OK, fine, capitalism is evil and must be destroyed completely

what does that mean? Does that mean a nix on all private ownership of any kind of business? How about ownership of land? OK or no? Does the government operate all businesses?

The reason I ask, is when I post in the frequent capitalism is the sum of all evils threads, saying that I believe in a mixed economy in which there's a place for private enterprise, I immediately get told that's not good (or pure) enough.

So what is it that should replace capitalism, if even regulated capitalism in a mixed economic model, isn't enough? \

What does your utopia look like?

please.

And Taco Bell.

OK, I'm down for the hovercars, but I think we can do better than taco bell...

Other than that, capitalism is free to do its thing.

but I don't want the government to own the hospitals and drug companies and pay the people working in them. I do want the government to set some minimum standards so the decades of cost cutting on the backs of hospital staff can be reversed.

I'm just bruised from working in the VA system where an act of Congress is required to raise nursing salaries.

for me. When can we have that?

what is. they never seem to go there.

that may benefit them have been called socialism by those that want a free for all predatory capitalist society.

You summed it up nicely. Those calling for the complete abolition of capitalism in America don't seem to have a good grasp of what might replace it.

I am no fan of unregulated capitalism, but many of the things people take for granted came from our capitalistic system. The cars we drive, the houses we own, the jobs we have etc...

And as we know, Americans bathe too often to feel fierce and revolutionary. Or so I saw in a movie about Isadora Duncan.

i've been waiting 50 years for my hovercar, my 10 hour workweek & my electricity "too cheap to measure," too. also for the cure for cancer & the end of poverty.

the regulated utopia of capital has apparently decided to materialize after my death.

Would you really want someone who would eat his own vomit yammering on about politics? Or American Idol?

licking his own balls would probably know?

you need to visit you tube...

Cute but scary...

I'd post a link but am blocked at the moment

I actually can't think of anyplace that I think would be better than what we have now. Certainly not by a fair margin.

There are plenty of examples of countries that are not in thrall to corporatism. Most northern european countries - Denmark, Sweden, Finland, for instance - are good examples of what Democratic Socialism can be. Moderate to low unemployment, strong safety net, universal healthcare.

Is there any reason why we should model ourselves on the Britsh Empire?

Is there any reason why we should model ourselves on the Britsh Empire?

Because it's our mother country? Because it's worked for a long time? Because they have national healthcare?

on Empire, after WW2.

What we are currently trying to emulate is the British Empire of 1900. Highly stratified society, vast overseas possessions, corporate control of entire nations, and extremely militarized. Their divide and conquer border drawing created half the ongoing conflicts in the world today, from Afghanistan, to Pakistan/India, to Iraq, to the many countries that were once British East Africa - which includes the Sudan, Somalia, Uganda, any place where they could divide an ethnic majority to weaken it and give the political power to an ethnic minority under their control...

We don't own continents like they did, but we have more overseas military bases than they ever did - only we are there as 'guests'.

Britain was one of the very few imperial powers to ever relinquish its empire without being destroyed, and before doing so they had to fight insurgencies in Palestine, Kenya, Iraq, India, Malaysia, Burma, and would be fighting them today if they hadn't gotten so worn out by WW2 that they just gave up.

We need to follow their example, and just give up.

But thank you for assuming that if I like America it means I've never seen anyplace else. The good thing about foreign police is that if you run, they are totally justified in shooting you in the back with their Uzis. Maybe that is one of the things outside of our borders we should strive for.
Or my friends wife being beaten in the street by the police for saying something negative about the current leader. That kind of policy would make things easier for our government.

As for the countries you mentioned, I have heard they are good places. I dated a girl from Denmark and she spoke highly of it. But I have no personal experience with them.

50-50 you were paying for the uzis via your tax dollars.

you describe.

meaning: i stay in dives & ride milk-stop busses.

apparently doesn't know shit about present day Spain. Oh and he can't remember any of those other foreign shit holes he's supposedly been to.

I LOVED it there. I'm not sure I'd want the US to emulate them politically, but a hellhole it was most emphatically not.

we'll wait.

by itself however is evil. Regulations, and what I consider basic human rights services (rather than social services, etc.) like health care, unemployment benefits, a fair and just labour protection, any and everything that preserve the basic human dignity in case of hardship and against the more powerful/fortunate is must in order for capitalism to succeed.

In brief, a healthy mix of both capitalism with all the good things it brings (innovation, right to own property, promise for a better life if you work hard, and others) with the principles I mentioned above is the right way to go.

Here's the distinction. Back when authoritarians started taking over (say, warlords, kings, plutocrats, what have you), they slowly change the meanings of words.

Possession meant, literally, property. I have a candy bar, it is in my possession, it is my property.

However, some smart guys got the idea to say that agreement or "law" was more important than physical possession, that is, if you pick a candy bar up, it may in fact be in your possession, but I can tell you that it is mine. Non-possessive property, and capital, became a very quaint notion.

No, I have the candy bar, but there's no logical reason it is yours, except the threat of force that you can bring down upon me. If it was just you and me we could debate it out, and maybe even get into a scuffle. However, to justify this property relationship (and to stay civilized), you invent a secondary system to say that that candy bar is yours (even though obviously I am holding it, and it is not). We call this the state, and it is maintained by police forces and judicial systems.

In the end, I pick up a candy bar, I go to jail.

Most people in capitalism do not have full ownership of anything that they have. That is, someone else, in a higher class, owns what they have, and they have states to maintaain their ownership and coerce you into paying them for something that they clearly do not own or possess or even use (except, as the capitalists will say, they "use it" as rental property which is a really sorry piece of rhetoric).

1000 years ago if I picked up acorns to make something out of them it would be a ridiculous premise to expect me to pay anyone for them. Likewise I consider it a ridiculous premise to pay anyone rent for a habitat that I am possessing, yet I am pragmatic and I know that if I don't, I *will most certainly be punished for it*.

Banking, energy, communications, health care, etc. I don't need the government to manufacture shoes and TV sets.

I don't want banking in the hands of the government either. I'm really happy with my small community bank. I want regulation of banking and communications. that's a different thing altogether.

Government: "of the people, by the people, for the people"

Hmmm

just people hellbent on doing anything and everything to turn an ever increasing profit.

I'm not sure exactly what that means, however, other than "We are all in this together."

A healthy mix of regulated capitalism, social safety net, etc.
Balancing all the forces at play so that everyone benefits...

pure capitalism is evil.

Capitalism without restraint, without regulation, will devour itself and everyone it is connected to, even those who think they are in control of it at the very top.

Capitalism is far from ideal.

From Wikipedia:

Some problems said to be associated with capitalism include: unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly (and government by oligarchy); imperialism and various forms of economic and cultural exploitation; and phenomena such as social alienation, inequality, unemployment, and economic instability. Critics have maintained that there is an inherent tendency towards oligolopolistic structures when laissez-faire is combined with capitalist private property. Because of this tendency either laissez-faire, or private property, or both, have drawn fire from critics who believe an essential aspect of economic freedom is the extension of the freedom to have meaningful decision-making control over productive resources to everyone. Economist Branko Horvat asserts, "it is now well known that capitalist development leads to the concentration of capital, employment and power. It is somewhat less known that it leads to the almost complete destruction of economic freedom."<122> SMU Economics Professor and New York Times #1 best-selling author, Ravi Batra, has long maintained that excessive income and wealth inequalities are a fundamental cause of financial crisis and economic depression in the capitalist economy.

Near the start of the 20th century, Vladimir Lenin argued that that state use of military power to defend capitalist interests abroad was an inevitable corollary of monopoly capitalism.<123> This concept of political economy concerning the relationship between economic and political power among and within states includes critics of capitalism who assign to it responsibility for not only economic exploitation, but imperialist, colonialist and counter-revolutionary wars, repressions of workers and trade unionists, genocides, massacres, and so on.

Some environmentalists argue that capitalism requires continual economic growth, and will inevitably deplete the finite natural resources of the earth, and other broadly utilized resources. Such thinkers, including Murray Bookchin, have argued that capitalist production externalizes environmental costs to all of society, and is unable to adequately mitigate its impact upon ecosystems and the biosphere at large. Supporters maintain, however, that it would be imprudent for capitalist societies to deplete resources to such an extent.

Some labor historians and scholars, such as Immanuel Wallerstein, Tom Brass and, latterly Marcel van der Linden, have also argued that unfree labor — the use of a labor force of slaves, indentured servants, criminal convicts, political prisoners, and/or other coerced persons — is compatible with capitalist relations

and you neglect to offer what you'd replace capitalism with. Not to mention, that other economic systems are also flawed. Why isn't a mixed economy good enough? If it's not, what's better?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just like in Star Trek the original series, in my utopia we'll all just inhale spores from a plant and fall in love and be swinging from trees!

and I ain't the one looking at the world in such simplistic terms.

Uhhhhhh..... No comment.

Government/collective ownership of all vital industries and services.

Private ownership of small retail stores and specialized services, with heavy government regulations and standards.

Corporations that employ more than 50 people are automatically nationalized or splintered.

Government regulation of private business, including approved business plans, a maximum profit margin, and minimum standards of salary and compensation for employees.

That would be part of my utopia. However, in my utopia, China, India, and Mexico would all do exactly the same thing.

In the really-real world, I just want vital national industries and services nationalized for the sake of security, and more stringent regulations on corporations in general.

Do you know how many enterprises have more than 50 employees?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What does Grovelbot represent cali? Hint: It ain't capitalism.

the joke's on you, genius.

"Democratic Underground is legally a for-profit organization"

Got that? Capitalism.

Gotta say, I loved this little joke on you.

And they ask for donations. That's some weird definition of capitalism you got there cali.

The state is not mandating it do so, and it is free to give away its product or charge for it as it sees fit. Skinner, et al are free to make that decision for themselves.

isn't compatible with a "capitalist model?" Are you sure about that?

and they make no bones about it.

Not to necessarily generate profit for it's owners, though that may be a by product. DU at it's inception was nothing about being a business. I can still be a member and not pay a dime. I get their product for free. Therefore not a capitalist model. Again cali, you lose.

Google doesn't charge for virtually any of its services so I guess they aren't a capitalistic model.

The outcome is what matters.

DU is OWNED privately by the owners. The proceeds (or loses) go to the owners.

It is still capitalism. That doesn't make it wrong in my book.

How can Grovelbot not represent capitalism? Grovelbot is asking for donations for a private website owned and operated by individuals.

What is that, if not capitalism? Socialism? Communism?

Color me perplexed.

Next you'll hear them saying Food Not Bombs or other anti-capitalist organizations which give out absolute charity are "capitalist."

I'm not saying DU isn't mired in capitalistic practices (such as having some forums unavailable to unpaying customers). But Grovelbot is indicitive of a spirit of giving.

Hi Cali, BTW

:hi:

Capitalism - like fire and electricity - is a tool which must be regulated to create the most benefit to society.

We've been throwing money at the banks for over half a year to prop things up. Just let it flush itself down the toilet.

The government (or a government) assess the immediate needs of the population in terms of housing, food, heat, etc.

We do not have a housing shortage in this country, but we have homelessness. Put the recently evicted and foreclosed, along with other homeless, into housing left over from the banks' ruinous policies and collapse. After assessing how much labor force is left over after providing the above listed necessities and the deliver chains to distribute them, start putting other industries online in order of their importance to the public. Healthcare would probably be the first thing after the bare essential to be made active. Continue this until full employment is reached. Products of these enterprises belong to the public.

they are your words, so maybe you can answer.

I won't speak for the rest of the world - I'm not sure if the peoples in Latin America, Asia and Africa see themselves as future Europeans. But things here are definitely basically O.K. And if things here weren't basically O.K., you had better believe we wouldn't be sitting here chatting about whether or not life is tolerable!

not many tent cities in your neighborhood.

Forgive me if I give no credibility whatsoever to your opinion. Of course it is tolerable for you.

Property which cannot exist without a state there to maintain its existence. And yes, it is most certainly evil, wrong, authoritarian, and it will disappear eventually, because society is too fucked up from it.

what should replace capitalism?

It's simple. Stateless socialism is the answer, especially in this technological world where actual "property" is more and more become "intellectual" rather than "physical." Given that "intellectual property" is merely information, and information can be shared easily and freely, the obvious direction for humanity is a society in which this is the ultimate case.

For example, automated vertical gardens for cities, no one runs them except people who feel like it (some people might push buttons on the tomato pickers, others may opt to turn them off completely and pick them by hand). Why do you need a government to operate one of these vertical gardens? Why do you need money to be able to receive goods from these vertical gardens?

It's all a sham.

I think most people here favor a more European style "socialism" approach - which is basically capitalism as well, but much better regulated and with private for profit insurance companies having much less influence on politicians and public policy - especially with regards to health care. Also, the social safety net is much more generous.i

Our country has to be a melting pot of not just races/immigrants/cultures/religious but also political ideas. I'm not sure what the best mixture is but shouldn't we still try to mix capitalism and socialism into something uniquely American?


Plus my utopia has holodecks. We would be a calmer, more peaceful world if we could all get some holodeck time!
;-)

would nationalize all the insurance companies.

:evilgrin: Flame away.

We have set up in this country the idea that those who are "unskilled" are supposed to get treated like shit, get shit wages, all while getting the wonderful opportunity of doing the dirtiest work! Meanwhile, those who sit at a desk earn the most, and the differences in wages are just staggering.

A return to the days of the trust-busters for one thing.

And I would like them to bring back the law (can't remember the name right now) that kept commercial banking separate from investment banking.

And single-payer health care, because insurance companies definitely are evil.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges.

What should replace it?

so those greedy robber baron leeches who exist solely to exploit and profit off of hard working men/women can't make a penny off their backs.


Let small business flourish in it's stead. "Microbusiness" "Main Street" or "Mom and Pop" businesses. That is what is being annihilated in this country by modern day robber barons.


I find it odd that you don't already know this. Or maybe not. :eyes: