Question about ending capitalism.

What would be the practical steps towards doing that?

I agree with the principle of competition for reward being an excellent driving force, but our current system of 1% getting an 'A' and the rest getting an 'F' is a bit skewed. I do not think socialism has to equal actual government ownership of all the means of production, but a recognition in law and economic policy that the real driving force of the market is labor, and that the protection of labor is superior to the protection of capital. However, government ownership of the basic foundations and necessities of society (roads, water, healthcare, food) is a superior position to the private ownership of these things, as private ownership of necessities would allow these private interests to undermine regulation of the market.
:shrug:

and socialism, as you see it? :shrug:

I guess I see the big difference is that in classical socialism government and production are all one entity while in modern socialism socialistic policies are applied by taxation of and reallotments of the production. I don't think I could draw further fundamental lines between early American socialism and modern day applications of socialism, as they share that same basic foundation, differing in focus and implementation of details.
But I'm no expert on early American socialism!
:D

Secondly FDR did finish the job, that is, the job he set out to do which was to stop socialism.

After the Crash of '29 and the following worldwide depression, there was a very strong movement toward a socialistic culture here as well as in the rest of the western world. Banks and insurance companies were on the brink of extinction as the general populace had been convinced that they were untrustworthy and would never do business with them again (stories of people that kept all their money buried in the backyard or in the mattress were legion). There were many politicians across the nation that tapped into this mood and were finding broad based support and being elected to office, one of the most notable was Huey "Kingfish" Long of Louisiana.

Meanwhile, FDR was Governor of NY elected with the backing of the Tammany Hall machine in 1928 and re-elected in 1930, an achievement that showed, depending upon whom you talk to, either a willingness to sell out his constituency or great political acumen. He was a patrician of the worst sort, a fact widely ignored or covered up thanks to his backing by the infamous W.R. Hearst and the industrial barons in general.

At the same time American government was languishing under the "do nothing" congress that ignored all warnings and signs of the impending collapse and once it occurred, were loathe to take any steps to change it primarily due to their status as captives to their major campaign contributers (is any of this sounding at all familiar?).

This is how we arrived at the election of 1932. Instead of taking the steps of repealing the Federal Reserve Act (something else we have to thank the Republiks for) and imposing the needed regulation and restructuring of our econoomy along the socialist lines being adopted in other nations, we got deficit spending and the outlawing and confiscation of all privately owned gold, with notable exceptions for jewelry and "gold coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins" IOW, the gold held by the wealthy, which was being used as currency between individuals to circumvent the now discredited federal reserve system, effectively forcing people back into the banking system.

So this is what I meant by stating that FDR did finish the job he set out to do, he preserved the system of owners and debtors that made all the chaos we've seen since then possible. This is not to say that all he did was bad, but the things done that befitted the average person were simply bones thrown to them to temporarily eased their suffering while the owner class consolidated their positions and set the stage for the rise of the oligarchy.

which I do not.
Interesting info on FDR. I don't think I've ever heard that take on him. I agree that the Federal Reserve Act is certainly not the wisest step this country has ever taken. Do you think that a metal backed currency should have been re-implemented? :shrug:

Frankly I don't think the communist ideal can be achieved without an evolution of humanity, there are just too many willing to take advantage of others for it to work.

At this point it would be impossible to re-monetize precious metals, if we tried, the price of gold would go to $25,000 or more per ounce and there just isn't enough around to fill the needs of our economy.

What I believe we could do is to abolish the Fed and return control of its function to the congress, as was the original intent. The abolition of interest, paid or collected, and regulation of fees would spur unprecedented economic growth and virtually eliminate unemployment. This in many ways, through true market forces and economic competition, would create the capitalist utopia that so many claim to desire as monopoly would become literally impossible. With the value of money being controlled by a bureaucratic system, (hard rules based on population and circulation needs) instead of through the vulnerable chaos we currently have, would have the same effect of eliminating of inflation.

We also have, thanks ironically to the world wide fiat currency system currently in place, the means to create a totally equitable system of currency valuation. An hours labor in the US would be worth exactly the same as an hours labor in China and the labor of a janitor would be worth exactly the same as an hours labor by a CEO. I think the advantages of this are obvious, but the downside would be that it makes everyone everywhere equal and hardly anyone really wants equality.

Of course, convincing most people in the western world of the merits of such a system would be nearly impossible as the myth of "making it" has been so ingrained that even when faced with financial ruin people still believe that somehow, someday, it could be them.

It's true that "you cannot cheat an honest man", but there are so few of them around that it is simplicity itself to cheat for a living.

I think that's the problem in questions like that one. When people heard Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics all they heard was SOCIALIST. This immediately did two things: It made everyone think COMMUNISM=SOCIALISM, and it set up the "Capitalism GOOD, Socialism BAD" meme.

People don't realize how many features of EVERY society are socialist in nature: public works, public hospitals, roads...the list goes on and on. What they DON'T realize is what is being practiced right now and is being called "CAPITALISM" has as much in common with Adam Smith as Communism has in common with Socialism, which is: not much.

Gives us an uphill battle, with the weapon the same one it's always been: GOOD AND EQUAL PUBLIC EDUCATION, funded as it should be.

In capitalism that would be an employee owned company.

Since we are in the Cradle of Capitalism if we want to get away from it, we are going to actually have to get away. I am not suggesting that you all follow me to New Gunea and drink kool aid. I think that the only way to get away from capitalism is to get away from captalists.

Russia. What we want to do is harness Capitalism so that it works for the benefit of the people not the other way around. It's time to bring back the regulations Reagan ended and to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act so that unions can make a comeback as strong representatives of the working class.

A government of, by, and for all the people.

There are more than just two models for the organization, usage and dissemination of resources among humans and other animals. You have postulated an illogical dualism between capitalism OR "communism" with no other types of organization or combinations being possible.

This is NOT an either/or game.

Also, what do you mean by "Capitalism?" Do you mean global, corporate capitalism? Your local mom and pop bookstore? A cigar stand in Havana, Cuba? AT&T, Lockheed and Halliburton?

What do you mean by "Communism?" Do you mean Marxist, post-Socialism? Do you mean the totalitarian state capitalism of China or Stalin's USSR? Do you mean any of the many different flavors of "communism" -- Trotskyite, Maoist, etc.???

What about Socialism? There are numerous examples of Socialist organization in the world, probably many more than there are capitalist models.


However, since the main and ONLY goal of capitalism is to maximize profit on capital investment and it also assumes an infinite supply of resource many of us DO want to end most forms of capitalism.

Our first goal is to totally DESTROY corporate capitalism as it's practiced now by global capitalist corporations. To do this, we must strip them of their alleged "personhood" and treat them like the temporary organizational entities they were originally designed to be with a time-limit -- say "death" -- built into their charters.

At the same time we are working to destroy the "immortal" capitalist construct we must do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to impede their progress. We must boycott them, badmouth them, strike against them, sue them, demonstrate against them and tell everyone we know about how evil and destructive large corporate capitalism and global multinational corporations ARE!

We will never see a humane, caring, sharing society in any of our lifetimes but, if we want homosapians to survive the 21st Century, we'd better bust our fuckin' butts trying to get there.

Capitalism to me is commerce and yes it's mom and pop and even a little beyond to even chain stores or factories, but strictly under control of government agencies who keep the corporations honest and not too big. By that I mean a company like General Electric needs to be split up into many smaller pieces. Also, I'm against corporate welfare. Companies like Halliburton should not be sucking at the government tit.

When I spoke of communism, I was very specific to mention Soviet Communism. However, my understanding of the proper definition of communisim is that the government runs everything. Sorry, but that has proven not to work very well. I do believe there are things the government should run, but there are other things that should be traded on the open market with old fashioned competition.

I hope this explains my view a little better. If you are a purist communist, you and I will not agree. I am a social democrat. I believe we have a duty to provide each person with the basics they need to survive including health care and a fee education through university for their children, but it's free enterprise that lets every person achieve everything that they can achieve in life. Government is there to provide the opportunities and clear the obstacles.

No, I guess I would say I believe in Marxian principles.

First there's capitalist, then Socialism then an anarchic form of Communism.

I won't see anything like that form of Communism in my lifetime, neither will anyone alive. It will require an evolution in the human species beyond the knee-jerk economic greed/selfishness of the current crop before a truly humane system of resource allocation will exist.

If we survive as a species (I doubt we will but if we do), we will get there.

The hunters and gatherers go out and get the food and other necessities and they share what they have with the whole tribe, including the children, the handicapped and the elderly. But unfortunately, civilization doesn't allow this kind of communism to exist except in limited communities, like monasteries, farming communes, cooperative commercial enterprises and other such venues that are also exclusive and only include members. This leaves out a lot of people who don't belong.

So instead we need to turn to socialism to make sure that those who can't function that well in our increasingly complex and technological society are at least taken care of for basic human needs and rights. We haven't been doing such a good job of this. A lot of this is because people have a mistaken notion that charity can take care of all social ills, but charity at best is a band aid and not a solution.

Nothing further

although it may be possible as a temporary fix for a broken system. A sharp transition to socialism seems to work best in a feudal society, something we are quickly approaching, but only a mixed economy of socialism and capitalism seems to work for the long haul. Most socialist countries have reintroduced limited capitalism. Most capitalist countries have introduced limited socialism.

Face it, capitalism is a great way to produce things quickly and to build wealth. Capitalism falls down on the job when it comes to providing services. Sucking profit out of any service system means degrading that service. This can be annoying in a retail store. It's fatal in healthcare, for example.

The problem with a mixed system lies in figuring out what capitalism fails to deliver and what socialism fails to deliver and assigning them to the public and private spheres accordingly.

The biggest obstacle to socialism in this country seems to be the word, itself. As soon as corporate admen hang the label on anything, no matter how desperately it needs to be nationalized and run by the state, the whole concept is dead.

Either we're going to have to adopt the Orwellian nomenclature used by the far right or we're going to have to wait until people are hurting a whole lot more.

to tax for government run social programs. The problem now is that the wealthiest are not paying taxes thanks to the neo-con tax cuts.

as it is practiced here, a very bad system at that. It is vulnerable to manipulation of markets and elimination of competition. Industry has nothing to do with capitalism, the advocates of capitalism have simply appropriated it to bolster their argument.

is strongly capitalistic. The difference is that the government insures that capitalism for the most part is used for the benefit of the people. In our system people are used for the benefit of the corporations and those few who control them. In our government, people, who are not heirs of estates, are worker drones until they become useless and are cast aside without regrets.

The present efforts to destroy Social Security and Medicare, the bare bones safety nets for the elderly working class once they are no longer useful, points to an even more calloused attitude being favored by those who preach democracy but practice laissez faire capitalism, militarism and fascism.

You can have commerce without industry, so industry isn't the only leg of capitalism. Without commerce, there is no capital to run social programs or industry or governments. Taking away all commerce and trade brings us feudalism, a system where everyone is a worker serf of an estate. The estate is mostly self-sufficient. If the Lord or Patron, or CEO of the estate is competent and concerned about the families under him, it can be way to survive under subsistence. If he isn't, it's a hellish existence of disease, starvation and work for little reward. It's an economic system I am quite familiar with since I'm originally from South America.

countries, it is the most capitalistic, least socialist of the lot. Perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, it also has the biggest problems with balancing the needs of its society with the demands of its business community.

Commerce is not in any way dependent on capitalism. Since none of us is capable of being entirely self sufficient, commerce will of necessity exist, regardless of the economic system in place, there is no relationship between them other than the oft repeated false claims of the capitalist. It is like the religious advocate that points to the wonderful art produced during the middle ages and claims that it is the total control of every aspect of society by the Catholic church as the reason for the art. There is a correlation, but not necessarily causation.

All that capitalism, as currently practiced, makes possible is the possibility of the owner class to confiscate the product of the working class. Consider that the valuations of labor are completely upside down, the highest compensation goes to those that produce nothing, while the lowest goes to those that create all that is produced.

I really like the Swedes I have met and they have given me an insider's view of their system. Their biggest problem is winter, the dark winters that kind of make them a bit unique in their psychology. I don't care for a lot of their nanny laws, but over all they seem to have a system that doesn't allow for people dying in the streets like ours.

over what ours has been perverted into, any day. The only problem I have with Sweden is their diet, and they are far too accepting of religious extremism than I believe is healthy. I merely noted that the other Scandinavian nations view them as their version of Republiks.

capitalism, Communism, and Socialism are indeed simply various flavors of resource distribution.

Of them all, capitalism is the worst in terms of fairness and sustainability. It must be HEAVILY reigned in and eventually it will wither and die due to its own internal inconsistencies and contradictions.

private (non governmental)OWNERSHIP of the means of production. You really don't want to collectivize property do you?

so I need more information to answer you. I will state that cooperative systems are always superior to hierarchical systems, as the later use or imply force to achieve their objectives, and this breeds antagonism to achieving those objectives.

The distribution of wealth and means of production are in private hands, not state owned. Collectivizing the means of production under state control defines communism as apart from socialism. The redistribution of wealth falls with in the dictum of socialism. The question was rhetorical. Sorry about that.

As long as all wealth and "means of production" are in "private" hands, inequalities of wealth and allocation are inevitable! Currently, we are laboring under a system where most of the wealth and means of production are in very few (and fewer everyday) private hands. Working for ya'? --- it sure ain't workin' for me.

The means of production MUST be in the hands of all of us not just the "chosen few".

The preferred future is a system of anarchy; of consensus governance. This system will be characterized by governmentlessness and certainly will do without an aristocracy calling the shots.

Socialism is a stepping stone to this future system.


On edit: If we truly ARE the State, if WE THE PEOPLE are the government, the resources will be in private hands -- OURS collectively. If any of the resources are parted out to individuals (a rather recent human "development") most of the rest of us will suffer.

That would seem to fit what currently calls itself a congress IMHO. I'm not endorsing capitalism. Simply rounding the corners of its' definition.
I believe in small government on a state level where the citizens are involved in the running of their government. Never liked federalism, too much like feudalism, centralized and powerful, too easily corrupted by capitalism, its oligarchs and the church.
If you believe in the right of the individual to create his own wealth, he will need tools to ply his trade. The private ownership of the means of production as simply stated. I'm not inferring corporatism,stock exchanges or the world bank.
The exchange to socialistic governance that would have to take place will require our current form of government to cease. A Constitutional convention and state ratification to bring the power back to the "PEOPLE" as it's written in the Constitution are the preferred means. Though I doubt you can get this government or the next or the next to give up the power they have vested in themselves.

We have to amend Constitution!

Make it so that co-ops are more competitive then corporations.

I'm no Marxist, I prefer gradual change when possible because violent revolutions led by idealists tend to degenerate onto totalitarian hellholes (*points to Popper quote in signature*).

be a start, although I'm one who would like to take away a lot of the privileges and largess from our Treasury that corporations are being awarded more and more every year by the neo-cons.

That's a straw man...

I just want to make it small enough that I can drown it in a bathtub. :evilgrin:

I don't remember equating jpgraz with rah-rah capitalism. So, out of curiosity I clicked your post...


:spray:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Thank you, soooo much. It's been an awful day and your post very literally made me LAUGH LOUDLY OUT LOUD!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Governments state or local can buy companies threatening to move offshore and selling it back to workers in the form of low or no interest loans with some caviats attached such as free and fair elections of management, diversity in hiring and opportunitites for promotion. That's all that comes to mind right now. Maybe I'll have a brainstorm later. :)