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, 12:08 PM 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Professor Richard Wolff: Debating Capitalism - Redefining Outdated Terms


Debating Capitalism - Redefining Outdated Terms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The complete piece is at: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/18323-debating-capitalism-redefining-outdated-terms



3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Professor Richard Wolff: Debating Capitalism - Redefining Outdated Terms (Original Post) marmar Sep 2013 OP
I welcome this discussion. Laelth Sep 2013 #1
Michael Parenti has a theory about this Doctor_J Sep 2013 #2
I think Parenti's right pscot Sep 2013 #3

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
1. I welcome this discussion.
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 12:25 PM
Sep 2013

That said, as a liberal I am a capitalist. I think a well-regulated capitalism that uses the power of government to create a just society with equal opportunity for all is the ultimate goal.

I would not argue for the eradication of capitalism, nor do I believe that capitalism could be eradicated.

-Laelth



 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
2. Michael Parenti has a theory about this
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 12:34 PM
Sep 2013

He says that while we were in the Cold War, the capitalists had to behave themselves and make capitalism tolerable for the peasants, since they were competing against the "socialists". Once the USSR collapsed, the "alternative" to capitalism was gone. There was no longer a competing system. So the vultures were able to let loose their basest desires, knowing there is no longer anywhere for the unhappy to turn.

Hate Radio and Big Media are the only thing keeping the Repukes alive, and the capitalists from the guillotine.

pscot

(21,024 posts)
3. I think Parenti's right
Sun Sep 22, 2013, 03:03 PM
Sep 2013

When the Soviet Union collapsed the gloves came off. But the entire rationale for Capitalism in a democratic society is that it delivers the goods. It spreads the wealth. If it no longer does that, what's the point?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Economy»Professor Richard Wolff: ...