China was a worldwide stateless economy? What are you talking about?

The Soviet Union was started on the premise that it would be the start of a worldwide revolution where all states are overthrown, so no overreaching government would assist in exploiting workers. It devolved into Stalinism after an attempt at "Socialism in one State" which itself became extremely authoritarian due to the paranoia and Stalin himself and those that followed. China followed largely the same path with Maoism, though then it devolved itself further with the institution of Dengiism, which is basically Capitalism with a Communist party veneer.

Actually both current day Russia and China should bury the idea forever that Capitalism follows Democracy, I mean, after all, both are largely capitalistic today, but I wouldn't label either to be democratic, would you? in fact, most of the "Backsliding" Democracies today are Capitalistic countries, are they not? Perhaps that's related.

[c-rational]

49. Interesting post and responses. I have herd that late stage capitalism is State Monopoly

Capitalism, whereby the state exists to protect the corporation. We may be approaching that stage. Systems evolve and so should the regulations. You make a good point that our votes no longer count that much and the capitalists control too many levers, in effect nullifying voters. The majority obviously does not control the narrative and structural changes are needed. Not sure if I am ready to jettison capitalism, but regulations are sorely needed, and sorely lacking. Some of Warren's recent proposals coupled with HR1 recently passed by the House would be a good start.

[walkingman]

51. Capitalism has become almost a religion in the US. Deregulation is destroying Capitalism.

[GulfCoast66]

56. Since Capitalism in North America and Western Europe,

With varying degrees of restraint buy the people(government) has created the most prosperous and sustainable(from a birth rate stand point) society humans have ever known, forgive me for not want to give it up for a system that fails every time it is tried.

Of course I know the response: Real Socialism has never been done right.

Forgive me for not wanting to be the first to try to get it right.

[Humanist_Activist]

60. Capitalism as practiced now needs to brutally oppress the underclasses...

first it was in our own countries, and when that became untenable, we outsourced the oppression to other countries, mostly former Colonies of past empires. But for the same reason, that's considered a model that we should continue to use.

[erpowers]

63. Capitalism Can Survive

Just because certain things were not mentioned, or do not seem to have been mentioned at the funding of Capitalism does not mean those things cannot be added. We actually see that the things you listed have been added to Capitalism. The United States was able to build a middle class. There was a push for socioeconomic mobility and it worked for many Americans for many years. For years there have been efforts to protect the environment and those efforts have largely worked in the areas in which they were implemented. There have been pushes for education, health care, housing, food, and social justice and those efforts have largely worked in the places in which they were implemented.

Certain jobs are being automated, but there are still other jobs that can be given to those who are being pushed out of their old jobs. I do not think workers have to become obsolete. They can be retrained to do other work.

The opiod epidemic was not caused by workers being rendered obsolete. The opiod epidemic was caused by a medicine being over prescribed. People who never should have been prescribed opiod medication were prescribed those medications. They then became addicted. When they could no longer afford the high costs of the medication they turned to cheaper illegal alternative drugs.

We do not have to depend on any class. Also, we can rebuild cities like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. We just have to make the investments.

[Yavin4]

64. Capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production for profit by said owners

All other virtues that you ascribe to it, the middle class, environmental protections, etc. have nothing whatsoever to do with Capitalism.

[AncientGeezer]

92. What about the Capitalists that make wind turbines, solar panels,

the batteries that store the power, electric and hybrid vehicles, biodegradable packaging, private recycling centers....ALL environmentally targeted entities.

Capitalism has pulled more people out of poverty than ANY 5 other economic systems combined....be it socialism, communism, YOU mentioned hunter gatherer(not actually an economic system) and throw in any other 3 of your choice.

[Yavin4]

100. Without govt subsidies, those companies would not invest in environmentally targeted entities

If you take a global count of the number of people who have been exploited because of their natural resources and labor, then it's a wash at best.

[AncientGeezer]

104. That's silly on it's face....Refer to the UN data....

"Without govt subsidies..."...do you mean a tax reduction? Investment? Doing what the Gvt can't?
What socialist country EVER didn't plunge their citizens into abject poverty...and often...famine, death..to the tune of millions?

I get it..you aren't a fan of Capitalism.....Socialism NEVER pulled anyone out of poverty....they aren't on the front lines at disasters like Capitalist countries are.

You have YET to show a better economic model in this thread...and been asked several times.

You said in post #29 UE rates are low because of low interest rates....interest rates are higher now than during the vast majority of President Obama's 8yrs

[HughBeaumont]

65. Capitalism is great at creating wealth. It's absolutely shit-horrible in DISTRIBUTING that wealth.

It's problematic that people on a Democratic board are thinking that an individual solution is going to solve a long-standing and complex STRUCTURAL economic problem. This isn't the same as the Industrial Revolution in that when technology improved, there was still a large supply of labor that migrated to each improvement. And it's not only automation, it's lack of economic dynamism combined with automation. Far different animal than the 20th century industrialization, where labor wasn't cancelled out of the picture completely and had time (and more importantly, money) to adapt and learn a new profession or the changes within their own.

A 50 year old laid-off worker can theoretically go into debt and get a degree/cert for 1-2 years. Problem is, they're still 50 and they have an employment gap. Those are two wet carpet mountains they cannot overcome. Corporate America has changed the game; their hiring practices have become ever more selective (as has their resume screening process), technology is moving far too fast for the already-shopworn human to catch up with and there aren't as many new occupations/businesses cropping up. Since 2000, we're merely making existing products better rather than creating game-changers.

With layoffs, ageism and permanent closure to consumption, the displaced worker's participation in Capitalism stops; thereby gumming up the works as American Capitalism demands consumption. With something like a UBI (and a drastic lowering of the retirement age), consumption and Capitalism doesn't have to stop.

The only thing mass automation is going to free up is a person's ability to earn income. And no, we're not all going to "become coders". Unless you do this for fun and really, really love STEM, you're not going to compete with the people who would do this even if they didn't get paid to.

[DirtEdonE]

67. The ultimate goal of capitalism is the same as a game of Monolopy.

Very good for a very few. Sucks for the rest of us.

Obscene wealth disparity. Poverty. Crime. Joblessness. Homelessness. Drug dependence. Dependable boom and bust economic crashes.

It's old man Potter's dream of a "thrifty working class" come true. LOFL

https://memes.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/80ed18b6-5ea4-46f7-8555-39838b846010

[kentuck]

68. Great questions!

Capitalism without rules or guidelines has nothing to do with democracy. It has more to do with an opposite political philosophy.

We will have no choice but to go to some type of socialist order, in order to survive, in my opinion. The concept of work is becoming extinct in many areas. Artificial Intelligence is upon us.

An interesting analogy you make to the opioid crisis.

In a more productive society, we, as a government, may have to create jobs for the public benefit and to offer people meaning to their lives. Work is necessary.

[cbdo2007]

79. Yes it is. But what we have in the US is not capitalism, it is capitalist socialism which is not

sustainable over the long term.

[Humanist_Activist]

82. You seem to not know what words mean, what are you talking about? n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. We have a mixed economy. No need to over explain it.

It has features of capitalism and socialism or more precisely welfare state capitalism.

[Humanist_Activist]

84. Its a very weak Social Democracy, but it certainly isn't Socialism...

At least not on a national level, only on extremely local levels, in the form of local co-ops and such is Socialism in any form actually practiced, and that is limited.

ON EDIT: Socialism is NOT "When the government does things".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. Social Security is an example of a socialist program as is Food Stamps and Medicaid.*

The United states is nominally a liberal democracy with the emphasis on limited government. The Scandinavian states are social democracies with an emphasis on the government directing the private economy to meet human needs.





*or social welfare programs within a capitalist economy.

[Humanist_Activist]

86. Its Social Welfare and might be supported by Socialists, but isn't, in itself, Socialist...

We use that term far too loosely in the United States.

Socialism, at its core, is a transitional period where workers own the means of production, no more, no less, now HOW that happens, well, that's where the left-wing tears itself apart, more often than not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. I agree 100%

[cbdo2007]

103. I was referring more to corporate welfare...

in a true capitalist society, poor companies would fail and better companies would come along and succeed. Our "capitalism" is completely fabricated and is controlled by the govt deciding who they want to be in business and who they want to succeed. Capitalism created many great companies and products in the USA but wages, growth, efficiency, innovation are all stagnant because the leaders all figured out how to game the system to just make more money that they don't share with other people.

The backbone of our capitalism is not good solid businesses and products, it is the stock market which is based more on projection and price fixing than on actual value.

[aidbo]

118. I see what you meant. MLK said somewhat the same thing.

“We all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free market capitalism for the poor.”
-Martin Luther King

[Inkfreak]

89. how long is long term?

[Yavin4]

110. Not very long. n/t

[JCMach1]

105. Neither is any other system based on unit labor

Robots are forcing a paradigm shift. Work, going forward cannot be how we organize our economic system.

However, socialism also will not work for the very same reason Capitalism is failing.

[raging moderate]

111. No, we are headed to a world without PAID work.

There would still be plenty of work, for anyone who wants to survive. The oligarchs who control the allocation of resources are simply pushing more and more people off the roster of those whose work is acknowledged and rewarded.

[hunter]

115. Money was the stupidist human invention ever.

It's killed, maimed, and made miserable more people than guns, bombs, nuclear weapons, natural disasters, you name it...

These arguments about capitalism vs. socialism are silly.

It's like listening to Creationists explaining fossils and the geologic record.

We've created a world economy that's very brittle and unsustainable.

This thing we call economic "productivity" is actually a measure of the damage we are doing to our natural world and our own human spirit.

If we humans don't get our shit together, then the crash of our world economy is going to overshadow all the horrors of human history.

We need to make sure everyone is fed, has comfortable shelter, and appropriate medical care. Everyone needs to be educated, literate, and numerate.

Capitalism and socialism are myths, like Noah's ark.

[Adrahil]

119. Ummm.... okay...

You just told a nice fairy tale yourself. Now what? What do you want to do next?