If We Are in the Death Spiral of CAPITALISM Is It Now Safe to Talk About SOCIALISM?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

If We Are in the Death Spiral of Capitalism, Can We Start Using the "S" Word?

By Barbara Ehrenreich and Bill Fletcher, Jr., The Nation. Posted March 6, 2009.

The electroshock paddles of "stimulus" keep being applied, but the capitalist patient isn't waking up. Is it now safe to talk about socialism?



Note for NYC Residents: This Friday, The Nation Institute, Nation Books, and AlterNet are co-hosting a panel discussion, "Meltdown: The Economic Collapse and a People's Plan for Recovery," with an all-star cast that includes Joseph Stiglitz, Barbara Ehrenreich, Bill Fletcher, Jr., Jeff Madrick, Christopher Hayes. Some of them should be consulting for the Obama administration in place of Tim Geithner, Larry Summers et al. instead of offering us their thoughts for free at 8 pm this Friday at 2 West 64th Street in New York City at The New York Society for Ethical Culture. Doors open at 7:15, first come, first served.

If you haven't heard socialists doing much crowing over the fall of capitalism, it isn't just because there aren't enough of us to make an audible crowing sound. We, as much as anyone on Wall Street in, say, 2006, appreciate the resilience of American capitalism--its ability to regroup and find fresh avenues for growth, as it did after the depressions of 1877, 1893 and the 1930s. In fact, The Communist Manifesto can be read not only as an indictment of capitalism but as a breathless paean to its dynamism. And we all know the joke about the Marxist economist who successfully predicted eleven out of the last three recessions.

But this time the patient may not get up from the table, no matter how many times the electroshock paddles of "stimulus" are applied. We seem to have entered the death spiral where rising unemployment leads to reduced consumption and hence to greater unemployment. Any schadenfreude we might be tempted to feel as executives lose their corporate jets and the erstwhile Masters of the Universe wipe egg from their faces is quickly dashed by the ever more vivid suffering around us. Food pantries and shelters can no longer keep up with the demand; millions face old age without pensions and with their savings gutted; we personally are consumed with anxiety about the future that awaits our children and grandchildren.

Besides, it wasn't supposed to happen this way. There was supposed to be a revolution, remember? The socialist idea, prediction, faith or whatever was that capitalism would fall when people got tired of trying to live on the crumbs that fall from the chins of the rich and rose up in some fashion--preferably inclusively, democratically and nonviolently--and seized the wealth for themselves. Such a seizure would have looked nothing like "nationalization" as currently discussed, in which public wealth flows into the private sector with little or no change in the elites that control it or in the way the control is exercised. Our expectation as socialists was that the huge amount of organizing required for revolutionary change would create an infrastructure for governance, built out of--among other puzzle pieces--unions, community organizations, advocacy groups and new organizations of the unemployed and nouveau poor.

It was also supposed to be a simple matter for the masses to take over or "seize" the physical infrastructure of industrial capitalism--the "means of production"--and start putting it to work for the common good. But much of the means of production has fled overseas--to China, for example, that bastion of authoritarian capitalism. When we look around our increasingly shuttered landscape and survey the ruins of finance capitalism, we see bank upon bank, realty and mortgage companies, title companies, insurance companies, credit-rating agencies and call centers, but not enough enterprises making anything we could actually use, like food or pharmaceuticals. In recent years, capitalism has become increasingly and almost mystically abstract. Outside manufacturing and the service sector, fewer and fewer people could explain to their children what they did for a living. The brightest students went into finance, not physics. The biggest urban buildings housed cubicles and computer screens, not assembly lines, laboratories, studios or classrooms. Even our flagship industry, manufacturing autos, would require major retooling to make something we could use--not more cars, let alone more SUVs, but more windmills, buses and trains.

<snip>

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/130365/if_we_are_in_the_death_spiral_of_capitalism,_can_we_start_using_the_/?cID=1152896#c1152896

[asteroid2003QQ47]

1. Wouldn't Socialism be preferable to continuing our slide deeper into Fascism?

Makes sense to me!
-----------------------

Fascism is capitalism in decay.
--Vladimir Lenin

[Numba6]

53. How is the Obama presidency a continuation of any slide to fascism?

[readmoreoften]

76. Ask the Pakistanis.

And those in CIA black sites that were left open because of "necessary" loopholes. :shrug:

[Numba6]

84. FUCK the pakistanis & their taliban ass

if that's your argument, I can see what black helicopter fantasy you crawled out of

[readmoreoften]

93. Okay then. I see that you're a really engaged and articulate debater on this issue.

May I suggest a little more FOX News? I hear there's excellent programming there for your crowd.

[Numba6]

105. Thanks! Ya betcher ass I can debate wit da best of 'em!!! THTHHTPPPTPPT!!!

[asteroid2003QQ47]

99. I failed to consider my post might be seen as knocking Obama, it was not...

my intention. My comment aimed at the big picture.

[Numba6]

108. well, then, why is it "continuing our slide deeper into Fascism"? If it's continuing, it's happening

now

[asteroid2003QQ47]

125. It's been my observation that the trend continues regardless of the party...

that is perceived to be in power. The first President I remember is Truman, I have seen both rapid acceleration rapidly (as in the last 8 years) and acceleration that is barely perceptible but I have never felt that it was "not happening."
Believers, as well as those who happily accept their "prisoner" status, might feel differently.
------------------------------------

Okay, y'all know the drill. Lefties over here, righties over there. It's showtime, people! Places!
--Gore Vidal

[Numba6]

143. That would require you to actually ID the trends that make up fascism, how

you objectively measure those trends, showing how they've continued for some time, and how the Obama presidency (or American under Obama) simply continues in those trends or doesn't deal with the "real" issue of fascism

I don't think you can.

In my experience, lefty factionalists simply have an unassailable world view that the slide into facism continues by virtue of being alive. It's not measurable at all, because fascism continues because the stupid masses don't recognize the obvious brilliance of their leadership cadre

[Two Americas]

139. illogical

What does the Obama presidency have to do with a continuation of a slide to fascism?

If you don't think that there is a slide toward fascism, then who is president would be irrelevant. If you do think that there is a slide toward fascism, then who is president would be irrelevant.

[Numba6]

142. more to the point -- what the hell does the pakistani mess have to do w/ "our" sliding into facism?

[Occam Bandage]

2. I don't see the two as being diametrically opposed.

Rather, I think that the absolute best system would be the economic power of a capitalist market, tempered with sensible regulation, and with progressive taxation harnessing that economic power to fund socialist domestic policies.

[blindpig]

6. Been there, done that.

That was the New Deal, remember? Notice what happened? The sumbitches threw off every restraint as soon as they were able. They did so because it was profitable to do so and profits are their reason for being. Same thing happened with Teddy Roosevelt's Trust-Busting. As long as they have the money which is power they will pursue maximum profits and to hell with the rest of us. It's just like trying to compromise with Republicans.....

Fuck the Capitalists, the sooner we are rid of them the better.

k&r

[Occam Bandage]

7. Capitalism must be watched, I agree. But I don't think that

instances of corporations regaining lost freedoms from restriction mean that capitalism must either be embraced wholly or destroyed utterly. I think the Nordic model is a very successful one, and I don't think that America is so rotten that we cannot do the same.

[anaxarchos]

13. "The Nordic model"...

...terrific. You describe a moment in history in which all the important capitalists were in America, not in Stockholm or Oslo or Copenhagen. Where do you intend to send ours? While we are at it, who is it that will do the "restricting"? Which "level-playing field" are you fantasizing about? Take a look at the "free-marketeer" on this very thread. "They" will control politics, information, education, history, the military, and the power of life and death but "we" will restrict them... Why, that defies all "free-market principles".

[Occam Bandage]

14. Um, I don't understand your point entirely.

Do you think that Norway exiled its white-collar professionals or something?

[anaxarchos]

87. It's a well known story...

The Scandinavian economies lived in the cracks of multiple competing economic zones prior to WW2. That plus the Great Depression created the basis for a "social contract" which was deepened after the war. It was very complex but the basic deal was subsidies, "protection", and "Sweden first" policies (insert country name of choice) in return for Social Democratic welfare policies. Scandinavian capital could not have competed in the U.S. dominated commercial world of postwar Europe without that deal. Add neutrality (quasi-neutrality in the case of Norway and Denmark) and limited defense spending, and you have a minor economic miracle. Add to that a significant state sector (for strategic production which could not have survived competitively due to economies of scale) and you get the basis of a political coalition which survived for a few decades. To an extent, portions of that same program applied to France, the U.K. and others. In any case, that coalition started to come apart in the 1960s and got killed during "globalization".

I don't know anybody who takes "white-collar professionals" seriously as a political force - too lame and meta-stable.

Why? Is that you?

[blindpig]

21. The 'Nordic model' isn't really socialism.

Welfare State is more accurate, though more generous than ours. They have seen a lot of push back from their capitalists of recent too. Given time and circumstance, they'll take back all that they have 'lost'.

Why keep a hydrophobic dog chained? Put it down before some one else gets hurt.

[originalpckelly]

12. NOT the capitalists, THE CORPORATISTS!

There is a difference between free market capitalism, which is what we should have, and a fixed market corporatism.

As long as the corporate model stays in place, capitalism will be unjust, but as soon as that is removed, then it's a lot closer to being just.

We have to realize the real policy debate:
1. Fuck the poor/middle class we have ours
2. Buy off the poor/middle class so they won't revolt and we can keep what we've got

The actual people at the top of the Republican party believe in #1. The elite Democrats believe in #2.

We need a third option:
3. The poor and middle class can't trust either side at the top, and we must make sure we get ours.

[blindpig]

23. There is no difference between capitalism and 'corporatism'.

What people are calling 'corporatism' is simply a phase in the development of capitalism. It is no aberration, it is the logic of profit. Chain it up, tie it down, it will still seek to break it's bonds and continue it's trajectory.

Let's just be done with it.

[originalpckelly]

92. Capitalism is a system with private capital, corporatism is a system of worker control.

[readmoreoften]

110. And where does capital come from?

Classical economists and Marxist economists agree--it comes ONLY from surplus value. The difference between the intentionally depressed wages to your worker and the price of a product to your consumer (also usually a worker). It's bankers selling the objects created by workers back to the worker-consumer. Where does the bank get the funding to give to a start up? Profits squeezed from dead labor. More recently, it gets its money more and more often from complete fantastic invention out of thin air (see "money as debt")

[guitar man]

8. wow

You mean like the progressive democracies in europe have manged to do? What a concept! :thumbsup:

[Occam Bandage]

9. Exactly what they have done, yes. nt

[guitar man]

15. the "mixed" system

That's what I like to call it. Now we know why the right-wing talking heads like to stir up resentment against them, especially france. Their corporate masters are afraid of such systems because they actually work.

[originalpckelly]

10. The problem with socialism and corporatism is that their the same thing.

One is cloaked in nonsense about how people can magically overcome their evolutionary instinct of self-preservation (greed) and the other is cloaked in the nonsense that letting an oligarchy of rich people tax our labor is any better than a government doing it.

Both however, are individuality crushing machines that seek to serve the people at the top, it's just that in socialism they're the leaders of the revolution and in corporatism they're investors.

The economy is planned in either system, though in corporatism it's to a slightly lesser degree. This planning is the problem.

Monopolies must plan, whether they are government owned or private corporations, because they do not have enough market activity to let supply/demand self-regulate.

But to think that large corporations which aren't monopolies are any less planned is not right. They must plan, because inside the swath of the economy the corporations comprise, they do not have a free market where supply/demand self-regulates. They must plan internal economic activity.

In a very small corporation, there is little activity inside the corporation planned, but as it increases in size until it is a monopoly, more and more of the company can work without a free market.

Vertical and horizontal integration are both the result of the people who own a corporation being unwilling to either compete with other corporations or being unwilling to pay for another company's profit margin.

[blindpig]

26. Pure nonsense.

Humans are a social, egalitarian animal. In the overwhelming portion of human existence humans have been communist, it is what's natural.

Your interpretation of human behavior is purely libertarian, which means bogus, as it is a phony philosophy, literally made to order to defend capitalism against the advancing wave of socialism.

But the rich won't even bother to thank you for your support, they'll just laugh up their sleeves.

[Greyhound]

29. Straight to the heart of the matter, thank you.

It is refreshing, even comforting, to know that there are people that understand what has been propagandized and buried for so long.

Our true nature is indeed as you describe, and we lived it for the overwhelming majority of our history, it has only been in the last few thousand years that this aberration of rigid hierarchies has been imposed on us.

Now, how do we get this concept out in such a way that the indoctrinated can understand it?

[Odin2005]

51. Marxist claptrap out of touch with reality.

Hunter-gatherer societies were "egalitarian" because they were small and there were not much in the way of material goods. Invoking the supposed "egalitarian" nature of primitive societies borders on "noble savage" nonsense.

The rest of your post is one big "guilt-by-association" fallacy of the kind constantly used by Marxists.

[blindpig]

67. Not so

Unless of course you consider the Five Nations of the Iroquois 'small'.

http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/marx_iroquois.html

If ya go mouthing libertarian claptrap then yer guilty of gullibility, at the least.

'Guilt by association fallacy', ha, tell me about it, might want it for the playbook.

[originalpckelly]

83. How many Iroquois are here today?

I think that demonstrates the nasty side of humanity by itself.

[blindpig]

88. Quite a few.

Though it is indeed a testament to their social cohesion that they survived the onslaught of early stage capitalism and it's later development.

Interesting, isn't it, that capitalism cannot tolerate competition?

[originalpckelly]

90. Imperialism cannot tolerate competition, this nation is an empire.

Manifest destiny = imperial doctrine.



I use the Romans, because the same human blood that caused Romans to amuse themselves with slaves killing each other in the Colosseum is the same human ruthlessness that's in all of us.

Let those of us who'd dare deny the history of humanity see openly the danger of the dark side of humanity. The only hope we have is to check that power. We can only do that through capitalism, not corporatism and socialism.

Corporations are ways the rich have evolved an oligarchic system of control. We must throw off that system, and replace it with a capitalist system. Only if people can acquire intellectual and productive capital, rather than taxing the labor of the worker, can we hope to use greed against itself.

[blindpig]

128. The problem with your analysis

is your assumption that humans are naturally rotten bastards. Now humans are certainly capable of being rotten bastards, we are also capable of being very decent folks. What sort of behavior people exhibit is largely influenced by the society they find themselves in and here Marx makes a very big point:

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. -Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

Marx also wrote that the ruling ideas of any age are those of the ruling class. Small wonder that greed is seen as central to the human psyche. Bringing up Rome and the gladiatorial games proves the point. The games were an Etruscan institution, introduced to Rome during the Second Punic War as a means of bolstering Rome's martial ardor during the long period of Hannibal's domination of the Italian countryside. The Romans were not particularly more bloodthirsty than their neighbors and competitors, they were persuaded to become more so by this deliberate manipulation of the ruling class. Sort of like TV.

[originalpckelly]

82. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's common fucking sense.

If you are too stupid and lacking in common sense, and so sheltered that you really think people are naturally nice good creatures, then you need to get an education.

If you want to protect people from greed, you use greed against itself, which real capitalism is.

[readmoreoften]

96. How on earth can you "use greed against itself". Outside of a marginal position of minor resistance

that doesn't give anyone any "protection." What? Like Michael Moore using capitalist's desire to sell movies to promote critiques of capitalism? Yes, that has "protected" so many people. Now that Michael Moore and Naomi Klein "use media companies' greed" to sell their books, we have made a real dent in sweatshops and global slave labor. :eyes:

It's easy to talk about how horrible socialism and how fighting greed is pointless when you're not the one under the jackboot. Or is that just your "instinctual" and impossible-to-transcend greed talking?

[Lucky Luciano]

129. That egalitarian thing you speak of only really

applied at the clan level in the past - if you were outside the clan, it was perfectly ok to murder and pillage nad take from others!

[marmar]

30. Huh?

Repetez en anglais, s'il vous plait.

[dionysus]

33. i think he's been sniffing too much of the pipe dope...

:rofl:

you must missed yesterday's gem...

[dionysus]

32. OMG, you get funnier every day...

:rofl::spray::rofl:
:rofl::spray::rofl:
:rofl::spray::rofl:

[readmoreoften]

94. RW garbage. Whenever anyone invokes "evolutionary instinct" in a conversation,

it's ideological nonsense for sure. That and arguments of "hard-wiring". Conservatives have claimed that racial segregation is "a self-preservation instinct" that eliminating gay people is "a self-preservation instinct" and have even proved that rape is "hard-wired" and "instinctual" in male biology. Nothing more than science in the service of ideology.

Humanity existed until around the 16th century without USURY. It was simply outlawed. In times of crises some neighbors help one another and some don't. Greed like rape, homophobia, and racism have never been proven to be "instinct"--although far right-wing extremists like the Human "Biodiversity" institute would love it to be true.

[leftstreet]

39. This is your Capitalism on Restraints!

[readmoreoften]

97. Except that the dog paid its servant to let him take off the muzzle every

Tuesday through Monday.

[Two Americas]

140. the right wingers do

The right wingers - the political agents for the wealthy and powerful few who benefit from capitalism and rule the country - see the two as being diametrically opposed.

Doesn't much matter what you or I think.

The "absolute best system" you present is not a system at all, but rather you are describing a potential result, a compromise, arrived at after a struggle. It is nothing to advocate. That is like standing by doing nothing at a catastrophe saying "I favor a system where the people get saved."

Nothing even remotely similar to what you say you favor could ever happen without a strong Left on one side of your compromise to counterbalance the powerful right. Yet you are using this "mixed system" argument against the Left. That is self-contradictory and illogical.

[originalpckelly]

3. Socialism sounds nice, but in the end creates the same kind of oligarchy...

WE THE PEOPLE, will bring down this time.

Your tired ideology will not succeed, as this time the math behind free markets is there. It is the same math that demonstrates plainly, that corporatism is just as bad and that it isn't free market capitalism.

To those who read this thread, do not be fooled. These socialists may mean well, but they propose to create a system in which there will eventually develop a government run oligarchy. If you want redistribution of wealth from the top to the bottom, it can and will in real free market capitalism. What's happened in our country is that the game of life has been rigged for the rich. Instead of having their wealth spent away, and passed around in the economy, they have set up an unfree system of taxation and control, a system which subjugates all but the very few under their economic tyranny. A system where investors continually replenish their pools of wealth.

This is why the gini coefficient has increased. It is necessary when you leave in place this system of economic tyranny to tax the rich very highly, and fight them with labor unions to make sure that the capital workers generate return to them. This of course has been totally dismantled, and it happened because the rich will always win if we leave in place corporations which generate their wealth.

We must bring corporate capitalism down, and in its place let the other more democratic forms of capitalism like self-employment and employee owned companies rise in its place.

Free markets should be redistributing wealth equally, because capital/wealth is roughly equal to energy, and the economy is a thermodynamic system, so the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) should apply.

There is a reason that corporations tend to get larger and larger and eventually form monopolies if unregulated, because they are the same kind of planned economies that government monopoly socialism is.

[TBF]

43. If you want redistribution of wealth from the top to the bottom, it can and will in real free market

Have you been paying attention the past 3 months? How about the past 30 years? Trickle down does not work. How many people have to be out on the street before you can understand?

Or do you have some vested interest in keeping this mammoth alive? Some shares you hope will go up? Property you're concerned about losing?

[readmoreoften]

103. What is a "real free market"? A "real free market" is where capitalists do whatever they want.

That's what got us into this mess.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Nah. As An Overall System, Socialism's Still Dumb. n/t

[originalpckelly]

11. So is corporatism.

We need real capitalism.

[OHdem10]

5. It is not Capitalism that created the problem --- The GOP's interpretation

of Free Market Capitalism that is on life support.

Throwing Regulations to the wind, having no oversight of Trade Policy
and a dog eat dog mentality--(you are on your own) plus an obsession with
tax cuting to the detriment of the country are some of the of Free Market
Failures that have us in a bind.

"Let the Market work it will", "The Market will take care of itself"

[Greyhound]

40. It really is. Capitalism, by it's very nature, inevitably leads to just this sort of situation.

Assume the mythical "even playing field" as a starting point, 100 companies start at the same time in the same field of endeavor. Over time some will fail, some will grow, and the rest maintain a static existence. Those that grow absorb all of the existing market left by the failures as well as the new business from the growing market, putting them in a better position to further grow and to grow faster leaving the static companies further behind. In order to survive some of the static companies will invariably merge together to better compete with the now much larger companies, further reducing the number of companies in the whole field. The cycle repeats until there is only one company left in our field of endeavor.

Additionally, along the way new companies spring up with a new way to fill the function or a better version of the product. In the early stages the competing companies will adopt the new methods/ideas, but at some point the surviving dominant companies have become large enough to suppress the innovation rather than adapt/adopt it. Suppression is more profitable than innovation, collusion is more profitable than competition.

Capitalism has only one objective, profit, and always tends toward monopoly. It is the fatal and unavoidable flaw in the capitalistic system. The inevitable can only, through constant growth and/or suppressive regulation, be delayed.

The better system is cooperation. When striving for improvement, rather than profit, is rewarded the results are far superior for the companies as well as society on the whole.

[originalpckelly]

85. As long as you're talking companies (I suppose you mean corporations)

you are talking planned economics, not free market economics.

[readmoreoften]

98. And what, praytell, is capitalism without corporations?

I mean, yeah, there was no CORPORATE PERSONHOOD before the 19th century, but are you really advocating a return to VIctorian factory life. Or is this some utopian appeal to post-medieval "merchantilism" where everyone owns a mom and pop shop and no one has the internet or takes an airplane? If that's not utopian, I don't know the hell what is.

Sounds like your an capitalist anarcho-libertarian. By the way, that's what Milton Friedman and the neo-cons are. Except, eventually they decided that it was impossible to "help people" without the "realist concession" of imposing dictators to end "socialism".

[Greyhound]

117. Corporations are companies, the distinction is essentially a tax category

coupled with liability protections. The basis of capitalism is primarily the pursuit of profits, regardless of other considerations. It is not an absolute requirement, but overall that is the goal, and inevitably profits will trump any and all other considerations. For example, Walmart.

My position in favor of socialism is that broader benefits are the goals, none of which BTW exclude profiting from your efforts, but takes the overall benefit to the community into consideration as well. IOW, quality can supersede price and in consideration of that may be favored.

[Toucano]

16. Sound policies that make sense and are fair for all.

The labels are really just a distraction.

I don't care what you call it.

[killbotfactory]

17. People tend to like socialism, so long as you don't call it socialism

What people are told is socialism isn't really socialism, and the same with capitalism.

[Xenotime]

19. Call it what you want. I just want equality and fairness.

[killbotfactory]

20. I'm with you.

We can only achieve freedom, democracy, equality and opportunity (the promises of capitalism and it's most fierce proponents) by abolishing capitalism.

[readmoreoften]

100. That's when the ideological training kicks in and the knee-jerk reaction happens.

The choice of Stalin to fight Hitler and Kruschev's later capitulation and demoralization of Soviets didn't help much. Oddly enough, in Latin America, the struggle is much clearer and the assassinated socialists are always more democratic and likable than the right-wing fascists we back (and the death squads we fund.)

[Stargleamer]

18. "The Death of Capitalism? Yeah, right.

and May '68 indicated that a revolution was at hand. Seeing things the way we wish them to be and ignoring the immense power that capitalists have gets us nowhere. Right now the Republicans are doing what they can to keep the recovery from happening so they can pick up seats in 2010.

[anonymous171]

22. I prefer Social Capitalism myself. nt

[Orwellian_Ghost]

24. Contradiction in terms

Why Socialism?

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

<snip>

http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php

[TBF]

44. WTF is "social capitalism"? n/t

[paulsby]

25. ok, but stupid

in every recession, not to mention the great depression, people have called it "the fall" of capitalism, or the "death" of capitalism, etc.

yet, it didn't

10-20 yrs from now the naysayers will be looked upon as just as wrong as they were in the past.

it is one thing to say our capitalist system suffered from a lack of regulation, etc. another to say capitalism is so flawed we need to throw it away.

that is simply absurd.

[JoseGaspar]

28. It is pretty funny that you dismiss this as "stupid".

The post just above yours was Albert Einstein saying that it isn't.

Let me think about this for a minute. You or Einstein?

[paulsby]

31. einstein

was a genius. doesn't mean he couldn't be wrong.

and generally speaking, just because somebody is "the shit" in one field (in einstein's case - science, specific branches within) does NOT mean they know fuck'all about other stuff. we see this all the time.

somebody thinks that because they are so brilliant about one thing, that they are brilliant about anything.

we can find countless examples of very brilliant people, who were also very wrong about social policy, economics, or politics.

it's also a tired argument from authority. "well, einstein says it so it must be true".

that's crap.

einstein was also remarking from a different time and place. it would be a lot more understandable from somebody who lived through the great depression, etc to have a different POV than somebody who lived in the boom years AFTER it, etc.

but in brief, just because somebody is a brilliant scientist does not mean i am going to accept their theories about social justice, politics, or economics.

[JoseGaspar]

34. You have just explained why you were wrong to call the post stupid.

You relied on "common knowledge" and a position of assumed authority. Hegel took care of the first and you just demolished the second.

You might try debating the issue.

[paulsby]

35. because

the reason why it's stupid, is that the same tired, incorrect, argument has been used before and been proven wrong. capitalism didn't die in those past instances, and there is no reason to assume that THIS time it's different.

[JoseGaspar]

36. Again, same shit, different day.

World War One and Two resolved the "problem", the last time. How is it to be "resolved" this time? In order to claim something is "stupid", "tired", or "incorrect", you should be able to make a rudimentary argument at least.

The survival of capitalism since the 1850s has been contingent on whittling down the number of major capitalist powers at each major point of crisis(otherwise, too much capital, too slow an organic growth of demand and, sooner or later, "I'll meet you in the Sudan").

How is it possible to whittle down from one?

[paulsby]

38. if i were to accept the faulty premises

then, i might have to accept your conclusion.

capitalism, simply put has worked. it has ALWAYS had boom and bust cycles and always will. in retrospect, the naysayers change the argument and goal posts and claim "well, except for WWI and WWII it would have failed, etc. etc." failing to realize that you can always find an excuse to support your preconceived biases.

[blindpig]

55. So, misery is acceptable?

These cycles that you so blithely accept as the way of things destroy the lives of millions, possibly billions this go around, and you're OK with that?

You love the system more than you love humanity.

[paulsby]

56. way to change the goalposts

first, it was that this is the failure of capitalism. it's over. kaput. dead. etc.

now, it's about the misery within capitalism, apparently accepting (w/o acknowledging your error) that capitalism is not dead.

all economic systems result in some misery.

the question is - which systems maximize potential, minimize misery, etc.

show me an economic system that DOESN't have misery.

i accept that there will be some misery, just like i accept that no society will be murder or suicide free.

[TBF]

69. What if you were the one living in misery? What if you were living in one

of those tent cities, or on the street? What if you had no health care? What if you froze to death like the 93-yr old in Michigan because you didn't pay your electric bill on time?

How much "misery" are you willing to accept? 20% unemployed? 100 million without insurance? When do the numbers get too high? Something tells me that you might feel differently if you become one of those statistics.

[paulsby]

70. u assume

that i have never been in poverty, without health care, on in misery.

beyond your false and unsupported assumption, my point is that NO economic system is without misery.

and i am a fierce capitalist. i am ALSO for universal health care. those are not inconsistent. one can be for capitalism and still believe in

1) a social safety net
2) universal health care.

canada for instance has capitalism and they also have universal health care

[TBF]

71. And u didn't answer the questions, did u? n/t

[paulsby]

73. it's unanswerable

during bust times, there will be much higher amounts of misery.

the point is SHOW ME A BETTER ALTERNATIVE.

anybody who claims that socialism is better, has never studied the history of socialism.

and how do we define misery? only one car per household? what?

our definition of poverty and misery in the US would be considered lap of luxury in some other countries.

[TBF]

75. You're rationalizing capitalism by deciding that some other countries

have worse poverty and misery? That's the best you can do? I asked you a direct question, what if you were the one out on the street? Is that acceptable to you?

That's not an unanswerable question, it's simply one you refuse to answer.

[paulsby]

77. of course it's not

"acceptable" to me.

but i HAVE been the one out on the street. it's not an unknown situation to me.

it's also a fact that capitalism WILL leave some people in misery. not everybody can have 100% success all the time.

i want to live in the real world.

there is no utopia. every economic system will result in some misery.

i'm not "rationalizing" capitalism. it's the best system available. it hardly needs rationalization.

show me a better system. show me one without misery.

[blindpig]

72. Well, you're the one who embraces capitalism.

I was just pointing out the details of what you embrace. But that's OK with you, tho' 'minimize misery' ain't in the capitalist mission statement.

Capitalism has been dying for quite a while, if not for state intervention it would have been gone long ago. But that's part of the evolution of capitalism, it cannot survive it's own contradictions which are expressed in the cycles without the state. And when the state can no longer support capital it's curtains, mebbe this time, mebbe the next.

[paulsby]

74. unsupported

"if not for state intervention it would have been gone long ago"

contrary to your claims, capitalism can and does survive, because it is NOT contradictory. it's the best system ever devised for growing wealth within a society.

show me a better system. i've never seen one.

most of the anti-capitalist arguments here are of the "yea, but" variety. iow, well capitalism WOULD have failed except for "WWI WWII state intervention whatever"

the point is it has survived and has proven its worth

[blindpig]

79. Well, good for you, ya got one right.

Yes, capitalism has unleashed the power of production. With the fantastic increase in productivity we should all be living the life of Reilly. Unfortunately the benefits gained are only enjoyed by the capitalist, with the workers only getting the minimum required to keep them working and not revolting. It's a tricky calculus, particularly with pressure the capitalists has to increase profits. One day they'll get it wrong and when the dust clears humanity will be free of those parasites.

[paulsby]

81. except that's wrong

" Unfortunately the benefits gained are only enjoyed by the capitalist, with the workers only getting the minimum required to keep them working and not revolting. "

i am a worker (although I trade stocks and futures, so in that respect i am a capitalist), and i am enjoying the benefits.

i make far more than people used to make doing my same job. it's benefited my entire group of workers.

the benefits are not ONLY enjoyed by the capitalist.

also, anybody can take part in the capitalist system (with a minimum investment) by the stock market./ sure, it sucks ass right now, but there has never been a 20 yr period in history (including the great depression) where dollar cost averaging didn't give a positive return.

[blindpig]

86. Ah, one of the suckfish class.

The capitalists can't do it by themselves, can they? They'd be overrun in no time. Therefore they have recruited a small sub-class of overseers, technicians, professionals, fixers, managers, thugs and house negros. This is the true middle class. They are paid much better than the masses, have some social status and are expected keep the machine running smoothly and support their social superiors in all things.

Good job. Mebbe you'll get a cookie.

Not sure if a class traitor is worse than a capitalist, I'll have to flip a coin.

[paulsby]

89. lol "class traitor"

smash the capitalist, imperialist, fascist, insect, patriarchal white supremacist system, man.

but stay away from the brown acid. it's a bad trip, man

[leftstreet]

112. You're still selling your labor to the capitalists

And they control what your labor is worth.

This might scare you, but you're still one of 'us.'

[paulsby]

119. that's their right

cause it's their businesses and their money at risk.

start your own friggin' business, if you don't like it, or seek another job.

i'm actually not selling MY labor to the capitalists, because i work for the man (tm), but i get yer point.

and when i invest MY capital in various businesses, real estate, or commodities, i am playing the part of capitalist by putting MY money at risk

it's a great system.

[leftstreet]

45. Is that what this 'financial crisis' is all about then?

The survival of capitalism since the 1850s has been contingent on whittling down the number of major capitalist powers at each major point of crisis(otherwise, too much capital, too slow an organic growth of demand and, sooner or later, "I'll meet you in the Sudan").

In spite of the 'expert' opinions and explanations in the M$M, this all seems contrived. As if something is being 'whittled' on purpose.

By the way, Welcome to DU.
You funneh!

Let me think about this for a minute. You or Einstein?

:spray:

[TBF]

47. OK, pls. explain what is great about capitalism.

Maybe it's the fact that about 3% of the country control over 80% of the wealth.
Maybe it's that 48 million people don't have health insurance right now.
Or perhaps it's those trendy new tent cities that are popping up everywhere. You live in one of those?
I know, you think your kid loves those cheese sandwiches served every day to the losers who don't have lunch money. If they are lucky.
Perhaps it's the fact that we have an unofficial employment rate now in the double digits.
Or that you think Walmart is just gosh darn swell, who needs any other place to be.

But I don't want to put words into your mouth - do tell what you find so marvelous about capitalism.

[Yukari Yakumo]

134. The short version

Laissez Faire Capitalism that the Repukes love is (hopefully) dying out again.
Regulated Capitalism, which was the norm, will eventually make its return.

[Greyhound]

27. It's funny how so many people don't get that capitalism will always lead to what we see today,

it is the very nature of capitalism. The corresponding view that socialism is some sort of Soviet totalitarianism, is also shown in this thread.

I guess it is the issue of complexity. The solutions to our problems are a complex network of multiple alternatives and getting them all to, not only be implemented, but to be brought together to create the new form, is a truly monumental task.

Let's see how this thread plays out...
:kick: & R

[blues90]

41. Capitalism by it's very nature depends on endless resource

and cheap labor and the term capitalism is self defining , money.

People are so used to capitalism since it had worked so far well enough for many people and very well for the few who are billionairs yet is has it's end built in and I feel we have reached the end , if you look around it is evident everywhere.

I fear people will resist dumping capitalism until they too are en-gulfed by it's destructive nature.

Our entire defense system and a standing army as well as all the nukes we possess are strictly there to feed and prtect this capitalism nature.

It is an enormous battle we have for thoses who want capitalism to die because it is not just a mindset it is powerful corporations and the military industrial complex and medical industrial complex , wallstreet and the banking system as well as powerful lobby groups that have all the control. So it will take the people to come together and somehow starve then out of existence. That means a new way of thinking and sacrifice where we find ways to not only come together but also lower our standard of living to a point of what we need rather than what we are told we want and need and what makes one a success and what is reality.

This is not to say we were not warned over and over , it is seems to say we were willfully ignorant hoping we would make it through without even considering the long term results of our ignorance.

The one main indicator is we are now told that many corporations are to big to fail yet is ok if we as individuals suffer and fail. But we were used to enable these corporations to succeed and sold on what we are supposed to be by their highy advanced advertisment tactics and what makes one a success.

[Greyhound]

49. Monopoly (totalitarianism) is the inevitable end of any capitalistic system.

It depends on constant and ever increasing growth to delay that conclusion.

I agree that we have reached the end here in America and that is why we have spent the last 30+ years moving the mechanism out of the country. The corporations have moved on to their new feeding ground, it is only the people that have not seen it before and are only now just beginning to suspect.

As the collapses begin to pile up, we will find that there is no there there. Nothing left to seize, sell, or distribute, just paper and outsource contracts.

[paulsby]

78. which is totally unsupported

"Monopoly (totalitarianism) is the inevitable end of any capitalistic system"

do you just make this stuff up?

[readmoreoften]

111. Do you understand the fractional banking system?

Watch "Money as Debt"--the analysis supports his statement.

[Greyhound]

118. Please see reply #40.

The only way in which monopoly can be delayed in a capitalistic system is through constant growth, and since we exist on a finite planet with finite resources, that cannot be sustained, as we have seen.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

123. Certainly is amazing

to see some of these crude reactionary responses where:

A) Folks are parroting the language of the ruling classes. Embracing and apologizing for a system of feudalism.

B) Folks are politically incoherent in such a profound way as to be unable to comprehend and discuss the nature of socialism.

C) Folks are so deeply indoctrinated in the lexicon of capital and at every step mistake their hole-ridden postulations for anything other than mass propaganda. This is especially putrid amongst the educated apologists.

And do not forget the Haitian who lives a wretched life and dies an early death, the Brazilian copper miner, the starving Congolese children, the women of Rwanda who are raped en masse are all offspring of this system which is no more than thinly camouflaged slavery.

How is it you can be so blind so as to not see that is the troubling question.

[paulsby]

124. how is it

you can parrot the same tired rhetoric that wasn't true 50 yrs ago, and still isn't?

just because somebody thinks socialism sucks (such as me), doesn't mean we don't "comprehend" socialism. i know socialism damn well.

i support capitalism because it WORKS better than socialism, and because it is not based on discredited and disproven (by history) assumptions about the nature of man and his relation to govt.

my ancestors escaped socialism and made their way to the US where capitalism helped them build a life based on freedom and opportunity.

and a proponent of socialism claiming that capitalism is thinly camouflaged slavery - THAT's ironic

give me a strong social safety net, but give me capitalism, the freedom to work for my own money, seek profit, start a business if i want, innovate, and do what i want with my money.

[Greyhound]

131. Nothing you listed;

"the freedom to work for my own money, seek profit, start a business if i want, innovate, and do what i want with my money" is precluded in a socialist system.

Your statements here and elsewhere on this thread simply prove that you have no understanding of what you are talking about and your reactions to provided information indicate that you are emphatically opposed to learning as well.

[paulsby]

135. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. you have no understanding of what the word means

because socialist countries are SO friendly to private business.

here's a hint. socialism means public ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods.

sorry, but that's not compatible with freedom of individuals to start private businesses.

[Greyhound]

136. Once again, thanks for proving my point.

"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society.

Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved."

You might also like to know that there is no single definition of Socialism, 10 seconds on Google will show you that, so your pronouncement that "socialism means public ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods" is just not so and BTW that is also one definition of Communism.

There is, among various theories, considerable overlap with Communism. However, if you examine lists of the highest standards of living on earth, you will find that they are all significantly socialistic nations, including ours. (I believe we are still in the top ten overall) In fact, if you look at those lists by year you will find that America began it's slide from it's perennial #1 spot happened as it moved further and further away from the Socialistic principles it was founded and grew upon.

The egalitarian society the founders of this nation envisioned, would be defined today as Socialist.

So, take off the blinders and look around. I don't know what shithole your family escaped from, but it was certainly not Socialist even though it may have called itself that.

[paulsby]

137. you are conflating two things

socialism, with social democracy.

sorry, but you are choosing to use one word "socialism" when in fact you mean another.

that is no less ignorant and a misuse of terminology than rightwinger who decries program X because it's SOCIALISM.

like i said, i'm familiar with socialist regimes.

you are "defining socialism down" to borrow a term.

iow, a semantical wank, based on your redefinition of a word.

if you want to argue for social democratic principles, then i have plenty of points of agreement with you. like we both probably want universal health care.

but i do not want socialism. i want CAPITALISM.

with rare exceptions, production of X should be in the hands of private business.

govt. should not control the means of production, nor distribution (with rare exceptions).

that is the antithesis of socialism.

if we expand the meaning of socialism (which is what rightwinger do, and you do too), to include any social democratic principle as qualifying, then even frigging singapore, one of the most economically free nations on earth has "socialism"

spare me your penchant for redefining words.

[Greyhound]

141. Universal health care, to use your own example, is antithetical to capitalism.

So you argue that you want capitalism except where you want socialism.

I take it you did not bother to look up the definition of Socialism, because had you, you would see that there is no single definition of it and that has been a source of debate among Socialists themselves since the word was coined. "Social Democracy" is itself simply a convenient term used to identify several different government systems with a wide variation in the Socialistic, Capitalistic, and Democratic elements, again, no hard definition. So how is it that you can argue that Socialism is not Social Democracy is not Communism is not Capitalism?

The nation of Cuba would meet a definition of Socialist or Communist or a Social Democracy yet they identify themselves as Communist. They are also among the most satisfied people on earth, and even there there are elements of Capitalism that are tolerated on an individual basis. What can be demonstrated through example however is that the societies with more Socialist policies and practices are more successful for more of their citizens.

This all comes back to the original point of this exchange which is that there is no specific or universal definition of Socialism and your pronouncement that Socialism is bad and Capitalism is good is baseless except in your own head, where thankfully, no one else lives.

[specimenfred1984]

37. Capitalism is only as good as its regulation, without regulation it's fascism

So, we're aren't even a capitalist nation and haven't been for years, what should be talked about is the transition from fascism to representative democracy. The only problem with that is that after 100+ years of corporate and gov't propaganda, the U.S. population is so dumbed down that real conversations can rarely be had.

In the end, most Americans are too stupid to even understand a larger concept of "the greater good" so we'll end up with capitalism that is just more heavily regulated.

[Fire1]

42. Exactly.

[dana_b]

61. well put! n/t

[readmoreoften]

104. Very good post.

Unfortunately I don't have a clue as to who will be capable of regulating capitalism. They don't permit it. My guess is they'll let us "socialize the losses" then go back to business as normal.

[SsevenN]

46. Seriously?

Capitalism isn't 'dying' in this country, years from now we will look back at this crisis as nothing more than a speed bump.

I will do anything possible to keep the power in the hands of the people, that includes fighting socalism.

[TBF]

48. "keep the power in the hands of the people" ?? Which people we talking about?

Not the ones in the unemployment line.
Not the 48 million without health care.
Not the ones who just lost what little savings they had in their 401Ks.

Think about who really controls everything in this country. It is the people with all of the wealth. The 3% who own/control over 80%. Are those the people you want to fight for? Those are the only ones who really have any power. Everyone else is a virtual slave, whether they've been "freed" from their cubicle yet or not.

[Greyhound]

50. Do you understand that what you said is a direct contradiction?

In capitalism power is capital which is in the hands of the few. It is socialism where power resides with the people.

[SsevenN]

54. Socialism has nothing to do with power of the people.

In socialism the power lies in the hands of the gov't, who get to decide who needs what, and of how much.

Life is hard, that won't ever change, but to continue the economic and personal advancement of all we need INCENTIVES.

Poeple are greedy by nature, you have to play that card correctly so that we encourage growth.


The power is in the hands of the WORLD BANKS, it has been since 1913, the removal of our fiat-based currency will do MUCH more to return economic power to the people, than giving the gov't the power would.

Edited to add the word, 'world'

[killbotfactory]

57. Socialism is supposed to be democratic

The forms of socialism that have come to power throughout the years have been anything but democratic. It's hard to have a democracy if one side is allowed to slaughter and jail people who disagree with them. Generally the people killed and jailed were socialists who were against power centralized in a government run by powerful authoritarian bureaucrats. The bureaucrats in those governments took over the reigns of power from private industry and stifled any legitimate democracy and ran the country as though one company established a monopoly over all industry. This is not what is advocated by most socialists, and is not some inherent flaw in all forms of socialism.

[SsevenN]

62. And that's the problem

What socialism is 'supposed' to be and in reality 'what it is' are two different things.

Socialism is much like 'mob mentality' it destroys personal identity and creates a single-minded beast.

we NEED individuality, we NEED choice, adversity, and challenges. THAT is what makes us human, that is how we advance, learn and evolve.

The is a reason this country is a constitutionally protected republic and not a pure democracy. Mob mentality is DANGEROUS, uneducated and ill-informed people have as much a right to their opinion as I have to mine. But I sure as hell don't want them deciding on sensitive issues that take a great deal of knowledge and experience to understand.

That's why we vote for our Representatives, they are (supposed) to be better informed than us, but like minded.

Capitalism promotes this general idea. If some one works hard, plays the cards right, contributes to the advancement of the whole country in a economic/industrial/technological way. Than they have a certain 'right' to that money to use as they see fit, Hopefully in a business manner.

And why not? They have obviously proven they are capable, and have worked hard to earn it. Seems fair to me!

Make no mistake, we have a major problem with the cycle of poverty in this nation. We need to give opportunities, and INCENTIVES to the underprivileged and undereducated. Help them break the chains of the oppression.

But you need incentive, without it you will see an intellectual social and fiscal decay in this society that is created from the human condition.

JMHO take it for what it's worth. nothin

[killbotfactory]

68. There are forms of socialism that don't conform to "mob mentality"

Especially forms of anarchism and libertarian socialism. The mob mentality, or giving the majority control of everything and all areas of life, is not a fundamental tenet of socialism. Centralizing power in such a way is a bad idea that always leads to abuse, no matter how good the intentions of those in control of the government may be.

There is incentive under socialism, because the capitalists who profit from controlling all the money would be gone, and people would be able to earn the full value of their labor without the capitalist class taking a cut, and people would be guaranteed the means of life so they can pursue education and enter into jobs on an equal footing, without fear of being foreclosed on, or starving, or losing access healthcare, etc.

[readmoreoften]

107. Sure. What capitalism and American democracy are "supposed to be" and what they "really are"

are two different things. Why just criticize the descent of the soviets into Stalinism without critiquing the US funding Latin-American death squads, literally countless black site renditions, the support of the murder of 100K North Korean communist women and children, and so on and so on.

I challenge you to do some research: Arbenz, the murder of Zapatista children, the assassination of Mossadeq, and the entire damn legacy of DECLASSIFIED CIA documents.

How sure are you that you're not uneducated and ill-informed?

[leftstreet]

59. People are not greedy by nature. That's a RW talking point

Please

[readmoreoften]

113. Hey, I've also heard RWers say that rape, racism, and homophobia are "hardwired"

And I've read some of their unbelievable pseudoscientific, "intelligent design" intellectual level arguments to back up these bizarro claims.

[Greyhound]

60. On your second point, I agree, and that is, as Frank said,

the crux of the biscuit.

Governments that have so frequently been called socialistic were, in fact, merely totalitarian regimes that had nothing to do with socialism, thus defining the misinterpretation of socialism that is prevalent in America today. We saw the same thing with communism in Russia and China, neither were communist but totalitarian states. Cuba seems to have achieved communism on a national scale and are doing pretty well, especially when you consider the array of forces that have been trying to kill it for half a century.

Noam Chomsky discusses this is great detail over and over, the control and corruption of language is essential to those that seek to live off the product of others.

[LiberalPersona]

101. People are not greedy by nature

People are greedy because that's how they're raised to be in a capitalist society.
The concept of greed is masked under the phrase "the American dream" and we're taught that it is the ultimate goal of our capitalist society.

[SsevenN]

58. "In capitalism power is capital which is in the hands of the few"

If you mean 'power' in terms of wealth, well yes. There are obviously people 'better off' than others.

And it is quite unfair for some, who cannot overcome the adversity of a crappy upbringing coupled with low income.

And yet we have waves of poor immigrants in this country who build economic strength out of nothing. How? The incentive of a better life.

We are a spoiled culture, with a sense of entitlement that has been undermining the middle and lower class for generations.

There is no 'magic system' where everyone will 'get paid exactly what they need' and 'work the job thats best for them'.

The simple fact is we all suffer from the human condition in some form or another.

It's like religion, it's a moral crutch for the weak minded. If you have someone convinced they are being 'watched' all the time and 'judged' they are less likely to commit immoral actions (read crime)

You take away that feeling of constant judgment, and you get what we have today. Packs of people with the a sense of entitlement who believe if they can get away with it, than it;s okay-doaky to do.

Socialism expounds on that human condition, creating a society which races to be the most self absorbed.

I want a world where we have created opportunity's for education and personal advancement. Where incentives are available to all and no achievement is out of reach based on a condition of wealth.

But make no mistake, if you pay the pool boy as much as the Marine Biologist. We will very quickly have a culture of professional pool boys.

[Greyhound]

63. Are you guys all judging the whole of humanity on your own personal perceptions?

"I feel this way, therefore all people feel the same"? Do you honestly believe that people become marine biologists simply because it pays better than taking care of swimming pools?

What a sad internal life you must have.

[SsevenN]

65. "Are you guys all judging the whole of humanity on your own personal perceptions?"

I'm judging humanity off of historical empiricism.

To deny that the majority are selfish is just ignorant.

[Greyhound]

120. See, you're really not. Your ""historical empiricism" only accounts for

a small fraction of human history, about 6,000 years at the outside. For at least six times that long humanity existed, built civilizations, made discoveries, cared and look after itself, in a variety of cooperative and far less exploitative models.

The misconception of prehistorical "primitivism" and "barbarism" is the result of 18th and 19th century misconceptions principally brought about by cultural filters distorted by hundreds of years of variations on the "divine right to rule" by a small class of psychopathic parasites. Most people simply want to live in peace, with sufficient resources to raise their families and to pursue their own interests. Very few wish to dominate, and fewer still naturally seek to steal the product of others.

Now, if you are one of those that does wish this, you are part of an abnormal minority.

[leftstreet]

66. Chronic Capitalism Disorder should get a classification in the DSM

For some people, it's the lens through which they view the world

[Greyhound]

122. Victims of cultural indoctrination.

It's an uphill battle that still must be fought.
:thumbsup:

[blindpig]

80. Thank you, John Galt n/t

[Numba6]

52. FABIAN socialism has always had a slow, steady progress

[NeedleCast]

64. Pass

I don't think true socialism works unless everyone wants to be a socialist.

[originalpckelly]

91. You cannot "trust" anyone. People are nasty horrible creatures...

the history of humanity demonstrates that. How do you think we got into this situation? The only hope is to produce a system where one's selfish interests check the selfish interests of others.

[readmoreoften]

115. Sounds pretty nihilist to me. Maybe slave labor camps are what we all deserve...

except for those wonderful, shining, innovative bankers.... :sarcasm:

[Joe Fields]

95. I prefer a mix of capitalism and socialism, if capitalism is well regulated.

[and-justice-for-all]

102. Socialism is only an issue with the ignorant and greedy....nt

There should be a mix of Socialism and Capitalism, some things should never be for profit. Like Health Care..

[3woodiii]

106. socalism

socialism Is not the answer. It sounds nice but is fundamentally flawed.

[and-justice-for-all]

127. Socialism works...and is part of the answer

not as something that needs to 100% in effect, but at least 50%. Somethings should not be for profit and should be socialized.

What do suggest, capitalism?

[Greyhound]

132. People keep saying that, but where is the argument or evidence for this claim?

What is the fundamental flaw in Socialism?

[Tab]

109. It's not so much that capitalism is failing

as it is that it's been terribly abused and manipulated.

This country, though has always had a mix of socialism and capitalism. It's capitalism when I want to have my own business, but socialism when we all pay town taxes for our kids to go to school or pay for the fire department or whatever.

This current mess, though, does show the danger of capitalism - its penchant for abuse. That said, often it is self-correcting, although this time we are trying to self-correct for eight years of an idiot, and the fact that they pretty much overrode the checks and balances in our system, and the crimes were coming so fast and furiously you couldn't start investigating one before another totally more absurd one raised its ugly head (just like Putin does when he flies over Sarah Palin's house).

But we need a mix. Not one or the other. Both. Some things just make sense (e.g.: everyone chipping in for the fire department, as opposed to only paying all the costs if and only if you had a fire, which would be the strict capitalistic interpretation of it). So, some things make sense to share the cost socially, other things make sense to be privately funded.

[readmoreoften]

114. That's not socialism. That's Keynesianism.

Socialism is a system without capitalism where surplus value isn't taken from labor.

[Tab]

116. I know that. But no one's talking around the "K" word

Because Rush Limbaugh would have to do a lot of work to educate his listeners (not one of his big talents, or at least interests). But the concept of socialism is pretty much understood. Americans get "communism", they get "socialism", the older (and now the younger ones too) understand "fascism", certainly "dictatorship", and the GOP is working on demonizing "liberalism" (whatever that is), but you're gonna have to work before you introduce a subtlety like "Keynesianism". So they glom onto whatever's easiest.

[readmoreoften]

121. Absolutely. Explaining socialism to a friend of mine he said "that's it"?

He said "that's only logical." It takes a lot of work to make it seem so complicated. Unfortunately, failed socialism and paranoid former socialist states that never "withered away" give ample fodder to the delusions.

[blindpig]

130. Ya got to put things in historical perspective.

"Failed socialism and paranoid socialist states that never withered away" were largely a result of the non-stop aggression of the capitalist states, the pre-revolutionary condition of those states, natural disaster didn't help. Taking that into consideration the advances in the human condition, vast improvements in health, longevity, education, housing and transportation are all the more impressive. The thing that is notable is not that their demise but rather how long they survived.

Much of what passes for 'common knowledge' about socialist states ain't nothing but 'spin'. Not a small bit of that was derived from Nazi propaganda, which the capitalists lapped up like sweet cream, and then spewed upon the rest of us.

[Imagevision]

126. Call it what you will, capitalism is obviously failing - 651,000 lost jobs in February

can I get 800,000 lost in March?

[JCMach1]

133. Debt like money is an illusion...

The sooner we take that to heart the better off we will be...

[opihimoimoi]

138. Systems based on Growth is doomed to failure....sooner or later

Now we witness.....