Are we ready to admit that capitalism has failed?

[white_wolf]

A lot of posters want to go back to the era of the New Deal and have to say I don't think that addresses the real issue. New Deal type polices help address the symptoms of the disease that is capitalism, but they do not cure the disease itself. Capitalism is like an incurable cancer you can treat it for a time, but in the end it will become immune to your treatments and destroy you. We must remove the system as whole and replace it with something new.
The New Deal era was an a strange time period in the history of capitalism because of the existence of a rival system the capitalist were willing to except limitations in order to stop a socialist revolution in this country. That rival system is gone and now all the regulations have been torn down and the full out war on the working class has began. Capitalism is evil we cannot regulate it, we must destroy it.

[leftstreet]

1. Capitalism didn't fail. It did exactly what it was supposed to do

...for a small handful of rich fucks.

It 'failed' us, but then it was meant to

K&R

[Hissyspit]

10. No, it did not. See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1461894

[ashling]

2. At first, I thought you said "canabalism" has failed

but then, it is much the same thing

:rofl: actually, it's not funny :cry:

[Dept of Beer]

5. Caníbales

Cannibalism (from Caníbales, the Spanish name for the Carib people,<1> a West Indies tribe formerly well known for their practice of cannibalism<2>) is the act or practice of humans eating the flesh of other human beings. It is also called anthropophagy. A person who practices cannibalism is called a cannibal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibal

[gateley]

3. I am. Don't know about the people who make the decisions, though,

but I'm guessing they're not.

I think we'll probably have to fall (like Rome and Greece and the other "great" civilizations) before we can begin to really rebuild and address the systemic problems.

[Dept of Beer]

4. I don't believe that.

What I believe is that unregulated capitalism has failed. As with most things unregulated there is always a greater chance of an accident happening due to neglect or willful ignorance.

It was the neglect of US/World regulation of capitalism and the willful ignorance of the modern public not to hold our leaders to a higher standard.

Failures may be fixed.

[Starry Messenger]

6. I'm definitely over it.

I honestly don't know what part people think is worth salvaging at this point. I think people get capitalism mixed up with trade.

[leftstreet]

7. An excellent point

"I think people get capitalism mixed up with trade."

:thumbsup:

You should think about an OP on that. Could be a good discussion.

(Well, if you work PENIS into the title or something)

[Starry Messenger]

9. lol! So true.

"Under Socialism There Will Still be Mom and Pop Stores and You Get to Keep Your Penis Too!"

Sounds like an instant classic!

Seriously though, I'll look for something good to post on this.

[leftstreet]

11. LOL

Now that would get some views!

:-)

[Starry Messenger]

12. Don't tempt me!

:D

[socialist_n_TN]

53. Go ahead Starry, I DARE you.........

:rofl: Although, you might want to work in something about "extension" too. :)

[Kennah]

15. Hi, this is Casey Kasem. Coming in at #9 this week, here's "I've got my store and I've got my penis"

[some guy]

8. More than ready.

I think a person has to be inherently greedy to embrace Capitalism in the first place.

Or, like organized Religion, be brainwashed into believing in it at an early age.

I think that's how they get most people; somehow I managed to avoid being brainwashed by either. The cost of that is that I've always felt an outsider in this society, and mostly felt that I was the fucked up one.

[Howzit]

13. Before asking that question, define capitalism.

If you mean the system where those politically connected on the right and the left set up a system to impoverish and enslave everyone else, then it has failed from our point of view, not theirs. Having politicians in your pocket to write regulations that choke the competition and ease your tax burden is not free market capitalism, it is chrony capitalism. Don't confuse the two.

If you are proposing a system that relies on politicians to make capital available to everyone then you have confidence in the wrong people. Be careful that you don't promote systems that elevate no one, but just end up making everybody equally poor.

[Abq_Sarah]

14. Crony capitalism vs free markets

There is a huge difference.

They are the opposite ends of the same basic system. In a totally free market, there is no protection for consumers. Under crony capitalism, certain industries and companies are given special privileges at the expense of everyone else. We're all getting dicked over by our elected officials for their own personal gain.

[provis99]

17. sounds like the free market sucks, too.

[Abq_Sarah]

30. There is no perfect system

Planned economies certainly aren't the answer.

The healthiest economies are mixed economies that favor the free market. That doesn't mean a pure free market economy but that's not what we have here. Mega corporations exist because of government favoritism. Monopolies form because of government interference. If a large company is calling for more regulation, it's not because they believe it will help consumers, it's because they know it will cause harm to smaller competitors.

[socialist_n_TN]

54. "...end up making everybody equally poor."

Kind of like the race to the bottom we're seeing now under capitalism?

[Terry in Austin]

67. Good point -- it needs defining

The definitions of "capitalism" are all over the place and spills over into political systems. Most people use the term in a way that just means "our system." As opposed to "their system" -- socialism, feudalism, totalitarianism, whatever. Usually, the term is also meant to imply a market economy, as opposed to a centrally-planned one.

I'll offer a definition which is very specific, although it's likely to spark some lively debate among those who fancy they know a thing or two about economics. B-)

Capitalism: an economic system in which the predominant source of capital is the lending of funds at interest.

Debt far and away exceeds equity as a source of capital. You can have markets without lending at interest; you can have business and profit without lending at interest; you can have democracy without lending at interest; however, you can't have anything we would call "capitalism" without this practice of lending funds at interest.

I'd further suggest that interest is "free money," unearned and inherently exploitative, and from that basic flaw grows all the other ills we've seen from capitalism gone too far.

[Kennah]

16. Who's we sucka? Smith, Wesson, and you?

[DonCoquixote]

18. define socialism

Do you mean like Sweden, or like Cuba? There are many flavors, and the red-flavored one has soured. The one in EU blue, is thriving.

[Jim Warren]

34. Please examine that

You need to examine what the giant boot print of the developed world meant in leveling sanctions against a tiny nation before dismissing it.

Say what you will, but Cuba has survived without the gangsters or their casinos.

[DonCoquixote]

43. the question remains

There are different forms and degrees of socialism. The sort in Sweden is more what some call "democratic socialism", whereas Cuba is more Communist flavored. And while Cuba has done some things well, we would not want to repeat their period where gays and others who did not fit were imprisoned or executed.

[Starry Messenger]

58. If only I could rec a post!

[socialist_n_TN]

65. That's EVERY socialist system that's ever been tried, too

They've ALL had to face overt and/or covert war from the capitalists from the moment of inception. It's actually a wonder that ANY of them survived based on what they had to endure.

[divine_truine]

19. YES!

In fact, all 'isms' have FAILED humanity! as i read your post a new word to replace capitalism came to mind: greedism

[JHB]

20. There is no such thing as capitalism. There is no such thing as socialism...

There is a mixed economy, and it is our current mix that is failing.

[struggle4progress]

21. Such conversation is pointless noise. The useful political questions are not abstract

ideological questions: they are concrete questions about the details of the existing power structure, the balance of organized forces, our long-term strategic agenda, our short-term tactical agenda, and our techniques for shifting the balance of power in our favor in order to be able to carry out our agenda

[still_one]

22. bull, capitalism is not evil. What causes the problems is lack of regulation. /nt

[white_wolf]

24. Capitalism is evil. It always seeks to undo regulations.

Any regulations you place upon it will eventually be removed.

[SDuderstadt]

25. "Any regulations you place upon it will eventually be removed"

Maybe you should actually look at the regulations in place before you make such patently laughable statements. I'd love to see you try to prove your claim.

[white_wolf]

26. I don't know why I bother to reply to you but here goes

Look at all the regulations we had in place coming from the New Deal era, a lot have been removed and they are working on removing any regulations that are left. If you don't see that then you are either blind or a support of the capitalist class which I'm really thinking you are both.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[white_wolf]

32. Okay here is one example.

Glass-Stegal. They had that removed and that helped lead to our current mess.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Dude...

You said all regulation would eventually be removed. Do you have any EMPIRICAL evidence to back that up? Do you understand what empirical means? If you do, why would you submit anecdotal evidence?

[white_wolf]

35. Regulation have been removed alrady. More will be removed in the future if the elite's have their

way. No I can't predict the future, but looking at the past it isn't hard to see the evidence. You can ignore that if you want, I don't care. I'm done arguing with you. It's a waste of my time. Keeping on drinking your conscientious capitalism kool-aid dreamed up by CEOs.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Dude...

Here is a link to the regulations from just ONE federal agency. Why don't you browse through there and tell us how close they are to "eliminating" regulation? When you're done with that, you can go through the regulations of the dozens of other agencies. Where would you like to start next? The SEC? OSHA? Department of Labor? You should look at the volumes upon volumes of the CFR sometime.

http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/regsbyproduct.html

And, let me beat you to the punch, dude. I believe in regulation.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Dude...

Have you ever looked at a complete set of the CFR? Do you have any idea how many new regulations are written just in the course of one day? Below is a link to an image of just a small part of the CFR.

http://www.google.com/m/search?q=code+of+federal+regulations&pbx=1&aq=0&oq=code%2520of%2520feder&aqi=g2-k13d0t0&fkt=2673&fsdt=11696&cqt=&rst=&htf=&his=&maction=&site=images&gl=us&source=mog&csll=&action=<oken=4d958d9#i=40

[SDuderstadt]

41. More evidence that disproves your claim

How Many Federal Regulations are There? According to the Office of the Federal Register, in 1998, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the official listing of all regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes that claimed 19 feet of shelf space. In 1970, the CFR totaled only 54,834 pages.

The General Accountability Office (GAO) reports that in the four fiscal years from 1996 to 1999, a total of 15,286 new federal regulations went into effect. Of these, 222 were classified as "major" rules, each one having an annual effect on the economy of at least $100 million.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/fedregulations_2.htm

In the future, you just might want to do some fact-checking before making claims that don't make any sense.

[joshcryer]

45. Yeah, I'd argue the opposite, that capitalism thrives on regulations.

Be it internally between companies or capital owners or through actual laws themselves.

The derivative crisis happened because 1) they were a relatively new process with regards to mortgages (credit default swaps didn't happen to a significant extent until the early 2000s) and 2) because the Bush presidency was both incompetent and criminal (those at the top who "failed" to recognize the problem that was being explained to them by analysis').

Already Obama's Presidency has fixed some of those holes, but he's been limited in the full effect his administration can undertake. One can expect they'll be patched eventually, not only from the investor side (a few bankers made a half trillion bucks or so, total, at the expense of the rest of the economy), but from the societal side.

Now we can go off on a tangent about Rothbardian economics and how they do want to deregulate to its ultimate conclusion, but even then we can expect regulations out the ass, but those people, who believe that sort of economic system, are just niche players with no significance.

[SDuderstadt]

44. If business is rolling back regulation...

these guys didn't get the memo:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/red-tape-rising-obamas-torrent-of-new-regulation

[socialist_n_TN]

56. You could also go back to the regulations put into

place after the Gilded Age and how they failed the country in '29 and led to the Great Depression. Then of course, the deregulation that led up to the '08 crash that caused the Great Recession (Depression II?). THREE times capitalism has run amok and crushed the working classes, been regulated and threw off those regulations. You'd think that after three times people would learn. But obviously some will NEVER learn.

[joshcryer]

78. One could just as easily blame cronyism for that.

This is a tenuous position to take, imo. Anyone bashing the communist states for their rise and falls (see Cuba, which has privitized twice in as many decades) would be deflected on imperialist grounds (oh that's because of imperialism etc).

But the truth of the matter that every time these regulations or lack thereof are due to cronyism.

[Howzit]

23. Would you rather have a command economy like that discussed in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPILhiTJv7E

[white_wolf]

27. I'd rather have an economy where the workers control the means of production

instead of CEOs.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Simple question:

Why do employee-owned companies typically hire CEO's to manage them?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[cali]

36. and just how do you suggest taking capitalism down?

every time I see one of these posts, I just shake my head. Capitalism sure isn't working for anyone but the wealthy, but so what? Just how does one go about changing this state of affairs?

[Jim Warren]

38. By admitting it isn't working,

But I think the OP said that.

[cali]

40. really? you think you can take down capitalism by admitting it isn't working?

how cute. As if an entrenched system can be dismantled by that.

[Jim Warren]

42. Forgive me

if I wasn't clear or you thought my post was meant as dismissive. I meant admitting to a problem is a start.

[Recursion]

47. Really? Our poor are richer than India's rich.

It's got issues, but I think calling it a failure is kind of ridiculous.

[blindpig]

60. Pretty high standards ya got there......

Unfuckin' believable.

[sabrina 1]

61. Well, some monarchies could have made the same argument

'Our citizens are not as poor as those who live in tribal societies'. Everything is relative. How we know Capitalism is a failure for a vast majority of people is to simply look at where the wealth has gone over the course of the past several decades and what has become of the middle class and the poor, who are now poorer.

It works fine if you belong to the top, maybe, 20% and that's being generous. But so did monarchies, and probably every other failed 'ism' that has come and gone.

I think this country will eventually reject it and if the Global Capitalists don't succeed in completely destroying Europe also, we will eventually put a stop to this disastrous system and replace it with a more equitable system where wealth is not concentrated the way it is today. Because it cannot continue the way it is, for one thing.

[socialist_n_TN]

64. Yep, capitalism was a step up from feudalism.......

It accumulated wealth faster. But every system has it's day and needs to be superseded by something better. Now that the wealth is accumulated, it's held in too few hands. What we need now is a system that DISTRIBUTES that wealth, not one that hoards it.

[Baclava]

77. "Every system has it's day and needs to be superseded by something better"...Trotsky?

Did you know?...Vodka means water in Russian



The story is told that in A.D. 988 the Grand Prince of Kiev in what is now Ukraine decided that it was time for his people to convert from their pagan ways to one of the monotheistic religions that held sway in the civilized countries to the south. First came the Jewish rabbis. He listened to their arguments, was impressed, but ultimately sent them away after remarking that the followers of Judaism did not control any land. Next came the Moslem mullahs. Again he was impressed, both with their intellectual arguments and the success of Islam as a political and military force, but when he was told that Islam proscribed alcohol he was dismayed and sent them away. Finally came the Christian priests who informed him that not only could good Christians drink alcohol, but that wine was actually required for church rituals such as communion. That was good enough for the Grand Prince, and on his command his subjects converted en masse to Christianity.

The point of this historical anecdote is that the Slavic peoples of the north and their Scandinavian neighbors took alcoholic drinks very seriously. The extreme cold temperatures of winter inhibited the shipment of wines and beers, as these relatively low- proof beverages could freeze during transit. Until the introduction of distilling into Eastern Europe in the 1400s, strong drink was made by fermenting strong wines, meads, and beers, freezing them, and then drawing off the alcoholic slush from the frozen water.

The earliest distilled spirit in Eastern Europe was distilled from mead (honey wine) or beer and was called perevara. Vodka (from the Russian word voda, meaning water) was originally used to describe grain distillates that were used for medicinal purposes. As distilling techniques improved Vodka (Wodka in Polish) gradually came to be the accepted term for beverage spirit, regardless of its origin.

[socialist_n_TN]

79. No actually that was Marx........

paraphrased by me. :) But Trotsky was a classic Marxist, so I'm sure he would have approved of the sentiment. :)

So if I'm in Russia and I ask for water (I don't usually drink alcohol), I'd get vodka??? What if I just wanted water?

[BOG PERSON]

66. subsistence isn't relative

we know that there aren't any real differences between the biological requirements of the indian labourer and the american labourer. they are both human. one might prefer rice and the other wheat, one might like tea and other coffee, but that is the extent of the difference.

[white_wolf]

72. Are those really the standards you want to accept?

I suppose beggars in Victorian England had nothing to complain about since they were a little better off than tribal societies. What utter bullshit. Between this and your "come to Jesus" post I have to wonder if you aren't a Right-winger. Oh and no I have no desire to come to Jesus. I have no need for superstitious myths.

[BOG PERSON]

74. i accept an international single standard

not a nationalist double standard. much like jesus, who loves all colors and believes everybody ought to receive a wage that is commensurate with their skills + education, regardless of nationality ♥

[unblock]

48. on the contrary, i think it's high time we actually gave it a try.

unregulated, anything goes for the masses and corrupt, protected, socialism for the wealthy is NOT capitalism.

genuine, fair competition is a fundamental part of capitalism, and we're seriously lacking in that regard.

[Recursion]

49. No

It's the worst form of economic organization except for everything else we've tried. I would prefer if we were a more social democracy, but even in Scandinavia there is a strong sense of bourgeois property.

[Festivito]

50. Pure capitalism sucks, but so does pure socialism. It's up to us humans to be human with them.

For example, regulate the capitalism with the socialism of one man one vote.

[yodermon]

52. It's reaching it natural and logical endpoint. The owners have accrued all the wealth,

and are just SITTING on it.

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Their profits are at all time highs, their cash reserves are at all time highs, and yet we have high unemployment, our social safety net is "on the table", and we're about to default on our sovereign debt. Mission USA: accomplished. On to China.

yay capitalism.

[Harmony Blue]

55. Capitalism is a failed economic system for the vast majority

which I am glad to see the world starting to realize.

[BOG PERSON]

57. NO

it is not capitalism that failed, it is we who failed capitalism. now that this Recession taught us just how frail and flawed we are as a species, let's all give ourselves to Jesus, who will accept us no matter what we've done or what we're capable of.

[Shagbark Hickory]

63. Did you forget teh sarcasm icon?

[fivepennies]

59. Old news.

http://files.usgwarchives.org/sd/brown/ehbc/ehbc-fulltext.txt

“Turbulent men are attracted to a frontier area and although Aberdeen was never a
Tombstone or a Leadville and it never had need for a "boot-hill," it was a place where a lawyer and a judge could angrily wrestle in a business street gutter in broad daylight and where some of the more prominent men were likely to take a punch at an enemy if they met him in the post office.
The same lack of restraint was reflected in politics. Aberdeen was a town where
angry, bitter men could and did hold meetings under banners which screamed "Down with Capitalism."

~~

Some people seem to think the battle against capitalism is a new fad, so I thought some perspective on the matter would be good. IMHO, until this failed system implodes and something new is started, we're stuck with it. I am curious, though, to see if it comes to judges and lawyers wrestling in the street gutters once again. :evilgrin:

[blindpig]

62. It's been wildly successful for the ruling class.

That's all it was supposed to do.

[robcon]

68. Capitalism is triumphant.

Venezuela and Cuba continue to impoverish their people.

[white_wolf]

69. What utter bullshit.

When the CIA tried to overthrow Chavez the people rallied to save him. If they were that bad off they wouldn't have risked so much. He survived one recall election which proves he has the support of the majority of the people. Why don't you quit watching Fox News.

[Taverner]

70. Not only has it failed, but it has destroyed any chance of capitalism "working" again

At this point, it's socialism or death

[Rex]

71. Why do we always blame the tool and not the people that broke the tool?

We humans are stupid creatures...my feline friends are right, they are far superior to us humans. No wonder I envy their 16-20 hour lounge days!

[white_wolf]

75. The tool encourages people to misuse it.

Capitalism encourages the worst in human nature.

[socialist_n_TN]

80. And that's the crux of it. So many people want to blame

"human nature" for socialism being a utopian ideal. It'll never work because of "human nature". But they're cheerleaders for a system that encourages the absolute WORST of "human nature". It makes absolutely NO sense.

[MNBrewer]

73. K n R

[Jack Sprat]

76. Sure, you bet. But public money is being used

to maniacally keep it operating at a huge loss of the public's money. The banks that should have been allowed to fail are making money off the money we lent to them from our Treasury. Ironic, isn't it?