Why Capitalism is going to fail and take us with it if we aren't careful.

[white_wolf]

The capitalist class seeks to hoard all wealth and therefore power into their hands in order to better exploit the working class and maintain their lifestyle. They have created large numbers of unemployed so that if the workers complain they can easily be replaced. Not only that, but the Right is putting out the propaganda that we should be thankful to the "job creators"(by the way I'm so fucking sick of that term.) for being so kind as to allows to be wage slaves.

The problem is that this system cannot sustain itself. Even Wal-mart has reported falling profits because people don't have enough money to spend on goods. I'm sure it is the same for other companies. When you hoard all the money for yourself there is no one to buy your products and eventually even your money becomes useless as people simply stop using it in the long run.

Finally Capitalism runs in to the problem of infinite growth on a finite earth. Adam Smith thought that resources were limitless and could be exploited limitlessness. We now know better, but the ruling capitalist class seems to hold on to that old mentality. This is shown by the oil companies refusal to consider alternate forms of energy despite the fact that we know oil is starting to run out. This mentality also leads them to destroy the environment by polluting the natural environment with no thought to the consequences of their actions. The disaster in Japan is result of allowing them to act unregulated without concern for the people around them or the environment. This attitude of endless exploitation with no thought for consequences has also lead to an increase in global warming which if left unchecked could cause an amount of death by nature unseen since the Black Plague.

[KansDem]

1. Capitalism has already failed...it died with TARP

If we really had "capitalism," all "players" in the system would have perished with the economic meltdown. There would be no "bailout" from the government.

I don't know what we have now, but it's not "capitalism"

[david_vincent]

4. Bingo --

some folks who know what they're talking about, like Immanuel Wallerstein, say that capitalism just died the death, and that no one knows what's going to replace it, hence all the uncertainty in global markets, etc.

[Hubert Flottz]

13. Cronyism...

The entire city of Washington DC is in the hands of people who hate democracy.

[ixion]

9. Excactly. What we have now is Crony Corporatism

Which, which a cousin of capitalism by birth, is in no shape or form capitalism.

It has nothing to do with producing anything.

It has nothing to do with the free market.

It has everything to do with being a well-connected beltway insider.

[kenny blankenship]

116. The concern of capitalism: RETURN on capital-not making better mousetraps, miracle cures, flyingcars

If you can make money on whizzing bits of electronic information that give you an instantaneous advantage in predicting the price of shares of stock, you do it. You have to buy privileged access to that information and build supercomputers and pay programmers. But after that IT'S FREE MONEY, and nobody who doesn't have financial resources at the same scale as a major Wall St. firm can possibly enter the market to compete. Before you know it, THREE QUARTERS OF ALL STOCK TRADING is just computers buying and dumping shares, holding them for an average of about 11 seconds. You pay the NYSE & NASDAQ for the privileged access, you pay the electric bills to make your supercomputer go, and you make free money off of schmucks thinking they can make money in Wall St. Fucking Paradise.

If you can charge people rent for simply being alive within the borders of Country X, you do that. You need to bribe elected officials to pass a law making the national government the collection agency for your health insurance corporation, but after that IT'S FREE MONEY. Hell, you can write into the law that you have a guaranteed profit margin. Costs can be whatever - you make your profit, and off of everyone whether they like your product or not, or whether they think they need it or not. Nobody who is not already part of the officially protected health insurance cartel can possibly horn in on the market and compete.

Neither of these groups of wiseguys MAKES anything, and that is the PERFECT 21st century capitalist's business model. Let "Government Motors" try to invent the flying car. They can go broke again pouring all their money into trying to INVENT something that doesn't exist. A good capitalist is looking for a scheme to make money off NOTHING. And as they find more and more ways to do nothing but collect rents, or to skim from the frenetic vain efforts of others to do something, or make something, or to invest "wisely", that is just capitalism evolving into more pure forms of seeking return. Their rate of return goes up because their costs are going down. Fire people! Destroy resources so that you can corner what's left and drive the price through the roof! Bribe the Government to come onboard as your partner and give you its powers of legal coercion. It's just becoming more true to what it's always been about.

[TBMASE]

2. The question is, if it fails, what will replace it?

What economic system is better than pure capitalism for building wealth?
And when I say PURE capitalism, I don't mean "too big to fail" nonsense

[white_wolf]

6. The most pure form of capitalism is laissez faire.

Study the era of the Industrial Revolution if you want to see what it was like for the working class. Trust me we don't want that back. I'm sure if you've been on these forums for awhile you can guess what I want to replace it with. You are right capitalism builds wealth, but the wealth is done being built we now need a way to distribute it fairly. That is where socialism comes in.

[TBMASE]

8. Wealth is done being built? LOL! We dont' have a caste system

you can build wealth and lose it and build it back.
And "working class" makes believe that someone who makes $200,000/yr doesn't work for their money.
And pure capitalism lies in the barter system.

[white_wolf]

16. Go take a history class or econmic theory class.

Capitalism is more than just trade. It is a system of class relations that didn't really exist until the Industrial Revolution and wasn't formalized into a theory really until Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations. To say that pure capitalism is a barter system is plain wrong. Pure capitalism is as i said laissez faire that was used during the Industrial Revolution.

[TBMASE]

21. Have it your way

there was no wealth creation or capitalism until Adam Smith wrote a book.

[white_wolf]

22. Capitalism as a system did not exist until the Industrial Revolution.

That is a basic fact. If you are too ignorant to see that then it's your problem.

[TBMASE]

23. if you want to make believe capitalism as a system didn't exist

until a book was written you're free to believe it.

[TBMASE]

27. Delete

[white_wolf]

30. Ask a historian when capitalism first came into existence.

I highly doubt you can find any that agree with your claim that it predates the Industrial Revolution.

[TBMASE]

31. I gave you the name of a book with writings the pre-date the industrial revolution

and Adam Smith. Like I said, if you want to make believe Capitalism didn't exist until 1776 when Wealth of Nations was published, you're free to believe that.

[bigmonkey]

54. You are confusing capitalism with commerce.

Yours is the error, the two are not the same.

[TBMASE]

59. Actually, I'm not

I've referenced a book that explores capitalist ideas prior to Wealth of Nations.

[bigmonkey]

65. The "naturalism" of capitalism is a false assertion.

Capitalism isn't any more natural than Presbyterianism. The economists wanted to be like the physicists, so they fabricated atom-like events to give their "science" an appearance of primacy. The basis of the theory of capitalism is rotten, that's why it's so hard to see, there's such a superstructure built on it in the meantime. The money and power of the people at the top of the heap that this false "science" has piled up use the resources they have to suppress evidence that calls the theory into question. Capitalist theory is not falsifiable partially because the critiques don't go deep enough, and partially because the evidence for the critiques is the subject of political suppression.

Just think about all the environmental destruction, a destruction that can never be discounted by any sort of rational thought process, that is also considered inevitable because capitalism is propagandized into an appearance of inevitability. If you are an enthusiast of that perspective, you are almost literally feeding off the blood of your grandchildren, no joke or exaggeration.

[Starry Messenger]

69. Beautifully summed up.

:thumbsup:

[leftstreet]

70. +1

[Silent3]

89. Terrible analogy. Presbyterianism is one of many variation of Christianity...

...and Christianity is only one of many major branches of religion. Capitalism is a huge branch of economic theory and practice among very few branches.

The particular bylaws and rituals and hymn books of Presbyterianism are far from inevitable. On the other hand, that someone, somewhere was going to "invent" (which isn't exactly the right word) capitalism, once a few basic ingredients were in place (currency, recognition of private property, some degree of individual freedom to trade one's goods and services with others) was practically inevitable.

The economists wanted to be like the physicists, so they fabricated atom-like events to give their "science"...

Economists didn't create capitalism. No matter how good or bad their "science", that science came about as a way to describe and analyize economic behavior that already existed. Economists no more created capitalism than Newton and Einstein created gravity.

[bigmonkey]

93. Precisely my point.

Capitalism is far from inevitable. Economists did create capitalism. It's not "natural". The myth of inevitablity is one of the main ways it maintains its hold on the current human imagination. You are naively championing precisely the perspective I'm criticizing. I clearly hit a nerve, and I'm glad.

Look at the destruction that capitalism is driving worldwide. This destruction is "natural" in the same way that it's "natural" to destroy Native American populations, or suppress minority rights.

If you believe that capitalism is natural, you are a member of a cult, in my opinion. A perverse cult whose members often hunt down and suppress beliefs they feel threaten its "natural" ascendancy. Yes, it's a huge branch among few, but the reason for that is the point of contention. It's unnatural, a matter of faith, to champion it as inevitable.

[Silent3]

94. The only nerve you hit was the one that triggers eye rolling

Capitalism might not be as natural as walking and breathing, but it's at least as "natural" as, oh, people in cold climates building houses with fireplaces. Once society has provided a few of the basic ingredients someone (in fact, over and over again, several someones without needing to know about the other someones) is going to figure it out, try it, keep doing it, and have a lot of people imitate that behavior.

You think takes an diabolical, organized conspiracy to trick a farmer who happens to have a nice piece of land, but who can't handle the work of farming it all by himself, into thinking of the idea of paying a few hungry people (possibly with money, but perhaps with food and shelter) to help him out, and for that farmer to decide to still keep the ownership of the land and farming equipment (the "means of production") to himself?

You think only scheming economists spinning "myths of inevitability" could fool the owner of a boat into hiring other people to help him fish, with the boat owner making more money when the fish is sold in town than the non-boat-owning helpers?

Was the great evil conspiracy making people think they could own land and own boats, because the only possible "natural" way of viewing such things is as communal property?

[bigmonkey]

96. You can't see the difference between money, commerce, and capitalism?

Don't blame me, I'm just pointing it out. Just insisting it's true that they are the same is pointless, and proves my point by example.

(edited for clarity)

[Silent3]

98. Where did I say all of those were the same thing?

Can't you see the difference between "related" and "equivalent"?

Perhaps you can, but if you spoke as if you could, you'd have to lose a convenient straw man.

[bigmonkey]

102. This side thread has wandered far from the original cry against capitalism.

I'll try to summarize my point. Money and commerce both antedate capitalism. Capitalism is a theory about human economic behavior, and also nowadays a label used for a system that's literally destroying the ability of the earth to sustain human life, let alone human society. The theory used the evidence of certain human behaviors of the kind you cite, but in order to attain rigor it also parsed ownership and control of resources in certain ways, some unscientific, some plausibly accurate, some mere assertion. You are skipping that very step, where all the mayhem happens, when you use examples like the ones you did to imply that capitalism (are we talking about the theory or the current social framework?) is natural. I'm saying, because of the (I think very flawed, and sometimes demonstrably anti-scientific) theoretical step, the notion that capitalism is natural is false, but that false notion inflames many people with a cult-like fervor that makes the situation much worse. They conclude that corporate behavior is natural, or that taxes are unnatural, or that utilitarianism is an accurate, comprehensive description of human behavior. The cultists actually treat evidence that tarnishes this reputation for naturalness as existentially threatening, as perverse, and use their resources to discredit or suppress that evidence.

The side-thread is too long, methinks.

[Silent3]

103. Here's a definition of capitalism for you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism

cap·i·tal·ism (kap-i-tl-iz-uhm)

–noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Even my simple farming and fishing examples fit that definition. I do not see where any "very flawed, and sometimes demonstrably anti-scientific" "theoretical step" is required to arrive at the above definition of capitalism, a definition which is largely descriptive, as opposed to proscriptive.

The fact that there is a lot of bullshit connected to analyzing or recommending or sanctifying capitalism, the fact that some people ascribe nearly magical power to the "invisible hand" of markets, etc., is not an inherent part of capitalism.

[bigmonkey]

104. Seems simple, doesn't it?

But the definitions of, at least:
-investment
-ownership
-production
-distribution
-exchange
-wealth
-made
-private individuals
-corporations (seriously, you can't possibly believe that corporations are simple, natural things)

are all based (in capitalism) on a particular utilitarian philosophy, have been subjects of political struggle. They have had analyses made of them that have been outlawed and violently suppressed using legal and extralegal force. Wars have been fought over the definition of these things. You want me (or anyone) to think that this is a simple, natural matter?

[Silent3]

105. Of course real world problems are complex...

...which is why I object to the oversimplification of taking practically everything wrong in the world, things that have a lot to do with flaws common to all human systems and institutions where ambitious and greedy people are involved, and trying to heap all of that on top of "capitalism".

[bigmonkey]

106. You are carefully avoiding the issue.

The conversation has been drawn out into details. Pointing to the details, you're now saying that "the world is complex", while reverting to a notion of capitalism as having a simple, natural status that I don't think has any support. This is faith, not clear seeing.

Capitalism is acting in the real world, not some sort of libertarian ideal location where the "free market" has its home. This business religion and its zealots are way out of harmony with the real world. Faith in it is blinding millions to its horrendous ramifications, and it needs to be brought to account.

[Silent3]

107. Capitalism is a description of the way people act...

...it is not something that itself acts.

The conversation has been drawn out into details. Pointing to the details, you're now saying that "the world is complex", while reverting to a notion of capitalism as having a simple, natural status that I don't think has any support. This is faith, not clear seeing.

I use a simpler definition of capitalism than you do. That definition requires no "faith", and by that definition capitalism arises quite naturally. My definition has nothing to do with faith in the "free market", and it has nothing to do with whether or not the outcomes of capitalistic behavior will be good or bad. It simply describes a form of economic behavior that people fall into without having to adopt it or subscribe to it or have it imposed on them.

The whole conglomeration of of social and political ills you call capitalism is a different matter. It is because I recognize the complexity of problems in the world that I don't lump all of those problems together with the simpler idea of capitalism. In recognizing the complexity of our situation I see that many of those same problems can and do arise both with and without capitalism.

[bigmonkey]

108. It does require faith.

It requires faith that the parsing of those elements I listed, perhaps among others, is true. They are, instead, social constructs, and have been subject to political struggle, hence can't be "true" in the sense that rocks are hard, or water is wet. Yet capitalists have propagandized those definitions to such a degree that someone can list the highly contextualized definition you provided, and believe it's "simple".

This bloodless focus on which definition to use is a waste of human effort, though, in the face of the cataclysmic environmental and political problems the widespread myth of capitalism makes nearly impossible to confront. This is a crisis.

[Silent3]

109. You're going to have to define the word "faith" now...

...because as best as I can follow you, there's this big conspiratorial manipulation of words and ideas going on to support capitalism, which is not what I think it is, but instead is this terribly unnatural thing which is just as arbitrary and strange as a particular religion like Presbyterianism, and somehow not buying into your interpretation of all of this is an act of "faith".

Rigggghhtt.

Imagine a group of young children somehow stranded and lost on another planet out of touch with the rest of humanity, children either too young or too previously isolated to have any knowledge or understanding of any currently established religious or economic ideas -- not even some "Jesus loves you!" children's song, not even aware of buying food in grocery stores or setting up lemonade stands.

Somehow, perhaps by being lucky enough to start out in a place with a gentle climate and abundant easily-picked fruits and nuts, the children manage to grow up, have children of their own, and begin to spread out into this new world.

Thousands of years later, when the population of the new planet has reached at least tens of millions, and enough science and technology has been rediscovered and reinvented for industrial development to begin, the planet is rediscovered by the rest of humanity.

Are you honestly telling me you'd be just as surprised and shocked to find people on this other planet practicing capitalism as you would finding that they'd not only re-created Christianity, but that they'd recreated specifically Presbyterianism?

[bigmonkey]

115. I can't answer that last question.

We live in a highly propagandized society, where enormous resources are used to inculcate the idea that capitalism is natural behavior, so it's hard to do that specific comparison. It could be that Presbyterianism is an overshoot, perhaps it should be more like Protestantism. :-)

But you are implying, with a rhetorical sneer, that capitalism would of course naturally happen. I can't see the rationale for thinking that, but it clearly seems natural to you. When industrialism happens, your story holds, capitalism will naturally follow. This is a myth, in the sense that it's supposed to be revealing a pattern that "should" be perceived to be a cosmic one, i.e. one that's universal. (You even construct it to show that capitalism is not even tied to the context of this planet.) You're telling a didactic myth, like the utilitarian myth about the young man who leaves home, takes his brilliant personal idea to the marketplace, and sells it on the open market - it's meant to be realer than real, to serve as a clearing foundation for further human thought. That marketplace myth teaches that the act of selling is the basis of human interaction - yours says that capitalism is a natural development, or perhaps, because it leaves out any story of further change, that it's the culmination of human society.

It seems more to me that capitalism is either a passing phase that in the earth's case has overstayed its "naturally" allotted time, or an outright perversion of human development. The inability to at least outgrow capitalism is killing us, yet it's hardly even tolerated to question it. Our situation is actually so dire that it should be subject to really close, unsympathetic investigation, with the view that it could be entirely rejected as inappropriate, because of either a time-bound or circumstance-dependent context. Stories like yours encourage the belief (or faith) that there's no point in such investigation - it would be like questioning the sky.

(minor edit for missing word)

[Silent3]

117. It's not "faith" to take make an educated guess from what you see...

...of human nature.

We live in a highly propagandized society...

So I'm supposed to take your word for it that if I disagree with you, I must be a faithful follower of propaganda, and that yours is the opinion that is objective and has broken free of propaganda?

Since we can't really run experiments like my thought experiment with another planet, that limits the degree that anyone -- you or me -- can prove about what humanity might do in different circumstances. I'd say, however, that since the one instance of humanity that we can know about has indeed developed capitalism, the burden of proof is on you, not me, that it's not a natural development.

Take a look at this: http://www.ted.com/talks/laurie_santos.html

Monkeys not only fairly naturally pick up the idea of a token economy, they manifest some of the same kinds of economic irrationality that humans do.

How about monkey prostitution? http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700821,00.html

While this isn't quite capitalism, it goes to show that some of the rudiments of economic behavior aren't even exclusive to our species. You may need to broaden your idea of the degree and scope of behavior that might be natural.

By the way, I sure hope your aren't laboring under the false idea that "natural" means the same thing as "good". While I doubt that I'm anywhere near as down on capitalism as you, I'm certainly not saying because capitalism is natural that being natural makes it beneficial or necessary.

It seems more to me that capitalism is either a passing phase...

Trying to move the goalposts now? I never said capitalism was a natural permanent state. A natural stage is a natural stage.

Our situation is actually so dire that it should be subject to really close, unsympathetic investigation...

Shall I take it that the dire "our situation" you refer to here is chiefly (not necessarily exclusively) the ecological damage to the planet? If so, non-capitalists have also demonstrated quite an amazing capacity for environmental damage. It's wishful thinking -- and demonstrative of the conflation I've mentioned -- to think that environmental problems would go away, or even be dramatically reduced, by the absence of capitalism.

Getting back to what's "natural", it could be that humanity is naturally self-destructive. We wouldn't be the first such species.

[bigmonkey]

119. You seem upset.

Generalizations from one example have no privileged status. The burden is not on me to prove that capitalism is not natural. It's by no means an extraordinary claim.

Use of money and capitalism are not the same thing. You keep implying that they are, or that the latter naturally follows from the former.

Sexuality is social, even political. I don't see what speculation about "prostitution" among macaques is supposed to show, but for me what it shows is that the interpretation of behavior as "capitalistic" is rampant.

I don't believe that humanity is naturally self-destructive.

The overarching problem, as I see it, is the influence that this capitalist myth system has on human thinking, and the concerted, well-funded activity to deliberately increase its influence. It's like the meme version of a virus, seizing control of the human mind to reproduce itself. It's making it very difficult to choose rationally what human civilization needs to do in this circumstance. Your despairing "...it could be that humanity is naturally self-destructive..." fits right in with the totalizing story about capitalism - that the destruction that this system is fueling through its acceleration and distortion of industrialism is natural, that there's nothing that we can do.

You might consider whether you really have come to that conclusion on your own, or whether you have been unduly influenced by deliberate efforts to blunt your engagement.

[Silent3]

120. Of course I seem upset. Your little "faith" bit is snide.

Generalizations from one example have no privileged status.

They aren't very privileged, but they're more privileged than generalizations from NO examples.

Use of money and capitalism are not the same thing.

I already said that myself. That you repeat it back to me as if it's a revelation only goes to show you're not paying much attention.

I don't believe that humanity is naturally self-destructive.

Did I say that I did? I merely said it was possible. I apologize if trying to make you think in terms of possibilities and probabilities is too much for you. Since you've got your "belief", I guess you're all set.

...that there's nothing that we can do.

And where does that come from, other than the straw men you have lined up in your head?

You might consider whether you really have come to that conclusion on your own...

I can consider many things. How much weight I apply to those considerations is a factor of how much evidence is brought to bear to support them. You seem to take the attitude that whatever you say bears no burden of proof, that your conspiratorial opinions are all the best default positions, and it's up to others to prove you wrong, otherwise they are apparently faith-addled dupes of your well-funded conspiracy.

[bigmonkey]

121. I wish you well.

This has been a helpful conversation for me, and I'm grateful to you for engaging with me. I'm sorry if you feel that it hasn't been helpful to you. This is a difficult gap to bridge. I do sincerely feel we're all under undue, over-funded influence, and I feel it a hard duty to confront that. What I'm talking about is not necessarily a conspiracy in the strictest sense, maybe just a confluence of results of obvious moves various actors can make if those actors are at the top of the heap in a capitalist society. Was the anti-communist panic of the 50s a conspiracy? As Doris Lessing said, the atmosphere of a time has its own force. To confront the failures of capitalism and try to undermine its legitimacy is not the downstream direction right now, but I feel I have to do something.

I say it's a hard duty because each time one confronts it one is confronting a particular person - this feels like an attack. I'm saying - look, consider that we're perhaps both on the same side, and that some of what seems solid about the story of this civilization is actually false consciousness. Even if we seem powerless, we can at least withdraw our approval.

The story of capitalism being natural isn't, perhaps, as dangerous as an intellectual assertion as it is as a myth that influences casual opinion. Casually reinforcing the basis of the myth isn't so dangerous in the cut-and-thrust of argument as it may be in everyday, head-nodding conversation.

Like I said, I wish you well.

[BobbyBoring]

113. I watched Inside Job this morning

and it confirms what you say. We are taught to believe it is natural and the people that teach it see nothing wrong with the destruction they have wrought.

Capitalism in its present form needs to be destroyed. The guy in Oslo went after the wrong people~

[hifiguy]

99. Superbly said. nt

[swilton]

114. Totally agree that capitalism isn't natural

What we have now = capitalism relies on growth - is its perpetrators are trying to expand it to a global financial system. Led/enforced by the military controlled Washington DC, the end-game is a world where lines of nation states are eroded and governance is executed by global elites. One of the architects for the 'new world order' is Zbigniev Brzezinski - who contributed to the foreign policies of many administrations from Reagan to the present.

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-XIeb879SY

[TBMASE]

29. Commerce, Culture and Liberty is a book you might want to check out

[BOG PERSON]

49. that is not at all a basic fact

and if you had actually read anything by the guy in your avatar you would know that, too.

[white_wolf]

50. Capitalism has its roots in the medieval merchant guilds.

However, to say that it pure form is a barter system is false and what I have been objecting too.

[BOG PERSON]

51. sorry, i just saw that

TBMASE posted "pure capitalism lies in the barter system"

that's pure BS. TBMASE doesn't know what mode of production he lives under. that is sad.

[TBMASE]

60. I'm sorry if you don't understand the concept of "capital"

your mistake isn't my doing

[indurancevile]

67. huh?

[indurancevile]

66. I believe the origins of capitalism are commonly held to be before the industrial revolution.

I don't disagree with the general thrust of your post, I just think you're wrong on this point.

Capitalism LED to the industrial revolution, not vice-versa.

Capitalism, as a deliberate economic system, developed incrementally from the 16th century in Europe,<10> although proto-capitalist organizations existed in the ancient world, and early aspects of merchant capitalism flourished during the Late Middle Ages.<11><12><13> Capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.<13> Capitalism gradually spread throughout Europe, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the main means of industrialization throughout much of the world.<4> Today the capitalist system is the world's dominant economic model.

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

[joshcryer]

76. I would argue that the industrial revolution was created more importantly by freedom from oppression

You can say that the early capitalist state was oppressive if you want, I don't care really about that (and wouldn't debate it), I'm talking explicitly about the Church's insane control over science and understanding and how during the Dark Ages we sat on our hands doing practically nothing for centuries.

Industrial progress was always going to happen in a secular environment more quickly than in one of major oppression (even Stalinist Russia stagnated because the "atheist religion" was taught as strongly as that of Catholicism).

[joshcryer]

75. Capitalism has existed as a system as far back as feudalism, imo, most certainly since mercantilism.

One can argue it did or didn't exist as far back as feudalism and I won't even defend it, I believe feudalism was the early precursor for capitalism in that it was the start of the justification for capital property rights, that is, accumulated goods themselves had value as opposed to a good in and of itself. This is why some anarchists look at capitalism and merely see it as an extension of monetarism (which btw goes back as far as the written language does, as the some of the http://international.loc.gov/intldl/cuneihtml/gazette.html">first written things were monetary).

That said, mercantilism was most certainly capitalistic in nature, and we've had it for a good 500 years.

Capital, accumulated goods, have been around since agriculture. Just because kings and warlords held dominion over those goods does not magically make it "not-capital" or "not-relating-to-capital."

[indurancevile]

84. The hallmark of capitalism is not the possession of capital.

[joshcryer]

86. No true Scotsman...

How does mercantilism differ significantly from modern day capitalism? The only major limitation was that it rejected monetary exchange (that is, the acting motive was the merchant not the banker). Of course, it fails when you have global trade, and so capitalism was inevitable. Either way they both were based on private contract and capital goods.

[Diclotican]

95. TBMASE

TBMASE

Your qoute is maybe the worst fail in history ever noted on DU.. Mostly becouse the world, have had a LOT of wealth creation, and a lot of capitalism long before Adam Smith wrote his book, who changed the life of everyone born after him in the mid 1800s.. Even tho Adam Smith was clearly about the need of legal laws protecting everyone from the greed of uncheched capitalism.. Who it looks like is forgotten by most peopole who read the book..

Go back to a history class, and try to educate yourself about this.. So then you can get back to the subject after a while

Diclotican

[joshcryer]

78. The Industrial Workers of the World had a handle on it. It was the silly World Wars that screwed us.

Had they not happened I believe we'd be in an entirely different world right now. Union busting became the in thing and global exchange became the modus operandi of our culture.

Want to fix the country, and possibly the world?

Legalize actual unions (unions as they were known before the Norris La Guardia Act and the National Labor Relations Act; the latter of which was signed by DU hero FDR).

And implement a highly progressive tax rate with no non-environment related exemptions.

Pow, the United States leaps to the top again, the poverty line would be double what it is now (unclear sentence; whatever income denotes poverty now would be twice as high, so if it's $20k a year now it'd be $40k a year), and much of the world would follow suit.

[rhett o rick]

35. Wow. First of all capitalism by it's very nature will eventually implode.

The big fish eat the small fish until there is only one fish left. Then there will be no one to exploit. Crash. What will probably happen before that is, when enough people are starving while the rich eat caviar, there will be revolution.

Here is a question for you. What will stop the movement of wealth from the lower classes to the upper class?

And the "too big to fail" is what happens at the end for capitalists. AIG ran out of money to gamble with so they convinced our so-called representatives to give them money.

Wall Street makes no wealth. They speculate and move money back and forth pretending it somehow becomes more and more valuable. Then the bubbles break.

I was a fan of Ayn Rand in high school. Then I got into the real world and figured out that her world was as fantasy as Harry Potter. Most libertarians are rich, and never had to face the real world.

[rhett o rick]

36. The Revolution is Waiting. nm

[Selatius]

91. All the stock market does is provide liquidity to the markets and real-time information to buy/trade

The primary creator of wealth has and will always be labor. A pile of lumber can be valued in dollars and cents in one form, but when you apply labor to it and turn it into a house, for instance, it is suddenly valued much differently.

[hifiguy]

100. You are correct, sir.

And anyone who has read even basic Marx understands that his critique of capitalism - that it must, by the terms of its own logic implode after a long, brutal, cannibalistic death spiral - is the most accurate description of that system that has ever been explicated.

[JVS]

92. There's no such animal as pure capitalism.

The closest thing to it are abstract economic models that assume conditions that are never met in real life.

[swilton]

111. Capitalism only builds wealth for the people who are in power

the workers don't have any wealth.

[Bonhomme Richard]

3. It's now, get all I can while I can.

Always has been that way but those forces have, for 50 years been kept on a leash. Reagan threw out that leash and there are very few in the government even willing to mention bringing it back. I am not optimistic.

[white_wolf]

26. Wrong sub thread.

[kctim]

5. If the 'capitalist class' is smart enough

to come up with a scheme to 'exploit the working class and maintain their lifestyle,' then surely they are smart enough to know that if they 'hoard all the money for yourself there is no one to buy your products and eventually even your money becomes useless as people simply stop using it in the long run.'

Why would they hoard all the wealth like that if that makes their wealth useless?

[white_wolf]

7. Perhaps they are too arrognat or short-sighted to see it.

I hope you aren't trying to deny that they are exploiting the working class horribly. That should have become painfully clear to anyone willing to look.

[kctim]

18. I really doubt

that they are not aware of the ramifications if they hoard all the money.

I am more than willing to look, could you give a few examples to explain what you consider exploiting?

[white_wolf]

20. How about the fact that Wall Street received billions in tax payer money

and then paid their CEOs bailouts while the economy is still performing poorly. How about the fact that the rich are fighting tooth and nail to avoid have their taxes raised while trying to cut programs for the poor and needy such as SS,medicare, food stamps, etc. How about the fact that the constantly ship jobs overseas where they can force workers to work in sweatshop conditions while living it up in their mansions. While doing all of this they have the nerve to complain that they are being targeted with class-warfare when we even talk about raising their taxes.

[kctim]

32. Aren't they really

exploiting and dodging government in those examples?

[patrick t. cakes]

77. I think they are educated enough to know

the ramifications of their actions, but they will eat themselves in the end. After they finish with the masses (poor, workers etc...)
they will turn and begin on the weakest among their own class.

[swilton]

112. I think that they are short-sighted

They are certainly missing global warming.

Furthermore, when you get to be that elite (keep in mind this is a very small minority) your concerns change...You are at that point handled and your concerns are at an entirely different level (protecting, hoarding, going to the right parties, maintaining your position on the pedestal and not letting the little people see your biology/humanity) so you view phenomena through an entirely different reality.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Because they ain't half as smart as they think they are.

They use race and politics and gender to divide the proles, but think THEY have it right so the lessons of the past - that the proles will ALWAYS eventually come together to collectively kick their bejeweled asses - are lost on them.

[kctim]

33. IF that is true

then why stop with what has been working for so long? Wouldn't it be smarter to keep the majority comfortable and distracted with their homes, cars and electronics? There is no way they could have forgotten what has worked in the recent past and still works even today.

[white_wolf]

34. Greed and arrogance.

They are never satisfied. It is the nature of the system they have built or perhaps the system simply attracts people like that. Look at a game of Monopoly. In the end a single person owns it all and everyone else is broke. That is the end result of capitalism. Sure it might be spread out among a few more people, but what is a couple of hundred people or even thousands compared to the other billions who will have nothing in the end.

[kctim]

38. Isn't that what is behind the Bilderberg idea?

[white_wolf]

41. I don't know much about the Bilderberg group so I can't comment on them.

However, the evidence for what I'm seeing is all around is. They want all the money and power for themselves.

[kctim]

45. You should look them up then

some people who have are seeing the same things you are.

[rhett o rick]

37. It has nothing to do with intellegence. It has to do with greed. They will kill the goose. nm

[kctim]

39. Why would they allow their greed to kill the goose

if it means their wealth would be meaningless?

[white_wolf]

43. Tell me what does your signature mean?

[kctim]

46. It is a motorcycle thing

nothing to do with politics or wealth.

[white_wolf]

47. I actually thought it might be.

I've heard about it on a few motorcycle shows. One day I want to get a motorcycle.

[kctim]

81. For some, riding is the greatest feeling in the world

[Common Sense Party]

88. Make sure it's not a capitalist motorcycle. n/t

[rhett o rick]

52. Each wants more than the next. That's what greed is. There is no rationality to greed.

That's the moral of the story about the golden goose. Maybe not all are greedy but the greedy will ruin it for everyone. We are seeing it before our eyes. This is the capitalism end-game. Every year there are less and less banks. Within a year or two there will be only one bank and one insurance company and one media corp and one oil company. That's the evolution of capitalism.

[socialist_n_TN]

56. OK then. That should make the takeover and

expropriation of assets easier.

[rhett o rick]

57. How do you propose we do that? nm

[RaleighNCDUer]

68. Not to mention taking a lot fewer tumbrels. nt

[joshcryer]

74. You would need a constitutional amendment to expropriate without compensation.

Regulation is a far cheaper and more realistic route.

It would help to allow actual unions to exist again.

[kctim]

82. The One World Government theory?

[joshcryer]

73. Statistics show that wealth hoarding is not really happening. The developing world...

...is moving up a lot faster than the developed world did, the capitalists know what they're doing, they just don't have a handle on where it will end up if new technologies are not produced.

http://www.gapminder.org/

What is pissing off those in the west is that the planet has a few hundred billionares, what they miss is that the standard of living for those in the west is unparalleled in the history of humanity, even those who are impoverished are living like kings.

edit: To be more clear, the wealth inequality in the United States is a symptom of hoarding but also a decline in the empire. It is not reflected on the planet as a whole. It could be reversed within a year if we had the right politicians in place to fix the country, however, those politicians do not exist nor is it likely that we'll put them into power, so the decline of the United States will continue unabated.

[hifiguy]

101. Greed is not and never has been self-regulating.

Greed is a pathology that eventually destroys even its hosts, but only after it destroys all the rest of society.

[DainBramaged]

10. If we aren't the ruling class why should we care?

[white_wolf]

12. Becuase the ruling class is likely expolting you and everyone you know.

[CaptRandom]

11. we don't have capitalism...

we have corporate socialism..

everything for the good of the corporations.

[cbdo2007]

19. anti-Capitalism people here don't understand this....

that although we have "capitalism" it really is very far from what capitalism actually is.

[joshcryer]

72. Corporate socialism is always the result of an unregulated free market.

If you didn't have a constitutionally bound judicial system you'd have corporate rules and regulations that must be adhered to.

[rhett o rick]

53. I am betting you made that up. nm

[CaptRandom]

64. derp! n/t

[SidDithers]

15. Viva la revolucion!!...

:rofl:

Sid

[socialist_n_TN]

17. I can't disagree with a thing.......

Plus about a million! :)

[Starry Messenger]

24. Agreed, except this is what capitalism looks like when it is successful.

Endless exploitation is the ultimate result.

[toddwv]

25. Capitalism failed almost 100 years ago.

It took socialist principles to revive the economy and raise the US up to its status as a world power.

Now it looks like we get to repeat the cycle.

[hifiguy]

28. Off to the greatest page with you

:thumbsup:

[BOG PERSON]

40. don't you ever get tired of posting radical gibberish?

honestly.

[white_wolf]

42. Don't you ever get tired of adding nothing to discussions

but right-wing gibberish? Honestly.

[GliderGuider]

44. Is there a socio-political-economic system that is sustainable?

I don't believe there is.

The system in use in the US and Europe right now - basically a corporatist oligopoly - is failing (has failed) because of over-consumption, resource depletion, excessive complexity and the excessive consolidation of wealth and power. However I know of no other system that has been tried on the planet in the last 5,000 years that has avoided all those faults - certainly not enough to be considered truly sustainable. Virtually all of them suffer from one or more of those four shortcomings. In earlier times we avoided the consequences by moving to new regions of the planet, but this is no longer possible.

As far as I can tell the problem originates in our cultural narrative (the story we tell ourselves about who we are and how we fit into the universe) that we have been using since the invention of agriculture. The core of that narrative is, "We own the place." Until we change that core belief and all the behaviour that flows from it, we will continue on our present course - or near enough to it not to make any real difference.

Fortunately, human culture arises from the physical circumstances under which we live - the nature and quantity of resources available, the climate and food growing conditions, and our population. As those change, so does the culture we build on top of them. All those factors are in the process of changing as we approach the limits to growth, so our culture and its narrative will inevitably change too. Unfortunately our culture and behaviour will only change after our physical circumstances change, as a response to their change. That means things are going to get a lot more uncomfortable over the next 50 to 100 years.

I don't think there's much we (the global, collective "we") can do about the overall outcome. But there's a lot we can do as individuals to improve our local possibilities. It's time to get busy.

[joshcryer]

79. It's not really "We own the place" so much "we own our inferiors."

The fact that we consider one another inferior goes a long way toward that sentiment, and I believe is the root of the problem.

[cali]

48. master of the obvious. yes, we know.

but no matter what system you employ, the fact is that the population is too large.

[B Calm]

55. Capitalism without a sprinkle of Socialism to keep it in check is doomed for failure!

[TBF]

62. Socialism on it's own would be a much better choice -

if we allow capitalism to continue it is going to bring the whole planet down.

[joshcryer]

63. If only socialism were immune from cronyism.

Well, libertarian socialism is. ;)

[blindpig]

83. "Cronyism' is an effect of capitalist society.

It will not disappear overnight, that is a work in progress. It takes time and effort to build a socialist society and the more that society is interfered with the slower the progress.

'Libertarian socialism' is an oxymoron. We are social animals or we ain't.

[joshcryer]

87. No, cronyism is an effect of authoritarianism.

The state to be more specific. Guys with guns who have the power will always be surrounded by their cronies and they will in turn have their own little cronies.

If anything is an oxymoron it would be Libertarian Capitalism, since property is theft, and theft is not liberating, etc.

[Cool Logic]

58. If only free-market capitalism existed in this country...

we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. Likewise, Capitalism the only economic system that will get us out of it.

Despite the meddling of the anti-capitalists, Capitalism has raised standard of living of our country's poorest citizens to levels none of the collectivist systems has for theirs. Thus, it is clear that anti-Capitalists are not interested in the plight of the poor. They are only interested in their unrealistic dreams of utopia--a supernatural worker's paradise.

[TheKentuckian]

118. If capitalism had to pay for it's downside then there would be no talk of it's success

Capitalism works only because it is allowed to put it's big ticket items onto the government, the people, and or the environment.

[joshcryer]

61. Capitalism is working OK, but no thanks to the capitalists, of course. It will fail eventually...

...but for now it's doing 'OK.'

http://www.gapminder.org/

The question shouldn't be about whether or not capitalism will fail, it will eventually fall to the wayside. The question is whether or not we'll take steps to get rid of it before it causes environmental catastrophe or depletes the very resources it relies on to keep the gears of globalization turning. At which point billions will be fighting for their survival and it won't be pretty, and they won't be fighting the capitalist class (that class will be protected since it has built a military industrial complex beyond imagination). The poor and downtrodden will be fighting one another for their very survival.

And I don't think capitalism or any sort of socialism is capable of fixing this problem without concerted efforts to build the renewable technologies to make it happen.

[Zorra]

71. What does being careful entail?

There seems to be no way to stop these maniacs from doing their nasties. They are obviously not going to stop their quest for more and more until it kills them off, and us with them.

It has become crystal clear that we cannot stop them through the legislative process.

[inna]

80. Damn, I *love* DU

- :kick: and Rec

[Silent3]

85. Every human institution and system is doomed to fail at some point

Depending on the size and nature of the failure, we can decide to replace, revise, or "reboot" the system which has failed after it has failed.

Until you can show me a proven system, not a hypothetical one, which simply cannot fail, or at least can run for a century or more without failure, no matter what the most greedy and ambitious and power-hungry people inside that system do, your ranting against capitalism is fairly pointless.

[Rex]

90. Legalize corporate regulation.

[lovuian]

97. Capitalism is a dead system ...its a Screw the worker system

and its causes severe Depressions and bubbles


it causes revolutions

Economics 101 when the assets of a country is in the hands of a few ...there is a Depression

[swilton]

110. Capitalism

also ignored environmental impacts of the growth.

Totally agree with your arguments. And just watch the Peak Oil videos or look into that theory and you will see the mess that we are in - the military can no longer be the panacea for global-domestic problems.

That is why the majority of politicians in the Senate and Congress (Obama, Reid, Pelosi) that support or are trying to work within the 'system' are creating exponential dysfunction. This is why I think Bernie Sanders is so valuable - he seems to support working outside the system and being able to recognize the flaws mentioned above. The only politicians who have a snowball's chance of addressing the inherent flaws as you describe them are the 'outside of the box' thinkers. I would also include Kucinich and Defazio in that group. I would not include Dean in that group. I am not certain about Grayson - he seems to be one who would work outside the 'system' but he like Obama before him has a limited resume/track record that I know of.