Capitalism.

[redqueen]

[Jim Warren]

1. Capitalism

[BayCityProgressive]

2. LMAO

great and soooo true.

[Cerridwen]

3. I just love seeing that pop up every so often.

Thanks!

[redqueen]

7. Thanks!

Another one of my favorites. :D

[Double T]

4. Capitalism

[redqueen]

8. Thank you!

:thumbsup:

[Double T]

9. Thank YOU for YOUR great thread!!!!!!!

[redqueen]

10. Oh the pleasure is ALL mine, trust me!

After seeing those recent anti-Chavez articles circulating, including the attendant "AAAAAAAAA! NOOOOOOO! COMMIEEEEEES!" hysteria, I just had to.

:evilgrin:

[Jim Warren]

12. Commies?

Where?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x165200

[manic expression]

37. See my sig

However, I'd say that I'm probably one of the few here who identifies with that label. Most people who you're referring to as "commies" are, in all likelihood, assuredly not communist by any measure.

[Jim Warren]

43. Ah, Okaaaay

but just wtf are you talking about

[otherlander]

71. It's not hysteria to disagree with you.

Within nationalized industries in Venezuela, there's a problem with people being given jobs based on their political positions rather than their merit, and non-Chavez supporters not being hired. Human rights watch has documents about "insult laws" which restrict freedom of the press. So I really don't trust Chavez. THAT DOES NOT MAKE ME A CAPITALIST. AT ALL.

[Judi Lynn]

73. The industries on the block to be re-nationalized were actually nationalized

long before Hugo Chavez was elected, and were privatized by a larcenous, violent President, Carlos Andres Perez, who privatize them, in addition to turning his troops on a crowd of desperate poor who were wildly disturbed by having their transportation costs doubled by Perez.

He had them mowed down in the streets, slaughtered. El Caracazo massacre.

They are not fond of filthy, murderous, larcenous leaders. They do like Chavez, who led a coup against the monster, and now is thoughtfully undoing the damage the greedy idiot wrought.

[redqueen]

119. I don't quite trust HRW.

Sorry, but the best way to hide a lie is buried within truths, and that organization has earned my mistrust.

If that is true, it isn't a good sign. Doesn't exactly make him a bad leader on balance, though, considering how much he's done to help his country.

[JacksonWest]

124. Heaven forbid. You don't want to be a capitalist.

[rman]

5. Which is why i don't trust Big Pharma,

just to name one.

[redqueen]

6. I don't either, but I still take my synthroid!

:hi:

[Jcrowley]

11. Every Picture

K&R

[redqueen]

13. Thank you!

:hi:

[Selatius]

14. You shouldn't own resources everybody needs. Society, as a whole, owns it.

If I had my way, if you wish to use resources for your own purposes, you should pay a "usage fee" for their use. The greater the capital you own, the greater the fee you pay. The fees would be used to run publicly owned banks where respective communities have control over local branches. The banks would fund the establishment of worker co-ops and the expansion of others as well as the expansion of commerce and industry as a whole. In this way, workers operating in co-ops have no bosses but themselves.

[BayCityProgressive]

15. the workers could elect

elect administrators for a set amount of time if needed, and recall them if needed.

[Selatius]

18. Sure, we can do that. Ultimately, the decision would be left up to each worker co-op.

Different co-ops would likely have variations in how they decide levels of production, procurement of resources, financing, etc. Of course, if workers were given control over the firm, naturally democracy in the workplace would emerge in most cases.

The community public banks, on the other hand, must be run by their respective communities in a transparent manner with as much input from the people of the community as possible. The same way private institutions hold budgetary meetings to decide allocation of capital would be applied to these banks. The only difference is the entire community could decide a direction. Strict rules must be in place to govern the public banking mechanism to ensure the banks operate in accordance with the will of the people.

[JacksonWest]

125. How would a community-an entire community-run a bank?

How do banks operate against the interests of their customers? Or is that different from "people"?
Not to put a fly in the ointment. I love my community bank-but I certainly wouldn't want the majority of the customers to "run" it. I don't follow your issue with banks. Do you want to choose who they lend money to, or what sort of capital goes into other investments?

Anyhoooo-

Did you read about the proposed Socialist Party platform in France? That's really interesting, especially in turn of representative democracy. Having citizen juries oversee government policy-that's progressive. There's a lot of cool ideas in the article, that really speaks to the power of socialist principles in a free society.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/11/news/france.php

[redqueen]

16. Great idea!

We'd have to eliminate huge corporate banks, though.

I love that idea. :7

[Selatius]

23. The system would likely drive out most banks through marketplace competition.

The public banking mechanism would be funded by a capital assets tax, the "usage fee" for using capital. If you purchase 100,000 dollars worth of capital to run your firm and if the assets tax is set to 15 percent, for instance, then you would naturally have to pay 15,000/year in usage fees because you are paying society for the privilege of access to that capital. You cannot write off the value of that capital through depreciation. You would be required to maintain a depreciation fund to offset depreciation. The 15,000 would go to the public bank, and the bank would turn around and lend the money out in the form of grants to fund the start-up cost of new co-ops, expand existing co-ops, and stimulate commerce and trade in general both inside and outside the co-op sector of the economy. Because the bank derives its revenue from usage fees, it charges no interest on the money it lends out if any.

[redqueen]

24. You're talkin way over my head now...

:P

I'd be interested to know what you think of this exchange...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2720967&mesg_id=2724435

:hi:

[Greyhound]

20. Funny, this is pretty much what our national economy was originally set up to

do. They established that only congress had the right to coin money and establish the value thereof, explicitly to keep the European banking families out of the U.S. economy, and it took them a hundred years to overthrow that system.

[Nederland]

22. You are free to do that

Nothing prevents you from setting up a system that works along those lines. If it is as attractive as you believe it will be, workers should end up flocking to work in that environment.

BTW, how do you define "resource" in that first sentence?

[Selatius]

33. I should've used "capital" in place of "resources."

When I talk of it, I usually mean things like land, buildings, equipment, etc. You need to gain access to all of that to start a firm and start generating revenue.

The general source of the idea I mentioned in my first post comes from market socialism and specifically from mathmatician/philosopher David Schweickart.

[redqueen]

34. Thank you for the reference.

Interesting stuff!

[info being]

48. Yes, and the primary point of failure...

...is funding. You have to have funding to start such a business, and it is highly unlikely that the workers would contribute capital. I would conceive a structure whereby both labor and capital leads to ownership in the firm, perhaps with labor having decision-making authority because they are involved in the day-to-day operations.

Who actually has better insight into the organization, those who show up once a quarter to listen to the CEO or those who show up every day and see the inner-workings?

Convince the capital contributors that it is actually *in their best interests* to let the workers make decisions, and now we all all the bases covered.

[Nederland]

68. Yes, the problem has always been getting started

That is why historically these types of revolutions have always begun with the forceable seizure of private property by threat of violence. Not a pretty picture...

[TahitiNut]

26. "Ownership" is an entitlement - it exists SOLELY due to the enforcement of that society.

It's an unbelievably obscene "lemming" instinct that elevates "ownership" above labor. Societal suicide.

[redqueen]

30. Oooh good term... "lemming instinct"

SO prevalent...

hence the torture at abu ghraib

hence the milgram experiments

hence so frickin much that i could go on for days nonstop... *sigh*

[Nederland]

36. Disagree

The idea of ownership is fundamental--it is not a social construct. Try to take a toy that a three month old child is playing with and they will resist you. The concept "this belongs to me and not you" is an idea that is not taught, it is an innate response to the natural state where needed resources are limited.

[redqueen]

41. All you are proving is that it is infantile.

:7

[Nederland]

66. Yes

Along with eating, breathing and sleeping.

It is an intrinsic part of who we are, and any system that assumes otherwise is doomed to fail.

[redqueen]

67. How can you compare selfishness with basic bodily functions?

Are you kidding?

:rofl:

I'm sorry... but honestly... that is funny!

Selfishness surved a purpose when we were evolving. It outgrew its usefulness long, long ago.

[Nederland]

69. Because they are both biological

You can't simply throw out millions of years of evolution because you think it's a good idea. It's in your genes and you're stuck with it, regardless of whether or not it is useful. The appendix outgrew its usefulness a long time ago, but we're stuck with that too. Unlike the appendix however, you can't surgically remove selfishness from a person.

[redqueen]

70. No, I mean one is biological as in it is a biological need...

something we can't survive without... while the other is an instinct we don't need anymore... kind of like the instinct to screw lots of partners. It's counterproductive now.

[Nederland]

74. Sure, you can survive without it

But would you freely choose to?

You cannot escape that fact that over the last 20 years people have chosen to overthrow or leave societies that outlawed private property. You argue that people will be better off in system that has no property rights. But if this is true, why have people historically always chosen otherwise? Why is it that when people that have a free choice, they almost invariably chose to live in a system with private property? Why, for that matter, have you?

[redqueen]

75. Well...

I'm not really saying that I think that we should have NO private property.

I was mostly just discussing the idea of it.

I would prefer a mix of socialism and tightly-controlled capitalism myself.

[krispos42]

92. Capitolism fuels business growth. New ideas, new products, new services

Socialism plugs the gaps that a purely capitalist society makes. Use socialism to plug capitalism, not captitalism to fix socialism, and you're doing pretty well, IMHO.

[manic expression]

99. And who benefits from that?

not the people who actually produce the products, services and ideas. The bourgeoisie benefit, and everyone else is used for that very benefit.

[krispos42]

116. That is why we have some socialism traits

Too keep it from going overboard. Things like unions, unemployment insurance, good primary education and cheap secondary education, universal single-payer health care, and a progressive tax structure that smacks companies that make too much profit or pay their executives too much with heavy penalties. Not to mention pollution controls and other nicities.

Sorry it took so long to respond... roommate forgot to pay the cable bill! :-)

[rakovsky]

113. Yes new products, but who gets the profits?

Yes capitalism does a great job producing stuff. Look at all the products it has made the US. And how strong, profit driven, and oil hungry? The downside is: PROFITS FOR THEIR OWN SAKE!

products are just the by-product- the goal is profit. Hunger for profits above people= greed.

Capitalism= Greed.

democratic socialism=economic democracy.

[krispos42]

117. See my above response

[krispos42]

91. But if some have it and some don't...

"this is mine and not yours", I mean, then the ones that don't have it lose to the ones that do. The ones that don't simply get run roughshod over until they are wiped out.

The government and the laws they enforce are suppose to be created so that the desire to aquire is utilized to make the nation and society greater while keeping it in check so that everybody else benefits as well. The urge to achieve, in fulfilling that urge, creates businesses, which hire people and turn raw materials into finished goods or provide services. The laws of society make sure that the people hired are paid and treated fairly, the goods and services are regulated for quality and content and toxicity and labeling and emmissions, and that the increase in the economy is appropriately taxed and the funds used to educate children, build infrastructure, and provide for the common defense. And all that other stuff that government does.

The problem we have is that the urge to achieve has been replaces by the urge to be greedy, so simply making a sucessful product line is not enough. You use your pull as a sucess to manipulate laws and regulatiosn to increase your profit, often by lowering wages and making regulations dangerously loose.

[JacksonWest]

126. Ownership isn't unique to humans, and it is sometimes a biological construct.

In nature, animals and insects often claim territory. There are any number of methods in doing so-the most familiar being the "marking" of territory with urine. Animals and their behavior reflect a solitary purpose of survival(encompassing the future generations).

The poster's claims are based on logic-you're mocking him, but not addressing the point.
Ultimately, if we pretend that we can share resources, we're going to be taken advantage of, or forced to limit individual freedoms in order to "share" for a sustained period of time.

Is there a society-right now- that doesn't have the concept of ownership? IS it flourishing, is it old, it it established? What governments don't allow property ownership? Even in "communist" China, individuals are allowed to buy, sell, and own property. China is integrating capitalism into it's system, with success.

The idea of having a society where all resources and property belong to the "people" isn't a new one. Or a good one. It might work in theory, but the "people" somehow become a small segment of the ruling class. And totalitarianism reigns.

[TahitiNut]

77. You confuse possession with 'ownership.'

You could as easily have cited the example of a dog with a tasty bone. Unless 'socialized,' the attempt by another dog or a human to take it away will usually trigger an enforcement response. To claim that it's natural and we're like dogs is not an argument favoring the legal fiction of state-enforced 'ownership' of something that doesn't exist in naure (e.g. a share of stock). Furthermore, should that other dog succeed in taking the bone away, it becomes the other dog's possession in exactly the same sense it was the former dog's. Enter the dog's OWNER - the force of the State dispossessing the second dog of the bone - and we then have the model of "ownership" as an entitlement.

Indeed, we're not talking about personal property - clothing, tools, etc. - we're talking about stock, real estate 'titles,' and other legal fictions which can exist only because that 'ownership' (of something that's, in fact, a creation of the state) is protected by a police force (and military) that acts as an agent to prohibit others from infringing (e.g. trespass) even in the absence of the "owner." Indeed, a title (hence the word "entitlement") to real estate (i.e. land) is a very interesting example. It's actually a "fee simple" conveyance that permits usage and inheritance but not outright 'ownership.' (One 'owns' the specific authorities conveyed in the title, not the land itself.) Other titles include 'Duke,' 'Baron,' 'Prince,' and 'King.' Each is the grant of authority - not a personal possession.

[Runcible Spoon]

89. bingo. you just saved me a wordy post :)

this cultural anthropologist wholeheartedly agrees :thumbsup: :applause:

[Nederland]

118. There is no confusion

The bottom line is the difference between me and a socialist is the answer to the following question:

"Who controls the fruits of an individual's labor?"

For me, the answer is that an individual should control a significant portion of the fruits of their labor (60%-80%), the rest going to taxes. For a socialist, the answer is that society as a whole controls the fruits of an individuals labor (presumably, via some sort of democratic activity or other governmental process). You can call it ownership, possession, property, whatever--it doesn't matter. In the end the key difference is whether you believe in individual freedom or not.

[redqueen]

17. Kick

hehe

[Bandit]

19. Shut Up.....he might hear you

:shrug:

[redqueen]

27. The worker!

The one who's paying the boss $35 per day, to be told by said boss that he should work faster.

Get it?

[Octafish]

21. Here's a color version...

I'm on the ground floor, although many would argue...

[redqueen]

28. Hi there!

Pleasure seeing you around!

:hi:

[info being]

45. Wow

*Very* powerful.

[file83]

100. That's a very cool poster. I WANT ONE!!!

[TahitiNut]

25. Even more - the very value of the machinery is based on the availability of labor.

The "means of production" itself has value based on the availability of labor. When labor 'compensation' rates go down, the market value of the "means of production" goes up.

This is the "Catch 22" of seducing working people into stock ownership. They get an imaginary 'interest' in oppressing their own 'compensation.'

[redqueen]

31. The stock market used to be a dirty thing...

people sent out errand boys to place their 'bets'.

How tragic that it went mainstream.

[info being]

46. I always laugh at company events...

...when the executives try to tell us how we all have an interest in the company doing well because we all have stock. What a joke, the stock we get pales in comparison to salary, and the only interest I have in the company is the money *I* get.

Don't insult my intelligence, Mr. CEO, by telling me that my interests are the same as yours.

[manic expression]

29. Beautiful

Thank you.

[redqueen]

32. Thank you, too!

:hi:

[RandomKoolzip]

35. That's beautiful.

:thumbsup:

[redqueen]

42. Hi there!

SO glad you like!

:hi:

[Parche]

38. CAPITOLISM

This is the REAL Capitolism..........no pun intended

[Greyhound]

39. Another K & R. n/t

[smalll]

40. Social democracy makes sense, anti-capitalism doesn't.

Social democracy, New Deal/Great Society policies, things like that make sense. They use some of the resources of a capitalist society to help the disadvantaged, as well as to help all of us with things like public education, public health, etc. But what the Europeans call "social democracy" and what the Liberalism of the traditional Democratic Party here in America understand is that capitalism itself is not the enemy. Capitalism IS the goose that lays the golden eggs, Democrats wisely use some of those eggs for public purposes, and also realize that some portion of eggs need to be allocated to cleaning up goose shit, muzzling the angrier geese in the presence of small children, etc. But the goose is not the enemy.

Let's take a look at Redqueen's cartoon. Capitalism's not like that. For one thing, the owner-capitalist as presented in the toon is an anachronism in today’s corporate/Wall Street world. But the toon does present a kind of classic capitalism, and the classic critique of that capitalism, so let’s address it on its own terms:

So the capitalist pays the worker fifteen dollars a day to make products worth fifty dollars each day. Capitalists have almost never, especially today, lived like this. Profits are a thin margin. Also, the toon itself hints at the truth - where does the capitalist get the money to pay the worker? He makes products and sells them. Where did he get the money to buy the machines? He made products and sold them. Demand for specific products rises and falls. You never know when someone else will come out with the next better model, or even with something that will replace your product entirely. Or the economy itself might just slump, then the consumers won't be buying nearly as many of your products as you need them to.

The reason the capitalist/owner in that toon has reason to exist, his benefit to society, is that he is a man with money who is willing to take RISK with that money. If I won the lottery tomorrow (highly unlikely since I never buy a ticket) and suddenly ended up with 50 million dollars in my lap, I sure as hell wouldn't be investing the bulk of it in a business of my own creation set up to manufacture and sell "a product" no matter what that product was. The vast majority of people wouldn't either: many people would live comfortably and healthily off the money for the rest of their lives, a good deal of people would fritter it away before they died, or would die too young because of the way they frittered it (RIP ANS!) But very few of us would RISK that money by laying it on the line and becoming a capitalist-owner, or as we call them today, an ENTREPRENEUR.

Think also about the small investing many of us do, through 401Ks and what have you. What is the number one best piece of advice for an investor, other than to buy-and-hold? It's to "diversify" your "asset allocation" - meaning, in terms of stocks, don't buy individual stocks, spread out the risk, buy index funds like Vanguard, etc. And it makes sense for the average investor, big or small. "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" showed us that trying to play the market, in the large view, is a sucker's game. The best thing you can count on, as an investor, is that you can sit quietly in the market with your Vanguard funds, etc, for a few decades, and reap the benefits that Capitalism brings to the overall economy, over time - overall, in that great Maelstrom that from year to year and from industry to industry both creates and destroys great fortunes. The capitalist in that cartoon, the entrepreneur, enters that maelstrom and sinks his money in one company, one business, one product.

"The worker," I know as well as you, is worthy. He is giving of himself (his labor for pay) and adding value to society. The capitalist is worthy though too. He is giving of himself (his money for the CHANCE of much more) and also adding value.

(Hey, I'm off work with a sprained ankle today, have to do something, might as well respond to this. I might comment on the social pyramid picture next, that also has its Issues.)

[The Flaming Red Head]

44. What the Europeans call "social democracy"

means I would health care if we had it here and meds for my out of control hypertension and I think you just made it spike.

[smalll]

47. lol well I'm sorry if I did that, and you're right we need

socialized medicine here in the U.S.A!

[manic expression]

49. No, social democracy failed

FDR didn't end poverty, he created a "safety net" that helped some. That is a bandaid on a gushing bullet wound. Social democracy is an empty promise; social democracy is capitalism with lipstick.

The capitalism presented in the cartoon is exactly the same setup that we see today. The worker produces, the boss makes the money.

Capitalists have always lived far better lives than their workers. The "classical capitalism" you are referring to saw the robber barons, who lived like kings while their workers lived like peons.

Businessmen may take risks, but they take risks by exploiting workers. The boss who exploits his worker the best succeeds. Therefore, it is a race to the highest level of exploitation possible.

Moreover, capitalists are leeches, they produce nothing and reap all the profits. They force others to work while they take the fruits of that labor. The machinery of capitalism is oiled by the blood, sweat and tears of the workers.

Oh, but of course, to the capitalist, the worker is "worthy", "worthy" enough to be treated as a commodity. :eyes:

Your comments are fallacious and delusional. The bourgeoisie benefit from the work of others, capitalism puts the few above the many, capitalism is based upon exploitation and injustice.

[redqueen]

50. Capitalism forces us to compete for limited resources.

Do we enjoy being set against each other?

I sure don't! I'd rather cooperate, frankly... and if that means I don't get my own private swimming pool and big-screen plasma TV, I'm fine with that!

[manic expression]

52. Exactly

Exploit or be exploited, that's the name of the game. The people who "succeed" make the most possible money off of the work of others, the people who get ahead do it by stepping on the workers. People should never be subjected to being used as a commodity and thrown aside whenever it is profitable for the rich.

And you're right yet again, we work better when we work together. Greed and deprivation should not dictate society; equality and cooperation should.

[eridani]

96. Not really

There has been competition for limited resources ever since the human population got large enough--at least 5,000 years ago. In Jared Diamond's latest book (the one with the analysis of the Easter Island ecological degradation), he uses the people of Tikopia as a counterexample. They have been doing sustainable agriculture for 1300 years on a scrap of land a few square miles in area, with no soil except for what has blown across the ocean from China. They had to give up pigs at one time because they became too competitive with people for calories. At one point, a bad typhoon destroyed a very productive estuary that provided a lot of seafood. What then happened was that the two clans that relied on it fought until one clan wiped out its rival.

This is what human history mostly consists of, except for when technology has enabled us to support more people on the same amount of land. I'll admit that capitalism sure puts the process on steroids, though.

[smalll]

51. Well, let me try to address one of your objections -

"Businessmen may take risks, but they take risks by exploiting workers. The boss who exploits his worker the best succeeds. Therefore, it is a race to the highest level of exploitation possible."

In a sense, of course you are right - I wouldn't say that businessmen have to "exploit" workers - but I do admit that to survive in the marketplace and to be able to make a profit, businessmen ARE driven to push costs, including wages, downward. The less they can pay their worker, the more money they make. And they are driven inexorably in that direction - any capitalist who pays "too much" will not be able to compete with other capitalists who pay as little as the labor-market will bear.

When you say, "Therefore, it is a race to the highest level of exploitation possible" what you do there, in a way, is restate Marx's reasoning which led him to believe in the invitability of the proletarian revolution and the concomitant collapse of capitalism. That idea, that the sitiuation for the masses would continue to worsen until forced to revolution seemed quite plausible in the early-to-mid 1800s when Marx first came up with his critique of capitalism, but by the end of the 20th century, it had proven to be a false prediction: the masses in Europe (and America), working, to be sure for capitalists who are driven to push costs down, have seen an historically unprecedented INCREASE in prosperity by every measure, especially the most bedrock measure - life expectancy. The goose lays golden eggs, in other words. Nothing is perfect - today many Americans are facing stagnant or falling wage levels because capitalists now feel that the "risk" of investing in India, China, etc. is at a manageable level. But this kind of thing has been going on for a good number of decades now - and places like Japan, Taiwan and South Korea have gone from abject poverty to affluence because of it. Countries like Malaysia and Indonesia are not as tragically poor as they used to be. It has been going on for well over a century now, if you think of Britain, which used to stand astride the world as the pioneer, premier, and most powerfully producing capitalist nation. Over a century has Britain "lost" jobs and markets to johnny-come-lately, low-wage regions of the world. Britain has had some bumps to be sure over that century, some rather major turbulence, but today, the average Briton lives much better than did his forebear in 1950, who lived far better also than his 1900 predecessor. The goose looks pretty good.

[manic expression]

54. That is exactly my point

"...to survive in the marketplace and to be able to make a profit, businessmen ARE driven to push costs, including wages, downward."

It is a race to the bottom. If you, as a businessman, do not take advantage of your workers, you will lose. Such is the nature of capitalism. Your first paragraph supported my points entirely.

You are mistaken, however, when you disagree with Marx. The revolution didn't happen in much of the industrialized world, but 100 years is a very short time. If you read the Communist Manifesto, Marx talks about globalization and many other things that we are seeing today. The revolution didn't occur in the 19th or 20th centuries, but how long did it take for feudalism to end?

Next, you say that capitalism has benefitted society. That is patently false. America and Europe may have benefitted, but you are completely ignoring the way that has been done. The influx of wealth that you speak of is a direct effect of imperialism and the exploitation of workers abroad. After WWII, when America started to "benefit", the US spread its business interests across the globe, exploiting everyone from Guatemala to Sierra Leone to Pakistan and beyond. America may have enriched itself, but it has done so through enslaving countless workers throughout the world.

Furthermore, the fact is that the US sees third world poverty, despite having a first world economy. Vietnam veterans freeze to death under bridges, people live in stark poverty their entire lives, people are forced into the streets because someone stood to profit. The American lower classes (lumpen proletariat and the poorer proletariat, specifically) are VERY impoverished, and this is all due to capitalism.

Taiwan, Japan, South Korea have done the same: screw over as many people as possible (do I even need to tell you how cutthroat Japanese businessmen are!? By the way, I heard South Korea used a command economy for awhile, although I'm not sure). You may want to recognize that places like Hong Kong routinely see retirees digging through dumpsters; perhaps you could extoll the "golden egg" that this represents.

The workers of the third world are forced to work in slave-like conditions to make the first-world's shoes. The eggs are hogged by the rich.

Imperialism, capitalism and exploitation do not look very good, although they are unfortunately still around today. That, however, will not last, for as capitalism spreads through the world, it employs more and more of its own grave-diggers.

And I restate Marx because he was right.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

[smalll]

55. Fair enough, but I would still say that Marx's beliefs about the

inevitability of the revolution, including his idea that it was immanent - he DID see it as likely to happen relatively soon - have lost their footing at this point (by the early 21st century.) "Your" side is forced to fall back, these days, on to Lenin's theory of imperialism. (You should take heart though, I find that many Americans, or at least many if not most "blue" Americans these days believe in Lenin's theory of imperialism, without having any idea that that's what it is.) I would contend however that Lenin's theory of imperialism looks pretty shaky now, as many of the non-western countries we've mentioned HAVE seen great increases in mass prosperity. Will it all go your way, some time in the future, when everyone's living well except, let's say, for the people in Africa, who might end up as the final proletarians of the global capitalist system, and THEN the system will finally all crash? Predicting the future is something no one can do for certain, but at least to me, this seems less than likely. (Of course the global capitalist world of advancing prosperity is more likely to crash because of global climate change, but then, that's just the "mother of all" externalities that could, and in fact SHOULD be dealt with and regulated, even from the perspective of capitalist doctrine.)

[redqueen]

56. What about a mix of socialism and tightly-controlled capitalism?

There are all kinds of possibilites... we need not restrict consideration to only captalism vs. marxism / leninism.

[smalll]

59. Well some form of that could work, sure.

That's social democracy, in a way. I just objected originally to the cartoon, which does present capitalism in-and-of-itself as useless, and the capitalist as nothing more than a parasite. The goose lays the eggs, is all I'm saying. Now if we want to use those eggs to socialize medicine (in fact we'd save eggs once we got the system set up), help the poor, etc., I'm all for it.

By the way, thanks to you and others for the discussion here. It's nice to be able to disagree strongly and argue forthrightly with the civility necessary to avoid post deletion on both sides! :hi:

Maybe if we were debating REALLY important issues, like Anna Nicole Smith, or Snickers bars, we wouldn't be able to pull it off!

[redqueen]

62. hahahahahaha

Well then maybe social democracy dould work... I'm sure not claiming to know for sure.

I do know the forms we have today sure seem to be failing badly. :(

I like the civil tone, too... very much! :hi:

[manic expression]

61. IMO, that's better than nothing

but the fact is that the government is a part of the bourgeois system. A government of the bourgeoisie will never allow reform from its own halls of power.

Throughout history, reform has seldom worked. Guatemala tried it, Chile tried it, and both times their leaders were toppled (one was exiled and the other murdered) and replaced by right-wing regimes. Venezuela is trying it, we'll see if it works under those circumstances. What is clear is that the bourgeoisie will always try to once again sieze control, unless a dictatorship of the proletariat can be established and the bourgeoisie disenfranchised. If you ask me, the revolutionary route has a proven track record of deposing capitalism and establishing socialism.

[redqueen]

63. Yes...

We need proletariat control of government, no doubt. We need to get ALL the corporate $$$ out of there!

[manic expression]

60. Marx of 1848 thought it was imminent

and he was right to think so, since the workers were rising up all over Europe. IMO, Marx started writing "Capital" and other works because he started to realize it wasn't going to come as soon as he thought. So I think he did recognize this.

My side doesn't fall back anywhere. Lenin's theories are extremely accurate and applicable. Are you seriously suggesting that Sierra Leone is seeing a "great increase in mass prosperity"? Hardly. The third world is not benefitting. Sure, they may get some corregated steel for their roofs now and again, but I can't even begin to point out how impoverished they are (along with the first world lower classes). When people AREN'T being ravaged by dengue, come and talk to me about prosperity.

Let's look around the world. Eastern Europe has a TON of problems that should be clear to everyone (the USSR was far better for Russia and Ukraine), Western Europe has a great deal of poverty and oppression (paging rioters in France, street vendors in Rome...) in spite of the common perception, the US sees many impoverished, Latin America is being screwed over by free trade (and so many are turning to socialism), India (which is arguably the best-case scenario) is seeing shocking amounts of disparity and inequity (enough to make riots commonplace), I could go on and on (I'm not even going to bring up Africa). The fact is that capitalism seems to be doing the opposite of what you are saying.

So, really, capitalism seems to be enlisting more and more of its grave diggers. I ask you to read the Manifesto, and tell me that he isn't talking about what we see today.

Lastly, EVEN IF the entire third world goes India's route (which is basically impossible), that is a route that will lead to a great amount of poverty, exploitation and the subsequent revolutionary potential.

[redqueen]

64. You're goin on my buddy list!

:loveya:

[manic expression]

87. Same to you!

:hi:

on edit, that is, if I could put you on my buddy list :dunce:

[Nederland]

76. Wrong

"...to survive in the marketplace and to be able to make a profit, businessmen ARE driven to push costs, including wages, downward."

This is true, but lower wages are only one option. Historically, profits increase the most when profit margins rise through increased efficiency, not labor reductions. The move away from physical farming to mechanized farming, for example, increased profits far far more than lowering the wages of farmers ever could. Also, while lower wages may temporarily increase profit margins, it puts a business at risk of losing their employees and it's means of production entirely. In a competitive environment, that can mean death to a company.

[manic expression]

81. And

how, exactly, does one increase profit margins? You can't do that unless you have an increase in production capacity. Therefore, you need to either make your workers work harder, or replace them with machines (which the cartoon addresses). In fact, Karl Marx wrote about this a great deal.

The move away from physical farming to mechanized farming put a great deal of farmers out of jobs. That is probably wost for the workers than lowered wages. Hardly a more desirable prospect.

[Telly Savalas]

84. So we'd be better off if we were all farmers with ox-driven plows?

[manic expression]

85. In capitalism,

employing the use of machinery and firing workers goes hand in hand. Keeping farmers employed isn't profitable anymore, so they are kicked to the curb.

It doesn't have to be that way. Why not use their skills in other ways to help society? Profit is no longer an issue, and so many more opportunities are opened up with the implementation of machinery. It's no longer about profit, it's about people.

[Nederland]

72. It succeeded better than communism

In reality, the great debate between Capitalism and Socialism is over, and they both lost. Today we recognize that a system that is 100% publicly owned is undesirable, just as a system that is 100% privately owned is undesirable. The only remaining debate is the level of public ownership. In the USA, that number is around 18%-20%. In parts of Europe, it is over 40%. Which is better? Well you DO have a debate there.

But a debate about whether or not pure Socialism or pure Capitalism is a good idea? No, that one is finished. Except here apparently.

[manic expression]

82. Capitalists were saying the same thing in 1871

They're still wrong.

In reality, nothing has changed; capitalism is about exploitation and deprivation, socialism is about equity and cooperation. Capitalism has tried to stamp out socialism, but this means nothing.

The fact is that you have done nothing but claim ridiculous statements. You need to support your points. What we see from the USSR is that the capitalism that replaced it has been a disaster; what we see from Cuba is that IN SPITE of embargoes, a socialist society can maintain better medical care, literacy, housing, equity and more with collective ownership. Collective ownership without private property has been proven as better.

No, that debate was always finished: capitalism is about the benefit of the bourgeoisie, socialism is about the benefit of the community. Some, like the bourgeoisie and their supporters, may think that capitalism "won", but that is pure delusion.

[frankenforpres]

93. cuba does not have "better" medical care

cuba has widespread basic care for everyone, which i think is desirable, but their technology and specialists are no where near the level of care that can be attained in the US. now, maybe the cuban system is more desirable, but that is a normative argument.

saying that literacy is better in cuba doesnt further your argument as education in the US is more socialist than capitalist.

i have no idea how you can state that housing is better in cuba. the poorest citizens in cuba may have better housing then the poorest citizen in the US, but the average citizen surely doesnt.

my goals are to find ways to decrease income disparity in the US, and make sure the poorest among us have food, clothing, shelter and health care. i think those are very attainable goals in a capitalist framework.

[manic expression]

97. Better infant mortality rates

to start with. Specialists are usually reserved for the rich, so I'm taking into account accessability as well as quality (which I think is very important, because you can have great medical care, but if no one can afford it, what's the point?).

Pointing out the fact that a socialist society, even under constant siege, has attained a better level of literacy than the most affluent country on the planet shows the merits of socialism. Education in the US is of a bourgeois government, and so as one could imagine, US education is beyond abysmal in relation to its resources.

When you hear about Vietnam veterans freezing to death under bridges, I think there is a problem with housing. First, I would say that low-rent housing in the US is roughly of less quality as a good portion of Cuban housing. Secondly, one person forced on the streets is an injustice, and while the US basks in such injustice, Cuba has avoided it altogether.

The capitalist framework is inherently an obstacle against food, clothing, shelter and health care. All those things can be profited from, and as long as profit is more important than people, people will suffer. Capitalism requires that people be unemployed, impoverished and hopeless. A bourgeois government will not permit the wellbeing of the working classes, because the bourgeoisie's interests are directly opposed to that of the workers' interests. If you want to decrease those things, don't try to reform something that won't let itself be reformed, overthrow that corrupt and unjust system and replace it with a better one.

[frankenforpres]

102. obstacle of food....

capitalism produces plenty of food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare. i think your issue, and a concern of mine too, is the distribution issue.

[manic expression]

103. The US government

destroys a great amount of food to keep prices at a desirable level. When you have a system that requires the destruction of food (while many have little of it), you have a system that needs to be overthrown.

And yes, all that is produced in capitalism is produced primarily for the rich and no one else.

[frankenforpres]

107. but food destruction is not capitalism

the government using devices to control prices is not capitalism at all. free market capitalists are against this.


i am also unsure of whom you are calling rich. wal-mart certainly isn't catering to the rich.

i am interested in solutions, but i think i need a more clear idea of exactly how you see the problem (i agree there is a problem).

[manic expression]

108. It is a policy of a bourgeois government

done in order to make the market more desirable. That is very much part of capitalism.

Wal-mart is catering to itself. They destroy any petty-bourgeois competition (read: middle class businesses) and funnel all the money they get to themselves, while giving pennies to the third world slaves they employ. They are certainly catering to the rich: themselves.

The problem is that workers are exploited, wealth is consolidated by the few and the means of production are not under worker control, for starters.

[gravity]

94. Socialist were saying the same thing in 1871

People been saying the same thing for over a hundred years about collective ownership and socialism is better than capitalism. Socialism has been shown time and time again that it doesn't work throughout history. If you want proof, just compare the condtionas between North and South Korea.

Cuba and the USSR are also terrible examples to prove your point. These countries have to close its boarders so that its citizens can't escape. The United States in comparison closes its boarders because it can't stop people coming into the country for a better life. People risk their lives on small rafts to emigrate from Cuba to the United States, but there isn't anybody going the other way

Socialism just does not work well as an economic system on a basic level. It is terribly ineffcient since there is no easy way to allocate resources to the various industries whithout prices. It lacks incentives for people to be work harder and to produce goods more effeciently since there is no profit.

[manic expression]

98. Socialists were getting summarily executed in 1871

However, what they were saying was correct: collectivization is far better than capitalism. The Paris Commune proved this, as did the USSR, as did Cuba, as did Kerala, as did Chiapas, as did the stark exploitation of capitalism.

North Korea? Don't make me laugh. Do you even know what the ideology of North Korea is? Let me give you a hint: it starts with a "J".

Cuba and the USSR are great examples. Cuba allowed many to leave before the 90's, which was more than generous. Furthermore, the US does whatever it can to get Cubans here, and yet relatively few try to leave. The people who do leave leave for economic opportunities (a la Mexican emigres), which is almost exclusively due to the HALF CENTURY OF US SIEGE upon the island. Also, I don't see you citing the mass exodus from Mexico and capitalist Central American countries as evidence of anything, so spare me the double standards. The USSR improved life in innumerable ways (the Bolsheviks also ended their country's involvement in a worthless and unpopular war, something our government could learn a thing or two from), from education to things like electricity, the Bolsheviks helped the people instead of business.

You want to see proof of how socialism is better? Look at what happened to Russia and Ukraine after the fall of the USSR: there are more homeless kids on the streets of Russia today THAN AFTER WWII, unemployment is skyrocketing, life expectancy has sharply fallen, basic needs are a variable (people in the cities were forced to grow food to survive), neo-nazis roam the streets and murder people because of their ethnicity (an Armenian girl was killed a few months ago), a handful of people own the entire country (oligarchs, to say nothing of Putin), need I continue? This just goes to show that capitalism is all about exploitation and deprivation, while socialism seeks to end these ills through equity and cooperation.

[gravity]

105. Capitalists were executed by communists in the USSR

Collective does not work nearly as well capitalism. Instead of being exploited by business, collective farming just means that you are exploited by everyone. Your entire wellbeing is determined by the actions of everyone else, which becomes a disaster when everyone else isn't responsible for their own success. In the 1970's the United States and Canada gave exported grains to the Soviet Union because of their effeciency problems.

Capitalism has dealt with the exploitation of workers through labor regulations, unions, wealth distribution, and miminum wage laws. If you think it still has problems, have stronger safety nets not socialism which failed numerous times in the past. The reason why Marx's dream was never realized because capitalism evetually raised the quality of life in everyone in society, not just the super rich once the government and unions got involved.

Russia and Ukraine crashed in the early nineties transitioning, but are now on their way to recovery and have good GDP growth rates. You forgot that China and Poland transitioned to capitlism much more successfully and now they are doing better than ever.

"Cuba allowed many to leave before the 90's, which was more than generous."

If you had to leave Cuba, it meant giving up all your possessions to the state, which was hardly generous.

[manic expression]

106. When they tried to destroy or impede

the revolution, they were sometimes executed. It's a war, one side wins and one side loses.

Collective farming works very well. In Catalunya, production skyrocketed after collectivization during the Spanish Civil War. Explain that. The USSR in the 70's was a mess, but it was far better than what replaced it in the 90's.

Capitalism doesn't deal with exploitation at all. It is based on naked exploitation. Distribution? Are you even aware of the disparity in the US today? Unions? They aid the bourgeoisie more than anything else. Minimum wage is a bandaid. None of this really helps, it just puts lipstick on the pig.

Russia and Ukraine were great places to be...if you were one of the handful of oligarchs. Case in point: capitalism helps the few and screws over the many. The environment is still the same, in that the rich benefit and everyone else does not.

And please, tell me that the lower classes of the US are living nice lives, or that laborers in the third world are lovin' it.

I specifically used China and India is examples in another post. China has a great amount of disparity and inequity. They are about as socialist as Los Angeles.

Why would Cuba want people leaving and taking everything with them? That's called being fair and not letting people steal from the community.

[Nederland]

120. Simple question

what we see from Cuba is that IN SPITE of embargoes, a socialist society can maintain better medical care, literacy, housing, equity and more with collective ownership.

If this were really true, why do thousand of Cubans leave and come to the US? If Cuba is such a paradise, why is virtually no-one trying to move there? For that matter, why don't you move there?

[NotGivingUp]

111. Hear! Hear!

[hfojvt]

58. I would like to see some stats on profit margins

It probably is much thinner than the cartoon implied. Perhaps $25 an hour where the worker gets $15. But the worker only "gets paid" $10. The other $5 goes to workman's comp insurance, unemployment insurance, health insurance, benefits (getting paid for holidays and vacations when the worker is not producing anything) and social security taxes (the employer portion). Out of that margin other things need to be paid - the human resources department, the utilities bills, property taxes, marketing and legal fees. Things that are not productive, per se, but are necessary to the operation. The gain, for the 'capitalist' comes from numbers. The factory employs 200 people and the owner makes $2 an hour for every hour they work. Boom - that works out to $800,000 a year.

Suppose he was very generous and magnanimous and cut his salary in half and gave it back to the workers. A $400,000 loss for him would mean a mere $1 an hour gain for his workers. People say that with Wal-mart too. That they should pay better wages, but dividing their profits into their number of workers does not give enough to increase wages by much.

I prefer social democracy's stated goal of eliminating poverty to socialism's goal of creating equality. My main criticism of capitalism is its value system whereby it encourages everyone to have a materialistic outlook, it wants people to be greedy selfish consumers and places the value of profit over the welfare of the community, the consumer and the worker. So the cartoon is quite welcome to criticize capitalism and also to point out that many of the benefits are going to a very small group of very rich people.

[redqueen]

65. It seems like there are an awful lot of execs making multimillion $ salaries...

to think that the margins are so slim... so that one could reasonably argue that the workers are not exploited.

Also... if such a basic thing such as health insurance is socialized, the cost goes down considerably, no?

[demrabble]

53. Perfect Picture

Thank you for your perfect picture of a capitalist society, where the owners of capital are little more than leeches and parasites on the backs of those who toil to produce the products. Capitalism reduces just about everyone to mindless consumers of products they do not need produced by wage-slaves who toil while the owners of the means of production rape everyone.

[redqueen]

57. Such strong terms!

But I agree with your basic premise there.

[Egalitarian]

78. Great Toon!

One day in the future, the majority will appreciate it. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

[Blue_Tires]

79. k+r

[gravity]

80. So what is the alternative?

I don't understand why everyone is still complaining about capitalism given the history of the past 100 years.

Capitalism has its pitfalls, but most of them can be fixed with proper regulations and safety nets. The working class in capitalists societies today are a whole lot better off than those who aren't capitalistic. I don't see socialism or any other system making much progress in helping the working class.

[manic expression]

83. Research it

socialism has worked and worked well.

Here's a good place to start:

Cuba:
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

Soviet Union:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/soviets.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/state.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1921/01/russianow.htm

Also, read about the Paris Commune, Kerala, Chiapas....

And please take into account the fact that America has practically enslaved the workers of the third world to gain an influx of capital, which is what allows a portion of the working class to live higher standards. However, we should also take into account the fact that we have shocking rates of homelessness and abject poverty, some of which is not unlike the third world.

[OllieLotte]

109. Cuba and the Soviet Union?

Good one.

[Cleita]

86. LOL!

How true.

[killbotfactory]

88. Capitalism

Authorities are launching a criminal investigation after police officers in Los Angeles say they videotaped five hospital patients being dumped on Skid Row over the weekend. The incident is being cited as the latest in an ongoing problem of indigent hospital patients being dumped on the streets with no one to care for them.

The 50 square blocks of Skid Row are home to more than 10,000 people with no where else to go. It has many shelters, social service agencies -- as well as convicted sex offenders and just about any illegal drug you can think of.

In other words, it's no place for someone who's still sick enough to be transported in an ambulance. But last Sunday, Los Angeles police captured video and still photos of five patients from a single hospital being dropped off in front of the Volunteers of America Service Center.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6376588

Yeah, not as funny as the cartoons.

[redqueen]

122. Exactly. Thank you.

Some 'industries' simply MUST be socialized!

[undergroundpanther]

90. My thoughts exactly..

Eat the rich.

[eridani]

95. Reminds me about the old joke about the sharecropper and the landlord

Sharecropper: Why do I have to give you half of everything I grow?

Landlord: Because you're growing it on my land.

Sharecropper: How come you get to own the land?

Landlord: Because my granddaddy fought Indians for this land.

Sharecropper: Well then, can I fight you for it?

[file83]

101. Excellent.

:thumbsup:

[mvd]

104. Good toon

Capitalism, if left unchecked, is no better than Bush's "compassionate conservatism." It's an authoritarian system dressed in liberty.

[Gabi Hayes]

110. Is this a real quote?

“Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity.”--Karl Marx

[manic expression]

115. I'm quite sure that it is n/t

[rakovsky]

112. great cartoon

Thats a great cartoon, and so true. Capitalism is about the rule of property owners above those who work for them. In this case, the people who own machines and blue collar workers.

[manic expression]

114. More people should see this

and THINK about this. I'll try to find another good one.

[trackfan]

121. Beautiful! As Abe Lincoln said:

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

[redqueen]

123. Beautiful quote!

Thanks for sharing it!

:hi: