Capitalism Produces Rich Bankers, but Socialism Produces Happiness

[marmar]

via CommonDreams:




Published on Sunday, May 24, 2009 by The News Journal (Delaware)
Capitalism Produces Rich Bankers, but Socialism Produces Happiness

by Phillip Bannowsky


Socialism is better than capitalism. So say 20 percent of Americans, and another 27 percent say they can't say which is better, according to an April 9 Rasmussen poll.

There's hope.

When you consider that virtually no newspaper, broadcaster, well-funded think tank, teacher, or anybody's boss or commander ever said something nice about socialism, it's remarkable that only 53 percent of us still favor rule by the moneyed class. Perhaps folks are learning how capitalism sacrifices happiness for individual gain.

As Billy Bragg exhorts us in his update of the socialist anthem "The Internationale": "Stand up, all victims of oppression/for tyrants fear your might/Don't cling so hard to your possessions/For you have nothing if you have no rights."

No less a "capitalist tool" than Forbes Magazine let a red cat out of the bag with a report this month that the happiest countries tend to be Scandinavian socialist democracies. High per-capita GDP certainly plays a role in their felicity, but even social democratic New Zealand, with per-capita GDP only 64 percent of the United States', ranks with the 10 democracies above us in the happiness index. They pay high taxes in these pinkotopias, but folks enjoy entitlements like free college, extensive elder care, and 52-week paid maternity leave.

The 2005 poll measured personal reports of enjoyment, pride in achievement and learning, being respected, among other things. Forbes suggests that such happiness derives from family, social and community networks, and a decent work-life balance, noting that the average workweek in Scandinavia is 37 hours. ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/24

[muntrv]

1. Amurka privatizes the happiness and socializes the depression.

[marmar]

2. Good one.....

:applause: from the "Amen" corner.

[MisterP]

3. I've always joked that if Latin American history were taught in schools, there'd be two parties by

2020: the western Marxists and the Deep Greens...
Put the original post's percentages together and you'd have a party with 47% support, facing the Geithner-Clinton moderates and the Palin-Inhofe-Ollie North GOP. I'd accept that: maybe we'd have some universal healthcare for once...

[EnoughOfThis]

54. what a bunch of crap

Do you know anything about Latin America?? Apparently not. Name the Latin American country that can even measure up to the U.S. I would like things to change here for the better, but I have been all over Latin America and it is becoming more of a mess by the day. You obviously speak from ignorance, but maybe you will study the issue a bit and come to a different conclusion. Finding a well-functioning Latin country may be difficult.

[dflprincess]

4. But Socialism does not produce happy, rich bankers

which is why the American ruling class expends so much energy convincing the rest of us that socialism is bad.

[femrap]

5. k and r

now that gives me 'Hope.'

[anigbrowl]

6. social democacy =/= socialism

I wish people would get this through their heads. I'm very much in favor of social democracy, by the way, but most such countries are still capitalist from an economic point of view. I get the feeling that in the US people think socialism is about what you get, rather than who owns things and how they're done.

Socialism (economically speaking) depends on the idea that workers own the enterprise they work for, ie that all enterprise should consist of worker-owned cooperatives. Curiously, there are relatively few attempts by workers to engage in employee buyouts of the companies they work for. I was actually surprised the UAW didn't attempt to just buy up GM recently.

[paulsby]

9. i agree

i keep seeing people conflate social democracies with socialism.

socialism is and was a dismal failure.

to put it mildly.

social democracies otoh have many positive aspects.

[proteus_lives]

27. +1

[ImOnlySleeping]

38. more than that

Socialism has been conflated with communism. I suspect the average person wouldn't be able to name a difference.

[armyowalgreens]

19. No one holds a monopoly on the word socialism.

Economic socialism can mean many things. What you don't like is worker owned cooperatives. But that doesn't mean that is all economic socialism means. Government intervention and regulation and taxation are all part of economic socialism.

Assuming that a government is properly functioning for the people, a government owned company is owned by the people. It doesn't mean that unions have to own business in order for it to be controlled by workers.

[anigbrowl]

25. You misunderstand me

I have nothing against worker-owned cooperatives; in fact, I shop at one regularly. I disagree with you that taxation is a form of socialism.

"Assuming that a government is properly functioning for the people, a government owned company is owned by the people." That's a pretty large assumption. I grew up in such a country, and I'm sad to say that that is often not the case.

[rucky]

7. I deserve a life like that.

I think we all do.

[Cirque du So-What]

8. I yearn for the day

when a groundswell of American voices cries 'ENOUGH!' to the parasites sucking away our national wealth.

[Vidar]

10. K&R.

[anonymous171]

11. Welfare state =/= Socialism. nt

[leftstreet]

13. LOL "welfare state" ??? Maybe one too many beers this Memorial Day?

:shrug:

[anonymous171]

14. Possibly...

I'll read this again tomorrow just to make sure

[armyowalgreens]

20. yeah don't post when you're drunk. I did it two days ago...

And things didn't come out like I wanted them to.

[Greyhound]

12. K&R

And I'm happy to see that our resident capitalist cheerleaders have contributed their kicks to this thread, too.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford
:kick: & R

[joshcryer]

15. Cue the capitalist pig socialism bashers in 3...2...1...

[Selatius]

16. This is one thing that absolutely kills me about America. Capitalists are so powerful here.

This is the nation that gave birth to some of the earliest labor unions in the industrialized world at the time. It established the New Deal. May Day originated inside the United States and spread throughout the world. We've gone from that to a nation that had George W. Bush for 8 years.

Look how far we've fallen. Michael Moore was right. We live in a "me country" instead of a "we country." We let them divide us.

[leftstreet]

17. We live in a 'TV' country

It's interesting that all the things you mentioned happened before the advent of the greatest capitalist propaganda tool in the history of mankind!

I still want to believe the Internet will be the antidote to that.

[Norrin Radd]

18. We are still experiencing the fallout of the Raygun/Robin Leach influence.

I agree about the net and the web.

[Wednesdays]

21. K&R

:kick:

[AngryAmish]

22. That is sloppy use of social statistics

IF you look at the science of happiness you will see that a happy society is dependant on a lot of things. First it depends on a lack of diversity. Diverse areas tend not to be very happy. Second, the average person must not have very high expectations. A sense of pessimism is good (if you don't expect much, you are happy when it does not happen.)

Anyway, stating the Scandinavian countries are happy because of socialism is the same as saying having saunas create happiness.

Now, write 100 times the "correlation does not mean causation" before you use the internets again!

[pnutbutr]

45. not to mention the method in which the determined happiness

They questioned people about positive experiences the previous day. They determined an entire nations happiness on the experiences of a few people on a single day. It had nothing to do with finances, education, jobs or anything else, just personal happiness on a single day.

[Martin Eden]

23. Are Socialism and "rule by the moneyed class" the only options?

First, let's be clear what is meant by Socialism. As I understand it, in a socialist economic system there is no private ownership of business. Everything is owned by the State. In my opinion, that is not an economic system that fosters creativity, innovation, and in general the kind of efforts that are at the core of human nature -- working hard to make a better life for self and family. The profit motive is not intrinsically a bad thing, and has been the instrument of wealth generation throughout our history.

Now I am in full agreement that wealth is not equitably distributed. I favor progressive taxation, a social safety net, and whatever it takes to guarantee every American access to a high quality education. I also believe our democracy is seriously damaged and that we have to eliminate the correlation between money and political power. While we're at it let's eliminate corporate personhood and a financial system geared for enriching market manipulators who produce nothing of value while wrecking the economy every few generations.

But I would not want to be deprived of the opportunity to start my own business and run it as I see fit within the law. Nor do I want the government managing the company I currently work for, which has been good to me and has succeeded because of innovation and smart business practices that likely would not be at the core of a decision-making process centered in a government bureacracy.

What we need more than anything else IMO is an informed and engaged citizenry, which is vital to the success of self-government regardless of the economic system. We have too much "rule by the moneyed class" primarily because too many of our fellow citizens are ignorant and/or apathetic. Rest assured that unless the voting public is better educated and more involved, a socialist system would be open to as much if not more abuse and corruption than we have now -- with the added encumbrance of an economic system lacking an essential motivating force.

The corporate-owned media may be a nearly insurmountable obstacle to a better informed and more engaged public -- giving us bread & circus while delivering a polarizing array of political talking heads who present starkly different versions of reality that keep the public ignorant and bitterly polarized. We the people cannot stand in a house so divided, and I think that is more the result of intent by the powers-that-be than by any natural divisions among people who have so much in common.

[blindpig]

26. Waste of verbage. The answer is yes. n/t

[Martin Eden]

33. Insufficient verbage

You need more than a curt answer to make your case.

[blindpig]

35. ok,

Socialism would not preclude your starting a business, go for it. Socialism is about the means of production, the major enterprises which provide most of our needs and employment, it is not about micromanaging mom & pop operations. As long as your working along with your employees and not just sitting back living on their labor, no problem.

Capitalism has raised productivity and profits, but for who? A tiny fragment of the population enjoys the labor of the masses, where's the justice in that? It's usefulness is long past, time for the people to take what is theirs. Furthermore, with it's insatiable appetite for profits Capitalism is grinding down and using up our planet at record pace. Regulation is a joke, it will always be circumvented because that's profitable.

Also see post #32.

[Martin Eden]

36. At what point is a privately-owned business taken over by the state?

Businesses often start out small, then grow as they offer products & services that are better or less expensive than the competition. When the mom & pop establishment has gotten to the point where hard work & innovation has increased its customer base to the point where expansion is the next logical step, is the business then confiscated by the State?

When the State offers the same kinds of goods & services as the small business, is it not likely that the State -- with all of its centralized power -- will ultimately make it impossible or simply not worthwhile for private citizens to invest their savings and hard work into the kind of enterprise in which they can enjoy the true fruits of their labor and creativity?

Where is the motivation to work hard, excel, and build a better mousetrap when you work for a State in which decisions will inevitably be made on the basis of dictates from a huge centralized bureacracy? In this worker's paradise of yours will individual success & advancement result from honest hard work & merit -- or should it strictly be from each according to his ability and to each according to his need? Who makes those decisions about each of us, and who makes sure that power isn't abused?

In my first post I mentioned the negative influence of the corporate-owned media, but I will still take that over a media owned & controlled entirely by the State. We at least have choices in the marketplace of ideas, even if there is more pap than substance. At least it's not 100% government propaganda. Give it a few years and the kind of people here at the Democratic Underground will have to truly go underground to disseminate information that will otherwise disappear down the memory hole.

What happened to the old Soviet Union? Did it collapse because Ronald Reagan's military buildup brought down the Evil Empire, or did it collapse of its own internal rot, corruption, and inability to compete with more dynamic economies?

You said in post #32 that we'll never have single payer health care because of the kind of capitalist usurpation that is happening now in Europe. Do they not have single payer? Doesn't Canada have capitalism, and did they not change to single payer while they had it?

Sorry, but I'll take a healthy mix of capitalism and socialism. Pure socialism -- with the State owning all means of production -- inevitably leads to tyranny and ruin.

[LAGC]

39. Socialism inevitably leads to tyranny and ruin?

Yet a healthy mix of capitalism and socialism is okay? Where do you draw the line?

The difference between a mom-and-pop start-up and a big corporate entity is precisely the fact that in the latter you have a person/group PROFITING off of the labors of those "below"... its one thing to actually work and partake in a partnership of labors with fellow "employees", but once the employer decides to sit back and just "let the peons do all the dirty work" while he reaps all the profits, where's the justice in that??

[Martin Eden]

40. Where the line is drawn is precisely the argument we need to have

Pure socialism -- where the State owns all the means of production; the media; all business of any consequence -- is a system where there is no line. It has been crossed and erased.

We have both socialism and capitalism in this country, as do the other Western democracies. They have more socialism than we do, and I think they have a healthier balance. But they don't have pure socialism where the State owns and controls all major business. What nation on earth does -- possibly Cuba or North Korea? The Chinese under Mao had it, with pretty horrible results. The old Soviet Union was supposed to be the prime example, but in reality it was more like a big gulag than a worker's paradise.

Asking where to draw the line at least acknowledges there is a line to be drawn between absolute socialism and laisseze-faire capitalism.

I say tax personal wealth much more than we do now. Eliminate corporate personhood and the correlation between money and political power. Implement and vigorously enforce ethical business practices and environmental regulations. Scrap the financial system designed for speculators who skim from the top and produce nothing of value. Do what is necessary to transform our energy infrastructure into a sustainable and cleaner future. Spend more on education than we do on weapons of mass destruction. Provide single payer health care and make it a priority to save Social Security.

But do not confiscate private businesses, big or small. Do not eliminate the free enterprise that despite its inequities generated the wealth that has given most of us a pretty darn good standard of living compared to most people on this planet. We can do all the things I mentioned in my previous paragraph and float all boats without torpedoing the essential economic engine. Yes we can.

We can have economic justice without having The State confiscate what hard working entrepeneurs have built up over generations. Slowly but surely the huge government bureacracy created to make millions of business decisions based on factors other than profitability will make our country less able to compete in the global marketplace, and lower the standard of living for all. Where's the justice in that?

And beware the absolute power of The State. It corrupts.

[blindpig]

42. Many inaccurate assumptions

Why does a business need to expand? If it provides a decent living for the workers I don't see why. This requirement to expand is a capitalist notion. In a society where one's needs are met why would someone need to be rich, other than perverse ego gratification?

You assume that the state control all media and enterprise. Nothing like that is writ in stone, only that primary and strategic industries of scale be. Likewise, while counterrevolutionary agitation must be suppressed until the revolution is firmly established there is plenty of room for legitimate criticism in the media.

The Soviet Union collapsed after 70 years of overt and covert pressure by the capitalists powers. It's a wonder they lasted so long.

European social democracy is in retrograde as their capitalists have been chipping away at it for a couple decades now. The ascendancy of social democrats and the disarray of the socialists parties is no small part of this trend, just as the Democratic Party has abandoned the New Deal.

I would refer you to the living experiment of Cuba, where many of the things you are referring to are being wrestled with, it is an ongoing process, new approaches are tried, some are discarded. Cuba is not yet a true communist society, but they're working on it as best they can.

[Martin Eden]

51. We should be more like Cuba?

They've been "wrestling" with their system for 50 years and are still impoverished. If that's the model you're holding up for us to emulate, your revolution won't have many followers.

Why shouldn't a business expand? When a business is successful because they build a better product or provide a better service that is a real benefit to their customers, you're saying that those innovations have to be strictly limited before a larger number of customers can enjoy what is offered. Your objection seems to be that the owners will become too wealthy. Why not just have a much more progressive taxation that forestalls the class of moneyed elite? And to tell you the truth I don't have much of an objection to opportunities for increasing pewrsonal income, as long as there are sufficient funds for health, education, infrastructure, etc.

I think you're operating on the false assumption that a communist system will raise the standard of living for the average worker. Historically that has not been the case. The profit motive is essential to a healthy economy that generates wealth, which can be more equitably distributed with a few changes that don't put Big Brother in charge of all the major industries.

Another one of your false assumptions is to think in terms of big industry, which has been shrinking as a percentage of our economy for several decades. Services, information technology, and media are all big businesses that don't fit into the mom & pop model. Will your communist state allow those big businesses to operate independently? Will the media be free to criticize a central government that claims the right to confiscate any business that grows beyond a certain point?

The American people will never go for it. There would have to be a collapse even worse than the Great Depression -- which is possible, but something not to be hoped for. And even if we could snap our fingers and select any economic system, I'd make changes but I wouldn't choose communism. I strongly doubt the reality would as beneficial or as just as you think. Today's progressives would join the ranks of tomorrow's counterrevolutionaries.

[blindpig]

52. Yes, they have.

And they have had the US attempting to subvert their revolution every step of the way.

It not just about preventing an overbearing uberclass, it's about every worker getting the full benefit of their labor. No to owner/parasites.

Sure, big 'businesses' would be ok, if the workers controlled them, and not this farcical bullshit the auto workers are being forced to eat by their corrupt 'leadership'.

Communists regimes have almost alway lifted the conditions of the masses. The strides in education, housing, nutrition and health care in the early Soviet Union and Cuba were nothing less than remarkable. Don't compare them to middle class America, compare them to what they replaced.

I think you'd be unpleasantly surprised what the American people might go for. Get out and talk to working folks like I do every day. Though they, like you, might react to the word 'communist' like Pavlov's dogs, an artifact of 100 years of red baiting, but you can be assured, there is little love for the rich or capitalism.

[EnoughOfThis]

56. "blindpig"...how appropo

Liberal should not mean stupid. How many more years does Cuba (or Venezuela) need for their system to be a success. Isn't 50 years of failure enough. Going from the 8th best economy in the world, in the 50's, to the toilet that they are not is a serious problem. I guess that doesn't square well with your "compare that with what they replaced" comment.......which is ignorant and stupid. However, living well in the U.S., you can claim that they are still fighting the good fight. Time to do a little reading....and grow up.

[blindpig]

58. 8th best economy in the world?

Show me.

And tell me about the distribution of wealth while you're at it.

[EnoughOfThis]

55. Cuba was successful....once.

Actually, Cuba's economy was ranked 8th in the world, prior to the "revolution". Now Cuba is a among the poorest countries in the world. How is that revolution working out for people there?? For all the complaints about the embargo, every nation in the world trades with Cuba, except the U.S. You would need to admit that, either the U.S. is critical to Cuban success or their system is incapable of any economic success. I will choose the latter. This is not a country that we should emulate....please.

[dotymed]

46. Martin

IMO, that was a well thought out and pretty accurate post. I
firmly believe that while it is not a panacea, REINSTATEMENT
OF THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, would be a huge step in the right
direction. It would expose our citizens to differing views and
allow them to THINK and make up their own minds on an array of
issues. Hopefully, money in our political process would
consume a lot of those discussions in the media. I must add
that I believe that health care and education should be
counted as inalienable rights and guaranteed to everyone.

[Martin Eden]

50. I agree

We need the fairness Doctrine or something very much like it to loosen the stranglehood of the ever-larger media conglomerates.

health care and quality education as inalienable rights -- I'm with you there as well.

[Echo In Light]

24. Perception Management = The ones used by the system adamantly support their own degradation

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. Lots of happy Cubans risk their lives to float to the US in rafts every year

They must be coming here for the weather.

[Hannah Bell]

30. lots coming from capitalist mexico, too. & capitalist guatemala,

el salvador, peru, etc. etc. etc.

coming on rafts from capitalist haiti, as well.

[Ikonoklast]

34. Lots of new citizens coming from that Libertarian paradise of Somalia, too.

I wonder why they'd leave? No taxes, no actual government, if one can arm themselves sufficiently enough you could coerce your neighbors to do your bidding...

A Republican wet dream of a state.

[NorthernSpy]

31. Lots of Haitians trying to escape the joys of the free market.

Some of them have rafted over to Cuba, in fact.

[KittyWampus]

29. Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exlusive.

[blindpig]

32. Indeed they are.

In every case the capitalist usurp the prerogatives of socialism until it's nothing but a name. This is what is happening in Europe now, it is what has happened to the New Deal. It is also why there will not be single payer health care. In all cases it is about profits, socialists practices are fields of unrealized profits to the capitalists and they can't abide that. As long as they got the power they will turn it to their advantage.

[NNadir]

37. George Gamow was a very, very, very, very, very, very happy man.

He was so happy under socialism that he frequently went Kayaking with his wife in the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea.

Later he was so happy that he went to Paris with his wife.

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

[gtar100]

41. Kick! It's so good you all are discussing this. We need to break the chains that bind us.

And this nation's obsession with capitalism is a chain around its neck. The industries of energy, banking, insurance, and health care cannot be entrusted in the hands of capitalists. These *MUST* be public works and operated without concern for profit, only benefit and efficiency. There is so much room for entrepreneurs, craftsman, researchers, scientists and engineers of all trades. But certain industries are too vital to the health of our planet to be left in the hands of private corporations and individuals who's sole concern is profit. May those souls rot in the hell they created but leave the rest of us alone who can make good out this.

[upi402]

49. excellent

thank you for that

[Blue_Tires]

43. kick

[pnutbutr]

44. This crap pisses me off

They are not socialist. They are a mixture of capitalism with social policies. Some nations are just heavier on the social side.

[juno jones]

47. But the protestant 'work ethic' dictates that happiness is not a consideration.n/t

[upi402]

48. who's sorry now?

Working folks - the vast majority. If not now, then soon. Sad to hear all the rationalizing about capitalism now that it has been allowed to run amok unchecked by unionism and law.

[EnoughOfThis]

53. Socialism has failed

What have Scandanavian countries ever accomplished? Name their greatest achievements. OK, the Volvo is a nice car.....but what else. Nothing. The fact is, socialism never accomplishes anything and we can see that now in Europe. And worse....when governments force socialism (Communism, Nazism (national socialism)), over 100 million have died at the alter of socialism...nice. It is a shame that a small percentage of Americans look to government to save them in times of trouble, but that should not mean that socialism is the choice. Please don't mistake people's liberalism for a wish to have people like you control out lives. Not going to happen.

[dreamnightwind]

57. Good and decent lives for the people

It seems to me the social democracies have accomplished a lot. They have provided well for their citizens. Happiness, satisfaction, working citizens who believe in the state and its collective value, health care, education, leisure time, equitable distribution of wealth, it goes on and on.

I guess it comes down to what we value. Achievements? A good decent life living well with others and with respect for our planet is the achievement we should all strive for. And assuming that the social democracies can't innovate or fund research would be incorrect, so I reject the notion that achievements come exclusively from capitalist systems.

Unregulated capitalism, to me, is essentially cancer. It expands, indeed its philosophy is that is must expand, merely for the purpose of feeding the beast, not for the good of its citizens. It consumes everything that gets in its way. Forests, oceans, workers, pension funds, topsoil, fossil fuel, it must feed or it will collapse in its misguided achievement-obsessed race for the gold. Eventually, of course, it's a parasite that kills the host, in this case the very planet we live on.

I certainly don't like the idea of a massive state entity that basically controls everything, but that's really not the situation in any of the social democracies. They have done a pretty good job of balancing state and private interests, IMHO.

Here, on the other hand, if you really dive underneath the surface and look at metrics of system performance, we have not done a good job of balancing state and private interests. We have a dysfunctional top-heavy capitalist class that basically has its way with the rest of us. It perverts logic to sustain our view of it as the only acceptable system. "Socialism, socialism!", goes the shrill mantra, we can't do that, it's socialist! The capitalists own the media, they own the government, and to no small degree they own our minds, filled with propaganda from their publishing mouthpieces.

Most Americans are shocked when confronted by comparative metrics between our country and the social democracies. I'm talking about metrics that matter to ordinary individuals, such as life expectancy, various quality of life measures, happiness, having a high expectation that if you give your labor to the system, the system will reward you by meeting your basic needs and will value your life and happiness as much as a capitalist system will value a corporation's bottom line.

Dog eat dog, every man for himself, it's a wild west world, gotta be a risk-taking entrepreneur, NO THANKS! It's possible to set up a better system that provides us a decent place in society and in the world that we don't have to fight for. Not only is it possible, it absolutely has to happen.