Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

marmar

(77,097 posts)
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 09:51 AM Sep 2013

Professor Richard Wolff: Debating Capitalism - Redefining Outdated Terms


Debating Capitalism - Redefining Outdated Terms

Saturday, 21 September 2013 09:16
By Richard D Wolff, Truthout | Opinion


Reasonable conversation about capitalism is possible again. Debates about its strengths and weaknesses resume. The United States’ post-1950 taboo against honestly evaluating capitalism finally is fading. The public increasingly ignores over-the-top celebrations of capitalism as humanity's peak achievement, God's choice, perpetual prosperity generator or guarantor of individual freedom. Politicians, journalists and academics could stop their uncritical cheerleading for capitalism, although most still pay their bills that way.

The reasons are many. Capitalism no longer "delivers the goods" to most Americans. With consumer debt already high, more borrowing can no longer postpone hard times. The "American Dream" slips farther out of reach. As Cold War memories recede, labels like socialism or communism no longer stifle debate. Destroyed cities like Detroit; students with unsustainable debts; declining wages, benefits and job security; and millions unemployed or foreclosed - to them, the usual rationalizations of capitalism seem hollow and ridiculous.

This July's national survey found 26 percent of Americans believing that capitalism is "not working too well" and another 16 percent that capitalism is "not working at all well." Imagine the consequences if a new political party arose to represent those 42 percent by demanding basic changes in the economic system.

However, that survey and resumed debates about capitalism have not yet faced or solved a shared problem. Widespread confusion and disagreement surround what capitalism means and thus what exactly "is not working." This situation weakens the clarity and appeal of solutions offered by capitalism's critics. .....................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/18323-debating-capitalism-redefining-outdated-terms



12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
3. "Reasonable conversation about capitalism is possible again." We are past "reasonable conversations.
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 12:37 PM
Sep 2013

Capitalism is smoothly morphing into oligarchy just like it's designed. Past time for "conversations", it's time for action.

Silent3

(15,334 posts)
4. Capitalism isn't designed to do anything. It isn't designed at all.
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 12:42 PM
Sep 2013

It's easily taken advantage of to create oligarchy, but it isn't designed to do that or anything else.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
5. Designed might be the wrong word. Capitalism, buy it's nature, will, unless seriously restrained,
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 12:45 PM
Sep 2013

morph into oligarchy.

Silent3

(15,334 posts)
8. Name me any human institution or system that is nothing but self-perpetuating goodness...
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 12:51 PM
Sep 2013

...without restraint and vigilance.

Silent3

(15,334 posts)
7. No, but it's much more merely descriptive rather than proscriptive...
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 12:49 PM
Sep 2013

...and it doesn't have to be formally adopted, it pretty much just happens when a fairly minimal set of conditions exist.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
9. While I agree that reevaluting capitalism is a good idea, this articles solution doesn't strike me
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 01:00 PM
Sep 2013

as workable.

All the workers have become the board of directors. They collectively employ themselves. They democratically decide what, how and where to produce and how to use net revenues.


I do agree that a more equitable and agreeable relationship between the leaders and the workers is much to be desired; but this goes too far the other way. In theory you have managers and executives because they can see the whole picture; the person who works at one part of the factory floor can't be expected to have all the knowledge to understand what should be done; they don't have the expertise.

But then I am pro-well regulated capitalism. People are naturally selfish and venal - the best way forward is to set interests off of each other so that things go as smoothly as possible.

Bryant

Ron Green

(9,823 posts)
12. The Directors (workers) HIRE managers and executives, if needed,
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 02:38 PM
Sep 2013

for their expertise. They can fire them as well. The key is that people ought to be more involved in their enterprises than just "Do your eight and hit the gate."

Regulations? They've always been co-opted, watered down, eventually dismantled. That's what capitalists do.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Professor Richard Wolff: ...