Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Machine Gun of Capitalism
Dead soldiers, peak oil and mind-boggling profits; praise Jesus, the machine's still working
Surprisingly moving Barack Obama music videos? The potential end of the writer's strike? Cute young deer being saved by helicopters? No no no no no. Here are your most deeply inspiring news stories of the month:
A flurry of pink slips fluttered over the job sector as corporate payrolls were sliced like sour pie. Foreclosures are skyrocketing and new home sales across the nation are plummeting faster than Britney Spears' serotonin levels. A nasty recession is either creeping or flooding in, depending on your perspective and how recently you purchased your home and/or tried to dump your Google stock.
Meanwhile, the largest corporation in the world, the one which has consistently raked in the largest and most appalling profits of any organization on Earth, a company so powerful and deeply influential to the machinations of our own nation, our government, the globe, so ingrained and unstoppable that no president, no administration, no nuclear warhead to its CEO's home planet stands a chance of slowing it down or altering its behavior in any significant way because there is simply far, far too much money involved in its nefarious endeavors, has recently posted the largest profit of any company in American history.
Yes, the Exxon Mobil corporation sucked in a staggering $11.7 billion in a single quarter (more than $40 billion for the year, a new record for an American company) thanks largely to record-breaking prices for a barrel of oil, which are of course only record-breaking because, well, the Bush administration has essentially engineered the economy and launched a bogus war and desiccated the American idea exactly so they would be.
Oh yes, two more trifling stories, buried beneath the nauseating Exxon headlines and the tales of looming economic struggle: More U.S. soldiers are dead in Iraq as a result of Bush's failed war, U.S. military spending in 2009 will reach its highest levels since WWII ($515 billion), insurgents have taken to strapping suicide bombs to mentally retarded women and nearly 100 more civilians are dead in another bombing in Baghdad because the U.S. troop surge is working so well. Oh wait.
Do you feel the righteousness? The inspiration? Can you sense the deep connection between these stories? Because the truth is, they merely add up to the heartwarming conclusion that, without a doubt, American capitalism is still firing on all cylinders. Praise!
Yes, the system is working just exactly as those in control of the nation right now wish it to be working, with the most dominant, ruthless corporations in the world (Exxon joined by Shell, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhilips et al) still making the most money in the most destabilizing and environmentally devastating manner possible, while poor uneducated kids die like chattel in unwinnable wars trying to secure a tiny bit more of the source of their profit.
And somewhere in between, the nation's overall health and well-being are sacrificed like dazed lambs to an ignorant god, with our government offering up only the most meager, desultory efforts to keep it functional so as to not induce all-out fire-and-pitchfork revolt.
Is that too simplistic? Too reductive? Not even close. Hell, you can distill it down even further. For if you understand, as most sentient creatures on the planet now do, that this "war" is merely a particularly bloody chunk of a particularly brutal, fraudulent national energy policy spearheaded by Dick Cheney and beloved by Saudi Arabia and Halliburton and most of Texas, then it is no stretch at all to say that we are sending American kids to their deaths exactly so Exxon can continue to make $3 billion in a single month (or: $100 million per day, $4 million per hour, or more than $1,000 every. Single. Second).
Or how about this for dark math: $40 billion for the year, 4,000 dead U.S. soldiers ... that's a cool $10 million in pure profit for every American soldier BushCo has thrown to the wolves of petroleum, just for 2007 alone. Even if you factor in the 20,000 wounded, paralyzed and brain damaged U.S. soldiers - not to mention the record number of military suicides - on a body-by-body basis, you've still got yourself one hell of a sweet profit margin. See Dick Cheney's vile, crooked little grin? Now you know where it comes from.
This, you might argue, is perhaps the bleakest way to look at American capitalism, as an instrument of war and death and gluttony that serves only the most cretinous corporate masters at the expense of, well, everyone else. This is the capitalism of the hard right, a particularly ruthless type that happily sacrifices quite literally everything - the environment, health, human life, God, national identity, the stability of future generations - for the sake of immediate and unchecked profit.
It is the kind of system, furthermore, that brings with it a huge, nauseating sense of shame for how we have approached the world, pouring a vague disgust over the nation like a cancerous sludge. This is perhaps BushCo's cruelest gift of all: tragically convincing us that this strain of capitalism, a furious weapon of greed and disgrace, inviting all manner of corruption and destruction as it brings out the absolute worst in the human animal, is the only flavor there really is.
But then again, no. Maybe there's something else, a flipside we've forgotten amid the insane oil profits and dead bodies and global mistrust. It's the awkward truism that American capitalism is potentially capable, despite its dark core of profit, despite its frequently poisoned heart, of tremendous creative opportunity and ingenuity. Like porn, like God, like wisdom and plutonium and very, very dark rum, it's all in how you use it.
Here, then, is perhaps the most dominant question surrounding the upcoming big transition, as the nation prepares over the next year to finally rid itself of the cancer of Bush: Are we still capable of reshaping the capitalist demon, injecting it, on a national scale, with something like conscience and compassion and responsibility, sans the need to sell your mother, rape Alaska, or bomb ancient cities and kill pathetic foreign dictators in a pitiable attempt to vindicate your dad? Is such a turnaround even possible anymore?
Because this nasty truth remains: Bush or no, Exxon and its nefarious, insanely powerful ilk are ramming full speed ahead, undertaking more incredibly brutal, land-raping techniques as you read these very words to get at the Earth's remaining supply of oil, sucking up tar sand and coal and anything else possible to maintain profit and power. They are, and will continue to be, utterly relentless and, at least for a number of years to come, quite unstoppable.
There is no eliminating the dark side of capitalism, the gluttony and the greed and the violent underbelly. There is only minimizing, shifting the emphasis, changing the pitch and angle of approach, trying to take what is, at its very heart, a flawed and self-destructive system, and making it into something proud and interesting and vibrant, something actually worth defending.
Can it be done? Is it still possible? No matter how many poetic Barack Obama speeches, no matter how many pragmatic Hillary Clinton promises, it's a question that seems far bigger than both of them. And the truth is, it's really the only question that matters.
Thoughts for the author? E-mail him. Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SFGate and in the Datebook section of the San Francisco Chronicle.
© The San Francisco Chronicle
80 Comments so far
Show AllRebel Farmer; Thanks for the muckraker link. I read some of it. Mukaksey is a poor excuse for a human being, but when you had Feinstein, Schumer, and Specter on the panel supporting him...the thought of them curdles my blood.
Rebel Farmer; Mistake! The site is www.greenfestivals.org not dot com.
Rebel Farmer,
Simple answer here from me is "f him, he needs to go as well". We need to take page from Argentina imho, and keep throwing them out until they get the message, if that's what it takes. And yes, my green friends, that includes Obama or anybody else. You work for the people, or get out. Simple. :-)
Rebel Farmer; Back again. You're ahead of me on the Vladimir Megre books. I just learned of the Ringing Cedars link two days ago and briefly read some of the stuff. Anyway, in William Kotke's article about Russia, he describes the 'Kin Domains' idea about selling (at an extremely low price) small plots of land for farming or cottage industries, or a combination. Each family choose what they want to do on the land.
Back to your question on 'Community Sovereignty' and how those of us interested in this concept can somehow link up to carry on the conversation and share ideas. I have a few aquaintences in independent media ( radio and documentary films ) and I'll see what advice they can offer for starting something. How about an actual convention with guest speakers lecturing. In between the talks, we get to meet one another and share our ideas. Possibly a website called 'Community Sovereignty' specifically set up for this activity? For those folks without computer access (and there are a lot ), we can print a newsletter for mailing.
Rebel, Have you ever been to a Green Festival? I went to the one in San Francisco this past November and the one in Nov. 2006 at the same place. They have them annually in S.F., Chicago, and will be adding more cities as the public's desire for ecological and environmental knowledge expands.
Go to www.greenfestival.com and examine the site. You can actually listen to some of the lectures on the internet or better yet, purchase whatever CD's or DVD's you'd like. (for the cause) The eco-friendly products are terrific.
Peace and Harmony.
Hey, peaceman, I'll catch you on the flip-flop in the am PST. I have to go to sleep now. Today has drained me out pretty much. Need a recharge.
Thanks
Peaceman: Too late. America died today.
It's been a very sad day for America. I wonder if anyone else noticed.
FISA died today in the Senate.
And today the Congress was neutered and the Constitution died by the hand of Mukasey.
Read 'em and weep:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/michael_mukasey/
I can hardly breath right now. The tears keep welling up. It's like someone I cared about deeply died or slipped into a coma. I don't know if I can bear it any longer.....
Peaceman, please contact: rebelfarms@peak.org.
Rebel Farmer; I've got to take care of some chores but I'll reply to your question in a few hours. Please revisit this site.
Peace Man: Thank you VERY much for the Ringing Cedars link. Spent quite a bit of time reading at their site. And I WILL read some more. I also think Kivals is on to something along with Jan S. There must be a way for all of us interested or commited to "Community Sovereignty" to link up somehow to carry on the conversation and share ideas. Any clue as to how we could do this?
Another great article by Mark Morford. And the comments by you folks.
Volumns have been written about capitalism, socialism, and about every other 'ism' conceived in someone's mind since the dawn of civilization. Definitions and concepts change over time, and we interpret ideas differently as conditions take on new meaning. The eternal struggle between the 'conquerer' and the 'conquered' has been going on since prehistoric times. Whether in commerce, governance, militarism, moral conduct, ideology, and everything else which contributes to conflict between two or more people, groups, or nations.
Where is the line drawn that says enough is enough? For anything?
I have always thought the capitalist has an insatiable appetite for more and more and can never be satisfied. You can list thousands of examples, individual or corporate, backed up with facts and figures. Those that say socialism makes a person lazy and inhibits innovation on an individual level are, in my opinion, a bit stunted on that form of thinking. They also can list a few societies ( not many ) that were behind the capitalist societies. Here is the difference. When each individual in the community, ( and for the sake of conversation I'll call "community" two or more families, neighbors, villages, communes, states, or nations) contributes his or her best efforts or innovations for the betterment of society in general, that individual/s are honored and given the appropriate gratutity. I'll list one case. What was more "innovative" than The USSR's 1957 launching of 'Sputnik', the first satelite? In fact, I'll add one more. The fantastic inventions and ideas of Nicola Tesla, the electrical wizard. Our great American hero, Thomas A. Edison, swindled and cheated Tesla on money for his great contribution to humanity. Yeah, Thomas A. was also an inventor, but a capitalist with a big appetite for $$$.
I like what Rebel Farmer calls, "Community Sovereignty" . How much money and posessions do we really need in order to make us happy and "feel" secure?
Paul Bramscher,
As you are probably aware, I believe in this context "free market" and "free trade" mean free from government interference, though as Chang points out, the analysis can be of unbounded complexity, as subsidies, tax policies, support of infrastructure, and even the support of certain types of education (along with virtually every other governmental action) can be indirect means of interference. I probably generally agree with your comment as I believe that "free" without specifying "from what" is generally nonsensical.
WmC,
I highly recommend "Bad Samaritans" and "The Shock Doctrine" too if you have not read it.
I am outta here, as I have work to do!
Thanks for the book recommendation, kivals. Actually, I've never read Adam Smith myself, I'm kind of waiting for the Cliff Notes version to come out.
On the other hand, I've never read the Bible from cover to cover, but I know damn well that people who call themselves "Christians" do not abide by the teachings therein, any more than the people who call themselves "free-market capitalists" abide by Adam Smith's teachings.
Free-anything represents an abstract class of philosophical/logic problems. Free market never existed (except as an oxymoron), since free access to resources hasn't existed since the dawn of agriculture or thereabouts.
It becomes a matter of "free" "from what". Freed from democratic regulations/limits? Free from consumer protections? Free from environmental safeguards? Free from labeling requirements? Free from what?
It's certainly not free in the free access sense.
Take the American Dream for example: Two of its more glowing attributes is that it is not only unattainable but unsustainable as well. It is the genie in a bottle marketing scheme slash meme of the last hundred years. It is the manifest destiniy of capitalism. The infinite pursuit of unhappiness and it is destroying the world.
Capitalism cannot be a self-determining process cum "entity." Because we have let it definite itself, it has defined us in the (its) process.
WmC,
You wrote: "And anyone who believes the US operates under a free market, capitalist economic system should be forced to actually read Adam Smith. We don't even come close."
A recent book by Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang called "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade," provides an informative look at the history of so-called "free trade" and the "free market." He explains that Adam Smith's ideas developed when Great Britain was achieving technological and industrial superiority, and "free trade" only makes sense for nations in that position, and has never worked well for nations without such superiority.
Daniel David believes in free markets, right?
There are an infinite number of possible forms of human economic/social organization, and infinite subsets of those forms that could potentially work fairly well to provide for the common welfare. Those in elite positions in any one form are the first to tell you that form is the only possible form (of course to minimize the pressure to change which would probably prove disadvantageous for them).
What motivates social animals like humans -- social status, more than anything. Read any book about scientists or mathematicians striving to be the first to solve some problem. They are rarely concerned with money but instead want the respect of their peers, to improve their social status in the groups that mean the most to them. Watch some kids playing sports. Again, it rarely has nothing to do with money and everything to do with social status.
Captitalist systems use wealth as the determiner of social status and thus motivate productive activity to a large degree with the pursuit of money. That leads not only to enormous waste but to great and unnecessary danger in the competition for dwindling resources. It does not have to be that way, and we are finding that if we continue on that path, catastrophe awaits.
Daniel, at first I couldn't agree with what you had said about Capitalism, because it has simply evolved into a kind of "elitist monetarism" or "thatcherism on steroids". I believe that Capitalism can only work, if you are comparing like with like, all around the World. This is where Capitalism, in my opinion, falls down. Capitalism, in it's present form, does not provide equal opportunity for everyone. It relies on free market policies, which in turn look for the cheapest labour markets, in order to service the perfect supply and demand model. This results in outsourcing industry to the sweatshops of Asia and Africa, benefiting only the rich elite. We then have the problem of economic immigration to our own countries, which results in unfair competition for the indigenous labour force, thus forcing down wages and again benefiting the rich elite.
We are living in times when the top 5% own 90% of the wealth, with 80% either struggling or living in poverty. This is a situation which should not exist in the richest most advance countries in the World.
We need a new system, and I would call it Progressive Socialism, where you are able to regulate a person's income, by having salary scales for each profession. You would have a progressive tax system.
I agree with COmarc, when he talks about limiting how far a person can fall into poverty. We should also set limits on personal wealth, but be aware that there has to be some reward for excellence and personal achievement.
We have too many examples of excesses of wealth in Western society, and a culture built around materialistic gain. Why is a soccer player paid £10 million a year, whilst the Prime Minister is on approximately £160 thousand?
We are now living in an age when we are seeing an immoral distribution of wealth, and it is responsible for a whole host of the World's problems.
One of the benefits of steeply progressive income tax (and estate tax, too) is that it can cause profiteers to know that profiteering TO EXCESS only leads to forfeiting those extra profits to the tax. It's therefore possible for business owners to consciously choose offering lower prices to customers or extra pay and benefits to employees, or even employing extra people over "just giving it to government" in the end.
This is positive. So is the choice that many wealthy individuals make to leave fortunes to charity--rather than to the estate tax.
It's the Empire. It's the Oligarchy. Here's how they do it:
Male supremacy; Gender slavery; Human slavery; Massive child abuse; Constant war; Genocide.
It's the Empire. It's the Oligarchy. Here's why they do it:
To steam shovel wealth, private law, and raw power into their hands by removing it from us, forever.
It's the Empire. It's the Oligarchy. Has not changed in 4000 years.
In many ways, I've come to think of the 35 year Roosevelt Legacy like Spartacus and his slave revolt. Gave the boys in Rome a turn or two, but in the end, they crushed the opposition, lining the Appian way with crucifixes made flaming torches in the night, and Order was restored to the Empire. For a while. There were so many bodies and the light was so bright, you could read a scroll at midnight, if you were rich enough to own a scroll and if you could read. Master always said education was wasted on the lower orders, "the trash", "the filth", "the muck" - that's us in the Empire.
Like I said, 4000 years.
Take it back, or lose it forever. It's about what you believe.
Peace.
Capitalism has run its course. Now the only thing that is going to save the human species is cooperation. Call it what you will but we all must cooperate. The problem we have gone over the edge and cannot return. So be it.
Mark Morford is absolutely correct in pointing out that a good portion of the US defense budget is, in fact, a subsidy to the oil companies. No credible economist would argue otherwise.
I believe he is incorrect in suggesting multinationals are inherently powerful entities. In fact, they have only as much power as governments give them. Their profits are only as large as allowed by law and tax policies.
Anyone who believes capitalism is inherently evil should read Amory Lovins' "Natural Capitalism" or E.L. Shumaker's "Small is Beautiful".
And anyone who believes the US operates under a free market, capitalist economic system should be forced to actually read Adam Smith. We don't even come close.
I have yet to see any mention of breaking up the oil industry ala AT&T into the baby Bells. As far as I know, the laws against creating monopolies still are on the books.
The dark side of capitalism IS capitalism---Whatever good it has ever done historically has been window-dressing and "collateral benefit" to its main mission---RAPE. If that seems too simple, talk to a Native American. And people who think that "there's no motive to do anything without the profit motive" are living somebody else's lie made for them. Without profit and differences in wealth we'd "all be the same"? Ridiculous. Without capitalism's "healthy competition" (surely a phrase headed for the dustbin), the Chinese would come and take all our refrigerators? WAKE UP AND FIND OUT WHY YOU'RE ALIVE, FIRST---for PROFIT never was and never will be a reason to live or a means of building a truly better planet....
Seems odd: we appear to have more in common with the "terrorists" than we do with the operators of the predatory corporations.
There is nothing wrong with using capitalism as an econmic engine. But like any engine it requires a regulator.
Liberals has understood for a long time that utopian perfection is impossible..... that capitalism is not a system of morality, but overly centralized economic controls suggested by extreme totalitarian/Statist points of view brings its own set of problems and corruption that can certainly be just as violent.
The key is to see capitalism for what it is; not more, no less..... and then ensure the processes of capitalism are practiced within a context of moral public policy.
I don't see how on earth after the hundreds of years of the failed series of experiments that is capitalism en masse, that anybody can say that it's anything but tyranny. Don't believe me? Read People's History of the United States. But that's ok, the socialism that you reject is what makes anarchism necessary. Think about that for a while.
The cost of the wars half way round the world from the US of I depends apon whom you ask and how you calculate, but its at least $12 billion a month in basic running costs. Ignore the accumulating system, human and national costs, then that just wipe out quarter profits posted by big oilers. Even if all those profits were fully expropriated to pay for the war, it would still be a major loss making venture. The price of oil needs to rise between 3 to 5 times in current dollar value, to break even in this crude accounting. If the price of oil rose that much, the value of the US dollar would correspondingly fall, since its tied to the oil price so much, and so the cost of the war , getting resources and fuel, would rise by the same amount. Therefore, no matter how hard you try in Iraq, and how high the oil price and profits rise, the US of I will lose financially.
Rebel Farmer; It certainly does. Thanks for the link to 'Yes Magazine' as well.
Check this out, Rebel. Two days ago I read the article by W. Kotke about the "Kin Domain" plan in Russia. I wrote about a sentence or two in yesterday's Common Dreams article by Lisa Marginelli, 'Five Myths About Greener Energy.'
Also. go to www.ringingcedars.com and see what you think.
I know you are in the communal movement as I read your posts. Community Sovereignty...sounds good! Really. Sometimes we have to go back in order to move forward towards progress.
Tax the wealthy and utillize the funds to repair Katrina victims losses and tornado damage
Peaceman: The book looks fascinating. It seems to tie into many of the efforts that are happening and coming to life in South America. If you didn't catch the link above, here it is again:
http://www.yesmagazine.com/default.asp?ID=222
Over the last several months many of us have talked about community movements. I have termed it Community Sovereignty. I think it is inevitable that we have to go in this direction to survive and to allow the planet to heal.
All Morford writes so well of is in the box. To find a light to the path out - They're Building a Box - and You're In It - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.html
Jan Steinman; Have you read anything by William H. Kotke ?
Go to www.gardenplanetbook.com if you are interested. I read another one of his articles a few days ago called...'Russia To Become An Ecovillage Nation ? Interesting idea.
It appears to me that there a number of very intelligent people making this problem more complicated than it needs to be.
Most will agree that pure socialism will not work as there is no motivation to do any more than absolutely necessary as all share alike.
On the other hand, pure capitalism wich we are seeing now is not working either, as the greed will not permit Reagans "trickle down" propaganda to work, and we are soon going to have a nation of a few rich and a lot of hungry slaves.
The only method that will work is for our government to regulate basic services just enough to provide a decent living for all the people, and return to a reasonably progressive income tax so that the rich and large corporations get to help out with the general welfare instead of only making their stockholders wealthy.
Now, we could vote for a Repug warmonger like McCain or a fair taxer like Huckleberry, who wants to throw out the income tax and put on a sales tax on everyone that would finish the average person off in a hurry. Of course he wants to rewrite the Constitution using the Bible for a guide, so that would keep our mind off starvation.
Or, we could support either Democratic candidate and back up Bush`s tax cuts for the wealthy as they intend to do and look after our own people for a change. Then we might just eventually have a mixture of socialism and capitalism that would keep our country operating with some chance of a decent life for everyone.
sorefeets, I gotta ask about this: "democracy and capitalism cannot be made to work together"
Umm… can you provide any examples of the alternative? I can't seem to think of any democracies that weren't capitalist, to some degree…
Big_Money, the problem today is not capitalism, per se, but CORPORATE capitalism. Capitalism by it's nature is ultimately unsustainable, as we live on a planet whose resources are finite. It would be impossible to use them indiscriminately and forever without us running out eventually.
I am of the opinion that despite the obvious problems we now face, our evolution as a species has proceeded at the pace it has BECAUSE of our adoption of capitalism. (Obviously not everyone has to the degree that we need right now, but there is no denying that at least some of us have, and we are the torchbearers.) What we need to do is to take what we've learned and not be afraid to live it. Things WILL change, for the better, if we do.
Where we went astray was is 1886, with the decision by the Supreme Court giving corporations the same rights as individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment. Little known, Fun Fact: much like The Chimp's "signing statements" and executive orders that have essentially created the laws- independent from their original intent as passed by Congress- the "law" that created "corporate personhood" was actually a note by a court clerk who transcribed the justices' decision. In actually, their decision was that corporations did NOT deserve the same rights as individuals, but by the time it was discovered- no internet in those days- the system favoring corporations over just plain folks was firmly in place.
Same with the "laws", in 1913, creating the Federal Reserve, which is actually a private bank supported by and for the benefit of the multi-nationals. For those who have not yet seen it, I highly recommend the documentary film, "America: From Freedom to Fascism". (It's available on Google Video.)
These two actions have probably done more to corrupt what could have been a useful system, if we had been able to hold our more base instincts in check and were willing to transcend it in the end when we outgrew it. (One country which has done this to a large degree is Norway, which Michael Moore profiled in the outtakes to "Sicko" on DVD.)
Well, because of these actions by a very fucked-up group of individuals with an agenda, we've arrived at the point where we need to evolve immediately, much sooner than we would have otherwise. But evolve we must. Our only other choice is to perish.
Thanks ricshev for the info. I'm really interested how the native peoples are taking back their democracy. Since it probably isn't going to happen here in my lifetime, I really want to get down and dirty with people who have governments that are actually operating for people NOW. Thant's why I'm having such a hard time figuring out which country to go to in South America. So many are doing such great things. All different but interconnected. One problem, though, is that I am "language impaired". My Spanish pronouncisation is great, but my understanding is ziltch even after 2 years in high school (many long years ago).
No, capitalism can't work. It does depend on growth and there are limits to growth. As many people have pointed out, cancer eventually kills its host. American capitalism is killing our planet and millions of the humans on it. It is, I agree, quite adaptable. I can't believe it's lasted this long. Endless war, exploitation of poor people in other countries and borrowing insane amounts of money seems to have worked so far.
But, think about a sustainable economy. Say you work in a washing machine factory. After a while, everyone has washing machines. What do you do? In capitalism, you must continually find new markets, or make machines that break down quickly.
In a sustainable economy, you quit making machines for a while. Does that sound weird to Americans? It does, because we are dependent on wage labor to provide for our needs. If our factory shuts down, we are screwed.
But think about simpler times. When the horses were all shod, did the blacksmith keep pounding out more shoes? When the fields were harvested, did people keep walking the rows? When everyone in the family was clothed, did the mother keep sewing? Say you lived in Tahiti. When you caught enough fish for dinner, did you keep fishing?
People can get together and provide for everyone's needs, and then take a break! Why not? That's why capitalism was so resisted at the beginning. Our forefathers and mothers had way more time to party than we have. They had festivals all year.
We can get together, cooperate to provide neccessities of life for everyone and then call it a day, until more needs come up.
That's not capitalism, but it's a better life.
Hey Rebel, may I suggest Ecuador?
www.montesuenos.org
www.brianoleary.com
Beyond Empire: You got it! I would add that decentralization is critical, particularly for basic services and needs like food and power. Further, because access to and the content of information needed to be informed citizens is critical to sustaining democracy. I thing that the Public Broadcasting System is totally broken. They are just like the regular MSM when it comes to the news these days.
COMarc: Just send those thank your cards to the congress critter of your choice. cc the administration.
Jan Steinman: Excellent, as always. You will also note that your definition of capitalism is local and community based by nature. I like it. Thanks!
Captn 72: Your question certainly deserves an answer. But I don't have one. And I don't think it really relates so much to capitalism as it does to economics. Capitalism doesn't rely on growth as a driver. Greed does.
Go to the link below> It is from the Summer '07 issue of Yes! Magazine and is devoted to how South American countries are dealing with a post-capitalist world. What all the different countries are doing is really inspirational and informative about what could be done in the U.S. I just can't decide which country I want to immigrate too.
http://www.yesmagazine.com/default.asp?ID=222
John R., if these were much earlier times I might be inclined to agree with your call for a socially responsible capitalism, if our imperfect, unconscious, and essentially selfish tendencies could somehow be tempered with foresight and compassion. (I do agree with your assessment of the situation, however.)
Unfortunately, today we are faced with the twin cataclysms of global warming and peak oil, which the system we have created, so cemented into place and based on the profit motive, cannot and will not address in the extremely short time we have left to address them.
Although suppressed, the technology does exist today to ameliorate their most immediate effects. However, we must dedicate ourselves to our doing so, such as using our remaining resources judiciously and cooperatively to prepare the entire globe (not just our small portion of it) to move beyond our suicidal reliance on fossil fuels, including solar, wind, and hydro. (Sorry folks, but these false panaceas won't come anywhere close to meeting our energy needs at ANYTIME in the future. Neither will carbon tax credits, or much of anything else being put on the table by the corporate capitalists, including the completely false and managed presidential elections we're currently subjected to. Along with a litany of other distractions too numerous to mention here, they are but the tactics of those who cling to the dying paradigm, and are being used by them as smokescreens in order to divert our attention from what we could be doing, by those whose interests are in things remaining relatively the same.)
So what will save us (if we even deserve to be saved)? I believe only love, understanding, and cooperation, STARTING AS CLOSE TO YESTERDAY AS POSSIBLE, and a willingness to IMMEDIATELY begin living with as much integrity as we are aware of possessing, as a culture, yes, but more importantly, as individuals. In every moment. Only you know the form it will take for you. But, YOU DO KNOW. And you must start living it NOW.
Some of you will chide this as being pie-in-the-sky and insult me for what you feel are my naive and even "unpatriotic" attitudes. And then, if you think about it, you'll realize that there really IS no other way.
Blessings, all.
Regulated capitalism with a dash of socialism is what made our country great, once upon a time.
Today we have unregulated capitalism (Banking, Insurance, Oil, Agribusiness, Pharmaceutical are all cartels that fix pricing and evade taxes) with a heavy dose of socialism (military, security, intelligence, police, fire, health care for the poor and old that the insurance companies want no part of it, welfare, education, prison complex - 2 million incarcerated, subsidies for rich farmers including Rockefeller and Gates, corporate welfare - bailing out banks too big to fail, welfare for Israel - 3 billion per year).
We then provided tax incentives that allowed our manufacturing base to export our means of production and capital built up from our labour to leave for countries with cheap labour w/o any penalty or reimbursement.
When the capitalists control government you have Fascism, or as Mussolini said, Corporatism, and thats exactly what we have. We only socialize that which capitalists see as being unprofitable, and what is profitable is privatized. The military is paid for by the people, at great cost, but it is used to mainly to benefit the capitalists to secure resources, and enforce free trade and investment in other countries.
The only solution is to nationalize the Food, Energy, Banking and Health Sectors and scale down our military to use it only for national defense.
To quote John Trudell,
"While you seek material Advantage,
The sound of flowers dying,
Carry messages through the wind,
Trying to tell you about Balance,
And your safety."
Relevant videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vya5aFki_xk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHS6392MzEs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmKoZqB2nM4
Listen to the voice of 10,000 years and learn wisdom.
rtdrury said "But the question for today is whether those opportunities result in net benefts to the society or not, and this depends on whether the capitalism is healthy or rotten"
That's a good point too... It is possible to have ethical capitalism. It's good to work hard and be compensated accordingly... what's bad is the unfettered greed that puts profits before people that we see these days. That's the problem though, you can start off being ethical and running a good, responsible business... but then you start falling short of cash, so you get investors... and those investors demand profit... so you cut corners, slash wages, outsource production... and next thing you know, it's profit over people. Small Business == Good Capitalism (generally)... Big Business == Bad Capitalism. I will always try to do business with small businesses, even if that means I have to pay a little more. Example: Buying a DVD of a movie... big box store has it for $19.99... Mom & Pop video store is selling it for $26.99... I'll cough up the extra $7 to support the small business...
Gorsegrower - or - The greater the inflation, the bigger the profits, and the less the value of everyone else's dollars.
With the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich, all the politicians populating congress...from the most conservative republican to the most liberal democrat are equal parts of the problem...fish swimming in a river of free market capitalism and deregulation...a river flowing into a cold, bloody ocean of corporatism, militarism, and economic slavery. All are equally dedicated to disaster capitalism...but perhaps the democrats...Clinton & Obama are more dangerous than their conservative counterparts. Liberals in office perpetuate the myth that there are only two choices. Maybe we'd be better off with a couple more decades of republicans to throw our country into a tailspin that will open everyone's eyes. I still believe that capitalism can work, but only a socially responsible capitalism...tempered by extensive social programs. I think Hugo Chavez had it right when he nationalized the oil industry and gave the proceeds of Venezuela's natural resources back to the people...in the form of FREE healthcare, public education, subsidized housing & food, and basically made the decision to take care of his people. What a concept! Screw Exxon and all those who subscribe to the Washington Concensus.
Irony: The bigger the profits, the greater the inflation, and the less the value of the dollars gained.
Isn't a discussion on modifying capitalism either here or anywhere in the world a little like the old saying of "shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic"? I mean can a capitalistic system that is based on exponential growth that is competely reliant on fossil fuels (and now mostly foreign fuels when it comes to America) at this late date in fossil fuel extraction last much longer anyway? How? Someone please defend the position that capitalism in any form that relies on these diminishing resources and exponential growth has a future beyond the next two decades (and that timeframe is being generous I'd argue). What logical path allows for its survival now? I'm desperate to understand how? I look around me and I see nothing but an incredibly complicated, interrelated system in super, duper hyper-drive that is begging to crash. Tell me I'm wrong, I want to sleep through the night again. Seriously.
Capitalism as originally designed is not necessarily bad.
What we have is NOT that. The original was NOT conceived to be viewed as a legal individual with no consequences for individuals running a corporation.
The greed that has crept into the mix is inescapable. Mark's column only hits the high points but is completely accurate in his portrayal of the consequences of a government coopted by corporate fat cats who make obscene profits from the sufferings of others.
We have no-one to blame but ourselves. An early warning was Eisenhower's unheeded warnings about the military-industrial complex. Another was the greed that enabled the formation of FOR-PROFIT health organizations. and so on.....
Mark and Naomi Wolf have it absolutely right. Those of us who did nothing to oppose this "I-Me-My" culture of greed and instead tried to get "ours" should be ashamed.
One wonders why a candidate would loan themselves obscene ($6 million) amounts to their campaigns for offices that pay relative peanuts. Somehow, I don't think that these acts are altruistic in nature. One really wonders at the expected ROI of the donations.
Too bad the ROI is at the expense of us poor folks and our ilk. We really are fodder for the excessive greed of the rich.
Alledgedly FDR went to the CEO of Standard Oil sometime in the 30's and asked or told him to stop doing business with Nazi Germany.
And, as the story goes, the CEO of Standard Oil replied, "You don't want us to stop selling oil to the US now do you?"
Global domination by the oil companies didn't start yesterday and it's not gonna stop tomorrow.
WE must find a new way.
Paul - are those the blue pills?
sorefeets, I gotta ask about this: "democracy and capitalism cannot be made to work together"
Umm... can you provide any examples of the alternative? I can't seem to think of any democracies that weren't capitalist, to some degree...
kloro,
I basically agree with you. I think of the analogy of building heavier-than-air aircraft (htaa) vs. lighter-than-air aircraft (ltaa). Many attempts to create htaa failed miserably, just as attempts to create working socialist systems failed, as many technical difficulties had to be overcome. The ltaa, much simpler but much more difficult to control, like capitalist systems, were much easier to develop, but had severe limitations in usefulness and safety.
There were those a little over a century ago who were convinced that htaa could never work and ridiculed the pioneers in aviation who were determined to overcome the technical problems. Today, there are those heavily invested in capitalist systems who do not want to see socialist pioneers succeed, and they constantly pressure the US government to extinguish any attempts that might be made, such as those in South America and particularly Venezuela.
BM,
It's like he wants us to keep eating those vitamins simply because the bottle is labelled as such, regardless of whether someone slipped in placebos. Or worse.
Daniel David, reading your comments is often confusing. It's like reading a nutritionist who reasonably spells out the need for vitamins and minerals and the dangers of too much refined white sugar - and then implores people to switch to Pepsi lest the Coke do any more damage.
?
Even a belief in a fair, progressive tax presumes that we, at some level, agree that *we are all in this together.* I'm not sure the owners of Exxon, or the political class represented by most of the presidential candidates, are in agreement.
Yes, capitalism can work when it is bound by legislated *and enforced* restrictions designed by a society with a basically socialist philosophy -- every citizen deserves to be supported by this great experiment of working together that we call government. There will still be tension between the owners of the means of production, and the workers, and that tension will require constant negotiation in every social arena.
Providing every citizen with a basic starting-point of prosperity, health, and education -- what we would call an egalitarian society -- would go a long way towards putting more power into the hands of the workers. That kind of egalitarianism would require an equal commitment from each citizen to contribute to the infrastructure that makes equal opportunities a reality -- even the rich, owner citizens. Right now, it sure seems that those rich, owner citizens have commitments only to themselves and their short-term profit, and are incapable of thinking beyond that even for the sake of their own children, let alone some poor worker.
When we lose that agreement, that we're all in this together, then we do become predator and prey, and the rule of the strongest and most ruthless ensues at the cost of everyone else--but I believe that we must continue to believe that true cooperation is possible, because the alternative is brutality and destruction.
private ownership of the means of production is an insanity which, like slavery, the human race must outgrow. true enough, our first attempts to do so have been heavily flawed, but this is no reason to give up on the effort.
safiyyah,
Modern capitalism is predicated on asymmetric freedoms. Nation-states are economic cartels; the ueber-capitalists can play differentials in currency and labor costs that laborers are expressly forbidden from doing.
Note that the redneck is encouraged to be far angrier about the "illegal workers" coming to the US -- this is never presented in the same context as the US company offshoring itself to foreign countries. All blame is placed on the worker who is trying to escape his pen, not the corporation which enjoys free movement.
It's globalized serfdom.
Jan Steinman is right. Capitalism works, and when you start trying to champion pure socialism or communism, you're out on a discredited limb that will soon break and leave you politically dumped on a heap.
Doom n Gloom is also right. A steeply progressive tax system is the correct modifier of capitalism. We had it in the post WWII era. Reagan reversed it (with more damage from others since). And IF it is ever reinstated, it will only be done by a full slate of Democrats. What are you waiting for? Mike Huckabee to come along and repeal the entire constitutionality of income tax (as he promotes with his most unfair of all
"FairTax")? Wake up. Going back toward the '50s-'70s model of taxation is both possible and a good idea.
193 million dollar golden parachute for the last ceo of Exxon last year.
Let the soldiers loose their limbs.
The ex-CEO loves his double chin.
"limited capitalism" is, then: socialism -- the half-empty, half-full, half-loaf compromise between capitalism and the one antithetical limit on it, the only opposite of capitalism, and that is communism.
Socialism: half-capitalism, half-communism.
Chop capitalism in half, baby. Do the dream common to all of us.
As for where are the barricades to storm carrying torches with our pitchforks, recall that the guilt-soaked conscience duly confessed: en.WikiQuote.ORG/wiki/George_H._W._Bush , "If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us." -- To journalist Sarah McClendon (December 1992), in response to the question, "What will the people do if they ever find out the truth ...?"
Although, only quick action can take redress in Kennebunkport. After retrenchment barricades get built, and surrounded by three US taxpayer-funded military bases, then the torches and pitchforks are going to need to make the long walk to Paraguay -- Extra! Extra! Read all about it: DailyKOS.COM/story/2007/4/28/2544/07385
It's worth discriminating between personal capitalism and financial capitalism.
A farmer owns some land upon which he grows crops. That's capitalism. He saves up a little money, and buys a plow to make his production more efficient. That's capitalism.
However, when land prices are going up so fast that farmer mortgages his land and invests it in the stock market, assuming he'll make money on both the stock market and on the never-ending increase in value of his property, that's financial capitalism, and that's where the problems begin.
"Capital" has been defined since Adam Smith as "the means of production." Capital used to be something you saved for, not borrowed for. If capital were strictly personal, the means for individuals to produce goods and service, there would be a lot less trouble.
Financial capitalism goes hand-in-hand with the notion of never-ending growth. What if, as in the teaching of major religions, interest on borrowing were illegal? Well, first off, the number of people willing to lend would go way down. Secondly, the concept of "investment" would be purified, as people would be saving to buy means of improving their personal productivity.
Capitalism, as practised today, has some major flaws. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I am a capitalist. I have invested thousands of hours and thousands of dollars into making a biodiesel processor, with which I supply the local community with locally-produced fuel from waste cooking oil. I didn't borrow money to do this; I only invest what I've saved up for the purpose. How would I have done this under some other system? Please don't start your argument with, "The government would..."
Quasar - "So, no, I do not think that it is worth defending: to defend it is to be consumed by it. It is unthinking. It only consumes."
I would argue that it is by not defending it that it has wound up this way. It may be unthinking, but it consumes nothing. The best societies humans have come up with have capitalism and socialism as key ingredients. If you blame one or the other or both for the crimes perpetrated by those who hijack it, you let those criminals off the hook - you throw out the baby and are stuck with the bathwater.
Can it be done? Is it possible? The answer, unfortunately for humankind is a big NO. When you have a cancerous disease with generalized metastatic dissemination the patient is lost regardless of your best endeavors to save his life. Unbriddled cancerous malignancy of capitalism can only be cured through the death of the patient,which means life on earth. This is the destination we are heading for. Don't expect the miserable puppet poising to be the next president to be capable of doing anything of consequence in restraining the avalanche of disasters looming ominously in the horizon targetting the house of greed.
Pleasure reading you Maestro Morford
Is it possible that we can make "it into something proud and interesting and vibrant"? Probably in flashes and for a few. Oh. We already have that. So, no, I do not think that it is worth defending: to defend it is to be consumed by it. It is unthinking. It only consumes.
This discussion about capitalism seems to miss the point entirely that capitalism is not a closed national system at all. So let's not talk about the supposed good points of it when internationally it is a total freaking disaster.
I guess I've always wanted "capitalism with limits".
In some ways, capitalism and the market are useful tools and useful ways of organizing. But the problems seem to occur when there's no limits on how far the extremes can go.
One limit would be on how far someone can fall. To me its fundamentally immoral for a society to say that if a person is not economically useful that they are discarded and condemned to starve to death without shelter. And the problems we seem to see with too much money and power are because there's no limit on that end either.
For instance, I have no problem with telling someone, "hey, you've got enough money for yourself and your descendents to live in luxury for at least a couple of generations. Its time for you to retire to a beach some place. If you don't and keep making more money, we are going to tax it at such levels that its not really worth your effort. You've been successful and you've got yours. Now, get out of the game and let others have a try at it."
Sometimes I have really dark ideas, maybe best forgotten.
One little act of symbolism that I've thought of would be to make up a phony thank you card from say Exxon (or Haliburton). It would be made up as if being sent to the home of the family of a dead soldier. And it would be thanking the family for the contributions that the soldier's death has made to the corporate profits.
The catch is, I'd never want to use a real soldier's name, or send it to a real soldier's family. That would just be too cruel. But it always seemed to be a way to create a short bit of symbolism to make the point as to why exactly Americans are dying in Iraq.
"fire and pitchfork revolution" looks pretty good to me, at least in the symolic sense. With two democratic candidates that continue to embrace and be funded by the U.S. corportate-imperial fascist regime, we must build our anti-imperial and anti-capitalist institutions at the local level and continue to jab our pitchforks of social justice, environmental and human rights into the rear ends of the asses and elephants at the federal level every time they turn to take a bow to their corporate masters.
It's no surprise neither party wants to allow third parties to participate or even allow reasonable and progressive voices in either party to discuss their views in public without scorn or dismissal.
We must continue to hold these quasi-leaders in contempt and keep up the pressure for election reforms such as Instant Run-Off voting, election spending caps and time limits for campaigns. We must force the FCC to make private broadcasters responsible for funding public service programming (including news programming not tied to profit or advertising revenue) and increased local access in exchange for the use of public airwaves.
Blah, Blah, Blah.... The ideas go on. But it is absolutely necessary we begin to prepare the groundwork for a new society by working within our own communities to develop the leaders, have the discussions, build the networks, policies and institutions to support a nation that respects its own citizens as well our world neighbors and dismisses the corporate structures that have developed a mindset of profits over people and continue to support, war, exploitation and misery throughout the world.
That's intended as a joke by the way. I like Americans far to much to tar them with that brush, unjokingly.
Paul - "What would capitalism be without rackets, monopolies, caste, wealth by birthright, poverty by birthright, communist/developing world labor, IP and patent law, politicians and warfare?"
Dare I say it - it would be unamerican.
trying to take what is, at its very heart, a flawed and self-destructive system, and making it into something proud and interesting and vibrant, something actually worth defending.
Can it be done? Is it still possible?
Capitalism is like a spice. In just the right amount it enhances things and in too great an amount it ruins things. This should come as no surprise.
Let's take one example, and remember to expand the idea afterwards. If you own a rental property that will probably cover the one person who just doesn't want to own property. This person wants the freedom to bounce around from place to place forever. This person needs the capitalist. But most people really want to own their own home and be done with house payments ASAP.
So, when you fall into greed and go buy up two, three, fifteen rental properties, catastrophe!!! You're competing with others who just want to own their home. You're inflating the price, you're stealing from them, it's theft, pure and simple. The culture does not allow Americans to draw the line with reason. It's a truly sick culture. Yeah just dump two, three cups of black pepper into the soup. That'll do it!!
What would capitalism be without rackets, monopolies, caste, wealth by birthright, poverty by birthright, communist/developing world labor, IP and patent law, politicians and warfare?
One other thing...
Mark Morfords' article is one of the best I've read on CD!
LIFEOFQUEST -- Yeesh, DENNIS KUCINICH was also someone who would have brought major change. Don't forget him. I worked tirelessly for him. He's a true American who loves his country and I get so tried of him being omitted. DENNIS J. KUCINICH.
I agree with Big_Money. Capitalism is not the problem as much as unchecked capitalism is. No other industrial nation on earth allows their corporations to run roughshod over the public interest as much as this country does. Through a combination of enforced regulations, a progressive tax system, a curbing of special interest groups on K Street, unbiased news and a change in national direction from a military based economy to a socially progressive economy, there is hope for the future.
Having said that, I see no indication of corporate America offering us anyone except jackasses to run the country. Any legitimate populist candidate (one who represents the average American) will be quickly removed from the public eye via the MSM through marginalization, smear campaigns, legal teams with deep pockets and failing all that... a bullet in the back of the head. It's not the publics fault (completely anyway) because only corporate sycophants are permitted to appear on the ballot.
It's the awkward truism that American capitalism is potentially capable, despite its dark core of profit, despite its frequently poisoned heart, of tremendous creative opportunity and ingenuity.
Capitalism does create opportunities. This is clear to all. But the question for today is whether those opportunities result in net benefts to the society or not, and this depends on whether the capitalism is healthy or rotten. It's clear that today US capitalism is rotten, especially at the top. It's not so rotten at the bottom.
Capitalism provides opportunities for people to employ their ingenuity for net benefit to the society. But this also depends on whether the capitalism is healthy or rotten. The news today is that the rot of US capitalism has accelerated so much over the past seven years that the society would benefit greatly if 90% of the economic activity were halted. It's simply counterproductive, highly destructive.
"There is no eliminating the dark side of capitalism, the gluttony and the greed and the violent underbelly. "
Sure there is! It's called a steeply progressive tax system. When the incentive to greed is removed pigs squeal but everyone else cheers.
simon, I like your comments about buying into the capitalistic myth, but I'd like to elaborate further. A capitalistic system that isn't being robbed blind is important for innovation and progress. Think of computers, networks, and wireless as one glaring example - these existed in 1970. Yes they did. They were developed by a capitalistic system that was just on the verge of being sacrificed on the alter of inflation to pay for the Vietnam war. And it's been all downhill ever since. No innovation. Just marketing, outsourcing, and devaluation of the currency to pay for foolish wars that protect no-one.
It's not the tool that's the problem, it's the jackasses who stole it and are using it for global vandalism that're the problem.
Behind any conspiracy theory, I beleive there is always some element of truth. I believe this is no different. Whether it is Clinton or Obama, I don't believe that there will really be any major change. At the end of the day, the same powers that be own this world and would fight to protect and keep it.
Edwards & Gravel were the only real candidates for change. The greatest problem of our time and this world is not terrorism. It is economic and miliary hegemony in he hands of a few oligarchic family. They are the players in this chest game, and we are the puns, jesters, knights, priest, Kings and Queen (depending on your societal status).
I wonder how people always vote against their economic interests.
Mark says, "American capitalism is potentially capable, despite its dark core of profit, despite its frequently poisoned heart, of tremendous creative opportunity and ingenuity."
Good column, Mark, but you're buying into the capitalist myth about "innovation" and creativity and such.
There is more potential for "creative opportunity and ingenuity" in a more mixed economic model - and especially in a socialist democracy - than in capitalism. People are creative and innovative and able to play, invent, teach and learn when they are freed up to do so.
When the goal of one's economy is short-term profit for the few (which can not be "tweaked" out of capitalism), then the many are left to spend much time and resources just getting by, at best. And that leaves not much for innovation or creation.
Also, capitalism discourages people working together to innovate and create and does so through profit-protecting devices like patents and copywrites. When people share their research and don't compete to maximize profit from their ideas and work, then the best ideas and work comes forth.
Capitalism can not be tweaked - it needs to be abandoned and replaced.
i cannot say it often enough- capitalism is a religion- not a science. and like a religion it only works if you believe it works. so much surprise these days that despite rising productivity and lowering unemployment rates- wages have been stagnant at best and adjusted for inflation lower for all but the professional classes and the elite. economists are surprised! why? because economic theory says it shouldn't be so. . .the state religion of the us and most of the world is capitalism and we are all forced to worship at its altar. there is no other way. and forced we are. so you think the bloated militaries and police forces of democratic states are for our safety? try being a non believer and see where it gets you. ridicule, jail, shot? democracy and capitalism cannot be made to work together- they are inimical. see what happens when the people threaten the corporate and elite empires- nothing democratic there.