Do you like capitalism?

[dhinojosa]

Poll question: Do you like capitalism?

I did another post (no need to reference here really since I don't want to intermix topics), and on that thread a poster said she would like to liberate from capitalism's grip. I was pretty much shocked. So I thought I'd poll it.

Do you like capitalism?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Define "capitalism"

[dhinojosa]

3. from dictionary.com

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

[BlueEyedSon]

12. In your opinion does that definition describe the US economic system?

[dhinojosa]

26. Sure...

It's the dictionary.

[BlueEyedSon]

59. It is nowhere in that definition that it is the economic system of the US

you are making that up.

[dhinojosa]

62. Sure, its my opinion....

Are you ok?

You asked for my opinion...
Quote: "In your opinion does that definition describe the US economic system?"

[BlueEyedSon]

69. Yeah, but you replied "its the dictionary".... anyway, feel free to

explain your opinion....

:)

[dhinojosa]

77. Yeah , I could see where I confused everyone on that one.

It was just my opinion that the dictionary was correct.

[RPM]

113. no - corporate ownership of assets is anathema to capitalism

managers are merely workers in drag as capitalists...

[eallen]

28. It's pretty easy to recognize a capitalist economy....

Relatively open markets for consumer goods, producer goods, labor, and investment. Unhindered creation of business by individuals. The presence of capital and equity markets, and a mechanism for private equity and VC funding of new enterprises.

[atim]

39. USURY (unearned profit) is the foundation of Capitalism!!

Yes people have forgotten what usury is as it is taken out of textbooks particularly in economics and math.. it is compound interest on paper/fiat money which costs nothing to produce for commercial banks under monopolized central banking, but burdens people, businesses, farms and governments with unpayable debt. When the principal is issued as debt/loan the interest is not issued (generated from future income, labor and productivity).

Corruption is inherent in the way usurious banking operates and has been legalized. Wealth is funneled systematically from producers to bankers/financiers. This is the root cause of myriad problems in corporate-capitalism. Perpetual inflation, war and war profiteering is necessitated by this deceptive system. This system is supported by intelligence-machinary and secret global organizations like WTO, World Bank that work for banker dominated coporatocracy. Market and governments are really not free. Lawyer guilds and other professional guilds are also working to uphold corporate interest than human rights.

Read more here and educate everyone:
http://www.seek2know.net/money.html

[Greyhound]

125. They tried to keep out the banking families when they set up this

country. Alas, people are short sighted and terribly greedy.

[dhinojosa]

2. Holy shit! I can't believe this......What is wrong with capitalism? nt

Capitalism is awesome, are people confusing capitalism with cronyism?

[Eric J in MN]

8. A tiny percent of the population controls most ot the wealth. (nt)

nt

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[dhinojosa]

27. Wow.

No, but your sense of a nutritious breakfast is vastly different from mine.

[LincolnMcGrath]

29. Are you willing to do you job for fifty cents a week?

[dhinojosa]

37. Hell no.

Seems you got a point somewhere in there and I am willing to hear it.

[LincolnMcGrath]

48. I need to keep costs down to compete.

Paying you a living wage just is no longer in the cards. Sorry, but I have shareholders to think about. Grab your bootstraps, scoop up a big ole bucket of initiative, and find a new way to make a living. I hope you had the forethought to save your $300. dollar tax rebate.

Good Luck and God Bless!


P.S. Please leave all company issued property in the bin on your way out the door. We have cameras everywhere and we will prosecute.

[dhinojosa]

53. It that capitalism's fault, if so what is your solution? nt

[rman]

202. solution: fair minimum wages,

progressive taxation.

Won't happen because of the enormous political influence of corporations. So there's another solution: limit political influence of corporations.

[Bucky]

44. Not cronyism. But I think they're thinking of unregulated capitalism

Unregulated, capitalism doesn't work--it accumulates wealth into the hands of the few. But properly regulated, capitalism can prove to be a very powerful engine for improving the lives of ordinary people and the overall wealth of the nation.

[Just Me]

194. No. The confusion lies in the concept of a "free market".

What is that: a "free" market?

Even if one assumes it's a survival of the fittest,...on what basis can that presumption be drawn when reality dictates that there are those who are advantaged and those whose talent and skills NEVER see the light of day? The "system" oppresses any REAL "survival of the fittest" orientation.

If one assumes that there is a natural "balance" between supply and demand,...on what basis can that presumption be asserted when it is very, damn clear that a manipulation of certain markets is a fact (Greenspan does it,...the energy marketeers do it,...Gates tried to do it).

If one assumes that EVERY PERSON HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE in this "free market",...that assumption is a big, fat LIE!!!

[donheld]

197. What is right with capitalism? nt"

How is it awesome?

[liberaliraqvet26]

4. Yes, with the proper constraints....

capitalism can work, and everyone can benefit. But corporate cronyism isn't the way and people must come before corporations.

[liberal N proud]

5. Capitalism is great if it allowed to function without corruption

But then that is impossible.
The laws are meant to curb the corruption allowing capitalism to flourish and all have fair chance in a true, un-corrupt society.

[BlueEyedSon]

7. No, it also needs regulation (price fixing, labor laws, monopoly laws,etc)

[liberal N proud]

56. hence the law against corruption

[BlueEyedSon]

58. Come on, no matter how you stretch the meaning of "corruption"

lack of labor protection is not it.

[liberal N proud]

63. But that is my point, there has to be protection in the form of laws for

labor.
The consumer must be protected as well as the employee.
The business shouldn't need any protection, they are the very institution all law are necessary to protect from.
Sort of like the shark cage protecting the diver.

I am a big supporter of labor and even though that I am now in management, I never forget where I started and I always champion what the labor movement has meant to the American dream in this nation.

[ClintonTyree]

168. Then the Republicans remove all such laws.......

allowing CORPORATISM to flourish. Corporatism, where the corporations make the rules (as is the case with the Slugs) and everything is geared to make the corporations flourish and the people that pour their sweat and blood in to making them flourish are cut off from any of the benefits. The Corporations just pick up shop and move somewhere else where they can pay someone else to do the job for 1/100 of what they'd pay an American. Of course they STILL want all of the protections that come from the American system, but want to give nothing in return.
Corporatism, that's what we have in this country right now and it's all due to Republican aversion to any governmental controls of business. This is not Capitalism in any sense just as the form of government we have in our country at present is not a Democracy. But don't get me started on that!

[MarsThe Cat]

193. the same could be said of socialism and/or communism.

but it's not in man's nature to be corruption-free.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. As Long As It's Regulated And There's A Safety Net

eom

[tom_paine]

30. Exactly. Rooseveltian Social Capitalism.

It's what made America truly strong, and gave us the strength to defeat Bushevikism/Nazism in World war II.

It is no coincidence that as Americas moved away from those ideals, we became weaker and weaker...economically, morally, in every possible way.

Now that Imperial Amerika is more BushPutinist with only some remnants of Old America clinging to life, we now look more like a Totalitarian Nation, militarily strong but weak in all the other areas and despised by free nations.

[ck4829]

9. Capitalism is fine in small doses.

[Mr_Spock]

10. A qualified yes

I pay taxes so the government can set up "guide bars" for the game. If players stray off the field they get a penalty. The game must have referees - THAT's what my taxes pay for.

[foflappy]

82. One of the best responses I have read!!!

good enough to steal ...or use with permission ;)

very good way of looking at it...simple,elegant, not perfect but anyone can understand it!

[Mr_Spock]

85. LOL - I've tried to explain the function of government to Repukes before

Not my clearest explanation, but you get the point :lol:

[tkmorris]

89. Not to hijack but........

That is EXACTLY what Chavez has been doing in Venezuela. Penalizing those who have strayed outside the rules of the game. It's capitalism with a healthy dose of regulation, and I approve.

[PowerToThePeople]

93. Mr. Spock

If I recall correctly, that whole "Star Trek" world was a socialist system.

[Quixote1818]

11. I like a balance of Capitalism and Socialism

I like the freedom and creativity Capitalism encourages and the compassion and safety net Socialism brings. Right now things are WAY out of balance!

[OneGrassRoot]

21. balance is my buzz word of late...........

so I think what you say.

Is it feasible to merge the two? It's a serious question....I'm simply rather ill informed about socio-economic issues, though I'm trying to correct that..... :eyes:

[Quixote1818]

50. The big problem is that corruption has lead to the lack of balance

Money rules everything right now and that will be VERY hard to turn around!

[tlsmith1963]

107. I Agree

That's why I didn't answer the poll. I didn't know which response was the right one, since I want a combination of the two. Both capitalism & socialism have their good & bad sides. Why not take the best from each & throw the rest out?

Tammy

[julianer]

149. Capitalism doesn't encourage creativity

it squashes it. If you think about all the billions of people on the planet and all the incredible creativity stored therein, and then think about the real state of those people and how much creativity they can actually express you will get my drift.

Sure if you have money to start with, or went to the right school or were born into the right family, you can be as creative as you like. Then you become part of the system that denies creativity to almost everyone else.

[foflappy]

172. Wrong

I work with the poorest of the poor and help them gain access to markets. Not only are they creative they are skilled and want a better life than living in poverty they only want access to capital and markets. Their governments do nothing for them. I my self started with nothing but built a business (from nothing) I am starting my third business this year in order to expand access to markets for central and south american cooperatives.

I have used nothing but creativity to build what I have and I have what I have now because of a system of relativly free markets.

[PowerToThePeople]

190. imo you are wrong

Capitalism does not encourage creativity. Well, to be more specific, capitalism does not encourage positive creativity. It encourages people to create new ways to hide capital from taxation, it encourages people to manipulate markets so as to create monopolies, it encourages people to sell potentially harmful products to the public for profit, it encourages auto manufacturers to leave hazardous vehicles on the road(the class action against them is cheaper than the recall), and many more anti-social creative processes.

Capitalism does NOT create anything to truly benefit humanity, or if it does, stops short of what it could and should achieve for the sake of "profit margins."

[julianer]

200. Individuals can be successful, I agree

But you have not contradicted what I said by proposing yourself as an example. In fact you have done the opposite - your success stands out as exceptional.

Perhaps you have particular gifts that help you to be successful and that is good. But the system which you benefit from isn't necessarily going to be any good for someone without your skills.

Do you think it is possible for everyone to be successful? Or is your success dependent in part on the exploitation of others (i.e. you profit from the labour of others)?

[1932]

13. Do you like progressives?

[dhinojosa]

36. Sure, how much?

:sarcasm:

[baby_mouse]

14. Hmmmmm, not *particularly* but I'm doing alright out of it

So I don't really have much of a right to complain.

Unless I value other people's well-being equally with my own. Which, realistically, I don't.

[jonnyblitz]

15. NO. nt

[DS1]

16. It's facical to make this a Yes/No question

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

32. You want farcical? I'll give you farcical.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4905522

[DS1]

40. Ahh geez!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

46. That pic must have a deeper meaning that went way over my head

Enlighten the furrinah pleez?

[DS1]

47. From a movie called Fargo

Ahh geez was sort of like a catch-phrase by the largely inept.

Good movie, highly recommended.

[Ksec]

114. Yer darn tootin that was a good movie.

[eallen]

17. List the nations that have a stock market, and the ones that don't.

Then the benefits of a capitalist economy are pretty obvious.

[julianer]

150. The benefits of capitalism are obvious

to you because you refuse to see any down sides.

Presumably the beneficiaries of capitalism include the percentage of the population in the US that lives in poverty? The untreated Aids epidemic in Africa must also be a benefit according to you.

You benefit from investment I seem to recall. You should declare your interest in capitalism when discussing it.

[eallen]

164. No one has ever confused capitalism with Utopia.

Well, except for the free-market fundamentalists. But living in the real world, I don't have to believe that a capitalist economy creates a utopia, in order to think it is a good thing. I only have to believe that it has significant advantages compared to the realistic alternatives, to want it as part of the society in which I live.

I don't know any economic system that doesn't feature poverty, at least none that support a large population. (See postscript, below). Poverty in nations that have a healthy capitalist economy -- such as the Canada, the US, Argentina, and Sweden -- is not quite as dire a state as poverty in non-capitalist nations, such as the old Soviet Union or current day Zimbabwe. It also isn't as dire in nations that have established good education systems and a social safety net. Public education, social programs, and a healthy capitalist economy are about the best realisitic approach yet discovered to addressing poverty. Here's a question you might ponder. Imagine you are going to be incarnated as a citizen on a nation's bottom rung, in terms of income and wealth. You get one choice: Where that will be. You can choose any nation that exists, or to make it more broad, any that existed in the last century. What nation will that be? Personally, I cannot imagine choosing one that doesn't have a capitalist economy.

PS: OK, here's the note. Hunter-gatherer societies are egalitarian, and feature poverty only in cyclical, ecological terms, i.e., when there is a drought, everyone goes hungry. In good environments, hunter-gatherers lived more healthy lives than early agrarian societies, and probably as happy lives as people anywhere. The only problem is that the globe likely would support only a few million soles living in that fashion. Whatever the problems with the agrarian revolution and the industrial revolution that succeeded it, there ain't no going backwards, without getting rid of the mass of the earth's population.

PPS: Yes, I have some investments I benefit from. I never have made a secret of that. We live in a capitalist economy. I encourage every American to start an IRA or 401K with their first job. One of my favorite Democrat's blogs is Andrew Tobias's: http://www.andrewtobias.com/. He has written extensively on investments, he has authored the book "The only investment guide you'll ever need," and he is a very active advocate for the Democratic Party.

[julianer]

181. Actually I learnt an interesting

fact about an ancestor the other day. My great grandfather arrived in Britain in the mid 19th century on a boat from Ireland to Wales. He was escaping the potato famine along with hundreds of others. When they arrived in Penarth in south Wales they were tipped out onto the empty beach to fend for themselves. They had nothing. They had not been passengers on the ship.

They were ballast.

Of course he arrived in the sort of capitalist country you describe - one without a safety net, where starvation is only two days away. Anyway, I don't yet know anything else about his life up to about 1890, but I know that got a job building Penarth docks - a hard job in the conditions prevailing at the time, I imagine. I also know that it was socialists and progressive liberals who created the welfare state that would save future generations from such hardships.

What we face now is the privatisation and dismantling of the safety net, in the name of neo-liberal globalisation. I hope none of my descendents are ever again required as ballast.

Sorry for the ramble but in my terms, and given my family's experiences it is a matter of some practical importance that people are allowed democratic control over all aspects of their lives and not be at the mercy of an ever more profligate and careless oligarchy - socialism in other words.

[The2ndWheel]

18. Other

Not really a fan of any system of power. They all eventually end up at the same place.

[PatrioticLeftie]

19. If regulated

Then capitalism is swell

[devilgrrl]

20. Not as much as I like flame bait posts.

x(

[dhinojosa]

23. Someone named DevilGrrl doesn't like the heat of a flame-bait?

You're not that devilish.

[Blue-Jay]

33. So, you admit it's flame-bait?

I see.

[dhinojosa]

35. flame-bait = controversial, sure

Are we to just sit around and talk about wall patterns?

[Blue-Jay]

38. Ah.

Discussions other than those meant to incite trouble are equal to talking about wall pattern?

I see.

[dhinojosa]

45. How does this incite trouble?

Sure it's hot to talk about, but why not?

[Blue-Jay]

64. You're right. Here's my next thread topic:

"Abortions are A-OK!......




if you're white.......





and it's overseen by a Mohel who is also a member of ANSWER on the steps of a Catholic church, while the mother is screaming "Bitch! Bitch! Bitch!" over and over......



Did I forget anything?



Oh yeah! All cats MUST be declawed, but only the front right and rear left paws."


That ought to do it, eh?

[dhinojosa]

65. Free country.....

knock yourself out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. don't be so rough

this is an interesting topic....

[screembloodymurder]

22. Not w/o controls.

It's too unforgiving.

[Zynx]

24. That's not simple. Markets are generally the best way to go, BUT...

they do need government intervention to prevent competitive markets that benefit consumers and workers from becoming monopolistic or oligopolistic markets that hurt consumers and workers. Furthermore, society must look after those who simply cannot compete in a market economy with social welfare programs. In addition, progressive income taxes are a good idea to prevent an overly large concentration of wealth that hurts competition in an economy. In short, if I had to choose between a market economy and a command economy, I would choose a market economy.

[julianer]

151. This is all true

but what happens when a Reagan is elected to dismantle the restrictions, and people who want regulation are demonised?

It is inevitable that capitalists are going to want to reduce costs so that profits can be increased. That's why they are so keen on de-regulation and also why there can never be a stable society under capitalism.

[porphyrian]

31. Capitalism's OK, anti-humanist corporatism isn't. - n/t

[dhinojosa]

41. Yep that's my view....nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Has Anybody Here Read Charles Lindblom's Politics And Markets?

It's a seminal book on the subject....

He was in favor of central planning through a democratic polity....


But before that could be accomplished he had to confront the fact there was not one nation that had a democratic polity and central planning....

[Zynx]

43. Problem is that central planning is not flexible.

Economies are far too complicated to be dictated from one point. The failed economies of Eastern Europe proved that. Even with a democratic political structure, I don't see how it could work. With all the evidence we have accumulated over thousands of years of human history, I think we can say that the market economy, with refinements such as I enumerated earlier, is the best system devised so far. A better idea may come along, but central planning simply is not a good way to organize an economy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. That Was His Dilemma

It was a great book but I read it decades ago in grad school...


I googled it and it's still on many college syllabuses....


That shows the power of the book...


Any way the op's poll needs to be refined...

[dhinojosa]

51. Was there a conclusion? nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. It Was A Great Book

But I read it over twenty years ago and I'm tired... I can't muster the mental discipline to do justice to a great book.... As I said the book was published in the late seventies or early eighties and is still being used today...


One of his core argument was the disproportionate power large corporations had over the government and how somehow that power should be vested in the people...

I forgot how he got there....


Charles Lindblom could best be described as a democratic socialist but like Marx he was much better at defining what was wrong with capitalism than with finding a democratic alternative...

I think he's still teaching at Princeton or Yale....


Oh, that book provided for me what was a transformational moment as I thought for every social problem there was a governmental problem to fix it..... Now my focus is much more market oriented...

I hope that makes sense....


Since grad school I don't do much writing that demands sustained intellectual rigor...

[julianer]

152. Planning doesn't have to be centralised

Indeed it isn't in practice. At the moment we have any number of planning systems in competing businesses in the same industry. That is not a centralised system, but it is very wasteful. We could have a system where these people talk to each other and share resources, we could even have it under democratic control. Which is worse a planning system or massive waste and inequality?

We also have the internet - a luxury denied the 'failed economies' of Eastern Europe (how are they doing now that they are 'successful' btw?). We also have a fair degree of imagination and intelligence to solve problems.

These are all problems that can be overcome but bogeys such as 'central planning' are always raised to ensure the status quo of capitalist anarchy remains unchallenged.

[Crunchy Frog]

42. Other.

I like the idea of a mixed economy. I do not like untrammeled, unregulated capitalism. On the other hand, I don't like pure socialism either. There are some things that capitalism does very well, but I tend to feel that in order for it to function optimally, it needs to have some real boundaries set. I also don't think that it is able to do everything that a society may deem to be desirable.

Was that long winded enough for you?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. It Was Spot On

The mixed economy has served us fairly well the last sevnty years or so...

[julianer]

153. Great but what about

all the poverty in the resource robbed countries. That's why we do well - we steal from others and transfer much of our poverty overseas.

[Qibing Zero]

54. No, I don't like capitalism,

but some amount of it is necessary at the moment. If the right technological advances come, I don't think we'll be stuck in our selfish mindset any longer.

I simply hope we can work toward a future where we don't equate individuality with the ideal of 'competitiveness in a free market', and instead realize that one's true individuality lies within the person themself. We need to work for the common good of all people on the planet instead of turning life into a person vs person, country vs country, alliance vs alliance dispute. That may have been the case in the past, but we now have the resources to sustain everyone. Natural selection stopped working for us a long time ago, and you'd think the proponets of social darwinism would have shut up after taking two glances at pop culture and seeing who really is at the 'top' of our society these days.

There IS a time and place for being competitive in today's world, of course, just not when it comes to survival.


I won't even go into the US version I dub the Great Capitalistic Cycle, which is a myth that fails on nearly every account and is just plain ugly, as we've seen especially this past month.

[Darranar]

55. No, most definitely not. Capitalism is oligarchic and profit-based.

Economic systems should be democratic and needs-based.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. How

How do you address the dilemma that there is not one nation in the entire world that has a socialist economic system and a democratic political system?


I think Rousseau was on to something when he said private property was ok as long as everybody had some

[Qibing Zero]

73. Capitalism means private land ownership? nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. Did I Say It Did?

I was just pointing out what Jean -Jacques thought was a fair division of property...

I 'll try to be more specific for you....

[Darranar]

76. I do not believe I was arguing against private property.

Nor do I believe I was arguing in favor of central planning, which is what you seem to think socialism is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. We Can Operationalize Our Terms..

"Nor do I believe I was arguing in favor of central planning, which is what you seem to think socialism is"


The definition of socialism is largely determined by the political ideology of the person doing the defining...


If you share with me your definition of socialism then we can decide if it's desirable or not....

[Darranar]

81. I like SPUSA's definition.

Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few.

http://www.sp-usa.org/principles.html

Basically, put the people affected by economic decisions - workers and consumers - in charge of making them, instead of corporate or unaccountable governmental officials.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. It's Such A Large Topic To Get One's Hands On

Let's start from where we are now...


Under this system what becomes of a Wal-Mart, a Dell, a Microsoft Corporation...

These were all once small businesses that grew exponenentially...


I have wrestled with the disproprtionate role big businesses have played in the liberal democracies and have not really came up with an alternative....


I am left favoring a welfare state...


I think taxes should be the mechanism that uses the riches that capitalism creates for the betterment of us all....

[Darranar]

88. Institutions like Wal-Mart simply wouldn't exist.

The sort of thing done by Wal-Mart would be done instead by mostly decentralized democratic institutions (could be loosely called "collectives") that associate with one another in order to reduce inefficiency.

As for Microsoft, I'm not sure about that, or how to best deal with the technology sector in general. Probably the public sector would have a strong hand in that, as it does now; only now, the technology developed by the government with taxpayer's money tends to be used by corporations for private profit. In a socialist system, the profits would either be minimized to keep prices low and wages high, or would be used to support government programs of various sorts.

[julianer]

154. Every time anyone

tries to establish a socialistic system they are assassinated or invaded. If you blockade and threaten countries they are not likely to develop freely and democratically.

In any case democracy and fairness are human desires and will never disappear. One day we will have socialist democracies that fulfil human need without destroying the environment, but the imperialist countries will have to be denied first.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

158. I Think You're Missing Linblom's Point...

If a plurality or majority of British citizens decided they wanted to be a "socialist" nation tomorrow nobody would attack them...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

160. All The Liberal Democracies Have Essentially Free Elections

The fact remains that not one of them has adopted a "socialist" economic system...


And in Marxian analysis nations like France, the United States, Japan, and Great Britain have gone through the necessary historical states that precede socialism yet none have embraced it...


I have my political scientist's hat on and am making an emperical observation not a normative judgement...

[julianer]

163. Well that's not true

When left wing governments are elected you tend to get a range of counter measures. Obviously the UK is an advanced capitalist power and it would present difficulties for the world capitalist economy if it went socialist. So..

In the past Labour governments have been undermined by capital flight. The government is presented with a financial crisis immediately and has to completely revise its programmes to deal with the crisis. This happened to every Labour government up to Blair. Labour governments have also been undermined by the security services - Wilson was plotted against by MI5 in the seventies; the miner's strike was illegally undermined by MI5, etc. Plenty of stuff we have never heard of too, I'm sure. Left wing parties, including Labour, were monitored and infiltrated by the security services, though this has apparently been stopped, if one can believe it.

The 1974 Labour govt was misled about the state of the nation's finances by its own civil servants, hand in hand with the IMF. This lead to the first ever (unnecessary) loan for a major power from the IMF and the adoption of monetarist policies rather than the wider nationalisations and state planning they had in mind.

I don't think for one second that the capitalist world would just stand by and allow a socialist government in Britain.

[eallen]

167. Real capital doesn't fly very well.

Real capital is land and buildings and equipment and libraries and schools and roads. People also can be viewed as a form of capital, and the knowledge and skills they carry. Yes, a government that threatens to end its capitalist economy likely will experience real capital flight, as people vote with their feet, and take in their bags whatever they can carry.

But when you speak of "capital flight," I suspect you mean not real capital, but virtual capital, e.g., company shares. Investors see what's happening in a nation, and sell off all their holdings in companies based in that nation. Note that that leaves the real capital exactly where it is. A manufacturing plant isn't changed by one dust speck when the stock price of the company that owns it plummets. The new socialist managers can turn that real capital to producing whatever they determine is best for the new socialist economy. What does share price matter there?

[julianer]

177. Well we are

talking about a reformist party not a revolutionary one. A party that wins the popular vote and is denied the chance of putting its policies into practice by a deliberately created financial crisis. That is not democracy as far as I can see.

You may sneer about people voting with their feet - we get that from right wingers before every election (up till Blair, anyway) - they will leave the country if Labour win. Yawn. Let them go. Pay them to go.

The original question concerned why no socialist democracy had ever existed. You criticise my reply as if I had been proposing wholesale socialist transformation rather than simply describing the reaction to a reformist party seeking to introduce things like workplace democracy and national planning, as was Labour's elected platform at the time. But that is way even minimal reforms that don't fundamentally threaten capital, that may even help capitalism by increasing spending power for poorer people, are treated in capitalist 'democracies'. What hope a proper socialist democracy?

[eallen]

180. Some reforms are treated quite well by investors.

Honda recently decided to build a plant in Canada rather than Alabama, despite a better tax package offered by Alabama, citing two reasons: first, that Canada schools are better and the workforce there is better educated, and second, that Canada's national health care relieves the company of offering that as a benefit.

I think it is largely a myth that investors make decisions to punish polities for implementing social programs. I also think it is a myth that every social program is a deterrent to investment in a nation. Canada provides a topical counter-example to both. It is attracting quite a bit of US investment right now.

Each social program or tax change or legal reform is different, and will affect different kinds of investments differently. Investors react to them as they do to any other change in the investment environment, i.e., with the primary goal of maintaining good return on their investment. Yes, investors can panic and exhibit herd mentality and make stupid decisions. Even so, their basic goal in investing is to make money. When they want to influence politics, they join political causes or make donations for that purpose. Some social policies, such as public education, improve investment prospects in a nation. Other social policies will hurt investment prospects. Yeah, if a government makes too many of the latter, capital -- at least of the virtual type -- will flee from the nation. Yeah, that's an encouragement to the government to maintain a somewhat friendly environment for investment.

I also think a government should try to do this. Not in exclusion to all other goals, of course. It's find to have some policies that hurt investors, because they compensatingly serve other social purposes. But investment is good, and creating such a poor environment for it that it is driven out of a nation essentially guarantees poverty. (Unless you believe the socialist myth that the real capital left behind can be better deployed through entirely socialist mechanisms.)

[julianer]

183. Why on earth

should investors have a veto on democracy?

If we vote to abolish investors should they be allowed to veto it?

[eallen]

184. They don't. Every nation is free to nationalize all its real capital.

A nation that wants to try the socialist experiment can nationalize every bit of real capital within its borders -- land, equipment, buildings, labs, plants, mines, wells, computers, etc. -- and proceed to manage it all through an entirely political process, without any reliance on investment markets. Investors do not get a political veto. A nation can do this. In fact, nations have done this.

Most economists would predict pretty dire results from doing this. And the historical record backs them up. But there's nothing that investors can do to stop it.

The problem socialists have is not that investors can't be eliminated. They can be! In some cases, they have been. The problem instead is that having abolished investors, socialist states then don't enjoy the benefits of investment and investment markets. You can kill and eat the goose. Having done so, you no longer get its eggs. Enjoy the feast. Personally, long before that happens, I'll move to a nation like Canada or Sweden, that values its capitalist economy.

:hippie:

[julianer]

198. You call them 'investors'

I call them capitalists. You think we depend on 'their' money for 'our' jobs etc. I think they exploit peoples and resources for their own benefit and then shift what they have exploited as soon as anyone wants to share.

Anyway this isn't an argument about the nature of capitalist exploitation - it is meant to be about why it is practically impossible for people to regulate business for the benefit of wider society. Even minimal things like reducing the working week or increasing health coverage are seen as 'threats to investors' and cause capital flight.

Third world loans are conditional on 'opening' health, education and public services to 'inward investment'. The investment comes in and the country's wealth goes out and the people are left poorer.

We don't actually need 'investors' at all. But our politicians are corrupt so we are constantly told that the sky will fall unless capitalists wishes are implemented.

Why do you support this?

Also you are quite wrong about people suffering from control of investors. History in fact shows that countries that regulate capitalists and force them to share the wealth created by the people are much better able to regulate themselves and prosper economically.

You seem to be thoroughly infected with the capitalist's propaganda. I'm not surprised - you are one.

[eallen]

205. Most Americans over the age of 30 are investors.

Every individual who has a 401K, an IRA, a pension plan, a CD, a savings account, or any other kind of savings for the future is an investor. That includes, for example, almost every school teacher, because their pay includes contributions to a pension plan, which are invested in stocks. For most teachers who retire at 65, that pension plan is worth the larger part of a million dollars. They might not think of it that way, as a piece of their net worth, since all they see is a retirement check each month, that increases each year. But that's what it is, nonetheless. Those of us who don't belong to such plans need to create our own. If you're not doing so, I suggest starting as soon as possible. Here's one of the best books on doing that, written by the Treasurer of the Democratic Party:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0156029634/qid=1128010601/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4071615-4426351?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Again, I think you're wrong that every social program is "seen as 'threats to investors' and cause capital flight." Do you see capital flight from Canada? From Finland? I don't. Finland was just named as the number one nation on the competitiveness index, ahead of the US.

Just to be clear about where our difference lies, if there is one, I'm not arguing against social programs, progressive taxation, or the other features of most modern democracies. I am not a market fundamentalist. What I'm pointing out is the necessity of having a healthy economy, and the importance of capitalism to that. Yes, what we have now in the US works better than what we had in 1920. Yes, the US can learn from other nations how to better deal with various social issues. What you need to notice is that all those social benefits work only in nations that have an underlying capitalist economy. Where the government has decided that the goal is to eliminate capitalism, rather than to provide social programs that bend its workings to broader social purpose, the end result has been an impoverished economy that doesn't function.

BTW, most Finns over 30 are investors also.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

171. Well

"I don't think for one second that the capitalist world would just stand by and allow a socialist government in Britain."


That's a normative judgement that doesn't defeat the emperical observation that not one nation in the world has both a "socialist" economic system and a democratic political system...

[julianer]

178. That's great

You must at least have read my post to take the last sentence out of context so neatly, but you show no sign of it in your comment.

Taken with what preceded it you get judgement backed by empirical evidence (after the fashion of my memory) that Labour governments have historically faced a very antagonistic reaction from capital on taking office - up till Blair.

Can you suggest how a socialist democracy might develop if elected governments are not allowed to carry out their programmes be it by economic sabotage or invasion, blockade and assassination?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

179. Once again

I'm just making an emperical observation that a democratic electorate has never voted for a "socialist" economic system....


Until they we do we will never how if it's defeated by "economic sabotage or invasion, blockade and assassination..."

[julianer]

182. Then I don't really think

I'll bother wasting any more of my precious fingertips on you.

Cheers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

189. That Wasn't Nice.

I thought I was debating a gentleman...

[julianer]

199. You are wrong on both counts

I'm afraid. I'm no gentleman and that was no debate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

207. It Was No Debate Because You Couldn't Refute My Assertion

I'll repeat it for you v e r y s l o w l y...

There has not been a nation in recorded history that has both a democratic political system and a "socialist" economic system...

In fact when "socialist" economies have been installed they have been installed by force and in nations where Marx himself would say haven't met the historical prerequisites...


That's an empirical observation...

empirical-verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment:

You offered your subjective opinion that the reason "socialism" hasn't been embraced democratically is because the "capitalists" wouldn't allow it...

subjective-formed, as in opinions, based upon subjective feelings or intuitions, not upon observation or reasoning, which can be influenced by preconception; coming more from within the observer rather then from observations of the external environment


Peace

[sweetheart]

57. kapital'ism

Marx is right.

But the war is over, and the corporations have won. A people's revolution, could be a peaceful "red white and blue" revolution, much
like in the ex soviet republics of the old USSR. And were such a
revolution to take over washington DC, and end corporate personhood.

But it may take 40 years or so, and i'll be dead by then. So kapitalism
is just a fact, in the face of inevitable death. And in the face of
death, happy people will naturally be industrious and creative, towards
a great economic boom of indiviual dynamism... but the slave plantations
are bolted down hard, as the neo-corporation as the plantation
re-emergent, with a common worker-brainwashing socially engineered
impossible military imperial global power grab that will not go
unchallenged. By an increasing diffusion of technology around the
world over time, the corporate prison state will only be defeated by
containment and evolution of the charter of the modern corporation to
incorporate public agents with a public - veto power on corporate
budget allocation.

Ahh, but a people's revolution of that reality, a real marxist
revolution, a french revolution can only come from hunger, and
rather, we are a people who will be completely erased and wiped
out by the consumer state, reduced to cattle in a feeding pen,
in suburban unemployment and urban degeneration to a police state
drugs war of hatred for poor people.

And the social engineering experiment of the highland clearances is
repicated genetically over and over again, its not "mind rape" rather
the "clearances", where people are driven off the land by rich
landowners, disenfranchised to form the founding populations of
north america, creating plantations of slaves to compete as they were taught by their masters, that one must have slaves on one's land,
be they an old scottish indentured servant, or a modern marketing
executive who has sold out her entire life to "being" a false pretense
role in a false-pretense company, her soul sold out to the company,
and the accounting department adding up their souls, enslaved to the
company machinery, marching to the drumbeat monday * tuesday * * **
every week repeating their monotony selling widgets in an ever
expanding ponzi scheme.

We can only pray for a massive collective awakening/ enlightenment.

[julianer]

155. If Marx is right then

you will know of his concepts of historical materialism. I'm not saying the demise of capitalism is inevitable but its existence is not pre-ordained either.

[sweetheart]

159. and the conditions have not yet arisen

Howard Zinn points to the biggest change coming in america in 2050 when
whites become a minority. The potential for a seemingly-radical revision
of the american experiment may come about round then; when the voices of
this democratic underground will suddenly become the american center, with
right wingers looking like today's democrats, and republicans a forgotten
dinosaur bone in a museum.

There are limits to the human individual's potential for social
transformation. The bottom of a pan of water does not boil when
the top of the pan is frozen for the diffusion of social pressures
slowly heats all the water until the whole pot boils. Until then,
each of us is just a molecule increasing the temperature. Kapitalism
and the rights of labour continue in the class struggle as waves of
successivly hot water rise to the top of the pan and alter the surface
temperature. What is the post-industrial revolution when an interconnected
world could boycott the USA and bring her economy to a standstill,
whilst strip malls the nation over await goods not coming.

Bush has heated up the temperature towards boiling a good klip, perhaps
a blessing in the long term.

[julianer]

161. I think that is right

recent actions have exposed the reality of class warfare. We are being shot at and it has only taken us thirty years to realise it (some of us never forgot it).

[nomatrix]

185. How is this for an awakening?

Floating Power Plants, Floating Oil Refineries
http://www.bz.ru/e031_006.htm#nefpr

This is not speculation, it is being built.

We wonder about global warming. Around the world, the seas are being pirated. Outside of all regulations.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. "Capitalists generally work harmoniously and in concert to fleece

the people." - Abraham Lincoln

[Eric J in MN]

66. How about CEOs who get paid millions of dollars in a golden

parachute after holding that position for about a year.

Are you shocked that some of us don't think that's a good system?

[BreweryYardRat]

68. Needs regulation...

For capitalism to really be good, we need a LOT of regulations:

Few to no huge corporations and no outsourcing.

More small businesses.

We need to get people a living wage and make sure they're safe while they're on the job.

Companies have to be prevented from damaging the environment.

And that's just for starters...

[moondust]

71. Small business capitalism isn't so bad.

Big business--wiping out the smaller guys, setting up virtual monopolies, controlling the gov't, sucking up corporate welfare, and shipping thousands of jobs to distant slave labor markets--is the problem.

[BlueEyedSon]

72. Unbridled capitalism leads, without fail, to plutocracy.

Proof is left as an exercise.

[LSK]

74. I like well REGULATED Capitalism

It is not a black and white issue. Capitalism has good things and bad tihngs. So does Socialism. You should have included Third Way in your poll because that is what they are trying in Europe.


For example what we are seeing now is the greed that exposes the evil of Capitalism. We have Monopolies starting with these super Corporations eating each other and we have massive layoffs just to sustain CEO salaries and the bottom line. On the other hand, Capitalism still offers the promise of reward for hard work and innovation. However that is becoming less and less in these days of corporate greed and cronyism.

[tinrobot]

75. This isn't capitalism... it's cronyism

Capitalism is when everyone gets an equal chance with no government interference.

Halliburton's no-bid contracts are not capitalism. These people are NOT capitalists.

[getmeouttahere]

78. Not the way we practice it!

A market economy is fine, a market society is very much not fine!

[mongo]

83. Everyone likes to hate Walmart

for their business practices - but is it their fault that our government does not protect it's own workers and citizens?

Before we had labor laws, children worked 14 and 16 hour days in the mill. After much social unrest, laws were written to protect workers.

Perhaps our capitalism haters should not be so mad at Walmart for their poor benefits and low wages as at the government for not instituting better labor laws.

Perhaps instead of being mad at Walmart for encouraging suppliers to move their production overseas, they should be mad at the government for not putting up some barriers to trade.

Perhaps instead of being mad at Walmart for buying influence on capital hill, they should be mad at our government and demand meaningful campaign finance reform.

[eggman67]

84. Why?

When it's so much easier just to hate Wal-Mart. :sarcasm:

[mongo]

91. egg-actly!

Welcome to DU, eggman67!

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[darkworkz]

87. Some get it, most DON'T

tinrobot said:
"Capitalism is when everyone gets an equal chance with no government interference.

Halliburton's no-bid contracts are not capitalism. These people are NOT capitalists."

YES!

Just because most have been lead to *believe* the system we're presently living in is capitalism doesn't make it so.

We haven't been in a capitalist system in the US for MANY decades.

So many talk about laws to regulate something that hasn't been properly defined for the general populace in ages.

The funny thing is the USA already has the necessary laws in place to regulate the capitalist market. The only thing necessary is cleaning out the crony blockade, LEARN what the h3ll the system is, STOP assuming, and get BACK to work.

Most would make more headway and get more done if they'd stop looking for the COMPLEX when the simple will suffice.

[OnionPatch]

90. I voted yes because

I actually love capitalism. REGULATED CAPITALISM. Democracy with regulated capitalism and a splash of socialism (health care, SSI, etc.) is probably the best system there has been so far. But capitalism MUST be regulated to protect small business, consumers, the environment and the economy. (In other words, the needs of the people.)

[eggman67]

119. As did I

Love capitalism, hate coporatism. The Commerce clause make me grit my teeth somtimes.

[Minstrel Boy]

92. From the founding document of my party,

the NDP (formerly the CCF), the Regina Manifesto (1933):

We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity, by a social order from which the domination and exploitation of one class by another will be eliminated, in which economic planning will supersede unregulated private enterprise and competition, and in which genuine democratic self-government, based upon economic equality will be possible.

The present order is marked by glaring inequalities of wealth and opportunity, by chaotic waste and instability; and in an age of plenty it condemns the great mass of the people to poverty and insecurity. Power has become more and more concentrated into the hands of a small irresponsible minority of financiers and industrialists and to their predatory interests the majority are habitually sacrificed. When private profits is the main stimulus to economic effort, our society oscillates between periods of feverish prosperity in which the main benefits go to speculators and profiteers, and of catastrophic depression, in which the common man's normal state of insecurity and hardship is accentuated. We believe that these evils can be removed only in a planned and socialized economy in which our natural resources and the principal means of production and distribution are owned, controlled and operated by the people.

...

We consider that both the old parties in Canada are the instruments of capitalist interests and cannot serve as agents of social reconstruction, and that whatever the superficial difference between them, they are bound to carry on government in accordance with the dictates of the big business interests who finance them.

http://www.saskndp.com/history/manifest.html

[bread_and_roses]

94. Under Capitalism, babies dying of hunger amid plenty is just fine

if the "plenty" is the Private Property of others.

Virtually everything to which most posters on this board object is just fine under Capitalism.

No protection for Labor, no child-labor laws, no worker-safety laws, no minimum wage, all fine under Capitalism - it's Market efficiency.

No help for the poor from the Government (taxes)- Just fine.

Corporations paying no taxes - just fine, that's Capitalism (the form under which OUR Corporations don't pay taxes isn't Capitalism either, it's Corporate Welfare, but the result is the same: no cost to business for the General Welfare).

No Public Schools, no Public Health Departments, no Public Roads - fine.

I could go on, but you get the drift.

To the extent that "Capitalism" is regulated and taxed for the Common Good, it is not Capitalism.

Does this mean that such evils are possible ONLY under Capitalism? No. They can arise in other systems as well, particularly in any Totalitarian system whether or not the economic system is "Capitalist" or "Marxist."

But Capitalism is the system under which they are defined as part of the "good."

[PowerToThePeople]

95. No good comes of Capitalism.

From birth, those born to people who have used the general population to advance their own interests have a leg-up. They get better schooling and have more opportunities to meet other "capitalists." IMO a form, subtle maybe, of cronyism. Very few capable people from the "working class" manage to break free of being indentured for life to the children of the capitalists. This is wrong. In a "good" world each person should live to their potential, not to their heritage. We need to destroy capitalism and everything to do with it. Use our skills/knowledge/labor to truly advance the human species and this planet to a better state.

[Jack_Dawson]

96. Democrats = Communists

You guys aren't helping our perception at all. Yes capitalism has its bad guys, but you have every chance to make your way in this world and it beats the hell out of socialism. Stop being whiny libs, cuz that's why we keep losing elections.

[dhinojosa]

97. I agree....

I am pretty shocked by the results.

[darkworkz]

99. I'm not shocked at all.

Most don't even know how to define the word, let alone the true function of the system they're railing against.

[TahitiNut]

162. Ahhh... the ol' "anyone who votes different than me is ignorant" stance.

Democracy at work. :shrug:

[darkworkz]

195. How does your quote...

match up with what I typed?

"Most don't even know how to define the word, let alone the true function of the system they're railing against."

In this entire thread I've focused on 2 key issues 1) definitions, 2) The functioning of a system.

I didn't once deal with how anyone voted. If you can define the system of Capitalism then you'll understand exactly what I've posted.

If you're dealing with my words from the standpoint of "feelings" or "assumptions" then you won't understand what I posted and you've missed the point.

Thank goodness we have a Republic and not a Democracy. ;-)

[tlsmith1963]

112. You Are Talking About the *Old* Capitalism...

before the neocons ruined it. Before, a person could own a house easily. Now, it's almost impossible for most people. And you can be a hard worker & yet you still get screwed. It's all geared to the rich now. I've been around awhile. I *know* it has changed. Capitalism has become a very mean-spirited system. I'm not calling for a complete change to communism. I want it to go back to the way it was, when you could hope for a better life & that kept you going. Now, I hardly know what hope is anymore.

Tammy

[rman]

203. Right, yet another "communism=socialism"

Would you agree that democrats want a different kind of capitalism the republicans do?

Just how capitalist is it to want tax-funded social security, universal health care, environmental protection, strong worker's rights, fair minimum wages (to name a few)? It sure as hell is not what republicans want.

[Walt Starr]

98. Damn. This poll makes me rethink

whether or not I belong here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. We're Just A Big Tent

eom

[Walt Starr]

104. I hear that

but I've felt I've been being pushed to the tent flap for some time now by the anti-capitalists.

[PowerToThePeople]

109. Walt

I understand your perspective. But, as am anti-capitalist, I can say that the reason for the tension is because of the way we anti-capitalists view capitalism.

We, our children and the rest of our kin (all born and bread of working class people) have always been used and abused by the capitalists. We have been made to in-fight with other "working class" people in order to not starve and be put out on the streets.

We have seen severely undeserving people born of wealth, who never have to labor a day of their lives and live like kings.

We have a pestilent *, who went to a college that our working class kids, who achieved much better grades in school, would never be able to get into or afford.

The system is SO unbalanced as to be worthless, imo. The capitalists see people as a means to their ends and nothing else.

I believe a 100% inheritance tax might mitigate this issue a bit. But there would need to be some tweaking if minor children were left after both parents deceased.

[Walt Starr]

116. Thanks

Now I KNOW FOR A FACT I no longer belong here.

[PowerToThePeople]

117. A hate to be mean but....

Walt Starr - "Now I KNOW FOR A FACT I no longer belong here."

In my opinion, if a person lets any one other person's opinion (mine) effect their view of a board as a whole, with over 60,000 members, that person is acting in a very extreme fashion. He also, in my opinion, is acting very illogically and ignorantly.

[foflappy]

174. Just like making wild allegations

about peoples political nature. ;)

[PowerToThePeople]

188. "Just like making wild allegations" Please quote me....

I want to see where I made ANY wild allegations. I call BS on your post. All I ever did was express MY opinions about capitalism.

[dhinojosa]

120. I want you here.

I can't fend off these socialists all by myself. ;)

I love having different points of view. In fact, don't tell anyone, I love starting good discourse like this all the time. By the way, political systems are fractals, if the republicans vanish for example, we democrats would naturally split and form different parties. It is just nature, and of course it's natural that you want to leave, but hang in there, we are just getting started!

[Solon]

136. What, don't want to get dirty from us "huddled Masses"?

Fine, LEAVE, go back to that cigar smoke room in the back with the rest of the top hats!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

147. Fine

Fine, LEAVE, go back to that cigar smoke room in the back with the rest of the top hats!



I wear a Miami Heat hat....

[Lecky]

141. Yes you belong here, there are many people here who agree with you...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

146. I'm

I'm willing to pay my taxes and make sure granny gets her teeth fixed but I don't want Big Brother telling me how to make a living....

[darkworkz]

110. Don't feel that way.

Most of 'em don't even know what they're talking about.

[Solon]

142. Sorry, not buying it...

We in the working class know all too well how the world works. Ever been screwed out of a paycheck before?(damn thing bounced, company declared bankruptcy, no lawyer would take the case). How about having hours taken off paychecks, for years on end, and again, its a freaking uphill battle to even be compensated for your time. The laws are increasingly being stacked against the working class, and now, we are entering a stage of indentured servitude, only one degree away from outright slavery, and people call such things GOOD!!!!!!!!!! I'm sick and tired of the "Capitalism RAH RAH RAH" bullshit, its totally intolerable to me.

[foflappy]

156. What changes would you make to the current system??

Or what sysytem would you choose? Remember, there is always a hierarchy in any system. At least in our system you can at least have a chance to move up if you choose.

[PowerToThePeople]

157. can at least have a chance to move up if you choose.

"Pulled up by the bootstaps crowd," eh? Them are Republican talking points, Sir...

[foflappy]

173. Not republican

but the truth. I work with many people who are considered the have nots. I lobby for fair trade and for living wages in my own community.

I have also seen the side of humanity that gives up when beaten down and I have also given a hand up. I have been homeless I have been without a job. NO political party ever helped me out. It was the system that allowed me to bring myself up to where I am now. I now build homes for the "working poor", I feed the homeless, I give what extra I have to give...

I am sick and f***ig tired of people here on DU accusing anyone who doesn't tow some party line, of beign a republican. Watch what you say because you are clueless about who I am or what I do. You my friend are part of the problem with the democratic party inlusive I think not I have voted for "democratic" ideals for almost 2o years and I fight for "democratic" principles everyday.

[Solon]

176. That's the easy part...

Give the Federal and State Governments TEETH when it comes to corporate corruption of this sort along with more laws protecting workers from managment. For example, in the first case I encountered, throw the SOBs who ran the company, all officers, in jail for a minimum of 15 years, for fraud, and ruining credit. In the second situation, when the situation is proven that the company stole time, compensation is to be resolved instantly, with severe monetary penalties paid to the workers effected, no appeals, no court time. In both situations the Corporate Charters are to be revoked permanently, Government seizing all assets of said company, and then uses that money, along CEOs pensions to pay for the re-employment of all workers affected by the company being closed down. In the case of foriegn based Corporations, they are to have their business licenses in this country revoked, banning them from doing business here, and all assets present here seized. If they wish to do business here again, they would have to basically beg to come back, with penalties lasting years, like paying 60% or more in profits produced here in taxes, as a penalty tax. Couple of other things are Campaign Finance Reform, and the revoking of licenses/charters to any company that outsources their workforce to another country, damn the WTO.

[darkworkz]

196. You're talking about reforming Cronyism...

You're referencing the Crony system and not the system of Capitalism. There's an 180 degree difference between the two.

In your lifetime the Crony system has plastered the label Capitalist on every action and deed. So much so that most think the world (read: economic system) we're living in is Capitalism. When in fact it isn't and * & Co prove to you daily it's about cronyism.

The US has the laws to insure the welfare of the "people" and "protect" the individual from misuses or harm from other individuals and institutions. Only thing necessary is we start using (understand) the laws we have.

Cronyism doesn't like the law, Ask Tom Delay.

[pitohui]

100. i like it fine in its place

its place should not be essential services where all have needs & where there is no ability to shop around or compare prices -- such things as health care, utilities, etc. -- there can be no fair "free market" w. these items because the customer is not free to compare prices & make choice, when yr leg is crushed in a car accident, you need help now, finding out the name of the trauma doc & the price tag has to come later

just as you don't play baseball on a football field, keep capitalism in an appropriate arena

[Ksec]

101. Capitalism without restrant or regulation . NO. HELL NO !

Pure Capitalism will always go this way.

The rich will get richer. The big will eat the small until theres only one big rich guy left and then theres everyone else.

WalMart is a fine example of capitalism in the first part of the predatory process.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[Deja Q]

105. As long as it is regulated for the same of endurance, yes.

But right now it's dismantled, unfettered greed.

They'd sell their grandmother and turn YOU into a quarter pounder with cheeze if they could profit from it\.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

106. Poll: Do you like Ice Cream?

Me: Sure. But I know that too much can be bad for me.

How about some real governance? Or even some responsibility? Maybe a few stocks or pillories?

[Marie26]

108. No, I just can't think of a better alternative

It's not like the USSR was a whole lot better.

[KingFlorez]

111. Europe has a mix and is just fine

The United States does not have capitalism, we have corporatism. No country should be ruled by a single economic theory alone, because they can be abused. Capitalism has been abused by the corporations to increase their profits and to be anti-wage. If you have only capitalism, then you give most of the economic power to those corporations through zero regulation. I think we do need some public owned means of production, like energy to keep prices from going to high. I also believe in universal healthcare, living wage, maternity leave and child care subsidy. An economy must be run on a fusion of socialism and capitalism.

[cire4]

115. This poll question is pretty damn stupid

There is absolutely no definition of "capitalism" provided other than a vague one provided by dictionary.com. People have written entire books on what capitalism is. It comes in many different forms and in many different degrees. For example, there is capitalism as is practiced in China, there is capitalism as is practiced in Russia, there is capitalism as is practiced in the United States, there is capitalism as is practiced in Sweden, there is capitalism as is practiced in Iran, and there is capitalism as is practiced in France. There is capitalism as was practiced by the Roman Empire, there is capitalism as was practiced by Victorian England, and there is capitalism as was practiced by Nazi Germany.

For example, I may "like" Swedish capitalism, but despise American capitalism. You may like American capitalism, but hate Russian capitalism....etc.

Simply believing that one can "like" or "dislike" capitalism is a very black and white, very McCarthyite, and very Freeper-like view.

[dhinojosa]

118. LMAO.....

If it required so much explanation on your part it's not stupid.

Stupid is like blindfolding yourself while riding a bike then hitting a tree, no explanation needed, the stupidity stands on its own.

[stevietheman]

121. My basic response: Capitalism good. Corporatism bad.

Also, a downside in capitalism is when greed overrides ethics/morals in business decisionmaking. It also doesn't help when you have a major political party (and even many members of the opposition) wholly uninterested in dealing with corporate corruption.

In my view, a capitalism where corruption is routinely curtailed (read: slapped down) by government and citizen action is a great system. Too bad we don't have that system.

[mvd]

122. I like a combination of capitalism and socialism

I believe in a strong social safety net that allows as few as possible to go hungry or homeless. I don't believe in total income equality, but I believe the rich should pay their share in taxes. Corporations need less influence in politics and need to be regulated when they go too far against the public good.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[PowerToThePeople]

126. humans are born opportunistic.?

No, you were socialized to become opportunistic. That from the media and system controlled by the capitalists.

You are wrong to think that socialism means a loss of individualism. What it means is that no one person benefits more than any other for equal actions. Now, to define equal.? Therein lies the difficult process. But, it starts with "to each, his/her deserves." No Paris HIlton's of the world allowed. No * getting into Harvard and becoming President because of wealthy heritage. Each person would earn compared to her or her input into the advancement of society.

This is an extremely difficult issue, and I do not claim to have any answers. It will take many years of the greatest thinkers to work out a "just" economic world system that benefits the human race and the stability of the world's ecological system.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[PowerToThePeople]

132. Certain things are for survival, but...

Then we can be socialized to not act in that fashion. WE are taught to share at an early age, taught to not beat up the weaker kid in school or even to stand up and help him if someone else tries to. Those people unwilling to become good citizens of the human race would need to be treated as criminals. Gred would become criminal. But, this is just my knee-jerk thought proccess at the moment. As I have previously stated, it is an issue that would take a LOOONNNGG time to work out.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[PowerToThePeople]

135. No worries.

I do not agree that we are not capable of achieving that degree of social thinking. I think people are just too lazy or self-centered to do that. I do NOT believe it is biological and that we need to evolve more. I believe it is character flaw. I believe is is criminal, as in crime against humanity.

I think you are using the, "people are tens-of-thousands of years" behind where we can have socialism as a cop-out.

I think it is time for me to go to bed.

[fujiyama]

127. Do I like an economy based on private trade and ownsership?

For the most part, yes, I like the ability to buy goods and services. This includes the right to own property.

But I also like having a government in place that makes sure that the wealthy and powerful are playing by the rules. I also believe people are entitled to certain services like healthcare and there should be a decent safety net in place.

So, ultimately a mixed economy works well. Many European nations have very high standards of living, private enterprise, yet have a strong safety net.

There is no reason they cannot all be done. This means that certain services would be offered by the public sector or in a mixed system (healthcare for example). It would also mean that society would have to invest more in its own citizens rather than finding ways to kill people (through a bloated defense budget).

[Mike Niendorff]

128. Translation: "how many freepers does it take to skew a DU poll?"

Stay tuned.


MDN

[dhinojosa]

169. I don't think freepers had anything to do with this poll.....

Which way would they vote?

[alittlelark]

129. I like Adam Smiths' Capitalism... we don't practice it.

[Liberal In Texas]

130. I am a capitalist. BUT I don't think that it should be allowed to run

with no controls.

Captitalism with public oversight and controls works best. It works even better when you add social programs.

So, yes. I'm a capitalist.

[swag]

134. I'm too busy accruing interest, reinvesting dividends,

and counting my money to think about it.

[Endangered Specie]

137. Any system by itself becomes corrupt... Only when you have

two or more rival ways of doing things will it be more tame (In my case: A healthly blend of capitalism and socialism) the two idealogies will be too busy fighting each other rather than focusing on oppressing people. Out of control capitalism and out of control socialism are, by themselves, quite unpleasent.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

139. I skipped the comments, but here is my take. We had a great

country under capitalism, where people had the opportunity to work hard educate themselves and earn a good wage. The greedy, robber barons, were not pleased. We do not have Capitalism in the US, we have a Mafia type structure in every single industry, it is not the system that failed, but the Evil Doers who infiltrated and hijacked the system that corrupted it.

For those who are young, look at corporate exec. salaries inflate, over the last 20 yrs., the elimination of benefits, etc.. The system didn't fail, the Corporate Satans picked a ripe apple and haven't looked back.

The new rationale, is everyone is doing it, so they feel comfortable.

As a Christian, my only hope is that on Judgment day, they get to clean really dirty toilets, with a really used toothbrush, for a really long time.

[garybeck]

138. Capitalism rewards greed.

[jzodda]

140. I feel compelled to vote no: Todays Capitalism is Robber Baron

I like capitalism with a human face, capitalism that cares. The new deal era, the great society programs of the 60s. A more socialistic capitalism akin to some of the systems in place in Europe is what I prefer. As a starting point to me voting yes we would need universal health coverage for all.

Todays capitalism reminds me too much of the 1870s-Early 20th century capitalism. In such a system the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the middle also is worse off and the rules are 100% slanted toward the rich. The rich and powerful set the rules, control the agenda and manipulate the media and the politicians. The labor movement was in its infancy and also very weak back then. Shows how far we have come in the wrong direction that the labor movement is on life support these days. I did some of my PHD work studying this period of history and I have to say I am shocked how far we have come backwards toward this terrible time in American History.

Back to the Future without Michael J. Fox and lacking all the humor :(

[norml]

143. I like capitalism, as long as it's fairly taxed and regulated.

Buying and selling stuff is fun.

[entanglement]

144. Capitalism is like religion

Every time something goes wrong, the apologists and free-market evangelists tell us "oh that's not REAL capitalism" (REAL capitalism is invariably defined as having no flaws at all. Neat.)

I keep hearing things like that from religious fundamentalists (of all stripes) all the time: 'You know, all the people who used Christianity to justify slavery, they weren't REAL Christians'

Edit: Don't oppose capitalism 100%, but I would like to see major changes to the way it is currently practiced

[eallen]

165. Only the free-market fundamentalists take that tact.

There are many people (a) who hold that a capitalist economy is a good thing, if for no other reason, its productivity, (b) who are under no illusion about the warts that go with a capitalist economy, and (c) who support various regulations and social programs to help alleviate those warts.

[rman]

204. Free-market fundamentalism is prevalent these days

Just look at all the FTA scams, all the privatizing, deregulation, outsourcing: that's free-market fundamentalism at work. It looks like the "many people" you mention are in fact a minority.

[Hawkowl]

145. Good Grief

Didn't anybody here take a few economics courses? First, people are confusing Socialism with Communism. Not the same. Socialism is western Europe (think Scandinavia with longer life expectancy, lower poverty, and higher standard of living) and Communism was eastern Europe (Think East Germany and USSR gulags and a command economy).

Socialism acknowledges that some enterprises can not be accomplished efficiently via free markets and the profit motive. For example: health care. I mean how much are you willing to pay to stay alive? What you say, any amount? Right then, pony up everything you got. Obviously this is extortion and due to the nature of disease (contagions) and the natural environment (air and water) it is in everybody's best interest to have equal access to these interdependent necessities to a civilized society. If we don't we devolve into some macabre Darwinian, Hobbes ian society where life is nasty, brutish, and short. Yet, socialism doesn't mean small business and free enterprise is stifled.

Capitalism should be used only when it is the most efficient means of manufacturing, & distributing goods and services to the same people who make, provide and distribute those goods and services. (Think Henry Ford, whose greatest invention, perhaps, is standardizing....
installment payment plans. Yes, the first manufacturer credit plan)

People also are bringing up Corporatism. Mussolini perhaps said it best when he stated that Fascism, meaning the indistinguishably between the government and corporations, is more properly termed Corporatism. I would argue that under Bush II, this is indeed what is happening.

Now don't confuse capitalism with perfectly free markets, or government non-interference or with the biggest mistake: competition.
Competition does not equal capitalism and does not lead to lower prices in the long run. Why? Because competition is a process, a game if you will. And what is the result of a game, a competition? A winner and losers. That is why we always, always end up with just a few winners in every industry. (Think oil, or steel, or airlines, or computers, or insurance or banks). This is unregulated, or unrefereed competition and it leads to corporatism.

Anyway, just hoping to clarify a little bit for everyone.

[K-W]

166. ignore mispost

[mandyky]

148. Other - I'd like a better mixture of social programs

Like LBJ and FDR did, not like Bush and the GOP want.

Pure capitalism has not empathy.

[mopinko]

170. i like capitalism, i like democracy

we ain't got neither here in amerika.
an economic system and a system of government are not the same thing, tho, no matter how inter-related they may be. you can protect the common wealth, and care for peoples basic needs without becoming communism. keeping people honest does not equal a government taking over the means of production.
false dichotomy you are setting up here.

[RedCloud]

175. We have monopoly crapitalism

They steal all our shit.
We feel like shit.
Our houses are getting small as shit.
Our houses leak energy like shit.
They pay us shit.
When we retire we don't even get our shit.
Because they used that shit to fight some shit in the Middle East because others believed the shit the shitheads said.

They are monopolizing our shit, those dung beatles. Are we going to take it any more? Let's go ape shit on them!

[bemildred]

186. I don't believe in any of that bullshit.

Crapitalism, Communism, Socialism, The Divine Right of Kings,
it's all horseshit, it's all about justifying the current set
of self-serving big-shots.

[Mutley]

187. It's great in theory...

just like many other forms of government and economy are great in theory, but our particular form of capitalism needs a severe overhaul in practice.

[MojoXN]

191. Hey, it's better than communism!

Or is it???

On second thought, yeah, it is.

MojoXN

[Busshianic]

192. I like it, I wish we had it, were a Corporatist Kleptocracy IMO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process. A corporatist state

... does not simply license the existence of organised interest groups but incorporates them into its own centralised hierarchical system of regulation. In doing so, the state simultaneously recognises its dependence upon these associations and seeks to use them as an instrument in the pursuit and legitimation of its policies.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy
Kleptocracy (sometimes Cleptocracy) (root: Klepto+cracy = rule by thieves) is a pejorative, informal term for a government so corrupt that no pretense of honesty remains. In a kleptocracy the mechanisms of government are almost entirely devoted to taxing the public at large in order to amass substantial personal fortunes for the rulers and their cronies (collectively, kleptocrats), or to keep said rulers in power. Kleptocrats typically use money laundering and/or anonymous banking to protect and conceal their illegal gains.

[mogster]

201. Capitalism as a political 'ideology' is faulty

Because it doesn't receive system criticizm - as an ideology - like socialism does.

I live in a country where both have been tried; during the post war years and up to app. 1965 socialism was the choice of the majority here, with support for Labour well up in the 50 percents.

From 1965 to 1980 the support slowly trickled down, accellerated by a split in the Labour during the Vietnam war which produced a Socialist Left party. The Labour party then became social democrats, not socialists, and moved to the center.

Then came Reagan and the free-wheelin' 80's, which actually did a lot of good for us here because we didn't go to the extremes seen in Britain and the US, but the new ideas opened up the somewhat stale traditions socialism left us with from old times.
One example was the release of media, from 1983, that propelled us from one state TV channel to an open public space spanning a lot of free independent media. A good thing, no doubt.
It is still pretty regulated, especially if you are tranmitting nationally, but on the local level it's a lot more fun.

My point is:
The 'State' and what the State does has been constantly criticized ever since the WWII. I know, because I've criticized it myself.
It's a sport to pick on governments nose, and I can't say I think different today.

But the opponent to the State - the private sector - does not recieve criticizm as an 'idelology', but instead the various negative episodes are applied to the single corp doing the mischief.

Example:
The Enron scandal will never harm capitalism as a choice of system, it goes on Enron itself, Enron the Corporation.

Capitalism is a shady, non-identified choice of system/ideology, invulnerable to criticism, while socialism is forever branded as Stalin light.
Every system needs criticism, lest it will never evolve.

I used to be a 'free-marketeer' but turned in 2003 and am now in favor of increased governmental control.

Capitalism just isn't sustainable anymore, it is becoming more and more visible.

[0007]

206. Only because it is a selfish way the competitive healthy

human can egoistical be proud of what he/she has and look down upon the down trodden at the same time.