Is Predatory Capitalism Sacred?

[Sinti]

The Golden Rule of modern "cutthroat" capitalism is Grow or Die. You must grow in profit and market share or be plowed under by the ever-churning engine of progress. Kill or be killed. Small fish can eat big fish, if bigger fish are backing them.

It seems to me that this system has hit the wall, yet big businesses (and others) are clinging to it, even becoming more zealous in their adherence to the rule.

Every large business I see seems to want to reduce costs, grow share, crush competition, and come out the only one left standing. I transcribe a lot of C-levels and market analysts in my business, these are the terms they think in. "The New Normal" means no real recovery of the average citizen's buying power (fewer jobs and lower wages), and a slight recovery for small business, if they can compete with the efficiencies of scale that the megas have.

They have to think this way, because if they don't their business fails. If they don't grow, a stock that grandma's retirement depends on falls (it can be drastic), and grandma might be going hungry from that. The system holds many grandmas hostage. To make it worse, a strike suit could drive the stock even lower and make them all but worthless. The entire system is rigged for self-destruction, to my mind.

Grow or die, the perfect outcome of this mantra is a $0 wage, complete ownership of raw materials by a very few, and ownership of all tools by a very few. That very few may then fight amongst themselves, but at that point who cares. It's not an accident that this happens, it's the object of the game.

If the perfect wage is $0, who are they building all this junk for - is it a gift to landfills?

The golden rule for workers also seems to kind of be "grow or die" but rather than grow they say "increase productivity." Is there a point which the machine lurches out of control from such exuberant grinding up of souls?

This self-destructive market system seems completely based on faith to me. Is it sacred?

Am I seeing things wrong somehow? It's been a rough week.

[sharesunited]

1. Destruction is definitely part of the capitalist economic model.

It's supposed to be a creative destruction from which new shoots sprout.

What many consider sacred is the freedom which is necessary to allow it to happen.

The destruction can be brutal on people though, and people vote.

That's why the mixed economy compromise between laissez faire and government ownership and control is the shining path.

[Sinti]

3. I think the idea that continuous unbridled growth

for a single company, which has to be done by acquisition most of the time, is fundamentally unsound. I'm not talking about Adam Smith, I'm talking about the modern style. Government ownership wouldn't be necessary if we understood the limits of growth.

It's demanded that even monopolies grow in double digits year-over-year, if they don't their stock gets devalued. The multinational monopolies are killing us, right now, and they must be broken up if sanity is to return, but if they don't kill us they die.

I'm thinking smart people could come up with a better model that recognizes this limitation and returns some rationalism to the market. I love mom and pop shops, built out of the love of something, or just from that self-starting mentality.

Freedom to start a business, freedom to create with new ideas and fresh approaches, and freedom to fail are all wonderful things, but the system itself is designed to destroy such things. So few have so much paper that they can trade it around nearly autonomously and manipulate the markets (stock, commodities and FOREX). We have this top heavy, crash and rebuild cycle, but we never fix the underlying problem. The market guys just say, oh well, this happens every so often, nothing we can do - it's the cost of doing business.

Imagine profit being more important than a baby having medical care, well-baby care is very important. I'm glad I don't do any actual work for the insurance cartels, I can't imagine what kind of horrors I'd be privy to. I'm just wondering if I've fallen off the deep end, or if others can see the wall, also.

To me systems are systems, they are not sacred. You use what works until you find something that works better. What's the point of the system we're using and does it work as it claims to? It seems to fail a basic logic test for me. I keep expecting some really well thought out paper from some Ph.D. economist to come along and straighten this out with some even more perfect system, but apparently that's like expecting fairies and unicorns to come and carry us all away to la-la land.

[Hannah Bell]

2. "If the perfect wage is $0, who are they building all this junk for"

one of the many absurdities you see once you start thinking deeper than the soundbites.

[upi402]

4. It has no restraint. It owns both parties

Most of the former Democratic party does the bidding of corporatist elites, and all of the Republican party. May as well throw the activist courts in there too because they actively destroy unions and workers' rights just like the uniparty does.

Even Reagan cabinet official George Schultz said that unions were necessary to balance the power of capitalism. But corporate power exceeded the tipping point and everything's over but the crying.

[h9socialist]

5. If it is sacred, it's time for sacrilege!!!!!

First of all, I strongly urge reading E.F. Schumacher's old classic "Small Is Beautiful." Growth for the sake of growth is irrational, and unsustainable. I imagine that the 21st Century will teach this lesson to mankind in merciless ways. The tragedy is that the perpetrators are likely the best protected.

As to capitalism: may it rot in the fires of Hell and damnation!

Brother Karl Marx was very correct about many of the philosophical underpinnings of capitalist economy, but he could not have foreseen the evolution of the system that followed his times. Capitalist enterprise has become the unchallenged leader of productivity and material production. Yet it takes extraordinary efforts to bring the slightest modicum of social concern to the market. Markets are not the solution to our problems -- they are the problem.

Socialism is struggling for a new existence . . . not based on the old Soviet model, but upon the radical democratization of economic society. The new socialism doesn't look like commissars and missiles in parades -- rather it looks like ordinary people who want politics to serve the people rather than the banks and corporations. Brother Michael Moore's latest movie did a great service by revealing the Citibank letter on the capitalist Plutonomy. The capitalists are most frightened by the concept of "one-person, one-vote." Tony Benn emphasized that democracy is the most radical idea of all. Make people feel as if their vote is effective, counts and works for them, and they are less likely to be submissive to the status quo.

Thus, I believe that democratic socialism is still the guiding light of progressive politics, and represents the best hope for humanity in the 21st Century.

[IrateCitizen]

6. "Small is Beautiful" is a wonderful book

One of my all-time favorites.

I'd also highly recommend revisiting the writings of Thomas Paine or, reading Harvey Kaye's book about the impact of his life, Thomas Paine and the Promise of America.

Now is the time for radicalism -- by that I mean the original meaning of the word, which meant "getting to the root of the problem." Schumacher and Paine are two good starting points in this.

[h9socialist]

7. OK --

I also suggest going to the library and finding anything you can by Michael Harrington. In this case the best choices are: "The Next Left" and "Socialism: Past and Future."