The problem isn't crony capitalism,corporatism, or whatever other adjective you can add to it,

[white_wolf]

the problem is capitalism. I've seen a lot of libertarians and even some liberals on this forum say that the problem in our system isn't capitalism, but that we don't have the right kind of capitalism. Libertarians want a pure free-market and some liberals want more regulated system, but either way you go the root of the problem remains and that problem is capitalism. Until we completely cure the disease of capitalism we can never get rid of the symptoms of it such as poverty and homelessness.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Fascism is what your mistaking for capitalism ,and Anarchy for Democracy

[white_wolf]

2. No I'm not.

Fascism is nothing more than a form of capitalism. You can't have Fascism without first having capitalism. I don't know why you are mentioning anarchy since I never brought it up.

[orpupilofnature57]

44. No, I meant that not matter what you think of capitalism ,thats Not whats

going on ,we have Money driven Anarchy ,and Government controlled contracts is a form of Fascism ,Nothing to do with the Free Market Capitalism ,where you don't get bailed out because your too big to fail.Sounds like I'll be sending my next post to you, care of Cuba.

[Claudia Jones]

45. right

Capitalism is "money driven anarchy."

There is no such thing as the "free market." That is a myth promulgated by right wing propaganda.

[orpupilofnature57]

48. Benjamin Franklin was not a Right Winger ! And helped invent this

.http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/benjamin-franklin/2007/06/14/

[Claudia Jones]

49. um, ok...

Yes, Franklin invented the lightning rod.

:shrug:

[orpupilofnature57]

50. Franklin was Our First Liberal ,PostMaster ,Fire chief , and promoted

Laissez-Faire ,which is a capitalist value ,not a GOB or Fascist who have run the country totally since 1963 ,before that Capitalism had redeeming qualities for all. ok

[Claudia Jones]

51. oh...

Franklin was no friend to the working class people who fought and died to win the war.

You have a very odd view of history.

[orpupilofnature57]

54. EXCU.. Who do you think was close to getting lynched for sedition

in london for lying about forming a revolution, Whilst his boys in Boston were Dumping Tea?Who begged the French for the money and arms to win the Revolution ,he was a Diplomat and effeminate but he was one of our most Courageous Founding Fathers.I love history and I'm told I'm odd ,so I'll take your word for it.

[banned from Kos]

3. OK - fair enough. Which country (today) has a system that you prefer

and how is it working for them?

[white_wolf]

6. The best system I've seen right now are the regulated social-democracies of Scandinavian or Germany,

however even those states are being subject to attempted austerity measures, and that is the problem with capitalism. The capitalists will fight to throw off any regulations you place upon them.

[banned from Kos]

9. I fully agree. They are market driven Social Democracies.

And the Germans are still ruthless capitalists. They export more (as a % of GDP) than any major country.


I am a "hybrid" type myself. Free markets and social safety nets with national health care.

[joshcryer]

10. You may be interested in Mideval Iceland, too.

The AFAQ discusses it in depth with regards to the context of "anarcho"-capitalism, but it's still intriguing none-the-less: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append139.html

[white_wolf]

12. Thanks. I'll check it out. I've always kind of laughed at the "anarcho-capitalists."

They seem to be walking contradictions.

[joshcryer]

13. I used to be obsessed with them once upon a time.

I could articulate just how and why they were actually authoritarians but that's been awhile. I used to be more in to it than my Libya obsession. :P

[joshcryer]

15. BTW, the anarchists were at the forefront of the collapse of the Icelandic government...

...here's an anarchist mayor that got elected: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,759333,00.html

(Yeah, yeah, oxymoron, an anarchist being elected to a position of power, blah blah.)

[hack89]

41. Sweden has embraced capitalism with gusto

they fully understand that there is no better way to generate wealth. They minimized the role of government in the economy with very few government owned industries or companies.

[Claudia Jones]

46. that is not how it works

It is not about "preferences" it is a matter of survival. It is not a question of choosing alternative systems from some imaginary buffet table.

[joshcryer]

4. Yes, capitalism lends itself to cronyism, but so to does any statist system.

Including state socialism. :hi:

[white_wolf]

5. I'll admit you do have a point. I'm currently debating this issue right now.

I still consider myself a Marxist, but more of the Luxemburg variety than the Leninist. I will say that so far the most successful examples of socialism I've seen have been of the anarchist variety. Catalina did well until Franco crushed it and I'm currently reading up on the Zappitta's of Mexico.

[joshcryer]

7. I would be "OK" with a Syndicalist-style Marxism, as it would decentralize everything.

But generally you don't want to have to depend on councils overall because they can lend themselves to corruption. I'm not sure if you saw me mention this to you before, but you really need a mechanism to prevent people from holding "representative office" more than once. Say you're elected to the council and you have to make decisions for your group, after a certain period of time your position is retired and you can never hold it again. It'd be damn near impossible to create cronyism in that environment. Particularly if elected officials are chosen at random.

[Selatius]

32. Actually, that's not too far off from what the Zapatistas practice in Chiapas, Mexico.

Their communities are rather small, so direct democracy can and often does occur, and leadership positions are often rotated regularly under the notion that everybody should at least have a try at it if they want, and if the person proves incompetent or not up to the task, the assembly simply recalls the person and installs another.

The main distinction that should be remembered is that these positions are considered delegate positions instead of trustee positions. A trustee position would be what the US has in the US House and Senate. You elect somebody, and they decide the laws for you. That's a trustee position.

A delegate position is where you and others decide for yourselves, and you elect a delegate to carry out your groups' wishes. The key comes in that the decision was already made prior to the choosing of the delegate, and the delegate is only empowered as far as accomplishing the goal. Once the goal is achieved, the position automatically dissolves, unless the group decides there is a new task the delegate must accomplish.

I find the US Constitution mostly good, but its main flaw is that it lacks a regulatory mechanism for recalling incompetent or plainly corrupt legislators and presidents outside of waiting for re-election or impeachment. I favor three simple additions: 1) the ability to recall sitting legislators/presidents half-way through their terms, 2) the ability to challenge an act of Congress by calling a referendum where people vote on it to affirm or reject a controversial act, 3) a mechanism for public financing of all federal campaigns that is as competitive as simply soliciting donations from private donors and groups, a Public Option for federal elections.

The problem is amending the Constitution is virtually impossible in the face of a political party that is willing to go as far as holding the nation's economy hostage to get what it wants. It makes one wonder also whether it is even possible to have a functioning Republic in a meaningful sense if one is dealing with such a party, and the answer is, probably not.

[HughBeaumont]

8. When it comes right down to it, no matter what the system . . .

. . . Greed Seems to Kill Us All In the End.

[RKP5637]

11. Yep, bottom-line, IMO that's the problem with all systems. Greed, power, control, money,

self interests, authoritarians and often the lunatic fringe will work themselves right to the top. In the US today IMO a good element of sociopathic behavior has moved into gov. along with the oligarchy.

[Malikshah]

34. Agreed--Accountability is key.

We have none of that now. There are no consequences for the elite.

[blindpig]

35. Greed is one of many human behavioral traits..

It is essentially juvenile. The behavioral traits expressed by humans are largely conditioned by the social environment they find themselves in, in capitalist society this trait is promoted, it does have the effect of encouraging capitalist accumulation, capitalism's vital engine.

In another society, one in which human need and not profits are the purpose of production, other behavioral traits might be promoted while this trait might be shunned and discouraged.

[HughBeaumont]

38. i.e. a society that's mostly about "WE" instead of one that's about "ME".

You make an excellent point about "juvenille":

What did we grow up playing with? Either toys related to war/conflict or toys related to superficiality.

What images are instilled throughout life on advertisements? Material Success and accumulation of creature comforts.

What story was promoted to us from the word go? Rags to Riches/Horatio Alger.

What sort of politician/political environment have at least half of us grown up around pretty much all our lives? The kinds that lie to their constituents and insist that perpetual-growth laissez-faire capitalism is wholly possible in a world with finite resources, capital and labor.

Most American kids/young adults never had a chance to think any other way. We were taught Reagan was the Alpha and Omega of all leaders. We were taught that capitalism was the fairest system of economics and that all others will eventually falter due to "too much centralized planning".

We were sold up a river.

[wuushew]

14. Capitialism is incompatible with a finite environment

Any system that is constrained by an inability to grow will either be one that collapses or that sees all wealth concentrate into fewer and fewer hands. It doesn't really matter what the rate of taxation is because even at 99% the fixed size of the pie(wealth dirived from energy, land, natural capital etc) would aggregate to an ever more select few.

I would like to hear how people envision zero-growth capitalism to be like, what the employement rate would be when durable manufacturing is limited to replacing just items that are worn out, housing construction solely for a stable or declining population or how retirement saving would work when investment returns as a percentage are near zero your whole working life.

This is not a radical critique. Ask yourself what are the tangible underpinings of how the economy currently operates and is that remotely sustainable in as little as 50-100 years time?

[banned from Kos]

17. Now those are excellent questions.

I call it the Permanent High Yield Fallacy.

Yields in mining, agriculture, fishing, and energy have been high for 60 years and population has exploded. It will end someday and it won't be pretty.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[alecnotALEC]

26. the shire..

My kids watch the LOTR DVDs all the time, when I look at the Shire I see a Utopian zero growth form of capitalism. There's law & commerce, the state is a fixed amount of real estate put to good use and the people provide the goods & services necessary for themselves and charge each other reasonably. Its quaint & boring but they seem to have little if any want for anything they don't already have. You can definitely do capitalism without growth, outside of that stagnant model there won't be a lot of excitement but you still have availability for innovation if it is beneficial in the long term and completely sustainable. Its just pretty boring. I think that's a good thing myself.

[white_wolf]

28. Actually the Shire is closer to an idealized agrarian society than a capitalist one.

In the end of the books when Saruman takes over the Shire you see Tolkien's view on industrialization. It isn't a good one. He felt that industry destroyed rural country life which he idealized. The Shire is much more like an agrarian society than a capitalist one.

[blindpig]

36. Zero growth capitalism is an oxymoron.

It simply wouldn't be capitalism.

Production for human need as opposed to production for profit is the nut of it. Human need does not consist of just "stuff", it is a healthy environment, healthy food, the biodiversity which keeps our environments stable and provides solace to humans.

[Odin2005]

16. Bingo. There is no such thing as "good capitalism".

[hack89]

42. I would love to live in Sweden

which is capitalist to the core.

[TBF]

18. Amen. K&R nt

[Starry Messenger]

19. k&r

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Peter1x9]

21. Capitalism, Communism, Fascism, (well, any "ism" for that matter) all have the same exact problem:

The inherent greed, selfishness, and materialism of people in general (and especially the people in power). Name one government on the face of the Earth (now or anytime in the past) that hasn't been bogged down by one form or another of corruption. Name one...
The only one I can really think of that even came close is the USA starting with FDR and ending with Reagan.

[Claudia Jones]

47. you are blaming the people

You are trying to blame human nature, and so blame the victims of those who are preying on all of us. It is false to say that "the inherent greed, selfishness, and materialism of people in general" is the cause of the problems here. Human beings are "by nature" cooperative social beings, and were that not true the human race would never have survived.

This is a way to excuse the most ruthless and predatory among us, and to paralyze and confuse those talking about fighting back, by dismissing it as inevitable, as "human nature."

[BOG PERSON]

22. have you considered the problem is human nature

maybe there's a little j.v. stalin inside each of us that must never be allowed near the levers of power

[wuushew]

25. Human nature is not immutable

our behavior comes from our genes. Several neurological conditions disincline individuals from lying or not taking things literally. One could simply increase the prevalence of these traits to improve the quality of human civilization.

[cali]

31. you're right it's not immutable, but you're wrong about behavior coming solely from

our genes. It's not nurture v nature, it's nurture and nature- and that's a complex formulation.

[blindpig]

37. "human nature" is the product of human society.

In every epoch the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class. In capitalists society what ya see is what ya get. In another society, with a different ruling class and different priorities you will get differenttraits coming to the fore.

[cali]

23. bzzzt. the problem is human nature. duh.

[white_wolf]

27. I'm responding to both Cali and bog person in this so here goes.

First of all, what is human nature? You are talking like capitalism is the natural state of mankind, but the system is only a few hundred years old. We are currently conditioned to accept that greed is good and that capitalism is the natural outgrowth of human nature. From the moment we can watch TV, we are bombarded with propaganda preaching this. Humans are a product of their environment.

Secondly, if we accept your premise that people are naturally selfish, than socialism is still better than capitalism, because it is a better system for the majority of people on this planet. They can either be exploited under capitalism or choose to own the means of production themselves under socialism. Which is better for the majority of people on this planet?

[cali]

30. uh bzzzt again. I'm not talking about capitalism at all, dear. I didn't mention it in my

post, let alone say it's the natural state of mankind. You're making shit up and putting words in my mouth. Hard to have anything but contempt for that behavior. My point is simple. Human nature can and does corrupt any system. No, not every person, but enough. Really, it's not rocket science to understand this. A little knowledge of history would suffice.

[Selatius]

33. I think that's why any attempt at socialism would be done with built-in safeguards.

A socialist state would be subject to the same corrupting pressures all legislators face throughout the world, but safety mechanisms might include a bill of rights of sorts, an ability of the people to directly check or curb legislative power, and an ability of the people to recall legislators and other leaders. The key, in my opinion, is decentralization of power.

If it is too risky for any one individual to hold such an amount of power under any political system or economic model, perhaps that power should be split up and shared by all for the sake of all.

[Claudia Jones]

52. "human nature"

Almost anything can be called "human nature," and that then can be used as an excuse for not doing anything about it.

No sense is doing anything. Why expect the police to arrest criminals? After all, crime has always been with us and is "human nature."

[OHdem10]

29. Pure Capitalism you are correct. No one has pure capitalism

Unfettered Capitalism by its nature(highly competitive and
therefore --winners and losers).

What has happened here is the FREE MARKET SYSTEM. AS we
deregulated deregulated and deregulated, the rich who
have the advantage anyway just got richer and richer.
The Poor are getting poorer and poorer.

My point is: Capitalism is an economic system --just
a system that can be used for good or for ill.

When we put in FREE MARKET SYSTEM, the decision was
made that if Business be given the opportunity the
Market System would correct itself. Business can do
a better job. That Invisible Hand of the Market will
correct all ills. They went into DENIAL about the
notion that Capitalism creates Winners and Losers.
Little or not regulation and we got Enron, Delphi
Lucent, Anderson the list goes on. This should have
warned the best and the brightest--womething is not
right here. FREE MARKET marched forward and we
have landed in a Deptession.

Marxism does not have a great track record and you
end up with Oligarch's and their Cronies.

We have permitted the Republicans to screw the country
and sometimes Republicans were enabled by some in our
own party.

NO Perfect system, but Capitalism can be made to work.
You need enough Liberal Democrats to turn the ship around.

[BOG PERSON]

39. one thing i'll never understand

is how you can look at modern day russia and all those erstwhile warsaw pact countries and talk about oligarchism or cronyism under communism. you know those places are all run by actual gangsters now right? that seems a tad worse than being run by unimaginative party cadres who enjoy perks like, i don't know, a personal driver or a slightly nicer dacha than everybody else has.

edit. like it or not the mode of production in the USA is pure capitalism. because we're basically the only place in the world that didnt have and still doesnt have any parasitic feudal remnants holding back or distorting development

[GeorgeGist]

43. Capitalism demands that there be losers!

[Claudia Jones]

53. Capitalism is not a "system"

It is a historic phenomenon. It does not come in different forms. It cannot be "made to work" any better than it is right now. The problem is who it is working for, not whether or not it is working.

[Broderick]

40. Nationalize the corporations over 1000 employees

Seize the oil industry, the banks, etc.

It's our only hope.