Capitalism has Failed. Is it time to seize the means of production yet?

This goes on every 10-20 years. The economy crumbles, and people lose jobs, the rich get richer, and the coffers get emptied into rich people's pockets. Yay!

So why don't people get it through their thick skulls: Capitalism has Failed. Epic Fail. It will fail again, and again. This is a margin call, basically. The rich want our money, and something like this comes along to wipe us all out.

The rich never liked the Middle Class anyway - they are more informed than the poor and they vote. So Capitalism is a tool to eradicate the Middle Class.

Think about what made the Middle Class - it wasn't tax cuts. It was programs, SOCIALIST programs like the G I Bill, like Pell Grants, and Public Works programs. It wasn't Bush's Tax Cuts, and it wasn't invading any country that has resources we want.

So tell me - when can we seize the means of production and start singing the Internationale. I'm ready...

we'd have to go to China to get it :(

And with all that lead, do we really want it?

by sending these same fat cats back to Washington time and time again.

Real change will come when we stop voting by pattern and personality.

In fact its almost like a virus that infects democracy.

But just like the old Aesop's Fable goes: "Who will bell the cat?"

what corporate media tells them to do.

We gotta do better than that or we'll never get 'there'.

Yours is a "must read"

:thumbsup:

:applause:

Just how the system works and what function corporate mass media serves in a mass society - sedating people into consumerist sheeple.

Despite our occasional difficulties, we're a 233-year-old country with one of the largest economies on the planet.

That's not too bad...

And this has been happening steadily since the 1890's (about when Corporations were given the same rights as individuals)

Before that, it was more of a mercantilistic economy than true corporate capitalism.

...and I'll agree with you on the detriments of Corporatism as we've experienced it in this country.

there was some difference between capitalism and corporatism. Duh.

...and we can choose to regulate most corporatism out of existence. The existence of Corporatism within our system isn't a reason to ditch Capitalism.

"internalize the profits, externalize the social and enviromental costs" is the law of corporatism (ownership society, market fundamentalism, what ever you want to call your insanity).

But without MASSIVE MASSIVE regulation it will fail every time

past tense would be more appropriate? "Captialism had its place" in the great scheme of things - but for gods' sake, if we call ourselves homo SAPIENS, lets try to learn from the mistakes and not repeat them.

America is rotting because of capitalist greed.

It is the nature of the beast, as Tama pointed out. Consider the history of the last 80 years, the rise and fall of the New Deal. Nope, it's not just greed or bad apples, it is the systemic demand for ever increasing accumulation which makes capitalism an implacable enemy of the people and nature itself.

has been happening in Cuba for the past 49 years.

Progressive taxation, social programs, corporate regulation, labor rights, environmental sustainability....and an abrupt end to conservative dominance of politics. That's the anthem we need to be singing, and singing louder and louder by the minute.

in destroying the ecosystems of this planet that also human life depends on, is a part of.

provided things like communications and medical care, etc.

The planet would be much better off if we all swung from trees and only lived to be 30, but I don't think that's the argument here.

I'm sure there is no argument. Mother nature doesn't argue or negotiate. It's "tough love", all the way... :)

And as for the "primitive" way of life, please try re-educate yourself instead of believing the hobbesian shite.

...at least, it's possible to practice a basically capitalistic system while being environmentally conscious.

is not enough, needs to be truly sustainable. How can (real)capitalism do that, being dependent on continuous growth? And please, let's not talk about any imaginary utopian "capitalism"... :)

I don't advocate extremism on either side.

No,it's not acceptable to wantonly strip mine and pollute in the name of profit, but neither is it acceptable to deny progress for fear of "hurting" the planet.

The solution lies somewhere in the middle, IMO.

Well, to begin with, what you Euro-Americans mean by "progress" is by rule non-acceptable to the peoples you conquer and slaughter in the name of your "progress". White man's burden, manifest destiny and all that progressive shit...

We're probably going to disagree on this issue.

is rather your perpetual war against us, the decent people. :)

:eyes:

Like I said, we're probably just going to have to admit we don't agree.

can be agreed or disagreed, every asshole has an opinion and that does not make the asshole anything but an asshole.

There is more to matters of life and death than mere personal opinions. There are conscience, ethics, etc., there is the voice of Nature. Progressive concept of time is Chronos like: perpetual revolution kept in motion by eating the children, eating more and more at at constantly increasing pace for more and more generations to come - not.

What your tribe is doing to other tribes and especially to your own fills me with great sadness.

capitalism creates extreme wealth, and extreme poverty. Both destroy the ecosystem. Capitalism depends on ever-increasing growth in consumerism, which destroys the ecosystem. It is fundamentally unsound and exploitive and oppressive.

Why so many poor?

Why is the working class on the ropes?

Why the largest prison population on Earth?

Why do the rich get richer while the poor get poorer?

Um, where's that universal health care?

Why do we have the greatest imperial military apparatus in history?

Working real well, oh yeah.

Maybe for you.

Especially since the only two economic models we (humans) ever tried were Adam Smith Classical Capitalism (with a very light touch of John Maynard Keynes every 100 years) and a Command Autocratic Economy.

that animistic shamanism (or spiritual organic communism, if you like) worked extremely well for thousands and thousands of years.

Look whose talking.

And it's not "romantic", but standard modern anthropology respecting the ethics of science. FYI.

The Encomienda, Meredith Scott

...>
"The "need" for the encomiendas arose out of the condition of the Indians when the Spanish first made contact with them. They thought that the Indians were incapable of living a Christian life and that they would do nothing without the proper direction. They also noted that "the Indian loved to go about naked and they held money and property as no value…they had no sense of shame…they had no feeling of guilt." (Simpson 46). In essence, the Spanish believed Indians to be savage and pagan, so the major aim of the encomienda was to look after the welfare of the natives, as well as to educate and teach them about God. The Indians were "to be clothed, the children educated in religion, reading and writing and the confession…" (Simpson 11)."
<...
http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/scott-m.html

We are in agreement on many issues, Odin2005 but where you are in obvious agreement with the Spanish re: "the Indian loved to go about naked and they held money and property as no value…they had no sense of shame…they had no feeling of guilt." and view the "Indian" as ignoble we part company.

re; Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
"This quote, perhaps more than any other, states clearly the spirit of The Protestant Ethic. Weber believes that the ascetic spirit of Protestantism is responsible for the development of rational capitalism. This ascetic impulse not only drove the early Protestants to a life of hard work, particularly work within a calling, but also eliminated any tendencies to enjoy life, and thus, to spend their hard earned incomes. This quote clearly identifies several important factors in Weber's argument. First, the Protestant reformation and ensuing growth of capitalism are a clear break from the medieval past. Secondly, the Protestant reformation extended religious asceticism beyond just those who had taken vows, and made it applicable to all. Religious asceticism became a factor of everyday life, and everyday life became a religious practice in itself. This belief that the routine day to day happenings of life were a sort of religious action led to the "work ethic" that made capitalism possible. This is at the core of Weber's argument, and while his study encompasses capitalism and Protestantism far beyond the scope of the Reformation years, the ascetic spirit of Protestantism is at the core of his argument."

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/church_history/53072

One is left to conclude that it is the "The Protestant Ethic" with it's asceticism that you hold as noble.
Much to your discredit, you shamelessly cherry pick off the anthropology time line!

What I reject is this myth that pre-modern societies are/were somehow "at one with nature" and similar romantic nonsense.

and point out Market Socialism appears to be a contradiction in terms (your "co-op"
insertion (saving grace) is arguable in any event) and assert that as utopian fantasies go, mine is slightly less unworkable than yours. For different reasons the human element is the undesirable factor. Human greed, think "Tragedy of the Commons" would be the fly in your ointment and the bloated number of humans the fly in mine.

For Gatherer-Hunter Communism to work, a massive human die off is essential. A global population that has more than doubled in my lifetime would have to be scaled back to numbers extant deep in pre-contact time. Something in the nature of a plague and or ice age could, in theory at least, bring my fantasy into play while your fantasy would seem to be doomed from the start.

In summary, the crux of the matter is that when you take your Great White Father in The Shining City On the Hill stance and tar all "pre-modern societies" with the same broad brush I feel I must take umbrage.

------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many humorous things in the world; among them, the white man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages.
--Mark Twain, Following the Equator (1897)

Were Twain around today all evidence (atomic bomb, "depleted" uranium, Agent orange, to name but a few) would likely cause him to look upon the white naked ape as far and away the most savage of all time.
Ya think?

Cat got the Nordic War God's tongue or is he just immersed in a much needed
Intro. to Anthropology course?

Okay, he didn't really, my bad, but his going AWOL after accusing me of putting words in his mouth, well, what's a guy to do?

-------------------------------------------------------
"Well, let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet.
- The Wolf (Harvey Keitel) PULP FICTION 1994

for that statement to hold water.

If I had a choice between a return to pre-historic technology and having to embrace capitalism, I'll take capitalism.

that is a choise you don't have. In the end, it's the Mother Nature who decides.

Your desire to return to cave dwellings aside, with even a litmited amount of regulation and responsibility, capitalism and market economies can be sustainable. I somehow doubt I'm going to convince you though, but I do find it ironic that you advocating a return to pre-historic society via a peice of technology made possibly by...wait for it...capitalism.

greedy profit making, society based on the principle that individual greed is good, can never be sustainable. Which part of the "limits of growth" you don't understand?

Sustainability does not mean cave dwellings of trying to copycat our perceptions of how the few remaining hunter gatherers live. It does not even mean outright rejection of any and all technology, only the unsustainable technologies and most of all, technocracy (misanthropy that makes man into machine). Today it means, prototypically, intentional communities learning permaculture - and of course, also respecting the rights of the remaining indigenous tribes living in harmony with the land trying to learn from their experience and wisdom instead of trying to assimilate them into your totalitarian mass society.

You've almost come so far to the left that you can reach out and touch the flat-earth fundies on the right.

I have no problem at all with profit making. I'm not refering to the level of greed encountered at the upper end of most large corporations, but otherwise, no problem. I have a feeling that your "limits of growth" and mine would be vastly different.

When people start talking about living in harmony with god or living in harmony with nature, I have to admit it raises certain alarms for me. Doing so would involve implementing massive levels of control and is really no different from the extreme right except in the mechanisms used to achieve it's goal. Humans appear to have a drive to advance and sometimes that advancement means not being "in harmony with nature." Do I think there needs to be a balance? Of course. However, I doubt you and I would ever agree on where that balance lies.

I'm beyond left, into new dimensions... :)

And I hate control in all forms. I just tell it like it is, take it or leave it: you're conditioned to be a slave of a system that is insanely destructive and misanthropic to the point of inherently suicidal, and it would sadden me to see you and your children perish with that system.

As for the balance, it lies everywhere and cannot pinned down by theory - only experienced in it's endless variations of rhytm.

And as for advancement, there is that drive in many places, in many ways. And thinking as simply as one can, material advancement taken to the logical consequense of destroying the material base of human and other life will rob the possibility of spiritual advancement - what ever that might mean.

to see the sum of either end game come to pass so I'll bid you good day as I got to make my slavish commute home (from my non-profit job).

I wouldn't be here saying what I'm saying if the collapse wasn't now beginning and our children getting to live through the worst of peak oil and climate change.

PS: Life is not a game.

I think life is very much a game. It should be enjoyed as much as possible and the more people who play and also enjoy it, the better. Some people get delt a shitty hand and some people always draw aces.

Suffice to say that I don't think this "collapse" is the going to be the sky-is-falling end game you think it is.

Adam Smith's "Capitalism" was a pluralistic economy of many small and medium-sized businesses in near perfect competition, not an oligopolistic economy dominated by a handful of giant multinational corporations that can act like cartels.

Smith. Just like the religious fundamentalists that don't know or ignore their own books.

Smith's model presupposes and requires a solidly socialist foundation for the market to work.

true - the socially adjusted capitalism here in Europe was doing pretty well - but it will not hold up to the tide of megacorporations.

a sad socialist
bmc

that you are next. Once they've finished us off, yours is the next economy to be subjugated.

Kind of ironic, since the vehicle of subjugation was created there.

Good luck to us all.:toast:

the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.
- John Maynard Keynes

Wicked men doing "small and medium" wicked things is okay with you then.
Hey, you said it, not me.

A co-op-based market economy tempers the negative aspects of self interest.

they went back into the abandoned factories and started them up again....we are argentina

Re ...in argentina they went back into the abandoned factories and started them up again....we are argentina.

and usually every 50 years or so. What has held it to 75 years this time was the New Deal, which gave us heavily regulated capitalism with a strong social safety net, including strong unions.

Capitalism has been great at following fashion and at delivering new goods to market. Capitalism is terrible at innovation coming from pure research and at delivering services. Take profit out of a system and service declines, whether it's in a department store or health care.

Take the profit motive out of the delivery of goods, and you end up with the Yugo. A captive consumer will take what little he's offered, no need to improve quality in the absence of competition.

There were some mistakes made in the New Deal, most glaringly in tying health care to employment and in tying a progressive income tax to fixed Depression era dollar amounts. The military also needed to be controlled. These mistakes can be corrected in the next New Deal.

A combination of regulated capitalism combined with socialism is really the only system that will work longterm. Anything else devolves quickly into misery and chaos and is prolonged only by a totalitarian state.

by even more general principle: Any system dependent on unlimited growth in a limited environment fails without exception. In the end, every cancer growth is suicidal.

Doesn't surprise me though, such anti-growth views are typical of pseudo-Green misanthropes like yourself. Not all economic goods are physical things, which is why the mercantilist notion of economic growth is false. In the future or and more of the economy will be dominated by nonphysical goods, this is called the Information Age for a reason. Indeed, resource limitations and technology-based increases in efficiency will cause that to happen.

If you really want to know, I don't consider the likes of you real human beings, were are not of the same species. A sworn Homo Consumericus is not worthy of the name Sapiens, living its machine like existence in total denial of responsibility and prudent shame.

What's your monthly income? I want an exact dollar figure.

Mine's $637.00. Yours? Also, do you have a job? The answer had better be no.

My monthly income is now 250 euros (about 350 dollars?) of student allowance, learning to become a gardner.

Formerly free-lance translator and a "house-husband", taking care of the kids when they were small.

I learned a long time ago, one has to check to be sure it's not just hot air.

Funny, I thought we levelled the factories and put in malls. The "means of production" are all overseas.

SOCIALIZE EVERYTHING!!!! Business owners and bankers and insurance types are just out there to jack the people. As far as I am concerned, all private business is evil. If you won a business, your ultimate goal is to make as much profit off of the backs of some one else, as you can! Capitalism is just another name for selfishness!!!!

If my understanding of basic macroeconomics is correct the main cause of economic downturns is "sticky" costs that don't adjust fast enough when there is a sudden drop in demand, the most important sticky cost is wages. The Capitalist distinction between ownership and employment thus contributes to the business cycle because Capital and Labor have opposing interests when it comes to wages, this prevents wage levels from adjusting quickly, leading to unemployment. If the employees collectively owed their company this wouldn't happen, their pay would simply be the company profits, and the profits would go up and down with demand.

of the fearful and the paid propagandists.

But what the hell, we've been fighting against the tide all along.

:toast: Here's to the fight.

Nerd Brains!

I got me an ice cream scoop and I'm headed to Google!

:shrug:

The historical circumstances are good, but without worker consciousness, or even a vanguard party, a communist revolution at this time in the United States would likely fail.

However, mass consciousness can change VERY fast as the situation deteriorates further. Even then, however, nothing is guaranteed. I think Marx underestimated the chaos inherent in history, the sheer absurdity of circumstance. The dialectics of Marxism are scientific, but history is NEVER a pure controlled experiment or set of events.

Arguing corporatism, not capitalism, is no argument or excuse at all. It's the logical monopolistic outcome of the system. Pure Capitalism has NEVER existed in actual history anyways. It's mostly a libertarian fantasy, as it has always needed regulation. Periods of de-regulation have always resulted in disaster for Capitalism allowed to run wild.

The problem is that the savage clawing for wealth and power inherent in the capitalist system readily lends itself to, and promotes, an incestous relationship between the bourgeoisie and their politician cronies, resulting in corporatism, monopolies, and Fascism.

Corporations are little planned economies, the only thing that's different is who owns the property. And realistically, workers never end up owning the means of production, it's the party bosses who do.

We have a planned economy, and it is almost identical to the manner in which socialism actually unfolds in reality.

Example please.

In the short term, planning is actually far better than capitalism, but over the long term the efficiency of an economy is destroyed.

When everyone owns everything, everyone owns nothing. Markets require individuality.

If that's even what you meant to say... it's not quite clear.

start sharing. With your tribe, with nature.

Live and let live. Only those subscribing to the idea of owning can start to think about universalism and totalitarianism, that all tribes should accept the world view (e.g. scientific this or that view) of one tribe and start living according to their customs (e.g. progressive and liberal moral code) because that one tribe believes they are in the possession of universal truth.

Once you renounce universalism and accept local relativism - that there are real differences - you can start you capitalistic island tribe promising not to bother any other tribes by any way.

That's why I'm a MARKET socialist

go on to tell me you are also a free market environmentalist.

Totalitarianism has nothing to do with communism or socialism. That's why there are "anarcho-communists."

>"the only thing that's different is who owns the property"<

Yes that's the ONLY difference between capitalism and communism: who owns the property.

:shrug:

Considering the actions of the lawful governments they were at odds with, they were practically saints.

What's better? What could be worse. :shrug:

This is what Marx and Lenin pointed out. Marx was not against workers who dreamt up their own fantastic creations and were self-employed without a boss (what we call 'small business entrepreneurs'). That's what he called "not being alienated from one's labor." Marx simply said that the American Revolution would not last because when criminals who enslave others and live off their wages get to 'vote' they will rig the system to their benefit until they take everything.

This is the problem. There is no way to stop a plutocracy once you allow 'capitalism' and 'vote' to exist in the same system. The capitalists will buy the government every time. The problem is that they also try to buy the communist governments as well, creating a paranoic hysteria that leads to the gulag. But the hysteria is well-founded. Both Russia and China were brought down by those who capitulated to the market. (Kruschev/Peng)

I'd definitely be for Utopian Social Democracy with regulated markets. But in order for that to happen, one is totally reliant on capitalists being good people and say--not getting together to start insurrections and buy elections. They own the police and the military gear.

Self-regulation of labor (i.e. people working with their only manager being reality and the scarceness of resources) is the way forward. Pervasive individualism, market economics, and the gradual elimination of corporations are the solutions to our problems in this nation.

Middle classes don't exist in unregulated capitalism. There are only the masters and the slaves.

Middle classes are built by regulations, safeguards, restrictions, and above all, organized labor.

We need a free market revolution in America, one where corporations are recognized for the evil they are, and people refuse to work for them. We all must start our own businesses and be our own employers.

"We all must start our own businesses and be our own employers."

Gardening for living sounds like a plan. :)

look closer. Addiction to limited fossile fuels is a sure way to famine on a massive scale and dieoff of majority of human population.

Small scale intensive permaculture gardening, even with the amount of unspoilt arable land left, could support few more billions of human population. The estimates vary, according to climate etc. but rule of thumb could be about 5 ares per person or even less.

What do you think of Ron Paul? Just curious...

Ron Paul wants a "free market revolution," too.

Not a good sign.

"Bourgoise (aka middle class) is purely s socialist creation" - where these lunacies keep coming from? :D

I'm not talking about other societies here. I'm talking about America, and our middle class came from exactly where I said it did - primarily organized labor.

Go call an encyclopedia "lunacy."

(according to Marx) means historically dictatorship of the proletariat, ie. taking power through violent revolution from the "bourgeois" middle and upper class and giving all the power to the class of industrial workers. From socialist viewpoint the French and American revolutions were bourgeois revolutions, basically aiming for plutocracy instead of former system of aristocracy.

The so called "revisionists" (Bernstein et alii) who take gradualist approach working inside the capitalistic system and not trying to overthrow it, are normally called social democrats, not socialists (="commies").

What social democrats (organized labor) have perhaps achieved together with corporate fascists is widening the middle class strata, at the expence of the poorest classes.

This country's exclusive attention to the "middle class" while completely ignoring the poorest has always bothered me enormously.

It's as if we don't exist.

Greed has no morals and needs to be heavily regulated for the good of the people.

Bush and his reThug cronies got rid of the regulations and over site and we see the results today.

It will always be the same, given the same circumstances.

And all of them are better than the extremes.

To have reform you have to have elections. To have elections you can't have folks buying up the elections. To stop rich people from buying the elections you need....What? What can stop this?

That was a joke...sort of.

-How about a "Corporations have no rights beyond those individually expressed by their shareholders" constitutional amendment.

-Better campaign finance laws. (Really...I think Obama is the model. No lobby money, discouraged 527 involvement, mostly small donors...and we've kicked their asses in the money game.) If you cut the ceiling on personal donations from $2300 down into the $1000 range and banned donations from entities other than individuals, the system would be much more dependent upon the proletariat.

-Personally, I support a cap on military spending during peace time and a reassertion of the the power of Congress alone to make war. Repeal the "War Powers Act".

-Higher taxes on the wealthy. I see no reason why Bill Gates shouldn't pay 50% of his income in taxes. Eliminate income tax on individuals making under $30k.

Revoking the personhood of the corporation.

especially Americans who go there to "take back the means of production":rofl:

What we really need to do is seize the means of subsistence by demanding a comprehensive welfare state along the lines of the Scandinavian model.

Leave the capitalists to twist in the wind. The evil ones will flee and the good ones will stay, just like Sweden.

The particular brand of capitalism pushed by Reagan and his disciples -- this supply-side/trickle-down BS -- is what has failed.

When we got away from concentrating on and incentivizing real capitalism (entrepreneurs, small business owners and individual and small scale investors) to favor the capital controllers at the top (investment banks, Fed-enabled money funds, etc.), we got the separation we're experiencing now.

And with all the foreign (Asian & European) investment in our capital system, it's not even trickle-down anyway...it's more like trickle-over. The intended positive impact of this supply-side disaster has been felt in other countries, not here.

But please, don't ever say capitalism has failed. It's the engine that drives everything and is the best economic alternative.

Scandinavian-style "welfare capitalism" is the best alternative.

"Welfare" is not a bad word. Those who don't believe me should look it up.

The brand of capitalism that has been practiced on Wall Street for the past couple of decades did not work for the people, by design. It doesn't even require people, only a small handful of individuals. This has been exacerbated by the rise of telecommunication technology and electronic trading.

On the other hand, small businesses and entrepreneurial endeavors require people. They need workers. And in a system where government regulations protect workers while providing incentives to business owners to hire more, the workers are fairly paid.

I do not believe there is a need to seize the means of production in that capitalism has not failed. The reason this keeps happening every few years is not that capitalism has failed, but that certain people were able to convince politicans to change the rules. This would not have happened if politicans had stood up to the bank lobbyists and kept rules in place that were meant to prevent this from happening. I contend the government should restore the rules, that for decades, kept this from happening. Then we need some politicans who will be willing to stand up to the next group of bank lobbyists who come to them telling them the rules need to be changed in order for the economy to grow.

I contend capitalism is not against the middle class. If you look at real capitalists they have always pushed for a middle class because they realized that they needed a middle class to succeed. Examine the ideas of men like Henry Ford and Sam Walton. When Henry Ford made the Model T he wanted to pay his workers good money in that he felt he had to pay his workers enough money so they could buy his product. In addition, I have heard that Sam Walton would not be happy with the way his children have run his company. I have been told that Walton had a different view of business than the view held by his kids. I think if you read "The Wealth of Nations" you would get a different view of capitalism than some people of today claim. It seems Smith and other capitalists of his age (era) believed people were more important than profit. Therefore, capitalism has not failed.

What is your definition of middle class? 50% of the people in this country make under $32K a year (accd'ing to IRS, 2006), 90% make under $70K, $250K a year puts you in the top 5%. If the median is about $35K for ease of reference, how do those of you making that amount feel? Do you feel like capitalism is working for you? Do you have investment accounts that need bailing out? Do you have health insurance? Do you still have a home?

Capitalism inherently means stepping on others to get ahead. I will never understand how people can justify that.

US wealth is build upon labor and natural resources of buck a day people in the 3rd (and 4th) world.

So from a bit wider perspective, all USAns are of the topmost class of 1%.

And what is all-important is really wanting to rather be a buck a day lowest of the low than envy the top guns. Isn't that what also Jeebus said?

Capitalism is not about stepping on people to get ahead. Capitalism can stand while people attain a better life. People who support capitalism do not also support stepping on others to get ahead.

life, while others are left to clean up after them. You may think that you've attained your position by being very kind and loving, but how much money are you making off others? How many others are losing out when you get each promotion? Are you really that much better than them? Do you really deserve so much more money? Can you enjoy all that money while others are still being oppressed? How many factories did your corporation close today? Where are those people sleeping tonight?

"Capitalism can stand while people attain a better life" - how do they attain that better life? Think about all aspects of that statement carefully. I think it's a crock and a myth.

There's no intellectually honest way to make capitalism appear morally acceptable. It just isn't.

The question is whether or not it is better than the alternatives.

There is no perfect system. There are poor people in communist and socialist systems. I contend many of the same questions could be asked about any other system. In addition, other questions could be asked about other systems. For instance why are so many people poor in communist countries? Why are so many people paid so low in communist countries? Why are there so many homeless people in communist countries? Why are there so many starving people in communist countries?

Yes, there are problems in this country, but people do have the ability to advance in a capitalist country. In a number of instances, I would probably be more qualified than the person that I was promoted over. In most cases those who I would get promoted over would still have a job so their life would not be that bad. If I am good at something and someone is willing to pay for the work I perform then yes I do deserve so much more money. How would not making money help all the oppressed people? Think of all the good things that have been done by wealthy people. Where would the world be if those people had not made large amounts of money and then chose to give a good bit of that money away to help people? If I make money I have the ability to change situations. People with money have ability to use their money to build a better life for people around the world. How is money supposed to be made if people are not working and how are people supposed to have a better life if they are all poor? If I start a business I would need people to work for me. If I pay those people a fair wage or a living wage I have nothing to be sad, upset, or ashamed about. Capitalism does allow people to advance without having to step over other people.

Well I would sure hope so. And they should do a lot more. How do you sleep knowing that while you have great health insurance, millions of your fellow Americans go without.

But then you answered my question when you said that you do "deserve" so much more money. That tells me all I need to know about how you really feel about others.

This country used to have transparency in government and our economy. Now, it's corporations buying off politicians to ensure that corporations continue to thrive at the expense of small businesses and the middle class.

Why do you think that they don't vote? Might it be that they are actually more informed by the reality of their lives and know that they don't have a dog in that fight?

What is this 'middle class' jive, anyway? The myth of the middle class is one of the main pillars upholding capitalism. In truth, the real middle class consist of the 'professions', tenured academics, upper-middle management and such. All of us, even those above at the end of the day, are working class, except for the capitalists. When enough of us start thinking like that we'll be half way there.

What gets called the "middle class" in our media is actually the UPPER middle class.

And there is a very big distinction there.

Excepting the "This goes on every 10-20 years" of course.

1. the coffers get emptied into rich people's pockets
2. the rich get richer
3. people lose jobs
4. The economy crumbles

1. First, we had the tax cuts for the rich
2. Those tax cuts were not tied to investing in America
.....

What economic system not based to a large degree on capitalism do you think we should emulate?

If you think there isn't anarchy at the moment you are wrong.
The top 1% lives in anarchy. They can kill you, rob you, and do not get arrested.

There is no an-archy, the top 1% are the archons who can kill us and rob us and especially to force us into their slavery without fear of immediate punishment.

Anarchism means no more slave masters, no more slavery - especially mental slavery. But working for common good, in the right place in nature, so not even slavery of nature to human masters.

I don't mean to be a dick, but come on...anarchy? Abolish currency? Are you sixteen?

And, for the record, you're going to find it rather difficult to redistribute land under anarchy. If you have a method of preventing those with the biggest and most guns from taking whatever the hell they please in a society living in anarchy, I'd like to hear it.

What roads do the Amish use to get around?

Amish are people of real faith who practice nonresistance. So, nothing except God.

Somehow, that does not make the Amish weak, but incredibly strong.

Other than that, I guess there really is "nothing" preventing the property of the Amish from being taken by force by those less incredibly strong with God.

If the Amish tried to set up a community in Somalia, how long do you think it would be before their food and equipment was taken and they were turned out of their house by men with guns?

the Islamists (not comparing them to nonresistance Amish, though) tried to set up a community, with support from the populace tired of robber barons. US didn't like that and ordered Ethiopia to invade Somalia in support of robber barons to crush the religion based attempt for communalism. So in a way, you do prove your own point. :)

But in any case, even if you rape, rob and murder the nonresisting Amish, they still get to go to heaven.

The Amish are able to live in pastoral bliss *because* they and their property are very much protected by the power of the state. Without that protection, the Amish would not stand a chance in any genuine anarchy.

on purpose. The purpose being something in the direction that so called "primitive" indegenous tribes whose form of social organization can be called "anarchistic" (not to be confuces with totally disorganized, as many understand the word) lived that way in "pastoral bliss" for ages untill the white man came. And today the few remaining tribes in some countries like India and Brazil are actually under the protection of the "civilized" governement wich is trying to protect them from violence of their "civilized" thugs and desperados.

The point being, perhaps, that with time scale large enough, it will be again the "anarchistic" (neo)primitive tribes not trying to control nature but living as integral part of nature, that will outlive the "civilization" - of a Mad Max society.

the myth of the noble savage is utter western bullshit. (probably invented by the descendants of those guilty of worst ethocides of indigenous people in history of ethnocides, slaughtering a whole continent)

But working only c. four hours or less per day to hunt and gather or garden the essentials, communal spirit of sharing and communal/anarchistic process of decision making with not much bossing around, not taking more from nature than giving back, healthy diet, good physical shape, not much illnesses and if those happen, shaman to help, living to 70, most of the time hanging around with family and relatives and visiting other tribes... does not sound too bad, now does it? Not certainly "perfect" but good life anyway. It sounds like... allmost the way humans were supposed to live, untill something went very badly wrong...

Sing the Internationale indeed.

if the officers of the companies stay in place, they stay as civil servants with payscales to match

And, frankly, I'm sure they scare the shit out of most run-of-the-mill democrats.

Regulated capitalism with good social programs (preschool, healthcare, affordable college, strong unions ) works better than anything out there.

Perhaps seizing Wall Street would do?

But the system and the people running it has made a few bad choices.

or in that top tier of 'house slaves'. For the rest of us, not so much. With a system like this bad choices and bad apples are endemic. It is the system.

Not a total overhaul of the system.

Happy now?

much better than this.

But I still don't have a fucking answer.

We can't seize squat.

:shrug:

otherwise known as 'welfare for the rich', and 'trickle down economics'. Maybe its time for real capitalism, where the little guy with determination has a chance to accumulate (and keep) some wealth.

Do you know anything about economics? Capitalism has been around since the dawn of civilization. It is practically a natural state of the human community. They learned that in Russia, China, etc. etc. the hard way.

It is quite possible to have a capitalist economic system with regulation and social programs, much like we do and Europe does. I think we need to increase regulation and social programs, but it's a balance. Seizing the means of production and having a state run economy???? I hope you are joking. We have seen ample evidence of what that leads to.

Let markets exist, because we're not ready to get rid of them yet. Human nature isn't up to it.

But let's tax the daylights out of the rich and redistribute it to the rest.

That's what capitalism does.

The Markets need tighter regulation is all. Right now if congress and the bush admin got the fingers out of the pie the market would go through a correction and he can get back on track. Hopefully a little wiser and better prepared. Housing prices need to come down they are still way to high some banks need to fail for there greed. If we let the process play out, it may be painful, but in the long run we'll be better off.

Hell, just try going out and getting a job in Michigan.

This may have worked back when we actually manufactured goods but today many people sell services that can not be really seized since you would basically be seizing the individual and that is called slavery.

Capitalism has a lot of problems, but get serious. Government does not run businesses well. Never has, and never will. This little dust up on Wall Street is a concern, but it's not the end of business in America by about 99.999%. Every time you buy something, some business is being fed. That guy that sells tomatoes. That lady that sells flowers. That taxi driver. That guy selling you a sandwich.

do not mean same things. It can be said that there is some form of market - regulated and/or unregulated in most societies, certainly also in socialist and mixed economies.

Here's wikipedia definition:
"Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit<1> and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market<2>,"

Let's emphasize the concepts of "profit" and "free market".