Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Capitalism Produces Rich Bankers, but Socialism Produces Happiness
Socialism is better than capitalism. So say 20 percent of Americans, and another 27 percent say they can't say which is better, according to an April 9 Rasmussen poll.
There's hope.
When you consider that virtually no newspaper, broadcaster, well-funded think tank, teacher, or anybody's boss or commander ever said something nice about socialism, it's remarkable that only 53 percent of us still favor rule by the moneyed class. Perhaps folks are learning how capitalism sacrifices happiness for individual gain.
As Billy Bragg exhorts us in his update of the socialist anthem "The Internationale": "Stand up, all victims of oppression/for tyrants fear your might/Don't cling so hard to your possessions/For you have nothing if you have no rights."
No less a "capitalist tool" than Forbes Magazine let a red cat out of the bag with a report this month that the happiest countries tend to be Scandinavian socialist democracies. High per-capita GDP certainly plays a role in their felicity, but even social democratic New Zealand, with per-capita GDP only 64 percent of the United States', ranks with the 10 democracies above us in the happiness index. They pay high taxes in these pinkotopias, but folks enjoy entitlements like free college, extensive elder care, and 52-week paid maternity leave.
The 2005 poll measured personal reports of enjoyment, pride in achievement and learning, being respected, among other things. Forbes suggests that such happiness derives from family, social and community networks, and a decent work-life balance, noting that the average workweek in Scandinavia is 37 hours.
Nice dream, but how do we get there? Most of these countries dumped capitalist exploitation long ago and instituted mixed economies with socialist ideals. More contemporary models are the 11 Latin America countries pursuing "Socialism in the 21st Century." They too reject top-down Leninism for a system based on participatory democracy and solidarity.
In Ecuador, a land I have studied and worked in, a broad coalition of indigenous, environmentalists, trade unions, professional organizations, feminists, gay activists, left parties, and students laid the groundwork for transformation. They just re-elected Rafael Correa, their leftist standard-bearer, as president. They fought racism, oligarchs, oil companies, and corrupt politicians for decades.
The economies of Latin America's red eleven are improving, although none of them has instituted a socialist utopia. They are still subject to the slings and arrows of egotism, error, and internecine conflict. But they have overcome the greatest impediments to their advancement, including the U.S.-based bankers who are draining our treasury now. And the civil society they created in the struggle is the guarantor of their democracy.
Before finding the path of progress, many of these countries had lurched from violent paroxysm to confusion and resignation, not unlike what the U.S. currently endures.
For example, our Auto Industry Task Force just bankrupted GM and Chrysler, fired tens of thousands of employees, extorted immense sacrifices from active and retired autoworkers, and is dominated by the investment bankers who absorbed trillions in national wealth to keep themselves rich after destroying the economy.
Instead of seizing plants as our Canadian comrades are doing, or adding "bossnapping" to plant occupations as the French have done, we shake our heads as the union negotiates the terms of surrender.
What could we do with socialism? Well, take banks for starters: take them, so instead of private scams that go broke gambling with money they don't own, they'd become public utilities that finance production, infrastructure, and homes. And treat aging industries like autos: instead of dumping, we'd transform them according to a national plan for green jobs and a healthy environment.
Solidarity is the path as well as the destination of socialism. Solidarity grieves when a worker loses his job or sees her pension slashed. Solidarity cheers when a union wins middle-class pay. Solidarity rejects the greed of insurers as the distributor of healthcare and demands single payer for all.
Solidarity smells the rat who divides white from black, black from gay, native from newcomer, or America from the rest of humanity.
"So come brothers and sisters/For the struggle carries on/The Internationale/Unites the world in Song.
"So comrades come rally/For this is the time and place/The international ideal/Unites the human race."
- Posted in
155 Comments so far
Show AllExcellent commentary.
Read ---- "The Day Wall Street Exploded" by B. Gage.---
The economic engine needs to be a capitalist generator with a socialist distributor.
The Espionage Acts of WWI made it a crime to say the USA government was controlled by Banks, Munitions Manufacturers or Wall Street.
Oddly enough many of the Anarchists and Socialists who had been advocating using dynamite to establish Unions ended up being deported for supporting draft resistance.
This article is very biased and the author proves himself unable to understand the pros and cons of socialism and capitalism. Capitalism still offers room for choices. What we have here is not capitalism but corporate socialism as a result of capitalism left unchecked. Socialism can help out the very poor but once you are middle class, the room for growth is tightened unfairly. If there had been a check on the bankers, we wouldn't have seen them making obscene profits. With socialism, I would not have been able to switch from being a farmer to being a trial lawyer and back without being forced to sacrifice pay for jobs that require more labor and stressful thinking. I was never a corporate trial lawyer but used to take on corporate defendents as a regular lawyer despite the stress involved and the numerous death threats I'd receive. Under socialism, I would not be compensated for all that. We need to be careful when we talk about spreading the wealth without taking into consideration other important factors.
and I'm guessing one of those factors is your paycheck? talk about missing the boat AND the point.
i just found it sad that what you lamented about socialism the most apparently is that while "it can help out the very poor", its true crime is not allowing the middle class your "room for growth is tightened unfairly".
This statement sums up liberal philosophy as well as anything. "If I think I can get rich, let me!". And none of you ever do.
You're getting it all wrong. With socialism, if I'm working on a job that I didn't anticipate to be stressful but turned out to be unexpectedly so vs an easy job, it makes no sense to keep the wages the same for both jobs. All you think about is the money while I'm paying attention to the various factors by which I correctly justify the costs. I didn't enter the law profession to get rich though there are plenty of lawyers who'll make no bones about it. I believed in actually standing up to corporate fraud after I lost my farm and was hell bent on taking down corporate criminals. I just didn't realize how stressful that turned out to be but you're welcome to sneer at it. It's not about getting rich. It's about choice and fair play. I'm not a selfish greedy bastard as you mistake me to be. You don't go using cookie cutter solutions to dictate people's wealth and happiness which socialism, like capitalism, can get into a bad habit of doing.
I think capitalism and socialism need each other to survive.
I have socialist friends who probably aren't convinced. I have capitalist relatives that laugh at such a notion. But look at our country, where capitalism is the dominant religion (next to football, of course), and I see that we have lots of socialist institutions.
Look at the Interstate, US and state highway system? Socialism. How about fire protection, police, military, public schools, national forests, parks and recreation areas, state and city parks? Socialism. How about social security, medicare, medicaid? Socialism. Anything public, common or mutually beneficial and in the public domain is intrinsically socialistic, is it not?
And we all benefit from these socialistic institutions, do we not? Would you like to pay for private fire or police protection? What if your house was on fire and you called the fire captain and he said, "Sorry Kyle, but you didn't pay your bill last month. We'll just have to let this one burn."
And do you like the way privatizing utilities has made your heating bills go through the roof?
So, the two systems are mutually beneficial. One needs the other. However, it is apparent that we would all be better off here in the United States if we had a more balanced playing field. We should learn to accept a little more socialism. We shouldn't be afraid to try something new. It's not like it hasn't been tested.
With reference to your third paragraph, I call that good socialism.
With reference to your fourth paragraph, I am well aware of the unfair price gougings that have gone on. Where I find the blame questionable is when it's blamed on capitalism itself instead of those who chose to abuse their power and exploit the weaknesses. Having been a lawyer, I understand the tricks the corporate crooks will come up with their own corporate trial lawyers to exploit any legal loopholes and free them from being held accountable. On the other side are lawyers like myself who would try to prove their legal violations and believe me, it's not easy and requires a lot of thinking, framing, and successful arguing and convincing depending upon the case. Insurance companies are without a doubt very tricky and cunning. Half of them don't even claim to be honest or promising even on their own terms.
With reference to your last paragraph, Ralph Nader's father always said that in the end, it's socialism that will save capitalism from going down in flames. Unfortunately, I do not like the way Bush or Obama has been doing that so far. What we have here is a double standard system that will not be easy to take down but we're all going to have to buckle up and tackle it every way possible.
With reference to your second paragraph, it's that price gouging thing that gives capitalism a bad name. That's what I call bad capitalism.
If someone were to ask me, "Are you a capitalist?" An honest answer would be , "Yes". If someone were to ask me, "Are you a socialist?" my one word answer would be, "Yes". Because in reality, as much as I believe in socialized medicine and public property and such, I am a capitalist. I don't know any other way to survive.
I would like to share everything with the tribe, but I don't really have a tribe. I have a family. We share almost everything. But we each have our own shoes, clothes and whatnot. Total socialism doesn't work on a national scale. And total capitalism is dog eat dog.
Balance is everything. I think since Reaganomics, the playing field has gotten way off-kilter. We need to bring it back. And as for national health, it could be paid for without raising taxes. Just a few less fighter jets and destroyers would easily cover the costs.
Who could disagree our health care in this country is out of control? And you say it yourself that private insurance companies can't be trusted.
So, what are you growing on your farm this year?
I'm pretty much in full agreement here. Thank you for helping me draw the line between my support vs opposition to each of the two systems.
P.S.: Various vegetables and grains. People really have to learn to start farming because to tell you the truth, we got a peak oil crisis coming our way and no amount of solar, wind, biofuels, or whatever alternative sources of fuel outside fossil fuels are going to stop the deep impact. For me the only thing I'll lose is going to a weekend truck show.
I'm not worried about peak oil. I'm looking forward to our society moving away from dependence and use of fossil fuels. I can't stand the heavy fumes from fossil fuels being burned in our ever present internal combustion engines. Good riddance to fossil fuels!
We can grow our own fuel without compromising our ability to produce food. We don't have to cut down more forests nor take up food producing croplands to make our fuel. I wont attempt to prove this point, David Blume has already done that in his 600 page volume: ALCOHOL CAN BE A GAS! where he demonstrates how we can produce alcohol fuel from a variety of available materials for about 47 cents per gallon.
Do your own research, read the book, visit his website:
http://www.permaculture.com/
And for your own home fueling system check here:
http://www.microfueler.com/
You could become your own fuel producer, Kyle, and produce enough for the needs of your local community as well. We don't need fossil fuels, period. If you have a farm, you're already at an advantage. But even suburbanites can become fuel producers.
This is diverging somewhat from the subject at hand. And I'll try to find time and the right words to further the discussion later. But I agree, people need to learn how to farm. On that note, I need to get my sunflowers and squash planted today. Cheers!
I often wonder if it's the fumes of fossil fuels that corrupt people's minds at large. I like your tone and thanks for trying to help me out here on discussing the pros and cons of socialism and capitalism. It's amazing that even when I acknowledge what I like of socialism, I get foul-mouthed responses on this thread and people twisting my words and misinterpreting. Maybe with peak oil, coal, and gas, there will be less fighting and bullying online and more people will be forced to actually understand the real beauty of mother earth.
P.S.:
I have heard of biocrude and in fact some people have discussed hemp and algae that can be used to make biocrude without the use of fossil fuels. However, it's labor intensive and very expensive so I doubt it will fly until some way of getting done volume scale is found out.
"I like your tone and thanks for trying to help me out here on discussing the pros and cons of socialism and capitalism. It's amazing that even when I acknowledge what I like of socialism, I get foul-mouthed responses on this thread and people twisting my words and misinterpreting. Maybe with peak oil, coal, and gas, there will be less fighting and bullying online and more people will be forced to actually understand the real beauty of mother earth."
Online negativity can be an addiction and a disease. There has been quite a lot of it going on lately here. Even on progressive blogs, I find it sad that you have to be very well known and having clout or you get attacked at. Sometimes, people can get nasty here if you don't absolutely agree with them but it's probably because they're online and never talk in person.
Sooooo True!
But the struggle is worth it when we realize that everyone is fighting their own demons so in the fight, we see demons in everyone.
All isms and everything is mixed... and you guys are right that the change is all in getting a better working balance for a better life... and Happiness.
Your Secret Socialist.
PS in my spelling check error of "working" I discovered the indentical sounds of Working and We're King.
"All you think about is the money while I'm paying attention to the various factors by which I correctly justify the costs."
But the factor by which you are justifying the costs are based on money. I don't understand your thesis, dear blogger. Like everyone else who tries to defend the capitalism economic model, you're trying not to state the obvious in clear English: I don't care about everyone else, my money should go to me alone.
And that's perfectly fine, but you'd better invest in a private island with all the trimmings and amenities because as long as you think that mentality is going to grow a healthy economy, you're going to be one sad little boy on Christmas morning.
Reckless greed is the proven result of a capitalistic system, as shown throughout the history of capitalistic economics. It works briefly, for a few people, but then it collapses into itself, as we are seeing today in the U.S. and world over. People can keep trying to make capitalism work but it never will totally and completely because it is reliant on the mentality to consume, whatever the risk. Utopia is not possible with capitalism. There will ALWAYS be a gross inequality in the capitalistic system because THAT IS THE WAY IT IS MEANT TO WORK. It is a system that thinks that economies are built off of those who are already rich and want to get richer. How is the %5 percent wealthy of a country supposed to keep a country afloat when it doesn't even want to contribute for fear of losing money? Why should everyone who doesn't fit into that %5 or who can't ever hope to reach that %5 because they're being economically CHOKED INTO POVERTY by that %5 expected to do the most menial of jobs that keep the machine going if they aren't going to be justly compensated? How can people buy homes and consume goods if all the money they could be consuming with is backed up in the bowels of the %5 that is concerned only with their OWN profit? Capitalism is a selfish, backward antique of economics and like the G.O.P., it is dying.
And good riddance.
- Insurgent
Socialism and capitalism come and go. One cannot really be sustained without the other in the long run. I understand what you're frustrated about but read what Moondoggy and I discussed here and you'll see where I stand on it all. There's good capitalism and then there bad capitalism (unchecked, unfettered, unregulated, etc ...). Sorry to confuse you.
If I'm sneering at anything Kyle, it's your own cookie cutter characterization of what socialism is. Now it's somehow the right to a job transfer? do you have any idea whatsoever of what you're talking about? your posts read like a press handout from the RNC.
i can get this on town hall.
before you start making blanket assertions about a system of which you don't have much of a grasp, ask someone first. better yet, actually read. hopefully you'll understand why reds cannot let this kind of gilligan's island assertion pass unmolested. you're grossly and unfairly mischaracterizing what many of us stand for.
No, I am not a Republican. Yes, there is the possibility of being stranded in the world of capitalism but only if the system is allowed to go unchecked just like the limits of socialism can be apparent once one makes it out there or strives for bigger challenges. Like I said, each system has its pros and cons and right now, we're living in a period where both systems have been exploited for their weaknesses by the monied elites. Read the book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell and you'll see what I am talking about.
"Read the book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell and you'll see what I am talking about."
You cannot be serious! No, gosh, I've never read that. You do know that Mr. Blair was a socialist, yes? You may be a nice person, but you know almost nothing. Monied elites exploiting socialism? Good grief. Do you even bother to phone it in?
Look, I'm sorry you got stiffed on your farm, I really am. I'm not entirely sure how you made it through law school in one piece, but you did, and I wish you luck. But I'm asking you, as someone who has two bloody graduate degrees in politics and is an active red, to stop smearing my ideology with your nonsense. Think before you barf out a post, knowing that a lot of people on here are politically literate. You, however, are not.
"But I'm asking you, as someone who has two bloody graduate degrees in politics and is an active red, to stop smearing my ideology with your nonsense. Think before you barf out a post, knowing that a lot of people on here are politically literate. You, however, are not."
You might do yourself and others a favor by first cutting correcting your misunderstanding. You think socialism is everything? Even WJM admitted that socialism isn't perfect. There are pluses and minus of socialism as there are of capitalism. You should learn some manners and respect others of different backgrounds instead of acting like a closed-minded bully like my brother who you remind me of. I have every right to debate your ideology as you do mine. If you have a problem with that, then simply ignore my posts and move on. You are the one who should first think before posting and quit dictating who's politically literate and who's not. This isn't a private club you know and bullies like you have no place here. Is that clear or do you have a problem with that?
Online negativity can be an addiction and a disease. There has been quite a lot of it going on lately here. Even on progressive blogs, I find it sad that you have to be very well known and having clout or you get attacked at. Just state your stands and don't respond to very negative attacks. On your original post, I think some people misunderstand your stand on socialism and thought that you had vehemently opposed it. I do find Skip Townes's reply above very demeaning and rude. The problem with some of the folks on this forum is that just like the pols in Washington who have been in office longer, they think that they hold the floor and that other people's opinions and ideas are to be shut out. Worse, there's a lot of noticeable divisions and exclusions when it comes to commenting and having conversations often times although it can tone down at times. You have made excellent points about online bullying and sadly, I've seen a lot of it even on the progressive sites here. I hate to say this but no matter how tough these same people want to sound and no matter how loud their denial mode, capitalism is here to stay. Socialism requires cooperation but if we can't unite even on these progressive forums, the chances of uniting at large is even smaller and hence the chances of socialism are slim to none.
If you expect others to take your posts seriously, you could try showing some kindness and respect and tone down your negativity. And socialism is not your ideology alone to own. It's supposed to be everyone's ideology.
Socialism does not keep the wages the same for both jobs.
Hi Kyle,
Welcome aboard. I may not agree with 100% of everything you say (so what), but I appreciate diversity of thought, different perspectives and new information. Many people who post on Common Dreams must feel, like me, that they are merely 'preaching to the choir'.
At any rate, I noticed you have been flagged. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I get the feeling that you are, and will continue to be attacked by that parasite brother of yours who goes by nebraska-nathan1 or something like that.
Keep posting here and sharing your thoughts, knowledge, wisdom, insights and ideas. And keep exposing and resisting the shenanigans of the parasites. If he changes his nom de plume to something else to try to be stealth, please root him out and expose him for us again.
Eventually maybe he'll crawl back into the hole from which he came and stay there to rot back to dust. Or, better yet, maybe he'll see the light and emerge a truly changed man, never again to revert back to being a pain in the ass. One can hope.
Thanks!
Greetings Moondoggy,
My brother is almost impossible to reform and he's never improved himself no matter how hard I tried or even my wife, then his wife before she divorced him and became mine. He'll pretend to be nice on the occasion but it usually doesn't take long for him to go back to his usual bullying self. I may not have won sympathy from my parents unlike him but that doesn't stop me from countering his bullying ways. I may not be a lawyer any more but I enjoy helping quite a few young lawyers out and hope I can make them better lawyers without getting focused on the money. I am able to help offer them tips on various stresses they're bound to face unexpectedly and best ways to deal with various death threats.
Whoever flagged my post probably doesn't understand what I wrote. I don't oppose socialism entirely. What I oppose is the way some of us on the left make too much of a big deal about just getting the wages even without discussing beyond the money. I take matters on a case by case basis. Throughout my life, I have noticed the pros and cons of both socialism and capitalism which is why I have no problem refuting the article in question. I often times notice that sometimes the way some authors try to make the case for socialism is often done on the notion that money brings happiness even when they don't mean to do so on that notion. I'm no longer a trial lawyer not because I ended up poorer and in debt under the profession but because I finally figured out better ways to help tackle the corporatist system without having to be a trial lawyer facing increasing stress and death threats. It's complicated to explain but hopefully I'll be able to make my case known and clear and help clear up the riff raff.
I was responding to another of your posts while you were writing this one. So we're both communicating with each other simultaneously. See the post I just sent you for a continuation of the discussion on capitalism/socialism. I don't think it has to be one or the other.
I have a similar argument when it comes to the issues of creation/evolution, or science/religion. It's not one verses the other in my view. Cheers!
Replying to my own post. I see that I too have been flagged. It's YOU nebraska nathan, isn't it! Go away! Go join the Army and make yourself useful. Thanks! Bye-bye now!
" I noticed you have been flagged."
It means little. Anyone can flag anyone else here, and many do it simply because they disagree with the content of the post. THe moderators don't do anything with such posts.
I respect your right to free speech and you definetely should not be flagged for stating an unpopular or falacious position.
As an attorney you should be cognizant that the article never mentioned " spreading the wealth without taking into considerationn other important factors".
In my experience the case often is the hardest most difficult work gets the least pay, but of course that is not always the case.
The Scandanavian Middle Classes are large and happy so obviously your supposed problem is not very relevant.
In my ideal world the richest person would earn no more than fifty times what the poorest person earned. That should take care of any work load in equities.
Speaking of Scandinavia: Ingvar Kamprad, the founder of Ikea, was briefly the richest man in the world listed in Forbes five or so years ago. I recall reading about him calling Forbes immediately and telling them to take him off the richest persons list altogether as he had given over 1 Billion euros in one shot, to a charity in the Netherlands and was no longer as wealthy. He said he was embarrassed to be on the list, let alone #1. Imagine that embarrassed to be rich. They seem to have a completely different culture when it comes to greed and wealth.
That's just amazing. We need more people like him that are willing to give something back. Unfortunately, there are far too many greedy people in the world.
"These are standard arguments in the US, & reflect a nearly-exclusive focus on one's own money-making possibilities. Such arguments completely overlook the main case for socialism, which is not merely that it "can help out the very poor," but that capitalism leads inevitably to constant war, to environmental destruction in the frenzied search for profits, & to rising social inequality which must eventually become incompatible with democracy. "
I am not overlooking the main case for socialism and its advantages. What I am trying to say is that there is good capitalism and then there's bad capitalism. In Europe, there's a mixture of socialism and good capitalism unlike here where it's lopsided unchecked capitalism against the working class and corporate socialism for the upper class. That's where I'm making the distinctions. I have benefitted from both socialism and good capitalism but have been fighting through bad capitalism.
"The case for socialism also includes things like single-payer health care, & the existence of strong institutions protecting the working class"
If that's the case, then why single payer exist in Europe even when there's a mixture of capitalism and socialism? The capitalism that exists in Europe is not the same as the capitalism that exists in USA. Unchecked capitalism which began in the 1980s and accelerated since is what is making the labor unions that used to exist in the Great Depression and single payer healthcare virtually impossible. In this case, labor and healthcare are long privatized.
"Sure, but the question here is WHY was there no check on the bankers! Under capitalism, with its built-in tendency towards ever-greater concentration of wealth, you are ALWAYS going to eventually wind up with a dictatorship of the bankers! "
In a genuine capitalism, bankers would not be allowed "free" bailouts at the expense of the taxpayer but made to suffer the consequences like everyone else.
Kyle,
Sorry, I have to object to your assumption that salaries are equal in socialism. Back in former Yugoslavia we did have a stratification of the society, but distances between social layers were much smaller and upward mobility was much easier. You could own a small business (up to 20 employees, I think), or you could be a market-oriented agricultural producer, but no one person could own, say, 2% of national wealth or services of society-wide relevance.
In late '70s and early '80s people were stimulated by the system to build small hydro-power plants (1-5 MW, for profit, of course) but only workers-owned corporations were allowed to make larger investments.
Or take Sweden as an example, since I don't want to annoy the audience with my reminiscences of a "paradise lost": Sweden has proportionally the largest number of corporations in the world, yet it's dubbed "socialistic". And even though the rich are heavilly taxed they are still motivated to work and accumulate wealth - both for self and for the society.
Which proves that quality of personal motivation depends on the arrangement of the society.
"What we have here is not capitalism but corporate socialism as a result of capitalism left unchecked."
It's a superficial "analysis" of the problem. You could say the same thing for any socio/political system: "Communism of USSR didn't work because of greed for power", or "Catholicism practiced Inquisition because some theologians/clericals were too righteous", otherwise both communism and catholicism are saviors of mankind.
System is good as long as it meets the needs of overall population, keeping a long-term ballance by building and applying mechanisms for protection against its own excesses. And that's where American capitalism failed - as a system, not as a practice.
We May 2:37 excellent post !!!!!!!!!
Thanks, glenn ford. Having multiple perspectives doesn't hurt.
There is no high standard of living in the West without a massive and violent military bullying the rest of the world. You can’t consume six times more, per capita, in the West relative to poor countries in a world of finite resources without violently holding down the consumption and development of the poorer countries. There is no development anywhere in modern times (read "Kicking Away the Ladder" by Ha-Joon Chang) without massive state involvement in the economy and protection of domestic industry. No country has developed with anything else. The "capitalist" alternatives to the left (South Korea, Taiwan, Japan before them) were statist on the same level as the old USSR. Capitalism is a system pushed by leaders and countries when they feel they have a competitive advantage against others, or they’re allowed to develop state capitalism by the West for strategic reasons. They have industrial bases that are at least as good if not better and think that open competition will lead to them winning, and open finance will keep in place differences in power and wealth. If investors don't like what policies people choose, later, good luck. It can also be pushed by governments that are far from democratic and who will be harmed by the policies but whose bureaucrats can benefit from the reforms. The Americans had nothing to do with "free trade" early in the country's history, for an obvious reason, they didn't have the industrial base to compete with the British amongst others. Every time in the country's history that there was a threat to competition "free trade" was nixed. The "free market" president Reagan gave massive amounts of protection for domestic industry, especially against the Japanese. "Free market" Britain (with some of the highest tax rates in Europe at the time) started to question its policies as the 19th century wore on because of increased competition from countries like America and completely shut out the Japanese shortly before WWII, which helped get that war started. Even the freaking Marshall Plan was nothing more subsidizing the massive amounts of capital flight (a lot of it illegal) from Europe during and after WWII. The US was in a financially enviable position following the war, rich investors fled in droves. They begged the US to install capital controls but the rich US bankers got the government to not do so. A good portion, some say all, of the Marshall Plan aid was nothing more than covering the capital that fled Europe. If capital controls were put in place the US' taxpayer money wouldn't have had to been given to Europe, or maybe at least less so. Read up on the amount of capital that has fled Latin America and other parts of the underdeveloped and developing world, thanks to capital liberalization dogma coming out of universities in the North, and think about what that capital could have been used for instead of luxury consumption of the rich and weapons. Or the looting that took place in East Asia in the late 1990’s, what else can you call that than theft?
Think also about how reliant the US is on the state for its economy. The military IS the largest socialist institution in the world, most of our technology comes out of the military, we have a capital intensive agricultural system that thrives under protection and cheap energy prices and we export things like civilian aircraft because of what we create in the military and, largely, at our public universities. Even the private ones receive tons of government money, like MIT. The rich also use the commons, the courts, our military, and our roads, amongst other things far more than anyone else, god forbid they pay a higher PERCENTAGE of their income to pay for their increased usage. We already socialize the costs, all capitalism does and always will, we only have socialism if people socialize the benefit, or at the very least have a more egalitarian sharing of the benefit. Democracy is off the table, cause it's a means to that end. Better the "moderate" liberals in DC ignore popular opinion, don't have universal healthcare amongst other things and huddle with their lobbyists. If you went to the universities they did, and read the right books, it would make more sense to you common pests.
This fiasco is not a “degraded capitalism” or capitalism gone crazy. Look at the nonsense they teach at economics departments at universities. Do what is in YOUR self interest. If you calculate risk, only calculate YOUR risk, not the risk you put others at or the system as a whole. If you create costs, like pollution, it is profitable and in YOUR best interest to have someone else pay for the costs, economists call this lovely set up “externalities” and they kind of dominate our lives now with the environment and all. If you do this, if you think only of yourself, if you reject the commons and actual democracy and if you just let the “free market” (ie who owns money) do what is in their “enlightened self interest” you’ll all benefit. We just let it go too far. For everyone saying this type of nonsense, you had no problem as all of these policies destroyed other people and their countries, only when the guns are turned on you did it go too far. When Asia was being looted the system wasn’t going too far, it fed wealth creation back here, now when this country is being looted, well, THIS capitalism is too much. It’s the same capitalism, the victims have only changed and they’re you. You’ll stop complaining when it’s someone else and you’re getting you piece of the pie out of their misery. It’s only in your enlightened self interest.
Sioux Rose
WILBER: Excellent post. I just caught up on some movie viewing and finally got to see: "Sicko," "Fast Food Nation," and "The Smartest Guys in the Room." The common themes in all three films is what's happened to society, our lives, our diets, our foreign policy, our economy, our energy as a result of "deregulation," the Reagan mantra. It's amazing how lessons learned from The Gilded Age, Boss Twead in NY and the Great Depression were placed aside so that those positioned to profit largely could pretend that a whole new theory around commerce and prosperity had descended from above. Watching those crooks at Enron speak about INTEGRITY while they gamed the system to suit their own ends producing NO product, only gambling on how they could trade existing energy (*and other) systems revealed the modus operandi then used by the bankers-real estate companies-Wall st to "Enronize" our entire economy.
After the S & L crisis the nation needed more regulations, not fewer, but it allowed those with "Excessive Greed Disorder" to design concepts and unproven theories that made it seem all ships would rise. The fall out of deregulation is everywhere down to the acceptable levels of doo doo in fast food hamburgers. Back as far as the Bible, and also found in morality tales from countless tribes, when selfishness is allowed to go unchecked, everyone suffers. And still we see no regulations put in place as they pour money into currency "protected" by a broken dam.
Those are indeed excellent films which point out the truth. However, it would be nice to see Hollywood come out with films that will encourage people to find ways of overcoming the fallouts you mentioned. If Moore and Schloss can be successful at that, their credibility might be tougher to defeat. You say we need regulations and you are correct. The problem is being able to actually define those regulations that will be acceptable to the layman. Otherwise, we're only preaching to the choir here. You might want to note that there was never really deregulation but merely shifting the regulations in favor of those with more money against those who didn't profit enough. Here, government interfered and allowed socialism for those with more money to prevail. The fallout you are referring to is the consequence of bailing out the more monied. Deregulation is a misnomer.
You think Moore and Schloss really give a shit to helping the working class out ? They make their money not only off their films but by also investing and taking "dirty" money from the same companies they rail against. The Moore/Schloss overworshippers don't want you to know that. Sometimes, progressives and liberals can be just as elitist and intolerant as the conservatives and in fact it often turns out to be the case.
Well, what are we waiting for? Let's get moving! This country is finished, anyway...except for the RICH. Anyone smile much any longer? Fight or move...life is toooo short. Why suffer? Isn't it the primal fight or flight response? To stand still in this country and get slowly beat to a pulp MUST be insanity.
see the above post. too many people still believe it's their turn next in the lottery winners circle.
And start with the truth of 9/11. Once that is revealed, this government will be on it's knees. It IS and always has been UP TO THE PEOPLE.
Settle this issue, and, I believe, most every other problematic social issue becomes more plainly solvable. It is time to abolish the fed, print our own money, take all private money out of the political process, enact single payer health care, slash the military budget, eliminate corporate personhood, demand a mere iota of believability, truth and transparency from our government, and a whole host of other issues "off the table" that would certainly benefit the greatest number of hard working, honest Americans. We need to turn off the fu_king TV and start doing our homework as to how to leave a better planet for those who follow us on our short stay on this place we call earth. We must escape the this military madness we baste in. We must soon wake up.
It truly is, as this writer states so well, essential to come together, as one, for the sake of the economic wellbeing of all. We need not squander another bit of our freedoms, as we have just done so deeply and rapidly. We can have prosperity, we can have truth and justice, we can enjoy the freedoms we once did.
I, too, believe that socialism is our only way forward for our species. Forward in time, in social maturity, in the sensible evolution of a caring and sympathetic being. I, too, hope. Hope that the truth will prevail, and that we somehow regain our humility. Somehow regain our compassion. Somehow recognize that we are all here by immense good fortune, all able to enjoy the fruits of this earth, here by no persons', no corporations' creation. We need to reestablish an ethic that understands that we have important obligations to the future inhabitants of this earth, and obligations for a present equitable sharing of it's bounty, the mere basic requirements to a healthful and freedom-filled life. To understand that this is not only desirable, not only possible, but absolutely imperative if we are to call ourselves decent people.
Absolutely. You hit the nail on the head! Right f--king on!
I actually just wish we would return to the taxation levels America enjoyed between 1930 and 1980. It taxed the rich more, and spread it around more, and it created a better society than the debt-ridden mockery Reagan/Bush turned it into.
We like to think we can get money out of government, but I don't really think thats possible. We have one man, one vote, but to a large extent we also have one dollar, one vote, more's the pity (cuz our economy has ALWAYS been one dollar, one vote). Yet, Congress can still perform the will of the people, IF the people also own the money. And thats the problem with the kind of wealth inequality we are facing today. Congress now goes exclusively to the money-owners of America for direction on how to vote, and those money-owners are an ever shrinking percentage of the population.
With wealth inequality, capitalism is at risk, sure. But its actually democracy that's at risk the most, because the votes that money buys are increasingly coming from just a few hands.
Between 1930 and 1970, the wealthiest 10% of Americans owned about 55% of America. Now, they own over 75% of America. That is why both our capitalism and our democracy are at risk. We need to use progressive taxation to return that ratio to the levels we saw in the 1930s to 1970s, during which America grew into the greatest nation on earth, in stature, economy, wealth, and power. Since Reagan cut taxes and the nation's wealth has increasingly been held by just a few, the country has fallen into massive debt and wage slavery, with millions unemployed and millions uninsured. Truly a precarious America, given the lofty height we fell from.
It was this very growth that turned the recipients of inexpensive education against its wealth & power & stature, because they had professors who were able & willing to teach them on what brutality & oppression that wealth & power & stature rested. Inexpensive advanced education thus became one of the targets of the right wing during the conservative ascendancy. We were on the lofty heights of any empire, and as soon as reflective people began recognizing what the empire WAS, they turned against it, though the unreflective continued to defend it, and their overprivileged lives, in the name of all the phony catchphrases that Obama will repeat tomorrow in order to get more cannon fodder for the empire.
Good point. Information is now used as a weapon of oppression. Without access to education, we cannot compete with countries where people have it. The problem is similar to the health care problem. Unnatural selection anyone? When only rich people can breed, the species itself will be at risk. It is my cynical observation, formed probably from working around too many CEO’s and Hollywood celebrities that peoples' level of intelligence is usually inversely proportional to their net worth. I imagine that if I had worked with Congress critters, I would be even more rude and condescending toward them. Please throw some sympathy toward an old man who remembers answering his phone at 3 AM to a tearful and psychotic Zsa Zsa Gabor needing her pink bathroom phone repaired immediately because it did not ring loud enough. I can deal with snakes, but PLEASE don’t call me “dahhhhhling.”
acemoab 11:28 I think Zsa Zsa wanted another bell rung real loud !!!
True ideals, worth dreaming, you offer. I particularly like your statement:
"Hope that the truth will prevail, and that we somehow regain our humility."
Yes, humility's the crux of the matter.
Vanuatu on the South Pacific New Hebrides ilands is the topmost rated country on the "happy planet index". Their per capita GDP is one-tenth of the USA's ($4,600); their life expectancy is 62 years; they are mostly subsistence farmers; they refuse to introduce TV broadcast in their country - yet, they are the happyest nation in the world...
"But it's an isolated, closed, agricultural society with a small population" - a realist might object. To which I may offer an example of industrialized socialist society which succesfully functioned for fourty years, until it dessolved in early '90s due to the remapping of the world after USSR fell apart: former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
I was born into socialism, grew up, and worked in it for 25 years.
We were not rich, although the national economy's average annual growth rate after WWII (and after a devastating destruction of the country) was around 8%. But what we did have, and what laissez-faire capitalism fights tooth and nail, is: solidarity; communitarianism; dignity; personal identity (individualism vs. herd mentality in American proto-fascism); security (extremely low crime rate); mental and physical health of the population (some of the forms of social pathology were unheard of) - to name just the most important benefits.
There were disadvantages, too, like what you call "dictatorship" but from our point of view it was self-protection of the system which, in turn, protected personal liberty. When I do comparison of the contemporary USA and then-Yugoslavia, it's to the detriment of the former: for the first time in my life I'm claustrophobic due to my living in a police state.
Being too old to make a good idealist, I could happily live with a socially responsible capitalism in the USA.
Y do we waste time thinking we can ever have anything close to what these So called Socialist paradises have. America is a country full of John Wayne wannabes and Bapatist knuckle draggers. These people will fight to the death to stay ignorant and poor and prejudiced. Say the word socialism around them and their heads explode with visions of RED hordes raping and pillaging their fatherland. It's the Soviet army at the gates of Berlin again or Sherman marching through Georgia freeing the slaves and burning out the planters.
Isn't it wonderful what 50 years of propaganda against the RED hordes from the U.S. government can do.
What other attitudes, beliefs have been ingrained in the minds of Americans by the government?
My dad, a staunch conservative Republican, gets me a free subscription to The Economist Magazine, which promotes global capitalism. He knows I lean left, and hopes this will convert me.
Yet, perhaps chastened by recent events, last weeks cover story talked about how France is considered the best economy in Europe, Germany is not as good, and England is in trouble. And why is France the best? Because it has the most government control of its capitalism, and its less likely to fall to bankster and corporate scams.
This week The Economist is promoting banks in Canada and Sweden for how to be properly run!! Take THAT, Wall Street.
Dare I say it? It's beginning to look like Socialists are Free-Marketeers bitten by reality.
Sweet revenge. Thanks, Dad.