CAPITALISM SUCKS!!!!!!

There.

I've said it.

I can't think of a worse economic system under the sun. I can't think of anyother economic system that's as effective at pitting white against black, Gentiles against Jews, Europeans against Indians, Man against Women or Nationlists against foreigners. What a brilliant system of control!!!!

the unregulated part. There's an interesting DVD out there called The Corporation, I believe, that goes into the sociopathic mindset of the corporation as an entity, especially since the wave of deregulation instituted by Reagan. Capitalism is almost certainly the best macroeconomic system, but the public interest must be protected against the natural corporate institutional tendencies toward increased profit above all, via monopoly or skimping on pollution control, or whatever.

Which leads to me ask; "Who are the regulators?"

Capitalism doesnt regulate itself based on human suffering. Capitalism is set up to tolerate and benefit from human suffering.

Thoe onle people who are willing to regulate capitalism are other capitalists. Which is kind of like having the fox guard the hen house.

And what's your alternative that doesn't involve human greed and lust for power? Which system is that? Polish whatever economic turd you like, but it's still a turd because it involves humans and those inescapable "sins" of human nature.

We could take a look at the patent system in the pharma industry. I think this one area that needs to be socialized. Drug companies that are too hung up on profit are not going to go all out discovering cures for diseases that they can make a bundle off of if they just come up with treatments.

It would make no sense for them financiually to come up with a vaccine for AIDS, Cancer, Diabetes, or Parkinsons. When the epidemic starts cutting into their bottom line that's when they will go all out and come up with a cure. All that money we are dumping into R&D is going into Ad Time for Ciallis, Viagra, Clariton and the like. How much per add could add another scientist onto the payroll to search for a cure?

This is about greed.

How about the oil companies refusal to come up with alternative energy sources? They are not going to shoot themselves in the foot on that one. Why rock the boat when you are in it!!!!!

These are problems that exist because of greed and lust for power.

at break neck speed over last 15 years or so. Now here is
a vast country with Billion+ people who lived under strictly
ANTI-capitalistic system for 50 years and after experiencing
the results decided to make a U-turn into capitalism.

They have been notoriously anti-union and have horrible working conditions, they represent pretty much the exact opposite labor system that Karl Marx advocated for. Saying China is Communist is like saying that war is peace and freedom is slavery. Yet by using Communist propaganda they have succeeded in not only making their workers very complacent, but also in giving Communism a bad name to keep the labor in the hands of the corporations that do business with them. They are exactly the type of government Orwell warned of in Animal Farm and 1984, a tyranical state which uses propaganda to make its population complacent and tries to shut down any form of dissent violently.

is set up to do is to exploit -- exploit labor, exploit natural resources, exploit undeveloped countries and peoples. It is a system built on the idea of exploitation (in all senses of the word, perjorative and non-). So the question we need to ask is whether there is an economic system that is not built around exploitation that results in a better outcome for the masses.

I would argue that socialism (where the means of production are publicly owned and operated) is such a system, but I recognize that my opinion is out of favor.

It seemed like capitalism worked better when I was younger. Now that the far-Right has control over it, it truly sucks. We need at least some socialism to make things better in this country. People are suffering & need help. Health-care is a joke, jobs don't pay enough, gas-prices are ridiculous...the neocon version of capitalism is really Economic Fascism. That's what I always call it.

Tammy

is every other economic system people have tried. :shrug:

:sarcasm:

Corporate feudalism is the best....

:sarcasm: x2

Personally, I'd like to try democratic socialism. Or bioregionalism.

which amounts to "privatize and deregulate everything", also know as neo-liberalism.
Opposing it - ie wanting tax-funded universal healthcare - is equated by its supporters to being anti free market, socialist, communist even.

How do you like this new kind of capitalism?

we're headed back there anyway.

I guess most Americans have some sort of economic feudalism in that they're enslaved by consumer debt.

Sorry, reminded me of the book Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole, where Ignatius rants that "what our country needs is a king".

and not the unrestrained corporate greed we see now. But since Capitalism inherently fosters greed in people it will always be flawed in my opinion. If there's a better way I'm all ears, but I have no idea what that it.

Alternative energy sources will be fueled by greed. A cure for cancer will be fueled by greed. More energy efficiency will be fueled by greed. The chance to make a lot of money is what drives people to work long, hard, and risk capital.

We may not like it but that is the way it works. Socialism, communism, and some of the other economic models give no incentive to rise above the fray and accomplish great things.

Alternative energy sources because of GREED.

Now it seems we need gummint intervention in order to realize that dream. If greed greased the wheels of progress we wouldnt need to go there.

The improvements that improve your daily lives didnt come about because of capitalism. It was about passion to whatever the individual was doing. Capitalism doesnt encourage that. It encourages those at the bottom do whatever is sensible for survival.

unfettered human curiosity and co-operation would do it.

But, capitalism institutionalizes greed. This is a relatively new arrangement. Humans progressed quite well for about a million years until greed got into the act.

Use your imagination. Using negative emotions and evil intent to support a social system of values is insane. It CAN'T work in the long run.

Look at the damage done by just a few hundred years of this silly experiment with capitalism.

You mean the levels of starvation, disease, deprivation, ignorance etc that were the universal lot of humanity up until things started to improve round about 1500-1650, then yes.

And if by "damage done" you mean the massive reduction of those things in much of the world, then yes.

Nowadays those are still the case in much of the world; not coincidentally they're least the case in the countries that became capitalist first.

It absolutely boggles my mind how some people can write about capitalism as if it weren't the economic underpinning for the modern world. If you were posed one of those philosophical scenarios, where you could be born into one of two nations in the past three centuries, and if the only thing you were told is that nation A has a stock market, and nation B does not, you would be absolutely bonkers to choose nation B. History being what it is, that choice isn't perfect. You might end up in the Weimar Republic. But the odds are long, long, long that your prospect for a better life are better choosing A than B. Such is the horror of capitalism, that it is almost perfectly delineates those parts of the world that have offered its inhabitants a decent existence.

I suspect few Democrats are free-market fundamentalists, for whom human existence is measured against an entirely imaginary free market utopia. But I am astounded at how many are the polar opposite, having drunk the socialist koolaid. They are, to the Democratic Party, what creationists and Christian reconstructionists are to the GOP. I am comforted by the realization that they are far fewer, and have far less influence, than the religious right does in the GOP. (And I apologize to those social democrats who want the term "socialist" applied to something sane. But what other term is there for those who want to end capitalism?)

Where is the socialist kool aid in this society and who's serving it?

Nobody talking about "ending capitalism".

I think the discussion lie more along the lines of ending it as a system to depend on. I think it's rather odd how people talk up the value of a stock market but nobody wants to pin their retirement to it. It's sensible for people to want the SS system and to improve it.

Isnt it just as absurd to pin human lives to this system?

As for Kool AId, look at some of the pro capitalist Kool Aid served up on this thread? You'd never think we slaughters indians and enslaved blacks. Not to mention that this capitalist country still uses slavery in SE Asia.

Where is the "balance" in capitalism?

"I think it's rather odd how people talk up the value of a stock market but nobody wants to pin their retirement to it."

That is about as wrong as saying no one is willing to rely on buoyancy to keep boats afloat. Every investment advisor tells young people to put their retirement money into stocks. Every large company's pension fund follows that advice. Every large public pension fund does the same. If you know anyone who collects a pension from teaching, from government service, or from a large company, they are relying on the stock market. Everyone I know is putting their own individual retirement savings into the stock market. Social security is important, because not everyone will have the opportunity or discipline to invest early and regularly in the stock market. Being liberal, I want a floor for everyone. That said, I think everyone who is relying on social security, rather than on their own investments in the stock market, is setting themselves up a very modest old age.

BTW, one of the best personal investment advisors is Andrew Tobias, who also is Treasurer for the DNC. Here is his website:

http://www.andrewtobias.com/

Here is the personal finance book everyone should read:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0156029634/qid=1148583054/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-1611515-0891159?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

It's in the library, so you can read it cheap. Tobias will approve you scrimping those pennies.

"I think the discussion lie more along the lines of ending it as a system to depend on."

And not a one of them can point to any other system that works nearly as well. Before telling mariners to stop relying on buoyancy, it is incumbent on the critics at least to demonstrate a workable alternative. I'm not really worried about this call having practical effect on the world economy, because there is about as much chance of the world ending its reliance on capitalism as there is of mariners ending their reliance on buoyancy. The largest economy that tried to stay afloat by using stilts to the sea bottom, China, has realized that doesn't work well, and is rapidly becoming capitalist.

What does bother me is the possibility that that kind of rhetoric provides a lever for those who want to paint the Democratic Party as beyond the pale. We aren't. The Americans, or Democrats, who want to stop our reliance on capitalism are a slender, slender minority, and they have almost no influence in the Democratic Party. But I think it is good for those of us in the sane majority to speak out, when these fringe ideas pop up.

:hippie:

While you're lecturing people here about drinking Kool Aid.

Nobody has their retirement pinned to the stock market. The heart of their investments are in the value of their homes and SS security. 401ks I believe are a protected investment just as a money market account so they arent exactly "pinning their hopes" on the market. Mutual funds and IRAs (Which was Bush's SS plan) are what these morons are advising and no one is stupid enough to take the risk.

There is a reason why we insure money market accounts. ITS BECAUSE NOBODY IS STUPID ENOUGH TO PIN THEIR SAVINGS ON THE WHIMS OF THE MARKET!!!!!!

Which brings me to my second point. The value that is accrued in the market is on the backs of slave labor. The money that you do earn in investments is value from anothers hard work that they do not recieve a return on. Yet markets are not humane as they only rely on numbers. The value in capitalist markets have always been predicated on slave labor. Lets not even get into "passive slavery" which is what those on the lower rungs of the system have to endure. How much market value is returned on that?

Capitalism has always relyed on exploitation. If not tolerating that makes me "the fringe" then so-be-it. I'm at least honest enough with myself to admit that it's a shitty system.

After that last post I don' think you are one to lecture people on "kool aid" drinking.

"401ks I believe are a protected investment just as a money market account so they arent exactly "pinning their hopes" on the market."

Absolutely wrong. It is the case that many 401K plans offer limited choice in the funds and other investment vehicles availble. Some are "protected" in the sense that you can only invest in funds A, B, C, or D. But (a) those typically are stock funds, dependent on the market, and (b) if you invest in fund C, and it plunges in value by 50%, that money is gone. No protection. Zero. Zip. Many companies offer their own stock as one of the options in 401Ks. If you have any doubt that you can lose your entire retirement savings going that route, I know some people who worked for Global Crossing who will be quick to disillusion you. Once you leave a company, a 401K typically is converted to a rollover IRA, where you can invest in almost anything.

The bottom line is this: 401Ks are dependent on the market precisely to the extent that their participants choose stocks in which to invest. Your naive notion that 401K values are somehow protected is absolutely false.

"There is a reason why we insure money market accounts. ITS BECAUSE NOBODY IS STUPID ENOUGH TO PIN THEIR SAVINGS ON THE WHIMS OF THE MARKET!!!!!!"

You put all your investments in a guaranteed money market account that earns all of 4%, and I'll invest in stocks that go up some years and down some years, and we'll see who is ahead in thirty years. Everyone with a lick of sense puts a good part of their long-term investments in stocks. Despite your capitals and exclamation points, you would do yourself a favor to study up on personal finance. Andrew Tobias's book is a good place to begin.

"The value that is accrued in the market is on the backs of slave labor."

So my investment, saved from my labor, doesn't count for squat, as a factor of production? That's the typical socialist view. Being a liberal, I dissent from it.

You believe?




Many 401K's are composed mainly of mutual funds. You're basing your argument on topics in which you don't appear literate.

I'm starting to think your posts are made to reel people in so you can laugh at their frustration.

As you spout talking point after talking point....

You haven't just drunk deeply, you're mixing your own batch and hoping to pass it out.

Please point them out.

I think this much of this thread could fairly be characterised as "socialist kool aid", I'm afraid, as could a fair number of similar ones on DU.

The "balance" in capitalism is taxation. The problem with the current American system is that it doesn't have enough taxation, not that it has too much capitalism.

It's not clear to me what you mean by "pin human lives to this system". If you mean "rely on this system to support human beings" where "this system" means "a capitalist economy", then the answer is "no, it's absurd not to"; if you mean something more specific by "this system" then obviously I can't be sure whether you're right or not without knowing what.

forgotten. BTW: the Communist Party opposed South African apartheid long before it became fashionable more broadly on the left wing to oppose it. I remember seeing a CP demo against apartheid on the University of Missouri-Columbia campus in 1977. I didn't even know at the time what apartheid was or why South Africa was the subject of the demo.

After all look at what the Nazis accomplished as the central planner in their economy.

Creation of the autobahn, the volkswagen, rocket technology etc.

to protest systematically against Apartheid in South Africa. Why is it that a group that gets tarnished so badly is always at least 20 years ahead of everyone else on issues of social justice?

"Why is it that a group that gets tarnished so badly is always at least 20 years ahead of everyone else on issues of social justice?"

Are you talking about the CP-USA here?

remmeber exactly which branch it was. (I'd like to say Revolutionary Communist Party, which is Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, but I don't remember that group's particular bent.)

To demand an end to child labor, sweatshops and slavery.

I was pretty sure England was the first to abolish slavery.

Child labor was first fought against by an English member of Parliment?

It was actually abolitionists who first railed against sweatshops in the Industrial Age (they saw it similar to slavery)

Eugene V Debs
Helen Keller
Emma Goldmann

Were all at the forfront of the movement.

Sojourner Truth also adhered to socialism as did many other that were apart of the antislavery movement in the Unites States.

Certainly these people were major factors but they were neither the start nor the finish and I think calling the abolitionists socialists is a stretch.

They were SOCIALISTS!!!!!!

What seems to me is your fear fear of the word blinds you from the facts.



Northampton Association of Education and Industry
In 1842, members of the Northampton Association of Education and Industry established a utopian community organized around a communally owned and operated silk mill. Those who were drawn to this community sought to challenge the prevailing social attitudes of their day by creating a society in which "the rights of all are equal without distinction of sex, color or condition, sect or religion." They were especially united around the issue of the abolition of slavery. Most were followers of William Lloyd Garrison. Sojourner Truth was a member of the community and visitors like Frederick Douglass were regular lecturers.

Truth came to Northampton in 1843 to join the Northampton Association for Education and Industry. Though living conditions at the Northampton Association were spartan, no other place, Truth later recalled, offered her the same "equality of feeling," "liberty of thought and speech," and "largeness of soul." It was in Northampton that Truth came into contact with abolitionists William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass and Wendell Phillips. Through them and other members of the Association, Truth was introduced to a wider world of nineteenth century reform. Thereafter, Truth would become well known not only in anti-slavery circles, but in the women's rights and temperance movements as well.

Though the community was dissolved by 1846, its legacy lived on in the reforms that it fostered. In particular, Samuel Hill, one of the original founders of the association lived to become a major philanthropist for Northampton and Florence, establishing the Hill Institute, America's first free kindergarten, which exists to this day.

http://www.historic-northampton.org/Articles/213/543/5/955139885/

Coming from someone who can't admit simple facts, that's almost a compliment.

The NAZIS were capitalists.

They exploited Jews and other "undesirables" for labor. Not to mention that Coke and GM were also in on the exploitation.

The Nazis are capitalists even though it was state owned means of production, but the Soviet Union and China weren't really Communist because of what?

Wow, talk about revising history!!!!!!

Again, if the Nazis were capitalists even though they don't fit the definition in the basic sense, why weren't the Soviet Union and China communist?

The Soviet Union was a Marxist-Leninist state and the People's Republic of China was a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist state (both are iterations of socialism\commuunism).

They severely deviated from Marxism.

Marx was even known to be openly annoyed at those that took advantage of his theories. I don't hold them as absolutes either as they a wrought with failures. Marx was famous for later in his life proclaiming that he wasn't a Marxist in repsonse to those who misinterpreted his ideas.

Mao and Stalin were both famous for using Marxist rhetoric in the same way Bush uses "compassionate conservatism". Keep in mind that at it's heart Socialism and Communism are both systems of economic democracy. They are also highly humanist systems.

China and the former Soviet Union mirrored neither.

Still clinging to that "it wasn't really Marxism/Communism/Socialism" canard I see.

Perhaps you should read Emma Goldman's "My disillusionment in Russia".

You're posting on this topic lack sense. Even when Marx himself took the position that people like Stalin were exploiting his ideas. You don't really have a clue as to what you are talking about.

I don't even hold communism as the ultimate ideal for an economic system. What I do find funny is that you've pointed Hitler, Stalin and Mao as if their inhumanity was any different the what's being displayed by our capitalists. Even when it's pointed out to you that our capitalists all went running to invest in the systems that Hitler and Mussollini set up.

Not to mention the fact that the same blood that stains their hands stains the hands of our leaders and capitialists. Adolph Hitler didnt come up with the groud plans to exterminate Jews by picking it out of the sky. He was looking at our history of Genocide against Native Americans and Slavery of Blacks. Don't fool yourself into thinking that this stuff doesnt exist anymore and that our country doesnt tolerate it. Look never further then good ole Sai Pan which is American soil and still tolerates massive indentured servitude.

The same history of slavery that is taking place in southeast asia which many of you are so eager to invest in. Capitalism is not about paying workers their fair share. It has never been meant to be kind to workers. Yet, in capitalism, it is the workers that create value and they recieve less than ten percent of the value they create in their lifetimes.

Marxism has been the siren's call, the pied piper's tune, a bullshit utopist theory most often used by the power hungry to exploit the desperate.

I suppose by being the most zealous of converts that you seek to get a seat at the table. Good luck with that.

means of production" (it wasn't), they were capitalists because they allowed means of production to remain privately owned, rather than publicly owned. ("NSDAP" stood for -- translated from German -- National Socialist German Workers Party, but their party programme consisted of very little socialism.)

Big German capitalist firms like IG Farben and Krupps enjoyed massive state support from the Nazi regime. But Nazi Germany began and ended as a capitalist form of economic ownership.

"because they allowed means of production to remain privately owned"

"Big German capitalist firms like IG Farben and Krupps enjoyed massive state support from the Nazi regime"

Because of this and central planning elements that occured under Goering during the rearming phase, the so called Nazi Miracle, that I made my statement. But I will accept the base definition above.

As Mussolini put it: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Have you ever thought that maybe it was the redistribution of wealth to the common man that caused progress? We are at the end of progress when a few people control most of the wealth. So basically we are just waiting for things to become horrible until we have to use blood shed or suffer a plague to get ourselves out of the hole. And then we can start over with progress.

Money also doesn't motivate everyone and also limits the focus of humanity. It also produces an open system - creating throw away junk - in order to make a profit. It also promotes the most corrupt into power as other people are content to live with humanity instead of dominate it.

We need to find a balance where people earn money by their own two hands, not by giant pyramid schemes of wealth where everything trickles up. Having both leverage with wealth and in government is a huge mistake.

Also when I work for a corporation I feel zero desire to help progress because if I give them my ideas they will take them and I will never see a dime. I just get to keep my job, big fucking deal. Not only will they take my idea but they will use their leverage in society for politics which I don't agree with. Not interested.

And last but not least. If you want capitalism to work you better pay your people well otherwise, where is this incentive? There is none in a back stabbing society. And I doubt there will be any incentive in America for the next 10 years as we join the Global Economy.

Most people will be just content to keep their jobs if they have them. The rest of us can work in the fields with the rest of humanity. And that I guess is progress since that appears to be our current path.

it can work for a little while

all regulation has loopholes

(except in so far that it benefits them) and they don't want any taxes spend on "the common good" (social services etc).

In their view anyone who wants regulations and tax funded social programs is a socialist, or worse.

:)

If you think there is a clearly better economic system, please point to your preferred nation, without corporations, labor markets, debenture and equity markets, and other features of capitalism. It's no more accident that all modern western nations have a capitalist economy, than that they have a democratic government.

Both democracy and capitalism are flawed. They are, after all, real systems, unlike some utopian systems of which no True examples exist. So we ameliorate their flaws. Because democracy can easily be mob rule that oppresses minorities, we balance it with constitutional restraints and independent judiciary. Because capitalism treats people as purely economic actors, we balance it with social institutions like public schools and social security, that take into account that humans at various points in our lives are children, aged, and infirm.

that doenst mean I'm obligated to create something better. That's something you should address to the economists we employ in this society. Afterall, that's what they get paid this big bucks for.

THose that have gotten wealthy off of this system believe it's a crock as well. They don't live and die by the shims of the free market. The free market is what schmucks like us live at the mercy of.

Constitutional restraints and an independent judiciary have never been enough to protect minorites from the mob. Nothing that minorities have gained was gotten without immense struggle. That meant beatings, jail and having their lives taken from them. Gains are gotten in Representative democracies through struggle.

CONSTANT STRUGGLE.

But that is democracy. It's a system of government not an economic system.

Yet, our domestic and foreign policy is set up to uphold the welfare queen that is capitalism.

I think some form of socialism would be preferable. Before everyone goes to calling me a communist, realize that all communism may be socialistic (except in China) but all socialism is not communism. I can to the realization that the only fair economic system is socislistic years ago in reading Eric From.

The fact that everything from China to Britain get's called "socialist" means that it's not a terribly useful word; here in the UK Tony Blair has claimed to be a Socialist and Ken Livingstone has claimed not to be.

While I think the least worst possible economic system (something similar to the one here in the UK, but with higher taxes on very high earnings and more public spending) could easily be termed "socialist" (or not), it would certainly also be capitalist.

:applause:

Capitalism is a "survival of the fittest" system for those at the lower rung of the system. Would you say that "Genocide is like capitalism" is a fair analogy of the system?

I think so. We can make excuse for it by comparing other genocides by not addressing how we embrace "passive euthanasia".

Much of the jingoism on capitalism can be campared to a "Utopian system" when we further examine them.

I think you are right, that some of the jingoism about capitalism, from the free market fundamentalists, is very much utopian and fanciful.

I also think that much of the rhetoric condemning capitalism comes from comparing it to utopic ideals that are simply unrealistic.

Any economic system will include constraints on how people live. Resources are finite, and have to be transformed into economic goods to be of use in any case. That transformation requires work, and progress in better satisfying what people want requires technological progress. Utopia is not possible. Capitalism leaves behind all other systems in creating that technological progress, which I think is a good thing. Until someone can show a better system, or even near to equal system, I'm no more willing to see it destroyed than I am to see us eliminate elections. Being a liberal, and not a free market fundamentalist, I can leaven my capitalism with a variety of social programs: public education that teaches children what they need to know to make their way, and social security for the aged and disabled, etc. And with regulation, to control pollution and to limit corporate influence in politics, something we need much more to control. But eliminate capitalism? No, thank you. Not until someone can convince me there is something better. The alternatives tried so far look pretty damn bleak.

Is yours for sale?

y'know I'm tired of this old saw--"it's a terrible system except for all the others." This has covered up a world of sins of exploitation.

And what about this "democracy" we associate with capitalism...it's MORE than merely flawed in this country--it's in ICU. We don't seem to be capable of 'ameliorating the flaws.' The constitutional restraints and independent judiciary have become a joke. While we all would agree that social responsibility--ie. public schools and social security-- are essential, if the corporate powers that be can privatize it, they will.

Good luck taking up for capitalism, or democracy, as interpreted in the United States now. Ever since Reagan it has slowly eroded and is in full decline at this point (or full flowering, depending on your perspective). I don't know how long capitalist democracy can keep a veneer of respectability now that the corporate fascists have abused it so badly.

Obviously it doesn't have the same meaning for them as it does for us. There are 2 realities.

The new GOP and the rise of the religious right is quite frightening, but the truth is that their attempts so far to remove our liberties have indeed been constrained by just the constitutional constraints I describe. You and quite a few others seem fond of writing about the US as if it were one of the worst dictatorships now extant.

That is nonsense, and it does nothing but discredit you. I'm going to call it nonsense, because I don't want it to discredit the Democratic Party. There are groups, like AI, that rank nations on civil liberty measures, such as:



* Where you can start a new religion without being oppressed by the government just for doing so.

* Where you can write vehement criticism of current government leaders without fear of reprisal.

* Where you can freely obtain birth control, marry and divorce.

* Where you can freely create political and religious groups, and join and leave them at will.

* Where you freely can denounce the major political and religious ideologies and groups.

* Where you can travel freely, and leave if you wish.

* Where there are procedural protections against criminal prosecution, such as trial and right to counsel.



If you measure nations objectively on such criteria, the bottom of the list will include nations such as North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Cuba, and Libya. The nations at the top will be the western democracies. And every nation at the top will be capitalist. Yes, the US has fallen a few notches under Bush. Yes, that bothers me, and I fight it.

But no, the US isn't yet anywhere near the bottom. And no, you can't point to a non-capitalist nation anywhere in the top half. When you write as if the US were like North Korea, you show only that there are some on the left who drink koolaid every bit as powerful as that the right drinks.

There are many shades of capitalism.
Europe has a mixed economy; part capitalism, part socialism - yet is is called capitalism.
The income gap in Europe is not as large as it is in the US, also there's less poverty and a better healthcare system than in the US.

The only reason everyone is saying "It's not Capitalism, it's unregulated capitalis" is people in the US are brainwashed from birth to see any alternative to capitalism as being bad.

Capitalism is fundimentally based on the Corporation, people who say Capitalism is free markets and liberty are corporatist ideologues or are brainwashed by them. The sole purpose of the corporation is to maximise profit for it's shareholders, EVERYTHING else be damned. Because of how corporations work the needs of society and of the average worker are subordinated to the needs of a few rich people who own most of the shares in the corporations. The natural end result is Fascism, where the corporate elite rule a quasi-command economy run for thier benefit.

To replace this flawed system we must give control over the economy to the employees. This is where Communism failed, it centralized control over the economy so much that power fell under the control of a small elite that acted like the Fascist corporate elite. Instead we must have a market economy in the hands of co-ops and local communities, what is called Market Socialism.

century. Until that point it was difficult to create one, had a limited purpose, and few existed.

Capitalism existed before the modern corporation. I disagree, therefore, that capitalism is fundamentally based on the corporation.

Ever since the notion of "corporate personhood" became vogue, it has been that much more difficult to keep these giants restrained. It becomes even more difficult given that those who we elect are also free to accept corporate cash in order to bolster their campaigns. It takes two to tango, and politicians who end up becoming servants of the boardroom instead of servants of the people need to take responsibility for their actions that have led to our nation's low-point.

want to give corporations.

They need some - to sue and be sued - but there are aspects that should be eliminated.

Capitalism originated in the late 1600's when the first publically traded corporations were created by British businessmen.

the idea of a free market but I do not think it played a "fundamental" role.

He convinced workers and union workers and democrats that regulations (financial and environmental) hurts capitalism, businesses & corporations...If we get rid of these regulations, "it will make business more efficient & competitive and that's good for the consumers and workers"...And everyone ate the greed up, never stopping to think that Reagan is a republican and republican ideology has no place for workers except as slaves for the corporations...No one paid any attention to decades of ideology.

Nothing was ever mentioned about collusion and monopolies, dictating of prices & wages and union busting...nor any mention of republican ideology, the same republican ideology, BushCo, that is finalizing all the deregulation for corporations today!

And many still think this republican (McCain) or that republican over there is different or better than the liberal, (well at least the republican has more money for ads than the liberal) and these same moderates pay no attention to ideology and will actually vote for a republican.

have a history of union busting in their past as well. Not to mention I don't hear of any one of them offering a challenge to Taft Hartly and Right to Work states.

"Regulation" has always been used as a tool against labor. When it's decided that workers are entitled to a break they tack on extra time into the work day. When it's decided that workers are entitled to pay raises the corporations complain they are losing money (Note that the Orwellien term "losing money" has never meant bankrupt or in the negative).

They then convince people that they can't "remain competetive" in the market place and need to find cheaper labor. Ironic that they use this tactic in periods where they are pulling in record profits.

There is a lot to the Republican tactic and something about the complicity in Democrats that always disturbed me. Perhaps this goes back to some fundamental flaws in our representative democracy? Especially when our representatives portfolios seem to perform light years better than the average citizen.

Our economy is nothing more than a house of cards.

Reality can be a very convincing teacher.

Canada & Pacific democracies. It is the only thing that has ever worked. And also too - not even Cuba is without some capitalism. Every country in the world uses it for economics and to promote growth of industries (jobs).

Every country in the world.

....that even most DU'ers wouldn't vote for an even-handed, laid-back Socialist system if they could....like the rest of the country, they like this a$$-plundering, life-stressing, stock-gambling game....

....and there in lies the problem....

You're damn right, I won't vote for an imagined utopia that has been disastrous whenever tried.

countries.

They are capitalist countries where the taxes go toward education and social services vs. defense spending and tax cuts for the wealthy.

I think it is fine to hold up Norway and Sweden as examples of nations that do some things better than the US. That leads to good conversation about a variety of social issues. But. Anyone who does that, should be cheering capitalism. Those nations rely on modern capitalist economies, that makes them first-world nations with the financial wherewithall to afford their social programs. Sweden and Norway each exhibit all of the features of a modern capitalism: limited liability corporations, open markets in goods and services throughout the production chain, debenture and equity markets, including stock markets, labor markets, broad access to a variety of investment vehicles.

Part of what I'm trying to do is point out the disconnect between anti-capitalist rhetoric, and holding up as examples nations that rely on capitalist economies. Capitalism is as essential a feature to Sweden and Norway as are elections. And like capitalism, democracy has its flaws.

But we don't have a political rhetoric that says democracy sucks. For good reason.

If so, they are not "relying" on capitalism. Or are they?

Relying on capitalism means it provides all. All the necasities of life w/o government intervention.

We don't have rhetoric that says democracy sucks because we don't have it yet. When you have leaders that are appointed by the USSC then something stinks. Socialism is a form of ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY!!!!!

Those that clamor for private control of public resources (Healthcare, Government, Education, Water Supply and Energy) are the ones claiming "Democracy sucks". Capitalism does in fact suck.

It has brought us slavery, Genocide and endles war to keep this system going. It is a system where the few benefit off of the misery of the masses.

"Relying on" means (a) that the vast majority of goods and services are supplied by the capitalist economy, and (b) that the goods and services supplied by the government are underwritten by taxes on the capitalist economy, and on the capitalist economy to supply the necessary components. Socialized roads in the US and socialized hospitals in Norway work much better than socialized roads or hospitals in a socialist economy.

Before saying that capitalism is the cause of genocide and war, you might study the history of those, and notice that they are known with feudalism and socialism also. 'Tis true that the millions that died under Mao and Stalin didn't die for profits. They're no less dead.

I said it has brought us endless war and Genocide. Greed, apathy and indifference are usually the pivotal factors of genocide and war.

Socialized roads and socialized hospitals work just as well in a communist or socialist state. Those countries behind the iron curtain had socialized medicine and some of them (ie Poland) held onto to those systems because they were effective.

Mao and Stalin were not Marxists!!!!!

Understand the ridiculousness of that claim. Emma Goldmann who was a communist/anarchist clearly states that in her writings.

Do you understand that you are much further to the right concerning capitalism than Emma Goldmann was concerning communism. It was you who earlier accused me of drinking the Kool-Aid. Would you care to retract that statement?

Lets also not forget that althogh Stalin and Mao were assholes, the genocides under our capitalist systems were far worse. You might even want to consider where Hitler (another capitalist) drew his plans after for the persecution of Jews and undesirables.

But I guess Africans getting tossed ito the drinks and the massacres of Natives are just water under the bridge. Not to mention the mother who takes a beating on the factory floor so you can gain a return on your 401k.

What did communism bring us - peace and tranquility??

Stalin, Mao...need I say more?

Jews
Arawaks
Native Americans
Aztecs

I'm sure you'll throw Joe Stalin and Mao in my face as it is a convenient out for you. Those regimes did not echo communism or socialism. They were thuggish dictatorships. China is furthest example of a country that respects workers rights. Interesting that they are marrying themselves with American Capitalists.

Yet capitalism is ripe with these fellows. Try Carnegie, Rockefeller, Scaife, Lay, Reagan, Polk, Woodrow Wilson, both Bushes etc.

The Ludlow Massacre
The date April 20, 1914 will forever be a day of infamy for American workers. On that day, 20 innocent men, women and children were killed in the Ludlow Massacre. The coal miners in Colorado and other western states had been trying to join the UMWA for many years. They were bitterly opposed by the coal operators, led by the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company.

Upon striking, the miners and their families had been evicted from their company-owned houses and had set up a tent colony on public property. The massacre occurred in a carefully planned attack on the tent colony by Colorado militiamen, coal company guards, and thugs hired as private detectives and strike breakers. They shot and burned to death 20 people, including a dozen women and small children. Later investigations revealed that kerosine had intentionally been poured on the tents to set them ablaze. The miners had dug foxholes in the tents so the women and children could avoid the bullets that randomly were shot through the tent colony by company thugs. The women and children were found huddled together at the bottoms of their tents.

The Baldwin Felts Detective Agency had been brought in to suppress the Colorado miners. They brought with them an armored car mounted with a machine gun--the Death Special-- that roamed the area spraying bullets. The day of the massacre, the miners were celebrating Greek Easter. At 10:00 AM the militia ringed the camp and began firing into the tents upon a signal from the commander, Lt. Karl E. Lindenfelter. Not one of the perpetrators of the slaughter were ever punished, but scores of miners and their leaders were arrested and black-balled from the coal industry.

A monument erected by the UMWA stands today in Ludlow, Colorado in remembrance of the brave and innocent souls who died for freedom and human dignity

There's no country at present that has eliminated capitalism.

There's no one who is suggesting that it's possible to completely eliminate the capitalist methodology of wealth transfer any time soon.

There are INFINITELY better examples throughout Europe, beginning in South America, and yes, Cuba to build mixed economies of little-c capitalism and Socialism.

I suggest that more Socialism (like Social Security, Unemployment insurance, Medicare for all) be brought into being and less capitalism or heavily regulated capitalism.

Down with "personhood" for corporations!!!

If people were merely saying that they favor a health-care system more like Sweden's, my question would be irrelevant. But they aren't. They are saying capitalism is evil, they are making it the root of all the world's problems, and using rhetoric aimed at its elimination.

So my question is quite fair.

BTW, if you are holding up Cuba as a shining example, with a median income of $3,300, allow me to laugh. I find it interesting that there are so many people who will brag on Cuba, and so few who actually will move there. Why not? Cuba takes immigrants. The land is beautiful, the climate is appealing, the people are friendly. Are you living there now? Why not? I would move there, if (a) it were free, politically, and (b) its economy showed any promise at all. I'm hoping those aspects change when Fidel kicks the bucket.

Reagans 25 years of sanctions will likely also expire. We will never now what Cuba could or could not have been. Not with uncle sams big thumb on the scale.

They began in February, 1962. They were codified into law in the 1990s, under Bush the Elder, and under Clinton. Clinton expanded the sanctions in 1999. My own view is that the embargo is a mistake. Increased US trade with Cuba would push it toward liberalizing its economy. I.e., making it more capitalistic. With great benefits for its people and social climate. It's long past time to eliminate it.

But I think any argument judging Cuba by the performance of iys economy in light of having a 2000 pound gorilla next door imposing decades of sanctions is futile.
We will never know how it would have worked.

Cuba and Economic Sanctions: A Cold War Strategy in the 21st Century
Authors: Thomas M. Kelley; ARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE BARRACKS PA

Abstract: Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba in January 1959 culminating a three-year revolution against President Fulgenclo Batista's government. In October 1960 President Eisenhower initiated the opening phase of economic sanctions against Cuba and in 1961 the United States and Cuba severed diplomatic ties. Every President from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush has reviewed and kept in place sanctions against Cuba. The sanctions were originally established in response to Cuba's seizure of U.S. property establishment of a single party Marxist-Leninist government alliance with the former Soviet Union and Castro's defiance on any American intervention into Cuba. These sanctions and U.S. attitudes and perceptions were based on objectives driven by the Cold War and as such are outdated and overtaken by events. The sanctions should be lifted and diplomatic ties once again established both to support United States goals in the region and for quality of life improvements for Cuba.
(snip/)

http://www.stormingmedia.us/70/7073/A707324.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eisenhower also is the one responsible for setting the Bay of Pigs invasion in motion:

In October, 1959, Eisenhower approved a secret program to depose Castro proposed by the CIA and the State Department. Eisenhower told his advisors that "our hand should not show in anything that is done"—in other words, that the operation should be carried out in such a way that U.S. responsibility could be plausibly denied. To this end, the CIA gathered, funded, armed, and trained an anti-Castro rebel organization in Florida, the Panama Canal Zone, and Guatemala. The CIA began military training of 300 Cuban expatriates in March of 1960, and in May began broadcasting anti-Castro propaganda over the whole Caribbean from a station on a small, disputed territory named Swan Island. The programs were taped in Miami under CIA control, but claimed to be the voice of an authentic Cuban rebel movement without U.S. ties. In September, addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations, Castro accurately accused the U.S. of operating Radio Swan; the U.S. denied the charge.

In July, 1960, the Cuban fighters of "Brigade 2506"—named for the number of a brigade member killed in an accident—were transferred to a training camp in Guatemala built and run by the CIA.
(snip)

On November 4, 1960, John Kennedy was elected president. Once in office, Kennedy gave his approval for the training of Brigade 2506 to continue....
(snip/...)

http://www.espionageinfo.com/Ba-Bl/Bay-of-Pigs.html

Cuba's economy now should be measured against what it would be like had it been under a more American style system under Castro, not against America's - it started off much poorer. The (massive) effects of the sanctions also need to be taken into account. I think there's a case to be made for the virtue of its economic model.

On the other hand, your point about political freedom if anything doesn't go far enough - the Castro regime has been strikingly repressive, and all the social benefits in the world don't outweigh that.

I wouldn't wish to move there (I'm no good at languages, and I hate travel and change in general), but if I were given the choice of moving to either there or some other country that was in a similar state when Castro came to power and had been run on American lines, and Cuba had become politically free overnight, I might well choose Cuba.

dubya tee eff

at or below the rate in the United States. He raised literacy rates to levels above the rate in the United States.

Yeah, it came at the expense of a bunch of nasty hotel and casino companies and their shareholders, but who gives a shit about them? (Oh, wait, they're capitalists so I should care?)

It always amazes me at how easily Americans ignore the millions of Cubans working hard for change and who overwhelmingly support their system - and focus only on one old man.

Radical changes within an entire country are hard to make (especially with one of the most agressive superpowers doing everything possible to undermine social changes toward a fair system). It takes many years and many millions of people. Mistakes will be made, lessons are learned, but the revolution is constant and ever changing. It can't be done by one man or a small group forcing change on the majority - the majority must desire it and be willing to work on it to achieve results. The Cubans have done this, and the results are real.


I've been to Cuba many times and I know a fair bit about it and the Cuban people. I would move to Cuba in a New York minute.


If you're really interested in finding out something about the real Cuba, get this book..

Democracy in Cuba and the 1997-98 Elections
Arnold August
1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0968508405/qid=1053879619/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-8821757-1670550?v=glance&s=books

Of establishing a dictatorship, imprisoning political opponents, curtailing freedom of speech and making emmigration very difficult indeed. I don't know if you do care about that, but you certainly should, if you want to have a leg to stand on to criticise policies of Bush's that are leading in the same direction but in a much milder fashion, like illegal wiretapping.

"At the expense of" may be a misnomer, to be fair. "Along with", certainly, but it's not at all clear to me that the advantages that have accrued to Cuba as a result of left-wing government couldn't have been achieved perfectly well without the repression. I guess we'll never know.

Nov '06 general election if Jane Harman is able to hold on to her congressional seat in the June 06 primary. (LA Times is now calling the primary race "too close to call.")

guaranteed election loss.


By the way, capitalism with taxation is still a free market, don't let Republicans tell you it's not. In fact, if politicians would stop playing politics with the economy and actually listen to economists who know what they're talking about, it would work quite well.

In the long run I can see it paying off.

It would be interesting to see a candidate point out all the money flushed down the drain to keep our sytem afloat. Not to metion all the lives expended.

I think a candidate running on an anti capitalist platform would add something more to the debate. It's not as if they haven't had electoral success in the past.

"I think a candidate running on an anti capitalist platform would add something more to the debate. It's not as if they haven't had electoral success in the past."

Where would that success be in this country? And what is your definition of success?

if you want social democratic or democratic socialist parties, then you'd probably be better off living in a country that utilizes proportional representation of some kind.

It just won't happen here.

Money is wasted when greedy politicians who care about nothing more than electoral victory promote unsound economic policies. The whole point of capitalism is to stop waste, by making things more efficient. Of course there should be regulations on externalities (like pollution), and appropriate taxes should be in order for various purposes, but I simply disagree with the notion that money is wasted solely to "keep our system afloat," unless by system you mean our political system, in which case I would agree.

The cold war was nothing but wastefull military spending predicated on a lie; that the USSR had designs on the united states. The Cold War was a crazy fucking scheme to open up markets so capitalists could have acccess to resources in SE asia.

We have dumped tons of money into the millitary for wars in Iraq and Vietnam. Iraq being a war for oi and vietnam being a war for tin and rubber (also opiates).

Capitalism, as a system, simply cannot exist without INEQUALITY. There must be losers. There must be those who are owned for the sake of the owners. As long as greed is rewarded with unfathomable wealth, capitalism has and will continue to exist.

You need to be re-indoctrinated immedietly :)

I've always been an easy target to paint as radical, but in the end, they say what they want to say. My real point of contention comes when they try and take away my voice or my ability to speak. I find making billions in profit off of making war machines or the exploitation of third world labor for pennies on the dollar with no hope of them unionizing or defending their own lives against company goons or the destruction of the environment for greater profits a system that will only lead to disaster. This would not be possible if these businessmen did not also own--there's that important word again "own"--the politicians who write the laws and deem what is illegal and what is legal.

If making more profits is illegal, then they make it legal.

and storm Frankenstein's castle before its too late ... lol.
Not that any of this is funny but what else are we to do?

as an individual, the only thing one person alone can do is try and save those closest to him. Save as many as you can. Even if you only save just one, that's good enough. It sounds like spitting into a gale force wind; I know. Perhaps if enough people did that, there could be enough force for change, but people must be awakened. This can't happen if they're constantly kept in a prison of fear and ignorance. There can be no change at all if fear and ignorance are not defeated.

If you mean save them from ignorance then that doesnt work for me because everyone I know gets it completly. If you mean save them from the fallout ??? How? I mean I actualy do have some survivalist background but if the shf none of that going to do a bit of good.

If things not just in the US but in the world continue to head in the direction I see it heading, then I fear when the new course is set, the US will just be a shell of its former self like Russia is today. We've got stunning trade deficits, budget deficits, and a national debt topping 7 trillion dollars. We're borrowing money faster than we can pay it back, and it's not going to lead to a good outcome. Our reputation in the world is smashed, and our dollar is worth a fraction of what it was in the eyes of the world.

I have a close friend who has been prodding me to make long-term plans to leave the country and retire abroad before the bill comes due. I have yet to decide if I should move away, but it's clear that we can't sustain the current course any longer.

Don't buy a new car, buy a decent used vehicle.

Don't buy at the big chains -- buy your food at farmer's markets and local stores.

Don't buy new stuff, buy at thrift stores.

Don't EVER BUY ANYTHING with a credit card unless you can pay it off without paying any interest.

Don't EVER, EVER buy anything at Walmart, K-mart or Target. Buy local.

Buy LESS. Think twice -- Do I really need this? Do I really need a new this?

Downsize your life -- starve the capitalist beast!

If you downsize your consumption, while maintaining your income, the inevitable happens: you develop a positive savings rate. Keep that up for a while, and your debt disappears, and soon you start to have positive net worth.

It gets worse. You then start to think about where to put your savings. Well, of course, you're not going to buy any Walmart stock. And yeah, you decide to buy a house instead of renting. But after that? You have to put that savings omewhere. You start to learn about bonds and TIPS and mutual funds. You realize some of your savings needs to go into stocks, if you have even a moderate time horizon, since they are the engine that drives long-term growth. There are mutual funds that are socially conscious. But not to the point of avoiding companies that make -- dare I say it? -- a profit. In fact, your financial prudence so far might lead you to prefer companies that pay a dividend. A growing dividend. From growing profit.

Still, you keep living cheap. You're now used to it! You keep adding to your savings, and they keep growing on their own. After twenty years, damned if your savings aren't generating their own income. You no longer view yourself as so dependent on a job. You start to think of other things you might do with your life. Maybe take a sabbatical. Maybe get more politically active.

Capitalist pig.

:hippie:

....if you downsize your consumption, while losing your good paying job to the lastest capitalist fad, out-sourcing, the inevitable happens: you develop a negative savings rate and end up in another capitalist inspired financial black-hole....

....it takes more of your life and work to generate the same level of wealth it did a generation or two ago when we had a little more Socialism in our system....just think, if a little bit of Socialism is good, a lot of Socialism must be fantastic....

and I think they're pretty good. If I add 100 eggs instead, would they be fantastic?

It seems to me that we are repeating a phase of history we saw in the late 1800s. Things got SOOOO bad that a number of anti trust laws were passed and actualy enforced that inspired the occurance of something like an actual free market. Vwa la, Innovation ruled the day, people worked..ate..lived and then came modern history and we are back to peg one.
just MHO.

Some Socialism good => more socialism better is nonsense.

What is the case, incidentally, is that if x+y amount of socialism is non-trivially better than x amount of socialism for small y, then x+2y socialism is *almost* certainly better still.

America could benefit from a long move to the left, but not an arbitrarily long one.

:) :)

However, in the real world as it's becoming, your income will be dropping anyway to keep corporate profits growing higher and higher...

So you won't have any of that pesky discretionary income to worry about much longer anyway...

including myself. When aggregate consumption declines, total expenditure in the economy declines, which leads to a decrease in output (income), and less jobs being produced. If you really want to get rid of capitalism (which isn't what I'm promoting, but just for the sake of discussion), you would have to fundamentally change the way our economy runs, that is, the government would have to impose a new kind of system. "Starving the beast" won't destroy capitalism, it will only shrink our economy and costs millions of people their jobs. Is that what you want?

to starve and die.

and "inefficient" local economies to grow and prosper again.

It's going to have to happen anyway since the current distribution system, floating on a sea of "cheap oil", is going down the drain...

money = power = you get to make the rules (ie tax cuts for the rich) = more money, more power = make more rules (ie NAFTA) = more money, more power...

You get the picture.

Yes Capitalism is a stupid paradigm for government.

No Socialism can't exist without some small-c capitalism which will eventually at least try to grow into big-C Capitalism.

I think the answer hasn't been found yet. Somehow it will hinge on the environment and a total change in the way land is held.

Capitalism sucks big-time!

the holier-than-thou stance of self-proclaimed "moderates" who embrace a system that will probably rid the world entirely of frogs and other amphibians within our lifetime. (Just one example of how "moderation" right now is really extremist.)

In fifty years time I am going to take great pleasure in leaving a frog in your bed, just to prove how wrong you are. I don't suppose you have any idea where you'll be living in 2056?

Mass extinction undoubtedly will be a feature of the next few decades, but almost certainly not on anything like the "no more amphibians" scale.

but whatever.

Because of a monetary system and everything being "for sale", the land, water, air, - everything that we need to lie is being destroyed and overwhelmed and overused by overpopulation and our exploitation of the resources.

We have to become creative, allow more women in the governing systems and come up with more peaceful, gentle ways of living on this planet.

That's what communism eventually turns into.

That's what the Third Reich, "Communist" China and bush's wet dreams consist of.

...and eastern bloc countries like Romania.

try "all the others that have ever been tried".

If one were to look at the planet earth to date, and pick the twenty societies one would most like to be born into, all of them would without exception be capitalist. That's not hard proof it's the best economic system tried to date, obviously, but it's pretty strong cercumstantial evidence.

There are a great many improvements possible upon the present Western economic system, but all of them far less drastic than "stop being capitalist".

Those who think democracy is opposed to capitalism conveniently ignore the historical correlation lies exactly the other way around. By "liberal," I mean not just places that have the vote, but that allowed the civil liberties that made the vote relevant: free speech, free association, open dissent, no one institutionalized party, etc.

Which is why hard-core capitalists decry anything tax funded as being socialist.

....the top twenty capitalist societies thrive by exploiting those who aren't the top twenty capitalist societies....

....what is it about Socialism that bothers Americans? Are most Europeans stupid? Do you like ineauality? Do you like seeing a few controlling most of the wealth, politics, natural resources and your life? Do you like being exploited daily?....

....do you like immoral wars and a loss of civil liberties? Do you like trading the corporate military industrial complex for your childs healthcare, Grandmas Social Security, or a new car with affordable gasoline? Do you like what you see when you drive to work each day, watch television or vote?....

....do you think you're going to convert capitalists and capitalism into being humane through friendly persuasion, kind thoughts or osmosis? The tide is going in their direction....

....or maybe you think you're going to be Billy someday at the top of this fascist heap? Do you really like fascism in the workplace? Do you like fascism?

....I don't get it....if what was tried in the Socialist past has failed, then why don't we start building there and correct the failures of Socialism like the capitalist attempted with capitalism in the '30s and invent a better future around a new Socialist system that doesn't have greed and evil at its root....lets create a better system, a better society, a better world and a better life for each and every one of us on the planet....

....or maybe you just like poor people....or maybe I need more education to see the 'capitalist light'....then maybe I too could do a better job of self-brainwashing....

While I agree that the economic systems of most of the western European nations are considerably better than America's, they're very much capitalist, as is any form of government likely to be better. "Capitalist" doesn't mean "no taxes" or "no regulation".

They may well also be socialist, depending on your definition - socialist is a term that has been stretched so widely as to become more or less meaningless.

It's also been done by left-wingers trying to appear moderate by denying that they're socialists, and by centrists trying to appeal to left wing votes by claiming to be.

Communists often use the word interchangeably with "communist"; America right-wingers use it to mean "anyone who advocates any form of taxation or government spending".

I lost all faith in the word when Tony Blair claimed to be a socialist, and Ken Livingstone claimed not to be. Nowadays I try and refer to specifics like "free at point of use public services paid for from general taxation".

It has to do with who has control of the means of production. The Welfare state is not socialist, they were created to prevent socialism. FDR even said that he was the savior of capitalism. Co-ops, however, ARE socialist.

If that's what you mean by socialism, then I'm 100% against it; the state forbidding people from owning things is a very bad idea indeed. Means of production should be owned by whoever wants to arrange to construct one, and taxed by the state.

If "the" were applicable to "means of production" then you would have slightly more of a case, but it isn't - means of production exist because people choose to create them, and under your system fewer would be created.

However, nowadays that definition of socialism is no more authoritative than many others, I think, although it does have more pedigree, and there are many others which I would support.

The type of socialism I support, Market Socialism (a market economy with co-ops) allows private property.

What things would one be allowed or not allowed to do under your system that one can't do at present? What would the difference between one of your co-ops and a corporation be?

Economic fascism


As a political reality...it operates wearing a disguise of "democracy" and "capitalism".

Many are active proponents of it....and most at least participate in it...due to the obvious economic and political advantages...not to mention the social pressures involved.

Proponents deny the reality of what they are engaged in...and prefer calling it something else.

It occurs because the majority of the general populace are willing to accept the facade that is presented to them....allowing them to avoid the necessity of acknowledging the real structure behind it.

Often economic facism morphs into or walks hand in hand with the more widely recognized militaristic fascism as seen during the WWII years.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=denial


Denial....

3. a) A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief.

b) Psychology. An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.

4. The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation.

So well that even some of my fellow DUer's have bough into the delusion of Capitalism and Liberal Democracy being compatible. That was true 200 years ago when the capitalists and average Joes were allies against the Old Aristocracy. Now the capitalists have become the New Aristocracy and have been trying to roll back the concessions they gave to us when we were allies. The final break between the New Aristocracy and the worker was the New Deal and related plans in other western countries, there is a reason the New Aristocracy hated FDR so much and tried to pull a coup on him in 1933, he empowered Labor to an extent it had never been empowered before. The New Aristocracy is now sucessfully rolling back the gains made by Labor under FDR. They are planning to make us serfs of a new corporate order.

The defining characteristic of fascism is authoritarianism. "Economic fascism" is not a bad characterisation of communism, although it's too nebulous a concept to be any use except to make a point, but it's not anything to do with capitalism.

The underlying principle of capitalism is that when two people wish to trade, they should be permitted to do so without interference by the state. That's about as far from fascism as it's possible to get.

Capitalism hasn't persisted because the Man tricks the Masses into thinking its benefiting them; it's persisted because it is better for the Masses by a considerable amount than any other system.

America would benefit from higher taxation to pay for better public services, but a change to any system other than capitalism would be catastrophic for everyone.

if the world is to make it past 2031. Capitalism must adapt, and change IS possible after all, as FDR showed us.

BTW, the story of Kondratieff in the Soviet gulags is an informative one. He postulated capitalism's boom and bust cyclic nature and theorized that capitalism was 'perfectible' by smoothing out the waves, what we called economic 'fine tuning' in the post-Keynesian economic world. He was put into the gulags by Stalin for the heresy of saying that capitalism not only had a future but was perfectible.

GDP accounting needs to take into account the books of mother nature, lest we continue deceiving ourselves.

Another book out there is Amory Lovin's Winning The Oil End Game downloadable at www.oilendgame.com

Plan B 2.0 is available on the web too at

http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/Contents.htm

Both books point us in the right direction and are essentially the "plan" the Republicans say the Democrats don't have !

Thats pure capitalism.
However, we get to play a slightly different game.
In America we have crony capitalism.
Thats still like the game of monopoly but with slightly differnet rules.
In crony capitalism your oponent is predetermined, lets call him Montgomery Burns. Now as the game begins Mister Burns assumes ownership of all the properties and all the cash except for one dollar which you are given. Monty now hands you the dice. Its your roll. Enjoy the game.

Capitalism is the perfect system for getting groups to get along that otherwise wouldn't.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2648674&mesg_id=2648674

capitalism!!

thanks for trying out.

The internet is the result of tax-funded research by DARPA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

The government spending our tax dollars to maintain it for us...sounds like socialism to me.

government is involved in the the very first ascpect: Creation of the Internet

after that (Today's internet): nothing.

You wrote your message and are reading mine because of capitalism.

"government is involved in the the very first ascpect: Creation of the Internet"

That was my point, and it is opposite of your initial claim.

I didn't know that the internet is still being created.

My point, is that without capitalism, you would not have your computer (or would have a vastly inferior one) and your internet connection again, is not provided by a government, but rather a private for profit company. That's called capitalism.

government should be responsible for providing some basic infrastructure, and the rest should be left to the market.

The trouble is Democrats keep nominating businessmen who care more about money than people instead of great leaders who care more about people than money. Why isn't Jesse Jackson, Sr., in office? His voting record would be a lot better than that of his son. DK is the best candidate running for Congress this year and he is will undoubtedly be the best candidate running for the Presidency in 08.

But it is my opinion that each person, whether they're the investor or the laborer, should keep their portion of the goods/services they've created. Unfortunately in today's idea of economics a person's labor is treated as some commodity to be traded like a cow or a chicken instead of being treated for what it rightfully is, that person's property.

It is my opinion that too many people don't stop and think about what money actually is, how it is created, who actually creates it and how they're allowing investors to rip them off out of their labor (their property).

I don't profess to know what formulas to use to figure out how much of the final product belongs to each person who contributed in making it. But I do believe that......that is the only system that should be considered because I believe that is the only fair and honest system. And I believe that if we had such a system along with a money printing system that only prints a set ratio of money with respect to the total wealth out-put we'd be much more prosperous as a nation with a lot less unemployment and poverty.


Don't sell yourself like a cow or chicken, demand fair and honest compensation. :)


:rant:

It always has been and always will be an excuse to exploit others and steal their wealth, period.

I don't believe one exists yet.

if you can get our capitalist government to give you the freedom to travel there legally, which is doubtful.

no thanks

then capitalism wouldn't be, either.

I agree with other posters in this thread- what we have now is a system of crony capitalism, an oil-igarchy where a few people write different rules for themselves than for everyone else. It's anything but a level playing field. Corporations have too many rights, individuals not enough. Ken Lay writes a "deregulation" law for California that is a cover for a few people to rob the state blind and f*ck "Grandma Millie up the @$$" for $250 a megawatt hour.

That aint free enterpise. It's state-sanctioned banditry.

When 3 corporations own all the media outlets, that's not "free enterprise" or "capitalism"- it's corporate totalitarianism.

I think real free enterprise, combined with government-aided social networks and safety nets to fill in the gaps where the market doesn't provide the answers (like health insurance) is not a bad, or evil thing. Rather, it's something we should aspire to.

thats also a system of control. "crony capitalism" sucks and that is what we have right now. multinationals suck because they have gotten too large and powerful.

properly regulated and restrained capitalism works just fine. look at your local family owned business as an example.

with the proper safety nets of employment laws, social security, education and healthcare our capitalist economy can be the beacon of the world

You mean those boarded-up storefronts on Main Street that are about to get bulldozed to make way for a WalMart Superstore?

Capitalism as it's practiced in the US and UK treats human beings as expendable ocmmodities, to be used up, tossed out and replaced (with outsourcing or some other form of cheap labor) at the whim of the ownership class. As you say, furthermore, it pits people against each other. The Continental European model, which is capitalistic yet much fairer to workers and better in their treatment, seems to me to be the best way to go. Anger about the system here in the US, in fact, is driving many Americans to Continental Europe (or even to Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay, Peru and other South American countries). I'll repost something I noted in an earlier thread:

------------------
I find this to be one of the most shocking developments in decades, but native-born Americans are starting to leave the US in droves, settling mostly in Continental European countries like France, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Norway and Germany. It's dangerous to stay here in the US anymore-- we have an exploitative class in charge at the highest levels of government, business and the media, and even if we get Democrats elected, it's too difficult do dislodge the entrenched classes.

One of my economist friends said that the US economy is headed soon for hyperinflation and collapse, and he's a sober enough person with a good enough track record that I'm taking him seriously. This would probably be a good time to cash out your home equity from the real estate boom, get some language books and software to study a European language (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch or German are most useful), pick up stakes, and emigrate. Remember, you can still vote in US elections after you move, but you'll be in a place with much more solid economy, built on actual manufacturing and production of goods than debt, as our economy currently is.

If we could only somehow get everyone to live in an anarcho-syndicalist commune.