Is it even POSSIBLE to reform capitalism, or should we build something else?

[Ken Burch]

Poll question: Is it even POSSIBLE to reform capitalism, or should we build something else?

Your answer to this question will probably reflect the political choices you make in the next few years...whether you choose to even try to "color inside the lines" or whether you'll join the growing number of people who want to build a new system that is actually run on humane and democratic values.

There's also the question of whether the system CAN be reformed without facing an "existential threat" from some sort of alternative.

[elocs]

1. Exactly how might we "build something else"? Start a new country? n/t

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

4. No. Change THIS one

Take the wealth from those who've unjustly accumulated it(and most wealth has been unjustly accumulated since 1980, profits earned then having almost nothing to do with the merit of any goods or services any enterprise has offered)and the means of production, and re-organize all of it under democratic management, especially under the management of the employees of the existing concerns(other than those at management level or higher).

That's a start.

And since most wealth that's been accumulated by the few since 1980 has been, essentially, a form of theft, we can possibly use asset forfeiture to do so.

The existing system no longer has any reason to treat us as human beings.

[SDuderstadt]

5. How are you going to....

take people's wealth, dude? What is the cutoff point? Can you provide some of legal basis for your "plan"?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[socialist_n_TN]

35. Legal basis would be the "general welfare" enshrined.........

in the Constitution.

[white_wolf]

39. As for philosophical basis

The writings of Thomas Paine provide some, especially Agrarian Justice.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[socialist_n_TN]

118. Oh, I think if the assets were aquired illegally...........

i.e., stolen from the people, then yes, seizure would be an option. Hey, the government can seize MY assets if they just SUSPECT that they were acquired illegally (drug laws). Why not put the shoe on the other foot? But then I don't expect you to think anything like that. It's obvious who's side you're on.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. I think it can be reformed, but we're moving in the opposite direction at an accelerated pace

First we have to take money out of politics entirely. Then we need to dramatically raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations and increase financial/environmental regulations. Slap huge tariffs on imported goods coming from countries that manufacture goods at slave labor wages. Get rid of the bullshit "free trade" agreements.

Use the money from taxes and tariffs to increase social services and create massive infrastructure projects that generate jobs. The corporations refuse to use their excess profits to hire people so we should put the money to work ourselves.

Capitalism needs to be tightly controlled and regulated or it will run wild.

[SDuderstadt]

7. If we are going to move in the rght direction...

I would suggest "democratic capitalism" or "conscious capitalism" as a model.

[Ken Burch]

8. If those things are even possible, they'll require a large radical movement

pushing for something more to give them purchase. Power never humanizes itself unless it's forced to from below.

[SDuderstadt]

9. Dude...

if we could merely increase the participation rate, it would not be all that hard to get the reform needed.

[TheKentuckian]

11. Supporting a failed system because of a brief period of exploitive semi-function

in very specific circumstances that cannot be replicated seems goofy.

Where are you going to find a large competitive system and a world devastated by war along with a powerful enough left to create internal pressure to relive the "good old days"?

Don't forget to restock the more easily accessible and abundant raw resources while you're setting this up and you'd best figure a way to somehow support and enable exponential population growth.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. You make a good point

Capitalism by its very nature needs to continuously grow in order to be successful. But it needs resources to grow and there are finite resources available. Add exponential population growth and the world economic system is approaching disaster.

Maybe It's not the best system, but what are the alternatives? Why not have a mix of various systems?

[SDuderstadt]

13. We DO have a....

mixed economy: part socialist and part capitalist. The trick is to keep them in balance.

[TheKentuckian]

28. Of course it'll be a mix but we must kill the present monster and reintroduce

elements of a competitive system. Portions will return as we introduce employee owned co-opts and collectives competing against each other. We will have markets where consumers will have real, quality choices.

There will be incentives for investing in industries and the whole nine yards but it must be approached from very different fundamental perspectives.
Capital cannot be paramount, labor must be seen at least as an equal to it. Growth cannot be a basic fundamental. Those who profit must be responsible for the downsides they create. Much must change in the government interaction side.

Kill the capitalism and reintroduce the desirable elements as needed to maintain balance and foster evolution.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Or, we could embrace...

"conscious capitalism".

I vote for conscious capitalism.

http://www.consciouscapitalism.org/

[Ken Burch]

30. If there was any chance that the majority of capitalists would do the same

you'd have a point.

Any effort, however well-intentioned, to create "progressive" capitalism runs up against the structure of the system itself and the demands of the financial sector that feeds it.

Any ideas of how to change the way Big Finance works?

[TheKentuckian]

31. Embracing any capitalism is broadly suicidal. At best it is a carefully contained tool within

a system with much more scope and much less religious like adherence.

[socialist_n_TN]

43. OOOH! Good one.............

BIG agreement. Capitalism should be kept barely breathing with the foot of the worker on it's throat ALWAYS watchful for any wrong move.

"carefully contained tool" Nice turn of phrase!

[white_wolf]

46. I wouldn't call it a tool

so much as a weapon of mass destruction, that has taken more lives than any Atom bomb.

[Selatius]

48. It only takes one unscrupulous capitalist to push every conscientious capitalist out of business. nt

[Ken Burch]

112. Or even just to force the rest to STOP being conscientious

Or, again, the financial system, which is soullessly, relentlessly dedicated to Milton Friedman's dictum that the only social responsibility business has is to make a profit.

[socialist_n_TN]

119. Look folks, it boils down to the fact that any "Santa Claus".........

fantasy form of capitalism has one HUGE problem. THE CAPITALISTS ARE STILL IN CHARGE, either overtly or covertly.

[white_wolf]

10. We don't need to create a new system for one simple reason:

Because we already know that system. Socialism. In my view, that is the last hope for our country and the world. Capitalism will destroy itself and the world if we let it.

[Siouxmealso]

18. The problem with socialism

is that the central government controls everything and the society is run by government mandate. This would only make you happy if your favorite party was in power. Do you really want politicians whom you despise to have that kind of power?

I don't.

[white_wolf]

20. That was Stalinism.

Trotsky envisioned the economy being planned by the workers and series of worker's councils running the factories and deciding what would be made. Stalin being the power mad asshole he was had Trotsky exiled for opposing him on that matter. Read the Revolution Betrayed for Trotsky's views on the USSR under Stalin. He criticized the bureaucracy saying it was a new ruling class just as oppressive as the capitalist and Tsar.

[SDuderstadt]

21. There is NOTHING in our present system that....

bars employees from starting their own company. However, I have never worked with a single employee-owned company that did not realize they had to eventually resort to a professional managent team and leadership

[white_wolf]

22. Okay, but what about this?

Say they resort to upper level management and a Board. What happens when that board decides to stab them in the back and lay them off or lower their wages or benefits? Any and all levels of management should be democratically elected by the workers and workers should have the power to decide their pay, and fire them if they try to exploit them.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Duh....

the keyword was "employee-owned".

[Runework]

117. Problem is giving corporations legal "personhood"

.

[Siouxmealso]

14. The basis of capitalism is the right to own private property

that is then bought and sold in the marketplace, presumably at a profit so it makes sense for the process to be repeated.

To "overturn" capitalism you'd have to overturn private property rights. That's not going to go over too well when I come into your house and take your new flatscreen TV with the excuse that you don't own it, the people do and I've been put in charge of holding it for them.

[white_wolf]

17. To address this point.

I have talked to many Marxists about this question. They told me that under Socialism, private property in the sense of houses and TV's and such would still exist. What they mean when they say they want to abolish private property is ending private ownership of the means of production. I think everyone will be fine not owning a factory. I'll say it again put all corporations under the direct control of the workers. They are the ones actually doing the work, so let them decide for themselves how to run their companies. Not some damn CEO who has never worked a day in his fucking life.

[Siouxmealso]

23. On what moral basis

is there to simply "give" a company to the workers? Have they provided the capital to cover payroll? Other than their labor, which the government taxes by the way, what claim do they have to the assets that are not directly related to their contribution?

The workers would be best served by learning how to operate the business from working in it for a while and then band together with their co-workers to create a new factory/business that competes with their old employer's business. Most businesses today are created and built by people who worked in a similar business for a while, figured out a better way to run such a business, then opened their own which used their better ideas to beat their former boss in the marketplace.

The reason the soviets abandoned Marxism is because there was no incentive for innovation and so the products and services were crap and the inventories were insufficient to provide for the society's needs. You had to wait five years to get a car. One year to get a refrigerator, etc.

There are now more Marxists in America than there are in Russia because the Russians actually had to live under it.

[white_wolf]

26. Moral basis?

For starers they do the work. CEOs and Board members do nothing but manipulate money and profit of the labor of others. As for starting a company, that is rather hard when you can barely make ends meet and trying to compete with an already established corporation is very very difficult.

[Cid_B]

32. Maybe you should ask someone...

... who owns a factory if they'd mind giving it up.

"Not some damn CEO who has never worked a day in his fucking life."

This reminds me of when I hear junior Soldiers talk in the military. Oh, those Officers and senior NCOs don't work. They just golf all day and boss me around... etc.. etc..

The reality and responsibility is something they don't see on a daily basis so it doesn't exist. I don't even begrudge em the thought. It is just immature and naïve.

[white_wolf]

34. The factory owners

will always try to maximize their profits and assets. The goal of capitalism is to grow and expand. If they must lower wages, slash benefits, lay off employees, to expand and compete than they will. No one needs to own a factory. They will be fine without it.

[Cid_B]

50. Sigh....

Ok. Just out of perverse curiosity...

Lets say you have two companies that you have stolen from their owners/shareholders, Company A and B. They both make Che t-shirts for college students.

Both companies are the glorious workers paradise you seem to imagine but Company B starts producing shirts in a more efficient manner. Company A is faced with a choice to either go out of business or cut costs. What do they do?

Or do they just use more force to steal from Company B because those dirty sons of bitches never really worked a day in their life?

__________________________________

Seriously though. What you are proposing is evil. It's fucking theft, anarchy and murder. I know those are "cool" concepts to some but frankly I think most would shit the first time a gun was in their face.

[white_wolf]

68. Hmm RWers say that taxes are theft.

As to your argument: "Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility of separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement was made" -Thomas Paine.

[JoePhilly]

60. Never been part of a small business have you.

My grandfather started a small construction company. He was not only the "owner" is was also the master mason, the master carpenter, and master plumber. He hired an electrician, and a small crew who had NO SKILLS whatsoever when they started. They were just some guys who wanted to work.

He was not only their boss, he was also their mentor. He taught them how to become masons, how to become a real carpenters, and how to become real plumbers. His electrician did the same. And he paid them more than he paid himself.

My grandfather purchased all of the tools. My grandfather purchased the 2 trucks they used to haul supplies here and there. My grandfather signed on the dotted line for all of the loans to keep that company going.

My grandfather went and found the new jobs for his company. He negotiated the deals. And if his estimates were wrong ... that expense came out of his pocket.

And so then what ... my grandfather needs to give up ownership of the company he built to the people he hired?? The guys who started with no job AND no skills after he took all the risk?

Is any of this sinking in?

No small business man in his right mind would go along with your notion of what should happen.

[workinclasszero]

67. You are right

Every time a publicly owned company slashes its workforce its stock skyrockets!

Capitalists love to layoff us unwashed masses! You betch cha!

[fittosurvive]

75. "No one needs to own a factory."

white_wolf, the decider (fortunately, not).

Capitalism is the only economic system that is compatible with freedom. As such, it is the only economic system that is compatible with a Constitutional Republic that recognizes and guarantees individual rights.

[white_wolf]

77. Capitalism is not compatible at all with freedom.

It creates a system of Oligarchy that hides behind the mask of freedom, while enriching the few off the labor of the many. Look at what capitalism has done to our republic, it has reduced it sham. No one does need to own a factor, all decisoins should be made by the workers who are doing the work. period.

[fittosurvive]

87. Yes, look what it has done. The evidence is abundantly clear.

[white_wolf]

89. Hmmm lets look

Thousands of people die every year from lack of healthcare, two, possibly three pointless and endless wars and that is just the ones we know of, a political system that caters to the rich and powerful while ignoring everyone else. Yeah I see very clearly what it has done, and the evidence is abundantly clear. It is a failure and leads us down the road of an oligarchy.

[CTyankee]

80. Right you are. Marx predicted the mess we found ourselves in in 2008.

Just read Das Kapital...it's all there...I think he called it "reckless speculation." It had happened before during Marx's lifetime and the same damn thing happened to us in 2008. It is the essential nature of capitalism without any regulation and watchdogs that watch...

[hifiguy]

143. Indeed

The last 30 years have proven to the last jot and tittle everything Marx theorized about how capitalism (especially the laissez faire Milton Friedman sort) would ultimately and necessarily destroy itself by the force of its own logic.

Democratic Socialism/Social Democracy (think Scandinavia/Germany) is the only socioeconomic system that will allow our species to survive over the long term.

[CTyankee]

145. Sad that so many Americans have bought into the whole idea of capitalism as something

liberating to people, when actually it enslaves people. It's a destructive fantasy being bitterly played out in today's U.S.A.

[markpkessinger]

25. Socialist economies can and do have private property rights

Private ownership is NOT the basis of capitalism. Pursuit of selfish interest, at the expense of collective interest, is the basis of capitalism, which requires ever-increasing consumption of goods -- both needed and frivolous -- in order to sustain itself. In the end, unless very heavily regulated and controlled, capitalism will always aggregate more and more wealth at the very top until, sooner or later, it collapses under its own weight.

[readmoreoften]

40. Wrong. The basis of capitalism is to extract capital (profit) through lowering wages

beneath the cost of the products created by the laborers. Under a socialist system you can have "personal property". There is simply no privatization of the means of production: factories, water supplies, oil, forests, rivers, oceans, deserts, power stations, schools, etc. It doesn't mean you can't have a frickin flat screen TV.

[joshcryer]

124. In practice the "state control of the means of production" resembles current monopolistic corps.

[joshcryer]

123. The basis of capitalism is actually contract, capitalism has no desire to respect private property.

[JVS]

15. We don't have to build something else. Capitalism sows the seeds of its own demise and...

the incredible orgy of destruction and killing will take care of things.

[Starry Messenger]

16. The nature of capitalism makes it impossible to reform.

Even though some people hate the USSR around here, it took the presence of that massive country to compel the capitalists to rein in their excesses even a little. Since that country has been gone since 1993, have any of the capitalists shown any sign of restraint? The need to protect profit will always laugh at any kind of reform. Even if we pass laws, they find an easy way to slip around them. The only comfort is knowing that capitalism has the seeds of its own destruction in its existence. People who are trying to protect it will be as obsolete as red velvet capes are now. They will fight just as hard as the aristos of old to hold on to their capitalist privilege, but we will be rid of them all some day.

[socialist_n_TN]

36. Well if ANYBODY thought that capitalism was anything.......

DIFFERENT from what we have now, you're second sentence (question) should answer it if they think about it at ALL. When the competing system collapsed under the weight of 80 years of hostility from the capitalist class, capitalism reverted within 2 decades to it's base nature.

[lovuian]

19. Capitalism is dead ...two great Depressions prove it

is not a good system

[white_wolf]

27. If you ask me

the Industrial Revolution proved it wasn't a good system as for as exploiting goes. The two depressions have shown that is self-destructive.

[Starry Messenger]

33. Wow, nearly 80%.

Interesting.

[socialist_n_TN]

37. Yep. I'd like to think that anticapitalist education efforts.......

by some on DU have had this effect, but I'm afraid it's the capitalist THEMSELVES that have been the BEST educators. They've produced more anticapitalists by their actions in one year than I was able to do in a lifetime.

[Starry Messenger]

38. That's really true!

I actually started reading Marx only a couple of years ago, after a capitalist here used to come and tear apart threads posted by Marxists. I hated him so much, I started reading the articles, lol. He's since been banned, but I have him to thank for my start on this road. :D

[socialist_n_TN]

42. Yep. The more rabid the capitalist, the better recruiter....

for Marxism he/she is. :rofl:

[white_wolf]

44. I personnaly most think our former

President George W. Bush for my conversion. At least the son of a bitch did something good.

[TBF]

74. For me it is more of an acknowledgment of what I already knew and

tried for many years to fight. Born working class, chasing that elusive "american dream" ... well, it turns out that it is more of a nightmare for most of us.

My thanks would have to go to Barack Obama for finally sealing the deal however. I expected George W. to be an ass, for Mr. Obama to outdo him pointed out just how much trouble we are in.

[socialist_n_TN]

91. And TBF's story, and mine for that matter, is what's.........

really encouraging to an old Trot like myself. Back when I first was exposed to Marxism/socialism it was mostly a intelligentsia thing. The Marxists of the 60s TALKED about the working class, but most of them WEREN'T WORKING CLASS. They just knew about the class struggle in theory, but not practice. The Marxists of today mostly are ACTUAL working class people who've come to socialism the hard way, by living life under capitalism AS a working class person.

Now, I'm not anti-intellectual. Far from it. But some things are better learned and sink in deeper, if they are learned in the crucible of experience.

[TBF]

96. I guess that may be the silver lining to what is happening in this country -

with the way jobs/wages are going just about everyone is going to get that experience now. Of course many of them are working at Walmart, calling themselves "middle class", and buying their lottery tickets ... but at some point it's got to dawn on them that most of the country making minimum wage while a handful of others live in mansions really isn't such a dream.

[socialist_n_TN]

99. Eventually I MUST believe it will dawn.............

on them. :) But then I AM an optimist.

[hifiguy]

144. 100% correct there.

The irony is rather sweet.

[joshcryer]

125. There was a time when DU was self-identified as anarchist by a wide margin.

No idea what it is now but I was fond of that poll...

[socialist_n_TN]

129. Maybe. I've only been around for a little over a year..........

so I'm not really sure. HOWEVER since I have been on, it's gotten a lot more socialist. The first poll I saw when I started lurking showed about 30%-40% self identified "socialist" and I was THRILLED. I'd never been on a political discussion board with that high of a "socialist" identity. I would venture to say it was 60% or so now in just a little over a year.

As I said in another post in this thread, the reason for this rise, IMO, is more about what the capitalists have done to turn off the population than anything else. It's actually a natural occurrence. Anytime you have this type of long term recession/depression you get a bump in self identified socialists. Add to the economy a capitalist class that doesn't even PRETEND to have the working class' best interest at heart, and BOOM! A socialist revival not seen in 80+ years.

The difference between now and the 30s is that this hubris by the exploiting class won't let the politicians give workers the sop of another "New Deal". Which means the workers become increasingly class conscious and increasingly radicalized IN their socialism. It's NOT a good situation for a peaceful transition. I suspect we're in for some violently revolutionary times. I'll be glad to be wrong about the violence. But we've GOT to have the revolution or we ALL die.

[Starry Messenger]

41. Daniel DeLeon-1905, Socialist Labor Party

Reform implies tinkering at the existing social system and upholding it. As Dickens well called it, the existing social system is a Princess’ nails system—a system where the masses are given nail parings of the ruling class. The capitalist social system has outlived its usefulness. The season for reforming it is gone by. At such a season, reforms are not only useless, they are unattainable. They imply suspicion that things are not as they should be. A ruling class, rotten ripe for overthrow, can brook not the slightest suspicion upon its soundness. Any project at reform threatens its whole structure. For reform our capitalist ruling class has, accordingly, the same feelings, instinctively, that it has for Revolution itself.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1905/dec29_1905.pdf

There is a lot of socialist literature on the nature of reform movements. It's interesting to read, and it goes back quite far in history. People keep having this discussion over and over. It fascinates me that so many intelligent people can look at the same problems in the same system, but come up with totally different reactions to it. Every generation has a bunch of people who think they can do capitalism smarter.

[Armstead]

45. It can be reformed into something better -- But not eliminated

I think, for better or worse, capitalism is going to be the base of our economy for the foreseeable future.

Trying to change from that to something else is a waste of time. Isn't gonna happen. At this point, the real priority is to at least roll back the perverted form of Corporate Monopoly Capitalism we have now.

But that does not mean we can't aim to reform capitalism in very basic ways for the better, and create a more diverse economic system that also incorporates elements of democratic socialism, decentralism (More localized "small is beautiful" systems of enterprise), etc.

[TheKentuckian]

52. No it cannot be. We cannot recreate the conditions that allowed it to have a brief period

of reprieve from it's natural state which is what we see now, what we saw that led to The Great Depression, and created the need for Teddy Roosevelt to be the trust buster after the little Depression.

Trying to change to something else is wasting time but rather a purely a survival tactic. The system is like the worst of the worst child molesters, it isn't going to get better and it will always seek to consume everything. It cannot be reformed.

The golden era of 1950-1974 or whatever cannot be remade. We have no large competing economic theory providing outside pressure, no strongly pro-labor left providing internal pressure, no massively booming population, there will be no restock of easily accessible resources, the environmental damage will not be reset, nor is their a first world devastated by war. Certainly we are not in the pre-global state where a wise country can alone set limits. Nor do we have a way to re-balance the wealth distribution.

Talking about "no way", it is a hell of a lot easier to get rid of a failed and cancerous system than to restock the easy to get to resources and redesign the planet to support another population boom.

For someone trying to keep it real, your thinking actually depends on much more magical thinking than those whose thoughts you'd seek to temper. No matter how politically difficult their prescriptions are, at least they don't depend on alchemy, perpetual motion machines, time machines, and outright magic.

The whole deal is based on fantasy at the core, that there can be eternal growth. That systems have no upper limit on capacity, and that all resources can be replaced or replenished in a functional time horizon.

[Starry Messenger]

58. +1

[Armstead]

64. Please see my reply below.

[Armstead]

63. "Magical thinking?" ... No, believing that the system can be replaced is the fantasy

What you are proposing is basically going back to Square One and starting all over again from scratch. That is Magical Thinking to a much higher level of fantasy than what I said.

It seems to me that rather than hope for some theoretical New Start, it is more constructive to acknowledge that What Is will likely continue and instead push for strong reforms and the integration of better progressive alternatives into the system.

While tossing it all out and starting with a clean slate may seem appealing on a gut level, it isn't going to happen (unless there is some kind of sudden massive natural disaster like an asteroid that sends us back to the Stone Age). There is neither the popular desire or will to do that -- nor could society function on even the most basic level (as in people not being able to survive) if a rapid and sweeping change to something else were to be attempted.

How would the systems we now rely on to sustain life be able to run during and after this transition? We all hate the electric companies, for example, but I don't think you'll find many who want to go back to candles and fires in the middle of the apartment floor.

There is also the basic issue of human nature. It's not whether capitalism, socialism, communism, libertarianism, anarchism are better than the others in theory. The real problems stem from how we humans -- individually and collectively -- handle them. As individuals, and as groups, we are a mix of positive and negative impulses -- and selfishness and altruism. And we vcan never agree on much of anything (and are often conflicted inside as well).

So, even if society were to toss everything out and adapt a wonderful model of, say, democratic socialism combined with small scale self-sufficiency, we humans would find a way to fuck it up again very quickly. Some few would find a way to grab more than their share and build themselves a power base.

We all have to develop their own worldview, given both the unlikelihood of a fundamental change to a better system and the fact that this involves millions (billions) of imperfect, struggling humans. We each have to choose how we relate to it and what and how we want to contribute to the better side of things and work towards more positive changes.

It's also possible to simply shrug shoulders in defeatism, drop out of it all and not even bother with life beyond our own circle. That's probably better for individual peace of mind, but it only contributes to the trend towards the worst -- and gives more power to the bastards.

And, to be honest, theoretical debates based on replacing what is with a Utopian model are fine -- but they are best left for coffeehouse debate and term papers.

I choose to focus on the situation at hand, and what seem to be the most likely and feasible alternatives to push the system we have in a better direction. You may call that "magical thinking", but to me it is more practical and constructive than flailing about trying to bring about a more systemic change to some idealized replacement that is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.

(I realize that this sounds like a reverse of the positions I often take on DU, but it's all a matter of degree.)

[Starry Messenger]

65. The basic crux of the argument--human nature.

Liberalism partly stems from a belief that human nature is selfish and must be reigned in by market forces, the invisible hand, voting, what have you...to different degrees. Socialism disagrees: the basis of scientific socialism is that human thought and behavior is a result of social conditions, which is presently capitalism. Greed and selfishness are a symptom, not the cause. The disagreement on this point is what historically creates arguments between progressives and socialists. This isn't an argument that is new, it has taken place for decades. It's not likely to be solved on the internet, but I thought I would address that part.

Attempting to preserve capitalism with "aspects" of socialism doesn't get at the underlying misery and contradictions, as you astutely point out.

[Armstead]

70. I think we're all a mixture of saint and schmuck as well as smart and stupid

The proportions may vary, but any social, political and economic system has to factor that complexity into account.

The point, IMO, is not that the basic system in place is worse than the others in theory. They all have strengths and drawbacks.

My own opinion (although I am ideologically probably a democratic socialist) is that it's more constructive to fix what we've got and steer in a better direction that to try to bring about some more funbdamental rapid systemic change that is very unlikely to happpen....It seems, for example, much more likely to convince people with "here's how we can do better" in specific ways than it would be with "we have to change your whole way of life and start over."

I'm not saying one cannot practice and support different models on an individual level or on a smaller scale. And if they prove to be successful can inspire other and potentially spread.

But the starting point, (again, IMO) is to look at fixing what we've got.

[Starry Messenger]

76. Well, people have been trying to fix it for nearly 2 centuries now.

Is it working? Despite even the efforts of the New Deal, the regulation was overturned eventually and capitalism went back to its basic nature. At base, it is a system of theft and exploitation. The wages paid to workers are their own money, earned by their labor. The profits are taken from that labor, and wages must be reduced over and over to maximize the bottom line. I'm just saying, take a look at the structure. It is doing what it does as part of its design. It is like a virus in that regard. If we have a choice to eliminate a virus, or to live with a virus with just some small breaks on its destruction of the body, which would make more sense in the long run?

We wouldn't have to eliminate all of the advances of society to get to this. When the aristocracy was overturned by the revolutions of tradesmen and commoners, civilization did not start again from scratch. With the elimination of capitalism, there will actually be more choices and democracy. With the rapid advancement of privatization, can we say as much under the present system?

[Armstead]

86. I hate to say it but...

That's too idealistic.

Look at the French Revolution...The common people overturned a horrid aristocratic system with the idea of Liberty and Equality, and their leaders were idealistic enough to initiative massive murder to advance their communal beliefs...They became as tyrannical as the class they overthrew, and society degenerated into a new form of chaos...And then the whole thing was turned into a new monarchy under Napoleon, and they cycled through chaos and monarchism for the next century.

I believe the only way to advance what we might called "enlightened progress" is to roll up our sleeves and fix the mechanism, instead of attempting to toss glue into it and have to build a new one from scratch that will have the same potential for a new set of malfunctions.

[Starry Messenger]

92. Well, like I said. We were not going to solve this on the interwebs. :)

Time is rapidly approaching, and the system is choking to death of its own accord. Crisis after crisis have beset us and the distance between them is getting smaller and smaller. Something is going to happen. Society is a pressure cooker. Our own leaders are committing mass murder in our names on a daily basis and throwing the workers and poor into panic and misery from massive austerity cuts. Is that not chaos? People are going to fight back.

The mechanism itself is the problem, and it will smash itself to pieces. It's not a question of if, but when. Our only choice at that point will be to start at some point to rebuild. We can rebuild again with capitalism, with all its faults and contradictions, or we can resolve things on more human scaled-lines.

You are correct of course about the French revolution, but we have several mechanisms in place that did not exist then. Unions, universal suffrage, better science, etc. History is a process. (I hope I'm not boring, this is an enjoyable conversation, but I'll stop if you've had enough of me. :) )

[Armstead]

103. Not boring at all....This is the kind of discussion we need more of here

(Though I do have to get back to work now, or else I'll be among the unemployed masses. You can check "My DU" if you want to respond later.)

[Starry Messenger]

111. Here's something fun for when you have time.

Early American marxism from 1896. I posted a little DeLeon on another part of the thread here, but just found this, which says what I was trying to say, but a million times better. :)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/works/1896/960126.htm

REFORM

Take, for instance, a poodle. You can reform him in a lot of ways. You can shave his whole body and leave a tassel at the tip of his tail; you may bore a hole through each ear, and tie a blue bow on one and a red bow on the other; you may put a brass collar around his neck with your initials on, and a trim little blanket on his back; yet, throughout, a poodle he was and a poodle he remains. Each of these changes probably wrought a corresponding change in the poodle’s life. When shorn of all his hair except a tassel at the tail’s tip he was owned by a wag who probably cared only for the fun he could get out of his pet; when he appears gaily decked in bows, probably his young mistress’ attachment is of tenderer sort; when later we see him in the fancier’s outfit, the treatment he receives and the uses he is put to may be yet again and probably are, different. Each of these transformations or stages may mark a veritable epoch in the poodle’s existence. And yet, essentially, a poodle he was, a poodle he is and a poodle he will remain.

That is reform.

REVOLUTION

But when we look back myriads of years, or project ourselves into far -- future physical cataclysms, and trace the development of animal life from the invertebrate to the vertebrate, from the lizard to the bird, from the quadruped and mammal till we come to the prototype of the poodle, and finally reach the poodle himself, and so forward”then do we find radical changes at each step, changes from within that alter the very essence of his being, and that put, or will put, upon him each time a stamp that alters the very system of his existence.

That is revolution.

So with society. Whenever a change leaves the internal mechanism untouched, we have reform; whenever the internal mechanism is changed, we have revolution.

Of course, no internal change is possible without external manifestations. The internal changes denoted by the revolution or evolution of the lizard into the eagle go accompanied with external marks. So with society. And therein lies one of the pitfalls into which dilettantism or “reforms” invariably tumble. They have noticed that externals change with internals; and they rest satisfied with mere external changes, without looking behind the curtain. But of this more presently.

We Socialists are not reformers; we are revolutionists. We Socialists do not propose to change forms. We care nothing for forms. We want a change of the inside of the mechanism of society, let the form take care of itself. We see in England a crowned monarch; we see in Germany a sceptered emperor; we see in this country an uncrowned president, and we fail to see the essential difference between Germany, England or America. That being the case, we are skeptics as to forms. We are like grown children, in the sense that we like to look at the inside of things and find out what is there.


<snip>

more at the link.

[TheKentuckian]

121. Scratch is more plausible than "reforming" a failed and innately corrupt system.

The history is there. Serious questions were asked about the structure and how to re-create the circumstances that allowed the statistically minor period you can point to for any measure of success.

The pure weight of accessible and there for somewhat affordable priced critical resources runs harshly counter that this system can be tamed in a reasonably broadly beneficial way from our current place without a similar level of upheaval as a reboot is pretty damned optimistic.

[white_wolf]

47. Here is my answer

Kill it with fire!!!

[Starry Messenger]

49. kicking for more results.

[Starry Messenger]

51. k

[cali]

53. good luck with that

[sarcasmo]

54. Tax the corporations on their profits and the rich on their billions and we would be better off.

[Shagbark Hickory]

55. I voted for something else because I'm a commie but truthfully, a lot of our problems can be solved

by removing corruption in the government and undoing legislation that was bought and paid for by industry lobbiests.
Stick with common sense regulation will help.
My idea of communism more closely resembles capitalism only the government is partaking in the fun and citizens reap the rewards.

[creon]

56. yes

Most of Europe is a reformed capitalism: capitalism with a strong safety net and some public ownership.

It can be done.

Will it be done in the USA ? I doubt it.

[xchrom]

57. let's start with just two things: tax the rich, end corporate wellfare.

then move on to two more things: end our current 'free trade' agreements, and cut DoD -- by a lot.

and then let's see where we are.

[FreeJoe]

59. What would be better?

I always see people talking about getting rid of capitalism, but I don't know of anything that works better. When I look around the world and see what works, it always appears to be capitalism with smart regulation and some redistribution. Countries that try to get by without markets always seem to end up as dictatorships.

If you want me to buy into a better system than capitalism, show me countries that have tried your way and made people's lives better.

[GeorgeGist]

61. The core principle of captialism is theft.

There is no way to build a stable economy on theft.

[FreeJoe]

62. Theft?

Really? I don't see it that way.

[white_wolf]

69. Neither does

Wall St, the Koch Brothers, bankers, or any other massive corporation,but it is still theft. Plane and simple.

[FreeJoe]

79. Theft is when you take something from someone without their consent

In a capitalist society, that doesn't happen very often. In contrast, in a socialist society, it is the standard. If either system is "theft" based, I think it is the latter.

[white_wolf]

83. Sounds like the libertarian position to me.

and it doesn't happen very often in a capitalist society? Hahaha! You have to be kidding me? Ever heard of Wall Street,Bank of America,Goldman, The Koch brothers, the very basis of capitalism is theft. Hell capitalist still people's lives every day when they refuse to pay for live saving operations.

[TBF]

72. That is because you are "freejoe" - a capitalist.

It works for the top 5% who actually own everything, the rest of us not so much. So you are either of that top percentile and like it, or you dream of being in that top tier.

[FreeJoe]

82. I've been in each quintile during my lifetime

I don't see that as relevant. It's not theft because it isn't stealing.

I certainly don't see markets and capitalism as perfect. Like democracy, they just seem like the least bad option.

Once again, point me to places with systems that work better and I'm absolutely ready to listen. The countries that I see working much better than the US all use markets to allocate resources but overlay intelligent regulation and some redistributive taxation and safety nets to keep things in proportion.

I can't think of any country that has eliminated markets and not become a dictatorship and poorer. I don't think that is a coincidence.

[TBF]

73. Theft and oppression - the system thrives on those two things. nt

[Catherina]

78. Simply and truthfully said. There's nothing to reform here. Start over.

I'm sick of this theft, you can't regulate it when thieves are in charge.

That's like passing rules about vegetarianism when wolves are in charge.

[workinclasszero]

66. Capitalism is based on greed

and avarice. Scrooge was a stand up capitalist. So are the slave labor bosses of China and the Koch brothers, the reverend Sun Myung Moon the master propagandist Rupert Murdoch and Glennie Beck to name just a few.
A system based on evil is....evil!

Do u want to raise your kids in their kind of freak show capitalist paradise??

I wish I knew where the exit is myself but now that there is no power anywhere on earth to stop it I assume Fascism will soon enslave the whole world. Fascism is the latter stage of democratic capitalist societies it seems.

[fittosurvive]

81. Nonsense, capitalism facilitated the evolution of the most advanced civilization in the history of

the world. Our poorest citizens have a higher standard of living than the middle class of those living under collective systems of government.

[workinclasszero]

88. Well great!

I'm sure all the millions of Americans out there with no access to healthcare, a job or real soon a roof over their head will rest a little easier tonight in their cardboard boxes(made in china of course)knowing they live like kings to some in this $$ worshiping world!

[white_wolf]

90. Seconded.

[blindpig]

136. Capitalism has served it's purpose.

It has developed the productive powers of humanity to the point that the next stage is ready to be ushered in. We need tolerate the irrationality and injustice no longer, humankind is past ready for the next step in social evolution. Capitalism must be buried that the new order might flourish.

If ya got a middle class then by definition you do not have a collective society, rather a chimera or hybrid, full of contraditions.

[TBF]

71. Rec - gotta build something new. Capitalism is not working

for at least 90% of this country, and that's on a good day.

[TNLib]

84. Mixed economies are the best economies

The US is not pure capitalist economy it's a mixed economy. I think we just need a little more socialism in the mixture these days.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. We *could* reform it by putting a cap on wealth.

Alas, the Capitalists wouldn't like that.

[fittosurvive]

93. Under capitalism, socialists are FREE to be socialists.

Capitalists believe in individual rights, self-determination and voluntary associations. On the other hand, socialists believe in collective rights, central control and coerced associations.

In a capitalist, individualist, and voluntary society, those who want to live under socialism are free to do just that. They can institute mutual aid societies, housing co-ops, or even establish a full-blown commune for themselves if they are true believers.

They are free to equalize their incomes, redistribute their wealth, ban politically incorrect jokes, incandescent light bulbs, meat, or whatever.

Capitalists do not object to that choice, because capitalists recognize the right to dispose of your energy and your property as you see fit; no matter how irrational or mindless it seems to them.

However, socialists do not reciprocate. In a socialist society, capitalists are not free to follow their own paths and deal with like-minded capitalists without the socialists meddling in their affairs. The socialists point their guns at the capitalists and FORCE them sacrifice their lives to their ambiguous notion of the common good.

Then, the socialists have the nerve to tell us that all this is for our own good. Well, gee, if socialism is really the path to a utopian society, why does it have to be instituted at gun-point?

[white_wolf]

95. Your right your not free to follow capitaism in a socialist society. For one reason.

Capitalism is a destructive, selfish, and cruel system that monopolizes power and profit in the hands of a few. You no more have a right to be a capitalist in a socialist society than you do to be a dictator in a democratic society. Oh, but I guess democracy is oppressive now. Face it, capitalism is the dictatorship of economic systems.

[fittosurvive]

102. The American system is not a democracy--it is a constitutional republic.

Democracy, is a system of unlimited majority rule, i.e., mob-rule dressed in a coat and tie.

[Rex]

94. We worked fine with regulated capitalism.

All we need is oversight and regulations to prevent abuse of the lessers by the greaters. It is really just that simple.

Oversight. Regulations.

Done.

[white_wolf]

97. It isn't that simple.

We had that for a time, yes, but eventually the capitalists used their accumulated wealth to get rid of those regulations. That is the problem with capitalism. It gives so much power to so few, that in can, in time, destroy any regulations.

[Rex]

100. But we can get back to it, I agree the current system is broken

but imo not beyond repair. Capitalism only works if you have a middle class and currently we are losing ours...so you are right, it is more complex BUT the start would be - regulations and oversight. And that of course is if the people in charge can actually govern and not follow around industry leaders like lost puppies.

We need leaders that are responsible enough to say NO to big business and when said business throws a fit...punitive damages ensue.

If they want to leave America, then fine leave...we can make a better business without you.

[Starry Messenger]

109. But what are we "getting back" to?

Even in the "heyday" of capitalism, there were large groups of people who did not benefit from any part of the system. The suffering and destruction wrought on third world countries so we could have a middle class has been made almost permanent.

Regulations and oversight were put into place, and they were ignored, slipped out of. It didn't take very long either. The people in charge are there only to keep serving the economic system. This has been true in the entire history of nation-states, not just this one. They have consolidated a power base and are just cunning enough to prevent any reforms from us or from politicians. The wealthy would never let any such person near the center of power.


Even the so-called "Democratic socialist" countries of Northern Europe are starting to see the creeping-in of privatization again. I'm sure they will be capitalist again within a generation or two.

I guess my question at the end of all of this is, what do you think will be lost if we ditch capitalism? What do people see as the things worth saving?

[Armstead]

107. And under socialism, leaders can use their accumulated power to gain too

It's not just the system, but how people handle a system.

[white_wolf]

108. That is the main problem with Stalinism.

That is how Trotsky opposed any form of a bureaucracy. He wanted power to be vested in a series of local workers councils called "Soviets."

[Hippo_Tron]

113. You can't just wave a wand and say we're going to have Trotskyism and not Stalinism, though

[Ken Burch]

130. Nor can you wave a wand and say we're going to have "conscious capitalism"

The only chance to even have THAT(assuming that it exists)is to threaten the capitalist system with extinction. That's the only reason we got the New Deal, after all.

[Hippo_Tron]

133. True, which is why both systems have problems

And actually I think if we tossed aside labels for just a moment, we would see that pretty much everybody on this thread agrees with the same basic principles. We are concerned about a system where too much wealth and power are concentrated into the hands of too few. While this was not the intention of either socialism nor free market capitalism (as Adam Smith envisioned it), it can happen under both.

Whether we call it social democracy, democratic capitalism, socialism, democratic socialism, regulated capitalism, mixed-market capitalism, or whatever seems pretty much irrelevant. It all goes back to too much power in the hands of too few.

[TBF]

98. But how do they really deal with that "oversight" and those "regulations" -

they pay bribes, pay fines (it's often cheaper than changing their business practices), and hire lobbyists to dissolve them when they are especially onerous.

[Rex]

101. Right, what I am saying is only possible with adults in charge that

have a moral compass and a willing to help America get back on its feet. We need to do away with special interest groups and lobbyists - something Raygun gave us.

It can only work with people in charge that have a strong work ethic and a moral obligation to help The People and not The Corporate Bodies.

[TBF]

115. It's not "bad actors" - when the system encourages/rewards theft and oppression

that is what you are going to get regardless of how many adults are involved.

[StarburstClock]

104. Incomplete: should read Oversight, Regulation, Enforcement, Trials, Convictions, Jail

The enforcement, trials, convictions and jail time are no longer a part of the equation in this form of capitalism, therefore it no longer works. I think we're saying the same thing, just thought I'd elaborate.

[Rex]

105. Yes, thank you for adding that. Those are essential tools in a well

regulated (healthy) economy. :thumbsup:

[Hotler]

106. Prosecute crimes at the top. No matter how painful and ugly.

Imprison Wall st..

[brooklynite]

110. To the advocates of Socialism: please provide an example...

of a Country that provides the Socialist economic system you seek, while maintaining a Democratic political system. As far as I can tell, most of the desirable countries you might mention are Social Democratic rather that Socialist. From what I see pure socialism is an abstract philiosophy that's never actually been implemented successfully.

[TBF]

114. All the more reason to try a new implementation - it's not like you can

provide an example of capitalism that is not exploitative.

[socialist_n_TN]

120. Right. It's not like we're not smart enough to..........

see and, hopefully, avoid the pitfalls of the past, ESPECIALLY with a system that has as it's GOAL economic democracy (socialism). When the GOAL of the system is to be the winner in a Monopoly game (winner take ALL, like capitalism) there's no WAY to make that work without exploitation.

There have been mistakes in the past in the implementation of socialism mostly involving the development of a crushing bureaucracy, but as you so aptly put, there's NO example of capitalism that's not exploitative.

And finally, even if I grant a "regulated" brand of capitalism, is that likely at this point in time? I think not. I think that the exploiting class will fight against regulation, even "reasonable" regulation, tooth and claw JUST LIKE THEY WOULD FIGHT AGAINST IMPLEMENTING SOCIALISM. IOW, at THIS point in time, it's going to be revolutionary to even get ANY regulation accomplished. If it's going to take a revolution ANYWAY, you might as well try something else. That would be a lot of work just to allow the same people BACK in charge to fuck it up again in a few years.

[ileus]

122. It's worked this long, let it continue to work.

[white_wolf]

126. Worked?

Do you consider what is happening now to be "working?" The system has never worked for anyone except the rich and powerful.

[Initech]

127. The greedy 1% totally ruined and abused capitalism.

[TBF]

134. That's what you get when a system rewards greed. nt

[unkachuck]

128. "Is it even POSSIBLE to reform capitalism,..."

....I don't think so....capitalism is like slavery; you can't reform it, you can only rid yourself of it....

[blindpig]

141. The destruction of the New Deal is the proof.

People thought it was writ in stone, nosiree, as long as capitalism exists it must go for the whole ball of wax.

[moondust]

131. Small business capitalism isn't so bad.

You could try outlawing corporations and Wall Street first and see how that goes.

:shrug:

[and-justice-for-all]

132. The US is not ready for a change from capitalism...

maybe in the future, not in my lifetime, some new form of economy will come into being.

I hope for one not based on money.

[TBF]

135. When will folks be "ready"? When the top .5% owns 100% of

the wealth and we are all slaves? Will you be "ready" then?

[socialist_n_TN]

137. Probably when we're ALL, capitalists and victims both,.........

within a few months of ecological collapse. We, as a people, have a tendency to put off necessary measures till the VERY last minute, then scramble for a solution.

The problem is, in this case with the ACTUAL fate of the entire planet pending, we don't KNOW when that last "few months" will be. What if we're ALREADY IN the last few months?

We need to make the change SOONER rather than later.

[and-justice-for-all]

138. We are already slaves....

I do not underestimate the need for dramatic economical change, I am more than ready for complete Socialism with practically no capitalism; I can dream right?. I never said I was not ready, American society in general is not ready.

[white_wolf]

139. Americans need to wake up,

because Capitalism is not sustainable and will destroy us and the planet if we do not act quick enough. I think a lot of Americans are so scared of tyranny by government that they have ignored the rise of tyranny by money.

[TBF]

140. "complete Socialism with practically no capitalism"?

That won't work - and it's not because of the socialism. "American society in general" is more ready than you think - take a look at Wisconsin and Michigan. We're just getting going ...

[and-justice-for-all]

146. "...that won't work "

tell that to Scandinavia; the more socialistic the country is, the better off the people are

[TBF]

147. That is not what I said - read it again. nt

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

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