Capitalism, like communism before, is in its last days...

[kentuck]

Capitalism celebrates individualism. However, we do not live in a individualistic state of nature. We have created a social order which we call our government. Capitalism and individuality can only thrive as part of a social organization.

Although many capitalists see the government as an obstacle to maximizing profits, the truth is that capitalism is dependent upon the public for survival. Capitalists depend on the taxpayers to provide roads, airports, water, sewage, electricity, public safety, educational opportunities, research and development, etc. The capitalists will not invest in infrastructure. They depend on society to do that for them.

If the public sector were to refrain from investing in the infrastructure, the private sector would not invest and would collapse from the taxpayer's neglect. A good example is how private money built the railroads east of the Mississippi , where markets already existed, but public money was necessary to build them west of the Mississippi so the marketplace could follow.

This is an important point to make because investment in our country's public infrastructure has been cut almost in half over the last 25 years. What does this mean historically? The Roman Empire went through similar patterns many centuries ago. In denying the need for government and social organization , the private sector gradually gained control of everything until the public sector virtually disappeared. The Roman people stopped building and maintaining their infrastructure. Their elaborate water and sewer systems were abandoned and had to be totally reinvented a thousand years later. The Incas in Peru and the Moors in southern Spain were both once flourishing societies. They were dependent upon their efficient irrigation systems. They went into rapid decline when the Spanish stopped maintaining the irrigation canals.

Without public involvement and community interests, everyone will tend to be an "individualist". If there were no public interest, everyone would use as much water as possible and no one would take the time to repair the pipelines. Eventually, there would be no water system to use and everyone's standard of living would fall. The businesses and capitalists would collapse without the public support of our infrastructure.

What does this mean? If the government, i.e. the public, continues to neglect the infrastructure of this country, then individualism and capitalism will not survive. Unwilling or unable to recognize that they are both products of a social order called community, they will continue to misunderstand the necessity of government. Investment must not only be for the individual capitalist but for the common good of our society. If we continue the present decline in investment, we may follow the footsteps of the Romans.

[RKP5637]

1. Capitalism is obsolete in the 21st century! IMO it was helpful last century to provide individual

incentives and aspirations to build the nation, but now it has turned into a capricious force devouring that which has been created. With limited resources, an expanding population, changes that need radical solutions, such as climate change ... what is required is greater cooperation, not more competition fueling individualism, greed and hoarding. Today, capitalism IMO is fueling in many cases those elements destructive to the future of humans and earth.

Exactly as you say IMO; "If we continue the present decline in investment, we may follow the footsteps of the Romans."

[kentuck]

2. Capitalists are doing well right now but...

our middle class is shrinking and we have numerous social problems that affect our well-being, not the least of which is crime and unemployment. The destruction of our environment and the wealth inequality issues are at critical points. The demand for fairness is a strong force in any society. Power does not surrender voluntarily. The capitalists have the power. They will have to change for society's good or they will not survive, in my opinion.

[teamster633]

10. eating the seed corn

To take the analogy a step further, the “global economy” which the robber barons celebrate is predicated on “cheap” goods produced elsewhere. These “savings” are used to justify decades of off-shoring and out-sourcing. Many American jobs have been lost, but the capitalists have profited greatly. Our military, the most expensive in the world, is absolutely necessary to guarantee the integrity of the trade routes these savings depend on. How cheap are these goods when that cost is factored in? Perhaps American goods are competitive if this hidden cost, financed by our tax dollars, is considered? Yet another example of capitalism's greatest accounting trick: privatize the profits and socialize the costs. The irony is, it was our manufacturing base, a base which has largely disappeared, that was our greatest strength in the last global conflict, World War II. While our military may be able to secure trade routes for some time into the future, if another global conflict erupts, we closely resemble Germany in the late 30s/early 40s: cutting edge technology without the means, financial or physical, to produce the quantities of these weapon systems needed to prevail. Most of us remember how that strategy worked out for them...

[kentuck]

11. Good points.

And history may record that George W Bush and Barack Obama "saved" capitalism in 2008-2009 with the huge bailout created by their greed and failures?

[daleanime]

15. +1

[RKP5637]

29. Exceptionally well said! I agree so much! We are headed down the same path and it will not

work out well looking back in history!

[canoeist52]

3. “Capitalism will never fail because socialism will always be there to bail it out.”

(- Ralph Nader)

[kentuck]

4. I don't think it can last in its present form.

Although Ralph makes a very good point.

[jwirr]

34. Exactly. In the Great Depression capitalism was close to falling. One of the reasons was that a

lot of people were getting very interested in socialism - even communism - enough so that the capitalists could feel the threat. When FDR came along he recognized that threat and his programs were designed to keep that threat from going any further. For that rescue of capitalism he was called a socialist.

[Jester Messiah]

5. The -ism battles of the 20th century need to just FOAD already.

Can we just stop with the -ism keywords and just do what works?

[kentuck]

6. "All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come."

Victor Hugo

[madokie]

9. Feel the Bern

Thats why the socialist democrat will be who occupies the oval office starting in January of 2017

[RKP5637]

12. I think as more people realize who he is, there will be more interested in Bernie. I bet there

are millions who don't have the foggiest idea who he is, but as the 2016 election approaches and more people listen I think his message will resonate with them.

[madokie]

20. There is no doubt in my mind about that

He's hitting on the right notes and comes across as sincere as can be. He has the right amount of aggression and the right amount of not putting up with bullshit. He comes across as a person who can be trusted with the most important office in our government and at the right time for that to be.
I truly believe he will be our next POTUS. That doesn't mean we can let our guard down by any means rather it means we have to dig our heals in and get behind him and make it happen like our lives depend on it. When it comes right down to it our lives do.
America can not take very much more of this right wing third way bullshit that we've been enduring these last 50 some odd years. Ever since tricky dick won the white house is how long it's been.
We can do it. As Bernie says this election is not about him rather it's about us.

[7962]

28. When his numbers get to a certain point, Hillary's Army will begin the assault

And for them, NOTHING is off limits. We've seen it before and we'll see it again. This isnt Bill Clinton running for president.
Just wait and see. If he beats her in a primary especially, they will do ANYTHING to stop him.

[madokie]

33. All I can say to that is good luck

cause they're going to need it. We already see the knives coming out here at du so I'm getting ready for it.
The thing is we're paying a lot of attention that the regular folks aren't so that kinda gives us a heads up on whats to come. No doubt that Hillary wants this job more than she's wanted anything in her life and she knows time says this is her last chance, her last hurrah if you will so yes the shit will get pretty bad if the last time is any indication of that. Usually you can look at the past to get a pretty good idea as to what to expect in the days to come. We know that and are preparing for that right now, or at least I am, thats for sure.

I'll vote for Hillary if she is our nominee but only if she gets past Bernie and or Martin. I just don't think she can do it myself.

You know, she jumped out there early, I suspect, thinking that she'd scare off any real challengers but that wasn't to be. America needs and wants a change. She is not that change. She dances with the very ones who have us in the predicament we're in now so how is it that under her leadership things will change for the better for us 99%ers. It simply won't and that's enough to keep me pulling for someone who isn't a part of that crew who can bring about the changes we so badly want and need.

Feel the Bern is all I can say to her and her supporters, feel the bern indeed

[7962]

50. Good statement.

I think she has a couple weaknesses that she really cant change. First, she's not good at ALL when speaking off the cuff. And second, she also comes off as mad when shes trying to come off as passionate. I know some folks here would say thats "sexist" but its not. Some men have the same problem. Its just a personality thing. And I think in the debates she could really lose a lot of her blind support. But I have seen a lot of women who know nothing about positions, but want a woman president, so she'll probably have them regardless.
Sanders isnt afraid to talk about his points and he isnt afraid to talk to anyone. A big comparison; I know he went on the O'reilly show with hardly any notice and it didnt faze him a bit. The only time Hillary EVER went on his show, during the 08 campaign, was after weeks of negotiating and even then it had to be a taped interview. Bernie will talk to anyone anytime! Thats means something to me and says a lot about the person, IMO

[WinkyDink]

7. Oigarchy vs. anarchy. Which will prevail?

[kentuck]

8. That could be the next stage...

...if we not correct the course we are on. Very possible.

[jwirr]

36. And it is very likely that fascism will play into this is we cannot stop it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. I know where my preference lies.

[WinkyDink]

58. Same here, not being part of the oligarchy!

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. I would suggest the correct question is ...

Social Order vs. Social Disorder.

Since the being of time, we have always lived under an "oligarchy".

[lunatica]

24. +1!

As long as we have to pay Federal taxes this will continue. My opinion is that we should only pay State taxes (and maybe just a small fraction in Federal taxes) and make our legislators do the right thing for the people of each state. The people would then pay great attention to their state elections, and their mistakes would be far more rapidly apparent so 'mistakes' would be rectified within just a few years.

Let the fallout or benefits happen to each state as their citizens vote.

Otherwise our government should become much more of a Socialist Democracy than it is and not for the Oligarchs.

It's not like Socialist Democracy is new or untried. It's alive and working quite well:

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2009/05/11/worlds-happiest-countries-social-democracies

According to a new report released by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based group of 30 countries with democratic governments that provides economic and social statistics and data, happiness levels are highest in northern European countries.

Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands rated at the top of the list, ranking first, second and third, respectively. Outside Europe, New Zealand and Canada landed at Nos. 8 and 6, respectively. The U.S. did not crack the top 10. Switzerland placed seventh and Belgium placed tenth.

The report looked at subjective well-being, defined as life satisfaction. Did people feel like their lives were dominated by positive experiences and feelings, or negative ones?

[brooklynite]

57. Name a Social Democracy today that isn't still Capitalist...

...alternatively, name a private industry that President Sanders would nationalize.

Answer to both: none.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. "We have created a social order which we call our government."

What ever would we do without government and its graft, corruption, wars, slavery, segregation, rent-seeking, cronyism, assassination, bla-blah, bla-blah, bla-blah. And we get to punch a card once every few years to make us feel like we're a part of the process so we're more compliant while the war/money/power mongers run riot unabated and unconcerned.

What's not to love?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. In an anarchic situation you would have Hobbes' "war of all against all"

It would resemble a prison where every inmate dispatches his common humanity, reverts to his or her tribe, because in the dystopian chaos there are no other alternatives.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. Except people, if left on their own, choose to not live that way. We can organize just fine without

the strictures of government to meet our needs for roads, sanitation, education etc. And when we're done we go on about our business.

The problem with government is it fears not being needed. If it doesn't have a crisis it will invent one to justify the MIC, police state and cronyism. What's worse, these institutions attract the very people government professes to protect us from.

They'll whisper stories in your ears about The Dreaded Other. How your livelihood will be taken from you; how your families will be put in danger. Then, they'll say, "Give us guns and build us walls and we'll save you from those who would make you prisoners!" just before they point the guns at us and march us inside the walls.

Don't tell me you can't see it because DU is bursting with stories about this very thing.

[jwirr]

37. I think what you are proposing would merely end us up under a monarchy again. The power of

the strongest over the weak. By force. And while some monarchies might be decent to their people history shows that most were not.

I do agree that our elections are now little more than a farce but I am not in favor of anarchy as a
solution.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. The strongest already rule the weak. It's not a future threat, it's the current reality.

Monarchies only survive if people accept the fiction of the divine right of kings. I feel safe in suggesting we're past that point.

[jwirr]

40. However under a monarchy there is no recourse of a Constitution or a court. Even the divine right

of kings was nothing more than a power play backed by the churches.

As to being a past threat - I suspect that we are not safe from any type of power if there is a collapse either economically or environmental.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. The strong who seek to rule the weak are not held in check by pieces of paper.

We had a century of racist segregation because the courts deliberately chose to interpret the plain meaning of the US Constitution to give us Plessy vs. Ferguson. And even with that overturned we still see our so-called protectors gunning down unarmed people of color with total impunity despite how much ink has been spilled between the Constitution, case precedence, civil rights laws, regulation, policy memorandum, etc.

Some people will always work to dominate others. I see no virtue in providing them guns, badges and a cultural inclination towards obedience to authoritarianism so as to facilitate their appetites.

[jwirr]

43. I see your point. Just don't see how anarchy and chaos is going to change anything. Don't see how

that helps anyone except the powerful and the rich.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. Much propaganda has been published to equate anarchy with violence and chaos.

I'm willing to wager you have no violent or chaotic designs against your neighbors and probably feel they are similarly inclined towards you. You and your neighbors only wish to be with your family and friends. You likely even help each other when someone is in need.

Who is your neighbor? Is it the guy Two blocks away? Two miles away? Two thousand miles away? I'll bet it's all the above.

Yet, only a government can draft you, train you to kill in massed, organized violence and then transport and equip you to kill that neighbor because it is at odds -- not with the neighbor -- but with another government.

Meanwhile, the politicians get campaign contributions from the CEOs of the MIC enriched by taxpayer dollars after the MSM padded its ratings with stories designed to make neighbors fear neighbors. It's sick and incestuous and it's designed to be self-perpetuating.

I know you see it. Just look at that demagogue Trump. Heaven help us if he gains the that power.

[jwirr]

45. I agree with that. As to who is my neighbor - we used to have that argument in church. Never

did settle it. And when the preachers insisted that if they had the money the government got in taxes from their members to help people they could/would do it I just shudder. I have a severely disabled daughter and I worked as a social worker for 40 other persons like her. The cost is staggering. For my daughter alone $3000 a month plus the cost of her medical care and the sheltered workshop. (For most of her life it was much cheaper because I took care of her.)

My own minister shut up when I asked him just exactly how long our local church could provide that kind of care - especially since we had two members like my daughter and many elderly.

Yes, our government does a lot of things I do not want them to and I wish that there was a way to stop it. But on the other hand there are a lot people who are totally dependent on that same government for help they could not get any place else - no matter how well intentioned they may be.

[AZ Progressive]

46. You have to be pretty naive if you believe that all people are good natured at heart

There's a part of the population that are sociopaths and narcissists, as well as people with impulse problems. A percentage of the population has high levels of testosterone, thus more aggressive, compared to the rest of the population (and those people seek to dominate the less than aggressive people). People are also pretty opportunistic. People are weak to greed and selfishness, and pride.

In an anarchistic situation, the aggressive people will get together in gangs and bully everyone else. People will get together in gangs / tribes for protection. It's a situation that, more than current society, favors the strong over the weak. Women will surely lose out due to the increasing importance on physical safety, and they would be more dependent on men, thus losing their independence.

Would you rather have tribes or have an orderly society?

Oh, and without government, we don't have an organized military that will protect us. Didn't that go well for America during the war of 1812, or Europe during the dark ages with the Viking raids?

Fact is that in an age of nation-states, you need government. People will always organize anyway, because it's advantageous to do so. If your alone, your going to be the victim of the people who organize.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. What orderly society are you pointing to? I haven't seen it.

Anarchism knows that bullies, narcissists and criminals exist. We just refuse to use our labor to buy them guns to point at us and we refuse to cultivate reflex obedience to bullies just because they wear badges.

[cherokeeprogressive]

42. I'd have to think that while a modicum of government is necessary, government also has to be seen as

the root cause of the World's ills today.

The common man and woman doesn't have enough power to create or resolve problems on a grand scale. The government however, through a combination of incorrect actions in some areas and complete inaction in others, has EVERY BIT of the power it takes to hurt, even end (nuclear weapons) the world as we know it.

After thousands of years of government in one form or another; we're actually closer to the world's end than we are to a world free of war, hunger, and disease.

[TexasProgresive]

16. Capitalism left to its own devices

will crumble from being overly top heavy. Marx envisioned communism as a natural progression from the fall of capitalism. The nations that forced communism were really not capitalist but were fiefdoms. So Marx's theory may get a chance if the major capitalist nations fail. We shall see. I am probably too old to see what happens so it will be up to you young Turks.

[Igel]

17. The railroads west of the Mississippi had federal help.

Not all railways got help, either.

The private sector tried but couldn't wrangle with property owners who balked, either for more money or just because they didn't want to sell. Mostly in the form of eminent domain and granting of public lands, which is exactly the same problem railroads have had this century.

Back in the early 2000s in New York there was a large power outage. A big chunk of the solution was to make the importing of power from west of New York more robust, esp. to NY City. There was a bottleneck, and if anything happened to a single power line NYC would suffer brown or blackouts. This wasn't a new problem. In fact, the power companies had been trying to upgrade the infrastructure for years. The problem was all the NIMBYism, primarily in the Finger Lakes region. Nobody wanted to have their view messed up, a few landowners realized their land was now very valuable and jacked up the price. Without government intervention, Bloomberg's strategy was the one that was left: Lots of power cells and small power generation facilities scattered throughout the city.

We can have eminent domain inside of cities when it helps the city's coffers and disposes of "blight" (however we define that), but as soon as it's a larger issue like trying to get power lines through Skaneateles, well, that's a problem. Not that the famous then-new residents of Skaneateles were in any way ever shown to be connected to the opposition.

The other issue was funding, because electricity is so regulated that in order to get money to upgrade the infrastructure the companies have all sorts of hoops to go through. Any increase is a political fight, and a lot of customers see no reason to pay money for electricity when the increased bills will just fund increased physical assets for a company. In other words, the attitude is that the customer shouldn't pay, somebody else should. (Where companies get their money for infrastructure is, apparently, a mystery.) Houston is building a fair number of highways, but because it's done through a formally public agency that was given money to start but now has to at least break even they're all toll roads. It may be public, but it's paying back the original bond levies and is quasi-independent of public funding. Even the roads whose bonds have been paid off require money for maintenance; those tolls are never going away.

I'd also note that government tends not to want private interests involved in infrastructure, and the American populace also assumes that private interests are uninvolved in infrastructure. Whenever there's a dam or levee problem, we look to the federal government. In May or June there was an issue with a dam in Texas. When the Mississippi floods, there are levee problems. The Texas dam was privately built and maintained; many of the levees are private or private/public partnerships, many involving towns or states. When publicly owned the legal liability for failure is much reduced, so private infrastructure has to depend on serious tort reform.

[ion_theory]

19. What sucks is the fudamental Capitalists will

not let there system change without a fight and punishment of those who oppose them. Even anti-capitalistic discussion is basically taboo in most of the country which should tell you how a real movement would go down. It will be a rough road but it is possible.

[Nye Bevan]

21. Countries such as Denmark are going to abandon capitalism? (nt)

[jwirr]

39. I think that you will find that in the case of countries like Denmark Nader is correct - as long as

they continue the mixed economy they may survive.

[Hydra]

53. They may, actually

The idea of a minimum income is being tested in a few places. If it works, it could spread rapidly and be a significant bedrock point to build an entirely socialist model off of.

[JCMach1]

22. Both Capitalism and Communism are based on Unit Labor

That equation is being destroyed by automation...

We do not have a new theory, or paradigm yet that can distribute the wealth outside of the relation to labor.

[kentuck]

30. It's a Brave New World.

You are correct. There is no new theory to distribute the wealth.

[JCMach1]

47. Hence the problem... I thought the 2007 crash was going to help kickstart the reckoning

but no... Wallstreet managed there risks and managed to keep things business as usual.

You can just look around the world at the historically high unemployment rate for young people. Most of the world is averaging (at least) 25%... Most countries are much higher.

Many of those young people will NEVER know a full-time, or decent paying job...Not to mention what will happen to the rest of us.

In my own case, the majority of academia in the US has been reduced to adjunct positions. Meanwhile, unequal distribution rules with fat-cat administrators and College Coaches spinning PR one way or another that things are great at Whoosy State.

[truebluegreen]

52. I thought so too.

Unfortunately, we elected an able and brave defender of the status quo, instead of the truly transformational figure we needed.

[JCMach1]

54. I was not completely Obamacrazy, so was always a little suspicious

however, he has ended-up much farther to the right than I would ever have suspected...

[truebluegreen]

56. That was my experience also...

a once-in-a-generation or even -lifetime opportunity and we missed it. I have absolutely no doubt that the abysmal outcome of the 2010 election was a direct result. otoh, if we had gotten a real stimulus package (larger, and without tax cuts); Medicare For All or even a public option, investigation and prosecution of banksters, torturers, a real green jobs / climate initiative etc etc etc--it would be a different world....<sigh>

[hifiguy]

61. I was very hopeful. Until the Geithner appointment

just days after the election. Placing one of the principal arsonists in the position of fire chief let me know that we had been royally had, appointing HRC and seeing walking pusbag Larry Summers on the "economic team" only sealed the deal.

We were gulled, people.

[mountain grammy]

23. Many Americans equate capitalism with democracy, as in you can't have one without the other.

Voters have to be educated about private and public responsibilities and Bernie is just the candidate to do it. American voters electing "free market" type candidates, have no idea what they're doing. It may sound good on paper, but, like all "free market" ideas, fails miserably for all but the very richest.

[Dustlawyer]

25. That is why addressing Climate Change cannot happen under our current system.

The greedy 1% do not want to change to meet the reductions in fossil fuels to save ourselves. We are like Lemmings running towards the cliff.
Bernie is our only hope of meeting this head on. Of course he needs millions of us behind him to accomplish this. I just worry that the propaganda they spew will be too much to overcome. The stakes are much higher than anyone realizes!

[lunatica]

27. kentuck, you never disappoint!

Just seeing your name as the poster makes me click on your thread.

Socialist Democracy is already a huge success in the world. If the US would only yank their collective head out of their ass the obvious would be, well, obvious.

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2009/05/11/worlds-happiest-countries-social-democracies

World's Happiest Countries? Social Democracies

...According to a new report released by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based group of 30 countries with democratic governments that provides economic and social statistics and data, happiness levels are highest in northern European countries.

Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands rated at the top of the list, ranking first, second and third, respectively. Outside Europe, New Zealand and Canada landed at Nos. 8 and 6, respectively. The U.S. did not crack the top 10. Switzerland placed seventh and Belgium placed tenth.

The report looked at subjective well-being, defined as life satisfaction. Did people feel like their lives were dominated by positive experiences and feelings, or negative ones?

[kentuck]

31. Thank you lunatica!

I think this is part of the discussion that will need to be had in the upcoming presidential process.

[lunatica]

35. That's why I'm supporting Bernie

I'm confident he'll make this topic a much wider discussion. He's bringing into our collective consciousness as a country, win or lose.

[hack89]

66. Every one of those countries embraces free market capitalism

They just regulate and tax it correctly

[sadoldgirl]

49. There is another problem with our

education and our slogans. In Denmark and other
socialist democratic countries most people are not
judged by their wealth, and most are happy in a
normal middle-class situation.

In contrast our children are taught:" You can become
president". "you can become a millionaire", etc., instead
of " you can become a good citizen".

Nothing against incentives, but most people, who vote against
their own interest, seem to believe that in a short time they
will be millionaires. This kind of greedy wish seems to
dominate in our society, and it is not a healthy one.

[kentuck]

51. Interesting point.

Everybody in America wants to hit the lottery. Their primary dream is to be a millionaire, it seems?

[LittleBlue]

55. Capitalism is as good as the gap between it and its best alternative

There isn't any alternative to capitalism.

We can debate its merits all day but it won't change the fact that there is no alternative. Capitalism, regardless of what political philosophy the government adopts, will rule until something better comes along.

[KamaAina]

59. ...but what would replace it?

Any and all ideas are welcome.

[brooklynite]

60. Social Democracy = capitalism...

Name a Social Democratic country that doesn't allow the buying and selling of goods...

Name a Social Democratic country that doesn't have private banks that borrow and loan money...

Name a Social Democratic country that doesn't allow the ownership of private property...

Name a Social Democratic country that doesn't allow capital investment in commercial ventures...

To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Capitalism is the worst economic structure, except for all the others...

[moondust]

62. .

SOVIET FARM PLAN SAID TO STRESS PRIVATE PLOTS

It's always a mix of public and private. The challenge is finding the right balance.

[kentuck]

63. Not even these "social democracies" can survive under this brand of capitalism...

We need to draw some different parameters. We cannot let corporations and multi-nationals rule the world. It is as simple as that.

[brooklynite]

64. But you didn't say "this brand of capitalism"...

...you were talking about capitalism in general.

[kentuck]

65. This is the only capitalism there is...

...at present. There is no other.