Us Marxists and other anti-capitalists must be doing to damage to the "capitalism" brand....

[socialist_n_TN]

Lots of posts lately explaining how what we have today is NOT "capitalism" or how we're actually ALL capitalists and we should just suck it up, admit it, and stop complaining about it.

I'm personally happy to see it. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. We've at least gotten past the "first they ignore you stage".

[Zorra]

1. It should be completely obvious to any reasonable person that capitalism

has innate, inherent, irreconcilable problems, and is the direct cause of unnecessary widespread human and planetary destruction.

Apparently, we've tripped the alarms in the castle courtyard.

[MNBrewer]

37. As the failures of Capitalism compound...

[soflo80]

2. Can you name a prosperous socialist or communist country?

And don't say certain European countries or Sweden, because they operate on a capitalist economic model. They have private businesses, corporations, and wealthy people who invest capital.

[TransitJohn]

3. LOL

So, name a prosperous socialist country, except for the prosperous, socialist countries. Lemme, guess, got lost? this smacks of conservative arguments.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Fair enough - you name the countries, and we can discuss if they're socialist

There are prosperous countries with some aspects of socialism, but possibly the only European socialist country left is Belarus.

[soflo80]

15. Once again, countries such as Sweden are not socialist

They may have social programs, but their economic model is based off capitalism. I think you are mistaking the two. In Sweden there are privately-owned businesses, a profit motive, and corporations - all with a goal to make profits in a market economy.

Just because a country has universal healthcare and large social programs does not make it a "socialist" country. Socialism, capitalism, and communism are economic systems, not political ones.

[sibelian]

16. You are not talking about socialism.

You are talking about "SOOOOOSHAAALIZZZUM hwiiiick PTH".

"Socialism, capitalism, and communism are economic systems, not political ones."

That's exactly as meaningful as saying Christianity, Buddhism and Islam aren't belief structures but value systems.

[soflo80]

20. Fundamentally, they are economic ideologies

You should have learned this in any basic economics class. As I mentioned, a few of the countries here that people are labeling as "socialist" are in fact not socialist in the economic sense. Since when does a free market capitalist economy with abundant social programs brand a country as socialist? I can move to Sweden, or the other countries mentioned, start my own private business, extract profits, compete with other businesses, hire people and pay them wage or salary, and reinvest my capital. The income that is taxed from this generated wealth is used for programs such as universal healthcare.

I simply asked for an example of a successful, prosperous socialist or communist country. One where private businesses or corporations do not exist and all means of production are owned by the State or collectively by the workers, but no one can seem to provide one.

[gollygee]

43. I'm tired of the goalpost moving

During the last election we heard about how Obama is a socialist, how Democrats in general are socialists, and how anything but the most laissez-faire version of capitalism is socialism, but then at other times we have people tell us that anything other than a country where no private businesses or corporations exist at all is capitalism.

[Katashi_itto]

46. +1000

[bahrbearian]

4. Can you name a Capitalist country that isn't in Debt ?

[NuclearDem]

5. I can't, because there aren't any socialist or communist country.

There are countries that use more socialist policies than others, but no country can be correctly described as a socialist or communist country.

[CJCRANE]

9. Can you name a prosperous country that has no government or small government?

There is obviously a balance somewhere on the spectrum between full-blown socialism and laissez-faire capitalsim.

[Marr]

18. Can you name a *single* Republican who was never convicted of rape?

Except for the ones who were never convicted of rape.

I'm waiting.

[socialist_n_TN]

27. Can you name even ONE attempt at a socialist or communist country......

that wasn't undermined FROM THE START by the capitalists overtly and covertly, economically and militarily?

The truth is that ANY state organized under socialist principles is under attack and a state or system under attack is NOT allowed to develop normally. The assault on the embryonic USSR directly led to the degeneration that was Stalinism.

[MNBrewer]

38. Define "prosperous" first.

[PowerToThePeople]

48. Here's one. Country "Enjoy your stay"

[oldhippie]

6. Trying to discuss these issues on DU is useless ....

.... because the group will never agree on definitions of terms. Economic and political terms are defined, re-defined, framed, re-framed, and totally obfuscated to suit whatever argument or agenda a poster is trying to advance.

People are going to believe what they want to believe and no minds are being changed. It's a waste of time and energy.

[pangaia]

28. yup.

[socialist_n_TN]

30. You're wrong about no minds being changed. Since I first started posting ........

four or five years ago, DU has become steadily MORE "Classic Red". Of course the ACTUAL number of Reds here are still pretty small, but because of their influence, there are a WHOLE lot more who harbor anti-capitalist sentiment than before.

Every self-identification poll taken on DU since 2009 has showed a steadily leftward march. So you're wrong about minds being changed.

[oldhippie]

40. Yup. That's what they say. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

55. Yup. And changing those minds was my agenda from the start...

I wasn't alone with that either of course, but as I said, that was my openly stated agenda.

[Chathamization]

41. Yep. Most seem to agree that the Nordic model is a good direction to move towards, so

then you have pages of arguments full of navel gazing trying to pin down definitions of various -isms. I suppose it's similar to how people on the Sunday morning talk shows spend hours arguing about what politician projects what type of personality and completely ignoring actual policy.

[xchrom]

7. du rec.

[RobertEarl]

8. Yep. Discussion

I find it odd that some are in such denial of the economic system they live in. How can we ever change it if the characters in it can't even realize where they stand?

Most here are quite correctly disgusted with capitalism. But too many of those same are pointing fingers at others and not realizing 3 fingers are pointed back at them.

In order for our society to be able to make progress, we all need to understand the role each individual plays.

But.... I am beginning to think maybe there is no chance of change. Too many self-satisfied folks can't even deal with reality of their own actions.

[ZombieHorde]

10. ...

[pangaia]

29. Because they want more wealth.

[brooklynite]

11. Marxism was invented in the 19th Century...

It's never been successfully integrated into a national economy.

When do you "win"?

[PotatoChip]

13. Well, there is this...

Primitive Communism


Primitive communism is a concept originating from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that hunter-gather societies of the past practiced forms of communism.[1] In Marx's model of socioeconomic structures, societies with primitive communism had no hierarchical social class structures or capital accumulation.[2] Any such communities therefore shared some key features of communism proper: which entails a global free cooperation of all humanity, and not a nomadic communism of small disparate communities.

<snip>

Nature of primitive communist societies

In a primitive communist society, all able bodied persons would have engaged in obtaining food, and everyone would share in what was produced by hunting and gathering. There would be no private property other than articles of clothing and similar personal items, because primitive society produced no surplus; what was produced was quickly consumed. The few things that existed for any length of time (tools, housing) were held communally,[5] in Engels' view in association with matrilocal residence and matrilineal descent.[6] There would have been no state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

[RobertEarl]

34. good example

One thing these communities did NOT have was a form of capital. They had no money. Money was foreign to them.

[ZombieHorde]

53. "When do you "win"?"

When everyone has food, shelter, healthcare, and an education.

[cthulu2016]

14. Since the world stopped ignoring Communism in 1848 I'm not sure what you mean

[socialist_n_TN]

26. But it began ignoring it AGAIN back around 1992.........

with the fall of the USSR.

But as I've said often, the good side of the breakup of the USSR is that we were able to hit the reset button on Marxism in general and bring out some of the "Marxist roads not taken" by Stalin and the bureaucracy. This reset caused by the collapse of Stalinism has also allowed capitalism to show it's TRUE face and not the one that it showed to the world's workers when there was a competing system out there.

[Marr]

17. Actually, I think the capitalism brand has been destroying it's own public image. /nt

[socialist_n_TN]

24. I agree.......

Anti-capitalists don't have to do much more than point out today's societal inequities to destroy the public image of a society organized under capitalist principles.

Of course, this is what leads to the posts telling us what capitalism is NOT. But it's clear that these positions about what capitalism is not are undermined by the very capitalists who determine what capitalism IS.

[Faryn Balyncd]

19. If . . .

(1.) You question whether a system which obtains much of its capital from millions of teachers, firemen, small business owners, etc who have supplied the capital for the 67% of the stock market owned by institutions such as the California Teachers Retirement Fund, the Carpenters Pension Fund of Ohio, the Teamsters Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund, and those who have supplied capital through mutual funds held in their IRA's, 401K's, SEP-IRA's, etc at Vanguard, Fidelity, etc, and who:

- - - (a.) compensates these "capitalist" investors with an inflation adjusted return close to zero ( negative 0.79% for 2000-2012, 1.17% for 2000-2013 including the boom year of 2013 markedly less than the historic 12% return during the century of the regulated capitalism of the FDR, Ike, JFK, LBJ era),

- - - (b.) while worker wages erode, and

- - - (c.) while simultaneously ratio of CEO compensation to worker compensation, according to Bloomberg, is up 1000% since 1950, and 2/3 of this expansion has occurred since 2000 (during which time the average CEO/worker pay multiple has increased from 120:1 to 200:1)

should be named after those "capitalists" from corporations extract the capital which makes thei existence pssible (with considerable assistance from government tax policy), rather than some other more appropriate name (such as Gangster Capitalism, Bandit Capitalism, etc)



and if,

(2.) You point out that the current interpretation of "capitalism" among Republicans and "conservatives", is a system that would be profoundly rejected by even patron saint of capitalism, such as Adam Smith. An Adam Smith who:

- - - "railed against monopolies and the political influence that accompanies economic power",
- - - "worried about the encroachment of government on economic activity, but his concerns were directed at least as much toward parish councils, church wardens, big corporations, guilds and religious institutions as to the national government",
- - - "was sometimes tolerant of government intervention, especially when the object is to reduce poverty'',
- - - "supported universal government-financed education because he believed the division of labor destined people to perform monotonous, mind-numbing tasks that eroded their intelligence, not because education led to economic gain."

and if,

(3.) You advocate for laws that preserve the commons, and for the reversal of laws and regulations which have fostered the increasing concentration of economic and political power,






... Is such a person still fairly classified as advocating that we "should just suck it up, admit it, and stop complaining about it" ?

[socialist_n_TN]

22. Reminds me of an argument I've had before on DU.......

Capitalism is what the actual capitalists SAY it is. Since we have very little or no power, we don't get a say as to what capitalism is. And what capitalists SAY capitalism is today is not what we have, but it's an even MORE unregulated and privatized system than we have now.

[Faryn Balyncd]

36. Why cede the right to change definitions at will (& consequent framing of issues) to the RW?

Might it not be of benefit to point out that what the right wing wants:

(1.) Is not the regulated free enterprise of TR, of FDR, of Ike, of JFK, of LBJ, not the American system that led to widespread prosperity and to a thriving middle class.

(2.) Is not even a system that the intellectual father of capitalism, Adam Smith, could stomach (but is, in fact, more akin to the monopolistic (& crony) mercantilism that he opposed.

(3.) Contrary to the American mixed economy/regulated capitalism, when the un-American system the right wing is now peddling was implemented in Latin America with the help of American right wing Ayn Randian ideologues, it led not only to economic oppression, but to political fascism complete with death squads.

(4.) And that the un-American, extremist, right wing ideology peddled by plutocrats is propaganda which thrives on ignorance, and a mythical, false revision of American history.

(5.) And, by the way, rewards those in control (management, or entities created by Wall Street with the help of an inept/corrupt Congress and regulators, such as private equity firms who exploit bankruptcy and tax laws) rather than the average Americans, such as California teachers, mid-western carpenters, teamsters, and small business people who actually provide the capital (due in large measure to the incentives of the tax code which makes it much easier to invest retirement savings in the Wall Street markets rather than in alternative investments such as real estate), and, though they are thus the actual "capitalists", are also fleeced (since the turning of the millennium now receiving a return on their investment approaching zero, while the CEO/worker pay ratio has risen 1000% since 1950, and 67% since 2000) if they lack controlling interest or insider power. Yet those that benefit (who do not provide, but do control, the capital) still label it "capitalism", since they don't like the ring of "Banditry" or "Gangsterism".



Look what the right wing has done with the term "conservatism", now re-defined to stand for positions that conserve nothing, but which advance an economic and political plutocracy.

The ludicrous, unfactual, and un-American revisionist propaganda needs to be challenged, and their attempts to control political semantics and the conseqent framing of issues defeated with truth.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Eh

Okay.

[socialist_n_TN]

23. OK, I surrender. All these posts about what capitalism is NOT......

on DU lately are just a coincidence.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. I think oftentimes, there is DU, and then there's actual reality.

Capitalism isn't going anywhere. I'm not making a moral judgment, but I am stating a fact.

[socialist_n_TN]

56. Probably not for a while, but capitalism WILL go.......

It's not sustainable in the long run. Either it goes or the rest of us go through ecologic collapse brought on by the profit motive.

Socialism or barbarism a wise man once said. That's the choice that's rapidly approaching. I made my choice a while ago.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. Dire predictions based upon zero sum logic notwithstanding

personally, I suspect the future will bear little resemblance to anything 1st Century Religious Leaders OR 19th Century economic philosophers might have been capable of envisioning.

[leftstreet]

25. DURec

[Warpy]

32. Capitalism run amok is damaging its own brand

The only argument is what should replace capitalism run amok.

The New Deal regulated it into functioning for anyone who was willing and able to work. The rich hated that because they had to pay attention and get richer slower.

[Catherina]

33. Our educational system is totally failing us

It's one thing to be a supporter of capitalism, or to believe it could be reigned in with more controls but I'm astounded that there's so much confusion over something as basic as its definition.

[Catherina]

42. I'm not following your post

What does this have to do with our schools failing us? I have a feeling I missed something and I apologize if I jumped into something.

[RobertEarl]

44. Sorry, bad placemeant decision on my part / deleted

[Catherina]

47. Thanks for explaining :) n/t

[Starry Messenger]

49. It's been quite a week here. nt.

[Catherina]

51. Same here!

It never stops either. I spent 3 hours at the vet today, with a vet tech who was kind enough to open the clinic where he works and stitch up one of my dogs after a bad fight where she was attacked. 5 internal stitches and 7 external ones on her thigh, 2 on her back and a few more minor wounds. General anesthesia of course and now I'll have to be her loving slave for the next week at least because she can barely walk. The anesthesia is wearing off more and I can tell we're both in for a ride. Sucks.

When it comes to DU, I barely recognize it if I read it without logging in with the trash and ignore features. Sad.

[RobertEarl]

39. Three economic an societal systems defined

Communism - there is no need for capital. It is all about community sharing.

Socialism - Is about community that uses capital as a tool to facilitate sharing.

Capitalism - capital and its acquisition is the main goal. Community is not important.

[RobertEarl]

45. Belief in Capital and its -ism

Say you have two pieces of paper in your wallet. Both are the same size, the same color. One has the number 100 printed on it, and the other the number 5. Why, in your mind is one worth 20 times as much as the other? Because you believe it to be so, and others also believe it to be so.

The shared belief in that value is called capitalism.

[Silent3]

50. The big problem with relying on the ignore/laugh/fight/win sequence...

Last edited Sun Mar 9, 2014, 01:29 AM - Edit history (1)

...is that plenty of ideas and movements never make it all the way through that gauntlet to the end.

Many don't deserve to.

There are way too many ideas out there in the world being ignored for all of them to eventually win, or to even make it as far as getting laughed at.

One should not interpret being ignored, laughed at, or fought as clear indications of a righteous cause or inevitable victory.

[Deep13]

52. We Marxists.

Capitalism sucks.

[socialist_n_TN]

54. Yeah, I know. I was just going for a "folksy" feel.....

[joshcryer]

57. Wishful thinking.

If we are to be anti-capitalist we should have perspective otherwise we lose credibility. Capitalism's problem is that it is still managing to maintain vast inequality and terror for billions of people. Oh, and the environment, that's the biggest issue coming up.

[RainDog]

58. I think mixed economies have shown the best outcomes

I think the "balance of powers" in economics provides the best outcomes with the least coercion.

Obviously I have European social democracies in mind.

The govt. should actually represent the interests of the common people - our "union" - that's what this nation is - it's not its economic activity alone, but certain aspects of the market idea are useful for common people too, in terms of access to a wider world view.

The problem is always accumulations of power among too few, no matter what the "ism" - to me.

I am not an idealist. I do not think the state will ever fall away. Our societies are too complex - we are no longer hunter/gathers and we have found that divisions of labor produce interesting cultures. at least that's how I see it.