Anti-Capitalism in Five Minutes or Less
We know that capitalism is not just the most sensible way to organize an economy but is now the only possible way to organize an economy. We know that dissenters to this conventional wisdom can, and should, be ignored. There’s no longer even any need to persecute such heretics; they are obviously irrelevant.
How do we know all this? Because we are told so, relentlessly — typically by those who have the most to gain from such a claim, most notably those in the business world and their functionaries and apologists in the schools, universities, mass media, and mainstream politics. Capitalism is not a choice, but rather simply is, like a state of nature. Maybe not like a state of nature, but the state of nature. To contest capitalism these days is like arguing against the air that we breathe. Arguing against capitalism, we’re told, is simply crazy.
We are told, over and over, that capitalism is not just the system we have, but the only system we can ever have. Yet for many, something nags at us about such a claim. Could this really be the only option? We’re told we shouldn’t even think about such things. But we can’t help thinking — is this really the “end of history,” in the sense that big thinkers have used that phrase to signal the final victory of global capitalism? If this is the end of history in that sense, we wonder, can the actual end of the planet far behind?
We wonder, we fret, and these thoughts nag at us — for good reason. Capitalism — or, more accurately, the predatory corporate capitalism that defines and dominates our lives — will be our death if we don’t escape it. Crucial to progressive politics is finding the language to articulate that reality, not in outdated dogma that alienates but in plain language that resonates with people. We should be searching for ways to explain to co-workers in water-cooler conversations — radical politics in five minutes or less — why we must abandon predatory corporate capitalism. If we don’t, we may well be facing the end times, and such an end will bring rupture not rapture.
Here’s my shot at the language for this argument.
Capitalism is admittedly an incredibly productive system that has created a flood of goods unlike anything the world has ever seen. It also is a system that is fundamentally (1) inhuman, (2) anti-democratic, and (3) unsustainable. Capitalism has given those of us in the First World lots of stuff (most of it of marginal or questionable value) in exchange for our souls, our hope for progressive politics, and the possibility of a decent future for children.
In short, either we change or we die — spiritually, politically, literally.
1. Capitalism is inhuman
There is a theory behind contemporary capitalism. We’re told that because we are greedy, self-interested animals, an economic system must reward greedy, self-interested behavior if we are to thrive economically.
Are we greedy and self-interested? Of course. At least I am, sometimes. But we also just as obviously are capable of compassion and selflessness. We certainly can act competitively and aggressively, but we also have the capacity for solidarity and cooperation. In short, human nature is wide-ranging. Our actions are certainly rooted in our nature, but all we really know about that nature is that it is widely variable. In situations where compassion and solidarity are the norm, we tend to act that way. In situations where competitiveness and aggression are rewarded, most people tend toward such behavior.
Why is it that we must choose an economic system that undermines the most decent aspects of our nature and strengthens the most inhuman? Because, we’re told, that’s just the way people are. What evidence is there of that? Look around, we’re told, at how people behave. Everywhere we look, we see greed and the pursuit of self-interest. So, the proof that these greedy, self-interested aspects of our nature are dominant is that, when forced into a system that rewards greed and self-interested behavior, people often act that way. Doesn’t that seem just a bit circular?
2. Capitalism is anti-democratic
This one is easy. Capitalism is a wealth-concentrating system. If you concentrate wealth in a society, you concentrate power. Is there any historical example to the contrary?
For all the trappings of formal democracy in the contemporary United States, everyone understands that the wealthy dictates the basic outlines of the public policies that are acceptable to the vast majority of elected officials. People can and do resist, and an occasional politician joins the fight, but such resistance takes extraordinary effort. Those who resist win victories, some of them inspiring, but to date concentrated wealth continues to dominate. Is this any way to run a democracy?
If we understand democracy as a system that gives ordinary people a meaningful way to participate in the formation of public policy, rather than just a role in ratifying decisions made by the powerful, then it’s clear that capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive.
Let’s make this concrete. In our system, we believe that regular elections with the one-person/one-vote rule, along with protections for freedom of speech and association, guarantee political equality. When I go to the polls, I have one vote. When Bill Gates goes the polls, he has one vote. Bill and I both can speak freely and associate with others for political purposes. Therefore, as equal citizens in our fine democracy, Bill and I have equal opportunities for political power. Right?
3. Capitalism is unsustainable
This one is even easier. Capitalism is a system based on the idea of unlimited growth. The last time I checked, this is a finite planet. There are only two ways out of this one. Perhaps we will be hopping to a new planet soon. Or perhaps, because we need to figure out ways to cope with these physical limits, we will invent ever-more complex technologies to transcend those limits.
Both those positions are equally delusional. Delusions may bring temporary comfort, but they don’t solve problems. They tend, in fact, to cause more problems. Those problems seem to be piling up.
Capitalism is not, of course, the only unsustainable system that humans have devised, but it is the most obviously unsustainable system, and it’s the one in which we are stuck. It’s the one that we are told is inevitable and natural, like the air.
A tale of two acronyms: TGIF and TINA
Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s famous response to a question about challenges to capitalism was TINA — There Is No Alternative. If there is no alternative, anyone who questions capitalism is crazy.
Here’s another, more common, acronym about life under a predatory corporate capitalism: TGIF — Thank God It’s Friday. It’s a phrase that communicates a sad reality for many working in this economy — the jobs we do are not rewarding, not enjoyable, and fundamentally not worth doing. We do them to survive. Then on Friday we go out and get drunk to forget about that reality, hoping we can find something during the weekend that makes it possible on Monday to, in the words of one songwriter, “get up and do it again.”
Remember, an economic system doesn’t just produce goods. It produces people as well. Our experience of work shapes us. Our experience of consuming those goods shapes us. Increasingly, we are a nation of unhappy people consuming miles of aisles of cheap consumer goods, hoping to dull the pain of unfulfilling work. Is this who we want to be?
We’re told TINA in a TGIF world. Doesn’t that seem a bit strange? Is there really no alternative to such a world? Of course there is. Anything that is the product of human choices can be chosen differently. We don’t need to spell out a new system in all its specifics to realize there always are alternatives. We can encourage the existing institutions that provide a site of resistance (such as labor unions) while we experiment with new forms (such as local cooperatives). But the first step is calling out the system for what it is, without guarantees of what’s to come.
Home and abroad
In the First World, we struggle with this alienation and fear. We often don’t like the values of the world around us; we often don’t like the people we’ve become; we often are afraid of what’s to come of us. But in the First World, most of us eat regularly. That’s not the case everywhere. Let’s focus not only on the conditions we face within a predatory corporate capitalist system, living in the most affluent country in the history of the world, but also put this in a global context.
Half the world’s population lives on less than $2 a day. That’s more than 3 billion people. Just over half of the population of sub-Saharan Africa lives on less than $1 a day. That’s more than 300 million people.
How about one more statistic: About 500 children in Africa die from poverty-related diseases, and the majority of those deaths could be averted with simple medicines or insecticide-treated nets. That’s 500 children — not every year, or every month or every week. That’s not 500 children every day. Poverty-related diseases claim the lives of 500 children an hour in Africa.
When we try to hold onto our humanity, statistics like that can make us crazy. But don’t get any crazy ideas about changing this system. Remember TINA: There is no alternative to predatory corporate capitalism.
TGILS: Thank God It’s Last Sunday
We have been gathering on Last Sunday precisely to be crazy together. We’ve come together to give voice to things that we know and feel, even when the dominant culture tells us that to believe and feel such things is crazy. Maybe everyone here is a little crazy. So, let’s make sure we’re being realistic. It’s important to be realistic.
One of the common responses I hear when I critique capitalism is, “Well, that may all be true, but we have to be realistic and do what’s possible.” By that logic, to be realistic is to accept a system that is inhuman, anti-democratic, and unsustainable. To be realistic we are told we must capitulate to a system that steals our souls, enslaves us to concentrated power, and will someday destroy the planet.
But rejecting and resisting a predatory corporate capitalism is not crazy. It is an eminently sane position. Holding onto our humanity is not crazy. Defending democracy is not crazy. And struggling for a sustainable future is not crazy.
What is truly crazy is falling for the con that an inhuman, anti-democratic, and unsustainable system — one that leaves half the world’s people in abject poverty — is all that there is, all that there ever can be, all that there ever will be.
If that were true, then soon there will be nothing left, for anyone.
I do not believe it is realistic to accept such a fate. If that’s being realistic, I’ll take crazy any day of the week, every Sunday of the month.
Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center http://thirdcoastactivist.org . His latest book is Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007). Jensen is also the author of The Heart of Whiteness: Race, Racism, and White Privilege and Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (both from City Lights Books); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang). He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu and his articles can be found online at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/index.html.
All capitalism is predatory. That and the acrual of capital and power to wealth are built into the system as internal laws. We must move beyond a system that has outived its usefulness and look at the alternatives. That means various forms, styles and degrees of Socialisms. Not dogmatic pre-written plans but new creative adaptaions. Socialism must be seen as a set of guiding principles that incorporates scientific method and that learns from past experience while building a democratic, cooperative, socially accountable society.
Capitalism is 231 years out of date, communism is 159 years out of date. Neither economic system envisioned computerized networking, a global population beyond carrying capacity, and all the other uniquenesses of our current global economic situation.
The question is: is there time for some economic visionary to write a book (or put up a website) full of new ideas and for those new ideas to circulate enough to gain enough momentum to be implemented before . . . well, we won’t think too specifically about what could follow the word “before”.
Capitalism has destroyed our belief in any effective power but that of self interest backed by force.
George Bernard Shaw
“The question is: is there time for some economic visionary to write a book (or put up a website) full of new ideas and for those new ideas to circulate enough to gain enough momentum to be implemented before . . . well, we won’t think too specifically about what could follow the word “before”.”
Here is the website of this visionary:
http://www.gravel2008.us/
It is important for us to recognize that capital and labor have nothing in common.
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” Lincoln’s First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.
Voltar, why must it always be one or the other extreme? Surely we can be more creative than that? Waldorf schools are based on - among other things, a spirit of cooperation rather than competition, such as cooperative games and dancing instead of sports.
I read an experiment where they separated the boys and girls in a sixth grade math class and let them do it their way. The boys had a few superperformers, some averages, and serious laggers who weren’t getting it. They turned the class into a competitive race. The girls ended up working together with the strongest helping the weakest, their average was just as high, but no one was left behind. Maybe women should run things for awhile and set this place right.
By the way, the Waldorf school method was developed by Rudolph Steiner, a man. So it’s not manhood at question here, but the issue of competition. Dennis Kucinich is not competitive, but also no wimp, as you would know if you’ve ever seen him in a debate.
Socialism is treated here in the USA as a DIRTY WORD. It is long past time to refine our approach to economic thinking with updating the definition of socialism so that it merges with what we know and understand about the way life operates and what our challenges are for the future problems that we face.
Socialism is treated as a dirty word because for the 50 years of the cold war (and before that, actually) the prevailing brainwash said that the word “socialism” was a kind of sneaky synonym for “communism” which was, we were constantly told, an evil spy-riddled consipiracy out of Russia to effect a totalitarian takeover. The word has, as a result, a lot of psychological baggage which is, perhaps, insurmountable.
Corruption and consolidation of power can exist in both socialism and capitalism.
The capabilities of the government and the success of either system depend on what people THINK. A majority of Americans believe in private enterprise and have no understanding how the government is privatizing transportation, communications, and other public infrastructure and how it leads to higher costs and a lowering of their quality of life. Bush hides these things, hides the cost of perpetual war, hides it by using the threat of terrorism, and controls information with the help of Big Media like no other President.
An informed citizenry is the only thing that can change things. You try passing “socialist” policy in our government, and the media barons will attack it so violently that tons of citizens will become enraged, people getting angry, but they don’t know what they’re angry about. That’s what corporate media does, it tells people to get outraged, it’s an “outrage machine” (Naomi Klein’s term). When 80% of the citizenry is listening to the trash on TV for their news, single-payer health-care (and other progressive policies) don’t stand a chance.
I can imagine an uninformed socialist citizenry allowing a corrupt government to destroy the world just as easily as an uninformed capitalist citizenry allowing corporations to destroy the world.
That’s why this article is great idealist food-for-thought… but corruption in government, which came about from an uninformed citizenry is what got us into this mess. No matter the economic system, only an informed citizenry can save us.
As an example, let’s take greenhouse gases…
How would a socialist society stop carbon emissions? With a law limiting carbon-emissions
How would a capitalist society stop carbon emissions? With a law limiting carbon-emissions
The solution in either socialist or capitalist society doesn’t matter, what matters is public support of the policy limiting emissions. Again, socialist or capitalist doesn’t matter, it’s the will of the people that determines if we can save the world… the big question is “do people have the will?”
Socialism is really the only answer. The question is how to minister this obvious fact to a society conditioned to respond to fear of mere “liberalism” let alone socialism. Sometime, in the distant past, when a cow kicked over a lantern and the resulting fire destroyed an entire city, someone decided that the public interest would be better served if fire protection were socialized and taken care of by the government instead of private, and competing, sometimes warring companies. Making the government “small enough” (whatever that means) to drown in a bathtub ignores what to do after the resulting anarchism breaks down, quite soon after the destruction of government. Our conservative government is much larger now, if you use the measuring tape of capitalism, accumulated wealth and its power, than ever before. We are a completely militarized state and slaves thereto. The bitter alkalinity of fascism is upon us, literally. Bush and his friends don’t just act like fascists, they are literally fascists. This is not a drill. The solution is a dash of acidic socialism to bring the balance back to something that won’t corrode the vessel of our culture. This is called democratic socialism, which is neither extreme nor totalitarian. Every liberal has a duty to denounce Communism, that radical system which, like all extreme and unworkable systems, was unsustainable and collapsed, at least in the Soviet Union, mostly by itself. Every responsible conservative has the same duty to denounce the extremists, the fascists and fear driven fanatics, on its lunatic right fringe. The economy is the key to this. An economy that is based on continuous growth, the model of capitalism, is impossible to sustain in the petri dish that is our global home. An economic theory based on human survival, human needs, and a future other than dog-eat-dog capitalistic cannibalism is the only solution. This is the definition and mission of modern socialism. Call it anything you like, and please, let it evolve to respond to changing needs. Just put it into action before the military industrial complex, its corporate backers and their very real mercenary armies turn totally against all of us. Actually, they already have, but I wouldn’t want to scare you and dash your hopes while there is a narrow window of opportunity left to fight back.
Socialism was pounded into our young heads in school as a very nasty, dirty, “scary” form of government and first cousin to the big “C”. No, not cancer–Communism.
I now think Socialism’s time in this country has come. What with corporations sucking up free enterprise on “Main Street”, a wage gap the size of the Grand Canyon between CEO’s and workers, and GREED deciding prices instead of supply and demand, what other possibility is there to recover some semblance of a “fair and balanced” economy which is favorable to all?
I think Bernie Sanders overwhelming election is testimony to the public’s cries and screams for more parity here in the, cough, “Land of the Free”. (As long as you can afford it.)
Required Reading:
Adam Smith’s Mistake: How a Moral Philosopher Invented Economics, and Ended Morality, Kenneth Lux, Shambhala, 1990.
http://homepage.mac.com/flosfr399bc/BusinessEthics/AdamSmithsMistake.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Smiths-Mistake-Kenneth-Lux/dp/087773593X
http://www.swans.com/library/art9/mgc106.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w4r517r194g11357/
The Lincoln to Congress quote above is going on my locker at work
When I run into the TINA mindset, one tactic I’ve found successful with even the most confused and apathetic is to point to the (deliberately) blurred difference between Capitalism and the Corporatism we’re suffering from now.
I’ll point out…
“Capitalists who own own privately-held businesses are able, hypothetically, to make moral choices about the amount of profit those businesses take in. A hypothetical capitalist can say to herself, ‘With x% gross margin, I’m living well; my employees are living decently and sticking around. I have enough to re-invest in upkeep, turnover, and improvements. I don’t need to push it. Enough is good.’
“But a corporate board is never allowed to say this. The legal fiduciary responsibility of every board member is to INCREASE PROFITS TO SHAREHOLDERS. They have no latitude for moral choice. Increasing profits is their ONLY legal choice. Oppression and deception are the corporations easiest and most profitable choices. A small-businessperson who operated that way would become notorious.”
I don’t think much of capitalism, but capitalism is a fond memory at this point.
Part of tackling the monstrosity that has incrementally replaced it is undoing the myth that what we live under is a capitalist system. Oh, yes… in a ‘democracy’.
Corporate power is the (as yet) unwielded wedge issue of the left. 80% of Americans surveyed say that corporations have too much power. Progressives can drive that wedge by hammering home the point: ‘corporation’ and ‘business’ are NOT synonyms.
Yes, socialism’s time has come if we want to survive but even here the old bogeyman of “communism” strikes fear in the hearts of tomorrow’s potential leaders. It’s a shame. Do American Communists call for some kind of dictatorship? Are they “neo-stalinist” droids and extremeists? Hardly, read the positions of the CPUSA to get a better idea. It is up to all of us to build the kind of society we want. To build a real poplist, working class democracy, capitalism must go. History shows that Socialism doesn’t guarantee democracy but it is a prerequisite.
acemoab,
Well-said, but it cannot be stressed enough how narrow that window of opportunity is. Within one to two decades Artificial Intelligence will become a large part of the military and police apparatus, making it far easier for the few to control the many. In the more immediate future, I expect significant resources to be funneled to astroturf groups by the large corporate players, including fake progressive groups and organizations, to muddy the water to the extent that progressives and concerned informed people cannot form cohesive and powerful responses to the threats they perceive.
With the commencement of our latest corporate hostile takeover of a sovereign state (Iraq) underway and 80% of us cheering it on I sensed we were all being vetted: What will YOU do to keep what you have? Still owe $25K on that gas guzzler sitting in the drive? House mortgaged to the hilt and everything inside on a credit card? Making the payments ’cause you’re willing to work two jobs for sociopathic corporations as every credit purchase feeds the greedheads on Wall Street and depletes any leverage you might have had? I hear Blackwater is hiring.
Maybe you never had much of anything except Jesus. Have I got a General Boykin for you. Or if you’re smart enough a slot at the Air Force Academy. Onward Christian sky-soldiers.
Have authoritarian tendencies that seem politically-incorrect? Not anymore! Observe our CEO-in-Chief. Watch and learn-you’ll go far.
To me this is where decades of corporate psyops and runaway capitalism has left us and when this house-of-cards economy collapses I truly worry about: What will you/I do to keep what we have?
Lest anyone think I’m nostalgic for capitalism…
As I see it, at this point the legal structure of corporate fascism has so entirely replaced any semblence of a ‘free market’ that anyone who starts by pulling the string of ‘corporate power/personhood’ will end up unraveling the whole mess. The can of worms will be exposed.
At that point, only a radical re-understanding of trade and the intrinsic value of life/work will enable us to put Humpty Dumpty together again.
Americans are now, increasingly, working as service providers. It’s the one sort of job that can’t be out-sourced. As more and more Americans try to live on the wages paid by service work, more and more come to question the arguments against a livable wage law.
So, here’s two wedges for anyone who cares to use them:
1) Corporate Power Corrupts Absolutely
2) Service Work is Necessary. Service Workers deserve a Living Wage.
Peace y’all,
Peach McD in Durham NC
“Capitalism is not democratic” I wonder if Robert or someone can please provide us with JUST ONE example of a non capitalist country that IS democratic. North Korea? Cuba? Moldava? Zimbabwe?
I favor a mixed economy. The bigger or more vital an industry is, the more it should be publicly owned and democratically run. Basic things like utilities, medicine, transportation, housing . . . should be publicly owned. If industry is publicly owned and controlled for the interests of the society, how it is done can be easily addressed and things being made for use instead of as commodities will be made to last, not to fall apart or become obsolete next year. If you want to run a restaurant or paint houses — do it. “Socialism” as a term may carry baggage but really, it’s working class democracy and democracy begins in the workplace.
I’m with you, Jaded Prole. I think a mixed economy is the most balanced way to go. I favor supporting small business and strictly regulating large corporations. Everything I’ve read from the founders of this country supports that.
I wish the Democratic party would et smart and become the party of small business and the working people. They can work together and find common ground.
get smart
Seriously, MtnGoat, you need to pay more attention. You’re living in lala land.
Conservatives who believe the goop their brains have been fed by their corporate masters provide great comic relief.
In the early days of the USA, people, so-called “pioneers,” really could be independent from each other and independent from the government. Interaction was limited and human cooperative activities formed a small part of life. Now, we interact and depend on each other in every way in every activity. We cannot travel, breathe, drink water, eat foods, or use any consumer product or engage in innumerable other activities without depending on each other to provide us with honest information about hazards and other repercussions of our activities and theirs. We are completely dependent on each other.
But the corporate masters fool the gullible and unsophisticated into giving corporations complete control over our society by framing it as individual control vs. government contol. They seduce the unsophisticated by creating within their minds self-images of a pioneer, fighting for glory and “freedom,” and getting them to align their interests with those of the corporations, when the corporations are trying to take every cent, and deny every opportunity they or their children, have for a decent life. In reality it is corporate control vs. government control, and, to the extent the government is democratic, government control means control by the great mass of the people.
It would not be so serious if the non-wealthy joe-sixpack conservatives only doomed themselves, but they have the power to take the rest of us with them into wage slavery, or even virtual slavery, and even possibly annihilation.
MtnGoat - you’ve apparently never read or thought about the issues involved here. When you presume to lecture someone like Robert Jensen, wagging your finger & telling him “Other people’s lives are not yours, their labor is not yours,” you are accusing capitalisms’s critics of being the ones who think other people’s lives & labor belongs to them. Actually, capitalism itself is built on the notion that other people’s lives belong to, and should be controlled by, society’s ruling class.
It’s particularly ironic that you feel entitled to lecture a critic of capitalism that What (other people’s) labor produces, is not yours etc, because Marx himself carefully explains how the capitalist employer expropriates from workers a substantial portion of the value of their labor. In other words, though you apparently don’t realize it, the argument that the value of people’s labor should not be stolen from them is itself part of Marxist theory, and belongs on the side of critics of capitalism, not your side!
“2) Service Work is Necessary. Service Workers deserve a Living Wage.”
Service Workers deserve middle class wages.
Following the conquest of Ispahan in the 12th century, Timurlane indulged a perverse hobby, using 70,000 human heads to create a large pyramid that had become a sort of calling card to let folks know he’d been there. I’m willing to concede that the human race has made some progress over the years. Our latent viciousness probably remains the same, but our social institutions, such as habeus corpus, have evolved to hold our nastiness in check. Contrivances to protect the populace from the exploitation or outright cruelties of raw power are just that - artificial rules embodied in our constitutions and social contracts to hold predators in check. Capitalism is often equated with Darwinism - the law of the jungle. Freedom, as my late rich uncle used to say, is freedom to starve. So without a doubt capitalism is our natural state, just as for Kant war was our natural state. And realism, apparently, is a capitulation to the ineradicable baseness of our nature.
But as the Professor Jensen says, there is more to us than that, or we would not have had the Magna Carta or the abolition of slavery or the Geneva accords or the massive peace marches of 2003. We have a rational dimension - the pollyannish Categorical Imperative, the goodie twoshoes Golden Rule. They are the inventions of idealists and poets, cobbled together in the face of implacable realities, and without them we would likely perish. The ability to dream of better things and to introduce these into the web of reality is what separates us from lobsters. We must, however, remember that fairness will never trump voracity once and for all. Common decency must be rediscovered and reasserted at every moment. Like the little dead girl in the well, the beast that drives capitalism cannot die.
“Service Workers deserve middle class wages.”
One more time: Service Workers deserve middle class wages.
For May Day a poem by William Morris
Join in the battle
Wherein no man can fail
For who so fadeth and dieth
Yet his deed shall still prevail
MtnGoat, give up your subjectivist “libertarian” crap. Saying that your actions in a market, or the actions of gigantic institutions like corporations, don’t effect others is ridiculous, yet free market economics rests on the concept. Externalities, in case you’ve missed it, are huge and growing. People like you struggle with the concept because it doesn’t go into prices. The pollution, and its costs, aren’t paid by you when you, for instance buy copper. The people where the copper plant is located get sick, have to pay for the costs in their heal care system and years off their life, the pollution destroys their crops and local ecology which turns around and turns into economic costs for THEM, but what do you care right? It doesn’t go into prices so it doesn’t matter I guess. Same goes with our lavish use of energy resources. The average good travels about 1,100 miles before it hits your plate. Why? Because corporations have such hegemony and benefits as a result of economics of scale that they can drive out small local farmers. As we approach peak oil, THAT is bound to change as well.
Non sustainable, over-consumption of natural resources isn’t reflected in prices either. Relative scarcity is, but not absolute scarcity This cost will grow, at some point (many would argue we’re at that point) the costs will drown out the positives on this consumption and the disparity will continue to grow, leaving far less resources per capita in the future, decreasing people’s well being.
Regarding corporations: corporations are “limited liability” institutions. That means that they increase their profits the more they pass the costs on to third parties. If they were made to pay for costs that they create, the externalities I described, (what a concept, try doing the same to your neighbor and claim “limited liability”) they wouldn’t be so profitable. Corporations are also just as powerful and have just as much centralization collectively as any communist state, and to think that they have no power over you and me is…a word doesn’t exist to describe it…naive maybe.
Let’s not even get into the bond market, many times more concentrated than the highly concentrated securities market. Bond dealers only do well when goods inflation is very low, in other words when the general populace is making less and spending less. They do even better when people are not saving, as is the case now for the first time since the depression. FINANCIAL inflation is just wonderful on the other hand, and that has been going on for at least the last 20-30 years. The financial markets have less and less to do with actual economic activity. Their main effect is to give the already rich even more money, giving them more power to control markets (which according to people like you isn’t supposed to happen).
Capitalism has been a failure world wide. It’s done well in the industrialized countries. The developing countries, after years of extremely pro-capitalist policies, are still exporting mainly raw materials to the developed markets at low prices to be turned into finished products. In other words, they haven’t, and won’t, develop along these guidelines. When they try to keep raw materials in their countries for their industries to be export as finished products, the gig is up. We can no longer rely on them simply as funds of raw materials. Again, worldwide capitalism has worked for the developed countries, the rest have just been funds of raw materials for the developed countries. As the developing countries stop the gravy train, as is being attempted in places like Venezuela, countries like the US will have no option but to cooperate, and not simply attack and subjugate them like we have. The last refuge for capitalist is the financial markets and the IMF (ie the Treasury) are being slowly squeezed out of Latin America. Wait until the effects of this really take hold. Your head is gonna spin.
Why is Capitalism, especially Democratic Capitalism, still so widely embraced as a social ideal, even among the best and brightest Americans? My answer, in two words, is sexual oppression. Sexual oppression has so retarded and distorted the American personality that the vast majority of us are incapable of higher rationality, i.e. incapable of creative thinking that transcends the given Capitalist Culture that so limits us. How?
When people are sexually oppressed, they become stupid, which is different from being ignorant. Once an ignorant person is presented with facts and evidence, then s/he internalizes this information, and begins to change and grow. However, no amount of facts and evidence will transform or evolve a stupid person because s/he is unable to process this information. The human brain is an organ, and it functions properly only in communication with the central nervous system, the human body as a whole, and the rest of Nature. The more we regard sexuality as dirty, shameful, exploitative, or hostile, and the more we turn away from it or imprison it, the more we lose or reduce communication with our own bodies, with other people, especially the opposite sex, and with the rest of Nature, and the less deeply we think.
In other words, there is intelligence in Nature, or wisdom in the Universe, that is the innate birthright of every human being. This cosmic intelligence extends itself into humans, first, as physical vibration, then as sexual desire, then as love, and finally as Reason. If the natural/normal development of a person is not seriously damaged by the socialization process, then the child matures into a feeling, desiring, loving, and thinking political animal. However, in America, sexual desire (the second dimension of human existence) is not recognized, respected, and rewarded as Divine Inspiration, Creative Intelligence, or Instinctual Wisdom, which blocks the flow of natural wisdom, and so we fall out of balance with the universal harmony and cannot reach visionary rationality to see beyond capitalism.
Five hundred years of facts and evidence show clearly the destructive path of capitalism, yet the people remain blind to the facts that overcoming Capitalism would do more than anything else to solve our worst problems. More and more research, information, dialogue, and documentation is not going to enlighten the American people because the truth (of a completely different, qualitatively better way of life) is hidden, hindered, or blocked from coming to awareness by a culture of sexual oppression that is particularly damaging in childhood.
Some Americans know that we have an ecological crisis, a financial crisis, a social crisis, a political crisis, and a psychological crisis, but very few know that we also have a sexual crisis. Unless we address and heal the sexual crisis, then I don’t see how we are going to solve the other enormous problems we face because sexual sickness makes people unresponsive or under-responsive to global warming, Enron-scale corruption, torture and war, and it eventually makes people deranged and hateful, as in the case of the rise of the Political Right in America (not to forget the rise of Nazism in Germany).
Never before in history have people been so over stimulated and under satisfied on the sexual level, and this tension is responsible for a good deal of the unhappiness in America, which fuels the capitalist economy of endless substitute satisfactions. The-powers-that-be have a vested interest in preventing people from gaining insight into what is of true value in life, and they have been perfecting the art of culture deception and distraction (now effectively done through advertisement that offers everything but the real thing) for a long time, but the tension, unhappiness, and violence in America will continue to grow along with the GNP, propelling us toward Total Disaster or Exterminism.
Americans are directly preconditioned for capitalism by 300 years of Puritanism, and indirectly preconditioned for it by 500 years of Protestantism, and 2000 years of Christianity. Religion, with its anti-sexual message and preaching, is a big reason why many Americans cannot get beyond capitalism, but it is not the only reason. An older and deeper problem than the over-restriction of human sexuality by religion is 10,000 years of monogamy. Why?
The harmony, beauty, and evolution of celestial bodies is not imposed by any outside influence or power (in contrast to what those who believe in a personal god the father say), but is the result of self-balancing, dynamic interaction and communication between everything. Human society, in order to be in agreement with Nature, needs to follow this heavenly model of association and growth, which means that human communities should be free associations of individuals who find their own balancing points with one another on all levels of their existence, including sexuality.
In other words, free love belongs to the natural order of things, which is a truth contained and conveyed by sexual desire, or instinctual knowledge, but also unfortunately a truth that has become a casualty of sexual oppression in America (and throughout the modern world). In order to heal ourselves, and go beyond capitalism, we must lift the limitations imposed by monogamy, both as an institution and as morality.
The best and brightest people in America have designed and articulated various Utopian societies: semi-autonomous regional communities using bikes, electric cars, solar power, locally grown organic food, and so on, but none of these excellent models will be realized on earth if monogamy remains firmly in place because the jealousy, competition, frustration, and aggression that are inextricably bound up with it will continue to undermine and destroy human relationships, even among the best and brightest individuals. More important than all the outer changes we make, or attempt to make in our lives, is the inner work of freeing ourselves from monogamy because this is the value that enforces exclusiveness and isolation. It breaks down human connectivity, communication, community, and collective consciousness.
If we don’t put our sexual lives in order, according to cosmic principles, then we can’t build progressive communities for social change, even among the best and brightest people, and so real change will never come to America as a whole. An unwillingness to address and deal with the sexual crisis in America is why progressive movements and organizations fail; they are fragmented or broken by jealousy, competition, and monogamy, like society at large. If we don’t accept the universal truth about human sexuality, then no theory and activism will work because nothing (except free love) will hold us together for very long, and nothing will move anyone (enough) to do anything (enough). My suggestion is sexual liberation from religion and monogamy, not in isolation from ecological, social, political, educational, and psychological tasks and struggles, but as an integral part of building a progressive movement.
In sum, sexual oppression prepared the way for the rise of capitalism and now it blocks the way beyond capitalism. Anyone who thinks that the capitalist economy (that puts money-making at the base of society) is the best that we can do in the 21st Century lacks vision, and this lack of vision is rooted in a Culture of sexual oppression that makes people stupid and hateful by denying or over-restricting sexuality. Awareness that another world is possible is not achievable through intellect alone, no matter much how much information is available on the internet or elsewhere, for the answer comes partly and originally from Nature, which requires sexual openness and freedom if it is to reach the human mind.
Glenn Parton
MtnGoat, TRY having an argument based entirely around logic and fact and not straw men. Who here says that people should be paid EXACTLY the same? Saying there should be a cap on disparities in wealth is not saying everyone should be paid the same. The huge explosion in the differences in wealth are a result of the financial markets. The financial markets basically allow people to increase their wealth by clicking a mouse on a screen. No WORK goes into it, they play with some numbers, play with a currency or three and, bam, they have an extra zero in their bank account. It’s also been shown, even by people who are in the same boat as you are ideologically, that the financial markets have less and less to do with actual economic activity, the classical definition of inflation, only it’s financial inflation, making working people relatively poorer. In a world of increasingly scarce resources, decreasing per capita availability of water& non-renewable energy funds, it makes no logical sense at all. Your ideology is so 20th century.
MtnGoat, your mind is just as closed as anyone’s. To think that people should work hard at whatever job, even “pushing a broom” or on a loading dock and not earn enough to afford not being homeless is outrageous. But that is the current situation. Be fair. Anyone who works 40 hours a week should be able to at least support themselves including some sort of a place to live besides a homeless shelter. Our rich society should at the least include that.
As it is, your tax dollars are supporting WalMart’s refusal to pay a living wage. Their employees work for wages so far below the poverty line they qualify for medicaid and food stamps. Or do you think that they deserve to go without adequate food or medical care so WalMart can run away with even more profits?
These people are right. We’re not just talking about a capitalistic system, but a corporate empire out of control.
Many western democracies prove today socialism’s ability to administer heathcare in a highly efficient way, e.g. twice as efficiently as capitalism. These societies prove today socialism’s ability to deliver highly efficient, cost effective and low-impact public transport.
There is ample proof of socialism’s greater efficiencies and value for public benefit in the broader industrial realms while minimizing impacts, starting with energy production, and including agriculture and various heavy industries such as chemicals, metals, paper, textiles, machinery, buildings and infrastructure.
Beyond western democracies, people see evidence from authoritarian states of extremely high productivity from socialist enterprises. Cuban healthcare missions across Latin America and Africa is a prime example.
Even in the United States, public funded (socialized) research continues to lead, and is perhaps America’s most valuable export. US Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs have managed to deliver great value. These are unsung success stories created by armies of unknown public servants.
Progress of socialism is suppressed in the capitalist media. Socialism tends to minimize production inputs. Capitalism tends to maximize production inputs. And so, now as general ecological destruction escalates, people see socialism as more sustainable.
Socialism is alive and well. Very well. And it’s prime for growth, to further displace capitalism. Progressives should manage the growth by modeling proven successes, using common sense, and enlightening and empowering the people.
MtnGoat,
In a completely interdependent and competitive society, one must bargain with others to obtain the resources necessary for life and health. And in such bargains, the advantage goes to those with a superior bargaining position. And corporations possess the means for attaining and furthering superior bargaining positions, including the use of economic power to influence legislation and enforcement, and to warp the economic system and the culture (including influencing the information available and determining in part what is “common knowledge”), to the point that “barter in the marketplace” is a farce.
And when an inferior bargaining position means one must work at slave wages or starve, or even be without health care, or watch family members starve or suffer, and when one faces armed police for trying alternative means of securing the resources necessary, how is that not being forced to do the bidding of others?
Many people are fooled into aligning themselves with the interests of powerful corporations, as they imagine themselves to be powerful and independent and capable of making good bargains with others, when it is delusional and self-defeating to do so.
Let’s examine MtnGoat’s idea that “Labor in a market is *traded*, not stolen.”
For many years in the US, unions were outlawed, & those who attempted to organize unions to press demands for decent wages & working conditions were harrassed & beaten up by goon squads hired by big companies. These squads always acted in collusion with state authorities. After decades of labor wars, and during the economic collapse of the Depression, the right to organize labor unions was finally granted official recognition by the state.
The pressures of WWII & the huge prosperity wave which followed the victory then eased the antagonisms between labor & capital for some years. But within a very few decades, employers again began pressing for legislation & financial arrangements which would have the effect of weakening the position of labor, & strengthening that of capital.
One of Reagan’s first actions was busting the PATCO strike. Union busting is an activity in which the government takes the side of capital against labor. And in the past 25 years, “offshoring” & “free trade” agreements like NAFTA have become increasingly central to the functioning of the US economy. The federal govt, in adopting free trade policies, is siding with capital over labor, allowing employers to use Mexican workers who will work for 1/10 the wage of Americans, or Indians & Chinese who will work for 1/200 the wage of Americans. In all Republican administrations since Reagan, tax law has been systematically altered to benefit the rich, & to shift the tax burden to everyone else.
All of these govt policies are illustrations of administrations which came to office with the backing of Big Capital, acting in the interests of Big Capital. In other words, the state pretends to be “neutral” in disputes between social classes, but in fact regularly functions as the agent of the capitalist class.
Against the power of such forces, MtnGoat stands there, intellectually in his underwear, insisting that labor is “freely traded” and not coerced by the capitalist state. As though an American seeking to earn a decent wage can really compete against the combined forces of the state, which has destroyed the union movement, re-jiggered the tax system to favor the rich, & gone to great lengths to ship the jobs of workers overseas to others who work for no benefits & a fraction of the wage. // This is MtnGoat’s idea of the worker being able to “freely trade” his labor — as though nothing were involved except a worker going to ask an employer for a job, and being free to refuse it if the wage offered is too low.
Such is the level of intellectual integrity regularly displayed by the capitalist apologist.
If you think that the lack of externalities is not on the pillars of free market economics then I’d guess you’ve done very little reading on free market economics. I’m not going to do research for you. I will make it simple though. Go to google and type in externalities and, say, Murray Rothbard. Or externalizes and Milton Friedman. People like say that these costs should be paid in court. Basically, if a giant corporation pollutes my drinking water, no government should make them pay and we shouldn’t charge them for the costs directly. If they pollute my drinking water I should simply take them to court and sue them. I think, as long as you’re objective, you can see how ridiculous this idea is.
Are the corporate elites and investors who are trying to undermine the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED, and vastly popular, Venezuelan government attempting to “run people’s lives”? Can’t be, right? These are private corporations. Yes, the people of Venezuela did vote for Chavez, but what right do they have to enact policies that investors in other countries don’t like? Wait, I’m betting that Venezuelans are trying to run the lives of the investor elites right? How about what investors, our government, France, Canada and the UN have done to Haiti (with a very large role of US multi-nationals who rely on slave labor). Were they running the Haitians lives when they conducted a coup against their DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government?
By the way, you try a bit too hard to be “intellectual”. Articulate yourself here like you would if we were talking in person.
Here’s some Adam Smith quotes you should read and think about (what a commie huh):
“It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged.”
“the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore . . . is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public . . . to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers . . . but to narrow the competition . . . can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.”
“It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must . . . have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.”
The masters “never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen.
“We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject…”
“Masters too sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people.”
“The policy of Europe, by obstructing the free circulation of labor and stock both from employment to employment, and from place to place, occasions in some cases a very inconvenient inequality . . .”
Greed and all the other unproductive human traits have created the setup of the world. New economic ideas are needed, but there has to be a profound change in world consciousness such that people—many people—establish a lively connection with the best of their inner nature, which is peace and happiness. Without that liveliness of peaceful and harmonious inner nature, no amount of wealth or trinkets is ever enough, at least for some, and perhaps for the many who already live in the crosshairs of the guns of marketing and unbridled capitalism.
Real wealth is inner light, and from that real creativity also comes. Life falls badly out of balance when the pursuit of wealth becomes the goal. Without the pursuit of spiritual goals, real wealth is not attainable—and the tangible but false wealth that the few achieve (and control) today comes to them at the expense of the many.
There is enough to go around—but only if the few who now control the bulk of it realize that their greed creates poverty, that real happiness lies within, and that no man can claim to be wealthy when half the world’s people are hungry and struggling.
Great wealth is not in most people’s cards. Many people will have a lifetime of hard work no matter what the situation, and they will live modestly and simply. There can be great happiness in that as long as great struggle is absent from life. For all time, certain things must be done for everyone to eat, and many will have to do them. It is no shame, no crime at all, to do the work and do it even with joy.
But it is entirely possible that everyone can eat happily, be sheltered and secure.
It is a matter of world consciousness, which comes out of the sum of all the consciousness of every individual. Knowledge is available to help anyone raise his level of consciousness to ever-higher states of harmony, happiness, naturalness and effectiveness. The creativity of man is not limited, because man at his best is guided by the same laws of nature which govern the universe with perfect order. It is time for a new picture of the potential of human life.
www.uspeacegovernment.org
www.tm.org
Oh my lordy.. I skipped the article as I knew it would be garbage and came straight to the replies - and what a pile of misunderstanding they are!
99% of the bad stuff you blame on “capitalism” is nothing of the sort beyond the fact that governments are corrupt and sell their power on a daily basis to the highest bidder.
Earlier someone mentioned copper mining and bemoaned the plight of the copper-mining community. Yet capitalism is their best hope for finding alternatives while making the extraction of copper safer and cleaner.
And if people privately owned the areas affected by “externalities” then the ‘tragedy of the commons’ wouldn’t be the problem it is today.
I find it quite awesome that a bunch of the richest people on Earth are sitting there on their hi-powered but affordable computers, on their mass-produced chairs in their cosy heated or cooled homes, with their stuffed tummies and affordable clothing, affordable shoes and possibly their affordable TV or music system in the background, stating capitalism has “failed”.
Capitalism is the greatest thing that ever happened - its main problem is governments control it, which makes it corrupt as all heck.
Why will you lot never learn that giving government even MORE power is not the answer? Even when you end up with someone like Bush you still clamour for giving him and his ilk even greater power, even more say in our lives, even more control over the people.
The greatest thing that ever happened to humanity was the industrial revolution, which allowed people such wealth and independence that royalty has to change rapidly or lose control completely. That gave us the Magna Carta and every hint of democracy since.
The free market is democracy in action, vastly more so than casting a vote for Dumb or Dumber amidst a few million other votes. I’ve just noticed the post above mine mentions inflation and blames GROWTH for inflation! That shows how uninformed about economics you lot are - government’s fiat money causes inflation, growth brings prices DOWN!
Geez.
Carry on?
S.
Mtn, educate yourself and question. That’s my advice. Financial traders manipulate numbers to make money because they can. Not because they’re adding ANYTHING of substance to the world, not because it’s adding to efficiency, they do it because they can add numbers to their bank account. As I’ve said, if you actually educate yourself on the financial markets, you’d see that there is a growing acceptance, even by those “on your side”, that the financial markets have less and less to do with actual economic production. They are a giant, growing pyramid scheme.
Here’s a book that might help, and very cheap:
http://www.amazon.com/Democratizing-Globalization-Leverage-Tobin-Tax/dp/1856498719/ref=sr_1_1/102-0603561-0517752?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177971217&sr=1-1
mtn Goat wrote:
“Are we really going to expect people to go through years of work to learn highly skilled jobs only to get the same pay as someone who studied pushing a broom or clearing tables?”
Who works harder?
Who goes home more tired?
Who shouts “TGIF” (if they get weekends off at all - many don’t) the loudest?
And, aren’t you contradicting yourself? Undesirable dirty work should pay more - because of the short supply of people willing to do it compared to the glut of people with degrees these days. Supply and demand, remember? So, why have wages generally declined for service work?
“Educated” or even “talented” people deserve no more pay than any other worker, particular if a university education were free like it should be. The comfort and empowerment furnished by the job is benefit enough. I, for one, am a white-collar state-licensed “professional” myself, but I would rather like it if people collecting my trash earned $69K a year too. The only just way to compensate labor is effort expended - like I asked, who goes home more tired?
Are labor markets “coercive” (that favorite buzzword of rich, Ayn-Rand reading “libertarians”)? Well usually a gun isn’t used - although guns were certainly used places like the railroad yards near here in 1877, in Homestead, also near here, in 1892, In Ludlow in 1914, Matewan in 1920, and Harlan in 1975.
But no, guns aren’t normally used - just the threat of starvation and homelessness if you dare question what the boss offers you.
For one possible alternative to the capitalist workplace (no, I don’t agree with all of it) is a Parecon, go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
Well said, Mr. Jensen.
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” - Krishnamurti
Tijuanalibre - Venezuela.
“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter … heaven.”
“You cannot serve both God and Money.” - Jesus, Gospel of Matthew
“_Philarguria_ [capitalism] is the root of all kinds of evil.” - Paul, 1st letter to Timothy
Yes, I’m using the computer whose technology was created in the biggest socialist institution we have, the Defense Department, along with public universities (a positive externality provided by us).
The tragedy of the commons is your mentality. Who are you going to sell the ocean to? I go into the depths of the ocean and dump some sewage, who do I make a check to pay for that? How about the air? Can I buy a stock in air? If so, and you’re breathing, I’ll expect my payment soon. How can the “free market” get YOU, say a super rich investor, to not burn endless fuel in your private plane? The trading of pollution permits has worked wonders in Europe hasn’t it?
Yes, I brought up copper, as an example. Have you done any reading on the communities that surround these factories? Do you think they’re jumping for joy while they work in the factory and see their health deteriorate, all so you can buy copper for your use? I always love this thinking, yes we are taking over an asset in your country, while talking out the side of our mouth about democratic autonomy, and yes we are creating more costs than benefits for you locally, but isn’t it better than being dead?
At least if the financial institutions gave them funding for development, and not a Trojan horse to steal their resources, they could at least use the copper for use in THEIR industrial base. Then again, owners of the financial institutions also own the corporations that they’d compete with, and what impetus do they have to shoot themselves in the foot?
Captalism like any other fact of nature is not good or bad. It is the people who participate in it that are good or bad, and thus determine whether it is or not.
The author has told us who he is.
He says, the short version, that captalism is bad, because it is motivated by greed, an emotion. But it is not captalism which has emotions, it is the people participating in it.
He obviously has never made a trade with his fellow human beings and observed the justice that exists when two people participate in mutual charity. When he does it, he is trying to screw some one. Thus he see’s it as bad.
I am comming to the opinion that intelectualism is nothing more than what people do to justify how they feel. The most potent form of communication, is the one you don’t know is happening.
Smurfy, inflation at its core is more dollars per good. Population is increasing, consumption of natural resources (you know, the things we need to have a functioning economy) are being consumed more and more. There isn’t an ecological system in the world which isn’t now in decline. So per capita resource availability is going down while the monetary base continues to increase. If it doesn’t (whether it is “fiat” money out of fractional reserve banking or backed by something like gold, which in case you didn’t notice crumbled in the 20th century), interest rates go up and there’s a recession. I don’t expect you to pay attention to ecology, free market economics doesn’t take resource funds and waste sinks into account, which is one of the reasons why it is outdated. The financial markets are approaching an ecological wall and on the other side is either endless inflation or a new economic system of some sort.
Do you realize that there isn’t ONE definition for any economic term? I hope so, because people like you seem to think that YOUR definition is the only true one. Ask ten economists to define capital and watch the fists fly.
OK, give me a SINGLE country on earth which has developed without giant state involvement. Give me a single one. Korea, China and Japan have all had massive state development (and only went ape shit after they followed the advice you’re giving here). The US was the most protectionist country in the industrialized world up until recent decades. Europe was for nearly a century dominated by social democrats. Give me a SINGLE country that developed by utilizing the free market as you are articulating it here.
Yes the Gold Standard did crumble. It was too volatile to continue. Countries, when they went into debt, had to hand over gold and have their prices up down swiftly, when they had surpluses the opposite would happen. Counter cyclical deficit spending saved our asses numerous times, the Gold Standard made that extremely hard. Your fiat money talk is historically inaccurate. We’ve had a fiat currency since the 18th century, which is what fractional reserve banking is. The problem with the gold standard is that there is always more money in the system than there is a good backing that money up. When there is a run on gold the banks collapse, as happened numerous times under the Gold Standard. What sense does that system make anyway? Why should our well being be reliant on a single metallic substance? Why should purchasing power, in a world of diminishing natural resources, be determined in such a narrow way. It was a nice 20th century idea and we live in a different world.
This article is right on! Thank you Robert Jensen. Now comes the hard part, what is the alternative? One of those possible alternatives to Capitalism and also an alternative to what has been called socialism in the past is Participatory Economics (or Parecon for short).
ParEcon web site, many articles and resources.
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm
More on Parecon:
How can we replace the economics of exploitation and greed with an economics of equitable cooperation and solidarity? How can we put people in charge of their own economic life, rather than being controlled by corporations and markets? How can we foster economic well-being that benefits the whole society, rather than engorgement of the few?
Participatory Economics (ParEcon for short) is an exciting and unique type of economy proposed as an alternative to contemporary capitalism and also an alternative to what has been called socialism in the past. (ie. the centrally planned systems of the USSR, China, Cuba and so on)
The underlying values parecon seeks to implement are equity, solidarity, diversity, and participatory self management. The main institutions to attain these ends are workers and consumers councils utilizing self management decision making methods, balanced job complexes, remuneration according to effort & sacrifice, and participatory planning.
ParEcon seeks to build a directly democratic economic system, where in (through various modes of decision making), each member of the society has influence over decisions in proportion to the degree that they are affected by those decisions.
Intro to parecon:
http://www.zmag.org/alblacpe.htm
What did I say about a tax on currency transactions (which is far overdue)? Are we talking about the same James Tobin? The one who worked in right center US governments and bashes “anti-globalization” activists? Yeah, what a lefty. It’s more like people who believe in the religion of free market capitalism at all costs vs. logical thinking capitalists willing to question conventional logic.
I’m not buying your religion, it doesn’t make any logical sense to. Your entire ideology is 20th century and every time your advice has been followed it’s been a disaster. No thanks.
You aren’t applying logic that works in today’s world, you’re repeating someone else’s reasoning and ASSUMING it would work in todays world. I’ve brought up the big differences between now and the past century and, logically, there is no way the “free market”, especially as you define it, will work. It won’t. This conversation is going nowhere, I’m out.
johnOneOne, the Venezuelan economy is quite capitalist. How do you explain privately owned TV stations, bus companies, supermarkets and other businesses? Cpl Huguito is doing his best to undermine this, and if and when he suceeds, I have a feeling that Venezuela will be a lot less free and a lot poorer. However, suppose you are right. Congratulations, you have just named ONE “non capitalist” democratic country. Care to find me another? Good luck.
The Isreali Kibbutzim and similar intentional communities demonstrate a small-scale application of full economic socialization. Most (though not all) began to incorporate market elements over time, as the inhabitants realized they could all benefit from them.
I think a mixed economy is the most defensible option. The trouble with full socialization is that only a certain kind of person can live in a fully socialized economy, and socialization (and parenting, etc) can only do so much to configure a person. Essentially, socialism- especially the anarchist-leaning types- asks too much of human beings. We are all innately greedy, and have varying inate capacities for intelligence, kindness, etc.
Many people will make a rational decision (for themselves) to freeload if they get the same benefits whether they work or not. This ultimately leads to decline in living standards for everyone, until enough people get ticked off enough and the whole system collapses.
Bleh, what a mess of a debate. At the end of the day, the most rational people on both sides are still humans, and thus, impassioned, prejudiced creatures. Which is part of the reason both sides are wrong. So am I, of course, but I hope slightly less so.
My god. Logic that was used 50, 60 years ago doesn’t change, the environment that we opperate on does. That was my point, not getting your response.
People are the same? So we think the same way people did at the turn of the 20th century? Did they have more or less resources? Did they have more or less room to grow? Did they have to deal with global warming? Did they have to worry that worldwide aggragate growth might not be possible without passing costs on to future generations? Did they have to deal with “peak oil” and its implications? Was their economy built around the use of oil and did they have to find ways to change their entire economic system without, like we might have to. We had, for instance, a much better public transportation system then. The corporations and the government got together, passed a high way bill here, an “urban renewal” bill there, and we had American suburbia. But yeah, lets ignore that and repeat ideas that first appeared in the early 19th century. Why? I guess because you like the idea of a “free market”. That’s about it. Questioning your basic precepts is healthy.
By the way Jonathan, Albert is amazing. Have you ever read “The ABC’S of Political Economics”? It’s by Hannel (I think spelled wrong). If not I would give it a look.
MtnGoat your daily rant is really getting old, now you make no sense today, so give it a rest. You complain about others opinions, however your own is the same. Your project yourself all the time, look in the mirror and take a pill, every day you get up and kiss the god’s of your corporation when you clock in! Your life is theirs not yours. They own you, you do not own anything past your own skin.
I guess five minutes or less was a little optimistic.
There is such a thing as human nature, and it has constant and universal attributes independent of cultural variation. Not all of these attributes are “good”, nor are all of them “bad”. Obviousy, our debate here is over how best to deal with them. But we’re not going to get anywhere while people project their image of what the ideal human nature should be like (rather than is like) onto all people to make them fit into a preformulated ideology. It’s the old is-ought.
Okay folks. I think it’s time for us to start thinking outside the box here. As I see it, economic systems seem to evolve over time and adjust to changing conditions. It seems that when one system does not meet the needs of the majority of the people, the pendulum swings in another direction. My question would be, what big picture changes have occured in the world over the passed 100 years that have made our economic system devolve into one that is no longer meeting the basic needs of the worlds inhabitants?Assuming that human nature has not changed much over time, what is it that is basic to a functioning economic system?
As mentioned in other comments, the earth has finite resources that are now being spread over an ever growing population. Also, humans have become much more specialized in what they produce and by definition are economically interdependent. This is coupled with the fact that activity is now spread over much greater distances. Also, our basic needs have been redefined, expanded, and are distributed in ways never imagined 100 years ago. Our basic needs in the industrialized nations have gone way beyond just food, shelter, and clothing. Communication, power, transportation, medical care, education, water and sewer delivery systems, and other basic services now fall within the range of basic needs. In the past we could individually meet most of our basic needs, but that is no longer true. So, do we rearrange our needs and expectations?
So, what new system or combination of systems could meet the needs of the majority of the people without concentrating wealth or power? Clearly, our current form of business/trading structures (corporations) are geared only to profits, not rewarding the labor that produced the profits or serving the needs of the communities in which these corporations function. Also, what are the responsibilities of government in such a new system? Most governments currently are controlled and are made to serve corporate/capital interests. How would such a government be arranged so that this did not occur again? And where do taxes fit into all of this?
This is one Jensen essay with which I totally agree and why when people call me a “damn socialist”, I take it as a compliment.
Word to free-market fans. Yer never gonna get rich.
I am afraid I have to agree with goat and post on human nature.
I actually like post-post post. It is the first by him I read, and don’t
know anything about him. I just hope he isn’t some Nazi.
Don’t laugh. I once have a conversation with some neo-Nazi, and we had similar views …
for some 5 minutes, and … then I had a two-hour conversation with a hard core Nazi.
MtnGoat,
You jump to the conclusion that my concerns about unequal bargaining power require the assumption of agreements on objective reality and the existence of objective observers. The concerns I expressed require no greater level of agreement on objective reality or on the objectivity of observers than the general concept of law, particularly enforceable law, does in general applicability.
But now I see you claiming that private power is not dangerous because it does not involve guns. You really need to read more about US history, that of John Rockefeller, and the other early railroad men, and that of the history of mines. My gosh, man, private armies were used on a great many occasions, using guns to force the workers not to strike or to accept lower wages. And where private armies were not raised, corporate and other private power was used to get the government to intervene on the side of capital.
Oh, you say it would be ideal if corporations and other private powers did not get the government to do their bidding. And you cons call progressives naive! Then you might say we would be better off with a minimal government. There are many in Afghanistan who appear to be trying some form of that experiment right about now. You might want to go over there to check it out and see how it is working out for them.
As for human nature, it appears to be as malleable as ever, those darned adaptable humans. But, to the extent we do share some predispositions towards certain types of behavior, since humans evolved mostly in the past several hundred thousand years in small communal groups, it seems that human nature would be more consistent with some form of communism, rather than a completely impersonal corporate structure based on greed. At the risk of being very politically incorrect, I thought the whole motivation for early capitalism anyway was for men to acquire more wealth so they could acquire more women and have more children. Now, men cannot do that anyway, so really what is the point?
And there is no reason to believe that corporations were in any way inevitable, and they appear to have just developed based on the particular historical circumstances in Europe during the colonial and imperialistic era (allowing for raising capital in a manner to limited risk), more by historical accident than anything else. And now we find ourselves on this corporate train, this accidental vehicle, headed for a precipice.
Well, it’s easy to hate Neo-Nazis, but they’re disenfranchised people also. That’s why they get caught up in those kinds of groups.
I used to ride by a house that had a flag representing some sort of fringe racist organization. I often tried not to look at the house or the people that lived there since I didn’t want trouble. Well, one day I took a good look at the house and the two guys sitting on the porch. These two guys looked strung out and emaciated. They weren’t tough and they weren’t scary. They just looked sad, hungry, and poor.
The Nazi I met was a Lucent corporate lawyer; his father came from Germany after WWII.
Well, maybe he just preferred to pretend that he wasn’t a Nazi.
The Nazis tend to say things which are not necessary true. I wouldn’t believe in every word
a Nazi says.
By the way, you probably would like the Nazi I met; he just wanted all the weak … die.
MtnGoat,
Again, you are demonstrating wishful thinking. Private capitalist power, by its very nature, will seek every advantage, and by so doing will create abuse everyplace the government does not regulate or control, and such private power will seek to control and manipulate the government in every possible manner, and so will often create abuse even where the government does regulate.
And where the few acquire great concentrations of wealth, they will assert their influence over politicians and others so that the laws serve their interests and the courts serve their interests, and they will even influence the media and other means of communications so the common perceptions are that their control is just, and their interests are the interests of the society. That’s all fine and dandy if you are one of the few, but if you are one of the many it is a problem to be fixed, except of course for the house slaves, the overseers who do the master’s bidding, and the easily manipulated.
Certainly if the private power were well-distributed, then some utilitarian features could emerge, but experience has shown, that without government intervention, and what some call “redistribution,” wealth accumulates in a few hands. And those who are accumulating wealth, for their welfare and not societal welfare, scream “bloody murder” and try to confuse the common people into supporting their side. And all too often they succeed.
I assure you I’m not a neo-nazi (though I too have met one, and he seemed like a pretty nice guy).
While humans did evolve in small communal groups, these groups bore a number of inherent differences to any larger-scale application of the principles they embodied. Everyone knew everyone else, and they were usually members of a single extended family (a key factor, as people tend to favor close genetic relatives over distant ones). Also, groups fought between each other constantly- a 50% warfare mortality rate was not uncommon for males in prehistoric tribes. Utopia has never existed among humans.
At a certain point, we must make define what progress is. This in itself requires an evaluation of a constant human nature, otherwise we could simply socialize people to be happy with whatever their current conditions are. I think the most critical realization the progressive movement needs to make if it wishes to succeed in any real sense is to understand that utopia may be a physical impossibility. This does not mean there can be no progress. It means that human nature will always put a cap on it into the forseeable future.
Assuming we go by the old-fashioned “greatest good for the greatest number” definition of progress, then modernity and capitalism have been a smashing sucess. There are far more people on the planet than the older systems could ever have supported, and there are also far more happy people. Unfortunately, there are also far more unhappy people, and whether the ratio of unhappy to happy people has changed is a matter of debate. Obviously, attempting to make the unhappy people happy should be the chief goal of the progressive movement.
I assure you I’m not a neo-nazi (though I too have met one, and he seemed like a pretty nice guy).
While humans did evolve in small communal groups, these groups bore a number of inherent differences to any larger-scale application of the principles they embodied. Everyone knew everyone else, and they were usually members of a single extended family (a key factor, as people tend to favor close genetic relatives over distant ones). Also, groups fought between each other constantly- a 50% warfare mortality rate was not uncommon for males in prehistoric tribes. Utopia has never existed among humans.
At a certain point, we must make define what progress is. This in itself requires an evaluation of a constant human nature, otherwise we could simply socialize people to be happy with whatever their current conditions are. I think the most critical realization the progressive movement needs to make if it wishes to succeed in any real sense is to understand that utopia may be a physical impossibility. This does not mean there can be no progress. It means that human nature will always put a cap on it into the forseeable future.
Assuming we go by the old-fashioned “greatest good for the greatest number” definition of progress, then modernity and capitalism have been a smashing sucess. There are far more people on the planet than the older systems could ever have supported, and there are also far more happy people. Unfortunately, there are also far more unhappy people, and whether the ratio of unhappy to happy people has changed is a matter of debate. Obviously, attempting to make the unhappy people happy should be the chief goal of the progressive movement .
Sorry about the double post.
ezeflyer April 30th, 2007 1:17 pm
“The question is: is there time for some economic visionary to write a book (or put up a website) full of new ideas and for those new ideas to circulate enough to gain enough momentum to be implemented before . . . well, we won’t think too specifically about what could follow the word “before”.”
I haven’t read the books, but it sounds like C.H. Douglas was a visionary. He wrote two books: “Economic Democracy” and “The Old and the New Economics” in which he lists the systemic causes and solutions to the capital-controled economic problems we are facing today.
The article below is in part about C.H. Douglas and was written by Richard C. Cook who spent 21 years working at the U.S. Treasury:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COO20070426&articleId=5494
It is a long article, but definately worth reading.
” and there are also far more happy people.”
How do you know that?
post-postmodern,
Is it capitalism or science that has been a smashing success? Certainly, capitalism + science has had some success, but can you imagine capitalism having any success without the progress in science? I can’t. On the other hand, I can imagine science having success in providing for human welfare without capitalism.
As to progress, it is tricky to use simple utilitarian measures. Is that the greatest good for the greatest number of people alive today? Or people of the foreseeable future? Derek Parfit wrote a book a couple of decades ago on Future Utilitarianism which raised some interesting issues.
I think the great majority of us can agree that human survival into the foreseeable future is a good thing. We can also probably agree that improving the health and physical and mental well-being of those who survive is a good idea. And we can probably agree that a significant amount of genetic manipulation to aid in reaching these goals is a bad idea, as it could cause social instability and difficulty in creating group cohesion and compatible and consistent goals. And we can probably agree that a very small number of humans is worse than the number today, though we might find it impossible to agree on some ideal number. But maybe most of us would agree the number should be sustainable on this planet, though that does not mean the number could not grow with new technologies (now we live only on the surface of the land on a rock 8,000 miles in diameter).
And we probably could agree on reasonable limits on human nature, limits on what environments would be consistent with human mental and physical welfare. For example, at some point too much change too fast is too stressful to be consistent with such goals.
So there is much to agree on. However, as we continue to expand our historically small communal groups to larger and larger groups (tribe, nation, human race), there are obstacles along the way, and there will remain much to disagree on, including the extent to which capitalism is an aid or a hindrance to maximizing the future of human welfare.
“though I too have met one, and he seemed like a pretty nice guy”
OK. I have a question. There is something I don’t understand, and I hope you’ll help.
Obviously, English is not my native, but the way I understand the word “nice” a neo-Nazi can’t be nice. Similarly, I don’t understand why some of the Democrats repeat that Bush is a nice guy, etc.
What am I missing? Does someone who has a set of white teeth (own or acquired)is automatically
nice, regardless of the number of the dead bodies he leave behind?
I admit my judgement that there are far more happy people now than ever before is very debatable. I’m basing it mostly on the limited number of psychological studies that have been performed on the matter, all of which indicated that people’s individual self-assessed happiness level showed only slight variation across different lifestyles and social conditions. Unless people are literally starving, gravely ill, or in a warzone, they tend to self-adjust to an individual preset genetic happiness baseline (at least in some cases, people with clinical depression have a lower baseline).
I once spent a week in a tiny village in the central Mexican highlands. I don’t know if it was the “third world” but it certainly wasn’t the “first”. The people seemed happy, kids ran around in the street laughing just like anywhere else. It’s wierd.
I strongly agree that we need to account for the future. I’m not sure how. Getting people to think in the very long term will not be an easy thing to do in any system I can imagine, but it seems to be the only way. I’m constantly frustrated by friends who don’t care about species going extinct forever, and will not be swayed by any argument. Global warming? Let future generations deal with it. What can one say to that?
It’s going to a gamble.
It’s possible that populations will stabilize with increasing living standards, economies (of whatever type) will convert to trade in information rather than resource-heavy goods, and Malthusian disaster will be averted. That’s a bit optimistic, obviously.
As for the role of capitalism, I really don’t know. I think it’s clear that the markets work to some degree, and the fact that “black markets” emerge without direct oversight from culture or government is evidence of their basic compatibilty with some element of human nature. How to best balance markets with direct intervention or something else is going to be an issue for a long time, because the optimal balance will probably change constantly. Maybe we’ll eventually converge toward a Swedish-style welfare state.
I guess “nice” in American English means something like “a basically good-tempered, well mannered person who probably doesn’t wish destruction on all of his fellow humans, even if that is what the implementation of his political ideas would probably cause”.
Free health care, free medicine, long term security, pensions, free dental plans are always associated with ‘EVIL SOCIALISM’, yet the U.S. military is perhpas the only place in the U.S. that offers such a system to Americans. How ironic that this same system is used by a predatory corporate driven government to suppress global socialism. Socialism is merely a system that prevents capitalism from getting out of hand or in other words preventing the taxing of the poor and middle class for the sole purpose of enriching and further entrenching the very wealthy.
Long, mostly interesting post. I would like to thank those who contributed the singular most valuable resource to THIS posting: their time. Kivals: I particularly thank you for your eloquent explanations. Kudos, too, to Grant and Rebel Farmer. Glenn: I, too, feel sexual programming plays into this subject peripherally, but AIDS is a real inhibitor to the 60’s legacy of free love. In Sex Life of Savages by Malinowsky it was observed in African indigenous tribes that when teens were allowed to choose various sexual partners, they later formed lasting commitments. In US society, there is the great tension between the media’s emphasis on sex, and the “abstinence” nonsensical programs, rather than authentic sex ed/birth control. It seems that if an individual has some room to explore they are better situated to make a satisfying mate selection; but there are so many factors. Perhaps the premise should be LOVING others without needing that expressed on a polygamous basis, sexually. Of course the other “cure” is to become a Republican born-again and just pay for sexual services, and call it massage. Seems popular on K street today.