Let's cut the crap about capitalism.

[blindpig]

This nonsense about 'corporate capitalism' and 'predatory capitalism' is a waste of adjectives. It is Capitalism, plain and simple, stop making excuses. Just because it's showing it's teeth doesn't make it any different than it was the day before. Regulate, you say. How's that working out for ya? The Roosevelt boys both tried their hands at that, it works until you turn your back. Every time it is shackled it burst loose with renewed vigor and rapacity. Such is the nature of the beast, the pursuit greater profits will not be thwarted, it is mandated by the system. The greed which some bemoan as being the problem is secondary, when the system rewards greed then greed is what you get.

So please, let's stop the parsing. If you're OK with the roller coaster ride which is inescapable with the capitalist system, the periodic misery, the institutional injustice, the imperialism, the degraded life support services of Earth and the collapse of biodiversity then by all means, declare yourself. Likewise, if you're ready for something completely different then say so and say it loudly, so that we know how strong we are. The time is coming when there will be no viable middle ground, the only thing on the center line is roadkill.

Which side are you on?

[billyoc]

1. Or my personal favorite, "Disaster Capitalism".

:eyes:

[BlueEyedSon]

27. "Participatory Fascism"

The state has merged with the corporations, but we all get a cut.

[AllieB]

56. Naomi Klein's great book.

Boy is she ever right.

[sandnsea]

2. Some other system is corruption free? n/t

[blindpig]

7. I don't believe anything is incorruptible.

However, capitalism screwed from the git go. It is a system predicated upon exploitation of one large class by one small class. With capitalism injustice and ecological wreckage are inherent, not aberrations.

[maryf]

174. k&r this post too...

elegant

[Silent3]

305. The old USSR didn't produce "injustice and ecological wreckage"?

Or it just wasn't "inherent" there? :eyes:

And how exactly is capitalism predicated upon (not just merely tends to result in, but is predicated upon) "exploitation of one large class by one small class"?

All human systems are subject to corruption, and I'd rather suffer the corruption of modern capitalism (although maybe with a good dose of democratic socialism, like in Sweden or Denmark) than anything that's ever resulted in the real world so far when rabid anti-capitalists get into power.

[blindpig]

372. Yes

There were abuses of power during the Stalin years and ecological damage due to a too literal copying of capitalist industrial methods.

However, one must consider what the capitalists west was doing at the same time. The treatment of people of color in this country, for example. The treatment of colonial peoples wasn't exactly pretty. And western industry didn't even pretend to be green back then, which is why an environmental movement got started in the first place. so let's not have a double standard.

Yes all human endeavor is susceptible to corruption. The striking thing about Capitalism is that it out front endorses and rewards greed, so that is what you get, and it is not an aberration from the system at all.

[Silent3]

397. It looks more like you're suffering from a double standard.

Apparently all of capitalism's faults are inherently capitalism's faults, but when communism goes bad it's because it's trying to imitate capitalism?

Greed, unfortunately, is universal. Capitalism merely harnesses greed more effectively. It also does a good job of harnessing virtues like innovation and hard work (not that there aren't plenty of distortions in the relationship between effort and reward). Communism and socialism (non-democratic socialism -- "socialism" is a much abused word, and democratic socialism, such as in Sweden, which still has plenty of capitalism, is something I'm fine with) don't make people less greedy, they just leave greedy people fighting over the lesser spoils of an inefficient system, fighting more over power and privilege instead of money.

I'd be more willing to entertain recommendations of socialism and communism if there were historical examples of great success. Where are those examples? Or are there just bunches of excuses about why these things haven't been done the "right" way before?

Systems for organizing human society where life would be great if everyone were to jump on the bandwagon and follow the rules of one of those particular system are a dime a dozen. Communism, socialism, Confucianism, Catholicism, Islam... all of them would work marvelously if 99% of the population played along as good communists, socialists, Confucianists, Catholics, Muslims, etc. The beauty of capitalism is that a lot of capitalistic behavior comes naturally to people, and not everyone has to be a good capitalist for capitalism to work.

Regulated capitalism with a decent social safety net is, as far as real-world examples go, as good as it gets in my opinion. Capitalism will be abused, there will always have to be an ongoing fight to reign in the expected abuses, to keep regulations up to date, to fight the corrupting connections between money and political power. Every system is subject to abuse and requires constant vigilance, however.

[Captain Hilts]

395. The original post was written by someone who didn't see the exploitation of the working class under

soviet socialism or the nearly complete degradation of the environment under Soviet socialism.

[blindpig]

400. Couldn't see exploitation of the workers if it didn't happen.

Whatever faults might be found with the Soviet Union it was a people's state, not run for the benefit of an elite.

You grossly exaggerate the environmental damage. There was some bad shit, to be sure, which may for the most part be attributed to taking capitalist methodology too far, but that must be compared to the damage done by capitalism in the same period, worldwide.

Please don't try to imagine what I've seen, you are incapable.

[Captain Hilts]

401. I lived in the Soviet Union and Russia. nt

[blindpig]

405. And I grew up in a decaying east coast city

and have done a fair bit of travel. Of Russia I have only read. But I have seen what capitalism has done throughout this country and elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere. I think it fair to say that the tragedy of the Aral Sea is equaled or exceeded by the pitiable condition of the Chesapeake Bay, an exquisite body of water which fed a multitude, reduced to not much more than a sewer by capitalist agriculture and sprawl.

[Captain Hilts]

407. In The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky brilliantly anticipated the corruption and exploitation

the Soviet govt. would inflict on the Soviet people.

No, the Aral sea is FAR worse off than the Chesapeake Bay. And I work to protect the bay.

[blindpig]

410. Well, Trotsky did have have an ax to grind.

He was a brilliant revolutionary, but he was a loggerheads with Stalin over the direction of the revolution, did have a large ego and was caught playing party politics way too deeply and endangered the whole revolution thereby.

You don't remember what the Bay was like. When you can't get a decent harvest of crabs or oysters from that water things are far gone indeed. A friend who works for NOAA has told me that the death spiral is unabated.

[Captain Hilts]

412. Indeed I do remember what the Bay was like. As an often Norfolker, I was horrified by what was

going into it from the southern branch of the Elizabeth River.

[blindpig]

437. If you remember so much of Virginia

how much of Russia can you have seen or remember?

Yes there were bad spots back then, Baltimore harbor for example, but nearby waters and the Bay in general were productive as hell.

[Captain Hilts]

438. My memory is not an 'either/or' facility. I can remember a great many things. nt

[obliviously]

441. chernobyl

<>

http://maisonbisson.com/blog/post/11211/chernobyl-disaster-20-years-later/

[Two Americas]

60. nothing to do with "systems"

There is no credibility to this notion that we can select various choices, choose a system, from some buffet table.

This is a product of cold war propaganda and McCarthyism - "they have system A, we have system B - choose one and only one."

Your argument is like saying "we can't outlaw murder, because no alternative system would ever stop murder."


...

[sandnsea]

144. The OP wants to outlaw a system, not a crime

Point is, doesn't matter what economic system we operate under, people will still attempt to corrupt it to their own benefit. We'll still need regulation. And people will still try to run away with the money bags when your back is turned. Socialism, capitalism, communism - doesn't matter. It's all corruptable.

[varelse]

283. what if the system IS the crime?

organized crime, that is...

[bobbolink]

447. Perfectly worded! The system, indeed, IS the crime!

BUT the victims are being ignored.

Blamed.

SUFFERING.

[Two Americas]

292. yeah

True.

I say leave it to religion to perfect human nature. "It is all corruptible" is no excuse for not fighting back against exploitation now.

I don't think the OP is using the word "system" the same way you are. Why do we have to think in terms of operating under a system?

You may be using the word system according to this definition: "instrumentality that combines interrelated interacting artifacts designed to work as a coherent entity." Or perhaps "a complex of methods or rules governing behavior" or "a procedure or process for obtaining an objective." When people say they are "living under a system," that is usually what they mean. Something intentional, designed, and imposed and enforced. People who are management and success-oriented think in those terms - how to manage or control people.

I think the OP is using it in this sense: "a group of independent but interrelated elements comprising a unified whole."

Interesting. Thanks.


...

[Joe Chi Minh]

416. They didn't have mass homelessness in the USSR or China. Health care and

education to the highest levels was free. Read this article by a Russian emigre who has scant time for Communism:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dtxqwqr_20dc52sm

There is a lot on a similar theme that is of interest, on his site.

[Tyrfing]

158. Corruption isn't the issue

Under capitalism, buisness-as-usual is not called "corruption" but the distinction is irrelevant because it is still mercilessly exploitative.

Your idea of combating corruption seems to be making sure the plutocrats are chosen based on merit.

[IDFbunny]

3. REVOLUTION!!!!

The machinery of capitalism is lubricated by the blood of the worker.

You have nothing to loose but your chains!

[Raskolnik]

4. And your alternative systems is...?

It certainly is easy to say that you're "ready for something completely different," but what is that "something?"

[blindpig]

8. My sig line might be a clue. n/t

[Raskolnik]

11. You want to replace capitalism with an economy based on internet messageboards?

If you think you have a superior alternative to regulated capitalism, let's hear what it is. I don't think its too much to ask that you put your cards on the table, given that this is your OP.

[blindpig]

17. Cute.

Isn't the 'socialists' part a clue?

Socialism is the obvious answer to the failings of capitalism, both as a matter of justice and ecological sustainability.

[Raskolnik]

18. But you realize that we currently have a hybrid form of socialism/capitalism, right?

Can you point to a purely "socialist" nation that you think we should emulate?

[slay]

32. Yeah socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us

Which fucking sucks so let's reverse it. I'm for Fred Block's BIG (Basic Income Grant) program.

"The basic income guarantee (BIG) is a government insured guarantee that no citizen's income will fall below some minimal level for any reason. All citizens would receive a BIG without means test or work requirement. BIG is an efficient and effective solution to poverty that preserves individual autonomy and work incentives while simplifying government social policy. Some researchers estimate that a small BIG, sufficient to cut the poverty rate in half could be financed without an increase in taxes by redirecting funds from spending programs and tax deductions aimed at maintaining incomes"

http://www.usbig.net/

[blindpig]

34. More like welfare state capitalism.

Socialism implies worker control of the means of production, ain't much of that going on around here. What they call socialism is the bare minimum of bribes they've thrown at us to stave off the pitchforks, and now they even want that back, so as to improve the bottom line. As long as they have control of wealth and resources they will use them to improve their position to our detriment.

[Raskolnik]

35. You want communism, not socialism.

Nuts to that.

[blindpig]

37. Communism is a step torwards a socialist society. n/t

[Raskolnik]

38. A very shitty step that seems to involve killing tens of millions of people

No thanks. We've seen that movie, and the ending isn't good.

[blindpig]

41. Really?

Recent scholarship shows those numbers grossly inflated. Of course there were problems, injustices, many needless deaths. Yet one must keep in mind what was going on in the capitalists world and it's colonies. There is a massive double standard applied to socialist states.

[Raskolnik]

42. Yes, really.

Which "recent scholarship" demonstrates that Communism wasn't really all that bad for the people living under it?

[blindpig]

51. A good bit here, long read.

http://socialistindependent.org/board/index.php?topic=38.0

[Raskolnik]

57. I don't mean to be rude, but a series of cut & pasted messageboard posts by someone named "Pinko"

featuring a picture of a hirsute shirtless man practicing his best revolutionary smolder is not really the height of scholarship.

I understand that some of the text apparently was taken from the Village Voice (obviously on the forefront of historical scholarship) and some from a Russian researcher, but those posts are focused on the fairly narrow issue of whether the Ukranian famine is legitimately considered a "genocide." For what its worth, I don't believe it is, but that is neither here nor there with regards to your claims about "recent scholarship."

[blindpig]

91. Why don't you address the text, the links?

Apparently you didn't read far enough. The tables, text and accompanying links speak of much more than that. But you won't like it I think.

And be assured, Pinko can stuff you into a little box intellectually.

[Raskolnik]

92. Then how come he can't manage a shirt? n/t

[TBF]

145. Pretty clothes and hair are more important than substance? And

more important to talk about than people losing jobs, health insurance, their lives? Ok....

[Raskolnik]

177. When you've got that Fabio meets the Vikings thing going on, yes. n/t

[TBF]

189. Advocating style over substance. Are you sure you're a democrat? n/t

[Raskolnik]

208. I'm advocating not being ridiculous. Do you tend to take people seriously that

post pictures of themselves like that alongside their defenses of Stalinism? That's two strikes against a fella right there.

[Two Americas]

217. this is hilarious

Avatars are not necessarily pictures of the posters. That is funny.

Also, that article is not a defense of Stalin, it is a discussion of how we have been misinformed and misled.

What difference would it make to anyone what you do or do not take seriously? You take avatars seriously.


...

[Raskolnik]

218. Obviously that dude takes his shirtless, hair-draped visage pretty darn seriously.

Come on, do you really think that picture isn't worthy of some mockery? Really?

[Two Americas]

242. lol

I don't think that is a picture of the poster. Lots of strange avatars. I don't pay much attention to them.

Yeah, I think when you have no argument, mocking the other person is all you can do.


...

[Tyrfing]

188. How come you can't manage a legitimate response?

From where I'm standing, Pinko should be taking potshots at you

[Raskolnik]

205. I've pointed out that the cut & pasted messageboard posts are not really addressing

the poster's putative point. Whether the Ukrainian famine was a "genocide" or not is not determinative.

[Two Americas]

219. hello

You are supposed to read the content. If cutting and pasting text invalidates the message, well then....

I've pointed out that the cut & pasted messageboard posts are not really addressing
the poster's putative point. Whether the Ukrainian famine was a "genocide" or not is not determinative.

There. I just refuted your argument. It is now just a cut & pasted messageboard post.


...

[Raskolnik]

221. Um, I've read the content, and, once again, it really doesn't address the issue.

The ridiculous pictures accompanying the Village Voice article are just a bonus.

[Two Americas]

245. what issue?

What issue does it not address?

Regardless of what a person thinks of Stalin or socialism, why would they not be interested in learning how we may have been lied to and misled?


...

[Tyrfing]

222. The content is there

read it or don't. If you don't like the method of presentation, thats your bitch.

But at least you took the "mature" route by making fun of the messenger..very big of you

[Raskolnik]

225. "very big of you "

Not as big as Hairy McShirtless, that's for sure!

[northzax]

335. ok, fine

let's take Pinko's best numbers (from the Slavic journal) and say that forced collectivization and the various Stalinist purges killed ONLY 3.5 million people between 1927-1937. This doesn't include the secondary deaths from famine and the like. or the over 1 million who died in the Gulag System (Getty, Ritterspoon, 1994) between 1934-1954.


so your best argument is that it 'wasn't that bad'? huh. and Pinko is choosing to use his (obviously) prodigious gifts to defend this? what is different, I ask, between denying the scale of the Stalinist atrocities (hey, he only killed 8 million of his fellow citizens, not ten! he's a good chap, really!) and claiming that Hitler only had four million Jews killed, not six? this type of picayune argument about scale of brutality necessarily diminishes the human cost. Which is the point of the argument, really, isn't it? to diminish the perception of suffering?

[Hannah Bell]

296. Many russians don't think it was so bad:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114430/Russians-Link-Democracy-West.aspx

when Gallup recently asked Russian respondents which political system is the most suitable for their country, 40% favored a system that is similar to the old Soviet one, but is more democratic and market-based. Tied for the second most popular option, though only favored by about half as many respondents, are a Soviet system, similar to what was in place in Russia prior to "perestroika" (18%), and a Western-style democratic republic (18%). Ten percent of Russians surveyed favored a strong authoritarian system that places order above freedom.

Gallup asked Russians if they feel the creation of a free market economy, largely free from state control, is right or wrong for the country's future. Since Gallup began asking this question in 2006, Russians have tended to say this approach is wrong, rather than right for their county.



"There have been no dramatic changes in attitudes towards August 1991 coup in recent years... The number of those who consider the coup to be a tragedy with disastrous consequences still exceeds the number of people who consider the situation to be the victory of democracy that put the rule of the Communist Party to an end. The first ones account for 32 percent (against 27 percent in 1994). The number of the latter almost has not changed (7 percent in 1994 and 11 percent now)."

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Q99W0kWQ0v8J:english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/16016_coup.html+majority+of+russians+communist+preferred&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[proteus_lives]

329. Really?

Put them in a time machine and send them back to the thirties. Let them see the "workers paradise" that Uncle Joe built.

[Hannah Bell]

334. some of them were alive in the 30s. it tends to be older russians, in fact,

who are more likely to have "ost-nostalgie". since they didn't do well in the transition, generally.

stalin's rule wasn't all about gulags, you know. it was also about sputnik, olympic wins, & the largest increases in productivity in history, a one-generation transition from a feudal to a modern economy.

i reported a gallup poll. you chose not to believe it.

it's probably just communist propaganda.

[northzax]

336. yep

and a lot of East Germans miss the DDR. Heck, some people in the former Yugoslavia probably miss Tito. but then, there are Americans who miss George Bush, too. And Reagan. people really miss Reagan. must have been a good guy, right? since nostalgia makes him look good?

lemme guess, propaganda?

[JVS]

347. I'm not even from Yugoslavia and I miss Tito.

They really fucked everything up after he died.

[Hannah Bell]

349. the initial poster said "scholars" agree the soviet system was bad for those living under it.

the gallup poll & other sources say a large percent of people who lived it disagree.

that is not the same thing as thinking stalin, reagan, or any other leader was "a good guy".

i don't think nixon was a good guy, but for the most part, i liked his domestic policy initiatives more than, e.g., clinton's or bush's.

[proteus_lives]

413. Yeah, people were lucky to live in Stalinist Russia!.

Except if they were Kulaks or Jews, or Ukrainian or a Chechen or a Orthodox priest/nun or a Pole or Volga German or an goverment official/military officier/party official that slightly disargeed with Stalin.

"stalin's rule wasn't all about gulags, you know. it was also about sputnik, olympic wins, & the largest increases in productivity in history, a one-generation transition from a feudal to a modern economy."

Well, you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs! Millions and millions of men/women and children eggs.

[Hannah Bell]

419. "except if they were black, indian, colonial...iraqi..." apologists don't have much

of a leg to stand on in the death count sweepstakes.

[proteus_lives]

471. Apologist for what?

I just hate the whitewashing of history. All sides should acknowledge past misdeeds.

Are willing to attempt that all the glories you mentioned about the Stalin era were accomplished at the cost of millions of needless deaths?

[blindpig]

360. Who are you to tell the Russians about their history?

Mein Gott, the hubris.

[proteus_lives]

414. Mein Gott indeed.

Rolling my eyes at people wishing for the good old days of Soviet butchery.

[Hannah Bell]

421. the people you roll your eyes at = russians. so apparently they don't remember it the same way you

do.

[proteus_lives]

472. The past often wears rose-colored glasses.

Would you be as sympathetic to a group of Confederate revisonists or neo-Nazis?

[Hannah Bell]

104. unlike capitalism.

1 million in iraq most recently.

[Tyrfing]

120. Capitalism kills 10s of millions

as a matter of course, all the time. More than socialist "dictators" could kill in a century. You can't have missed that, so what are we to think of your "assertion" here? Self-serving comes to mind..

[JVS]

488. If killing tens or even hundreds of millions of people is what it takes for our class to be free...

then so be it.

The class enemy is certainly willing to kill tens or hundreds of millions to maintain its status.

[Dark]

54. Can you point to a single successful communist nation that also maintained or

expanded the freedom of its citizens beyond our own?

Or how about a single successful communist nation?

Absolute communism and absolute capitalism are both flawed systems.

And yes, there is a difference between absolute capitalism and our system, as well as Europe's.

[blindpig]

67. What freedom?

Freedom to starve?

Freedom to be homeless?

Freedom to have your tax money spread murder and theft throughout the world?

Freedom to watch your world despoiled for the benefit of the few?

But of course you were not talking about those things, relevant as they are. You are talking about Bill of Rights stuff. No socialists state to date has existed outside of a state of siege, if not outright war. In that situation wartime measures must be employed, as they have been in this country when necessary.

It is true, socialists states have succumbed to the relentless pressure, obvious and covert, of the capitalist nations. As has been noted in this thread, for socialism to succeed it must be a world-wide system, yet it's got to start somewhere, that's the hard part. The Cuban people are heroes for all humankind.

[Raskolnik]

79. "No socialists state to date has existed outside of a state of siege, if not outright war."

Who forced the Soviet Union to undertake the collectivization of farms? Who was besieging China during the Great Leap Forward?

[Tyrfing]

124. Earth to Rasko

Had the Soviets not collectivized agriculture they would surely have been crushed by fascism. You also can't be unaware of the Civil War in China, the invasion by imperialist Japan, or what followed...

Under siege hardly begins to cover it, because we have not really delved into the machinations of the West, have we? (And for the sake of brevity I'm assuming you concede the point concerning the Cold War)

[Hannah Bell]

132. ? depends on what you mean by socialist. for example, india had

a self-described "socialist" government for much of its modern history & enacted numerous socialist measures.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120096313713705107.html

just cause you don't know your history doesn't mean the history doesn't exist.

[northzax]

337. capitalists, of course

sheesh, don't you know anything?

[Dark]

272. Well, communist nations do have those freedoms, I suppose.

But I guess that sacrifices must be made.

As far as "freedom to starve," uh, we have charities, welfare and food stamps. Yes, they could do with some expansion, but it's not like 1930s Ukraine where the government decided that the Ukrainians needed to die, so they starved them.

Secondly, the homeless point is important, and needs to be fixed. But which country could fix it better for all its people: Cuba or America?

Your other two points are just sour grapes from the fact that Bush was in control of the country for the past eight years. That's what happens in a Republic. Whoever wins gets to make policy.

As far as the pressure goes, it's interesting that you leave out that two of the three powers during the Cold War were communist: China and the USSR. But of course, their failure wasn't from a bad system being corrupted by megalomaniacs. It was all the U.S.'s doing, just like every other problem in the world.

:eyes:

[northzax]

338. I gotta tell you man

there are people in Cuba who look an awful lot like they might be homeless.

I have to say, why has there never been a major influx of people INTO a Collective State? why do they build walls to keep people in, not keep the maddening hordes out?

[Hippo_Tron]

346. Mao's China didn't really spend much time in a state of war

Yes Chiang Kai-Shek was making his attempts at taking back the mainland (which was about as realistic as Hamas destroying Israel) and the Dulles brothers tried to help him out but Eisenhower put the breaks on all of that nonsense before an actual war broke out. But I would hardly call that a state of war. Those threats were no more serious than the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Mao's first five year plan was a disaster and his "Great Leap Forward" led to about 30 million people or so starving to death. China today is hardly a paradise but I would much rather live there now than in the 1950's and 1960's.

[JVS]

351. Not much time in a state of war? Only a 23 year civil war to establish the PRC...

out of a political environment that had been fragmented since 1911. You might as well take Germany since 1949 and quit looking further back to declare that Germany has a peaceful history.

[Hippo_Tron]

474. The Chinese civil war had zilch to do with the Great Leap Forward

Or Mao's complete repression of individual freedoms. I recognize that Mao was given a broken country to fix and I'm not criticizing him because the standard of living wasn't as great as a rich country by the end of his reign. I'm criticizing him because the standard of living was basically stagnant during most of his reign and actually declined during the Great Leap Forward so much so that 30 million people starved.

Mao had few serious threats to his power from abroad and thus the excuse that the United States prevented whatever he was trying to do from working is just false. The Sandanistas in Nicaragua, Castro in Cuba, Arbenz in Guatemala, or Allende in Chile are all examples where you can point to US intervention as a primary cause of their problems. That is not the case with Mao and China.

[Two Americas]

72. nonsense

That is cold war red-baiting propaganda.

Our freedoms are in contrast to ALL old world governments, whatever they were called.


...

[Dark]

327. We're not debating all governments. We're debating communist regimes.

And the point still stands. For all our faults, our nation is freer than any communist nation in history.

Yes, communities can implement communism and do OK. That's true. But such a system doesn't work in larger geographic echelons.

Socialism, however, works in some things and not others. It works, for example, with building and maintaining roads. It does not, however, with food supply.

Perhaps we'll mature to the point where it does work. I don't know. But right now, any nation that has implemented communism has become a ruthless dictatorship with a weak economy. China's economy only really started to improve after they began to implement capitalistic policies in some aspects.

[Hannah Bell]

359. you're wrong about china's economy. china had a long history of recurrent

major famine every 20 years or so.

mao took power in 1949. There was a major famine 1959-61. It was the last one. Mao died in 1976.

Food & other production expanded under the chinese communists & both life expectancy & average living conditions improved. i know it's impossible for some folks to believe, but that's what the population figures show.

[Hannah Bell]

85. define "communist nation".

[Hannah Bell]

134. oh, you can't, eh? oh, you refuse to answer, eh?

[Dark]

267. Actually, I had to go to dinner w/ dad. (Took longer than expected). By communist nation,

I mean a government founded on the ideals of Marx and/or Lenin.

Before you say USSR wasn't communist, I'd point out that it was initially trying to be an idealized version.

[Hannah Bell]

313. I wasn't going to say any such thing. I'm attempting to get people to define the terms

they're throwing around.

"Principles of marxism/leninism" is a useless definition. Too broad, too various, too contradictory.

Is it so difficult for you to tell me what *you* mean when *you* talk about socialism or communism?

[northzax]

339. easy

a state in which there is no private property. that's as good of a working definition of a functioning communist state as anything else.

[Hannah Bell]

356. then russia wasn't a communist state.

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

There were two basic forms of property in the Soviet Union: individual property and collective property....

Individual property

To distinguish "capitalist" and "socialist" types of property ownership further, two different forms of individual property were recognized: private property (частная собственность, chastnaya sobstvennost) and personal property (личная собственность, lichnaya sobstvennost). The former encompassed capital (means of production), while the latter described everything else in a person's possession.

This distinction has been a source of confusion when interpreting phrases such as "socialism (communism) abolished private property"; one might conclude that all individual property was abolished, when this was in fact not the case.

Collective property

There were several forms of collective ownership, the most significant being state property, kolkhoz property, and cooperative property.

The most common forms of cooperative property were housing cooperatives (жилищные кооперативы) in urban areas, consumer cooperatives (потребительская кооперация, потребкооперация), and rural consumer societies (сельские потребительские общества, сельпо)...


Enterprises were classified into the major caterories, according to the major forms of property in the Soviet Union:

Based on the property of Soviet citizens:

Individual enterprises
Family enterprises

Based on the collective property:

Collective enterprises
Production cooperatives

Based on the state property:

Union state enterprises
Republican state enterprises
Communal state enterprises

[northzax]

371. you're splitting hairs

yes, individuals could own their own pants. most things we would consider consumer goods were technically private property. (you couldn't GET them, but still, you could theoretically own them) you couldn't, however own actual property (real estate) or anything that could generate revenue.

[Hannah Bell]

425. i didn't realize everyone walked around without pants in the ussr. must have been interesting.

http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=125&t=29909.

There was, in fact, limited private property in real estate in the USSR. I'd bet it was mostly for elites or those on the peripheries in practice, but it did exist.

[northzax]

446. there you go citing message boards again

yes, a very very few very well connected people were able to own property. but for 99.99% of the population (and a few, as you mention, so far outside the centers of power that no one cared) it was illegal to own their domicile. to give you an idea, on my last visit to the USSR (yes, it was still the USSR) I was a guest of the (then) deputy chief of police in Moscow. that's a pretty high ranking position, wouldn't you agree? his son and daughter both went to University and were able to study abroad. they even had a car, a nice one (well, as nice as Ladas got) and a place they used in the country. in Moscow, however, they lived in a comparatively luxurious three bedroom flat. which was helpful, because there were four generations living in the same place (grandmother, father, mother, four children, and daughter in law.

and I thought we were talking about life for the average worker? not the elites?

[Hannah Bell]

450. this is the first time i've ever cited a message board, & i did so because it's populated

by russians. i thought they'd be a reasonably knowledgeable source.

no, we were talking about whether private property existed or not.

if we're going by anecdotal evidence, i was told by my russian history prof in the 70s (who went there off & on) that there were also some small private businesses, non-black market (restaurants & artisans are how i remember it).

and also, that conditions varied by epoch (lenin tightened, loosened, stalin tightened, post-stalin = looser.)

[northzax]

453. why would you think Russians would be knowledgeable?

would you consider, say, FreeRepublic to be a reasonable source for American History? they are Americans, right? surely they should know.

and yes, I concede the point, because corrupt elites and those far removed from anyone else were able to own property, you win. therefore, anyone could own property. you are correct, that's how it was. your average working class person could own property because the elites could. go it.

[Hannah Bell]

456. i think they'd be quite knowledgeable as to the types of housing available

under the ussr - since they lived there.

got straw?

[northzax]

459. right

well, any of the ones over about 40 might have a realistic recollection of the actual market, or at least the market they were part of. recall, and Russian under 40 was not even twenty when the Soviet Union collapsed, hardly evidentiary to take into accounts the recollections of children. in fact, if we consider that the only people who would really understand the state of the residential market at any time are those in the workforce, you have to take into account that most people don't enter the workforce until at least after their mandatory military service and then some sort of educational time. So we'll take about 22. As a general rule, then, no Russian under 42 can really talk about what the real estate market was like from experience. Since the median age of a Russian today is 38.2, you are really dealing with less than half the population. And then, while we're thinking about it, what are the odds that your average Russian over, say, 50, spends a lot of time on English language message boards? not all that good, right?

ever go back to your childhood home? not nearly as big as you remember, right? memory is not evidence.

[Hannah Bell]

466. it was 18 years ago. not prehistory. plenty of folks alive who lived it.

one of the posters made a nice list of the types of RE property that existed.

most of the comments jibed with what i knew of the situation.

straw, buddy.

[northzax]

479. fine, if you wish

you win. just before you do, would you mind googling "kommunalka"? there's a nice project at Colgate documenting such a living arrangement. check it out. and remember, this wasn't a choice, it was a requirement.

enjoy.

[Dark]

354. From my understanding of Marxism/Leninism, it's this:

A society where everyone has an equal say in the managing of economic affairs throughout society. Everyone is expected to contribute according to his/her own ability. Everyone is given an equal share in necessities (i.e. each receives the same allotment of food/clothes/shelter/etc.)

Such a system will expand as workers around the world realize that they deserve better than their lot, so they will organize and overthrow the rich. Then, they will institute a system where everyone receives the same bounty. Currency will become mostly irrelevant as all necessities are already given.




However, in order to institute such a society, one MUST control the professional demographics (in other words, which people get which positions). Otherwise, one would not have enough farmers.

The whole system fails, of course, when people realize that their basic needs are met whether they do their part or not.

That's where capitalism comes in. Sure you can survive on the most basic level. But in order to have any ability to enjoy life, you have to actually get a job. However, you can learn whatever trade you want, but it doesn't guarantee you a job

That, to me, is the ideal economic system. One in which a person has the ability to do as they wish. But they don't have to worry about basic necessities like food, healthcare or clothes.

I wish we were mature enough to implement such a system.

[Hannah Bell]

357. that's one definition. but not one everyone shares.

nor does it describe life in e.g. soviet russia.

which is why people need to define their terms when they talk about "communism".

[Dark]

367. What do you define as communism?

And why are we both staying up so late debating governmental philosophy? ;-)

[Tyrfing]

392. You've got it backwards

CAPITALISM is the system that fails once the workers realize that they are creating everything only to have it taken from them by a tiny minority who produce nothing. At that point capitalism can't help but wither away, having exhausted its lifespan

[Tyrfing]

154. Hannah, you're sort of on the right track here

but you can't go to much further. The USSR, the Eastern Bloc, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, North Korea..those were all communist nations. They stood as shining beacons, whatever their faults or aspects that make you uncomfortable or squeamish..

Trying to deny that there has ever been a true "socialist" experiment is a crock

[Hannah Bell]

157. oh? & what is your definition of "socialist"?

were those experiments classless societies? very clearly not.

did the workers control the means of production or the distribution of the products of their labor? clearly not.

what's your definition of socialist?

ps: vietnam has had a putatively socialist government since the war ended, & the vietnamese "communists" weren't the pol pot "communists." they got rid of the pol pot "communists."

whom the US supported & funded.

[Tyrfing]

161. Ok, be explicit as towhat classes existed in the Soviet Union

If the workers didn't control the social product who did?

You say both questions are very clear, and they are. You are just too weak in the knees to admit the truth, and theres no time for that. We move with bold intention, no equivocating, no exceptions

[Hannah Bell]

167. 1. The ruling class & the working class. 2. The Party apparatchiks.

Same as under the Czars, but higher productivity & more redistribution was an improvement over the Czars for most.

What is this "truth" you say I'm too weak-kneed to admit?

[Tyrfing]

169. But the founding fathers were wanna-be aristocrats

and the South was ruled by slave-owners. Does that mean that US wasn't a capitalist country under those "regimes"?

Honestly, what the fuck does the leadership matter..for them to take over and install themselves as a class they would have had to stage a coup AGAINST the workers revolutions. You think the workers would not have fought back against this?? In fact, that scenario came into full relief..with Mikhail Gorbachev..which leaves you scrambling to account for the 70s years between the Revolution and then

What in Gods name do you think constitutes a class..petty bureaucratic favoritism and machinations? If so, how is your view any different from those of people bitching about "corruption" in this thread?

Did the Soviet Union implement economic communism (ie providing socially determined necessities to EVERYONE) or not? As you're so fond of putting it, the answer is clearly yes.

[Hannah Bell]

207. your question is illogical. socialism/communism is defined by the withering

away of classes and class exploitation - & the withering away of the state itself. with the workers who produce things deciding what, when & how to produce.

capitalism is defined by the particular form its class system takes.

"providing socially determined necessities to EVERYONE" doesn't define socialism. The US basically provides socially determined necessities to "everyone" (food, shelter, clothing) = welfare state + charity. Most societies have some kind of provision for the poor; doesn't mean they're socialist.

It doesn't seem to occur to you that labels aren't identical to material & social facts. The USSR was an attempt to create a socialist state, & successful in some respects but overall, not. The state grew.

Classes can be distinguished by looking at the ultimate source of their members' livelihoods.

[anigbrowl]

321. And yet, the state never withers away in any self-idenified socialist or communist countries. Why?

Cuba, the USSR, China, Vietnam - they all have comparatively strong state power. While I don't see this as arising out of socialism per se, I also don't see any socialist societies where the state has been minimized. Your sort of pure non-state socialism doesn't seem to have taken root anywhere.

[Hannah Bell]

358. um, it might be because they're not socialist. or communist. or because

labels & self-identication don't make it so.

i don't see how america is a democracy, either. in lived practice, the demos doesn't rule.

[anigbrowl]

402. That could be because we're constituted as a Republic...

OK, so if the self-declared socialist or communist countries aren't actually socialist or communist, how come there aren't any functioning socialist countries where the state has withered away?

[Hannah Bell]

430. 1) we're also held to be a democracy, just not a direct one.

2) I don't have any conclusions about it. I haven't reached any firm conclusions on what sort of entities the actually existing self-described communist states actually were/are, or the power politics involved in their creation & continuance.

I don't buy the storylines of either left or right on most of the popular revolutions or revolutionary governments.

[IDFbunny]

458. That wasn't rrrreeeeeaaaallll Socialism (TM)

Let's now study the Bolivarian Revolution to see if they get it right.

[Hannah Bell]

481. you may think you're cute, but you simply don't get it. replacing untouchable

capitalists with untouchable bureaucrats in the boss role isn't socialism.

it's already pretty obvious chavez isn't getting it right either.

[Tyrfing]

498. Give me a break Harrah nt

[conturnedpro09]

247. A nation that Democrats shouldn't admire.

But I am grossed out to see that a handful of posters here at DEMOCRATIC Underground seem to be doing so. It's like they think the party of FDR/JFK/BHO is somehow a safe place to gush over Marx's greatness. Weird. And disturbing.

As for me, I'm for freedom, equality, justice, tolerance, peace and all those good things, not communism. I'm a Democrat (a social-Democrat who supports well regulated capitalism), I'm not a communist or socialist. (And no, it's not only because I have relatives from Cuba.)

[Dark]

273. Exactly. I'm all for equality, but communism HASN'T WORKED ANYWHERE. At least

not on a national level. It can function in communities, but not societies.

[Hannah Bell]

361. depends what you mean by "work". did it provide most people with a

better standard of living, longer lifespan, more life-possibilities than the system preceding it?

Definitely. Without a doubt.

[Hannah Bell]

140. define successful. define communist. can you point to a single successful

capitalist nation whose initial "success" wasn't based on limited the freedom of its citizens & the citizens of other locales?

as in, e.g., the slave system which was the basis of capital formation for subsequent industrial expansion?

First they enslaved them to work on the plantations they owned creating the plantation goods they owned, shipped, traded, then they "freed" them to work in the factories they moved their money into.

This the apologists celebrate as "expansion of freedom".

crock 'o crap.

[Dark]

270. "A single successful capitalist nation whose initial success wasn't based on limited freedom?" Yes.

Japan.

Post WWII, it was basically in the crapper. It had to be completely rebuilt from the ground up.

Now its economic success rivals our own.

As far as not having second class citizens, well most countries founded before 1950 or so will sadly not be able to claim this (One could argue that we still really can't). That's what happens when a country is still progressing toward equality.

[Hannah Bell]

277. i said "define successful, define communist".

japan was a capitalist country before ww2. and if you know anything about its history, there was plenty of unfreedom going on.

japan's post-war "success" was built on capital accumulated before the war, in some cases long before the war.

That's why so many of the big post-war companies = the old zaibatsu or pre-war business groups, e.g.:


Mitsui:

"Founded by Mitsui Takatoshi (1622–1694), who was born a fourth son of a shopkeeper in Matsusaka, called Echigoya (越後屋) in today's Mie prefecture. His father originally sold miso, a fermented soybean paste, and ran a pawn shop..."

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


Sumitomo:

"Masatomo Sumitomo began the company as a store selling medicine and books in 1630; however, copper made the company famous..."

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


Mitsubishi:

"The first Mitsubishi company was a shipping firm established by Yataro Iwasaki (1834–1885) in 1870. In 1873, its name was changed to Mitsubishi Shokai (三菱商会)..."

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


Matsushita (aka Panasonic): founded 1918:

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


Nomura

The Nomura Group, formerly Nomura zaibatsu, one of the major industrial and financial conglomerate groupings of Japan, founded by Tokushichi Nomura II in 1919 after many successful business ventures and established on the Mitsui zaibatsu model...

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


Mori/Showa Denko

Dec. 1908 Sobo Marine Products K.K. was established by Showa Denko (SDK) founder, Nobuteru Mori, to manufacture and sell iodine...

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


Kawasaki:

Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. traces its origins to 1876, when Kawasaki Shōzō (川崎正蔵) established Kawasaki Tsukiji Shipyard in Tokyo, Japan...

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


Toyota

The company was founded in 1926 as Toyoda Automatic Loom Works, Ltd. by Sakichi Toyoda, the inventor of a series of manual and machine-powered looms...The company was eventually founded by Kiichiro Toyoda in 1937 as a spinoff from his father's company...

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



Nissan:

One of 15 of Japan's most powerful business groupings, founded 1928 by Yoshisuke Aikawa, originally a holding company created as an offshoot of Kuhara Mining Co., which Aikawa had taken over as president of from his brother-in-law, Fusanosuke Kuhara...

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

[Dark]

282. You also asked that question. I defined communist above. Essentially, it's a

government founded upon Marxist/Leninist principles.

Success is a country whose citizens have freedom (i.e. bill of rights type freedoms; don't have to worry about secret police/dissenters disappearing), consistently better off than their previous generation and whose economy is generally productive and stable.

I also provided a capitalist system that has succeeded. Hong Kong is another (and is actually more laissez-faire than even our own).

Now, what about a communist country that succeeded?

[Hannah Bell]

287. I accidentally posted before i finished the post. there is more to it.

japan wasn't re-created from scratch after WW2, & the capital which "rebuilt" it was derived from feudal & merchant capital that very definitely was accumulated through exploitation, including slave & forced labor in the same way that much industrial capital in the us & britain derived from slavery & conquest. (see previous post).

In addition, the post-war period was very definitely a period in which citizens' freedom was limited.

Start with the Occupation, then work through the labor struggle (including the banning of unionization at various points & finally the enforcement of 'company unions' as a substitute for real ones, the seizure of properties & land from citizens (not war criminals), & similar events.


repeat:

1. define 'successful.' if i don't know what you mean by "success" i can't respond.

2. define 'communist.' ditto. "marxist-leninist principles" doesn't cut it. there are dozens to hundreds, some contradictory.

3. a capitalist nation whose initial "success" wasn't based on limiting the freedom of its citizens & the citizens of other locales?

japan isn't it.

[Dark]

304. That's OK. It happens. Anywho,

While American capital did provide a lot of help, it didn't cause Japan to become reformed. Instead, it provided a foundation. The Japanese then built upon it, using a regulated form of capitalism.

Was some of it bloodmoney? Of course -- it came from a country almost 200 years old. People had progressed since the founding, but some money remains. Complaining about a country's wealth having been partly amassed by unsavory methods is pointless -- every nation's wealth comes, in part, from corruption.

The only way to solve that would be to take everyone's wealth, property and technology owned, destroy them, and say to everyone "start from scratch."

Secondly, yes, there was an occupying force and citizen's rights were curtailed. That's what happens in an occupation after losing a war.

But the loss of rights and occupational forces aren't what created Japan's economic success. It was an occupation to maintain security, and Japan's pecuniary success continued after the occupation force left. In fact, it had a constitution in 1947 and by 1952 the occupational forces had left.

After that, Japan's economy continued to gain steam.

I stand by my definitions. Yes, there were some contradictions between Marx/Lenin, but the core values are similar. A government founded on those principles is what I would consider communist. I already defined success above as well.

P.S. I'm cleaning. A lot. So my replies will be sporadic, but I will do my best.

[Hannah Bell]

348. I don't think i said much about US capital. I spoke of Japanese capital.

The war didn't destroy all Japanese capital. Japan was capitalist before the war. It began industrializing in the Meiji era, 1868 on. Most of the big post-war japanese companies existed before the war; some existed hundreds of years before the war.

The post-war curtailment of rights, in fact, had a good deal to do with Japan's economic boom.

The forced dispossession of the landlord/landowning class & the redistribution of land, in particular, was highly important. It freed peasant bodies for the new factories, created a new class of small entrepreneurs and small capitals, increased the availability of land for development, & expanded internal markets.

It's funny you say "the only way to do that is take everyone's wealth, property" because that's exactly what was done by the US in Japan & then in Korea. The remnants of the large feudal landowners were dispossessed, large chunks of their property redistributed, & their class power broken.

My father-in-law's family was one of those dispossessed.


I don't understand why you see Japan as such a unique example, seriously.

I'm no special fan of the Russian experiment, but Russia underwent a bigger transformation, from a less developed starting point, without the military or economic umbrella of the world's largest power; & freedoms certainly did expand in many senses, even under Stalin's reign.

Women's rights, the detachment of the peasant class from serf-like conditions, free universal education & the very real class mobility that came into existence, increases in life expectancy, access to consumer goods & improved living conditions (e.g. electricity, plumbing), increased possibility of political participation - these were all expansions of freedom for their time & place.

Russia in 40 years went from a largely feudal economy to Sputnik, using mostly its own resources, in the face of near-continuous aggression from Europe & the US.

It was an unprecedented & still unmatched achievement.

Against this, you can put the purges, famine deaths, & the prison system. But there's nothing there unique to the soviet period or the soviet system.


Let's take the famine deaths, since most of the deaths laid at Stalin's/communism's door are famine deaths.

In the 19th century, in the capitalist British empire, we have ongoing famines with high (millions) mortality approximately 1 out of every four years.

1800-1801 famine in Ireland
1845-1849 Great Irish Famine killed more than 1 million people<45>
1846-1857 Highland Potato Famine in Scotland
1866 Orissa famine of 1866 in India; one million perished
1869 Rajputana famine of 1869 in India; one million and a half perished
1879 Famine in Ireland
1876-1879 5.25 million died in the Great Famine of 1876–78 in India.
1896-1902 ENSO famine in India.

Did British capitalism "cause" these famines?

Yes, in one sense; by pushing people off the land to produce crops for export, by not paying landless workers enough to buy sufficient market-priced foodstuffs, by not reducing agricultural exports during the famines or providing sufficient relief.

Was it the british capitalists' *aim* to kill people? No. But their profit & power came before people's welfare. Not unique to the 19th century, btw.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

But due to a peculiar blindness, these & similar famines are rarely held to show the "failure" or "despotism" of capitalism. And the events listed are only one piece of a bigger historic picture, e.g.:


"1990-2003: Iraq has faced famine conditions since 1990. The Iraq sanctions resulted in high rates of malnutrition. Between 200,000 and 1 million excess deaths."


Which is also not held up to exemplify the "failure" of capitalism.

But such events happen regularly under capitalism.

"Human nature," apologists say. "Corruption."

But those rationalizations should apply to communist as well as capitalist humans, yes?


As for the "Marxist/leninist" thing, you're going to have to specify what you mean. You may think it's self-evident, but it's not.

Marx & Lenin said many things, different things at different periods in their lives, & Lenin variously *did* different things than he said.

& beyond that, so many people have said different things about what they said that what's trickled down to the average american is a cartoon.

[Dark]

352. "Lenin variously *did* different things than he said." That is what I am saying.

The ideal communist state, like the ideal capitalist one, is a paradise. However, both of them ignore human nature, and that's where they're flawed.

Ideal Communism (and to a lesser extent Socialism) assumes that all the workers will have equal standing and say. But it ignores the flaw that humans are corrupt. Once a person has power, for example, over distribution of a necessity (like food), it will degenerate into a power struggle, usually with millions dead. Dissent can't be tolerated, as there is only one option (has been the case with every "communist" country. If everyone becomes a video game designer, society can't work). You can't advance from your slot without duplicity. It is an immoral, inefficient system.

Capitalism solves that by saying that if someone wants a living and there's a need to be filled, they'll fill it.

Ideal Capitalism, however, assumes that companies will always behave responsibly, because that is what the market rewards. However, as we've seen so many times, the market rewards results -- nothing else. So, when a company sees that it can make more money with sugar than wheat, it will produce sugar, regardless of how much food is needed (see Irish potato famine). If the company can gain access to more land through forced acquisition, it will (eminent domain, for example). Capitalism is simply the rule that whoever is the smartest, bravest, cruelest and luckiest wins. It is a heartless, brutal system.

My thing is, they both have their strengths and weaknesses. But capitalism has proven itself the better of the two, so it should take precedence. However, I believe that a combination of the two, with a slow transition to Socialism (over the course of several decades) would yield the optimum result.

As we've seen countless times, a sudden conversion to socialism creates a despotic, insular regime (see Cuba, N. Korea); a sudden conversion to capitalism creates a corrupt, Darwinian system (see Russia).

But slow conversion to either allows for trial and error, as well as adaptation to new socioeconomic mores. I believe that certain socialistic policies can work for society. But a quick, absolute conversion to communism or socialism would be at least as disastrous as a quick, absolute conversion to a free market.

[Hannah Bell]

364. I'd agree with you; forced transitions are violent.

Entrenched power doesn't go down without it.

Question is, this "trial & error" & "adaption" you speak of - look at our present situation, & tell me - who's directing it, & in whose interest?

Is everyone directing, deciding - or just the few?

You can discuss your preference. But do you have the power to get it on the table?

[Dark]

366. The question of power is not within my hands.

I do not have the power to make the masses rebel, or accept their status, anymore than I have power to make the rich create a feudal system, or accept a socialistic state where they are subservient to the law of the masses.

However, neither does any sole person but Obama. He's already made his position clear. I can send him messages saying I disagree with his healthcare proposal, and get others to. But poll numbers rule the day.

Nonetheless, every "communist" country has had to fight and overcome the current power to create its government.

Even Russia. It had its Duma. It wasn't very good, but it was a representative body elected by the people (including serfs, who had been freed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861">1861.

Once again, however, human fallacies corrupted what should have been a wonderful thing. Instead, we got the USSR, which transformed rather quickly into a dictatorship.

Just like all the other "communist" nations.

So answer me this: Why is it that everytime "communism" is tried, the result is a despotic, corrupt regime that destroys the economy?

[conturnedpro09]

234. I don't get it. Are you endorsing communism?

If so, that's fucking gross, dude. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground (I thought). I oppose Joe McCarthy as much as the next sane person- but communism, like racism or fascism, has no place in a country like the ol' USofA. Or the Democratic Party. I'm with the likes of JFK, not the reds.

If not, then thank goodness!

[Two Americas]

294. are you endorsing fascism?

That question would make as much sense.

[inna]

295. no, it's the opposite, at least in theory

"communism" (in theory, as an ideal) ***does NOT equal*** ( despite what capitalist propaganda wants one to believe)
thouroughly anti-humanistic and simply monstrous Soviet/Chinese model/system

.

[JVS]

223. "worker control of the means of production"

That's what it's all about. Socialism is when "I need someone to give me a job" is as ridiculous a statement to make as "I need to be given an aristocratic title". We currently live in a system that has already done away with aristocracy, we need to drop the other shoe and get rid of the hiring class.

[michreject]

149. I find it ironic that your avatar is a flag of "Don't tread on me"

Which was used in our revolution to overthrow a tyrannical Gov't and yet you want to impose a tyrannical Gov't.

:shrug:

[Tyrfing]

190. I don't think a single part of your post is true

good work on that

[michreject]

265. What's not true?

[Warpy]

5. The red of my youth has faded to a pleasant pink

and I realize that only a mixed economy of socialism and regulated capitalism will keep us humane and competitive.

Capitalism will be a roller coaster ride even with regulation, but some people love roller coaster rides. Socialism will ensure that we survive them.

[JitterbugPerfume]

9. yes--what Warpy said

[Mythsaje]

10. Precisely...

There IS no perfect solution, "no political solution to a troubled evolution."

[readmoreoften]

21. Funny, my pink has gone red.

There is no regulating capitalism. The capitalists will not allow it. As their technological power is consolidated, they don't have to allow it. There is no such thing as a "mixed economy" of socialism and capitalism (two opposite systems). What you're describing (increasingly impossible) social democratic reforms in Western democracies to placate the lower tier beneficiaries of the system. Social democratic reforms of capitalism are not a system of material production by the people for the people. I mean, Nazi Germany had a social democratic system of provision as the anchor of profit.

How has our "mixed economy" and even the "European mixed economy" stopped imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan, Coca Cola buying up water sources in Mexico, or the cheap flood of crap from the Chinese authoritarian capitalist state (which calls itself Communist, but hasn't been since at least the early 70s and some would argue, since earlier than that)? It hasn't. Most Americans--even Democrats--are brutally and foolishly nationalist when confronted with this problem. Let's call it what it is: racist. Nation is becoming irrelevant under global capitalism. Well, except for the fact that the West treats the rest of the world as its invisible slaves.

A "mixed economy" is growing increasingly improbable and is only being held in place by the weapon of mass strikes and riots, even in Europe. If Americans were to wield the power of mass strikes, it would be such a revolution unto itself I doubt that Wall Street would survive it.

Of course some capitalists will enjoy the roller coaster of capital gaming. Its not their wealth that's at stake. They're playing with the stolen wealth of others (and I mean not currency but real wealth--health, water, air quality, land).

Who is the "we" that's surviving? Americans? The global working class? Western democracy?

[leftstreet]

24. +1

:applause:

[Lorien]

308. +2

:thumbsup:

[TBF]

84. K&R this post. My feelings exactly. n/t

[Two Americas]

70. of course

That may well be true that some mix is best. But choosing our own personal stance as to what might be the ideal system is of absolutely no value, other than for chatting with folks in social situations and not looking like a completely idiot.

We can never get to any mixed system until and unless there are people strongly advocating from the Left. It is not possible. It is like saying that in a bargaining situation where the seller is saying "$10" our response is that we believe $5 is a fair price, an attainable goal. That is a certain way to make sure that we will never get it for $5, but more like $7.50 or something.

Obviously, in that situation we may want to start with a counter-offer of $1 if we hope to arrive eventually at $5. Yet people are representing $5 as the right answer, and as a substitute, a more practical and realistic and moderate alternative to those who are saying "$1" in response to the opposition's "$10" offer.


...

[cali]

6. let's cut the naive crap. Any economic system is

subject to becoming an instrument of oppression. that couldn't be much clearer.

[joshcryer]

212. This is why I am against economics.

[tomp]

370. once a system becomes oppressive, it's not socialism. nt

[tj2001]

12. I believe corporatism is the problem

with the corporate executives and their drones controlling the government drones...

[Two Americas]

88. capitalism on sterioids

Corporatism means that capitalists are given a government granted charter allowing them to manipulate capital without any personal liability or responsibility, while creating the right and protections of individual citizens.

Corporatism did not happen by accident, it is a powerful tool in the hands of the wealthy few.

The fight against corporations is also not new. It was the abuse of the colonists by the British crown corporations that led to the American Revolution. It was not an anti-monarchy movement, as we are now told.


...

[winter999]

13. Have you an example of a successful socialist country that we could pattern after?

[Diclotican]

20. winter999

winter999

North Europa, or more to the point Norway, Denmark Sweden, Finland and Iceland have managed to build decent society, who are much more regulated than many other country - but still allow a fair share of capitalism... 60% Ca... 3 of the country have even royals as head of state... But then this 5 country are not pure socialist country, but rather social democratic...


Diclotican

[Raskolnik]

22. Um, you haven't checked the economy of Iceland lately, have you? n/t

[hunter]

29. The economy of Iceland fell at the hands of Capitalists.

:eyes:

[Diclotican]

251. Raskolnik

Raskolnik

You haven't followed the whole story I guess, since you can say that - and claim it on social Democratic values... Iceland was ruined by their own believe that debt and greed was the solution for everything.. Iceland was traditionally a country where you have to know to turn every krone (Icelandic currency) twice to get by. In the 1990s the whole game changed and everyone believed the sky was the limit. Deregulation of the economical sector did gave for a long time Iceland a edge against everyone else. Because the country of 300.000 people are well educated and are used to work hard.. One of the few resources at Iceland was Fish, who they have been fighting "wars" over in the 1970s when UK tried to cut into the deal with industry ship - UK failed miserably, and was forced to give up claim to a lot of sea.. But as pointed out in the 1990s fish was so "Old" and in the new economy, specially in banking the future was.. Iceland was been set up to be one of the "Largest" and most "Safe" places to trade and have money.. And compared to many, many other bigger country in Europa and indeed in the rest of the world, the Icelandic bank indeed was been seen as safe, and not least honest...

But it was as many americans call it was a ponzi sheme, who was ruled by less than 20 persons, who played really big fishes, and in the end managed to tear down the whole Enterprise when other pilares in the economy was hit by recession.. Today Iceland is a country in hard economical hardship - and ruled by a left wing party, who on the agenda have a closer relationship whit EU as goal, specially that Iceland Will be member of EU in the end.. The former Party was by the way, the right/center party, who have ruled Iceland for most year since it independence in 1944.. Iceland and the people there is rather conservative in where they vote, but after the right/center party was forced to resign, and to have a vote about the future of Iceland, one of the rather left wing party had to take the power - and trying to rebuild and to fix what the Right/center party had ruined...

But I guess, that was something you know about already?

Diclotican

[Irreverend IX]

100. The Nordic welfare states and other European social democracies...

Have only existed in their current state for a few decades, and already they're having problems maintaining their policies in the face of falling birth rates and rising immigrant populations. And every welfare state is built on the back of oppressive commercial policies. Ask anyone in the Middle East, Eastern Europe or Africa about the benevolence and charity of European governments. They indulge in the same cheap-labor imperialism that the US does, they just have the good taste to keep it outside their borders. Their toxic waste dumping off Somalia is what ultimately led to the rise of piracy, for one.

[Diclotican]

262. Irreverend IX

Irreverend IX

That is at least rubbish to say that the current welfare system have been there just for a couple of decades.. In the past we have had in one of another fashion welfare system in Scandinavia since at least the 1850s.. Specially after the great European revolutions in the 1840s many programs to protection of the most poor was started because they who had must to loose if the revolution ever came to Scandinavia was afraid of the working class people.. In sweden it was outright forbidden, by law to talk about both the french revolution and specially the great revolutions of 1840s.. But in the end the truth got out, and even that the great revolutions of the 1840 was flooded with blood, the idea of government who have full control was dashed, and in the 200 or so year thereafter, the programs to protect, and to give help to the poorest of the poor was made possible, both by private hand, but also by government hand. When Norway, as I am an Norwegian I tend to know my own country best, was in depended in 1905, it was a dirt poor country, where most people have to survive of what they had and where the whole idea of a welfare system as we have today was something they could just dream about.. But it was programs already in function.. And specially after World war one, who was hurting Norway hard, because of our trade who almost was at an stand till for a time. The programs to help, and to protect poor ones was build out, even that the great depression was hurting every program.. But they had a partial function social service, and they do had somewhat decent healtcare already then.. But off course the real "explosion" of an public welfare system for everyone was an idea from after world war two, where the Social Democratic Party AP was more og less dominating the whole political system from 1945-63 and then from 1963-66. And for the most part every single party in Norway have agreed about the welfare system we have today. Even the conservative party Høyre are more or less in agreement with the rest of the Parliament (Stortinget) about the idea of a welfare system who is generous and who can help and protect from birth to death. THe idea the different parties is in disagreement is how to do it best.. A totally free system, or a more "pay as you go" system.. But I doubt that most parties, with the exception of FRP, Ironic enough named Fremskritspartiet) would go the US type of things... And I somewhat doubt that FRP would be voted into power in fall of this year anyway.. They might be a power in our Parliament, but I have a feeling that the other parties would rather eat poison than to give FRP the reign of the government..

I am not about what you are claiming that Norway have been oppressed the rest of the world.. Compared to the total population in the country, we as a state are given quite a lot of money, to help this poor, illness stricken country you claim we oppress.. And we have been doing that for the last 60 year or so.. Our first country to get economical and other type of aid, was India already in 1948, at a time when Norway had a task of reboiling our own country who was ravaged by the world war. Specially the northern parts of Norway was a smoking ruin... And both private donations, and public handout have been given to Africa, Asia Latin America (included Mexico) and so on.. Where horrible accidence have happened, have Norway over the year at least given a couple of billions of dollar - and when you thing that Norway have 4.6 million I would NOT say that Norway have been the worst in the class when it came to helping other country... I would say Norway have been most generous with their help, compared to the old Colonial Powers, like United Kingdom, France Belgia, The Netherlands Germany and so on.. Compared to them, who have indeed exploited and harmed most of Asia, Africa and Latin America, Norway have been one of the most generous country there is.. And Norway haven't been a colonial power either in the past..

Many reason for the mess in Somalia, and the dumping of toxic waste out the coast of Somalia are indeed one of the reasons.. But the ONE reason.. One other maybe more important reason is the impossibility for the somalians to get a function central government to get into power - and to get the clan leaders to stop using their weapon against the central government.. After 1991 it have not been a function government in Somalia.. And after so many years without a central government, it is easy to be a pirate. And if you had followed the pirate ordeal at the coast,it is not that easy as to say that everything is Europa's fault.. The Somalians have had many chances to make the country a decent, maybe even prosperous country. It is rumored to be a lot of oil in the sea outside of Somalia, and if this is true, and they have a central government who can manage the wealth, it is no impossibility that Somalia at least can be a nice place to live - and they have a lot of nature to explode for tourist too..

Diclotican

[blindpig]

25. Cuba is working on it.

Given the constraints under which they've been forced to operate they're doing pretty good. If they had been allowed to trade they would be further along.

There were many advances in the socialist nations which are blithely ignored by western capitalist. Ya gotta consider where they started, in a nation that was more than half feudal. In those things most important to human wellbeing, mortality, longevity, nutrition, live births, education, the advances were outstanding.

[Dark]

55. You do realize that they have absolutely NO freedom of speech, assembly, press down there?

How, pray tell, did our isolationist policies create that?

[blindpig]

78. You haven't a clue about Cuba.

There are a number of fine posters on this site who have been posting the truth for years. Educate yourself.

[Dark]

275. BWAHAHAHAHA!. You seriously believe that Cubans have more freedom than Americans.

Here. http://www.diariolasamericas.com/news.php?nid=77655">Apparently, they're trying to restrict what people can access on the internet in hotels.

Nowadays, only government employees, academics and researchers are allowed to have Internet accounts, which are provided by the government. But, in recent years many ordinary Cubans had been using hotel Internet services, which have it for foreign tourists. This resulted in many bloggers who are critical of the government.

Since they no longer will have access to Internet at the hotels, a service that is expensive but that the bloggers in one way or another were able to pay, they will only have the possibility of using Internet services at the U.S. Interests Section or at a foreign embassy that would allow them to use it. This would entail the risk of an accusation by the government of being mercenaries at the service of “Yankee imperialism” or of any foreign government.

Oh, and Cuba's not http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art200905128165415">too good on freedom of the press either.

The organisation said out of the 195 countries and territories covered in the study, 70, or 36 per cent, were rated ”free,” 61 (31 per cent), were rated ”partly free” and 64 (33 per cent) were rated ”not free.”

Among the worst-rated in 2008 were Belarus, China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, Laos, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, the Palestinian territories, Rwanda and Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe.


On edit: added quotes.

[Two Americas]

82. ROFL

And we do?

[Raskolnik]

90. Sez a person posting on an internet messageboard that is often highly critical

of the government, calls for leaders (or even whole economic systems!) to be replaced, and organizes protests without any legitimate fear of recrimination from the state.

Irony!

[Two Americas]

99. no idea what you are talking about

If what we are doing threatened the rulers, the suppression would be swift and brutal. You have no idea who here has and has not paid a price for testing this wonderful freedom you think we have.

Hard to get used to the reactionary and conservative things that get posted here.


...

[Raskolnik]

105. Do we have more personal freedom in the U.S. than citizens of Cuba, or less?

And if you can provide a single example of someone being punished by the state for expressing political opinions on Democratic Underground, I will give you a dollar.

[Two Americas]

111. a profit motive!

A dollar? I would get a dollar?

Saying "I am gay" can get you fired. You might have noticed that in the news recently. Hang onto your dollar, though.

Have you heard the phrase "free speech zones?" Keep that dollar, too.


...

[Raskolnik]

113. Wow. You didn't even try to answer my question. n/t

[Two Americas]

117. thinking about this a little more

I think many people, especially those enjoying a relative degree of material well-being and privilege, confuse obedience and compliance with "freedom." They do not see the ways in which they are controlled and restricted, or they explain it away, and they have all sorts of excuses for why those who do not enjoy the same privilege and well-being are suffering.


...

[Hannah Bell]

159. yep. fishes don't see water, you only see it when you get outside it for a bit.

[Raskolnik]

179. That might impress in the freshman dorm tv room, but that's not responsive to my question. n/t

[Two Americas]

183. okey dokey

I answered your question. I freely admit to not putting much effort or thought into this exchange.

[Raskolnik]

206. "I freely admit to not putting much effort or thought into this exchange."

That much is clear. I'm glad we've found something upon which to agree.

Take care.

[Two Americas]

215. it does not warrant much thought

You claimed we have freedom of speech. What that has to do with capitalism I don't know. I offered two examples that disprove your assertion. If there is something else you want to discuss, or if you want to continue to debate this issue, I am right here.


...

[Raineyb]

377. Well it's not like you've been putting any thought into your verbage.

:shrug:

So I'm not sure what it is you're complaining about.

[Tyrfing]

230. you'd have to unlock your doors

and leave the comfortable confines of your closeted, well-protected abode to even get to the TV room. Give up a little bit of your security to come out and play sometime and see if it doesn't color your perspective just a bit.

[Raskolnik]

237. Oh, my! You must be one of those street-tough proletariat I've heard about at my tea parties n/t

I said to my butler just the other day that I thought I saw one of you through the viewing scope on my dirigible.

[Hannah Bell]

129. there's no need to punish folks for opinions when they're powerless to do anything about them.

punishment comes when it begins to look like their opinions might affect something.

like the time the feds dropped bombs on the MOVE commune.

[Raskolnik]

210. If you think you're powerless, and your voice counts for nothing, that's your business.

Seems like you'd refrain from arguing politics on the internet if you truly thought that was the case...

[Hannah Bell]

224. can you read, or are you just programmed to respond to key words?

my post & your response = different.

[Raskolnik]

228. I was assuming your post was responsive to mine. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

Although that does beg the question as to what the point of your post actually was, but if you want to be oblique, I'm not going to try and ferret your point out of you.

[Hannah Bell]

233. i'm not trying to be oblique. not powerless to do something about one's opinions

isn't the same thing as being powerless, period, or "having no voice".

[Raskolnik]

239. Then how is that responsive to the sub-thread?

You obviously felt that it was, but I'm not sure how.

[Hannah Bell]

318. You say that being able to express opinions on the internet demonstrates how free

americans are compared to, e.g., cubans.

I said opinions are no danger to the state so long as people are powerless to do anything to implement them.

I further said that if people move to implement their opinions - for example, by organizing, by living them - you'll feel the limits of your un-freedom, as in, e.g., the example of MOVE:

"MOVE was created by John Africa... Africa and his followers, most of them black...advocated a radical form of green politics and a return to hunter-gatherer society while stating their opposition to science, medicine and technology...The police dropped a bomb from a helicopter onto the rooftop of the MOVE residence. The resulting fire was allowed to burn. This resulted in the deaths of six adults and five children.<2>"

Expressing opinions is about the only thing most middle-class Americans do. Since they rarely challenge anything & are allowed their impotent (though surveilled) expressions of opinion without being arrested, they imagine they're free.


Cubans can, & do, express political opinions. They aren't generally arrested for doing so unless there's more to the story (e.g., they're receiving funds from the US gov't, etc.)

Read some people who've been there & traveled, freely, talking to people, e.g.:

"The objective situation and the feelings of individual people are too complex for most generalizations.

We got to know a family in which both the parents and their two sons were exceptionally talented, well-educated professionals. The mother said to us, "We know that our sons, with their education and ability, could live better in another country, but this is our revolution. We know there are problems, but we want to make it work."

Just down the street lived another family of professionals in similar economic circumstances. The father said one day, "I'm too old to leave here now, but my greatest hope for my son is that he will get out of this terrible country."

If there is a fair generalization about the conditions and the politics of Cuba, it is this: As a visitor, you can see what you expect or want to see. If you come to Cuba looking for evidence of a police state, inefficient bureaucracy, and dissatisfied people, you can find it. If you look for evidence of a uniquely idealistic society in which people have a strong sense of community, respect their government, and are trying to solve problems without sacrificing the achievements of their revolution, you can find that too.

Let's ride."

http://www.bicyclingcuba.com/map.html

[blindpig]

365. Powerless only within the context of electoral politics.

There is a lot more to politics than that. And that is the last thing that the elite want the people to realize.

[northzax]

341. Don't forget the Branch Davidians

and Ruby Ridge. if we're listing groups that decided gunfire was the correct response to warrants.

[Hannah Bell]

362. There's no agreement on gunplay. But the police bombing destroyed 61 houses.

[Raineyb]

378. The MOVE group did no such thing.

You should get your facts straight before spewing.

[northzax]

449. really? the MOVE group did not stockpile weapons?

and didn't fire on police? why did they have a 'minister of defense'?

just say it right now: there was no gunfire from within the MOVE compound on police. write that, so we know your grasp of history.

you're serious, right? so write the following text: "on my honor, I know for a fact that there was no gunfire from within the MOVE compound and anyone who says differently is a liar." go ahead, call them out.

[Dark]

276. Well, is the government telling you what internet sites you can access?

God. Some people on this board amaze me. They think it's 1940s Germany or USSR.

Jesus.

http://www.diariolasamericas.com/news.php?nid=77655">Here.

http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art200905128165415">And here.

But hey, keep saying that the U.S. is more draconian than a dictatorship. At least we choose who's our master, right?

/sigh.

[TBF]

290. "At least we choose who's our master, right?"

That point is debatable. Do you truly think this country chose GWB twice?

[Dark]

300. We didn't the first time. The second... eh, it was really close.

I live in Ohio, and don't doubt our ability to mess up an election. That plus gerrymandering can cause many a problem.

[Hannah Bell]

322. Cuba gets Internet access from Venezuela: Works around US embargo

Thursday, 17 July 2008, 14:12

CUBA HAS recently begun loosening its hold over its citizens, allowing mobile phones to be imported and purchased, and PCs in the home.

With this, will come data demands, and Cuba has an ace up its sleeve when it comes to getting around the US embargo in the form of Venezuela.

According to Julian Assange from a Wikileaks.org article, documents given to the site have revealed that Cuba and Venezuela signed a confidential contract in 2006 to lay an undersea fibre-optic cable, bypassing the United States. The cable is expected to be completed by 2010.

Assange writes that the contract between the two countries has been independently verified.

This will allow the Cubans to benefit from much higher-speeds - the country currently relies heavily on high-latency satellite access.

Not only will Cuba benefit but the proposed 1,500 kilometre cable will also connect Jamaica, Haiti and Trinidad to the rest of the world via La Guaira, Venezuela.

It should be noted that Cuba is situated a mere 120 kilometres off the coast of Florida.

The work is being carried out by CVG Telecom (Corporación Venezolana de Guyana) and ETC (Empresa de Telecomunicaciones de Cuba).

This hack recently spent time in Cuba and discovered that the proliferation of mobiles is much higher than we believe in the west, with a variety of normal-people walking around and using the devices.

PCs were also readily available with access to the Internet in hotels, albeit at dial-up speeds, providing you don't mind an old woman looking over your shoulder at your mail box.


http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1030109/cuba-gets-internet-access

[Dark]

326. Uh, it's still restricting which web sites its people can visit. And it still has one of the worst

"freedom" ratings in the world.

China also has fast internet, and yet China also restricts which Web sites its http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China">people can visit.

From the wiki:

Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC) government, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.

snip

Section Five of the Computer Information Network and Internet Security, Protection, and Management Regulations approved by the State Council on December 11, 1997 states the following:

No unit or individual may use the Internet to create, replicate, retrieve, or transmit the following kinds of information:

1. Inciting to resist or breaking the Constitution or laws or the implementation of administrative regulations;
2. Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system;
3. Inciting division of the country, harming national unification;
4. Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalities or harming the unity of the nationalities;
5. Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, spreading rumors, destroying the order of society;
6. Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material, gambling, violence, murder;
7. Terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people;
8. Injuring the reputation of state organs;
9. Other activities against the Constitution, laws or administrative regulations.

More at link

On edit: tried to fix html.

[Hannah Bell]

333. Um, since Cuba's 1) poor, 2) under embargo, 3) an island with limited domestic resources

to produce goods from scratch, & has until quite recently imported a limited number of computers which were limited to dial-up, so most people didn't even have access to a computer, what is the significance of this "website restriction" you describe?



China, OTOH, is blatantly capitalist, so I'm not sure what the relevance of their computer policy is.

[northzax]

342. again, Cuba is under embargo from one country

the US. there are 191 other UN member states out there freely engaging in trade with Cuba, if there was anything to trade. (this is why you can buy Havana Club rum in the airport in Toronto or Mexico City) there are, therefore, just under 6 billion people in the world with the free right to trade with Cuba. and have been for 45 years. you'd think the place would be taking off any time now. Sure, you can't buy a new Chevy, but a Fiat? a Renault? a Toyota? a Honda? the streets must be packed with them, right?

but the embargo is a convenient excuse, I suppose.

[Hannah Bell]

353. Helms-Burton Act:

"Economic embargo, any non-US company that deals economically with Cuba can be subjected to legal action and that company's leadership can be barred from entry into the United States. Sanctions may be applied to non-U.S. companies trading with Cuba. This means that internationally operating companies have to choose between Cuba and the US, which is a much larger market.

United States opposition against Cuban membership in International Financial Institutions.

Exclusion of certain aliens from the United States, primarily senior officials or major stock holders, and their families, of companies that do business in Cuba on property expropriated from American citizens. To date, executives from Italy, Mexico, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom have been barred."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms-Burton_Act

It has an effect, though you may not think so, especially for key industrial imports, which is one reason Cuba buys oil from Venezuela.


OTOH, most Cubans who could roust up the foreign exchange & endure the bureaucratic hassles have always been allowed to travel overseas, e.g. to visit family, (as I learned, much to my surprise, from a Cuban emigre I worked with), & that limited freedom is being expanded, so I'm not sure what the point would be in banning "certain sites" on the currently mostly inacessible internet.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/04/18/2008-04-18_raul_castro_loosens_travel_restrictions_.html

Just as autos haven't been widely imported into Cuba since the fall of the Soviet Union, computers haven't either. Scarce foreign exchange & distribution issues for consumer goods are the primary reasons, I believe.

[Dark]

369. That still doesn't justify blocking what your people can read.

Explain to me how we are less free than the Cubans despite the fact that I can look up virtually any site I want yet they are limited by their government.

And as for China: They started out communist, but realized it didn't work. So, they've been slowly integrating capitalism. It has benefited them greatly.

Why is it that China suffered under communism but has improved under capitalism? (And, yes, I know that it's not perfect over there. But things have improved.)

[Hannah Bell]

417. explain to me why cuba would bother to block the internet when foreigners

can travel freely in cuba, talk to anyone they want, when cubans can & do travel overseas, & when until recently, most cubans had no access anyway.

here's what i think: i think there may be some kernel of fact to the internet restrictions, but reported through a highly distorted lens. the reports i read from people who've actually gone to cuba don't support your police state scenario.

here's who runs your "freedom house":


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

Freedom House receives the majority (80%) of its funding from the U.S. government through the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, and the State Department. It also receives some funding from foundations such as the Bradley Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Dutch government, and a list of others.<5>

Holly Sklar, details how former CIA agent Charlie Wick initiated a "public diplomacy" fundraiser campaign amongst right-wing donors organizations, lobbyists and PR specialists working in conjunction with the NED, NSC, CIA and White House Office of Public Liaison and the State Department of Public Diplomacy which established a special group called the Outreach Working Group. NSC official Walter Raymond and Roy Godson recommended donated $400,000 to Freedom House that has credibility in the political centre in a PR war against the Nicaraguan government.<12>

Author Mark McKinney bluntly defines Freedom House as "funded by both the US government and Soros to provide support to pro-Western opposition movements" and intimately links Freedom House with the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and the International Foundation for Election Systems<13>. Furthermore he argues Otpor, the group which overthrew Milosevic, received funds from the NED and Agency for International Development via the Reagan Administration established NED to do overtly what the CIA had done covertly, that is, promote Cold War propaganda and operations though Freedom House, then chaired by former CIA director James Woolsey and supported by Billionaire Soros foundations, who always support NED operations.

[Dark]

427. Ah yes, the old "If a source disagrees with me, it's simply wrong."

As for Cuba, it's simple: Free speech is DANGEROUS to tyrants. Anything they can do to limit it will be done.

[Hannah Bell]

432. I presented the evidence about who funds Freedom House. If you compare

their reports to other human rights orgs, you'll find a different story.

I've presented evidence that tourism is widespread in cuba, that tourists can travel freely & talk to people, that cubans voice a variety of opinions to foreigners, that cubans can, with some hassle & expense, travel overseas & return home, that there are, in fact, public protests & assemblies in cuba with minimal consequences, that until recently internet access was not even a consideration for most people, that cuba has bloggers....

seems to me you're the one disregarding evidence. i'm perfectly willing to concede there are some restrictions on speech & assembly (there are in the us, too).

but it's pretty obvious cuba's not the absolutist tyranny you paint it as. absolutist tyrannies, for one thing, don't let foreigners travel freely, & the evidence is overwhelming that they can & do.

[Dark]

350. 1.) You still haven't addressed the whole "ranked one of the worst on freedom" issue. 2.)

It doesn't matter how many computers they have when it comes to the government censoring Web sites. They're still telling them they can't view certain content.

They're censoring. And, sorry to say, you're trying to defend it. Accept the fact that communism, in its current form, leads to a dictatorship. If not, please provide a communist government that has not become a dictatorship.

[Hannah Bell]

355. um, if people can travel overseas, what would be the point of restricting the internet?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/04/18/2008-04-18_raul_castro_loosens_travel_restrictions_.html

restrictions are being lifted, but ordinary cubans who could get the money & endure the bureaucratic process have always been able to go abroad to visit their families & for other reasons - including to the US. I learned this from a cuban emigre i worked with in the us.


http://cubantriangle.blogspot.com/2007/05/new-cuban-travel-regs.html

Presumably while they were overseas they could view foreign media.

and talk about it when they came home.

Tourism has been a growing industry since 1991. Foreigners can travel anywhere in cuba, on their own, & talk to anyone they wish, as you can confirm for yourself by perusing travel sites.

In such circumstances, what would be the efficacy of "restricting certain sites" on the internet?

What is it you believe cubans don't know about the outside world that's being hidden from them?

[Hannah Bell]

368. they have *no* freedom of speech, assembly, etc.?

how is it these people aren't in jail, then?

how is it they have a press spokesman/international representative?

how is it cuba has "bloggers"?

released with a fine? whoa, harsh repression.


http://flamurcuba.org/artman2/publish/Home_News/CIVIL_DISOBEDIENCE_IN_CUBA_PROTESTS_INSIDE_FOUR_RESTAURANTS_IN_HAVANA_TO_SUPPORT_WITH_THE_SAME_CURRENCY_CAMPAIGN.shtml


CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN CUBA: PROTESTS INSIDE FOUR RESTAURANTS IN HAVANA TO SUPPORT “WITH THE SAME CURRENCY” CAMPAIGN

Apr 2, 2009 - 6:32:


Havana, April 1st, 2009. Cubans continue to openly defy the regime, just 24 hours after blogger Yoany Sánchez and other young Cubans expressed their desire for freedom of expression during an art performance carried out by Tania Bruguera at the 10th Biannual Art Festival in Havana.

This time, a total of 28 activists, 15 women and 13 men, entered four restaurants in Havana in furtherance of the third phase of the “With the same Currency” campaign, ordering food and refreshments and refusing to pay with the Cuban convertible peso (CUC).

Instead, they offered to pay with the Cuban national currency, the Cuban peso. Similarly to previous occasions, some of the activists were temporarily arrested and released afterwards. 8 of the demonstrators were fined with $40 Cuban pesos. All of them maintained their intention to demand the right to pay for the services with the same currency in which they received their salaries, which is the purpose of the campaign.

Magdelivia Hidalgo, FLAMUR’s International Representative, called for international public opinion to express solidarity with these actions. “The third phase of the “With the Same Currency Campaign is an example of consistency, organization and vision of strategic nonviolent struggle”, she outlined. “We hope that finally the international media, particularly the foreign correspondents and bureaus based in Cuba, finally report properly about this reality.”

[eomer]

136. Cuba is not an example of success.

You can come up with all the explanations for why they haven't succeeded but that will never convert them into an example of success. The best you can get to is "well, they would've been a success if it weren't for...".

Look to European examples instead or perhaps other Latin American countries that are works in progress but arguably getting closer than Cuba.

[blindpig]

363. Why don't you compare apples to apples?

Compare Cuba to the rest of Latin America. The Cuban people are much better off as a whole than the rest in terms of quality of life. Those countries which are moving left all hold Cuba in high esteem. For that matter so do the rest, if only for Cuba's resolute resistance to Yankee imperialism.

You won't trust be but I've been there and done that. The most miserable people that I've encountered have been those of one of our client states in Central America, the Cubans are among the happiest people in the world. And this despite their lack of access to all of our ridiculous bling.

[eomer]

385. Comparing relative misery among the failures is interesting

but it doesn't make any of them successes.

I'm just not willing to believe that the miserable conditions in Cuba over the last five decades represent the end goal that we want to strive for. Surely we can look for a model somewhere else that has produced better results than that.

[blindpig]

396. First of all conditions in Cuba are not miserable.

Relatively poor, yes. But well fed, dressed plain but neatly, healthy and educated. They do not have much bling or stupid electronic doodads, they do have community. Compared to the lot of the masses of pre-revolutionary Cuba or that of the masses in most Latin American or Caribbean nations they're doing rather well and improvements have been continual since the 'special period' has ended.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

[Political Heretic]

423. If you asked Cubans whether they would rather live in America...

...they will (and have) overwhelmingly answered yes. Why is that?

Because well fed (false), dressed plain by neatly (also false), healthy and educated doesn't mean anything when you are not free.

[blindpig]

428. And how would you know that?

PH, you can spin your fantasies but I've visited the place and saw what I saw. Not the tourist joint but the countryside. Cubans are intensely proud of their country and revolution. Driving around the western part of the island and Havana you never saw any image of Fidel Castro, a little of Che. The one who they really revere is Jose Marti. Your image of Cuba is totally screwed.

[Political Heretic]

462. That's why the keep coming here by the boatloads, right?

[Hannah Bell]

433. evidence? from what i've read, there's a wide variety of opinion on that,

& similar issues.

hey, there are plenty of people traveling around cuba & posting pictures on the web. i don't see a lot of pictures of dirty people in rags, & none of starving people, either.

fed, dressed, healthy, educated - aren't "nothing".

[obliviously]

442. do you have some links??

[Hannah Bell]

448. some links to a wide variety of opinion? read a wide variety of reports.

here's one from someone who bicycled through the country.


"The objective situation and the feelings of individual people are too complex for most generalizations.

We got to know a family in which both the parents and their two sons were exceptionally talented, well-educated professionals. The mother said to us, "We know that our sons, with their education and ability, could live better in another country, but this is our revolution. We know there are problems, but we want to make it work."

Just down the street lived another family of professionals in similar economic circumstances. The father said one day, "I'm too old to leave here now, but my greatest hope for my son is that he will get out of this terrible country."

If there is a fair generalization about the conditions and the politics of Cuba, it is this: As a visitor, you can see what you expect or want to see. If you come to Cuba looking for evidence of a police state, inefficient bureaucracy, and dissatisfied people, you can find it. If you look for evidence of a uniquely idealistic society in which people have a strong sense of community, respect their government, and are trying to solve problems without sacrificing the achievements of their revolution, you can find that too.

Let's ride."

http://www.bicyclingcuba.com/map.html

[obliviously]

455. Fascinating Thank you!

[blindpig]

460. What I saw

Was only there for a week but what I saw of the police, in town and country, was a relatively light presence and a light touch. NYC is more of a police state. They were tolerant, lightly armed. We should have cops like that around here.

[eomer]

476. When my wife visited her family in Artemisa Cuba some years ago,

someone came to the house where she was staying and told her she had to go into the local security office for questioning. She went and was subjected to questioning that was delivered in a very stern and unfriendly tone. Toward the end there was a lucky turn for her. Lightening struck very close by and the thunder clap was very loud and sudden. My wife let out a "¡Coño!" (roughly equivalent to "F##k!") and all of them -- my wife and her questioners -- could not help but have a laugh together. The ice was broken and they wrapped up the questions and let her go shortly after.

I wouldn't call this a light presence and a light touch although, in the end and perhaps only due to a fortunate accident, humanity won out.

[eomer]

475. Well put. Here is the story of my wife's family.

My wife's cousins fit your descriptions pretty well, although more of them fall into your latter category than your former.

She has two female cousins. One of them raised two daughters in Cuba, remaining there until they were in grade school. This cousin and her husband told us many times about the hardships they went through. Food for their daughters was at best substandard and at times nonexistent. The father was seriously malnourished due to sacrificing his portions to try to better provide for his wife and daughters. When my wife visited them they took her to the government food store, telling her in advance that there wouldn't be any salt to buy. Sure enough there wasn't. Shoes and other clothing rations were very minimal. Like everyone they were forced to commit "crimes" of buying on the black market in order to feed and clothe their family. This family won the visa lottery and they live in Miami now.

The other female cousin has one son and is divorced. She is a committed supporter of the Communist regime. She travels to other countries in her work and seems to have a somewhat easier time because of the perks that come to those who are ardent supporters. Even so her son decided it wasn't for him and left. He came by way of human smugglers and apparently had a close call with disaster when a demand was made for more cash. I assume he had been forewarned but in any event he managed to come up with the money and made it to Miami alive.

My wife also has four male cousins that are roughly in this same generation (currently in their 30s to 40s). Two of the four got out on rafts in the wave that occurred during the Clinton administration. They were picked up by the US Coast Guard and lived in a tent camp at Guantanamo for some months before being allowed into the US. The other two had connections (father was a Communist bigwig) and they managed to get out by flying to some other country, defecting, and then getting here somehow.

My wife also has four more male cousins, as well as her two sisters, all of whom came out around 1960 with their parents.

So of my wife's generation, totaling thirteen cousins in all, only one remains in Cuba. The children of this group include four who were born in Cuba and fourteen who were born in the US. I don't believe anyone in these two generations remain in Cuba today, although there are a couple of families who went back briefly and then came out again.

The older generation in my wife's family was split similarly, although the ones who got out tended to do so in the initial exodus around 1960. Those who stayed, including the ones who were Communist supporters, routinely had to beg for medicines to be provided by the relatives in the US. This was usually not just a temporary supply for a brief illness. The routine medicines that they took all the time were given to them every month by their relatives in the US.

Everyone in the older generation has now passed away and everyone in the two younger generations has gotten out, leaving just the one female cousin in Cuba at this point. Obviously my facts are anecdotal but so are the facts of the other posters here. Based both on the way they "voted with their feet" and on the stories that they told us over many years when they still lived in Cuba, my wife's family is of the opinion that conditions in Cuba were and are miserable.

[Political Heretic]

465. That's exactly my point. Sorry if I was not precise enough in making it.

It frustrates me when a place is held up as a mythologized example of a perfect society. Because it is an insult to the thousands of people who have suffered human rights abuses and lack of freedoms within a regime that has many serious problems. And I think there are much better examples of small societies with lower instances of human rights abuses and power abuses, with high standards of living, quality education and health care, etc. Sweden comes immediately to mind, only because I just got done listening to a swede describe her country, as well has having Economic Policy Institute data on health care, education, poverty, income inequality, etc. for that country.

Cuba is not a paradise. No way in hell is American capitalism the answer. But neither is Cuba some kind of communist utopia. What concerns me when people speak in superlatives about Cuba without any attempt to acknowledge its serious problems as well is that it glosses over human rights. A simple, cursory look at someplace like Human Rights Watch details these challenges.

But then again, I might have a different agenda than blindpig. I'm not willing to exchange freedom of speech, movement, press and religion for health care or education. I want both, but have little positive to say about any system in which the former don't exist.

A person down below nailed my basic criticism and perspective to the tee, when he quoted the old saying: "Everything the Soviets told us about communism was a lie, but everything they told us about capitalism was the truth."

That nails it. I believe Marx is wrong and way off in his belief that communism is the natural "end" emerging out of the failure of capitalism. I believe he is fundamentally naive in his understanding of human nature, and we have certainly gained a lot more wisdom and understanding about human behavior in social environments since his time. I believe his criticisms of capitalism were very accurate. This leaves us in an interesting position where neither "communism" in the purely hypothetical, contrary to human nature, never been and never will be effectively implemented sense nor capitalism are viable economic social structures...

Which means we need something new. Personally, as with MOST of history, I believe that what's needed is a synthesis out of these former thesis and antithesis ideas - what we need are centrally well-regulated markets, and a mechianism for providing economic checks-and-balances similar to how the founding fathers of this country attempted to set up checks and balances for governmental power.

[Hannah Bell]

467. i've never been, but i've read plenty of accounts. bp *has* been, so that counts for something.

i've never believed cuba was paradise; neither do i believe it's a totalitarian nightmare.

neither do i believe americans' "freedom" is as substantial as it's cracked up to be. the freedom to run one's mouth has a certain value, but it's a limited value when there are so many barriers to effecting real change, even when supposedly a majority of the populace wishes it.

and i don't believe it's possible to regulate capitalism when money buys power & money & ownership grow more & more concentrated on a global scale. the powerful don't give up their power, & that's what regulation entails.

75% of national income goes to the top 40%; 10% to the top .1%, a few hundred thousand people. That = concentrated power. and the trend to concentration isn't stopping.

There's a reason nothing much has gotten better since the 70s, & much has gotten worse: the entrenchment of power & our inability to extract any real concessions from it. The concessions have mainly come from the people, despite promises otherwise. On a global scale.

[northzax]

340. if Cuba had been allowed to trade?

um, Cuba is free to trade with 191 of the 192 member states of the United Nations. the only state in the world that bans trade with Cuba is the United States.

[Hannah Bell]

436. helms-burton penalizes us trading partners, companies & individuals

who violate the embargo.

it's not quite as straightforward as you say.

though even the us trades with cuba, trade is restricted in various ways, especially in some categories of essential goods (e.g. oil), & cuba has had a limited amount of foreign exchange since the fall of the ussr.

[northzax]

454. please

Helms-Burton again? can you cite, just out of curiosity, one incidence of Helms-Burton actually being enforced? Clinton and Bush both waivered it. Obama certainly isn't going to spend a lot of time enforcing it. Heck, the fuel trucks at the Airport in Havana are Fords, has Ford been cited? how about the coca-cola for sale? has Coke been cited? computers run Windows...no Canadian company has been cited, no EU company has been cited. not one single company.

any thoughts on how an act that is blatantly violated on a regular basis and doesn't apply to basically any country in the developed world makes much of an impact?

[obliviously]

457. John Kennedy

was correct in placing the embargo. I just don't think he intended it to go on forever.

[readmoreoften]

31. Socialism can only be an international system. People can't provide for one another

if they're using resources to fight the US military.

There has never been a socialist society that has not been under siege from imperialist Europe or the US. The Soviet Union was successful until the Stalinist reaction (7 years) even while 6 imperial nations were trying to overtake it. Women started public schools, public laundries, and public restaurants to liberate themselves. Abortion was legalized. Homosexuality was decriminalized. Workers made their own decisions in highly democratic worker's councils. Five out of six of the Soviet areas were Islamic. Women's councils provided outreach and helped them set up their own women's groups--this, as you can imagine was quite a battle, but there was great progress until Stalin started executing men for beating their wives.

The question is really--successful compared to what? I mean, the whole of Latin America was an organic socialist system of sharing labor and the fruits thereof until we came in and destroyed it.

A better question is: has there ever been a capitalist system/class system where the majority of people benefited from having their labor value and portion of the public wealth extracted from them?

[Tyrfing]

150. What do you count as "successful"?

Because I can't think of an "successful" capitalist countries unless the measure for success is body counts

[readmoreoften]

14. You hit it on the nose. Of course nobody here wants to hear it.

They're doing pretty okay, even in the current situation, so to hell with international solidarity with working people. Those inferior brown people who make their clothes and shoes and computers are probably better off with capitalism than with banana republic dictators--oh wait! Those banana republic right wing dictators were put into place by capitalists? Hey how far back does this thing go? :crazy:

[Joanne98]

15. I hate it all.

[Raskolnik]

16. But what should replace capitalism? n/t

[Hannah Bell]

40. "most of the world is capitalist, & most of the world is poor."

[Raskolnik]

43. Non-responsive. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

45. rhetorical answer to a phoney question.

[Raskolnik]

46. If your position is that capitalism should be replaced with _________,

I believe the question of what fills that blank to be quite relevant.

[Hannah Bell]

48. your question is idiotic.

[Raskolnik]

49. Really? Why do you consider the question of what should replace capitalism to be "idiotic?"

The question was asked (and is asked) in good faith. If you don't want to answer it, you were under no obligation to respond.

[leftstreet]

50. It's kinda like asking what you should replace an abscessed tooth with

ya know?

:shrug:

[Raskolnik]

62. Ok, we'll use your analogy. When you remove an abscessed tooth,

the decision still needs to be made about what, if anything, to replace that tooth with. Can you get by with an empty space in your mouth where the tooth used to be? Do you need a replacement in order to be able to eat enough to survive? Is it a good idea to replace the tooth with something made of lead?

[leftstreet]

64. I'm no dentist, but I think the idea is to remove the rot and let it start healing

on its own

[Raskolnik]

65. So you think the absence of any sort of economic system is possible.

I believe you are mistaken.

[leftstreet]

68. What do you call a 'system' that lets me keep the value of my labor?

I'm no economist either.

What do you call a 'system' that recognizes I have a right to shelter, food, healthcare and security, regardless of my ability to 'labor.'

??

[Raskolnik]

71. You tell me.

You're the one proposing it, not me.

[anigbrowl]

81. Please be more specifc.

When you say 'lets you keep the value of your labor', what exactly do you mean? An example would be good.

[leftstreet]

89. You can't be serious. Uh, have you ever had a job?

Have you ever worked for wages in a capitalist system?

(Are you in South America or something?)

[anigbrowl]

98. Of course I have. I don't think you're serious.

I ask you to specify what you mean by being able to keep the value of your labor (presumably, in contrast to the amount you actually get paid), and your response is to ask me if I've ever had a job.

Well, I have had a job - lots of them, in fact. I've worked for big companies in fancy offices, and I've been a fry cook and a construction worker, and lots of things in between. I'd say I have, oh, 20 years experience in working for wages, give or take a year. Some I liked, some not so much. I'm also conscious of the fact that labor is one expense that goes into the production of a good or the delivery of a service, and that there are numerous other inputs - such as the cost of raw materials used, rent for the space in which the work takes place, and so forth.

Now quit ducking the question, and try actually answering it.

[anigbrowl]

74. Having had an abcessed tooth...

you just take the whole tooth out. I have all the others, so fortunately I don't need dentures. But people with big dental problems do end up needing dentures, because otherwise they can't chew their food and it's hard to puree everything. Obviously, one can only stretch this metaphor so far.

So rather than avoid the question, what system do you think would do a better job of allocating resources than capitalism, and why? By 'system' I do not mean something that is imposed by law, but the method that people employ to further their economic activity.

[leftstreet]

86. I don't really want to 'further my economic activity'

I want the Ruling Class to stop exploiting us, killing us, and destroying the planet - all so they can 'further their economic activity.'

I have a right to shelter, food, healthcare and security. What label we give the 'system' that delivers that...meh, I don't care.

[anigbrowl]

107. So what you're saying is, you don't want to make decisions involving money?

It sounds to me like you're saying you want all this stuff because it's your right, but you're not particularly interested in working for it - that is, I assume you're willing to do so, but you don't seem to particularly care what work you do - and you certainly have no ambitions to do anything beyond that, such as run your own business or innovate in any particular field.

Well, you could try North Korea, which claims to provide the things you want as long as you're willing to do whatever job they allocate to you. As I understand it, pretty much everything in NK is state-owned and the deal is they'll provide for your human requirements if you accept this.

[Hannah Bell]

77. your question is idiotic because you obviously don't want an answer.

posters already gave one; you ruled it out.

your question is idiotic because it assumes the replacement for a capitalist economy can be fully understood & dissected before it comes into being.

like asking someone in 1300 "but what's the replacement for the feudal system?" or a northwest coast indian in the 1700s "but what's the replacement for potlatch?"

[Raskolnik]

87. Yes, those questions are very relevant!

If the alternative to a feudal system is outright slavery, then I would have to give some thought about keeping the feudal system. If the alternative to potlatch is an economic system that will likely result in 75% of the populace starving to death, I'd like to talk about that before making the switch.

I'm really not sure why you're being so petulent about me offering you the opportunity to actually discuss what you consider to be a superior system to capitalism.

[Hannah Bell]

96. missed the point again. not about "relevance". about the idiocy of imagining one can describe

the future in detail while standing in & being a creature of the present & past.

you don't accept the general answers "socialist" or "communist" because, according to you, those words necessarily = "gulag."

even though the US today runs the biggest global gulag in history.

i assume you'd rule out "tribal," "feudal," "mercantile" etc. - any historic economic system we know of - for their historic limitations as well.

so you're asking people to describe some possible future economic system superior to capitalism which isn't socialist, communist, feudal, etc. - to invent & describe something totally different from our historical experience.

it can't be done while standing in the present, with the mentality of the present. the future evolves, & our capacity to invent it evolves too.

your question is idiotic, & your thought patterns are traveling in well-worn ruts. communism = no freedom because russia had gulags, knee-jerk, knee-jerk.

[Raskolnik]

112. Claptrap. You are dodging the question because you have no answer.

If we remove capitalism, it will be replaced by some other system. Of that there can be no serious question. The issue, therefore, of *what* should replace capitalism must be addressed when discussing *whether* capitalism should be removed.

If the system replacing capitalism is no better, or in fact worse than capitalism, then why should capitalism be done away with?

[Hannah Bell]

122. as i said, your question has been answered. you don't like the answer.

claptrap yourself.

US gulag system.

Biggest prison system in the world, & in history, both domestically & globally.

Capitalist for-profit gulags! Innovation! (TM)

[Raskolnik]

180. Not by you, because you apparently lack the intellectual honesty to address the obvious issue. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

229. you rejected "socialist" the first time it was brought up. is there some reason you'd

accept the answer better the second time?

[Raskolnik]

240. Actually I don't believe I rejected socialism at all.

In fact, I believe that a strongly regulated capitalist economy with some socialist aspects is probably the best and most sustainable system.

[Two Americas]

258. you can't get there from here

A "mixed system" is the result of a struggle, and you can never get to that "middle" position without strong advocacy from the Left, without a powerful Left. You are arguing against strong advocates on the Left. That is the "reasonable" and acceptable way for modern people to argue against socialism, and not have to take responsibility for doing that. You can distance yourself from the yucky right wingers, yet still attack the Left. That promotes the political right wing.


...

[Hannah Bell]

310. the posts:

And your alternative systems is...? Raskolnik May-12-09 11:49 AM #4

My sig line might be a clue. n/t blindpig May-12-09 11:55 AM #8

But you realize that we currently have a hybrid form of socialism/capitalism, right? Raskolnik May-12-09 12:23 PM #18

More like welfare state capitalism. blindpig May-12-09 12:52 PM #34

You want communism, not socialism. Raskolnik May-12-09 01:03 PM #35

Communism is a step torwards a socialist society. n/t blindpig May-12-09 01:06 PM #37

A very shitty step that seems to involve killing tens of millions of people Raskolnik #38

[IDFbunny]

478. Well that is a shame, and it is and will be discussed here

But the gulag system doesn't need to be that big if you drive those political prisoners to early retirement in a deliberately cruel way. Castro had his tool, Che, to keep those prisons small.

[anigbrowl]

127. Why don't you try giving up the 'isms' and explain what you would actually change?

It's fine to talk about what you think the benefits would be, but do you have any concrete ideas on how to achieve that?

[Hannah Bell]

148. am i the chief strategist of revolution? i have plenty of thoughts on how social change occurs.

one of the requirements is that a critical mass of folks believe it is necessary & possible.

it doesn't happen like a mickey & judy movie.

[anigbrowl]

153. Not the question I asked...

which was for ideas on how alternative economic systems might work in practice. Do you have any?

[Hannah Bell]

162. there are tens of dozens of variants, possibly hundreds, as well as historic examples.

if you're actually interested, you can get up to speed at marxism.com.

i'm not interested in presenting some 1-paragraph cartoon version within the confines of this chat board.

Tell me your plans for reforming capitalism instead. Your ten-point plan. 500 years of experience & reforms, yet the same thing keeps happening over & over.

Why is that?

[anigbrowl]

93. Asking someone in 1300 'what's the replacement for the feudal system?' has at least 2 answers

One would be a republic, the other would be a democracy, both of which existed many centuries before in Rome and Greece, respectively.

It's not an idiotic question at all. If you propose replacing capitalism as a system of resource allocation, it's up to you to suggest what it might be replaced with, and how you envision that working. Use your imagination, that's what it's there for.

[Hannah Bell]

106. "republic" & "democracy" describe political organization, not economic organization.

bzzt. try again.

[anigbrowl]

109. So does feudalism. Property and ownership are inherently political concepts.

Again, you seem to be avoiding the question of what you'd like to replace capitalism with, which is the substantive question being asked. Do you have an answer for this?

[Hannah Bell]

115. feudalism descibes both economic & political organization; the economics is primary.

Democracy & republicanism are conceivable, & have historically occurred, under different economic forms.

The poster's question has been answered. He doesn't like the answer.

[anigbrowl]

128. I'm not impressed.

So far all I've seen is 'socialism would be better', but no explanation of how that would work in practice, or examples of where it's working better than it is here. I visited the USSR back when it was communist. It wasn't all bad, but nor was it doing a very good job of meeting people's needs.

[Hannah Bell]

155. impressing you isn't my goal. experience taught me no matter how many neat

examples are described, folks such as yourself aren't impressed. why bother.

the multiple variations of possible socialisms are quite adequately laid out at repositories of history like marxism.org.

i'm under no obligation to reinvent the wheel (short version) for you.

btw, i "wasn't impressed" at the degree to which capitalism was meeting people's needs in many parts of the US, latin america, europe & asia when i visited, either.

"most of the world is capitalist; most of the world is poor."

[blindpig]

108. To paraphrase Karl Marx:

I do not make recipe books for the cooks of the future.

The people of that time will decide what is appropriate. It is for us to prepare the way.

[anigbrowl]

114. How?

People in the present still need to eat. I'm one of them. Capitalism works OK for me as a method of matching resources to ideas in order to create new value. It's not risk-free, or easy, but it offers a pretty fair degree of freedom in what I choose to work at, which isn't to be sneezed at.

I'm not an investor, incidentally; sometimes I just work for a wage, sometimes I seek investment for the projects I'm working on. I do prefer being a freelancer to an employee, even though it's not always easy. If/when I have enough money lying around, I'll likely use some of it to help finance other people in turn.

You and other people keep talking about getting rid of this system, but I'd like to hear what you propose as an alternative...today, rather than in some utopian future.

[Hannah Bell]

119. The posters have already attempted to discuss alternatives.

Unfortunately, no serious discussion can occur when every attempt is met with "stalin's gulags!"

Thus, it's difficult to believe you or the op want to hear about alternatives. Simply, you don't believe there are alternatives, & you're not interested in risking anything to realize alternatives.

But don't worry, the ptb are busy bringing the future into being. Socialism of the orwellian/1984 sort is on the march.

[Two Americas]

123. you eat despite capitalism, not because of it

You raise a good issue. Nowhere has capital been more reigned in than in the Farm Credit program - thanks to aggressive agitation from the Left.

You do not eat thanks to capitalism, you eat in spite of capitalism. Were it not for socialists, people would be at as much risk of starvation tright now as they are of locing their retirement, their home, and their job.

People are starving as a result of capitalism - far more than are eating.

Labor is the source of wealth, not capital. All but the most extreme right wing observers, from the Abolitionists to Lincoln to Teddy to FDR to all of the leaders of organized Labor to Martin Luther King Jr. agree on that point.

I am no talking about "getting rid of the system" since I do not see capitalism as a "system" the way people are using that word. Calling it a system is just a clever way to discredit and dismiss any and all critics of the total rule over our lives by capital.

We don't need to "get rid of a system" or replace it with another system in order to stop the predations of murderers, nor do we need to do that to stop the predations of the greedy exploiters among us.

Capitalism can be seen as a system, of course, for the purpose of discussion. But it is not one of many systems, or two systems, that we merely choose as though it were a consumer item. All "systems" throughout history have been mixed, have evolved, and have been the product of struggle. "Choosing a system" does not take the place of being engaged in the struggle and is not a legitimate argument against those who are engaged in the struggle.



...

[anigbrowl]

137. This at least attempts a serious answer - thank you

Now to answer some of your points (but randomly, because I have stuff that needs doing soon), I don't feel ruled by capital. To me it's one of the things in the economics toolbox - rasing capital allows you to get things you need (eg plant and machinery).

Labor is not the sole source of wealth to me. You can spend all day hitting a rock without creating any wealth whatsoever. Labor is another tool for building wealth.

Finally, there are ideas. You can't eat them, but you can't innovate without them either, and unless you do or make something innovative and different from what's already out there, you're stuck with the prices/conditions set by the people who came before you.

Wealth, to me, comes from the union of capital, labor and ideas to create better goods or services which deliver more value to the people who want to buy them. A lot of people specialize in one or other of these inputs, but none of them creates wealth by itself.

Capitalism is a system for matching up those three components. So is socialism, but on balance capitalism seems to do a better job of it - not least because it places a greater value on innovation and on the choices made by the customers as a guide to what needs producing.

[Two Americas]

165. think of it this way

Thanks for considering my ideas and posting a thoughtful reply, by the way. Much appreciated.

If a hundred of us were cast out into the wilderness, we could get to work building and farming and producing, and could eventually prosper. No bank, no capital, no capitalism. Now, take 100 bankers and stock brokers and put them in the wilderness and tell them to start running a bank and being capitalists. All would starve. No wealth, no work would ever be produced by capitalism. No bank, no capital and no capitalism on the other hand are needed for working people to produce wealth.

Lincoln explained the difference between the two ways of looking at this well, I think.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Abraham Lincoln
Address to Congress
(December 3, 1861)
http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/73.html

[anigbrowl]

235. Thing is, if you put 100 people in the wild

eventually some of them would specialize in managing the cash/resources (assuming you had some kind of external trade) or running the barn. Capital management doesn't impose the division of labor, it arises out of it. Past 20-30 people (eg from village to town), specialization increases efficiency.

[Tyrfing]

252. You just made that up

If you want to trace the course of human history over the past 5000 years, why not just do that rather than engage in overly speculative, hypothetical conjecture?

[anigbrowl]

279. No I didn't. It's based on experience, as well organizational psychology.

You try doing something with 10 people and then trying the same thing with 50 people. Past a certain nyumber, people get in each other's way if you don't specialize.

[Tyrfing]

382. But we have actual recorded history to draw on

rather than your asssertions and anecdotal evidence..

[anigbrowl]

404. Sure, and I believe it bears out my point.

...which is that people in general will specialize at certain tasks past a certain group size, because it is to their collective and individual advantage. If you're a blacksmith, and you're good at it, then you'll do better by blacksmithing all week than doing it for 3 days and spending the other 3 days doing something you're not especially skilled at.

I'm not sure what alternative interpretation you're proposing, if any.

[Two Americas]

256. yes

That is right. And so long as that is what they do - perform a service that supports the community, and that is exactly how farm Credit works - all is well.

The film It's a Wonderful Life is about the difference between banks that serve the community and banks that prey on the community.

[anigbrowl]

280. It's a wonderful life is a great movie...

...but it's pretty superficial as a guide to economics. Which is fine, because movies are emotional stories, not documentaries. When we make a movie, we deliberately make things simple to tell a particular story. Real life is more complex.

[Two Americas]

289. it is not complicated

Economics are not complicated. Food, shelter, warmth.

[anigbrowl]

324. There's a lot more to economics than that. It is complicated.

As Einstein said, 'things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.'

[northzax]

344. but most of us don't live on farms

so then what? what about the doctors, teachers, trash collectors, physicists, carpenters, engineers, and all the rest of us?

as to your line from the previous post: "People are starving as a result of capitalism - far more than are eating." this is just simply not true. There are far more people eating today than at any time in history combined due to capitalism. I would be interested to see any data you have on the number of people in the world fed from collective or non-capitalist sources, and the relative food productivity rates, per acre or per worker, for those sources.

[Two Americas]

394. that is easy to answer

Regulate and restrict capital in other areas of the economy the way it is in agriculture. That is what we do for the rest of us. The rest of us - doctors, teachers, trash collectors, physicists, carpenters, engineers - all eat, and agriculture represents the eaters not the farmers.

You claim that capitalism is feeding people. Agriculture here is much closer to socialism than it is to capitalism. The success of farming in this country happened after the New Deal reforms, which reined in capitalism.

How, specifically and exactly, does capitalism feed people? What role does capital play exactly? Distribution and processing is where capital plays a role. I work in the industry and am very familiar with all aspects of that. Hoarding, creation of artificial scarcity, and monopoly control over food supplies is another place where capital plays a role. Farmers need to borrow money for land and for supplies. But as I said that has been strictly regulated to prevent capitalism from ravaging farming and driving farmers off the land, as was happening before the New Deal. Farming in this country was rescued from capitalism. Farming has existed outside of capitalism since the beginning of time. When capitalism has gotten involved, has gained control over the food supply, the farmers and the eaters have both suffered.

Do you imagine that farming is a free market capitalist activity? If so, that could be what is leading you to this distorted view that capitalism feeds people. Would you say that nursing or teaching are also free market capitalist activities, or should be? Do you believe that since "we are a capitalist country" that therefore capitalism gets credit for any and all good things that may happen here?

Maybe you think capitalism mans "selling things" or "trading things" or "having a business?"


...

[northzax]

452. um, yes, fool

that's the definition of capitalism "selling things for a profit." the very definition of capitalism. every single farmer who works his or her own land is a capitalist, unless, of course, they do not produce a surplus and rely on the state to make up the difference, or give away that surplus to others. Subsistence farming is not capitalist, it's also a pretty awful way to live (hence the reason that humans have been evolving away from it for millennia) Every single farmer who borrows money to improve his product is a capitalist. Every single farmer who buys more cows, to produce more milk, to sell more milk to make more money, is a capitalist. Every single farmer who borrows money to purchase a tractor to improve her workload is a capitalist. I know you hate that, but it's true. Every single farmer who sells her product for cash is capitalist. Those nice folks down at the Farmers' Market? capitalists. it may be regulated capitalism, but it is capitalism. how do you see it differently?

[Two Americas]

468. no needs for insults

What you are describing is a feature of capitalism - a feature of non-capitalist economies as well - and using that as the definition for capitalism has been the propaganda for decades. It makes it sound so natural, so common, so egalitarian, so ancient and so much a part of human nature - who would ever challenge it if that were all it were?

But capitalism - obviously - is more than that, and that can exist without capitalism. Therefore selling things cannot be capitalism.

"Capitalism is an economic theory which stresses that control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest the capital for production."

That is not selling things for profit, that is making money from money. If you are going to define the word the way you are, we can use a different word - makes no difference to me, as I have no grudge against the word. I am not talking about buying and selling things. If you want to say that I am misusing the word when I say capitalism, I will surrender on that point because as I said I do not care one way or another about the word.

I am talking about people making money from money, and an economy where those people control everything. Call it anything you like.



...

[ContinentalOp]

268. I disagree that labor is the source of wealth.

The environment, natural resources, and human life are largely the source of wealth. While I would theoretically prefer Socialism to Capitalism, they are both wrong in that they start with the assumption that there are not enough resources to go around. They merely disagree about who should own those resources, with capitalism privileging the providers of capital and socialism worshiping at the altar of labor.

I personally favor the concept of a design science revolution where we use technology to solve our problem of overconsumption and provide basic needs for all humans without destroying our planet. When that can be done cheaply and efficiently these other questions will fall by the wayside and we'll realize that we no longer need an economy focused on made up work and endless growth.

[Two Americas]

297. that is apolitical then, or pretends to be

Politics is about power and economics - who does and who does not have access. I don't think that is going to go away, and I don't see how "design science" can ever address that. The problem with this is that while "design science" sounds intelligent and benign and neutral, you betray your lack of neutrality by your comparison between capitalism and socialism. I suspect that your design science would not be neutral at all, it would just pretend to be. "Worshiping at the altar of labor" and "made up work" are reactionary talking points.

There is plenty to go around, in my opinion. Some always try to hoard what there is, and capitalism cannot work without the creation of artificial scarcity.

Honoring and respecting all people, and allowing them to control their own lives, is not what I would call "worshiping at the altar of labor."

I do not see that socialism starts with the assumption that there is not enough to go around, nor that it demands "made up work and endless growth."


...

[ContinentalOp]

306. Well, it's anarchism, so I guess that's "apolitical".

I don't think politics are realistically going to go away in our lifetime. But then I don't think we're realistically going to throw off capitalism anytime soon either. So as long as we're talking philosophical abstractions I might as well describe my ideal world.

To be clear, I think that as long as we're in a world where labor is necessary, having the workers own the means of production is by far the preferable scenario. But in the end I think that work itself is an evil, not a virtue, and socialism puts far too much value on labor for it to be a genuine long term solution. We simply cannot honor and respect all people or allow them to control their own lives so long as work is necessary.

Socialism and Capitalism are just two different answers to "who gets the wealth" which is a question predicated on the concept that there is a scarcity of that wealth. And yet what is that wealth? You say it's labor, I say it's water, food, the very environment around us, which is why I took issue with your assertion that only right wingers would deny labor as the creator of all wealth.

To me the ultimate end goal is full unemployment -- to reduce the need for work down to the point where we can all have our basic needs fulfilled easily and with little environmental impact. That can't happen under capitalism which is fundamentally about endless growth. And I don't think it can happen under socialism either if that system is fundamentally focused on the supposed value of labor. I think any revolutions that do happen will sneak up on us unexpectedly (bye bye print media) and without the help of political parties.

[Two Americas]

314. how can politics ever go away?

It is like saying that mathematics could go away.

I still think you are mis-characterizing socialism.

Fascinating idea - a world where no one works. Not sure what that has to do with politics. Politics is about who benefits from what work people do. People like to do things. They like to help others. They have needs to be met. Call that work, or labor, or whatever, nothing changes.

Food requires labor by the way, as does water. Someone has to haul it or go pick it if nothing else.


...

[ContinentalOp]

380. Well, you're getting warmer.

"Politics is about who benefits from what work people do" which is why as less and less work is required to meet our needs, less and less politics are required.

"Liking to do things" and "helping others" have nothing to do with work and will never stop. We should be free to pursue the activities we choose without being forced to work a meaningless job just to "earn" a living. We all have a basic right to survive without having to slave away for food, shelter and health care.

Food still requires some labor for now. That will change. Agriculture already requires vastly smaller amounts of labor than it did 100 years ago and yet we're all working more and more as we invent more nonsense jobs to do. That's because of this obsessive value that we place on work.

[Two Americas]

420. well...

I think you have the setting for a sci-fi novel there. It sounds great and I don't oppose your vision.

[blindpig]

429. It's been written.

A passel of novels by Ian M Banks about The Culture. Pretty good stuff, quite entertaining.

[ContinentalOp]

443. These ideas are mostly influenced by this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Utopia-Oblivion-Prospects-Buckminster-Fuller/dp/3037781270/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242255381&sr=8-1

[Tyrfing]

236. Getting rid of the system is not just an idea or a lark

Its a NEED and a DEMAND. Thats the point -- not only are billions of people suffering under capitalism, we're ALL being exploited as our vitality and labor are sucked dry to feed the rapacious apetite for profits of the tiny class of capitalists.

We're fighting for the world, fighting to reclaim our soul and our humanity..all of which necessitates that capitalism be abolished..mealy-mouthed attempts to dney it or anecdotes about how "capitalism works OK for me" aren't going to hold back the torrent when the dam bursts

[Telly Savalas]

164. A just system can be constructed within a capitalist market economy.

Such a society could exist, but because we're unable to predict what a future society looks like, I can't offer any specifics on it.

[Hannah Bell]

196. The argument that it couldn't is 1) the system is competitive, thus always has outright losers.

2) the goal of the system is to accumulate capital, & 1 person or firm's accumulation necessarily = the disaccumulation of others somewhere in the system.

3) the system requires constant expansion, & the world & its resources are finite.


i don't need to see the future to see the contradictions in an already-existent system.

[Telly Savalas]

214. Unless there is absolute equality, some people will always do better than others.

And there is no need for a capital based market economy to constantly expand. That happens solely at the discretion of the agents involved. Marxist boilerplate aside, there is no goal built into the system. It's simply a mechanism for the creation and trade of goods and services.

You assert with no proof that these things are inherent to the system. I'm saying they're not. Since the Marxist side says isn't is fair to be pressed for specifics on how future economic will work, then I don't need to provide any either.

[anigbrowl]

238. It appears to be a natural law, in fact

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7107--why-it-is-hard-to-share-the-wealth.html I'm a big believer in the universality of Pareto or similar distributions in nature.

[Hannah Bell]

332. 1) I didn't say it's not "fair" to be pressed for specifics on how economies of the future might

work.

I said it's idiotic, as is the whole frame of "replacing" capitalism, as though this happened by drawing up a plan & taking a vote on it, then installing the replacement.

Capitalism is simultaneously an economic system, a set of social/power relationships, & a psychological anchor of identity. It's not "replaced" like a broken window.

This thread is a cartoon, not a discussion. People are simply talking past each other.

For one thing, discussants have entirely different conceptions of capitalism.

You tell me capitalism doesn't require expansion, that expansion is up to the discretion of participants.

You say capitalism is simply a mechanism to create goods & services.

Questions:

1. Since capitalism is simply a mechanism to create goods & services, how does it differ from other such mechanisms? What's unique about it?

2. If I own a widget factory & make a profit but spend it to buy a big estate while my competitor uses his profits to buy more machinery that allows him to double his production without hiring more workers, thus producing a cheaper product - what will typically happen?

3. And once he's taken over my customers & my business, what will he do with the new, even larger profits & the new capacity? Especially if there's another widget factory in the next town over? Or perhaps he can lend the extra capital to some inventor to create a new business, & get the interest & a slice of the profits?

4. Which creates new profits that must be reinvested to hold their value, etc.

[anigbrowl]

403. To answer your questions

1. what's unique about it is that capital can be held privately or in common. To raise capital you just have to find one person that belives in the profitability of your idea (as opposed to, say, persuading a committee).

2. If you cash out from the widget factory and spend the proceeds while your competitor reinvests in his widget factory to lower production costs, typically he'll outsell you (assuming your widgets are equally functional). Consumers benefit since widgets now cost less, and so do the people who produce widget-making machinery.

3. After that he either competes with the other widget manufacturers, or goes into manufacturing gidgets as well, or maybe he cashes out and buys his own big house.

4. Well yeah. You can reinvest and compete in new markets, or cash out, or partly cash out and partly invest. Or set up a foundation, or whatever. These are the same decisions facing anyone who has money left over from their paycheck after covering the cost of life's essentials.

[Hannah Bell]

426. 1) so you're implying that capital could not be held privately or in common

in, e.g., a feudal economy?

2-4) anything inherently expansionary there?

[anigbrowl]

434. No...

But in a socialist economy, as defined by the workers owning the means of production, private capital invested as equity (rather than purchased as debt) is in conflict with worker ownership.

No, I don't see 2/3/4 as inherently expansionist. Doing more with less is a result of technological innovation. you can't buy machines that are twice as efficient if the technology isn't there to improve on the existing machines.

[Hannah Bell]

439. 1) the question was, what distinguishes capitalism from (all) other forms of economic organization,

not just from socialism.

2) it's inherently expansionary thusly:

a. competition: if you don't expand & innovate, competitors will take your customers, your business, your market. either way, there's expansion.

b. profits: if they're not reinvested (either by the owner or by loaning them to others), they have to be consumed to realize their value. if they're consumed rather than reinvested, it opens you up to attack from competitors who *do* reinvest.

c. technology: competition spurs cost-saving automation, which decreases labor cost/unit good & increases the number of goods that can be produced per unit of labor. but to realize profit from the investment, you have to sell all the new goods you're able to produce. in most cases, it means seeking to expand your market.

d. surplus labor: the people put out of work by your innovation must be employed or pacified lest they get rebellious. in practice, this has often meant using them as colonists, soldiers, etc. - shock troops of territorial conquest.


Though experiment: if the US were the entire world, & the US couldn't have imported labor or exported manufacturing in the 70s - on, what would have happened to profits?


if capitalism isn't inherently expansionary, why has it always been so in practice?

[anigbrowl]

440. Socialism is the main competing economic theory

The economics of feudalism aren't fundamentally different from those of a parliamentary democracy - assuming a feudal system which allows the ownership of private property.

a. competition exists as soon as 2 people have a different idea about how to do the same thing and don't agree on a compromise. Lack of competition isn't particularly good for consumers.

b. of course profit has to be consumed or reinvested to realize its value. You can't eat money, as soon as you buy food with it you're consuming. That's just a characteristic of money (as opposed to the barter system).

c. technology isn't unique to capitalism. You don't necessarily have to sell more goods; you can sell the same number of goods for less and still make a profit (this happens a lot with computer components, for example).

d. one can get a job making other things; one result of technology is that the variety of goods and services increases, providing consumers with more choice.

Some things become obsolete and go out of production, some new things become widely used. So there isn't as much money in telephone handsets or horse buggies as there used to be, but lots of cellphones and cars are sold instead.

Regarding your thought experiment, if the US were a closed economy, innovation would continue to take place and profits would continue to be made. Profitability as a fraction of GDP would likely remain around the same.

Any economic system with technology as an input is going to expand. The whole point of technological innovation is to increase efficiency, either by making an existing tool smaller or cheaper, or creating new tools which makes possible things which would have been impossible or prohibitively expensive previously.

[Hannah Bell]

445. but the question wasn't "how does capitalism differ from socialism?" it was:

"Since capitalism is simply a mechanism to create goods & services, how does it differ from other such mechanisms?"

I'm trying to get at what you see as the unique feature(s), the reasons we distinguish it from other economic systems, especially the forms it superseded.

i think you didn't give your sentence on feudalism much thought. no/little labor mobility, for one. labor attached to the land. labor owns its tools & has the right to live on the land & work it x number of hours to provide its own food, aside from the hours it owes to the manor lord. it completely controls how when why it labors for its own sustenance - within that restriction.

i guess you were speaking from the viewpoint of the manor lord.


"a. competition exists as soon as 2 people have a different idea"

it did not necessarily do so, in previous forms; competition was restricted by various mechanisms; legal, social, economic = slow rate of innovation.


"b. of course profit has to be consumed or reinvested to realize its value."

yes. but this requirement = expansion.


"c. technology isn't unique to capitalism."

no. but the pace of innovation is.

"You don't necessarily have to sell more goods; you can sell the same number of goods for less and still make a profit (this happens a lot with computer components, for example)."

you could, depending on the competition. but if you're not using your machinery to maximize productive capacity, you're not realizing the full value of the $ invested in it. inefficient/uneconomic.


"d. one can get a job making other things;"

one could. but again, it implies expansion elsewhere in the system.



"Regarding your thought experiment, if the US were a closed economy, innovation would continue to take place and profits would continue to be made. Profitability as a fraction of GDP would likely remain around the same."

i think if you think about that a bit more, you'll see there's a problem.

[anigbrowl]

451. I have no problem with expansion

innovation leads to economic expansion. In many cases it means making things more efficient from an environmental perspective. The computer upgrade I did recently left me with a machine about 8-10x faster that uses less electricity. My productivity has gone up and my environmental footprint has gone down. I haven't decided what to do with the old one yet; it might get recycled or donated.

I don't see any benefit in trying to artificially limit the pace of technology. Every time someone attempts to do so (often a monopolist whose interests are threatened by encroaching technology), people just looks for ways to get around it. I think this is a good thing. A recent example of technology empowering people is the huge growth of the market for cellphones in places like India and Africa, where the economic benefits for small farmers or fishermen more than make up for the cost of the phone.

I'm all for looking at other economic systems, but the test of an economic system is whether it delivers benefits to people, even when adopted at a small scale. Some do, which is why there are quite a few businesses that run on the cooperative system. There are also several large but entirely- worker-owned businesses in Spain; two were mentioned recently in the Economist as examples worth studying.

In the meantime, capitalism turns out to be both flexible and fair sufficiently often for it to be useful to most people. I'm digging around in search of investment for a project right now, and what that boils down to is 'we expect to make $X by doing what we do, but it's going to cost us $Y to get that going. If you're willing to risk that amount on our plan, you stand to make $Z.' When we get an offer, I expect we'll have to negotiate the exact terms. Once we've got something everyone can agree on, then we do our thing and it will create a number of jobs as well as a profit. It's simple, straightforward, creates value for consumers, creates some jobs, and the investor enjoys a share of the profits if it all works out. As far as I'm concerned the investor's function is to assess and oversee the profit potential of different businesses, and their profit is the reward for that expertise and the risk they take with their own money.

[Hannah Bell]

473. the original question was whether capitalism was inherently expansionary.

i don't see that you've put up any serious argument that it's not.

it seems to me you keep trying to isolate little pieces without seeing the way the pieces function systemically, not only to produce goods that you like.

capitalism is a system that functions to concentrate capital & ownership.

i've just been reading through the threads here at du; people losing jobs & homes.

doesn't seem fair to me, especially knowing that the reason it's happening is so some already extremely powerful & wealthy folks come out with even more.

[anigbrowl]

480. And I say it's technology that's expansionary, not capitalism in particular

You might just as well say that socialism leads to an expansion of state power, because that's how it's turned out in practice. You have argued above that a country declaring itself socialist or communist is one thing, but that it's not true socialism (which in your view would result in a withering away of the state). But so what? True socialism doesn't seem to exist anywhere and state-sponsored socialism always seems to end up as statism.

Now, to pull back and look at things from a wider perspective, it seems to me that in human societies wealth and power tend to be concentrated among a small minority under any political system - feudal, monarchical, socialist, capitalist, democratic, republican, whatever. One of the reasons I'm an enthusiastic technologist is because a well-crafted piece of technology at the right price can do more for income redistribution and economic opportunity than 10 high-minded revoltuionary manifestos, regardless of what seeking they are proposing to overturn and what they are proposing to replace it with.

Technology is neutral. It doesn't care how much you own, what caste you are, what gender you are, what your ethnic background is, or what you look like. It can be something as simple as a better mosquito net, or a method for cheaply preserving food, or as complicated as a cellphone. If the benefits outweigh the costs, then it improves the quality of life of the person who uses it, and is well worth the economic expansion you keep complaining about.

[Hannah Bell]

482. not borne out by historical examples of technical innovation not being developed

(china & the wheel, used only on toys for eons) & tech innovation being used to increase leisure rather than expansion or expanded production(tribal examples).

I agree, state-sponsored "socialism" ends up everywhere as statism run by elites in modern times. Even in states like "socialist" Sweden. And control over the two-edged "benefits" of socialism gives elites more power, not less.

And I agree: in most social groupings beyond the tribe, power tends to concentrate; control over productive assets enabled by control over guns is the main avenue. But local power is not necessarily expansionist; there are plenty of historical examples of that, as well.

I disagree though, that technology innovation redistributes income. It has not. It may improve QOL, but this is not income redistribution. It may shake up the players a bit, one person or group moves down, the other up - but the pyramid itself grows steeper, because the technology allows wider & wider control over assets & labor.

Capitalism is inherently expansionary. The necessity to increase profit to survive is a mandate for expansion of production & markets.

That's why the widespread adoption of capitalist social practice & exponential tech growth coincide, not the reverse, & that's why the pace of innovation expands as more of the globe comes under the reign of capitalist social practice.

[anigbrowl]

483. I never said it was uniform

China's temporary indifference to the wheel may have had as much to do with its geography or cultural factors as anything else. It didn't stop the technology being used elsewhere.

Technology certainly aids in income redistribution, because it lowers barriers to market entry and participation. You can run a design studio from your bedroom with a computer and free or relatively cheap software, for example, whereas in the past this would have required large amounts of expensive equipment for manual compositing. Thus, it can increase social mobility. It's not the only factor in doing so, nor does it obviate the need to compete. But I'm OK with that, since competition is a given in nature.

I see the point you're making that commercial pressure drives innovation in a symbiotic fashion, but on the other hand knowledge is cumulative. Certainly individual technologies becomes obsolete - it's been a long time since I sent or received a telegram, for example - but knowledge doesn't. But while some piece of knowledge like Euclid's geometry is no less useful thanks to the subsequent growth of mathematics, you don't need to absorb it all to make use of, say, a drawing program which has some of that logic built in. Programmers and other engineers are very fond of improving or refining things just because they can, with or without a commercial impetus.

I mean, what do you want to do, limit competition? Forbid people from doing any freelance engineering without permission? You might as well demand that musicians be restricted to producing a certain number of new songs per year, lest too many people become inspired to try learning the guitar. We're genetically programmed to maximize our reproductive prospects as a species. If you could magically equalize all income and assets tomorrow, not only would we quickly revert to something resembling a pareto distribution, but if we were prevented from doing so then other methods of differentiation and status-seeking would emerge.

[Two Americas]

431. self-contradictory

Capitalism and a "just society" are incompatible, of course, unless by justice we mean that those who are best able to leverage capital should gain better access to power and resources. Libertarians and Republicans do think that is just, and they are welcome to that opinion. I have no problem with people taking that view - there will always be those who do - however, I do think we need some clarity about this.

Capitalism is the idea that capital deserves the higher consideration than Labor. That is contradictory to any and all concept is a just society for any and all people even vaguely left wing politically. Now, all of us are not going to be left wingers, and there is a place for conservative thought in the national political discussion. But promoting conservative views and claiming they are no creates a tremendous amount of confusion.

Capitalism is just to the investors and share holders. That is fine, The Republicans claim that this will trickle down to the rest of us somehow. But you cannot say that an economy dedicated - mandated - to rewarding investors and share holders can ever produce a just society the way that most of us here mean when we talk about a just society. A "survival of the fittest" type of just society, yes. Some support that. Those who make clever investments, or leverage capital, deserve justice, those who do not or cannot deserve less.

To accept your statement we would need to abandon all of our ideas about what a just society would be, or else deceive ourselves about what capitalism is. Many here will never be willing to do either of those. For many of us, that is our entire political philosophy. Historically, that was the traditional point of view of organized Labor and the Democratic party and the political Left. If we give on that, we have lost everything.



...

[Two Americas]

58. nonsensical question

May as well say "I can see that murder is bad, but what would you replace it with?"

Human beings got along just fine without capitalism throughout all time. In fact, I do no think that the species could have survived otherwise.


...

[Raskolnik]

63. Not nonsensical, just one for which you clearly don't have an answer.

If system X is so flawed that it must be replaced, the question of what replaces system X is directly relevant.

And, human beings really didn't get along fine throughout all time without capitalism. Human history was filled with misery, slavery explotation long before the concept of capitalism first arose.

[Two Americas]

76. that is true

I do choose not to answer the question. were I to say that I am opposed to murder, and you then asked hat my suggestion for an alternative system might be, I would not - could not - answer that question either.

This idea of replacing systems reflects an upper class mentality. Who is it that would be doing this replacing of systems?

Capitalism is very recent and modern. The ideas that we now call "socialism" and that we are being relentlessly trained to reject because they interfere with and impede the desires of the wealthiest few, have been the guiding principles of all human societies since the beginning of time.

You are accepting the propaganda that modern capitalism is "freedom" or "trade" or "mercantilism" and so eternal and good.

Who said that capitalism was the sole cause of "misery, slavery, and exploitation?" Not I. It just happens to be the cause today. The fact that the struggle has been going on since the beginning of time is no excuse to abandon the struggle today.

Of course there have always been those who would enslave, oppress and impoverish others. Capitalism is the mechanism by which those people are accomplishing that today.


...

[Raskolnik]

94. No matter how many times you try your "murder" analogy, it doesn't get any better.

Murder is not a system, it is a discrete act. We are talking about an economic system that, if removed, will (and must) be replaced by *something*. The question of what that *something* is is of paramount importance to this dicussion, and your inability to answer it should give you pause.

[Two Americas]

95. either is capitalism

Capitalism is not a system either. It is called a "system" by the right wingers in order to discredit any and all critics.


...

[Tyrfing]

246. Completely dishonest

The truth is ANYTHING is better than capitalism, and yet you drone on about the "lack of alternatives" as though that should be enough to paralyze us

Do you take crumpets with your tea?

[Bok_Tukalo]

19. It is like the weather

So plant the corn, pray for rain, and build a storm cellar.

I guess I am a capitalist.

[Hannah Bell]

52. but none of those things have anything to do with capitalism.

[Bok_Tukalo]

59. It is a metaphor

Which has nothing to do with capitalism either.

[Hannah Bell]

83. a metaphor which has nothing to do with the entity it metaphorizes isn't a good metaphor.

[Two Americas]

299. exactly

And how often do we get a chance to use the word metaphorizes? lol

[armyowalgreens]

23. I'm a Socialist...

Capitalism is dying and I will gladly help put it out of its misery.

[leftstreet]

26. But, but...we can just Regulate teh Capitalism!

K&R

[slay]

28. Capitalism sucks

[conturnedpro09]

220. Is this still DEMOCRATIC Underground?

Are we still the party of JFK? I'm being totally serious. This whole thread reads like it belongs on some third party blog. Seeing so many Democrats/liberals flirting with communism on this thread (some almost-openly endorsing it) is really just plain disturbing. I am a proud member of the Democratic Party and NOT the Communist Party. Why do so many apparently outright communist apologists feel comfortable even posting on this board? We're the DEMOCRATIC PARTY! The party of FDR & Truman, JFK & LBJ, Clinton & Obama! I'm with them, not communists.

[Tyrfing]

254. I thought DU was open to leftist viewpoints

but I guess you're saying otherwise

My mistake

[conturnedpro09]

260. Of course it still is...

but then again, you don't see the inbreds at FreeRepublic embracing Nazism (at least openly) in the name of "being open to rightist viewpoints." There's a clear line on both sides of the fence that just shouldn't be crossed.

[Two Americas]

271. ridiculous

No one is doing the equivalent of "embracing Nazism" here, and that is a false and malicious charge.


...

[ContinentalOp]

264. OMG

:scared: How will you sleep at night?

[Binka]

284. OMG Indeed!

60 posts in and the concern is frightening. If the poster loves capitalism so much why haven't they donated to the site they are spamming shit on.

[Two Americas]

269. hardly

The charges that what is being expressed here is extremist is adequately refuted by the quotes from Lincoln I have posted elsewhere on the thread.

Red baiting and McCarthyism have no place in the discussion.

You are spouting reactionary extreme right wing points of view. That is what is out of line among Democrats - this is not red-baiting reactionary underground, after all.


...

[conturnedpro09]

281. That's just hilarious.

:rofl:

I've never been called "reactionary extreme right wing" before. How funny. And why am I "right wing"? Is it because I oppose communism as much as I oppose Nazism and racism, as I believe other Democrats and American liberals/progressives should do as well? That must be why. How pathetic.

I agree that red-baiting is wrong. If someone is a communist and still calls themselves a Democrat, they have every right to be an idiot. I won't stop them.

[Binka]

286. Did You Practice In Front Of The Mirror Trying To Be Cute?

It isn't working dude. As far as being an idiot, well let's just say you would know.

[conturnedpro09]

293. What's not working?

I'm insulting communism, not you. For most of my life I was apathetic or I guess even somewhat conservative. The 2008 election entirely changed that. I'm still relatively new to blogging, figured its the only way to keep myself informed, but I did not expect to see fellow Democrats so okay with Marx and communism. I'm not that way. I guess you can consider me an Obama Democrat.

[Binka]

307. What Ever, You Are Obtuse.

Good luck with that.

[Two Americas]

298. didn't say that

I did not say that you are "reactionary extreme right wing" I said that your argument is.

[slay]

330. I KNOW you didn't just call me an idiot

for having an opinion different from yours. At least I would hope not.

[Two Americas]

469. n/t

wrong spot

[slay]

328. And yet look at YOU being the one trying to police what people can say

Who's the real communist. Whatever dude - capitalism DOES suck. Deal with it.

[conturnedpro09]

485. So does communism.

But I think a well regulated and managed capitalism with constant oversight is much, much better.

We're Americans. We're Democrats. It's okay to support free-leaning markets and economies. It's who we are. The Repubs are the ones who pervert freedom and use it to ruin other people's lives. There are PLENTY of third parties out there that wish the cold war went the other way. We're not like them (at least I seriously hope not).

(And if there are in fact communists at DU... we're all friends here. Just have the guts to declare you're beliefs. Flaunting pictures of Karl Marx in your avatar and being all coy about your actual political positiions when in a should-be open and honest debate isn't cute or controversial. It's cowardly.)

[unblock]

30. i think capitalism IS a good idea, and i wish we would get around to actually trying it sometime.

the problem is that we've NEVER had a system where there's the true competition, free information, low barriers of entry, and negligible externalities that are necessary components of capitalism.

instead, we've had minimal competitions from like-minded giant institutions that act as an implicit trust to deprive weakened consumers of any meaningful choice and prevent any meaningful competition. that's not capitalism under any meaningful definition of the word.

[rucky]

103. +1

Government MUST regulate to keep an even playing field, and NEVER turn their backs.

The social safety net can be there in a Capitalist or Socialist economic system. That's just a matter of how we prioritize our budget.

[Tyrfing]

227. well I guess it was obligatory for some joker to say this

dumbass free-wheeling libertarian utopianism for life!!

[nichomachus]

33. Your main contention is faulty

There is a huge difference between capitalism and corporate capitalism.

If I make potholders in my house, raise some money to do that, and sell them at a profit to friends and neighbors. That's capitalism. That's really not a problem.

The trouble with corporate capitalism is that it divorces ownership from management. So, you have the "owners" demanding profit and the managers scrambling to provide it.

If I'm sitting in my house making potholders, I have a direct stake in the quality of my potholders -- at the very least my reputation in the community -- and I care about the experience my neighbors have with what I sell them.

Corporate capitalists don't care if the potholders explode and kill people, as long as they can manage the liability from that and still show a profit after paying off the death claims from the faulty potholders.

[blindpig]

36. You are confusing capitalism with enterprise.

If you were a capitalist you would have other people making the potholders for you and would compensate those people with less than the full value of their labor, keeping the difference for yourself.

The corporation is merely an evolutionary step of capitalism, the current best means of maximizing profits. You might recall that the robber barons of yore were not incorporated until it became necessary to protect themselves and they weren't exactly the milk of human kindness.

[Hannah Bell]

44. making something oneself & selling it isn't capitalism.

hiring other people to make something, claiming ownership of the product, selling it & reinvesting the profit to make more profit is capitalism.

The primary goal in a capitalist economy is to accumulate capital under conditions of competitive struggle, not to provide for oneself, not to make a good product, just to kill off the competion & accumulate the most capital, which equals control over the economy, politics & other people's lives.

[anigbrowl]

47. If you've designed the product, you do own it.

Obviously, designing a new kind of table doesn't mean you own tables in general. But your design and whatever manufacturing process you devise does have an economic value. There is nothing wrong with that. Nor do I have a problem with someone being paid a return on money they loan to finance such a venture, knowing that there are risks involved.

Certainly, these processes are sometimes abused in the pursuit of profit. But we should take issue with the abusive behavior, rather than the process itself.

[Hannah Bell]

53. who said anything about ownership? my point is, an economy composed

entirely of individuals making things with their own labor & selling them to each other isn't capitalist.

it's a market economy but not a capitalist one.

[anigbrowl]

66. You did, in the message I responded to.

"hiring other people to make something, claiming ownership of the product, selling it & reinvesting the profit to make more profit is capitalism."

[Hannah Bell]

69. ownership of the product made with other people's labor. not ownership of the product made with

only one's own labor.

it's one of the differences between capitalism & other forms of economic organization.

[anigbrowl]

146. If I design it and pay you to make it, whose product is it?

I think it's mine to sell as I see fit. If you use the materials I bought and the design I came up with, and I'm paying you for the time put in, where's the problem?

I think labor has value, but that it's only part of the equation. Do you think that design and the investment of money in tools and materials have value? Do you think they should be compensated just like labor?

[Tyrfing]

175. I think design, tools and materials and all the other components

ARE products of labor, but you nevertheless wish to privilege those things as somehow above "labor" because it is your interest to do so. Then at the end, you can claim the final product all "yours".

The logic is impeccable except for one question -- if you paid the worker what his time was truly worth then how did you make any money on the exchange?

[anigbrowl]

261. I don't, really

Design's creative. I guess that's a form of labor, but it feels very different to me from the labor that goes into manufacturing.

Now maybe tools and materials are the product other people's labor, but on the other hand I can't do everything from scratch, so I need to buy it in - same reason I don't start building a house by cutting down a tree and forging iron to make a shovel, I just buy one and start digging.

Where I make the money, in this example, is in having come up with a good design for (whatever it is) and having invested my money in buying the stuff needed to make it.

So I put in: my design for a better widget, and the labor to market and sell it;
I purchase: raw materials, tools, and labor to assemble the widgets - maybe factory space too;

I get money for my widgets that pays for what I buy and some profit for my design and sales ability.

[NoSheep]

376. Ding! I can rephrase that a little bit too..........

"if you paid the worker what his time was truly worth then how did you make any money on the exchange?"

How did you make SO MUCH money, as well? Oh right, you didn't even pay the worker a FRACTION of what her time was worth.

[dem mba]

399. this is false

because if an owner pays labor less than what their time is worth, they will quit and seek employment elsewhere.

in truth, in a free market, a worker is getting paid EXACTLY what their time is worth to them, for better or for worse.

[NoSheep]

415. Oh really, now? That's complete bullshit. You keep your job and your teeth fall out

because there ARE no other jobs to go to. Please. You aren't even worth my time to type this.

[dem mba]

464. there are no other jobs?

no, that's COMPLETE bullshit. there are other jobs but you don't want to do them because they don't pay as well, you're not qualified to do them, you don't want to do them, or they exist in a geographically inconvenient location and can't afford to move or commute there. we're in a recession so jobs are tight, I get that. but is that capitalism's fault? what if you are a bricklayer and live in a socialist country that is highly developed and has seen its new home construction levels fall dramatically? all of a sudden you are out of work. is that socialism's fault too? It really is no one's fault per se, but it is most certainly the responsibility of the bricklayer to now figure out how to apply their skill set to a new field or to train themselves in new skills. I don't think the government should be *required* to help people do this. however, services should be available to assist in new-job training in hard-hit areas (i.e. Detroit).

if your issue is teeth falling out that is a health care issue and i'm totally for single-payer insurance, so no need to debate me on that.

[NoSheep]

484. You live in a dream world. I wish you were right. But you aren't.

[Hannah Bell]

211. by current definitions, it's yours. my original post doesn't dispute this. it disputes

that one individual selling something he made with his own labor = capitalism.

[Two Americas]

250. true and a good point

Coming up with an idea is Labor and produces value and needs to be compensated, yes. However, the reality in capitalism is that public agencies come up with the ideas, and those who profit by them merely exploit them, or their product is entirely dependent upon the context of public infrastructure.

Inventors and artists and other idea people are much more likely to be exploited by capitalism and left destitute than they are to profit from their ideas. Those who are wealthy through capitalism are very rarely idea people themselves.

That worker you hire is often trained and educated at public expense. Those tools you invest in are often in existence because the government protected patents and copyrights on them. The public tranposrtation, communications, and utilities - the infrastructure that allows you to do business - are all built and maintained at public expense.

I should dig up Lincoln's "true system" as I think that would resonate for you. It covers what you are talking about here.

By the way, since time began, advancements - ideas - in farming were always "open source" - given freely to all for the benefit of all.


...

[anigbrowl]

278. OK, but I take issue with a lot of your points

the reality in capitalism is that public agencies come up with the ideas, and those who profit by them merely exploit them

What?! That is so not true. It happens to some degree, particularly with basic science. But lots - probably the majority - of technology etc is developed privately, and then redeveloped by other companies. Have you ever worked in any kind of product development, or a startup? I've been in private industry most of my life, we don't sit around going 'how can we cash in on that new thing that came out of a government lab'. You talk as if private industry never originates anything. OF COURSE IT DOES. Good grief, Charlie Brown.

Please don't post Lincoln's 'true system' again. I've read it a hundred times and it's not going to change my mind. We no longer live in an agrarian vs mercantilist society.

By the way, since time began, advancements - ideas - in farming were always "open source" - given freely to all for the benefit of all.

No, they weren't. Patents have been around since the days of Athens.

Not to be rude, but you really, really need to read some more history. The state didn't invent or finance airplanes, cars, electronic, movies, electric light or a whole lot of other things which are part of the fabric of modern life. They've put money into those industries at different times via subsidies, but they originate in the private sector.

[Two Americas]

303. heh

I was polite and patient with you. No need to strike out.

I am probably one of the best read people here on the subject of history. I don't know how a person could cram more reading of history into heir life than I have.

Yes, I have been involved in start ups and research. Yes, I am aware of some companies that have done some excellent product development - 3M's Scotchbrite comes to mind. You can hardly credit capitalism for that, though. I met the researchers on that project. If anything, they would have been more likely, not less, to develop that in a public research environment. Certainly the tech we are using right here was mostly developed on the public dollar in the public sector. All of our food and methods of cultivation were.

You are wrong about agriculture. Patents and copyrights on crops are a very recent phenomenon. That has nothing to do with "patents being around since the days of Athens."

No one said that the state invented the things you list off. So what? Either did capitalism. Yes, I know from extensive first hand experience that corporations are always looking for things developed in public research and bringing them to market.



...

[anigbrowl]

317. I don't think your arguments make sense, frankly.

I am probably one of the best read people here on the subject of history.

Well, I have to question how much good that reading has done you. Some of your arguments just make no sense.

Yes, I have been involved in start ups and research. Yes, I am aware of some companies that have done some excellent product development - 3M's Scotchbrite comes to mind. You can hardly credit capitalism for that, though. I met the researchers on that project. If anything, they would have been more likely, not less, to develop that in a public research environment. Certainly the tech we are using right here was mostly developed on the public dollar in the public sector. All of our food and methods of cultivation were.

The internet was...and much of the internet's underlying technology is still based on open source software. Transistors were developed in bell labs. Yes, I can credit capitalism for excellent product development and a good many inventions that have become fixtures of our world, because private capital supplied the funds needed to develop the inventions. You try being an inventor with no source of finance for your research or large buyer for your product and see how far you get. Putting up the money is a worthwhile endeavor. So some product development could have happened in a public research environment, but it took place in a private one instead and the people who financed that deserve the credit for having the vision to invest in developing new technologies, just as government deserves plaudits for some of the things it's had the foresight to support.

It's not about whether X would have been done better at a government research facility. The fact is that a lot of things which benefit us were achieved with private capital and we ought to acknowledge that.

All our food and methods of cultivation were developed in the public sector? I want some of what you're smoking. Food has always grown in or on the ground. The basic methods of cultivation or animal husbandry predate any notion of government or public vs private sector. Much food is available thanks to nature's bounty. The single biggest agricultural innovation of the last century was the Haber bosch process, which allows the creation of nitrogen fertilizer and was developed by German company BASF.

You are wrong about agriculture. Patents and copyrights on crops are a very recent phenomenon. That has nothing to do with "patents being around since the days of Athens."

Well, they have. I didn't realize you meant to limit it exclusively to agriculture.They're new on crops, but you seem to be imagining that all through history everyone was just sharing everything until the evil capitalists came along and spoiled it. This is not so. Farmers who had bred hardier crops always sought to either reserve the seed stock or sell it a premium. Agriculture has a competitive aspect as well as a cooperative one.

[Two Americas]

325. fine

Defend capitalism, some always will and you have every right to do that. No need for insults, though, and no call for mis-characterizing what I said.

I said that capitalism is not required to produce the benefits you credit it with. Of course individuals within capitalist enterprises have created things. So what? That does not mean that capitalism gets credit for those, unless you believe that innovators and inventors ONLY come up with things when capitalists drive them to do it. That is the theory of labor that Lincoln is discussing, and to which he presents an alternative.

Of course individual people do good things despite capitalism. No one is saying otherwise. It is only true that big private capital investments are needed for anything to happen because our economy is organized in such a way that there is no choice.

I reject your assertion - unsupported and unfounded - that because things were different back then, that what Lincoln has to say about this is not relevant. Nothing is dated about what he actually says. You would have people believe that because he was writing in different times, that therefore what he says is obsolete and not to be considered.

I am not surprised that people here reject things associated with the words Marx, or communism, or socialism, but I did not expect anyone to take such strong exception to the words of Lincoln. The reason I posted what he said was in response to the portrayals here of advocacy for giving Labor the higher consideration then capital as extremist.

Amazing. Let's throw Lincoln under the bus now.


...

[anigbrowl]

406. I'm not going to get caught up arguments from authority

It's my right to disagree with Lincoln's point of view about this. I think the supply of capital at risk is just as important to an enterprise as the supply of labor for pay. Putting up money for an enterprise with the understanding that you may lose it all is risky and I have no problem with rewarding that risk with a slice of the profits if it turns out successful, any more than I have with people getting paid for their hard work.

[Two Americas]

422. absolutely, no problem

Yes, you disagree with Lincoln. That is fine. All I wanted to know was where you stand on this. Thanks.

[northzax]

345. and then to think

that the people who made the tools to allow for better agricultural practices, the smiths, jealously guarded their secrets through the guild system. and it was a very powerful guild, back in the day (wonder why so many people of english descent are named :smith'? or Germans named Schmidt? every town needed one, and only one.)

[anigbrowl]

408. Exactly. People have always chosen to leverage particular skills

Same way merchants take on the risk of traveling into unknown places and and making money by selling an excess of one thing that may be in short supply elsewhere, which is the purest form of entrepreneurship.

[Tyrfing]

390. You're quite the wordsmith

You say the state "didn't invent or finance" airplanes, cars, electronics, and so on but of course you proceed to ignore all of the attendant costs for those things to exist.

Who built roads and highways and airports? What about the power grid? Who provide(s)/ed the lionshare of grant money to "private" industry to magically pull these things out of their ass?

If Lockheed gets 10 billion dollars from the government to "invent" something, is that a triumph of private industry?

No wonder you're so popular in "private industry" -- toadys are always in high demand

[anigbrowl]

411. And you're ignoring the attendant economic gains

Building a road (for example) leads to more economic activity, which leads to greater tax revenues. Doing so helped Rome to become a superpower 2 millenia ago. Government is sometimes a patron of enterprise or research, and just as often (if not more so) a client. I do not share your (apparent) belief that all private enterprise involves a parasitic relationship with the public purse.

You can call me a toady if it makes you feel better. I have no problem giving credit to government for things which it is good at or wise enough to invest in, nor do I have any problem in giving private industry credit for the same things. Doing something in the hope of making a profit down the line is not an inherently bad thing.

[Two Americas]

266. more Lincoln

Here is Lincoln on his "true system" -

I am glad to see that a system of labor prevails in New England under which laborers can strike when they want to, where they are not obliged to work under all circumstances, and are not tied down and obliged to labor whether you pay them or not! I like the system which lets a man quit when he wants to, and wish it might prevail everywhere. One of the reasons why I am opposed to Slavery is just here. What is the true condition of the laborer? I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else. When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition; he knows that there is no fixed condition of labor, for his whole life. I am not ashamed to confess that twenty five years ago I was a hired laborer, mauling rails, at work on a flat-boat -- just what might happen to any poor man's son! I want every man to have the chance -- and I believe a black man is entitled to it -- in which he can better his condition -- when he may look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.

http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/haven.htm

And some more from him...

The world is agreed that labor is the source from which human wants are mainly supplied. There is no dispute upon this point. From this point, however, men immediately diverge. Much disputation is maintained as to the best way of applying and controlling the labor element. By some it is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital -- that nobody labors, unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow, by the use of that capital, induces him to do it. Having assumed this, they proceed to consider whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent; or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far they naturally conclude that all laborers are necessarily either hired laborers, or slaves. They further assume that whoever is once a hired laborer, is fatally fixed in that condition for life; and thence again that his condition is as bad as, or worse than that of a slave. This is the "mud-sill" theory.

But another class of reasoners hold the opinion that there is no such relation between capital and labor, as assumed; and that there is no such thing as a freeman being fatally fixed for life, in the condition of a hired laborer, that both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them groundless. They hold that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed -- that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor. Hence they hold that labor is the superior -- greatly the superior -- of capital.

They do not deny that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital. The error, as they hold, is in assuming that the whole labor of the world exists within that relation. A few men own capital; and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital, hire, or buy, another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class -- neither work for others, nor have others working for them. Even in all our slave States, except South Carolina, a majority of the whole people of all colors, are neither slaves nor masters. In these Free States, a large majority are neither hirers or hired. Men, with their families -- wives, sons and daughters -- work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, labor with their own hands, and also buy slaves or hire freemen to labor for them; but this is only a mixed, and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class. Again, as has already been said, the opponents of the "mud-sill" theory insist that there is not, of necessity, any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. There is demonstration for saying this. Many independent men, in this assembly, doubtless a few years ago were hired laborers. And their case is almost if not quite the general rule.

The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land, for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This, say its advocates, is free labor -- the just and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way for all -- gives hope to all, and energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all. If any continue through life in the condition of the hired laborer, it is not the fault of the system, but because of either a dependent nature which prefers it, or improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune. I have said this much about the elements of labor generally, as introductory to the consideration of a new phase which that element is in process of assuming. The old general rule was that educated people did not perform manual labor. They managed to eat their bread, leaving the toil of producing it to the uneducated. This was not an insupportable evil to the working bees, so long as the class of drones remained very small. But now, especially in these free States, nearly all are educated -- quite too nearly all, to leave the labor of the uneducated, in any wise adequate to the support of the whole. It follows from this that henceforth educated people must labor. Otherwise, education itself would become a positive and intolerable evil. No country can sustain, in idleness, more than a small per centage of its numbers. The great majority must labor at something productive. From these premises the problem springs, "How can labor and education be the most satisfactory combined?"

By the "mud-sill" theory it is assumed that labor and education are incompatible; and any practical combination of them impossible. According to that theory, a blind horse upon a tread-mill, is a perfect illustration of what a laborer should be -- all the better for being blind, that he could not tread out of place, or kick understandingly. According to that theory, the education of laborers, is not only useless, but pernicious, and dangerous. In fact, it is, in some sort, deemed a misfortune that laborers should have heads at all. Those same heads are regarded as explosive materials, only to be safely kept in damp places, as far as possible from that peculiar sort of fire which ignites them. A Yankee who could invent strong handed man without a head would receive the everlasting gratitude of the "mud-sill" advocates.

But Free Labor says "no!" Free Labor argues that, as the Author of man makes every individual with one head and one pair of hands, it was probably intended that heads and hands should cooperate as friends; and that that particular head, should direct and control that particular pair of hands. As each man has one mouth to be fed, and one pair of hands to furnish food, it was probably intended that that particular pair of hands should feed that particular mouth -- that each head is the natural guardian, director, and protector of the hands and mouth inseparably connected with it; and that being so, every head should be cultivated, and improved, by whatever will add to its capacity for performing its charge. In one word Free Labor insists on universal education.

I have so far stated the opposite theories of "Mud-Sill" and "Free Labor" without declaring any preference of my own between them. On an occasion like this I ought not to declare any. I suppose, however, I shall not be mistaken, in assuming as a fact, that the people of Wisconsin prefer free labor, with its natural companion, education.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/fair.htm

[Tyrfing]

172. And I suppose

some guy devised that table without ANY assistance from anyone else. No way did society put him in position to be "successful" (sarcasm), yet he claims all of that "success" for himself indvidually..and we should laud him while ignoring the people who fed him, clothed, sheltered him, schooled him, looked after his health, and the 1000 other benefits that accrued to him simply by virtue of being part of that society

[Tyrfing]

147. Should read: MY main contention is faulty

Commodity production -- such as your potholders -- ain't capitalism, its simple commodity production. The Greeks were doing this thousands of years ago and selling their wares across the sea. Didn't lead to "corporate" anything now did it.

Capitalism is a system of exploitation, just like the antique mode of production (ie slaves) and feudalism. It comes closely tied with great washes of money. Regardless, the evolution of your "pure" capitalism (which is not a-historical but NON-historical) to your villain of "corporate capitalism" is a natural, inexorable, and irreversible one.

Try and turn the clock back 150 years to the burgeoning days of capitalism and all you've done is, well, turn the clock back 150 years. We could then procede to watch all of the same horrors play out all over again.

Sorry, but all the psuedo-knowledge in the world can uncrack an egg..its Humpty Dumpty syndrome

[Two Americas]

301. you are not describing capitalism

Making things in your house and selling them is not capitalism.

The propagandists sure have people convinced that what you are describing is capitalism, and that the evil socialists would take that away.

Capitalists make nothing and control everything in capitalism.


...

[Enthusiast]

39. With regulation it is a wonderful system.

But, it appears we are not even in a hurry to regulate the greedy financial services industry and investment banks that caused our current trouble. And if that was not bad enough, we are not going to socialize healthcare. And it appears that big polluters are going to exercise their will with regard to new regulation. The Pharmaceutical industry is forcing their will with regard to pricing and safety. The MSM controls what we see and hear and what we see and hear is always used to thwart progress.

The forces that are tearing the country down want to maintain the status quo and they control the airwaves. Even on DU some topics are too controversial so they are shunted off to an area out of sight and mind.

Anyone have a solution? How can we get unfair influence out of politics? How can we make the MSM more fair and representative?

[Fire1]

61. I think you mean the roller coaster ride of 'democracy.' n/t

[leftofthedial]

73. capitalism is death.

capitalism is unsustainable.

capitalism is antithetical to democracy.

[cali]

75. bullshit. unregulated capitalism meets that criteria

but any system without checks and balances does as well. It's really not that difficult to grasp.

[Two Americas]

97. capitalism means "unregulated"

This idea of regulated capitalism (bad) and unregulated capitalism (good) is an illusion. Of course, the more rights and freedoms workers have, and the less capitalists are allowed to prey on the people, the better. But the capitalists are always seeking no regulation.

Labor is seen as the source of wealth and is given the higher consideration, or capital is.


...

[cali]

118. oh, codswallop. who says that capitalism means "unregulated"? You?

Quite the authority, aren't you? Broad brushes and cliche ridden polemics are such a poor excuse for actually thinking.

[Two Americas]

125. yes, let's talk about me

No sense in talking about the message when we can just malign the messenger.

[Tyrfing]

130. Who cares if its "regulated"?

Isn't your definition of "regulated" just a euphemism for LESS people (ie an acceptable number as determined by you) to be killed, immiserated, swallowed up by the system? Of course even that is semantics, because we all remain wage-slaves no matter how much "regulation" you impose

The tiny capitalist class still owns everything and everyone else -- thats you and me incidentally -- build everything but have no claim to what we build.

It seems you're quite the authority on groveling -- "Oh please, Mr Capitalist, won't you try to be a little less wanton and a little less heartless in your pursuit of profits in magnitudes unimaginable to us peasants?"

Time to get off your knees Cali or barring that, admit to yourself whose boots you're licking

[TBF]

133. And sometimes people are owners and like it that way. n/t

[cali]

379. no, it's not a euphemism, dear.

I believe in a mixed economic model. Healthcare should be run by the government. Industry should be regulated. And in what fucking world, genius, won't you work for a living?

As for licking boots, that may be something YOU engage in, sweetums, but I don't.

[Tyrfing]

387. Wake up Cali

You work for a living or you die in THIS world. Thats a pretty unforgving standard, especially considering you only work at the will and pleasure of the capitalist..if you're deemed unncessary, expendable, or superfluous then you're left to die. This is not a question of whether people are expected to contribute to society, its a question of whether their labor and the fruits of that labor are expropriated by others as individual gain, leaving them no option but to sell their time simply to eek out their survival..personal stories of this are well-documented here on DU, you might take a moment to read a few of them sometime


Explain to me how the productive forces of humanity are so developed that we produce food enough to feed the world twice over, yet millions of people starve to death or don't have clean drinking water. THAT is "regulated" industry for you.

But I think you already knew all of the above, so pardon me for sounding such an uncouth wakeup call. I don't care if you lie to yourself, but lying to others isn't going to fly

[cali]

391. stop acting the part of a hysteric

Actually, most people who don't work in this country, don't die. That's just fact. Yes, there should be a better safety net, but that's another discussion. Secondly, I know lots of capitalists I like or love. I know the two couples who are making artisan cheese down the road and just invested in a cave for naturally aging cheeses. My next door neighbors runs a nursery specializing in antique plants. Both enterprises employ (gasp) workers. And then there are people like Ben and Jerry or Jake Burton who started businesses that employed quite a few people. Yeah, in my book, that's good.

I'm so bored with the stupid as exemplified by your posts and those of others. You're infants; people who need "evil" just as surely as any primitive religionist. Capitalism is only as bad as it is unregulated.

As for why millions starve, sure I can explain that to you in two simple worlds: human nature. It's human nature that creates wars and steals. And it's hardly as if capitalism is the only system that creates starvation or other horrors. Read some history, dear.

Sorry, I think you're a simplistic little soul, who's drinking at the dogma trough. And it's a bore.

[Tyrfing]

393. So Ben and Jerry

atone for the ruthless, unfettered imperialism wrought by the Moloch that is cpaitalism?

Ain't about "evil", its about self-emancipation..but then you seem to be happy in your chains

Hysteria huh? You're so disconnected I wonder how you can tell..

[leftofthedial]

116. once "capitalism" is regulated to the point that it is no longer capitalism,

it is temporarily tolerable.

But it always rises again, like Mike Myers, to mercifully stalk and kill the innocent.

It's really not that difficult to grasp.

[cali]

121. one more time: any system has the capability of becoming exploitive

and brutal. A mixed economy that both values the good of the society and the importance of the individual, is probably the least likely to do so.

[Tyrfing]

135. Except that

the "good of society" and the "importance of the individual" are not just trite pablum, they are also socially determined concepts. And we live in a society that places profit above all else as the necessary and unyielding motive engine of social life.

You want exploitative and brutal? Well, you already got like you can't believe and you must not feel so bad about it, given the many apologias you issue for it.

[leftofthedial]

285. none save open fascism

relies so heavily on exploitation and brutality for its very existence as does capitalism. Without a "free" (or substantively free) resource to exploit, capitalism can not survive for ten seconds.

Look around you. See any free resources left that haven't already been squandered making some guy rich? The only thing left to exploit is labor.

[Tyrfing]

187. Checks and balances

being a euphemism for YOU being able to keep your head above water.

[NeedleCast]

80. No Thanks

I like regulated capitalism. So far, it's the least worst method.

[TBF]

143. Well there's a ringing endorsement. n/t

[Tyrfing]

151. Or a tacit admission

slurp slurp

[NeedleCast]

181. In politicis and economics, it kinda is

The idea being that while there's always room to improve, it's best to use the least worst system currently available.

[Tyrfing]

184. As though systems are created and implemented

willy-nilly and we can change whenever we please. This is not some game of whimsy, this is serious business. And I guarantee if you were to poll workers globally, "capitalism" wouldn't take the vote as "least worst" anything..

Howzzat for Democracy? Or would that be classified as "tyranny of the majority" infringing on your right to defend exploitation and imperial violence wreaked against your brothers and sisters all around the world (and none too few at "home") while you idly issue tepid, neutral pronouncements such as "there's always room to improve"

[NeedleCast]

192. Most systems are hybrids anyway

More a matter of how much of which ones you're using. There are no countries running a pure form of capitalism just as there are none that are running pure socialism.

Saying that a market economy is the least worst of the options isn't a matter of not taking it seriously. It's funny that you mention Democracy, because the "least worst" comment is a rip from Winston Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the ones that have come before it." (or close to it, I"m paraphrasing). Ya think Winny was just joking around and not taking things seriously enough?

[Tyrfing]

193. I didn't miss the connection

Churchill was a gasbag who spoke in empty pablum, and you're following suit nicely

I don't know what this "hybrid" blather means..as though theres a buffet table of "systems" and we pick and choose as it suits us. If we got any more unserious, we'd be doing slapstick here which, come to think of it, isn't far off the mark

[NeedleCast]

199. Why so Srs?

The fact that you don't understand what this hybrid "blather" means pretty much tells me all I need to know about your awareness to actually talk about an economic system vice spouting talking points from the Communist Manifesto.


I say hybrid in that our system of economics uses both market and socialist practices. In truth, I wish ours was a little more socialistic. I'd prefer something more towards the Northern European system...perhaps halfway between what we have now and that of Sweden. But that's the point. The US economy is no more a pure capitalist system than Sweden's is pure socialist. That's why the idiot Republicant arguments that Obama is a socialist is ridiculous. Obama may learn further towards socialism than Bush, but that's not much of a measuring stick.

In fact, your analogy towards a buffet table is pretty apt, much of our economic system is market based but we have social practices as well.

If you're here arguing for Communism, I'll make the same argument that many others in the thread have made. Give me an example country with a free society and Communistic economy.

[Tyrfing]

200. What's "free"?

It seems to me we're "free" to work until we're 65 (errr..75) and then its time to die. Some "freedom"

EDIT: and I'm not here to "push" anything. People will get there all by themselves, but it doesn't hurt to expose some of the inconsistencies and outright toadyism of those defending capitalism as a "system"

[NeedleCast]

203. Well, that's certainly a possibility under a mostly capitalist system

I'm not sure why we're suddenly changing subjects but okay, I'll play this game too.

I work for a college education non-profit. I work a 35 hour work week with about 45 paid days off per year and an incredible retirement package. Assuming I stay with them for any length of time, I won't be working until I'm 75 (or even 65).

You've describe one possibility under a capitalist system, but certainly not all of them, or even the majority of them.

[Tyrfing]

204. You're right I'm describing one possibility

We could always talk about Eastern Europe, Latin America, Russia, China, India..

[NeedleCast]

209. I have no idea where you're going with this...

I'll be your Huckleberry...what about them?

[Tyrfing]

216. You claimed I was overlooking the bright side

I'm asking you how bright the Big Picture looks

[NeedleCast]

226. Well, the big picture to what...world economy?

I'm not sure how the US economic system is responsible for the rest of the world.

You seem to be suggesting that some sort of economic system (I'm assuming pure socialism or communism) would somehow create a perfect world where there was no exploitation, class system or suffering. If this is the case, then I'll ask once again for an example of where this has been implemented in a free, open society. If not, then I've lost the thread of this conversation.

[MedleyMisty]

101. Doesn't matter what side I say I'm on

If I don't express it in ways that you approve of - generally privileged my parents could afford to send me to a great college for quite a few years and I never had to actually work among *your* fellow workers ways - you'll tell me I am a capitalist tool and am unfit to breathe your oxygen.

[Tyrfing]

141. You can have some of my oxygen

because you sound like you need to take a deep breath..

[Two Americas]

312. no way

MM, no one says that.

[hunter]

102. We are a communist nation.

This communist nation built all those roads for the people. Damn anyone who doesn't praise the United States every time they drive. Free roads and highways make us free.

Good citizens always carry their Driver's Licenses with them. It let's the authorities know they are a productive citizen of the Homeland.

But if you don't believe in the automobile, commrade, you are screwed and you deserve it because you are just another useless social parasite, a burden upon the State.

[Tyrfing]

138. Time to pay a visit to your physician

and get your meds refilled, pal

[hunter]

198. The psychiatric wards of the USSR were filled with political dissidents.

One who insults the sacred institutions of the communist state must be crazy, no?

Papers, please...

[MellowDem]

110. Capitalism, easily....

You think this is a rollercoaster? Try living during the Feudal Age, or in a Communist country, or under any other system, all of which are much much more unstable than this. Institutional injustice? That's present in every other system, as is periodic misery, imperialism, pollution, etc. etc. Capitalism isn't pro-pollution. It's a damn system of economics, not some moral compass, it can be used for good or ill. The sooner you figure this out, the sooner you stop wasting your time.

So what system are you for? After all, you are either with or against, so what is your side?

[Tyrfing]

166. And I suppose

blacks in Alabama wouldn't have preferred Stalin's USSR in the 1940s?

[MellowDem]

186. Considering the USSR

discriminated against minorities, I doubt it. In fact, most of them probably would have been liquidated in the war as expendable soldiers and labor forces. And you miss the point. The US does not equal capitalism. Capitalism is not to blame for blacks in Alabama being discriminated against in 1940.

Nothing about capitalism is inherently anything. It's what you make of it, just like any other system.

[Tyrfing]

194. You might want to read up on Jim Crow

then we can work on your "knowledge" of the Soviet Union after that

[MellowDem]

201. Uhhh no nt

[Tyrfing]

202. Not surprising that you choose to shut your eyes nt

[paulsby]

126. i'm on the side of capitalism

and not at all shy about pimpin' capitalism.

it's the worst system out there... except for all the other ones.

[Tyrfing]

131. Thanks, Winston

At least you are direct that you are shilling for the boss and opposed to the workers..would that others were so forthright

[paulsby]

139. not at all

unless one accepts the erroneous assumption that being for capitalism = shilling for the boss.

i support workers and bosses. i've been both.

right now, i'm the former. proud union member. proud capitalist.

[Tyrfing]

142. Capitalism aggrandizes or discards workers

as it sees fit, governed only by the motive of profit. It is by definition "shilling for the boss" since under capitalism the boss owns everything and you (the worker) own nothing. I applaud your contortionism but reality still kicks you square in the ass, no matter how nimble you may be.

[paulsby]

152. reality is

that capitalism builds wealth and does just fine by workers.

and that it allows for innovation, freedom, opportunity, and risk taking.

that it rewards some and not others (life isn't fair . b00h00)

it's done fine for my family, including poor immigrant ancestors who started businesses and built wealth.

furthermore, our capital markets allow workers to own plenty. i've been in stocks since i was 18. i am very fairly paid for what i do, great benefits, and i love my job.

why shouldn't the bosses have ownership? they are the ones who put their capital at risk. don't forget that more than 80% of business ventures FAIL!

and ANYBODY can be a boss. you can start your own business TODAY

[Tyrfing]

156. Whree did the boss get his stockpile of capital?

why shouldn't the bosses have ownership? they are the ones who put their capital at risk. don't forget that more than 80% of business ventures FAIL!

It can't be through hard work, luck, and pluck because even earning $100k/yr for 30 years you still end up with peanuts relatively speaking

And thus your entire minstrel act and mythologizing evaporates into so much smoke..

You wrote ANBODY can be a boss, but you meant ANYBODY can be a SCAB..reality also hits you in the chops

[paulsby]

160. if you end up with peanuts

with 100k a year, you are doing something wrong.

i put away 5k a year, per year starting at 50k a year.

now, i make six figures, and i invest AT LEAST 15k a year.

and that money goes into OWNERSHIP of assets, companies (stocks, etc.) commodities, etc.

this system allows your money to work for you, not just you for your money.

and anybody CAN be a boss.

my grandfather (son of immigrants, and a minority) rose to the level of captain in NYPD, retired, and started his own travel agency.

he did quite well by capitalism, and nobody gave him anything.

you can whine about how terrible capitalism is, or you can embrace it and make a life for yourself and those you love.

choice is yours.

capitalism allows way more choice, innovation, wealth creation, etc.

[Tyrfing]

163. Thats JUST it

and that money goes into OWNERSHIP of assets, companies (stocks, etc.) commodities, etc.

You only amass your "capital" of any magnitude off of the labor of others -- or do you think that assets and companies magically create wealth? That wealth is created by the workers, and you are appropriating it and claiming it as your own despite investing none of your own labor.

You are saying "be practical" and walk the gleaming, golden road of succes where each brick underfoot is actually the back of a wage worker. You're free to feel this way, and you're not alone, but you couldn't be any farther removed from the "left-wing"

All of which puts you and your 6-figure salary in a rather awkward position

[paulsby]

171. oh spare me

for pete's sake, you have said nothing that wasn't already covered by the old marxist tomes i read in high school.

assets and companies create wealth when they create a better product. nobody forces people to buy product X. product X gets bought when people want it.

choice. it's a big part of capitalism.

if you can build a better mousetrap then do so. the workers do NOT deserve all the benefits of your innovation. YOU do.

you are using the discredited marxist notion that labor = value.

innovation also = value, so does placing capital at risk, etc.

those who put capital AT RISK necessarily can reap huge benefits ... or else nobody else would do it.

as for my "left-wing" cred, i am NOT a socialist. i am a capitalist. most democrats are.

i am pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro union.

i am also fiercely pro capitalism.

i respect wage workers. i am one myself. i also respect innovators, those who put up capital, risk their capital, create jobs, and create wealth.

[Tyrfing]

173. Sure its all about "ideas"

Nothing to do with capitalist accumulation, imperalism, exploitation of workers, or anything like that

the workers do NOT deserve all the benefits of your innovation. YOU do.

You said it..

[paulsby]

176. damn right i did

but you of course miss the fact that these innovations often help the workers, homeowners, and average joe's too.

washing machine, cotton gin, refrigerator, alternating current, indoor bathrooms, computers, etc. etc.

all these things made hyooge profits for capitalists. but benefited broad swaths of society, to include poor beleagured wage slaves

i can fly across the country all because capitalists created a system where jets take off and land every day.

etc.

they also made people's lives, including those poor wage slaves, lives better.

i guess you should give up your computer, electricity, refrigerator, and bathroom since they all exploited poor wage slaves who didn't share in all the wealth from those innovations.

you are benefiting from the exploitation of workers!

damn the fascist, capitalist, imperialist, heterosexist, white , patriarchal insect capitalist system!!!

[Tyrfing]

178. So the capitalist is like the Godhead Pharoah

who provides everything for us peons

[cali]

185. which is not at all what the other poster said, but never mind, it's clear

you have some dogma to push.

[Tyrfing]

191. ???

all these things made hyooge profits for capitalists. but benefited broad swaths of society, to include poor beleagured wage slaves

i can fly across the country all because capitalists created a system where jets take off and land every day.

etc.

they also made people's lives, including those poor wage slaves, lives better.

[Silent3]

319. I'm for capitalism too, but "at risk" needs some clarification.

Incorporation and bankruptcy laws lead to a system where the motto "socialize the risk, privatize the gain" often comes into play.

There are a lot of real risk takers when it comes to small businesses, but even there, when a business fails, the cost of failure is often distributed among many people apart from the people who stood to gain the most if and when the business might have been or become successful.

Move up the corporate latter and the situation gets worse. Too often these days you find a rigged game of heads I win, tails I win even more. The financial sector was obviously a big example of this, where many people were, and many still are, richly rewarded for failure.

I have as little patience for naive, overwrought, "exploitation of the workers! evil capitalists!" rhetoric as you probably do, but I also think that sometimes the supposed heroic risk taking of allegedly daring entrepreneurs is overplayed. Since the public often has to foot so much of the bill when businesses fail, I think it's only fair that the public claims more of the gain when businesses succeed, and that the public should get more say in how businesses, especially businesses that benefit from incorporation, are run.

The trick (and it is a difficult trick to pull off) is for the public to exercise its rightful interests in ways that are productive. Much more important that worrying about "too much" or "too little" regulation is getting the right amount of SMART regulation.

I'd say more, but I'm up too late right now as it is. :)

[JVS]

168. The class enemy must be destroyed!

[maryf]

170. Big K&R!!!

I always preferred cross country to downhill skiing...besides being literally free to all, its constant, and despite what some might think, never boring...with the costly downhill skiing the excitement is high but if/when the lifts break, you're stuck at the bottom, unless you want a really long uphill battle...some like that constant anxiety, I guess...

[LWolf]

182. K & R nt

[Geek_Girl]

195. I believe in Mixed Economies! Capitalism is not the root of all evil

and neither is Socialism. A mixed economy is the best of all. A balance!

[Tyrfing]

197. well thats just super cali fragi-fucking-licious!

Its also inane and beyond stupid, but whos counting?

[Raskolnik]

213. You're a pleasant one, aren't you? n/t

[Name removed]

232. Deleted message

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

[realisticphish]

231. So.

"something different"

This thread is indicative of my problem with radical leftists. I totally support the cause of socialism. I do NOT support communism, but I'm certainly open to a different system.

The problem is that I'm not seeing a single viable replacement for the socialistic/capitalistic society we have now. All I AM seeing is, "Crush the fat cats! Bring down the oppressors! The Great Revolution is coming," etc. Give me a freaking break. If you want to convince me of the strength of your position, than provide support for it. Don't give me lines from Marx, and bumper sticker slogans, then call me a tool of the capitalist dogs when I don't immediately join the ranks. The posters in this thread need to understand that your audience is NOT stupid. We want facts, not just propaganda, and we want to see real plans about what you think needs to be done.

Replacing capitalism is NOT "pulling a tooth." It's removing the heart. If you don't have another heart there ready to transplant, then you're royally fucked. The economic system is the heart of a society, and at the moment ours is capitalism. You can't just yank it out, and then expect everyone else to handle things from there.

I'm sure I'll now be called something rude, then ignored. Or be told that the Soviet Union wasn't as bad as everyone said. Or, more likely, be told about how bad capitalism can be, like I'm a fucking four year old who doesn't understand about changing the subject.

Great way to get converts, guys!

[Tyrfing]

241. The only solution, the only call to duty, is to fight

everything else is secondary to that. You're telling me that the human race can't figure out how to build a better society if given the chance? As though its up to "radical leftists" to provide some prescription/roadmap (which would be little more than groping in the dark and prognostication)

But before we can build anything on the ashes of the old, we have to burn the old down. Whether you're with us on that or you choose to stand around saying "yeahbut.." all day the future is coming and its unstoppable

[NeedleCast]

248. LOL

Good luck with that...

[Tyrfing]

249. It has nothing to do with me personally nt

[NeedleCast]

255. Sure it does

You're the one who came in here spouting about the coming revolution. You may be new here (although I have my doubts) but you're talking to a group of people who are - in general at least - very politically savvy, most of whom can argue circles around the sloganeering you're doing. You may be hot shit on the Communist boards, but here you're another newbie going around slinging insults. Like most idealist, you appear to lack the ability to form an argument for your position and seem more intent on being a pitchfork carrying army of one.

[Tyrfing]

257. Savvy is not exactly the adjective I'd choose nt

[NeedleCast]

259. I'm not surprised

Idealist like yourself rarely recognize sense or care about the opinion of others.

[Name removed]

253. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[realisticphish]

263. haha

you couldn't have scripted a more apt example.

Fight what? Who? The U.S. Fucking Army? We don't have them on "our" side like the Bolsheviks did.

And, no, I don't have confidence in the human race to build something better in the ashes. This is not a feudal society of farmers which can reorganize as farmers, but controlling the production and profit themselves. This is a massively complex, interconnected society based heavily on technology and information industries. It's not something that can easily be switched without a plan. You disdain planning or consideration as "groping in the dark." Better to grope in the dark before you burn the house down around you.

If being with you involves sowing destruction, while taking no responsibility for the consequences, than no. I'm not with you. In fact, you're therefore anathema to a stable and just society. You want real change? Then put something on the fucking table. Don't give me this bullshit about how our duty is to fight. Only an automaton fights without consideration of the consequences.

[northzax]

343. so it's change for the sake of change?

let's just burn the house down and see what happens? sounds like a good time. let's do your house first, shall we?

[Tyrfing]

383. I don't think the negroes in the field thought of it as "their" house

So why do you? Its OK to identify with Massah but then you've sold your soul and abandoned any pretense of being part of the "Left"

[northzax]

444. actually, they probably did

at least the house they lived in.

and are you really playing the slavery card? you think working for a living is slavery? how...interesting.

[The_Commonist]

243. "Commonizm"

I'm not exactly sure what it means, other than we're all in this together.

[Mike 03]

244. Fuckin' A. It's hard to argue with a post like this. NT

[alcibiades_mystery]

274. You're doomed to flame among the true believers, but from me you get a

:thumbsup:

A failed system is always defended as "not pure enough" in practice by its devotees. The capitalists who say today 'If only it was like X..." are the same as the hard line Soviets who say "It was never Marxian enough!" In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, as rapacious capitalism spread across Russia in its true form, there was a saying that went around Moscow:

Everything the Soviets told us about communism was a lie. But everything they told us about capitalism was true.

[Two Americas]

311. good point

The right wingers are always saying that capitalism is failing because we don't have enough if it. So they give us more of it, it fails more, and then they demands that we need yet more of it.


...

[Political Heretic]

424. That's the best quote I've heard all day.

Everything the Soviets told us about communism was a lie. But everything they told us about capitalism was true.


Which is why we need something completely new. Not communism, which never has worked and never will work for a society as big as ours, and which fundamentally ignores key, obvious realities about power and human nature. And not modern capitalism as we see it today with its inherent exploitation.

[inna]

288. rec #26 nt

[TBF]

291. K&R. n/t

[anonymous171]

302. I'm on the side of Isolationist Socialism. nt

[Name removed]

323. Deleted message

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

[ContinentalOp]

381. Ah, yes. that old famous isolationist Hitler.

:shrug:

[autorank]

309. k*r Your side blindpig

Let see how it works. We've got a bunch of people working their ass off to get to the final day.
Every few years, we have some capitalist event, e.g., recession, and a new collection of judges
who are more willing to ignore the law than the last collection. You know the rest - oh, sorry,
your pension is gone. Then there's health care. Sorry, company is broke so you have no ongoing
health care even though it "was in the contract."

That's just a tiny piece of the overall fabric of revolting betrayals to workers, professionals, and
small business people who routinely get screwed in the big casino.

Enough already.

[blindpig]

374. Thanks, auto.

Yup, something gotta give, and the sooner the better for everybody.

[bridgit]

315. Mmmm, ooh, I suppose...but *capitalism* is a cruel mistress no doubt honey ~

[blindpig]

373. Not my cup of tea dear, try this:

[leftstreet]

316. LOL over 4,700 views and you didn't even have to put PORN in the title

:thumbsup:

This is an interesting subject, and I find more and more everyday people want to talk about it.

Kudos.

[blindpig]

375. Hah!

Yes, these times have a tendency to focus attention, don't they?

Ain't nothin' but drawing attention to the obvious.

[Name removed]

320. Deleted message

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

[Jim Sagle]

331. I'm on the Roosevelt, mixed-economy side. It was the American way, it can be again.

[Vidar]

384. Unregulated capitalism is a mere update of feudalism.

[LanternWaste]

386. Until someone finally informs me...

"Which side are you on?"

Until someone finally informs me, with any post-qualifiers, precisely how many sides there are and what they're all based on, I'm not on any side.

Until then, I see simply a gaggle of loud people yelling about academic disciplines of which they only have two semesters and three books worth of knowledge-- hardly the foundation from which we can build a truly compelling and valid argument.




I won't lead. I won't follow. And I won't get out of the way...

[Tyrfing]

388. Consider yourself so informed

There are only two sides:

"Us" and "them"

Unless you're a mutlimillionaire asswipe exec, you're one of "Us" whether you (or the rest of us) like it or not

The debate you're having with yourself is whether you prefer scabbing to fighting, although I guess the "debate" is something of a rout in favor of scabbing

[LanternWaste]

389. I have little doubt...

I have little doubt you consider both yourself and your perspective to be absolutely correct. It seems part of human nature to think in that manner, and to will both alliances and adversaries onto ourselves and others.

(Bless your little heart-- I'm not having a debate with myself, merely admitting that I do not posses all the precise and relevant knowledge, nor am I aware of which peer-reviewed academicians of the discipline to put my faith in.)

[TBF]

470. Bless your little heart right back (and yes I know what you mean) -

in this case it really is that simple. I swear the longer we all stay in school the more they brainwash us (and I should know...). You're either with the owners or you're with the workers. Every day more are finding out which side they're really on, as they look at the wiped out 401K, or get their pink slip, or have a family member move in with them "temporarily".

If you find out you're one of us rest assured you'll be accepted. We've nothing to lose & everything to gain by banding together. I know you don't like "us vs. them". You're above that. For now.

[LanternWaste]

477. 500 people have...

500 people have 500 different answers as to who "they" are. 500 people have 500 different answers as to who "we" are.

[TBF]

486. It becomes a little clearer when they get that pink slip and are

escorted out of the building, whether they are making 15k or 150K a year. It's not so complicated when you're living in tent city.

[LanternWaste]

494. Therefore, if I am instrumental...

Therefore, if I am instrumental in placing that pink slip in someone's hands, I am then one of "them", yes? Regardless of how ineffective they are at their job, how often they come in late or not at all, if I recommend termination to HR, I am one of "them"?



You seem to be right, that type of thinking isn't very complex at all... dare I say-- rather simplistic in both form and function.

[TBF]

495. You can parse it all you want to make yourself feel better.

What are you doing on a democratic website anyway?

[LanternWaste]

496. I'm simply looking for clarification...

"What are you doing on a democratic website anyway? "
Being a democrat.

Precisely how was I parsing? I'm simply looking for non-qualified clarification... :shrug:

[TBF]

501. You're not a democrat. Or, maybe you are if democrat is now synonymous

with defending the ruling class.

[LanternWaste]

503. I'm afraid I don't see how

I'm afraid I don't see how you inferred a defense of any class from me -- you could of course cite the specifics for me, yes? And you could of also answer previous questions I've posed re: refining your definitions so that we may better understand your perspective and the indictments you've laid down against me?



I'm quite sure simple name-calling is more than beneath you, and I have little doubt you have much more dignity and maturity than what you've illustrated to date. However if you are compelled to continue with mere name-calling and insults, then I'm afraid you will have to continue without my participation as I see it to be rather ineffectual.



Thank you for you opinion, and rest assured I will give it all the consideration it's due.

[TBF]

504. We started this conversation with your insistence that you needed

"explanation of all sides" & that was given to you. Everything since then has been your attempt to obfuscate the answer in order to dismiss it. That's fine, everyone is not going to agree. But at least be intellectually honest about your answer rather than insulting everyone around you for not meeting your "standards" of communication.

It's crystal clear which side you're on, whether you'll admit it (to yourself and/or others) or not.

[Silent3]

398. Wow, what an amazing simplistic world view.

One you're fiercely proud of, apparently. I guess you've "figured out" that letting things get more complicated is just falling into the trap of the oppressors, huh? :eyes:

[Sirveri]

409. Balance is the way to success.

Capitalism fails without regulation as does Communism. There is no universal truth, only good ideas that can be culled from the remains of the old and blended into something better than the original. I have found this to be true of nearly all things.

[KansDem]

418. I believe capitalism is good for pizzas, CDs, and lipstick...

But socialism works best for health care, education, and energy policies.

[Sirveri]

461. You're probably right. Some things are done better with a socialist model.

That said, pure socialism and pure capitalim don't work. Pure socialism has all corporations owned by the state, and causes reduced innovation and output. Capitalism encourages greed and theft and ultimately leads to an implosion effect due to the requirement for continual growth which isn't possible in any closed system without very strict management and harnessing of energy sources. health care is probably best as a socialist model, since then costs can be better managed and reduced while providing better and cheaper coverage. Education will always have competition in a capitalist system because there isn't anything stopping the rich from forming 'elite' private schools for their wealthy connected freinds. Energy policies I favor a more regulated capitalist model with much smaller providers. Exxon and Shell and everyone else are simply TOO large, they don't compete with each other, and thus aren't as innovative as they could be. A similar thing is actually happening in the nuclear power generation field, with Entergy and Exelon owning the majority of the plants in the US.

[Occam Bandage]

435. "It works until you turn your back."

So don't turn your back.

[Tyrfing]

500. Shocking that smarminess is your tactic of choice

no, really

[Prune Belly]

463. The frog in the well

There was a frog that lived in a shallow well.

"Look how well off I am here!" he told a big turtle from the Eastern Ocean. "I can hop along the coping of the well when I go out, and rest by a crevice in the bricks on my return. I can wallow to my heart's content with only my head above water, or stroll ankle deep through soft mud. No crabs or tadpoles can compare with me. I am master of the water and lord of this shallow well. What more can a fellow ask? Why don't you come here more often to have a good time?"

Before the turtle from the Eastern Ocean could get his left foot into the well, however, he caught his right claw on something. So he halted and stepped back then began to describe the ocean to the frog.

"It's more than a thousand miles across and more than ten thousand feet deep. In ancient times there were floods nine years out of ten yet the water in the ocean never increased.

"And later there were droughts seven years out of eight yet the water in the ocean never grew less. It has remained quite constant throughout the ages. That is why I like to live in the Eastern Ocean."

Then the frog in the shallow well was silent and felt a little embarrassed.

[1]

487. nice thoughts, really. but until that day when there is a national strike in america...

and the people here really step up to change? these are really just nice thoughts.



you had better just cozy up to the idea of capitalism. its here. and its not going anywhere.

[blindpig]

490. Fuck that.

Just stick a pin in my forehead, turn on the tube, text some inanities and forget about things that don't bring me immediate gratification?

Sorry, just can't do it.

[rug]

491. you had better just cozy up to the idea of feudalism. its here. and its not going anywhere.

This system is not eternal.

[Tyrfing]

497. don't blink

or you might miss it

"nice thoughts" my ass

[joshcryer]

489. You are really making this statement on the wrong forum. Most people here are subjucated to the...

...system they have in place, and are nearly incapable of seeing outside of that system. Sad, but true.

[TBF]

492. Probably so, but I am heartened by the fact that there are nearly 500

responses, and it wasn't locked away. At a very minimum, accepting the constricts of electoral politics, democrats are doing a horrible job with their negotiating. What would it hurt for Obama to bring single payer representatives to his meetings, for example, to turn the heat on the insurance companies rather than simply giving in ... there's numerous examples like this where he could fight harder.

Yes, some of us have had it with capitalism and are ready to move on. But those of you who think there's a "blend" of capitalism/socialism possible out there - turn the heat on. Make it happen. Don't just sit back and say "well, it's the best thing we've got so far so better not speak out too much". That's exactly what the elites count on. You can do better than that.

[conspirator]

493. Yep. They are plugged into the matrix of: rich people are a superior race

and if I work hard I will be rich too.

[joshcryer]

502. Yep. It works great. A nice self-perpetuating cycle of authoritarianism.

And very good folks participate in it without even realizing it.

[Tyrfing]

499. Patently wrong, patently impossible

Once the working class comes together AS a class, we literally can not be stopped. Don't kid yourself, the line is razor sharp and like the OP says, there is no walking the razor's edge. We may not win over everyone, but the vast majority will stand with us