Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Capitalism’s Incarnations
Is capitalism evil? Is it bound to pass from the scene? I thought such questions were forever relegated to occasional seminars in a few cloistered left academies. Now, compliments of Michael Moore and the Great Recession, such questions are part of our national discourse. Yet, as even many on the left would caution, shorting capitalism is a dangerous strategy that has burned many over the last two centuries.
Perhaps a more fruitful line of inquiry is the form in which it will survive. The capitalism of the robber barons differed in many ways from that of Andrew Jackson's era. Mid-1950s capitalism is distinctive from today's insider capitalism.
U.S. capitalism in its 2009 incarnation is neither just nor efficient. One need only look at a number of widely accepted measures of economic health. While nearly one of six American workers is unemployed or underemployed, almost a third of our productive facilities stand idle. While homelessness continues to grow, nearly one in seven rental properties stands vacant and foreclosure rates rise.
Put aside Economics 101 and ask a simple question. Isn't there something wrong with an economy that fails to steer unemployed workers into the unused plants? And if some policy achieved this purpose, wouldn't more workers earn enough to rent those vacant homes and apartments?
Americans often pride themselves on looking at facts on the ground. I find it hard to deny that as an economy we have already produced enough homes and factories that everyone could live comfortably.
Conservatives argue that government programs that pay the unemployed to work in those vacant factories would be "inefficient" or would burden our grandchildren with huge obligations. Yet what could be more inefficient than allowing nearly a sixth of our workers and a third of our factories to sit idle? And as for future generations, their ability to pay debts will depend on the strength of the underlying economy, which is being eroded day by day.
After the Great Depression, Europe and the U.S. crafted policies that corrected the crude market imbalances that allowed humans and their tools to sit idly. Athens University economist Euclid Tsakalotos points out that Keynesianism in the postwar model was also more than a tool to deal with recession and aggregate demand. "It represented a broad, and relatively coherent, patchwork of political, social, and economic elements. It included social norms about the level of acceptable inequality (the level of wages at both ends of the income distribution, care for those unable to work).
The compromises of post-World War II capitalism broke down in the '70s. The years since this breakdown have not been kind, either in long- term growth or economic justice. GNP and productivity increases both in the
U.S. and in a liberalizing Europe slowed even as inequality grew. (By the same token, the refusal of several European states to follow as fully the U.S. deregulatory labor market model has eased their decline.)
Our experience over the last 50 years suggests that capitalism works best when the dynamism of markets is harnessed to and limited by social and moral concerns. That experience, however, raises two other concerns that the left must take seriously.
Even the most harmonious system (social democracy, socialism, farmers market capitalism) may hide old wrongs or even encourage new evils. Just as capitalism changes in shape, the social norms in which it is embedded can themselves become agents of oppression if not subject to sensitive scrutiny. Post-World War II capitalism was sustained by lonely and uncompensated women's work, by African-Americans in ill-compensated work and by endless exploitation of natural and human capital.
Corporate capitalism can grow and adapt. Social and economic relations within individual firms acting in a market environment need not be confined to the strict hierarchies prevalent today. Not only Europe but also the U.S. provide instances of worker-controlled enterprise in which a one-person, one-vote principle prevails, corporate assets are jointly owned, and workers determine wage structures and product priorities.
Contrary to the business press, such firms have impressive track records. In Europe, workers have directly occupied some of the factories being closed amid the recession. Some have seen the social insanity of idle minds and plants and have acted directly where politicians even on the left have stood by.
- Posted in
109 Comments so far
Show AllI read the other day that Detroit has a vacant factory and home situation the size of Central Park.
I think each urban area should do an inventory of these properties, either bulldoze them and create open space in the hearts of these cities, or find a use for the factories that are still viable. Putting local people to work either tearing down or refurbishing these areas would be a jobs program we could believe in. Creating manufacturing opportunities that create goods for a local market, and even the locavore food movement-greenhouses and open space for growing food for local consumption are all possibiities.
The Mondragon movement in Spain has seen success with worker-owned and operated business. I think our biggest problem today is that a few world-wide mega corporations make all our decisions for us. We need to be thinking locally if we are to survive. The globalists don't care about us.
You certainly have the right idea. But what to do with these globalists? We can't live with them, for they will thwart all our efforts and destroy us.
Stop buying their stuff. Look for alternatives to "made in China". Don't be in the lines of morons who stand in line for the latest Ipod, or whatever they are peddling.
We need shelter, food, clothing, transportation, energy sources-scour your local environment for locally produced goods whenever possible. I buy on Ebay or second-hand where I am able to recycle something useful and also put money in the hands of local people, or at least American citizens. Buy an American-made car, or buy a used car. Our local utility allows the purchase of renewable energy credits, it costs me an extra $6 bucks a month to support wind and solar power. Become active in your community to encourage local food and housing projects, public transportation, urban renewal, avoid Walmart whenever possible, eat out at locally-owned restaurants. Start a garden, plant a fruit tree. Our town is relatively small, so an individual has an opportunity to get a letter in the paper, be heard at a public meeting, go to the local food bank or charity and hand them a check or used goods that can be given to those in need. Become active in your local party elections. Those people climbing the ladder to state posts and then national positions all start somewhere. Progressives need our support and encouragement to attain office against the corporate entries.
When oil hits $200 a barrel or is totally unavailable it will hit the fan and we will be cast back into something like the dark ages after Rome fell. If you look at the Baltic Dry Index you will see that shipping, worldwide, has taken a hit since the recession and oil hitting $143 a barrel. Actually what happened when Rome fell, was communities re-organized locally to provide what they needed, trade continued and expanded without the Roman armies controlling everything. Life went on. We just didn't have the journalists to record the decline and fall and how life was afterward. Ask Russians what they did after their collapse, because that is where we are headed when the rest of the world quits buying our debt.
I couldn't agree more with all your ideas. ( I also am a big fan of Naomi Klein). I would add one or two suggestions. If you are lucky enough to have a job and a pension get rid of the pension. In other words; get out of Wall Street. Sell any stocks you are in any way the owner of. Wall Street has enough money; they don't need any more of ours.Find a local grocery store, something that doesn't belong to a chain, and invest in them. Help them keep their prices down so more people can shop with them. Grocery stores, hardware stores, anything that is owned by people you know, not some distant corporation.
Get out of the banks. Keep only enough in your account to pay bills you can't pay with cash in person. The banks have enough of our money to play their games with already; like Wall Street, they don't need more. Cancel any savings accounts; the banks use that money to play on Wall Street and as we've learned, Wall Street and the corporations are the ones destroying us.
Write to the President, your Congressman and your Senators and tell them that between sending our children to die in Iraq and Afghanistan and selling our health to the insurance companies they have finally proved once and for all that they don't give a penny for us and that in future you will be voting Green in all local and national elections. Tell them this isn't a threat; it's just to let them know that they have lost your vote. Then go out and change your registration so they know you mean it. Tell them that you are hoping that the Greens will do something to keep planet earth alive for your children and grandchildren since obviously neither Democrats nor Republicans will. They don't care if we starve and they care even less if Bangladeshis or Africans die of drowning or drought.
Let Wall Street and the corporations go down. We need to take our economy back and build local communities.
Couldn't agree with you more. I'm about through with banks, 401K's and Democrats. I have become very disheartened by the same old, same old that Obama now represents in DC.
I didn't expect a huge change with his election, but I did really feel that he would at least maintain the illusion of change by not hiring the same old DC retreads that haunt every administration.
How can you resolve problems , when you are being advised by the same people that created the problems? He has shown us who he is, believe him.
401Ks are much maligned. It's just a tax designation. You can have a 401K in a "safe" money market fund. If your company doesn't offer the kinds of investments of interest to you via 401K maybe you should just not participate. Where this decision means that you give up matching funds, well that's a tough break. Max out your IRA instead, double check all your purchacing decisions, even the small ones, etc.
I'm retired, when I said I was through with 401K's I meant it literally.
If inflation takes off again, as it must, even having matching funds isn't going to make 401K's more appealing. Interest on investments is pathetic at this point. There are other ways to invest over time that can be more profitable, but most people aren't willing to put in the time to do their own investing.
"I'm retired, when I said I was through with 401K's I meant it literally. "
Very well then, I hope you understand my point otherwise.
"There are other ways to invest over time that can be more profitable, but most people aren't willing to put in the time to do their own investing."
Very true.
The problem with 401ks, IRAs, or simple savings accounts etc is that they all leave money sitting in a bank, or an investment account, for the people on Wall Street and in the banks to play with. To do, in fact, exactly what they've been doing.
I cheer every time I see that the Nasdaq or the Dow has gone down. The only investments I would consider (if I had any money that is) would be a local grocery store, hardware store etc who is struggling to compete against the big box stores. I'd give them some money so they could lower their prices a bit. Of course, that wouldn't bring me a monetary return but I think saving the planet and all our fellow creatures on it is the biggest return I could possibly get. Not to mention the long term benefit of preserving our local communities.
We have to end the investment for monetary profit system. The only way a company makes a large profit is by buying its wares cheaply and re-selling them high or by paying its workers less. That's where dividends come from; that's what we have to end.
"The problem with 401ks, IRAs, or simple savings accounts etc"
I'm not sure you understand: 401Ks and IRAs are just tax designations on accounts. They can contain any kind of asset.
"is that they all leave money sitting in a bank, or an investment account, for the people on Wall Street and in the banks to play with."
This is a very broad generalization that seems to ignore the *many* choices that are available to investors. There are good investment vehicles and bad investment vehicles. Investors can punish bad managers by going elsewhere.
"We have to end the investment for monetary profit system. The only way a company makes a large profit is by buying its wares cheaply and re-selling them high or by paying its workers less. That's where dividends come from; that's what we have to end."
The above makes me even more convinced that personal finance should be a mandatory course in public school. It also ignores basic human nature. Why would anyone do anything at all if they didn't benefit i.e. "profit" from it?
Well, I've avoided Walmart for many years. I defy anyone to not buy products from China. I do have a four year old Ipod. That is one of the good things in life, like avocados and garlic. I can have my whole music library handy at any time with total fidelity. And I can update my library easily through Itunes. Music is VERY important to me. My car is a 1994 Ford. I'm holding out for an American made plug in and a sustainable electric grid to plug it into. Think that will EVER happen? When I lived in Sacramento I had the benefit of a wonderful farmer's market system. Here in Tucson it stinks, and there are very few local markets. I am 68 and take care of a 92 year old mother who is barely ambulatory. Who has time to join things or garden? I eat at local restaurants. Fortunately Tucson has a few good ones. I'm very careful who I vote for, and vote independent. I keep a minimum in my bank account, just enough to bay the bills. I use the bank credit card and pay up every month.
What I'm trying to say here is that while your suggestions are very good, I don't think they will do much to get rid of global corporations and their minions in government--even if the average American worked hard to follow them. Besides, we don't have too much time. My answer would be another revolution, this time by the people (or proletariat, if you like). It would likely be a very violent one. People don't give up huge wealth and power without a fight. If there is another, less violent way, I'd love to hear about it.
WORK CO-OPERATION IN AMERICA. Some resources
Right on Importer.
To learn how to build worker's co-ops, though, we don't have to go to Argentina or Spain. Take a look at: http://www.nobawc.org
Nobawc (noboss) stands for, "The Network of Bay Area Worker Cooperatives." They are "dedicated to building workplace democracy in San Francisco Bay Area and beyond. We provide support for democractic goods and services."
Within a mile of my house in Berkeley, workers' co-ops run a pizza parlor, a cheese store, a juice bar, a bike shop, and a woodworking factory. In San Francisco a large "Rainbow Grocery." supermarket. These are stable, long term enterprises and the wages are good.
John Curl, who is a worker-owner at the wood shop, has written a 506 page book called:
"For All the People: Uncovering the Hidden History of Cooperation, Cooperative Movements, and Communalism in America"
Or you could check out: "The Sharing Solution: How to Save Money, Simplify Your Life & Build Community," by Janelle Orsi and Emily Doskow.
It can be done. We can build a co-operative alternative.
But we have to start practicing community in every possible way. When you grow food, don't do it alone, invite in the neighbors for a Garden Work Party. In Santa Cruz, CA, check out: growfoodpartycrewsantacruz.ning.com or the international site at: http://growfoodpartycrew.ning.com
In Berkeley we call it "Neighborhood Vegetables."
As we get into the habit of co-operative solidarity we can apply it to our struggles as well. For example, the IWW (yes, still alive and growing) has pioneered new forms of labor - neighborhood coordination in Philadelphia and in Brooklyn.
http://www.iww.org/en/node/3934
No, neither Obama nor any Democrat are going to lead us into a non-exploitive world. But if learn how to co-operate and get to work, WE can do it.
A few short months ago, I went to hear Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis speak at Cooper Union here in NYC. Two activists from the Argentina movement -- to occupy and take back the closed down factories also appeared that night and spoke at length about how to take successful action. Afterwards, lots of very good questions were raised, and answered by the panelists.
Naomi and Avi produced a film that is available on DVD -- The Take. In addition, a book, Sin Patron, the story of occupying factories and turning them into producers again, and putting workers back to work, has been released in English.
It might be worth looking into and seeing how their methods could be applied here in the United States. At one time, I wrote down the names of the two Agentine activists, but I can't find my notes at the moment. Sorry! In addition, Naomi and Avi worked with a person who helped finance some of the updating of the factories --as I recall.
BTW, not long ago, I read that Obama was over in Spain talking to them about manufacturing light rail cars for the U.S. WHY? U.S. workers need jobs, why can't empty and abandoned factories be updated, and workers, here in this country, put back to work?
I agree -- it seems like it's up to us to take charge of our own lives. Our so-called leaders have NO interest in improving our lives -- not if it costs them anything.
"The globalists don't care about us." -- importer
If I run across the names of the Argentine activists, I will post them for you. They were here in the United States to show us how. And, workers are taking over factories in France -- why not here?
Thanks to the editing process, I am able to add the link to Naomi Klein's website that offers additional information about the movement to reopen factories in Argentina.
http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/05/cure-layoffs-fire-boss
Thanks for the heads up, I'm a big fan of Naomi Klein.
We have to start thinking about saving ourselves, it is clear that neither party or the president has any plans to do it.
importer: I agree with you!
Here in NYC, I read that Mayor Bloomberg and Al Gore are partnering on a "green jobs" project. However, here's the kicker -- the two men are rounding up volunteers to do the work. Last time I checked, Mayor Bloomberg was a multi-billionaire -- to the tune of at least $20 billion. And, Al Gore is also a very wealthy man. The photo ops will look good, though -- right?
Unfortunately, volunteering on a good project can feel good, but it does NOT pay the rent and it does NOT buy food. The unemployment rate in NYC is higher than the national average, with maybe as many as 1.5 million people out of work.
yes kay you are right on target. a pair of weasels.
when mike bloomberg became mayor he was worth 7 bil.
today its 16 bil. when all his friends were losing billions
he was making billions. he just spent 100 mil to win his
latest election. and he only makes a dollar a year.
there's many many new buildings going up in nyc now
ever wonder who owns them? makes one say humm
there aren't really as many projects that are
union as there used to be. makes one say humm.
there are more homeless then there ever were
in nyc now makes you say you guessed it humm.
mike is one slick weasel.
"there's many many new buildings going up in nyc" -- tell the truth
I walk a lot in all parts of the city, and each day, I see additional empty commercial spaces -- large spaces, small spaces, and entire blocks sitting empty, waiting to be leased or rented. No neighborhood is unaffected. And, as I am writing this, developers are building MORE spaces! For whom? For what businesses?
Isn't Bank of America building a tower in mid-town? I notice more and more banks opening -- as if we need more banks here in the City.
In my neighborhood, East Harlem, over the past three or four years, developers built countless luxury apartments and condos, most of which are sitting empty. Every day, I see more for rent signs and more for sale signs in windows of apartments -- entire buildings are for sale.
One day, I stopped to talk to some union workers, and they are having a tough time -- fewer and fewer jobs. And, you are right, again, I am seeing more and more homeless people, too.
What a mess!
"Is capitalism evil? Is it bound to pass from the scene?" Anything or species that has not been able to adapt to changing conditions will disappear. The question is will capitalism exist in the future or will some other form of economics take its place that will be more nurturing to the species.
Capitalism is at least partly responsible for the destruction of our species that will occur in the near future. In order to have a form of economics, you have to have a human species for it to nurture. Basically, capitalism (in any of its forms) is based on human greed. People who believe in capitalism have made a god out of the evolutionary 'fact' of competition. Evolution has nothing to do with it. We either learn to cooperate for the common good, or we perish. It's really that simple. Competition is not a bad thing, but it's not an ideal to worship either. And it should never be the basis for an economic system.
BRILLIANT!!!
Competition --as you say :
:"should NEVER be the BASIS for an economy" and you are absolutely correct and put the finger on the EXACT SINGLE THING that has caused such trouble for the world.
COOPERATION is and should be the basis.
Ask the right questions and every once in awhile you get a damn good answer.
Must cooperation and competition be mutually exclusive?
As for what the "basis" of an economy is, that's easy: Mining and Agriculture, aka Primary Industries. All other industries stem from those, regardless of the economic system.
Jeevee
EXCELLENT comment, Teddy.
those who engage in cult-like advocacy of capitalism should remember that you can't have winners unless you have losers. for every successful manufacturing executive, there have to be 10 or 15 workers making eight or nine dollars an hour, or making whatever the wage is that will keep the bosses' goods competitive in the domestic or international markets. no matter how well we educate ourselves as a nation, there still have to be those who do this unskilled and laborious work that makes the wheels of the bosses' enterprise turn. we cannot all be successful at the same time, nor can we all be doing executive work at the same time. to illustrate my point, even if the bottom ninth of our work force were as intelligent as the least intelligent of the nine supreme court justices (anita knows who he is), we would still have to have janitors, unskilled laborers, gophers, and folks who would remain relatively underpaid. that's the capitalist system, like it or not. we cannot all succeed at once. of course, if you'd like to entertain notions about a different economic arrangement, then by all means, let's start talking about one!
Hello johnny u,
In the Mondragon co-operative network in Spain, no one makes more than 6 times more than anyone else. In the US, CEO's of large companies make over 500 times the wage of an average worker.
But you need to pay CEO's "what they're worth" on the market or the company will fail, right? Sorry, the hundreds of Mondragon co-ops employ 90,000 workers. It is, "the largest business group in the Basque Country and the seventh largest in Spain."
http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/ENG.aspx
Sheer power, not economics, is what allows the capitalists to make their millions and billions. When we can get that money and power away from them, the economy will work just fine. IF, we can train ourselves to govern co-operatively and democratically. We know, however, that it can be done.
Capitalism breeds class war and
a depleted resource base.
Greed destroys the human spirit.
Decide:
dog eat dog until the world melts or
peaceful co-existence on a healthy planet
capitalism is theft, slavery and murder commodified...aided and abetted by human psychological weakness that tends toward willful, selective ignorance and lazy, excessive exceptionalism...
the destruction and toxification of the natural world simply cannot be allowed to continue under any name...the requirement of money for the necessities provided naturally by this planet is the manifestation of this philosophy...this money requirement must be utterly removed from our social construct, replaced by a worship of the natural world, and a philosophy of personal, physical and emotional engagement and responsibility for one's own existence...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...acoustic, agrarian life...local food, water, shelter and governance...
Dubet, That was excellent. may i add to your statement,"replaced by a worship of the natural world" with, not only a worship of the natural world but the realization that we as humans ARE the natural world. To worship often implies that there is still a separation of nature and humans. It is ultimately this perceived separation that incites exploitation and abuse of nature.
thank you, sirios333, that human\nature unity was precisely my intended point of emphasis, but I did not state it clearly...I appreciate that you did...
we are, indeed, one with the world around us...
I agree that greed is what is driving capitalism now more than anything and probably always has been its major motivator, but I'm continually amazed how so many supposedly bright people forget that capital is only produced by labor. Without labor there is no sustainable capital. The more you stick it to workers and prevent them from producing the less capital there will be available. The over-reaching greed that has taken over our economy and the false accounting that has produced all this "wealth" for the few based on credit default swaps, derivatives, and mortgage-backed securities and their ilk cannot be sustained in the long term because they are not based on the production and consuming of real goods. We are seeing the results of removing labor from the capitalist equation and without a reset that supports and encourages labor, the system is doomed.
As someone above said, life didn't end during the dark ages. Maybe people were paying attention to what they were doing then and there except for Bede, maybe the only historian of his time.
Unfortunately what we are, we are. If we stop bombing other countries not only our food, clothes, houses, will be produced locally but so will our scapegoats.
We have not progressed beyond witch burning, we just do it globally like everything else.
You said it!
Now we all get to work on Obama's plantation.
The author asks:
"Isn't there something wrong with an economy that fails to steer unemployed workers into the unused plants?"
Maybe the plants represent overinvestment. Maybe there is nothing that can be made in the plants that anyone needs. To imply that there is something wrong with people not working is to imply there is work that should be done that isn't being done but the author says nothing about what products need to be made in these plants. In fact in the next paragraph he admits as much:
"I find it hard to deny that as an economy we have already produced enough homes and factories that everyone could live comfortably."
In the next paragraph he asks:
"what could be more inefficient than allowing nearly a sixth of our workers and a third of our factories to sit idle?"
What could be more inefficient? How about using those resources to make unnecessary weapons systems? Yet there are those who would justify the production of weapons solely by the jobs they create. Nevermind that those weapons are invariably used and using weapons on people usually makes them your enemy.
What else could be more efficient? How about producing unnecessary consumer goods? Wars are fought over the resources that are consumed when consumer goods are produced, when they are used (in most cases) and when they are disposed of. Pollution is generated when consumer goods are produced, used disposed of.
People are given a limited amount of time on this earth. How cynical is it to suggest that their lives should be wasted doing work that would be better undone?
There is no injustice in allowing people to determine for themselves how the limited amount of time they have in this life should be spent. What is unjust is when people don't have access to adequate food, shelter, education and health care when there is plenty and they are told that the only way for them to get access to these necessities is to do work that would be better undone, work that increases the likelihood of resource wars and environmental catastrophies for themselves and their descendents.
The solution to unemployment is to train workers to do the work that needs to be done and reduce work time to the point that everybody is employed producing those goods and services that are needed (Yes, I am aware that people will dispute what is actually needed and resolving this will generate inefficiencies). Based on the fact that this country has 10 - 20 per cent unemployment (depending on how you define it) and still produces more food and housing (not to mention weapons and automobiles) than it needs, I suggest lowering the work week to 20 hrs/week as a start.
Excellent start! And a minimum wage sufficient to allow each family to be prosperous and generous.
An excellent start would be a minimum wage sufficient to allow each family to get by--and more jobs. Right now, people are out of jobs and are losing their homes.
Please clarify: Are you suggesting that a burger flipper ought to be able to get paid enough to support a family? And if so, do you understand the implications?
Is a burger flipper more valuable than some highly paid ass hole on wall street who does no actual work, or the CEO of a financial organization that sells high risk mortgages? We had better answer these questions, as burger flipping may be the only sort of job available to the average American in the near future.
“Is a burger flipper more valuable than some highly paid ass hole on wall street who does no actual work, or the CEO of a financial organization that sells high risk mortgages? We had better answer these questions, “
Let's try to answer with a couple more questions :-) : Is burger flipping highly skilled, or can anyone do it with a very minimal training period? Why would anyone pay an "asshole" a lot of money, no matter what the name of the street they work on, if they did no "actual work"? Does a CEO of an organization add value to the organization through his management skills and experience? There are those who tend to deny the value and role of management in business. Are you one of them? Just curious on the last question.
Yes. The implication is that food preparation becomes greatly elevated in the societal value system, while shuffling around boatloads of funny munny, what white collar chimps do, sinks in value. So people refuse to support the munny shuffle, and instead support the food preparation. It makes perfect sense. You value what your need, food, shelter, clothing, that is produced by people you know/trust, your neighbors, so they are sure to have a job, so you won't find them sleeping in the gutter later. So, it's a change of values. Also, you don't invest in wall st. stocks, but instead in your local community, something that you can see, touch, a building that may house production of something, like soap! Or how about hand-cranked grain mills?
"Yes. The implication is that food preparation becomes greatly elevated in the societal value system,"
We are presumably talking about a government imposed "living wage". Food preparation becomes "elevated", via a government decree that it is so elevated? When the government formulates the "living wage", what parameters are considered? Is it the only wage in the household? How many are in the family? What standards of living are assumed, such as the size of the living space, how well it is kept, whether there is a TV subscription, what kinds of food are eaten, etc.?
Government can decree all it likes, but it can't prevent a business from cutting it's size in response to an arbitrary increase imposed to the payroll, or keep it from closing it's doors altogether. People naturally react to changes imposed on them, including those from government. People need to keep this in mind.
"So people refuse to support the munny shuffle, and instead support the food preparation. It makes perfect sense. You value what your need, food, shelter, clothing, that is produced by people you know/trust, your neighbors, "
Now you are talking. All of the above is fine by me when the people do so of their own free will.
re: tommy_slothrop November 10th, 2009 1:32 pm
while my own extremism won't allow me to agree with everything you say, this is one of the favorite things I've read here lately:
"To imply that there is something wrong with people not working is to imply there is work that should be done that isn't being done"
Well said! The problem our planet is suffering is too much human work, not too little...the economy may demand more work, but life, itself, demands less...is this a quandry? No...choose life...we must abandon the ownership of property, though...
Your money or your life...literally...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...acoustic, agararian living...local food water, shelter and governance...no more industry or electricity...
re: tommy and dubet: as was pointed out already in the 60's, the two great illusions driving competition based capitalism were scarcity, (now an operational reality) and the belief system that says that man must prove his right to live..
excellent! thank you, guernica...prove his right to live...well said...
Being a biologist, I tend to look at things from a population/resource perspective. Capitalism to me appears to be a system based on greed, consumption, and perpetual economic growth. In the past, when the human population was smaller and resources were relatively plentiful, maybe capitalism had some advantages in terms of innovations, etc. But we now live in a world in which the human population is large and growing, resources are becoming scarce, we are causing serious damage to the planet's ecosystems, and much of the human population (or at least the idiots who run things) has access to weapons of mass destruction. Under these conditions, it seems apparent to me that a system such as capitalism (greed, consumption, perpetual growth) can only lead to disaster. Hopefully this maladapted system will disappear from the scene without leaving too much destruction in its wake.
How can you be a scientist and make a statement like your last one: 'hopefully this maladapted system will disappear from the scene without leaving too much destruction in its wake'. Look around, or is that not part of being a scientist.
"Being a biologist, I tend to look at things from a population/resource perspective."
Such as you might see with other species, is that what you mean?
"Capitalism to me appears to be a system based on greed,"
When does reasonable self interest become "greed"? It turns out that it's up to the judgement of some individual to decide. Usually this is as it pertains to someone besides themselves
"consumption, "
More or less agreed.
"and perpetual economic growth."
I know of no such requirement for capitalism as we know it. Capitalism survives quite nicely the regular periods of economic shrinkage.
"I know of no such requirement for capitalism as we know it. Capitalism survives quite nicely the regular periods of economic shrinkage."
You trying to be funny here? You are seriously positing that "growth" isn't a primary tenet of capitalism? Have you ever heard a capitalistic economist say three sentences about the economy without talking about growth? A politician? "Regular periods of economic shrinkage" have got nothin' to do with capitalism's big picture aspiration--which is always more GROWTH.
"You are seriously positing that "growth" isn't a primary tenet of capitalism?"
I was responding to the phrase "perpetual growth". The primary tenets of capitalism are private control and distribution of profit to owners. Any assumption about growth, perpetual or not, is done so at considerable risk by the one making the assumption.
The reality of capitalism is that each time you buy something you are casting a vote for a way of life. If you knew you would be voting for and supporting a better standard of life, wouldn't you choose to pay a little extra for a product that comes from a company that treats its employees well pay-wise and labor-wise and cares for the environment?
Socialism may look great at first but the pay has to fit the job. No two jobs that are different should be required to pay employees the same regardless. A programmer generally deserves more pay than a help desk specialist because when you're coding, every little bit matters and giving an "I don't know" response is dangerous compared to help desk who can get away with it. That's not to say that help desk specialists deserve nothing better. Make the case for better pay and accept the results or leave the company and let it pay its price for playing cheaps.
Still don't think that the power is in your hands? Let's see what happens when soda drinking goes down by 50% for a week. Those stocks would collapse in a New York minute.
That's the beauty of capitalism, the power to choose. When you're in a situation where you cannot really choose what you want to buy or are given fake "choices" of the same bs, then it ain't capitalism. I don't support unbridled capitalism in case I didn't make myself clear.