But I grew out of it. Capitalism doesn't have the answers for where we've progressed to, if it even ever did. It requires infinite growth and a victim source of labor and materials to function, and a high birth rate. Basically, it's a parasite...and our ecosystem can't support it much longer. Hence climate change.

Besides, scientific progress is killing the need for all of us to have to "prove ourselves." We don't need to have everyone work full time anymore- that extra productivity is killing us, and is driving wages down, which drives consumption down, yada yada, big crash, Capitalism fails or lots of us die in the process. I'm supporting the move to a guaranteed minimum income and basic economic/social rights as well as a return to education and scientific progress.

IMO, we've been funding things through Capitalism that are profitable but not good for our species. No amount of regulation will stop that, because it's Capitalism's job to work around limitations. Time to let go of the tiger.

I respectfully disagree with your views, but even you are significantly to the left of Bernie Sanders. Whom do you view as political heroes?

I do consider myself far left, and proudly so, and I feel like our system is flooded with unabashed RW noise.

That said, I've been advocating on the ground for years, and there is an astounding amount of movement going on among the people. I live in a dead red state, but they are accepting the LBGT movement, are meh about the drug war and open to legalization, and are wondering when the economy is ever coming back. Mind you, some people are afraid/disgusted when I bounce ideas off of them, but I've seen some of the most amazing things in the last 3 years, including "Look, a Latino transvestite! That's interesting."

As for my heroes: Malcolm X and MLK are my current favs, Thomas Jefferson was one of my firsts and still favs, my relative Susan B Anthony and her Partner in Crime Elizabeth Cady Stanton. I do apparently like my rebels :p

keep doing the good work you do to make the world a better place! Malcolm X, MLK, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, all great choices!!

Glad to see people accepting of progressive ideas in red states you, my friend, are truly a revolutionary! you rock!

George Carlin and some of the DU posters of the past shocked me into seeing a different way of looking at things. Educating myself in economics helped a lot too- seeing how things really work allows for things I never thought possible.

I don't remember who the poster was, but someone here posted a theory about how none of us HAD to work, that we would be fine without compulsory employment, a sort of minimum income idea. I remember thinking, "no way..." But then I thought about the freeware movement on the internet. How much more of that would we have if people didn't need day jobs? How many people would go to school and create new things? How about people spending more time with their kids? Volunteering?

I suppose I fell into the trap most people do- I believed in the narrative, even if I didn't believe we needed to be evil about it. Now, I'm seeing things that say we can go in entirely new directions...and it's feasible.

Even so, we'll work hard to get Bernie elected. He may not want to go far enough for me, but any progress is welcome at this point.

In fact, in a conversation with The Brookings Institution, Senator Sanders explicitly expressed his support for the capitalist mode of production. While Senator Sanders opposes casino capitalism and runaway capitalism, he supports market capitalism in general, and doesn't seek to abolish it. Sanders asserts that market capitalism serves as a good basic framework for an economy, feeling it generates wealth, creates vibrant small businesses, and empowers creative entrepreneurs. Marxists, and traditional socialists in general, find Senator Sanders extremely conservative compared to them. What Senator Sanders proposes is mild social democracy (left capitalism), not a revolution, despite using the word "revolution" his interviews and speeches. Sanders merely seeks to regulate the market capitalist economy more effectively while strengthening the social safety net.

But the RW noise will call that "socialist."

Personally, I've come to view FDR's choice to save Capitalism as a mistake. He had to move mountains to do so, and in doing so, he saved the rich of the time. They worked tirelessly to tear down all of the barriers put up to protect us from from it, and in so doing we are back at great depression again 70 years later.

The real problems were never addressed, but we don't have the luxury of not dealing with it this time. Capitalism's individualism cannot deal with the problems of climate change. Droughts and floods have destroyed and will destroy people's livelyhoods, and if we don't stop the warming, we may have more basic problems such as "were are we going to get clean water?" or "do we have enough food for everyone?"

I think Bernie's model is good overall. I have disagreement on some details, but they are relatively minor.

but like you, I think he shouldn't have saved capitalism as we know it. FDR was a wealthy man, though, so I don't think it would ever have occurred to him to let it die. I think that when we really look at capitalism and its prospects for the future, we know that things can't continue this way for very much longer. Either we'll change things or we'll let the exploding population and exhaustion of resources (and pollution) destroy civilization. I don't know if real socialism would work, but I do know that we can't continue to allow runaway capitalism to destroy the planet and all that we and our ancestors have worked so hard for.

It was looking very good in Chile until Kissenger killed it, and we have a better technological base to work from. There are hints throughout history that we can be happy, share things, and not steal/rape/loot/kill each other, but for the most part, we seem to do the easy and bad things.

That's what we humans do. Scientific progress is a way to get around various limits. Roads are a way to get around limits. Pooling resources into a governing system is a way to get around limits. Flying or traveling at 50mph in a car are ways to get around limits. Communicating on an internet message board is a way to get around limits. A guaranteed income is a way to get around a limit.

Until something better comes along. Which won't be in our lifetimes.

No other system works or has ever worked. The real issue is what to do with the profits generated by capitalism, ie how much to tax and what we should spend it on.

would be provided for... there are thousands upon thousands of empty homes, and whole housing projects, sitting empty all over the Country, yet we have a homeless epidemic.

EVERYONE would be paid a living wage, and women would make the same amount of money that men do for doing the exact same job.

There would be *at least* a 90% inheritance tax, a 90% Trust Fund Tax, and corporations would be *required* to pay their fair share of taxes, and invest their profits back into their own companies, instead of sucking off of the Government teat with subsidies and tax breaks.

ANY American owned business/corporation that off-shored their companies to foreign countries to bypass the minimum wage and/or taxes would be *required* to pay trip;e the current import tax to bring their product back into the US, or they would be hit with an embargo where they couldn't even sell their product here, period.

free tuition from Pre-K, through University level for those who want it, but they would have to take their studies seriously and maintain a certain grade point average. There are way too many people out there who WANT to go to collage, but they, nor their family, can afford for them to go, but we now have these rich, spoiled BRATS that go just because their family can pay for it, but they have NO INTEREST in learning anything, they just want to be there for the "Party Time". The inheritance and trust fund taxes would cut a LOT of that out anyways.

I could continue, but I need sleep now, and I think you get the gist of what I mean.

Peace,

Ghost

Socialism isn't going to be ushered in by voting for President, no matter what they espouse.

The right-wing influences in our government still wield an outsized influence. We need to create mature conditions to advance--we can demand more than the status quo, but we also need to protect advances we have already achieved.

Which is pretty much what Bernie seems to be advocating. For several reasons to include ethnic homogeneity and cold weather, I think the Scandinavians have done about as well as humans can do to find a good balance between the interests of the collective and those of the individual and create a livable place for all. Of course they have a long history of most everybody being more or less "in the same boat."

I still consider greed a negative human trait: once you unleash it or promote it as in the 80s, it's probably inevitable that you'll end up empowering the very worst of humanity who will poison the environment for everybody in the name of profit--without limits. The interests of the collective are sacrificed/willfully ignored to satisfy the insatiable greed of a few individuals. See: the tragedy of the commons.

Their levels of immigration and the percentage of foreign-born residents rival the US.

Foreign-born:
US - 13%
Sweden - 15.1%
Norway - 12.4%
Denmark - 7.9%
Finland - 4.9%

FYI, Australia - 26.7% and Canada - 20.1%.

https://data.oecd.org/migration/foreign-born-population.htm

All the Scandinavian countries have popular right-wing anti-immigration parties so it will be interesting to see how the democratic socialism there holds up over time.

That's why I'm thrilled at Bernie's candidacy and the traction it's getting. Finally: a presidential candidate who advocates for the same system I do.

Regulations to protect the people and the nation's finances, government as an employer of last resort, and progressive taxation. It has proven itself factually. It's sad people have been fed so much garbage, they can't see it. And when people do see it, elected officials seek to strike it down no matter what type of impression they gave us on the campaign that they had our interests instead of their own at heart.


Good op as usual.

I still think Capitalism might work if wanted to try it.

if its purpose is to provide goods and services for all people and drive technological advancement, then it absolutely must be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. The Law of Conservation of Energy and Mass, says a thermodynamic system can never produce more than the initial investment in energy and resources, therefore 'profit' is not possible, unless it deprives others (the working class and disadvantaged) of an adequate return on their own energy investment. A system that is predicated on an emotional, greedy desire to have more than is necessary for a comfortable, contented existence, is illogical, unjust and wasteful, and will not serve the collective interests of our civilization in the approaching era of challenges to our existence.