Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCapitalism’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.
109 Comments so far
Show AllWhat Will It Take to Break Our Trance?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23938.htm
Capitalism = FAILURE
Capitalism = FAILS AGAIN!
Capitalism = GOOD RIDDANCE!!!
Capitalists = YOUR ALL FINISHED!!!! GO AWAY ALREADY!!!!!
"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 was well-known before 50 years ago, and actually it was well known in 1776 when Smith published what would become the laissez-faire capitalist's "bible", that social/moral concerns are prerequisites to a functional economy and society. Smith's book never would have gained any acceptance during the enlightenment period if it had not featured social/moral concerns being met as the basic assumption underlying his arguments. Marx ignored that Smith embraced this assumption, in an opportunistic way, and greatly contributed to the public ignorance by hiding this part of the picture. Not that it was all Marx's fault. The religionists needed to bury the enlightenment in the USA and the Protestant work ethic found an ideological partner in a lobotomized capitalist scheme. Out went social/moral values, and in came the righteous privilege bestowed by "god" to the hard-working, mammon-hoarding pasty-white merkan protestant male.
The REAL way to organize the economic system is determined by the goal of universal equity/justice. This is the social/moral value that was earlier buried by the protestants and their partners. Universal equity/justice require that the people own/control production, not something the elites are going to favor. Continue to cater to elite interests (e.g. electing elite candidates as 130 million USans did in Nov 2008) at grave risk to all societies and the entire biosphere.
"Even the most harmonious system (social democracy, socialism, farmers market capitalism) may hide old wrongs or even encourage new evils. [...] Corporate capitalism can grow and adapt."
What the hell? The author didn't illustrate his point about the farmers' markets. I find the farmers' markets to be perhaps the best example of positive change in the US away from corporate capitalism. Corporate capitalism gave us really bad food and really bad prices. The farmers' markets deliver top quality and at a better price, cutting out the middleman, and connecting producers/consumers directly.
Do we WANT corporate capitalism to grow and adapt? Hell no. Stop the debate, it's finished. We're putting the capitalist beast into the harness to take orders from the people. The little beast will be limited to the size of ten man-powers. USan liberalism dances around the question of economics and has thus rendered itself unusable and irrelevant over the past eight years. It is currently being replaced with a new ideology on the USan left featuring universal equity/justice.
Columbus sailed. The Pilgrims landed, & here we all are now. If only Columbus hadn't sailed, & the Pilgrims hadn't landed.
Imagine, I wonder if you can.
This was a good article, until the author went off about cooperatives in the last two paragraphs. How are cooperatives going to solve or even address any of the problems mentioned in the article? They certainly won't change unemployment levels. The author was correct to talk about the need for Keynsian intervention and a sturdy social safety net - these are the things that made the postwar era up to the 1970s (when neoliberalism took over) one of the most prosperous, and egalitarian, periods in modern capitalism. Cooperatives are fine, personally I think they're really neat, but as long as you have individual firms producing for the market then they are going to reproduce all the problems that Keynsianism is supposed to fix, regardless of whether they are less 'hierarchical' (or whatever) than capitalist firms.
My point is, you could swap every single capitalist firm for a workers' coop, and that would be great, but you'd have addressed none of the problems that the bulk of this article is spent talking about.
Capitalism - Socialism; down through the ages the phlosophers and poets caution man to steer between the clashing rocks. A bit of both I suppose and always remember that it is alright to own things but never for things to own you.
"Economics" is about as scientific as phrenology. Lets not forget that economics is merely a cultural construct.
Economics is a *social* science. Even economists know that and what the implications are.
Yes.
Economists claim to be objective scientists studying reality when in fact they are nothing but an advocacy group for consumerism. Consumerism is leading the world toward an abyss of resource wars and environmental degradation.
"Economists claim to be objective scientists studying reality when in fact they are nothing but an advocacy group for consumerism."
Can you quote any particular economist as a way of supporting this statement? Thank you.
A quote from the economist Stiglitz: growth can not be measured by the GNP alone. It must include "the well-being of ordinary people".
Nationalize necessities, privatize luxuries.
Agreed. But it is not exactly the direction we're going, is it? If privatization of water is not an omen of things to come, I don't know what is.
The majority of people must be made to realize that the myth of efficient, competitive, innovative, small-firm capitalism is just that--a myth--used to justify the existing system of wasteful, monopolistic, stagnated, oligarchic big-firm corporatism. The idea that kowtowing to the rich is always the "efficient" option is simply closing our eyes to reality. Modern U.S. capitalism is about as "efficient" as the "latifundia" system that prevailed in Latin America for many decades, where hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land would be left fallow because the giant landowners that owned them did not want any competition from small farmers, so they simply bought up all the land and sat on it.
The capitalist ideal that exists in most people's minds has never really existed. But even the few aspects of that ideal that are derived from reality haven 't existed for at least 150 years--before the rise of monopolistic industrialists and the immense corrupting influence of their money and power on government.
The market should only hold sway where genuine competition and innovation can be induced by government policy. In areas where this is impossible (and I agree that necessities are by and large such an area), socialization makes perfect sense.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats idealize the small business owner. The one thing the Democrats have going for them is that their POLICIES actually favor the small business owner, at least as compared to Republicans, whose policies nakedly benefit their giant corporate owners at the expense of any further claim to capitalist competition or innovation or dynamism. But neither party comes anywhere close to drawing the rules of the market where they need to be, since they are both soaked in corporate dollars; and neither one is ready to seriously consider the option that parts of the economy simply are not better off left to the market no matter HOW the rules of the market are drawn up, and should simply be socialized.
A very thought provoking four words. Sounds like a healthy socialist / capitalist segregation. But the greedy capitalist, seeing a buck to be made in the necessities sector, might muscle in and try to take over the nationalized necessities. There is at least one country where your idea has actually been tried, and it failed because the capitalist government had no teeth, or no will, to enforce the segregation. It's best to reject compromise with the devil whenever possible.
It isn't a compromise, because capitalism isn't the devil when it comes to luxuries. The government is not good at determining what people want; the market is. But when it comes to NEEDS, the market often fails to deliver, hence that role should be handed over to the public sector. At least, that is what I understand ezeflyer to be saying.
"The government is not good at determining what people want; the market is."
We've been hearing this for a long time and it almost has the status of gospel, but maybe it's time to question it.
This might have been true in pre-computer days, but look what is done in stores now with optical readers. Except for shoplifting (which will be greatly reduced if not eliminated under socialism) the store owner knows exactly what is happening to his inventory at any moment.
Under socialism, sophisticated software could statistically project, based on present consumption, what will be required in the future. And this projection would govern production.
This would be a much more efficient method of controlling production than the profit motive, which we know often produces without a guaranteed market and then depends upon advertising to flog its wares (supply side economics). Sometimes that's successful, sometimes not.
Ok, we'd might have to do a little guessing to prime the system to get it rolling (but no more guessing than capitalist production does today), then after it got rolling we'd have super efficient production (assuming top quality predictive software).
double post
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?
the rich have better things to do with their money than try to produce goods in competition with the developing world (to whom they exported your jobs years ago)....they are too busy gambling on credit default swaps and such...
anyone for a trip to Kauai for a game of golf? anyone??
We can get Juan to pilot the yacht separately. We'll just fly there, enjoy the game, and then go fishing...
If we withdrew from Empire, made health care non-profit, insisted on unprocessed food, switched to alternative transpo, legalized recreational drugs, etc., there wouldn't be much to do around these 50 states, would there?
Unless, of course, we were determined to become energy independent, healthy, fit, re-claim the future for our children, and to prepare for climate change...
Money would flow into different hands, and more hands...
The rest of the world's diverse cultures would be relieved, and new things would happen.
CORP IS BORG.
Capitalism is an excellent method of exchange. The main problem that we are experiencing with it today is that it has been corrupted by under-regulated corporations. This could all be resolved by simply adding the word "natural" to the first line of the 14th Amendment.
http://www.sonic.net/~taryfast/us.html
The very nerve of you, Tarry, trying tame capitalism.
If that happened, what would we have to make us crazy?
Come on...such simple panaceas are not fit for intelligent discussion. Spare us.
here's the difference...
dec issue of consumer reports discusses BPA... the epoxy liner for most canned goods... and until recently... plastic baby bottles... that is increasingly being shown to leach into the stuff in the container and is cancer causing...
walmart and target agreed to take the plastic baby bottles w/ BPA off the shelves... no word yet on the canned goods they sell... in my humble opinion this was a marketing decision... not a public health concern decision...
various states have / are passing legislation... federal legislation is being introduced to ban BPA...
HERE'S THE DIFFERENCE:
all japanese manufacturers VOLUNTARILY stopped using BPA in 1997. TWELVE YEARS AGO. VOLUNTARILY.
too bad those in our society who place exploitation of people above people... are better funded... better organized... and scream louder...
my ultimate "hunter gets the game"... have like barbara and laura bush cleaning toilets in india in the slums...
To answer the original question; yes.
You all know this, but it never hurts to review...
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
Corporate capitalism can indeed grow and adapt. The problem is that the natural world can't adapt to capitalism.
According to the most widespread faith today, global capitalism, market mechanisms should respond with practical solutions to a ecological crisis of this magnitude. In fact, there is no real feedback mechanism that can be can check capitalism’s destruction of the biospheric conditions of civilization and most forms of life on this planet. On the contrary, whole new industries and markets aimed at profiting from planetary destruction are being opened up. Al Gore's status as the first carbon trading billionaire is a leading indicator for those who spy the next bubble.
The fundamental fact is that capitalism thrives on scarcity. Nothing dismays investment bankers more than the thought of a planet where there would be abundant food, water and health for all. The loss of profit opportunities this would entail would for them be a genuine tragedy. What makes sense in a system like this are the waste and destruction of our natural resources. The costs of this destruction are externalized - assumed by the public, like the bank bailouts, and by nature as a whole, while yielding fat profits for the middle men.
The growth of natural scarcity is a golden opportunity to further privatize the world’s remaining resources. Carefully study how the corporate media frames the water crisis. The solution invariably involves rapid privatization of fresh water, which has now become the new mega-market for entrepreneurs. It is precisely through the drying up and contamination of freshwater that these investment opportunities are created. In the words of Gérard Mestrallet, CEO of the global water giant Suez: "Water is an efficient product. It is a product which normally would be free, and our job is to sell it. But it is a product which is absolutely necessary for life...Where else [other than in the monopolization of increasingly scarce water resources for private gain] can you find a business that’s totally international, where the prices and volumes, unlike steel, rarely go down?"
What we call Capitalism now is something that neither Adam Smith or Karl Marx would recognize. I call it corporate kleptocracy. In any case the syatem inplace now will adapt to extract the world's resources for the benefit of a few. It will probably figure out how to make a profit from the death of millions. After all the death of 30,000,000 in India frees up the equivalent resources used by 1,000,000 in the USA. Sell it to 500,000 and you can make a handsome profit.
"The problem is that the natural world can't adapt to capitalism."
Plate Tectonics doesn't care a wit about Capitalism. The question always comes back to the adaptability of *our* species and those that support us.
Welcome back Jake; its been a while since we've listened to your "stuff".
But this time, I'll agree with you, and add that capitalism cares a lot about
plate tectonics; it has guided oil and mineral exploration for the past 40
years.
"Welcome back Jake"
Thanks. Capitalists don't care, I think, based on time scale. If the geological history of the earth can be represented by the length between the fingertips of you fully outstretched arms to your left and right, than all the history of our species can be represented by the length of fingernail that can be removed with just a couple strokes of a nail file.
When is the fucking government going to do some good for the people who are seriously hurting from all their (the gov's.)terrible fiscal and administrative mismanagement?
We have been following complete assholes for decades without a chance to really change a thing electorally in this farce of political system that is bought by the corporations using their lobbyists as agents of greed.
No where is there a chance that the poor and working-class have their voices heard and their needs met--yet who has been suffering in every manner, who's blood has been poured out in these illegal and immoral wars and occupations--who's treasures have been squandered--who's homes have been lost and health-care been denied--certainly not the wealthy--they have in fact been given unfair advantages through tax breaks and legal loop-holes--When will justice in these matters come about--will it actually take a violent revolution before peace with justice be established? Does anyone know where one can join a proper militia that has as a goal to restore equality to all Americans??
When we support such a government for the order and protection it affords we reveal ourselves as being cowards and faithless toward our brothers and sisters.
I would not like to think that I need the protection of a government from my neighbors. Maybe I do. Maybe lawless bands of marauders would roam the country side and the streets of cities. Maybe we would need each other for protection, but that is a far cry from allowing robber barons to make laws that are hardly less parasitic just for police and fire protection.
Here's a new crazy idea:
No economic system will ever work until the problem of human greed is tackled.
Now, one wouldn't hire a pedophile to coach little league, right? Yet we allow those suffering from Super Greedaholism to work in the highest echelons of a financial system the entire world depends on...
So, in essence, we hired the worst of the pedophiles to coach all of our little league teams... 'Have fun at practice today, Tommy. The 'coaches' promised they've really learned their lesson this time and will stop with the touching and the licking.!"
Then Tommy returns from practice in need of a shrink because of the continued touching and licking...
Just as we screen for pedophilia in potential little league coaches, we need to screen for Super Greedaholism in potential Bankster hires, and either get them help or strap a tight f**king leash around their neck...
Or, how's this: until further notice, all members of Big Bankster Inc. must attend GA (Greedaholics Anonymous) meetings once a week. Featured speakers will include the homeless, the wiped out, the royally screwed, and the totally f**ked... with pics and vids!
RE: No economic system will ever work until the problem of human greed is tackled.
This is a conclusion based on faulty framing. In fact it is one that supports the status quo; it supports capitalism. It goes like this, since greed is part if human nature, and we can't change human nature, ergo, we are forced to live with Capitalism.
The problem with capitalism as an economic system is that of all human weaknesses, it is GREED that capitalism REWARDS. The more you act on your greed the more "successful" you are. Nice guys finish last etc. Gee, let's come up with an economic system, that is anti-social, pathological and acts like a cancer to the everything on the planet! That's the ticket!!!
What if we had an economic system that rewarded a human strength? Pick your favorite!
I'm partial to love myself, as a closet romantic.
People want to cooperate with each other. Its like a need common to humanity. My Neighbor used to talk constantly about individualism, his hatred of Communism; it turned people into parasites he said.
He was always ready to do me any favor I needed, and was not loath to ask for help when he needed it. He was a good friend as long as we were working. Then he would bore me shitless maligning the very relationship he and I shared.
ronald reagan was truly the most dangerous president in our
nations history. without him we would not be at the place
we are at today. george bush sr. had the personality
of cardboard and never could have sold the destruction of
america to stupid americans. george markley you are one
cool dude and obviously not a sheeple. we need more folks
in your age bracket that think like you. they have the
money to help the right folks take office they just have
to shake off a life time of being conned by the fixed
news crowd.
I agree, Ronald Reagan was a disaster. Unfortunately, he was a smooth character from Hollywood, and a huge amount of people in this country loved his role. His role was that of the white knight come to save an ailing economy with one hand and to destroy the evil Soviet communism with the other. My mother has a signed photo of him and Nancy on her wall, and though she is senile she would not give me any peace were I to take it down. There are millions of people like her. Reagan gave us back our dignity, the belief in 'our way of life'. That went over very well with a whole generation. Just look at any old movie and you can see what I'm talking about. Reagan was much more dangerous than George Bush because he had the pizzazz. George Bush is a rich, not too bright cheerleader who likes to get into military drag for photo opts.
About my age bracket: I'm an old 'flower child' and so probably don't represent much of my generation. My father always thought I was a bum because I wanted to expand my awareness and didn't buy into the common idea of success. If my generation has the money (and they probably do) I'm not too sure they can be relied on to 'help the right folks take office'. Most of them have sold their souls to materialism and that fits right in with 'the American way'.
I myself am getting old, have COPD, and am tired. It's a chore taking care of Mom because I'm fighting for breath much of the time. It really bugs me to see the human race destroying itself. With less greed, the world could be a nice place for everyone. I can't imagine why those who are so extraordinarily rich and powerful want more riches and power. That is alien to me. If I had that wealth, I'd be trying to help as many people as possible and also be trying to help solve some of the problems that are plaguing humanity. That's not because I'm a hero or any better than any one else. It just makes sense to me. It's probably the result of taking so much acid and seeing so much beauty and experiencing how connected everything is.
Jeevee
GEORGE ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine based in Toronto, Canada? Maybe they may have suggestions that would help your health. You can get them thru the web.
Thanks, Jeevee. I'll google the ISOM and see what happens. I'd love to get my problem straightened out, at least to the extent that I can start backpacking again. I miss the peaks and lakes. It kept me sane, and I'm slowly getting to be a real grouch.
As you know George, the process of becoming a geezer is the natural order of things. As geezers we are the unhappy blending of wisdom and physical breakdown. We know stuff but we can't do it. That is the geezer dilemma. Fortunately, in the world of Spirit, we escape the dilemma.
ronald reagan was truly the most dangerous president in our
nations history. without him we would not be at the place
we are at today. george bush sr. had the personality
of cardboard and never could have sold the destruction of
america to stupid americans. george markley you are one
cool dude and obviously not a sheeple. we need more folks
in your age bracket that think like you. they have the
money to help the right folks take office they just have
to shake off a life time of being conned by the fixed
news crowd.
ronald reagan was truly the most dangerous president in our
nations history. without him we would not be at the place
we are at today. george bush sr. had the personality
of cardboard and never could have sold the destruction of
america to stupid americans. george markley you are one
cool dude and obviously not a sheeple. we need more folks
in your age bracket that think like you. they have the
money to help the right folks take office they just have
to shake off a life time of being conned by the fixed
news crowd.
I could never imagine that I would ever see an article where one bravely distinguishes the capitalism of today vs that of yesterday. Time and again, on this site and on Alternet, I made no bones about my convictions of supporting socialism and regulated capitalism while opposing unfettered capitalism. Europe is doing both regulated capitalism and socialism from what I can tell but the sad fact is that not only has socialism been crushed by the Far Right but capitalism itself has been soiled by the Far Right while attacked a little too far from even my favorite progressives. I understand the anger of my fellow progressives and liberals against capitalism and I wished I could convince them to calm down and see the difference between regulated vs unfettered/disaster capitalism. There is no doubt that regulated capitalism can and has slipped into disaster capitalism just as there is no doubt that socialism has been fudged into socialism for the privileged only. Capitalism by principle does not put quantity sales over quality production. It is unfettered capitalism that rewards the greedy while humilating and financially persecuting those who put quality production over excessive profiteering first. Thank you John Buell for writing a thorough and thoughtful essay on clearing up public misunderstanding of capitalism. Maybe there is hope that someday, people my age will be able to win the fight for a system that is a mix of the people's socialism and regulated capitalism.
Jennifer: There is no pure Capitalism in practice. It's always mixed with things that could be called Socialism. The practical question is in the trend of the blend.
So true. A vibrant socialism incorporates self interest, in other words, capitalism. And we have to recognize that greed does exist, and is a part of the human make up. But socialism has ways of using it to best advantage. We are not only a greedy species, we are a smart one, and one capable of compassion and cooperation. The trend of the blend should be towards socialism.
"But socialism has ways of using it to best advantage."
Please tell me what mechanism in socialism does so, analogous to the free market mechanism often cited in capitalism. Thank you.
Hi Jake. I wasn't sure what you meant by the first sentence. I always heard of unfettered capitalism being socialism for the well to do and the elite but faux "capitalism" for the rest. Is that what you are referring to?
Also, when you said "in practice", I thought that you meant that for regulated capitalism, socialism for everyone was sort of permitted. I'm not sure if I am following you correctly. Please feel free to correct me. Thanks.
Hi Jennifer, I was referring to the fact that there is no pure capitalism or socialism anywhere. Example, in the US there has always been the hand of government in infrastructure such as roads. The issue about the two systems really comes down to the trend one way or the other in the blend of the two.
Welcome the culmination of Reaganomics ...
... true our economy foundered in the 70s due to massive spending for Viet Nam and the oil shortage but our current economic model was established in the Reagan administration.
Under Reagan we went from the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the world and we never looked back. Reagans answer was debt, debt, debt for the country and its people while military spending skyrocketed, LBOs flourished and the already wealthy enjoyed huge tax cuts.
Greenspan took Reaganomics and blew bubble after bubble while America's productive capacity was sold then resold and then sold again overseas for the fees they generated for Wall Street.
The answers are higher taxes on high income and wealth , tariffs to bolster and renew our industrial capacity and a financial system whereby we print our own money, not borrow it from the banksters leveraged monopoly ...
As long as our form of capitalism encourages slave labor and doing business with dictators and actively fighting unions and other forms of worker protection, we, the workers are ****ed!
The EU as a matter of policy will not do business with countries without such protections or have democratically elected leaders.
But I could be wrong !
You aren't.
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.
I'm confused. What DO you support?
The good capitalism that existed up to the 70s, not the unbridled one that took off when Reagan came to office and still exists today but just out of curiosity, just how good was capitalism in the 50s and 60s? I was born in the 60s so maybe there's something the author didn't mention that I might need to know about capitalism then.
I'm 68 and so grew up in the 40s and 50s. The world was very unabashedly materialistic back then. The great myth of that time was that everything was going to get better and better in the United States and all its minions. We were giving huge amounts of money to Europe so that it could recover from WWII (in return, asking for NATO), forcing a conquered Japan in the right capitalist direction, and only had to worry about evil communism and a nuclear WWIII. For us kids, there was the wonder of the new 'rock and roll'. Few people are left who realize or remember how heady that was. Capitalism was fairly well regulated, because of the depression and F.D. Roosevelt. It was based on greed, but was held in check by rules and regulations. Most people thought this a good thing, except for a fairly large minority who considered Roosevelt an evil communist.
While Europe took the road to various degrees and forms of socialism, the United States went another direction. Ronald Reagan was no accident. Someone like him was bound to come along, and the capitalists of the day were thrilled with Reaganomics. Reagan did not invent his policies, they were the policies of unbridled greed--in other words, capitalism. Reagan was like the fox protecting the hen house. It's inevitable that capitalism will produce someone like Reagan. There is no 'good' capitalism or 'bad' capitalism. There is only the futile attempt to check greed with rules and regulations. Only a system of cooperation that uses capitalism in very limited forms can have any success in dealing with human greed. That system is socialism. It is a myth that socialism stifles imagination and inventiveness. It uses the creative mind for the good of all, instead of a greedy few.
Ah yes, being that I live in a state where military spending controls most of the state economy, perhaps I can relate to you some of the seniors who voted FDR and yet Reagan later. Many of them insist that FDR's war spending got us out of the Great Depression and of course, every president has more or less increased defense spending and still does it even when the country's broke. Materialism has certainly gone haywire and I think that the materialism you experienced back then only snowballed. I have been mixed on socialism but have never opposed it like the conservatives who do while having their own private ones for those who are rich. Clinton sounded like he would sort of clamp down on it in 1992 but we all know what happened after that. I have read a lot of posts on this site about another upcoming Great Depression and some say it's here. I think this country will crippled with one for decades possibly beyond either one of our life times. Maybe a Great Depression is what is needed to make us all really look at ourselves and ask ourselves the question "Do I really like what I am doing or am I just scared to lose?" I'm going to confess that I often have a tough time swallowing my own answer to that question. The former is a definite no-no but being it the latter, I have tried to break out of it. I really wish there were jobs to enjoy rather than just having a higher paying job to keep up with the rising costs of living. On the positive, I can succeed in finding ways to take what I have done and learned and pass out some helpers to small businesses in need. I was thinking that if all of us working in big companies were to help small businesses like that then we would actually create a socialism to be proud of even if we didn't realize it.
You sound like someone searching for human, compassionate answers--like a socialist in fact.
Those who have jobs that they enjoy are blessed. I was taught that even if you are doing a drudge job, you should put your best effort into it and you will be rewarded with satisfaction and self-worth, which in the long run are more valuable than the pay check. Of course, we all need to eat and have a roof over our heads. And some jobs are not only drudge, but dangerous and unhealthy--such as mining.
Americans need a reality check, that's for sure. A great depression might do the trick, but I doubt it. I think a great depression might lead to revolution, which is more practical. If it had not been for FDR, we might have had a revolution. Instead we got WWII which was a great help in getting our economy going again. FDR made sure there were checks and controls on this capitalist economy. But they couldn't last. As I've said in another posting, Ronald Reagan or someone like him was inevitable.
Jeevee
CHEERS
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
Now we all get to work on Obama's plantation.
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!
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.
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...
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
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.
"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.
Jeevee
EXCELLENT comment, Teddy.
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.