Our Failed Economic System

[BayCityProgressive]

DUers,

If we look at history..the cause of most of man's histroic events have to do with what class or economic system is in power. We have had primitive collectivist societies, bartering, fuedalism, monarchies and capitalism..at some point in history all of these economic systems was practical for its time or at least workable..as a system becomes outmoded it is eventually replaced by a system created by a group of people it exploited. Capitalism in my opinion, is now reaching it's expiration date..the capitalist economies of the West are so advanced that now THE ONLY way that we can produce the goods we demand and the resources we need to make them is to exploit cheap labor or resources through crooked trade, oppression, or war. The social nets of Western Europe are collapsing as those countries can no longer mee ttheir nation's consumer demands and the capitalists at the top demand more money. The environment is being destroyed for profit and it is openly acknowledged that wars for profit are being waged all over the globe. If Latin America and other areas stop providing us with slave labor and exploited resources how can this system survive? It seems some form of fascism would have to be put into place here so that a cheap labor pool of minorities could be created to produce the goods for the capitalists. We are already witnessing the begginning of this. As long as we are living under a system based soley on profit, aren't there always going to be MANY left behind to make the profits for those who are profitting? Is it time for a new system based on the needs of the vast majority of the people and not on the accumulation of capital for the few??

[MannyGoldstein]

1. This Happens Every 70 Years or So

Capitalism probably does work better than everything else - but after a while, the Predator Class gets so powerful that they can purchase the government. Once that happens, they have their handmaidens write laws to take everything from the Middle Class (as is happening now). Eventually the Middle Class figures out that they've been screwed, and all hell breaks loose (hasn't happened yet). Then there's on big muthafuckin' epic battle (remember the 1930s and 1940s?). Then, if anyone is left alive, we have well-behaved Capitalism again for a while.

[BayCityProgressive]

2. when has it ever really been well behaved though?

it seems we have always been successful because we exploited someone..women, children, african americans, indians, latinos ect ect and now that some of this is becoming taboo we are simply exploiting people in other parts of the world where Americans can't see...I wonder can our system even exist without this exploitation?

[Parisle]

3. These posts are nice,...

--- They demonstrate an awareness of the problem. But the DU forum does not permit openly stating what needs to be done. I've certainly had my share of posts yanked. Might as well face it.

[Odin2005]

11. Sounds similar to a hypothesized historical cycle in a book I've read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_%28book%29
http://selzlab.blogspot.com/2006/12/cycles-of-history.html

[originalpckelly]

4. I've been thinking about it, and capitalism is the best system so far but it's implementation...

to this date is severely flawed, to such an extent it is more a sort of fascism.

1. Irresponsible consumers have been allowing big companies to grow in size and eventually become monopolies. In reality, the only check upon monopolies are the consumers.

2. Most companies are like little totalitarian states, because they have an authoritarian power structure centered around the people at the top and not the people at the bottom. We as consumers and entrepreneurs should start employee owned companies, ones in which the company is managed by it's employees or by an executive board elected by the employees. The employees would be stockholders, and we could reduce the administrative overhead associated with the differences between employee payroll and stockholder dividends by combining them into a single method of profit sharing.

Rightfully so, those people who buy the equipment and buildings and may also have created the intellectual property of a company have a share of the profits of the business coming to them. However, this share has grown larger and larger at the expense of the employees share. If most of the equipment other forms of property are owned by the employees then no profits will go to someone not actually producing anything.

3. The massive amounts of licensing and paperwork needed to start a business serve the larger and pre-existing companies rather than the newer smaller companies. Small business ought to be fully de-regulated and big business out to be boycotted by consumers in favor of smaller locally based companies. We have immense power, without our money, these monopolies can't operate.

4. I fully understand that people will still want to invest and not have to work day to day, and for that I propose certain industries should be fully automated, so that employees will not abused at the hands of an investor. Manufacturing is largely automated, but in the areas of complex motor manipulation and quality control, a machine cannot replace a human. We need to research those sorts of things.


What we have now is trade tyranny, what we need is trade liberty.

[BayCityProgressive]

5. I would support

having services or resources essential to our country controlled by the government (for example, healthcare, ALL education, and natural resources) direct democracy where anyone can be recalled and things can be placed on a "national ballot" by the people, municipal control of transportaion, water, electricity ect, worker run businesses and a VERY steep and progressive taxation with no way of avoiding it. Total repeal of all trade laws and the environment put above all else...we only have one planet.

[originalpckelly]

6. The problem is the centralization of power. When you combine the power structures...

of the economy with those of the government, in hopes of democratizing the economy, all you get is an undemocratic government. Fascism and communism tried both, and both did not end well.

The solution is to democratize the economy, through an economic process, and to provide for checks and balances in that power structure instead of corrupting the legitimate functions of government even further.

I've been thinking about something I call the partially-complete doctrine of separation of powers. Instead of just focusing on government power and dividing up the power in government, we should have a more comprehensive picture of powers in life.

There are in most countries three to six main power structures:
1. Governmental branch
2. Economic branch
3. Cultural branch (includes religion in non-theocratic countries)
4. Weak religious branch (in some countries where the people are very religious, but religion is not superior to the power of the government.)
5. Strong religious branch (in some countries where the people are very religious and religion is either the government or it is superior to the power of the government. It is also so powerful that culture, a traditionally democratic institution, is weaker and not popularly controlled.)
6. The science and journalism branch

The cultural branch of power is usually the most democratic, because power is gained through popularity, which is a method of democracy. It's not that important when compared to other branches of power, but it's still a form of power.

The governmental branch is fairly democratic, but when it runs afoul of the economic power it always loses out.

The economic branch is often the most powerful in lieu of the strong religious branch, mainly because people need money to eat and have a place to live. Unfortunately, in our current economic system it just isn't that democratic. That's what my reforms intend to do, to maintain this separate branch yet democratize it.

And I've already elaborated on the religious branch. I will say that there is a major point of contention in our own nation between religion's place and whether it is in 3, 4, or with super nut fundies 5.


In general there are checks and balances shared between the branches of power in a nation. People can make money if they are popular, as can they if they are religious leaders or leaders in government. Government can tax the economy. The popular culture can change religious beliefs by its allure. Religion (not tax exempt) can control government through preaching political opinions, but as I've said before, in our nation this is under dispute. Journalists/scientists seek the truth and correct the bullshit out of the economic, religious, and governmental branches.

You see what I'm getting at here?

If these different branches are combined (aside from religion I suppose) together, then power is centralized and it becomes easier for a single person to gain absolute control.

I think of Kim Jong Il as a good example. He is a totalitarian in government, and he helps that along by creating a quasi-religious personality cult and prohibiting people from experiencing South Korean culture. (Though just like always the democracy of pop culture wins a lot and people watch the TV programs from the South anyway.) He also has near absolute control over the economy. And there is no freedom of the press, and science is the servant of the state.

See how it works? The more those branches of power are put together, the more likely a single person or group will control them.

So through this theory of understanding power, that's why I oppose government controlled socialism, such as you are not opposed to. Though I hope after explaining myself a little and talking about this little theory thingy, I might have opened your mind to the conclusion's I've reached.

[BayCityProgressive]

7. you're ideas are good

I am sure if we were able to take the money and corporate press out of our politics we would really be able to create something superior to what we have now.

[originalpckelly]

9. Thanks. I must say that the ads only work if people listen to them.

I suspect that there will always be corrupt bastards in politics, but we the people should be more responsible.

If we didn't listen to the ads and still went out did research to find good info, then we'd have a more honest system.

Journalists should not agree to work for big corporate owned news companies. The AP is a partial model of how it should be done. People ought to form their own co-ops to get the absolute truth, an quite frankly they ought to do their own journalism at times.

[ComerPerro]

8. Problem is, its been tried. Its too easy to corrupt

that is not to say that capitalism is not easy to corrupt. Its a very corruptable system. But at least when capitalism gets corrupt, the many control at least a few things. Meanwhile, if you look at Castro's Cuba or Stalin's Russia, those leaders took from the collective and made it their own.

I am not an advocate of capitalism as it is practiced in the US, but with changes, restraints, and regulations it could be made into the ideal system that some libertarian true-believers see it as.

Of course, finding those solutions that work, but don't get too fascist? That's the eternal struggle.

[Selatius]

10. originalpckelly came up with a point that needs to be repeated

If the socialists are right on the issue, then the problem is how to we get there from here without centralizing governmental authority over the economy. Instead of having the government run the economy, I think it would be better if a social program were established to promote and expand worker co-ops across several sectors of the economy.

For a time, this program should work on a limited basis to test the efficacy of the idea. If the idea proves very workable and popular, then this program should be slowly expanded.

This program, essentially, would be a public bank, supported by taxpayer dollars, that should provide capital for start-ups of co-ops, expansion of existing co-ops, the purchasing/reorganization of existing firms from private owners to rearrange into co-ops, and technical/financial assistance to worker co-ops much in the same way banks may provide assistance to private enterprise.

In time, the co-op sector will expand to cover a significant portion of the economy, perhaps the majority of the economy one day if implemented properly. If one wants democracy in the workplace, then a worker co-op would seem to come closest. The only difference is co-ops would exist all over the place, and people would become familiar with the notion of a co-op.

[Odin2005]

12. IMO advances in nanotechnology will bring Capitalism to an end.

50 years from now we'll have nanotechnology-based machines that turn garbage or raw materials into most anything we would want in our own homes (or in a central community-owned machine for large objects like cars), making centralized industrial manufacturing obsolete.