The Failure of Capitalism and the Fight for Socialism Today

[blindpig]

The Failure of Capitalism and the Fight for Socialism Today

snip

The deepening economic crisis in Europe and the United States—ever growing national debts, fears of banking failures, the downgrade in the US credit rating—and the wild swings on stock exchanges answer all those who claimed the 2008 global financial crisis was just a temporary downturn. On the contrary, it marked the breakdown of the entire capitalist order, expressed most sharply in the decline of American capitalism and the collapse of decades of speculative and semi-criminal forms of profit accumulation.

Every action taken since 2008 has been aimed at defending the financial elite responsible for the crisis. Governments internationally took onto their books some $15 trillion of the losses suffered by banks and corporations—a sum greater than the annual output of the United States. They are now seeking to extract it from the working class amid levels of unemployment and social misery unseen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

In the US, the Obama administration has announced $2.4 trillion in cuts to education, food and energy assistance, health care and retirement benefits. More than 1.8 million jobs will be destroyed, adding to the 25 million people already unemployed or underemployed. State governments are closing health services, schools, libraries and even parks.

Across most of Europe, youth unemployment is well over 20 percent. In Britain, $100 billion in cuts are being made to welfare, housing and social services. In Greece, a second austerity budget will eliminate 150,000 public sector jobs and privatise $70 billion in state assets.

more....

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/conf-a13.shtml

[mckara]

1. Fight Against Neoliberalism

[blindpig]

5. Neoliberalism, 19th century liberalism, whatever...

Liberalism has always been primarily a capitalist political school, it only gained a progressive patina when it briefly associated itself with socialist ideas, and this only to save capitalism from itself. That was long ago and the liberal establishment is returning to it's former self.

[Puregonzo1188]

18. Absolutely. We need to make neoliberalism the front and center issue

like the left has done in Latin America and to a lesser extern Europe.

[amborin]

2. k&R we have a prez implementing a corporate "lean and mean" agenda

[SammyWinstonJack]

30. None which will hurt him or his and in fact, will probably reward him nicely.

Heckuvajob there, Barack. :puke:

[Laelth]

3. Spot on. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. Yep! I was born in a country in which capitalism kept the majority in poverty,....

... a very few living in tremendous wealth, and corporations doing marvelously.

My country is now Communist.

Nothing good can come of capitalism unless corporations are watched and heavily regulated, taxed appropriately in accordance to the benefits they reap from the country, the country is in control by representatives and referenda through direct vote of the people, lobbying does not exist, and social programs are set up to allow all those that can thrive, to thrive.

Capitalism, unless heavily controlled by the people, is only a system whose only goal is to further enrich the mega-rich and corporations. Period, end of story.

[blindpig]

7. And there is no controlling it...

the wealth commanded by capitalists, their control of the levers of the economy, assures that. The final destruction of the New Deal which we are now witnessing shows this clearly.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. Probably. You're probably right that there's no controllling capitalism, it will always...

lead to its goal: enriching the already-rich and the corporations, and doing it on the backs of everyone else.

[socialist_n_TN]

13. My saying about "regulating" capitalism is that

it's like riding a tiger. It's REALLY difficult to do and you're always in danger of being eaten. Basically, that means that it can't be done. At least not over a long term.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

19. :( Unfortunate for our country, isn't it? nt

[socialist_n_TN]

21. Unfortunate for the world

because it's not just the US.

But the good news is, the more this happens, the more it will be closer directed against the real looters, the capitalists and their symbols. That's the power of social media, which is where most young people get their news nowdays. Every time something like this happens a few more come over. And also because of the same media, it'll be happening faster and faster.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. I hope so! And yes, those are the REAL looters. nt

[white_wolf]

25. I have to say I wish you would have picked a less awesome analogy

because let's face it: If you can actually ride a tiger that's just badass.

[socialist_n_TN]

26. That's the point my friend, that's the point

DAMN hard to do.

[Creideiki]

55. It's the Leviathan threatening to swallow the country whole

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. Yep, certainly seems that way. The only option they leave the folks they exploit...

is what happened in my country. Very sad.

[white_wolf]

24. If you don't mind me asking what country where you born in?

I'm just curious because I can't think of many communist nations left today. Cuba, China, and N.Korea are all that comes to mind, and I'm been fairly loose with the definition.

[Starry Messenger]

6. k&r

[Cool Logic]

9. Capitalism has not failed...unless you think that raising the living standards of poor people

is a bad thing. Capitalism is a product of the Age of Enlightenment...it led to the end of slavery and serfdom in the entire civilized world of the nineteenth century. If you want to return to the Dark Ages, I urge you to emigrate to Cuba, Venezuela or N. Korea.

You make the mistake of blaming the free-market for our problems, when in fact it is the tightly controlled-market that our Representatives have allowed the K-Street boys and girls to create, that is the root of the problem.

In years 1000–1820 world economy grew sixfold, 50 % per person. After capitalism had started to spread more widely, in years 1820–1998 world economy grew 50-fold, i.e., 9-fold per person.<64> In most capitalist economic regions such as Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the economy grew 19-fold per person even though these countries already had a higher starting level, and in Japan, which was poor in 1820, to 31-fold, whereas in the rest of the world the growth was only 5-fold per person.<64>

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

[blindpig]

11. Capitalism makes poverty for the masses.

Yes the economy grows, but the fruits of the economy accrue almost entirely to the upper class.

Where do you think profit comes from? Profit is the labor appropriated from the laborer by the capitalist.

If you are in the ruling class capitalism works just fine, not so much for the rest of us.

Libertarianism is whole cloth nonsense made up specifically to support capitalism.

[Cool Logic]

14. Why do you think 1% of the population controls 38% of the wealth?

Answer: Because our Representatives let them have it.

A true free-market economy, is not controlled by the rich or by the poor; rather, it is controlled by the simple law of supply and demand. That means the rules (regulations) are the same for everyone. I do not make the assumption that greed does not exist; however, it is the tightly controlled-market of the rich and powerful that does not account for greed, for the rich and the powerful are the ones who write the rules.

When I advocate for the free-market, I do not mean pure, unbridled, laissez-faire capitalism. For that results in the same concentration of wealth that occurs when the rich and the powerful control the economy.

However, when the market is over-regulated by the powerful, consumers are not allowed to choose from the best products. Rather, they get to choose the products produced by companies with the best lobbyists. Or, as is the case with ethanol, we don't have choice; we are forced to buy their products. Likewise, we are forced to buy their weapons for the wars that our Representatives wage for them.

And then there are the costs associated with their regulations--$1.75 trillion/yr by most estimates. The US is the world's leading producer of red tape and it is choking us to death. Well, not all of us. For the ones who write the rules get to sell us stuff we don't need and force us to pay them to regulate us.

[Locrian]

33. FAIL

>>When I advocate for the free-market, I do not mean pure, unbridled, laissez-faire capitalism. For that results in the same concentration of wealth that occurs when the rich and the powerful control the economy.
You advocate a "free market" impossibility - as the very nature of it creates a power structure that eats itself. Continuing to say "its not free enough" is simple dogma.

Further, "best products" in meaningless. War, prison, death, bad health, etc ALL are GOOD $$ in a free market capitalistic society. They "value" nothing except $$.

[Cool Logic]

42. "...as the very nature of it creates a power structure that eats itself."

Indeed, that is a possibility...but tell me, how is that different from any other economic system that involves human beings.

[LooseWilly]

79. A "true free-market economy... not controlled by the rich or poor"? That's called Communism

"I do not mean pure, unbridled, laissez-faire capitalism" ... AND "when the market is over-regulated by the powerful, consumers are not allowed to ... {blah blah blah}"?...

So you advocate for a "free market" which isn't "too free"... and isn't controlled by the rich, or the poor, or "by companies with the best lobbyists"... but— who does that leave to "control" the market so it isn't "pure, unbridled, laissez-faire capitalism"?

Not rich, not poor... Middle class? The country as a whole? How about by a government which is composed of representatives of the people... a Republic, or perhaps an actual Democracy? But, to control the threat of "companies with the best lobbyists" there will have to be a mechanism to ensure that the companies can't become so extravagantly wealthy as to be able to squander so much money on lobbyists.

I know... how about implementing an extremely efficient and progressive tax structure so that those companies can't become so obscenely wealthy... and the money can be filtered back through the government... which has the effect of taking from the rich, giving to the poor, and in the process eliminating both rich and poor— so that your condition of "isn't controlled by the rich, or the poor" is guaranteed!!

So here we have a system in which the "market" is protected from the overly powerful, by reining in their power through taxation, and the "market" is protected from the poor, by allocating enough of those taxed dollars to them so that they're no longer poor (and therefore no longer a "threat"), and in which this public of not-rich, not-poor, not-lobbyists are in a position, by means of representation in the apparatus of state which is generally referred to as a government, to "protect" the market from becoming "pure, unbridled, laissez-faire capitalism"...

What you have here created is— Communism, in order to "protect the market" from all the foes that you list.

[Cool Logic]

89. "That's called Communism" That is not possible for communism is antithetical...

to free-market principles.

Free-market is synonymous with independent-market, and communism abhors every manner of independence; including, independent work, independent action, independent property, independent thought, and an independent human being.

In order for economic regulations to be moral and ethical, they must be based on objectively valid economic principles and they must be apply to everyone equally.

A corporation is nothing more than a union of human beings in a voluntary, cooperative endeavor. Accordingly, corporate ethics are defined by the sum of its individual members' ethical standards and moral code of values. Thus, any attributes which corporations have are the attributes which its individual members have.

The same applies to governments, and by extension, to its elected officials, and ultimately, to the electorate. As I established earlier, humans are not perfect creatures, they have need for further intellectual and moral development.

However, it was our intellectual and moral development that allowed humans to traverse the beyond the boundaries of the Dark Ages and into the Age of Enlightenment. Likewise, it will be our intellectual and moral evolution that ensures the "protection" of the free-market.

[LooseWilly]

113. The "free-market" system *YOU* described is antithetical to "free-market principles" then...

As my post outlined, every one of the details that you proclaimed as being beneficial to "free-market principles" is, in fact, contained within the systems outlined by Marx which are commonly referred to as "communism".

I challenge you to find any evidence that "communism abhors every manner of independence; including, independent work, independent action, independent property, independent thought, and an independent human being." ... evidence which doesn't come from the Heritage Foundation or some similar Right-Wing think tank.

Meanwhile, I find it funny that you say "Free-market is synonymous with independent-market"... after you had just pointed out that the US economy is controlled by those with the best lobbyists. Are you saying that the US isn't a free-market? If not... would you please point out an economy that IS a free-market. Once you have done so, then we can examine their "objectively valid economic principles" and see if they are indeed "applied to everyone equally".

While you look though, I'll offer this to think about. You assert that "A corporation is nothing more than a union of human beings in a voluntary, cooperative endeavor."

According to investorwords.com however, that is untrue. Their definition is:

The most common form of business organization, and one which is chartered by a state and given many legal rights as an entity separate from its owners. This form of business is characterized by the limited liability of its owners, the issuance of shares of easily transferable stock, and existence as a going concern. The process of becoming a corporation, call incorporation, gives the company separate legal standing from its owners and protects those owners from being personally liable in the event that the company is sued (a condition known as limited liability). Incorporation also provides companies with a more flexible way to manage their ownership structure. In addition, there are different tax implications for corporations, although these can be both advantageous and disadvantageous. In these respects, corporations differ from sole proprietorships and limited partnerships.

http://www.investorwords.com/1140/corporation.html#ixzz1VL8u6QTI

You'll notice that a corporation has nothing to do with cooperative endeavors, it rather has to do with protection from responsibility for misdeeds and creative means to raise money for the "owners" to use for their business (not the cooperative business, the owners' business).

On the other hand, the definition of commune might sound familiar to you.

noun /ˈkämˌyo͞on/  
communes, plural

A group of people living together and sharing possessions and responsibilities

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=commune+definition#hl=en&q=commune&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=EW5MTvPIDsrYiALmnMB4&ved=0CBYQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=d74b1bff49c9a9f6&biw=812&bih=426

That sounds like " a union of human beings in a voluntary, cooperative endeavor" to me.

Sir, I don't know how to break this to you... but I don't think "free market" means what you think it means...

I won't even bother to address your spurious exposition regarding capitalist ethics... let alone your embrace of 19th Century notions of capitalism as some part of the evolutionary progress toward enlightenment. :+

[Cool Logic]

124. The "free-market" system that I describe is antithetical...?

Not at all, because when I say "free-market," fair is the unmistakable context.

As for the notion of independent communism: It does not exist. Economic systems that are collectivist in nature, call for the subjugation of the individual to the collective; thereby rendering the idea of an independent individual null and void.

There is nothing "right wing" about perceiving the obvious. When the collectivist promotes the notion of a "common good," he unavoidably promotes the notion that the so-called "rights" of the group take precedence over the rights of the individual. It is what it is--these truths are self-evident.

Are you saying that the US isn't a free-market?

That is exactly what I am saying. The US economy is controlled by a bevy of special interests, which have assumed the roles of logic and reason with respect to judging the best products and the best values.

The ethanol example: It is not logical to market a product that consumes more energy during the manufacturing process than it generates when it is used as fuel. Ethanol also generates more CO2 on the front end than it reduces when used a supplement to gasoline. Thus, ethanol would not exist in a true free-market economy.

would you please point out an economy that IS a free-market

Some segments of the US economy are more free-market than others. Professional sports and the entertainment industry are for the most part, permitted to operate without interference from special interests. Accordingly, the US has the #1 sports and entertainment industries on the planet. There are, of course, other examples.

communes, plural…That sounds like " a union of human beings in a voluntary, cooperative endeavor" to me.

You have overlooked the fact that "voluntary" is not part of the socialist/communist/collectivist equation. For no collectivist system has ever been created and/or maintained by any other means than force. Furthermore, individual rights (independent human being) cannot exist without the recognition of property rights, which are not recognized by any collectivist socioeconomic system.

I won't even bother to address your spurious exposition regarding capitalist ethics... let alone your embrace of 19th Century notions of capitalism as some part of the evolutionary progress toward enlightenment.

It is not so much a question of the ethics of a particular economic system, as it is a question of the ethics of the humans who are employing it. The collectivist/communal systems you advocate represent a step back into the era when humans formed tribal associations as a means for protecting themselves from an inhospitable environment, as well as from other tribes.

However, as humans evolved, they created, invented and developed the means for becoming independent and self-sufficient beings. Humans living in advanced civilizations do not depend on the herd for their survival or the shepherd for their decisions.

Unlike the tribal/collectivist principles of the Dark Ages, the Age of Enlightenment represented a significant step forward, for humans of that era sought to displace the powers of church and state, with the powers of logic and reason. This effort resulted in the advancement of knowledge and ethics.

Just as there are no limits to human knowledge, there are no limits to human ethical improvement. Likewise, just as there are objective and natural laws of science, there are objective and natural laws of ethics.

We know that humans are capable of discovering such laws and of acting in accordance with them. Thus, it stands to reason that humans are capable of not only of developing their intellect and ethics, but also of "regulating" and governing their lives accordingly.

Any undertaking that involves more than one person, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Each person has the right to make their own decision, but no person has the right to force their decision on the others. If you can accept that there is nothing wrong with a person doing something for their own benefit, while at the same time, doing something good for the world, you will understand why the road to free-market Capitalism is a brightly lit super-highway of intellectual optimism.

On the other hand, to the knowing observer, the road to collectivism is nothing more than a primitively-lit alleyway that leads back to the Dark Ages.

[LooseWilly]

139. So... you have nothing to support your assertions but self-referential solipsisms?

I thought as much.

... when I say "free-market," fair is the unmistakable context

Untrue. There is nothing but your own imagination to establish "fair" as a context for "free-market". If we are going to have a discussion in which we are able to simply assign contexts, then I assert that "alien mind control", rather than "fair" is actually the "unmistakable context" when you say "free-market".

There is nothing "right wing" about perceiving the obvious. When the collectivist promotes the notion of a "common good," he unavoidably promotes the notion that the so-called "rights" of the group take precedence over the rights of the individual. It is what it is--these truths are self-evident.

Perhaps "evident" to yourself... but claims of self-evident are a cheap cop out. You fail to point out any detail of any promotion of the common good made by any collectivist which promotes group over individual. In fact, your vague arguments of ethical behavior are far more restrictive of the individual, in the interest of the group, than anything promoted by any collectivist.

The US economy is controlled by a bevy of special interests, which have assumed the roles of logic and reason with respect to judging the best products and the best values.

What are you smoking? the "bevy of special interests" that you refer to have no interest in or concern over "reason" or "best products"... they're just out to take your money. If they can do it with a shoddier, cheaper product, so much the better. They care nothing for value of the product, solely for the profit to be made from it. To argue otherwise is to be on "free-market-crack", metaphorically eager to suck an industrialist's dick for $2, like any other "free-market-crackho". This point is so ridiculous that it literally has me facepalming...

You have overlooked the fact that "voluntary" is not part of the socialist/communist/collectivist equation.

Once again... you make no sense. I don't recall "volunteering" to be part of a capitalist, neo-liberal-free-market-esque system. The notion that collectivist systems are illegitimate simply because they aren't "voluntary" implies that one can "opt out" of other systems unlike said collectivist systems.

That simply isn't true. It's ridiculous. I can't "volunteer" for Single Payer health care. I can't "volunteer" to have a say in the means of production. I can't "volunteer" into a collectivist system on a scale that can take advantage of economies of scale to leverage greater productivity than I can generate alone... because the neo-liberal private control of capital system into which I was born has made the decision about the system for me.

It is not so much a question of the ethics of a particular economic system, as it is a question of the ethics of the humans who are employing it.

It's the same thing. The humans who set up a system and then live within it reflect the ethics of the system. Given a system, if new humans are introduced into said system, their ethics will transform to conform with the system. Look at Gitmo/Abu Ghreib... soldiers transformed into torturers when placed into a system which promoted torture. The ethics of the humans before-hand became irrelevant once placed within a new system.

It is the nature of the system which dictates the ethics which participants display while functioning within the system.

As further evidence, there is the Stanford Prison Experiment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)

Twenty-four students were selected out of 75 to play the prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Roles were assigned randomly. The participants adapted to their roles well beyond what even Zimbardo himself expected, leading the "officers" to display authoritarian measures and ultimately to subject some of the prisoners to torture. In turn, many of the prisoners developed passive attitudes and accepted physical abuse, and, at the request of the guards, readily inflicted punishment on other prisoners who attempted to stop it. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself, who, in his capacity as "Prison Superintendent", lost sight of his role as psychologist and permitted the abuse to continue as though it were a real prison. ...

You are displaying incredible naiveté to suggest that the ethics of humans within a system will supercede the ethics that the system reinforces. Gob-smacking, mind boggling naiveté...

The collectivist/communal systems you advocate represent a step back into the era when humans formed tribal associations as a means for protecting themselves from an inhospitable environment, as well as from other tribes.

In order for it to be a step back there would have to have been such a system previously (that would be the definition of "back"). There has never been an industrially developed society controlled by the workers, by the masses, rather than by the rich (capitalists) who own all the means of large-scale industrialized production. Thus, by definition, you are wrong... because if it has never existed before, then it can't be a "step back".

Now, you might argue that the Soviet Union was an example of such... and I would agree but then point out that the UK, US, etc. were all in existence prior... and so the step made by Russia to transform into a more "free-market" (UK/US-like) economy was actually the step back, rather than the converse.

just as there are objective and natural laws of science, there are objective and natural laws of ethics

Bullshit. There are no "objective and natural laws of science" and likewise there are no "objective and natural laws of ethics". Maybe you've heard of "relativity"? Maybe you've heard it asserted that all scientists understand that all of science is just their best way, so far discovered, to explain stuff... while acknowledging that some future discovery may prove it all to have been mistaken? Much as Newtonian physics had to give way in the face of the Einsteinian physics which governed the different behaviors of particles and waves at the atomic level... likewise "laws of ethics" are relative and dependent upon the "physics" of the system in which they are operative.

Humans living in advanced civilizations do not depend on the herd for their survival or the shepherd for their decisions.

Ok, you try "living in advanced civilizations" without the "herd" that runs your local supermarket, power company, gas station, internet provider, etc. ... What a colossally stupid point to try to make. Try living without the "shepherd" of your employer... or the "shepherd" of your middle manager if you own a company... or even the "shepherd" of the police that protect you from the "wolves" who would like to kill and eat your sheep-ly self.

Any undertaking that involves more than one person, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Each person has the right to make their own decision, but no person has the right to force their decision on the others.

"Voluntary consent" implies that one is not being coerced by hunger to accept participation in an "undertaking". The legislators, by means of the police enforcing the laws made, do indeed have the "right", under our current system, to force their decision that the ownership of capital by the rich is to be respected by the rest of society. Your platitudes are simply untrue.

The only system in which your platitudes could be true is one in which society as a whole controlled the means of life and production, so that one could actually choose not to participate in an undertaking without facing eviction/starvation as the only other choice.

Unfortunately, as the progress in the US from the New Deal to this New Recession has demonstrated, a "free market" will inevitably undermine any efforts to provide resources to the masses to allow them the choice not to take on onerous and degrading work... because it is not in the interests of those who want people to work for them to allow those they would have do said work have the option to say no if the prospective employer ... is offering onerous or degrading work conditions. Rather, said employers always want the masses desperate enough to take the crappy work... and they like platitude peddlers such as yourself around to try to con the masses into thinking that they had a choice in the matter.

Your posts have been pure perfidy, sir.

[Cool Logic]

150. "I thought as much." Actually, it would appear that you didn't make use of your brain at all.

Earlier, I made the point that the US does not have a "fair" free-market economy. However, my supposition presumes a market that is governed the law of supply and demand, nothing more--nothing less. Thus, when I say free-market, fair is indeed the context; for in this scenario, the rules are the same for everyone.

It is not clear to me why you think I was suggesting that special interests act in accordance the logic and reason. For clearly, I have been arguing all along that special interests have displaced logic and reason, as the regulators of the market.

Rather than wasting your words constructing irrelevant straw-men, I urge you to read, think and reason a bit more.

The notion that collectivist systems are illegitimate simply because they aren't "voluntary" implies that one can "opt out" of other systems unlike said collectivist systems.

This is where your argument completely disintegrates into nothingness.

In a Capitalist society, those who want to live as collectivists are free to do just that. They can institute mutual aid societies, housing co-ops, food co-ops or even establish full-blown communes if they desire. They can, in fact, legally opt out of Capitalism.

On the other hand, the reverse does not apply. Under collectivism, Capitalists are not free to deal with like minded Capitalists without interference. Collectivism denies property rights; thus, it unavoidably denies human rights. Property is created by means of the application of human intellect to natural resources and is the process by which humans sustain their lives. If the creator of property does not own the results of his efforts, he does not own his life. If he does not own life, he is, by default, the property of the collective, or the state.

That statement is not a matter to decide. For neither you, nor me, decide issues of knowledge, we merely observe that which is, i.e., self-evident.

The ethics of the humans before-hand became irrelevant once placed within a new system.

That, my friend, is a statement of moral cowardice. Tell me, what is the moral or philosophical principle that justifies the abandonment of reason? People cannot always control what occurs in their lives; however, they can control how they respond. Free will...if a person is free to choose, they have control of the choices they make, and that is what determines their moral character. A moral response requires an analysis and adjustment to the factors; not the abandonment of moral standards.

There are no "objective and natural laws of science" and likewise there are no "objective and natural laws of ethics".

The fact that you view ethics as "irrelevant" demonstrates a lack thereof. Objectivity in ethics (morality) is a teleological analysis of the choices and actions available to humans. It is the only means by which humans can define and develop a legitimate and rational moral code of values.

The Bible is wrong when is says judge not lest ye be judged.

I say, judge me, as you judge everyone else--by the same objectively valid ethical or legal principles.

Objectivity in science is the property of scientific measurement that can be tested independent from the individual scientist. To be properly considered objective, the results of scientific measurement or analysis must be constant from scientist to scientist, and then demonstrated to third parties.

Objective laws of science should not be confused with scientific consensus. For consensus means that scientists may agree at one point in time but later discover that this consensus represented a subjective point of view.

Ok, you try "living in advanced civilizations" without the "herd"

Okay, I will. For the Right to the Pursuit of Happiness entails a person's right to live for themselves, and to choose what constitutes their own private, personal and individual happiness.

I do not live of, for or by the grace of your tribe.

[LooseWilly]

157. Just because you don't understand what I'm saying, doesn't mean I'm not using my brain.

That's the problem with people who believe in the myth of objectivity... they delude themselves into believing that anyone who won't participate in their personal version of "objectivity" is not being "rational"... when the more accurate description is that those "others" are simply not participating in the system of prejudices and predilections of the system that is supposedly "objective".

my supposition presumes a market that is governed the law of supply and demand, nothing more--nothing less

The "law" of supply and demand is a theory. As a theory, it is neither a law nor a truth... it is simply a best-yet-come-up-with-system-for-explaining-a-tendency.

Your "market" that is ruled by a theory is also, therefore, a theory. Theoretical communism is also, obviously, theoretical. The difference is that your theoretical "market" has been tried as an economic system in hundreds of different permutations throughout the last couple of hundred years... and it has led to over-production, monopolies, concentration of wealth... and rioting... every time.

Your theoretical "market" has proven a failure... unless your goal is a limited time of selfish indulgence alongside increasingly wide spread suffering... leading to a complete societal breakdown.

You have repeatedly demurred from the task of illustrating a single example of YOUR theoretical "market". If you wish to continue the mental masturbation of fantasizing over a "magic market" that behaves according to theoretical models that have been disproven many times over... that it your choice.

If we're going to ignore evidence in establishing a fantasy economy, I prefer to base my economy on the pursuit of and looting of pots of leprechaun gold at the ends of rainbows by the population at large. This economic system has the added advantage of not allowing the children of the successful to hoard all the resources of the planet.

Collectivism denies property rights; thus, it unavoidably denies human rights.

So... property rights = human rights?... If you are arguing that, then you are essentially taking the Mitt Romney stand of Corporations (a collection of assets) are People... (And, ironically, it enables justification of the converse logically, i.e. that people are property)

No... property rights are not human rights. You do not have the "right" to property. You do not have the "right" to exclude others from access to the use of resources. To assert that you can not be a "whole human being" (in the sense of that being the point of having rights) without possessing the right to deny others the use of resources that you have claimed by some means or other... is essentially to claim the inalienable right not to share your toys with the other kids.

That behavior simply makes one an asshole child.

Objectivity in ethics (morality) is a teleological analysis of the choices and actions available to humans.

Objectivity is just a school of thought. Subjectivity is also a school of thought. Hell, so is Geocentrism, for whatever that's worth. Just because a school of thought exists, doesn't mean that its tenets should be taken as some sort of "gospel".

Only an objectivist would delude him/herself into believing that "It is the only means by which humans can define and develop a legitimate and rational moral code of values."

I defy your "only". I can define a "legitimate and rational moral code of values" in a paragraph.

Whenever one is unclear on what one should do— flip a coin. Allah (God/Yahweh/Kali/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Ameterasu/Odin/Gaia/dumb-luck/{fill-in-the-blank}) will guide the coin to the "rational and moral" choice. If it is a dilemna with more than two reasonable seeming choices... then the coin will have to be flipped more than once... consult your nearest Coin Oracle in case of a complicated set of choices.

Voila. It is a consistent system (rational). Morals can be defined in any way you'd like, you just need to have a definition in place (it was moral to take slaves in classic Rome). Randomness is as moral or rational as any other system. It is just based on a different set of prejudices.

The difference with your set of "prejudices" (the word I am using for your choice of indexes by which you are making your arbitrary value judgements) and mine is that... I am not trying to base mine on devotion to a system that proves itself a failure over and over.

Objectivity in science is the property of scientific measurement that can be tested independent from the individual scientist. To be properly considered objective, the results of scientific measurement or analysis must be constant from scientist to scientist, and then demonstrated to third parties.

Precisely. Now provide your demonstration, from one of the myriad experiments in "free market" tried globally over the last 300 ish years, of this "free market" that you speak of... which will "objectively" (according to the definition here repeated) illustrate your claims.

If you can not do so, then I am forced to, and you would also be forced to if you were really interested in an "objective analysis", conclude that the "free market" theory that you have so endlessly espoused is actually an empirical failure.

A disproven theory.

Like Newtonian physics, which have now become superceded, at the atomic level, by Einsteinian physics.

[joshcryer]

66. That's an utter failure to grasp global development.

And it's a woefully lacking critique.

Capitalism is morally wrong, it's not "inefficient" or "economically inferior."

It's wrong because it's theft.

Theft works just fine if the thieves can get away with it.

[socialist_n_TN]

15. There's something that you're overlooking

and that is capitalism had it's place and it's time. It was a step up from feudalism, but that doesn't mean it's the end all and be all of economic systems. It's good for wealth accumulation TO A POINT. Then it becomes EXTREMELY distructive. To EVERYTHING. Wealth, people, the planet. EVERYTHING.

Because of the very NATURE of capitalism, there comes a time when it becomes counterproductive for the masses. Because it's based on continual expansion, when it bumps up against limited resources it becomes predatory. First it's the poor it preys on. Then it's the working class, then the TRUE middle class (I'm using the Marxist definition of middle class) and finally they start preying on each other. We're at the point where it's preying on the poor and working classes. Because of the resource limits, soon it'll be the middle class. After that you'll see a "Mad Max" world where corporations will be warring with each other DIRECTLY, not just through nation state proxies.

Capitalism has done it's job of accumulation, but now expansion is limited. It's time to smash it and find something that can redistribute the wealth accumulated by capitalism more fairly for EVERYONE. Otherwise, a dying capitalism will destroy us all, INCLUDING the capitalists themselves.

[Cool Logic]

28. You have overlooked the fact that capitalism reacts to laws of supply and demand, which are timeless

Even so, I understand that capitalism is not the be-all. If left un-checked, it can become destructive. For Capitalism is no different than other economic systems, in that its success depends upon the moral character of the human beings that are making use of it.

The advantage that Capitalism has over other systems is that all market relations are voluntary. The two-part nature of a supply and demand economy allows the People to control the market from either side of the equation. When honorable People are on both sides, no other economic system can match its creative power and standard of living.

Nevertheless, if one side of the equation, sanctions immoral behavior on the part of the other, it can become destructive to humans, animals and our air and water. The key to maintaining ethical principles is to ensure that the market is transparent, open and fair, to ALL People.

It was Capitalism that raised our standard of living from the depths of the past. And it will be Capitalism that enhances the ability of humans to create and develop better ways to care for themselves, their fellow citizens and their environment.

Rather than "smashing" it to pieces like an irrational vandal in the night, we must cultivate the attributes which make it the best socioeconomic system for dealing with the imperfect nature of the human beings.

[socialist_n_TN]

35. What was that Keynes statement that I read on here often

Something like capitalism is the belief that the worst of people for the worst of reasons will benefit the most of the people? I know that's a paraphrase, but it goes to the heart of the problem with capitalism. YOU CAN'T BE ETHICAL AND BE A GOOD CAPITALIST. Or at least a successful capitalist.

If you're going to rely on the ETHICS of capitalists, you're relying on the air to hold you up.

As I said in my OP in this subthread, in an era of expansion capitalism works as it should in order to accumulate wealth. The disparity isn't as noticable when you have plenty of room to expand because everybody has enough. Expansion is over though. It's time for socialism to redistribute.

[Cool Logic]

45. "YOU CAN'T BE ETHICAL AND BE A GOOD CAPITALIST."

With all due respect, that is not a rational statement. In a Capitalist society, all relationships are voluntary. People are free to deal with one another or not, based on their own individual morals, judgments, values, and interests. It is not the choice of economic systems that defines ethics; rather, ethics are defined by each individuals own moral code of values.

Whether or not a person is successful depends on an independent assessment of the value of their work and on the rationality of those who appreciate that value.

When people are free to deal with one another and logic and reason are the only judges, it is the best products and the best values that win every time. This raises the standard of living, as well as the standard of ideas, for everyone.

It is not clear to me why you believe that "expansion is over." Are you suggesting that all discoveries have been discovered? That all knowledge has been learned? That the evolution of human-kind is completed?

I do not share that view, for I do not believe that knowledge has limits. Likewise, there are no limits with respect to the evolution of human beings. Not only do humans have the capacity for intellectual advancement, they have the capacity for moral advancement as well.

We humans are not yet perfect, nor are we perfectible; however, the process of evolution has only just begun. The same applies to CAPITALISM.

[socialist_n_TN]

61. With all due respect, it's a truthful statement

Since profit is the ONLY motivation in capitalism, ANY ethics are secondary to profit. It's the system. IF 5 large companies try to be ethical and 1 company in competition doesn't CARE about ethics and makes more money by doing so, they win in the capitalist system BY MAKING MORE MONEY. Period. More money made also forces the other companies into unethical practices because they have to compete. Ergo you cannot be ethical in capitalism IF the ethics costs you money and market share. And it always will cost you eventually.

[joshcryer]

69. And then Cool Logic's anti-competitive laws kick in and said company is no longer "good."

That's the point. Cool Logic is arguing for regulation, which is a social democracy at it's core.

[Cool Logic]

95. But profit is not the ONLY motivation for the individual capitalist...

For profit is not possible unless the self interests of both parties are served. Since the businessman serves his client's needs, we can say that SERVICE is his first priority.

If I hire an illegal immigrant because I empathize with his plight and want to provide him an opportunity, I have done nothing wrong. However, if do it to avoid paying someone else the minimum wage, I have "earned" an immoral profit on the product of his labor.

If you can accept that there is nothing wrong with a man doing some good for himself while he does some good for the world, you will understand the morality of free-market Capitalism.

[dash_bannon]

122. Capitalism is Involuntarily Coercive

You said that all relationships are voluntary. This is not true. In a capitalist system, the capitalist makes the rules. (They have the capital.)

Workers only have the freedom their employer lets them have. Employers can control and dominate people's lives by manipulating their wages. Pure capitalism is self-destructive.

Socialism is a check on capitalism. Keynes found a middle road: use government to play referee, and use it to keep business going.

In a capitalist system, you do have some freedom; the freedom to choose your master, but only to a limited extent. Be too difficult, and you'll become unemployable. Without a job, you'll be forced to devise your own means of getting money and capital to survive.

That makes us prisoners to the system of capitalism. Marx realized that even capitalists were prisoners of the capitalist system.

[Cool Logic]

126. "In a capitalist system, the capitalist makes the rules."

No, in a Capitalist system, the "rules" are comprised by the simple law of supply and demand. And the judgments are made by logic and reason.

Marx advocated for the public ownership of the means of production, and, thus, the abolition of private property. Without property rights, human rights are not possible; hence, Marxism entails the abolition of human rights.

Marxism might work in heaven; however, just a human being's body is necessary for life on Earth, human rights necessarily entail property rights.

[eridani]

76. Capitalism has jackshit to do with markets, which predate it by thousands of years

Capitalism has to do with the ownership of the means of production, not how products are distributed.

The industrial age began with kicking yeomen out of the commons. Are you saying that this was "voluntary"?

[Cool Logic]

83. No, I am saying that what you are describing is not...

free-market Capitalism.

Capitalism is a socioeconomic system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. John Locke was one of the most influential of thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. He is often referred to as the father of liberalism and he was one of the first thinkers to put forth the theory that all people are equal and independent. However, Locke lived from 1632 - 1704, not thousands of years ago.

Theory of value and property

Locke uses the word property in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of human interests and aspirations; more narrowly, it refers to material goods. He argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labour.
In Chapter V of his Second Treatise, Locke argues that the individual ownership of goods and property is justified by the labour exerted to produce those goods or utilize property to produce goods beneficial to human society.<20>

Locke stated his belief, in his Second Treatise, that nature on its own provides little of value to society; he provides the implication that the labour expended in the creation of goods gives them their value. This is used as supporting evidence for the interpretation of Locke's labor theory of property as a labor theory of value, in his implication that goods produced by nature are of little value, unless combined with labour in their production and that labour is what gives goods their value.<20>

Locke believed that ownership of property is created by the application of labour. In addition, he believed property precedes government and government cannot "dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily." Karl Marx later critiqued Locke's theory of property in his own social theory.

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

[eridani]

104. The right you are talking about is the right to steal other peoples' labor

Capitalism is the "right" to live off of other peoples' labor, not your own. A society in which having employees was illegal would not be capitalist, although workers and communities could own their own means of production.

An old anarchist joke about property--

Sharecropper: How come I have to give you half of all the crops that only I work to produce.
Landowner: Because I own the land you grow them on.
Sharecropper: How come you get to own the land.
Landowner: Because my grandaddy fought Indians for this land.
Sharecropper: Can I fight you for it?

[Cool Logic]

109. "A society in which having employees was illegal would not be capitalist..."

Indeed, that would be a collectivist society; one in which individuals have no rights and no way to live their lives according to their own values or interests.

Capitalism:
You have two cows.
You sell both so that you can invest in a new dairy company.
After it does well, you sell you stock and buy a cow farm.

After that does well, you take out a loan using cows as capitol and build a milk manufacturing factory.
After making your milk the most sold, you sell the company and retire to Hawaii with your millions of $$$.

Socialism:
You have two cows.
You share two cows with your neighbors.
You and your neighbors bicker about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need."
Meanwhile, no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.

Communism:
You have two cows.
They try to swim to Florida.

[eridani]

115. So, where did those two cows the capitalist has come from?

Stolen from other peoples' labor. The cows used to graze on the commons, until the capitalist put a fence around it and declared that now he owned the cows. If your values include the freedom to shit in the reservoir, you have no right to live according to that value.

[Cool Logic]

125. That is akin to asking where did Adam and Eve come from?

Unless you are a mystic, the cows evolved, as did you. But your evolutionary process should have provided you with the ability to reason. Regrettably, your government did not evolve with that ability.

Thus:

You have two cows.

At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk
them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks
the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out
forms accounting for the missing cows.

Or:

You have two cows.
The government takes both and shoots you.

[eridani]

133. The capitalist fences off the commons and takes the cows

That is the basic historical fact. There are two kinds of ownership--ownership of that which was made by the hands of men (perfectly legitimate), or the theft of that which was not made by the hands of men

Let it be known
There is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of men.

Anyone claiming ownership of the fountain is a thief, period.

[Cool Logic]

134. Property is created by means of the application of human intellect to natural resources and/or

the products of natural resources. Are not cows the products of the human endeavors of genetics and domestication?

Well then, the ownership of cows is indeed legitimate. Capitalism allows humans to pursue happiness and achievement, here on earth. It does not permit anyone to take or demand, that which has not been legitimately earned.

On the other hand, it the socialist and his quest for a utopian society, who endeavors to live by illegitimate means. For Utopia does not exist here on earth.

[eridani]

144. Yes, when one human intellect decides to grab it and prevent others from using it.

Fencing off the commons and appropriating the property has never been voluntary or legitimate. Life before the commons was destroyed was hardly utopian either.

[Cool Logic]

152. "Fencing off the commons" is a result of the advancement of civilization...

Rather than following herds around like nomadic tribes, civilized humans confined the herds.

[joshcryer]

148. So I legitimately earn the proceeds from farming as I sit on my porch watching other laborers?

Really? You think that's fair?

[Cool Logic]

154. What I think doesn't matter...

For capitalism is the only socioeconomic system that allows humans to make those choices in accordance with their own individual judgments.

[joshcryer]

67. Capitalism is still quite productive and will likely be for a good 20-30 years yet.

If you want to end the capitalist suffering it's necessary to change the critique and develop alternatives. Meanwhile the rest of the world (see: China, India) will pass you buy laughing their way to the bank.

[LooseWilly]

81. You've just effectively argued that Cool Logic's absolutely wrong.

What you've demonstrated is that morality/ethics, in the context of a capitalist system, are tantamount to suicide.

As for China and India... they still have development to keep their populations busy (employed/employable). As US and European demand falters, however, they will find it harder and harder to keep their populations employed producing crap for Wal-Mart, etc. As their economies slow in reaction, the US & European multinationals that are relying on sales in those markets will find their profit margins shrinking... at which point they will have to find someone else to squeeze to keep the profits rolling in... or else Chinese or Argentine companies are liable to swallow (acquire) them.

The problem, of course, is that the profits always have to keep growing... by definition... or the company is in danger of being acquired... but when all the money has already been scooped up by the top 1%... there's nowhere else left to turn to keep the profit streams "accelerating"... nowhere else but to turn on the other members of the 1%.

20 - 30 years?... I suppose that's all that really matters?

[joshcryer]

82. Cool Logic is of course morally and ethically wrong. He's factually correct on the points...

...which I agree with him (capitalism is still on the rise, extreme technological, health, and social development with capitalism, etc). Meanwhile there is no effective argument against what Cool Logic has said from the Trotskyite side, imo.

View http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes">Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes and don't delude yourself of how utterly evil Trotskyism can be (as advocated by most modern communists).

There is no fundamental difference between corporations owning and controlling the means of production and a "government elite" doing the same. None, zero, nada, zilch.

[LooseWilly]

117. I am curious how you define "health, and social development with capitalism"...

because that sounds like "filler" that you're trying to pad an argument in support of your personal bias with.

I would agree capitalism is still on the rise... it's idiotic to refute while watching monopolistic multinational corporations exploiting workers for cents a day throughout the developing world to produce tchatchkis for self-satisfied not-quite-middle-class-anymore housewives across the US and most of the developed world (though I like to think that outside North America the housewives might have better taste in tchatchkis...)

I would disagree about any health or social "development" arising from capitalism... unless you mean development of new forms of exploitation in the areas of "health" and "social" (which starts to sound non-sensical when isolated from the rest of your PR statement for capitalism).

I'm not sure what statement Cool Logic made that you think there is no effective argument against... if you'd care to be more specific?

And, stop suggesting that I'm a Trotskyite. Thank you very much.

As for your "scary Trotskyism" wiki... I notice it begins with this:

... Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made. Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. ...

In other words... the wiki you linked to admits that the numbers, which you are trying to use to demonstrate the "evil" of "Trotskyism" (which was a strand of communism which never gained power, elucidating the underlying spin you are putting on your "evidence"... not that I really personally care since I'm, again, not a "Trot") ... your sources admit that they are re-producing "cooked numbers".

Including "lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps" in the "mass killings" numbers... especially in Stalinist USSR which was facing war at the hands of "Democratic" (Capitalist) countries besieging it & skirmishing with it simply because of the threat of what it might symbolize to workers in their own countries if it survived.

...November 1917: Bolsheviks overthrow the Kerensky government and install Lenin as leader of Russia ("october revolution") against the will of the Mensheviks and of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries (only two communists oppose Lenin's coup: Lev Kamenev and Grigory Zinoviev)
January 1918: Poland declares war on Bolshevik Russia
March 1918: Britain invades Murmansk
March 1918: The Cossacks led by Ataman Krasnov join Denikin's "White Army" in the Don
March 1918: The Bolshevik government signs a peace treaty with Germany and accepts territorial losses
August 1918: USA troops invade Vladivostok to help the British contingent
December 1918: The Bolsheviks only control the province of Muscovy, surrounded by Anton Denikin's "White Army" in the Don (allied with the Cossacks of Ataman Krasnov), by Kolchak's "White Army" in the northwest, by the Ukrainian army in the west (allied with the Germans) and by Czechoslovak legion along the Trans-Siberian railway in the east
March 1919: Strikes all over Bolshevik-controlled territory, notably in Astrakhan (4,000 strikers killed)
July 1919: The "White Army" carries out pogroms in Ukraine that kill 150,000 people in six months
February 1920: The Bolsheviks reconquer Ukraine
April 1920: Poland invades Russia
{etc. http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/soviet.html}

So... according to your own source... "lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps" are added into the "mass killings" statistics... but a cursory view of the timeline makes it fairly obvious that a lot of the "war, famine, disease" and necessity of "labor camps" in the early USSR resulted from British and US invasions... and you accuse me of "deluding myself"???

No fundamental difference between a corporation or government elite owning the means of production?... well, I suppose that depends on the accountability of the government officials vs. the accountability of the corporate officials. You may be right. Then again, you may be making vague assertions which are as "accurate" as the "mass killings" statistics which your source, unfortunately, admitted was based on inflated numbers so as to "blame the victim" for atrocities that... they weren't really responsible for.

Your questionable assertions on the first point, however, leave doubts about your credibility on the second point... and the vagueness of your assertion almost seems planned in order to make it less factual and more a matter of simple spin.

You have not convinced me that any government officials in any communist government at any point in history have been anywhere near as onerous to the general welfare of the people in their actions with regards to their controls of the means of production... as even the medium-benign corporations that control means of production.

Meanwhile, I notice that there are precious few sources that will "tally" the "mass killings" of the "democratic" (capitalist) nations. Just a small sample from the strikes of 1877 in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877
... When Governor John Carroll of Maryland directed the 5th and 6th Regiments of the National Guard to put down the strike, citizens from Baltimore attacked the troops as they marched from their armories towards B&O's Camden Station for the train to Cumberland, causing violent street battles between the striking workers and the Maryland militia. When the outnumbered troops of the 6th Regiment fired on an attacking crowd, they killed 10 and wounded 25.<4> The rioters injured several members of the militia, damaged engines and train cars, and burned portions of the train station.<4> On July 21–22, the President sent federal troops and Marines to Baltimore to restore order. ...

But... why not just look for mass killings under capitalist regimes? (http://en.anarchopedia.org/Mass_killings_under_capitalist_regimes) Ironically... the tone is different than the discussions of "brutality" under communist regimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes).

Compare the first sentences.

Under Communist regimes: "Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering in the tens of millions."

Under Capitalist regimes: "Mass killings of non-combatants have occurred under several forms of government, including capitalist ones."

If the difference of tone isn't enough to give away the propagandistic nature of the "information spam"... then one must be deeply cocooned in said spin. If anyone has any questions... just look through the two links... look at the tone and the volumes of killings (don't forget that genocide involves killing, and decide for yourself if introducing epidemics of fatal disease, not to mention inducing poverty driven famine, qualifies for "mass killings" as readily as the similar results from being invaded by hostile/"democratic" countries)... and make your own decision.

I'm curious to hear your rebuttal though... ;)

[joshcryer]

119. I define it as the UN does, look at the Gapminder statistics

I find such uncritical critiques of capitalism as exhibited by the article in the OP to be a pathetic foray that only hurts the anti-capitalist cause. Statistically speaking the "communist" states failed hard, while the capitalist states exploited their way into a luxurous standard of living. I am, otherwise, an anti-capitalist, but it is extraoridinarily difficult to agree with boring, uninspired, dishonest Trotskyite propaganda.

The wikipedia article bits that you quote do not refute the overall deaths caused by "communist" regimes, they're uncontroversial; what you quote merely places into question the number, between 21 million and 70 million. The deaths by famine were certainly preventable, but the communist party, as testified by Lenin himself, wanted to use the famine to kill dissidents or people who disagreed with the party. They were last to be given rations so they starved to death. As far as famine, I would indict Britian and capitalism itself for the 30 million deaths from famine in India.

As far as war is concerned specifically, there's no magical reason "all communist states" are anti-war, or anti-imperialist, or inherently isolationist. Even Cuba, the great innocent communist state blockaided by the evil empire, went to war with Algeria. North Korea went to war with South Korea. North Vietnam went to war with the Republic of Vietnam. None of those wars were necessary and you will never find me defending capitalist wars (particularly colonialist). Blaming the west for these follies is preposterous indeed. Hilariously "prodrazvyorstka" was a requirement to feed the armies of the Bolsheviks, which conquered as much territory as possible, meaning that the results of the famine and the wars were tied together very tightly, and cannot be blamed on those states defending themselves, even if the west put its feet in the mud.

The problem isn't, though, as I would agree with you, whether one is a corporation that is privately owned or state owned, the problem is with corruption at its core. I would posit that corruption is created and maintained by class, and I cannot see in the entire history of state communism, an actual effort to eliminate class. Indeed, the Trotsky-Lenin-Stalin approch is to create an uber-class which redistributes.

What's odd to me is that you do not appear to see how this uber-class is no different from the elite class in capitalist states, the millionaires who run the country. The only big difference is that the United States and European countries have had centuries to exploit corruption in foreign countries for their own ends, keeping it mostly out of our own countries. In that vein one should not say that "capitalism is better." Merely accept that they're no different.

FYI, I helped write that Anarchopedia article when it was on Wikipedia during the great Anarchists vs everyone edit wars. We spent copious amounts of time on the "anarcho"-capitalists. Nothing I says disagrees with it, but I've come to the conclusion that state-communism is the realization of Rothbardian capitalism, with power concentrated in a very few, and with no need for "accountability" because the "accountants" control everything.

And I think it's fascinating to this day to see a denial of the unnecessary wholesale deaths caused by state communists.

[socialist_n_TN]

135. I think it's HILARIOUS (in a totally ironic way)

that you save most of your anarchistic hatred for "filthy Trotskyists" when Trotsky NEVER headed a state. At BEST, he was second to Lenin during the early years of the Bolshevik state. In fact, IMO one of the BIGGEST attractions to Trotskyism is the fact that it's the Marxist "road not taken". We, in fact, have no IDEA what a USSR under Trotsky (or for that matter Lenin) would have wound up being like AFTER they saved the revolution from the bourgeoisie forces during the civil war. Lenin died shortly after and Trotsky lost power shortly after Lenin's death. What was left was Stalin's cult of personality. Which was NOT an example of either Marxism OR Leninism.

As an anarchist (supposedly), I get the feeling that you would rather the capitalists hang us all rather than see ANY sort of Marxist anticapitalist in power.

[joshcryer]

146. This site does not have very many die hard capitalists, so I wouldn't expect that to be seen.

Trotsky ordered the crushing of democratic socialist forces, he might've been "second in command" but he was just as authoritarian as the best of them. Trotsky was behind the vanguard just as much as Lenin and Stalin, which was his ultimate downfall. Stalin would've had no hope of retaining power if Trotsky let the dice fall where they may and allowed democratic socialism to flourish.

As an anarchist I believe that history has shown that capitalists weren't as suppressive to their own citizens as state communists. However, I can fully accept that it's possible a world could've existed where state communists were the ruling paradigm and capitalists were the supremely suppressive states. I frankly do not distinguish the two systems from one another. Most anarchists do not consider any attempted forms of state communism to be communistic, they consider them capitalist at the core since they're based on the accumulation of capital goods in the hands of a few (ie, capitalism).

I do admit that I consider Trotskyites a larger threat than capitalists these days because capitalism will fall eventually, and if the Trotskyites are there to pick it up after the fall, generations to come will have to relive the obscene oppression that the socialists of the past had to endure.

[LooseWilly]

142. So you're a fan of Trendalyzer software?...

You define it as the UN does. And you expect that, after I pointed out that the numbers used in your previous link were admittedly "cooked", I will accept the definitions and the Trendalyzer interactive graphs generated from UN accepted data as being somehow unbiased? Considering the politics of the UN that allowed, because of US and UK pressure generated for partisan political goals, the invasion of Iraq?

You say "Statistically speaking the "communist" states failed hard, while the capitalist states exploited their way into a luxurous standard of living." but I contend that the statistics were framed with bias in order to generate some skewed conclusions. While the "communist" states, if indexed based upon luxury goods produced or even overall standard of living, could be argued to have "failed hard", conversely if one were to measure the "slope" of either, rather than "absolute value", I suspect a different conclusion might be reached.

Remember that Russia, as of the revolution in 1917, was the most backward country of "Europe". Starting as the most backward country, having a revolution, then facing a West-financed civil war... and invasions by the UK and the US— the most industrially developed and the most quickly industrially developing country in the world— fending them all off, and then proceeding to industrially develop in the course of something like 15 years in an attempt to catch up with the UK's 150+ years and the US's 100+ years of development... and being successful enough to face off against Nazi Germany in all-out war (a country which might've been the most developed at that point in history)... I wouldn't call that, personally, "failing hard".

China, meanwhile... was being "raped" (Nanking was at least) by imperial powers from the UK & US to Japan.

Both had to rebuild in ways that the US didn't have to do. Neither had the benefit of massive investment of capital from the US that Western Europe and Japan had. The USSR beat the US into space, and competed as a superpower for decades... despite the handicap. China is now lending money to the US, despite the handicap.

The trade embargoes against both (until Nixon "opened" China and they eventually decided to start producing crap for the West) multiplied the difficulties faced by each in development.

I doubt the UN statistics are "weighted" to take that into account... since the powers that enforced all those handicaps are the ones in charge of generating the statistics in question.

Your assertion of 70 million to 21 million... still doesn't take into account the issues of foreign agent provocateurs, development hindrance by means of embargoes, de facto national siege, all on the heels of incredible destruction of infrastructures as a result of one (or two) huge wars. I also wonder how many deaths due to starvation, lack of medical care, and assorted results of corporate exploitation of miners, railroad workers, etc. are recorded as being the fault of the Democratic governments who protected/enforced the interests of capitalist bosses in the course of industrial development in the UK & US.

If the casualties of industrialization over 100-200 years in the UK & US were to be added to the statistical models, as I'm sure they have been in the USSR & China figures, I wonder how the figures would compare. Maybe you have access to a Trendalyzer to test out how those stats model?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about communist states being "anti-war"... I only said that their war casualty rates are blamed on their leaders, apparently even when they didn't initiate the wars. In absolute terms, I am sure that I haven't made any assertions about said countries being "anti-war", if nothing else because it's not an issue I've particularly thought about. I'm not even sure if it's an issue I particularly care about.

If you look closely, you'll find I've never said I have any particular objection to war. Hypocrisy on the other hand I'm averse to. The hypocrisy involved in using cooked numbers for your statistical models, for instance.

I do laugh when you say "I cannot see in the entire history of state communism, an actual effort to eliminate class. Indeed, the Trotsky-Lenin-Stalin approch is to create an uber-class which redistributes." Maybe I'm missing something but... if there's a redistribution... isn't that the process by which class is eliminated? How is that not a visible effort? Isn't "redistribution of wealth" the very Boogeyman of Socialism/Communism?

The critique of the "überclass" of partymembers (presumably) in communist countries as being equivalent of the "elite class" in capitalist countries is fair. The rates of personal appropriation of the wealth generated by the industrial production (& financial shenanigans) by one vs. the other, however, does not seem equivalent.

""Basic assets" belonging to the party are valued at 4.9 billion rubles ($7.8 billion at the official rate of exchange), Central Committee business manager Nikolai Kruchina told the delegates Tuesday." (http://articles.latimes.com/1990-07-04/news/mn-92_1_communist-party) $7.8 billion in 1990 was a drop in the bucket compared with the relative wealth controlled by the "elite class" in capitalist countries.

In other words... the "über elite" of the USSR didn't hoard unto themselves nearly as much of the national wealth as did those of the "elite class" in capitalist countries. The implication is that, in the USSR, far more of the wealth of the nation was available to be distributed to workers...

I don't know about you... but I think that's a "gooder" thing.

As for Communism as "realization of Rothbardian capitalism"... that just makes no sense. "Rothbard concluded that all services provided by monopoly governments could be provided more efficiently by the private sector." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard) ... that is the exact opposite of communism... whether you take right wing interpretations and treat communist governments as "monopoly governments" or take the Marxist interpretation and read them as "non-monopoly governments"... either way having the government provide any services is "non-Rothbardian".

[joshcryer]

147. Getting into some debate about happiness indexes or something would be fine.

But I'd take such stats with a grain of salt. So I'm forced to consider UN statistics that are compiled by the parent states and which the UN merely aggregates and Gapminder compiles. The only bias you might find with the statistics would be internal, from the point of view of the states compiling the data. I don't know why the data can't magically be trusted, as the development of the planet is clear, obvious, and ongoing. I dunno why you dislike this approach because, for example, a place like Cuba ranks very high and does quite well on such a list. But there is only one Cuba, but many many other communist states who didn't ... do so well. Add in the oppression from the vanguard, and it's not worth it.

The Gapminder stats are important to show that globally, overall, the western states flew to the top (exploiting the underclasses in the various colonized countries) and that once they reached the top or near the top, they pretty much stay there (fluctuations due to market considerations). They also show that, in actuality, the wealth gap between individuals is in fact shrinking. So we on the left focus on misdirection like "the wealth gap is increasing," ignoring the fact that we in the west live better than any humans before us have lived, keeping the critique of capitalism on a local, western level and completely ignoring the desires and wishes of those in the developing world (we're spoiled like that). Meanwhile the rest of the world laughs at us, the world who is in fact benefiting from capitalism, now that their states have begun to purge their countries of the corruption and cronyism that the western states used to get to the top so quick.

I'm not sure how it's unclear that having a redistributing class does not mean that you've eliminated class or are even moving in that direct, because the redistributing class has class benefits that the proletarians have no access to, so the redistributing class has in its own interests the need to self-perpetuate. The "redistributing class" is then no different from the bourgeoisie.

The uberelite communists hardly ever say they have any assets on paper. Castro maintains to this day that he owns nothing (yet no one is allowed to take pictures of the official party neighborhoods where the people who are high party officials live in Cuba). Gaddafi says that he doesn't even get paid (yet he owns several dozen houses that only he is allowed to live in whenever he would visit his local cities). Let's not kid ourselves with that bit of hilarious spin. I might not have the paperwork to prove that I own a factory and have an unlimited debit card, but as a high level party official you can damn sure know that if I snap my finger to get something done it gets done. It's uncontroversial that when the USSR fell the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs">some (not all or even a majority) in the "nomenklatura" started liquidating assets privately and quitely (to western countries no less; talk about a sellout of epic proportions to so called communist patriots who only cared about the people!). If they had no power to control assets then I'm sorry, this would not have been possible!

The point about state communism being a realization of Rothbardian capitalism goes a lot deeper, if my explaination isn't enough to prove it I don't know if I can write out a more complex response. The key point is that basically in an unfettered free market the capitalists will legally use uncompetitive practices to buy up and take out all competition. Eventually you would wind up with a few single entities that run everything and the richest owners would be the "vanguard." Really, take the unregulated free market to those ends and it is the only eventuality. Hell, they're not even elected, just as the Soviets weren't. I would have to in fact disagree with Cool Logic on that point (I didn't realize he was an unfettered free market guy). It's really easy to screw people over in capitalism without heavy regulations. And indeed, the arbitrary enforcement policies of the militarist vanguard in communism is really, truly, no different from the arbitrary enforcement policies of the "private security forces" in an "unfettered free market capitalism."

[BOG PERSON]

17. colonial plunder has been a roaring success for the colonialists.

you don't need a wikipedia article to figure that out. :eyes:

[Cool Logic]

29. Colonial...? Your frame of reference appears to be a bit behind the times...

For Capitalism is the tip of the spear when it comes to the advancement of human civilization.

If order to catch up with the modern world, you must first catch up with Capitalism.

[Silent3]

31. What you're failing to take into account...

...is how awesomely cool anti-capitalism is. Instant I'm-for-the-little-guy cred, rage against the machine, all that.

And it's easy to do. The world is full of problems, all of those problems are happening while capitalism is happening, so all of those problems are caused by capitalism! Grab your Che Guevara T-shirt, change your avatar to Karl Marx, and you're ready to speak truth to power.

You'll get lots of recs on your posts from your fellow brave rebels, yet not many unrecs from the people who think you're full of shit. Most of them will just roll their eyes and move on.

[socialist_n_TN]

36. A little pissy that 150 years of capitalist propaganda

isn't working anymore bubie?

[Silent3]

38. If capitalism were such a doomed-to-failure proposition...

...it would take a whole lot more than propaganda to prop it up for 150 years. And capitalism has been around much longer than that, longer than Marxist critique of capitalism.

As for whether or not the alleged propaganda is "working" -- well, there have long been anti-capitalist voices, they've been around for a long time. If the presence of those voices means the propagande isn't "working", then it never "worked". If your contention is that "the world is waking up" to your opinion of capitalism, I see know no evidence of that. There's plenty of discontent out there, but much of it is idiotic right-wing discontent.

Make up any form of government, any economic system you like. I'll confidently predict that before the next two centuries pass, it will "fail" at some point, as long as you leave the door as wide open for time scale and definition of "failure" as today's Marxists leave for their interpretation of Marx.

[blindpig]

39. But it has been an incredibly massive effort.

From the government directly, through our schools, advertising, through the efforts of individual capitalists and corporations funding every sort of think tank, foundation, the Chicago School of Economics, even the so-called Nobel Prize for Economics, the effort has been awesome. That they must constantly reinforce this effort against a book written 150 years ago, against these 'mice' who can see with their own eyes, speaks to the real weakness of their arguments and their fear. They fear the people, justice, rationality.

[Silent3]

40. But if the internal contradictions of capitalism were really so bad...

...as Marx said they were, the size of the propaganda effort wouldn't matter. You might employ propaganda to convince a lot of people to build their houses out of balsa wood, but when the first modest storm comes along the propaganda won't stop the houses from being blown part.

Capitalism has certainly been vulnerable to boom-bust cycles, but that's not what Marx was talking about with his supposed "inevitable" failure of capitalism. We've also learned that for a very long span of years, that boom-bust cycle can be tamed through regulation. We had a good run for about 70 years after the Great Depression, until too many of us forgot history and gave into the demands of greedy but short-sighted business interests, dismantling smart regulations like Glass-Steagall.

If the supposed "inevitable" failure of capitalism is all about the way corrupt influences will use the wealth generated by capitalism to dismantle the regulations needed to tame the excesses of capitalism, that much true, but it also unremarkably true, because no system or institution yet conceived by humankind is invulnerable generation after generation, century after century, to the machinations of ambitious but immoral people.

[blindpig]

41. 'Boom & bust' was what Marx was talking about.

If regulation works so well why do we still have the cycle which inflicts hardship on millions? It is capitalist competition itself which makes this inevitable, a descending spiral of price cuts due to the overproduction of products ruins capitalists individuals and everyone downhill feels the pain.

If 'we' forgot something we had plenty help in doing so and it was those same 'helpers' who stood to profit by such forgetfulness. It is not 'corruption' which causes capitalism to be bad for us. Greed, as a widespread social behavior is a result of capitalism, which promotes such behavior. It is the necessity of continual capital accumulation, without which it ain't really capitalism, which makes this behavior advantageous in capitalism society. Ya can never slow down in competitive capitalists society or you'll be eaten by a bigger fish or otherwise pushed to the curb.

The way to deal with 'the machinations of ambitious but immoral people' is to have a society where such behaviors are not promoted, nor deemed necessary for the wellbeing of the individual.

[Silent3]

43. Even in the depths of the Great Depression...

...the general standard of living was higher for the average American than it had been a century before. The Depression hurt so much because (1) people had gotten used to a higher standard of living, and (2) fewer people were prepared to fall back on the low standard of living provided by subsistence farming and hunting.

If the "bust" part of the boom/bust cycle of a capitalist economy represents "failure", it's a failure compared to what? How come the result of these "failures" is usually to simply rebuild again, rather than switch to something different? Once more, the oh-so-incredibly powerful demon of capitalist propaganda rides to the rescue?

If 'we' forgot something we had plenty help in doing so...

How does that work? A 70-year long sustained propaganda campaign since the Great Depression, run by a nefarious cabal of ultra-capitalists smart enough to conduct such a long-term campaign effectively, selfish only in a family sense, but not in a personal sense, since the ones who started this alleged campaign wouldn't live to benefit from the results, and also dumb enough to put the short-term gains for a unpredictable select few in the distant future ahead of the generally greater wealth available to all, including the rich, when the economy is better-regulated and stable?

[blindpig]

44. It is 'rebuilt' over and over because it is in the interests of the...

capitalists to do so, they got all the money, they call the shots. 'Busts' might ruin individual capitalists but overall the system works for them. You don't find the rich starving, begging in the streets. Their lives are hardly touched. The failure is that wealth is massively mal-distributed.

The propaganda is just crowd control, a tool, and it is constantly renewed by interested capitalists of the likes of the Koch bros. They are rightfully paranoid, they are robbing us and they know we greatly outnumber them. The real strength of the capitalist is ownership of the means of production. They decide who works, who doesn't and the conditions thereof. The worker has a 'choice', to accept those conditions or face destitution.

And btw, this propaganda goes back to the 1880's.

[Silent3]

47. Propaganda is more than just saying what's in your best interest

You're ascribing to propaganda practically magical power to time and time again, failure after failure, abuse after abuse, generation after generation convince people to support a supposedly doomed economic system.

It's like listening to a fundamentalist preacher blaming everything in the world that doesn't go the way he thinks it should on Satan.

I think you're missing the fact that the basics of capitalism simply appeal to most people without them having to be sold on the idea very hard. What seems to take a much more concerted propaganda effort is convincing people that communism or Marxist-style socialism is want they "really should" want.

What we call "Democratic Socialism" is an easier thing to convince people to adopt -- but Democratic Socialist countries employ capitalism as a major component of their economic systems. I have yet to see a real-world example of an anti-capitalist government that doesn't simply trade one set of evils for another, nor one that provides a very high standard of living to its people.

Give me a choice between a supposedly unfair slice of a very big pie, and a supposedly more fair slice of a much smaller pie, I'll gladly take which ever slice is actually bigger, even if it's the "unfair" slice.

[Cool Logic]

54. Thank you very much...I'll have a slice of that pie too.

I know...I shouldn't indulge in such decadence, for not only will it make me fat, but I will also suffer the guilt of knowing that the socialist went to bed without a slice.

But like you said, you don't have sell the idea of baking a pie large enough for everyone to have a slice; you have propagandize them into believing that it is better for their health if no one offers them a slice.

That was pretty good...do you mind if I have another slice?

[joshcryer]

70. I find that humorous at best when some of DUs loudest socialists say you *need* capitalism...

...before you get to socialism / communism (a precept rejected by all anarchists).

edit, example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1451478&mesg_id=1455595

[blindpig]

87. And what socialists societies have the anarchists made?

All talk, no hat.

[socialist_n_TN]

93. The closest they EVER came to an "anarchist" state

was when Lenin and Trotsky considered allowing them their own enclaves in the USSR AFTER THE REVOLUTION HAD BEEN SECURED.

Ironic, ain't it? :)

[joshcryer]

98. Catolina was more socialist than Lenin and Trotsky's Soviet Russia ever.

[joshcryer]

103. BTW, aren't you funny, making fun of Lenin and Trotsky's "consideration" not to murder wholesale...

...the anarchists.

Which they did with their reforms (see: "prodrazvyorstka"; which, btw, was solved by the market-oriented "prodnalog"!).

[joshcryer]

97. Say hello to the internet, dude.

Not created by anarchists, but certainly where anarchists live and thrive, unlike the filthy authoritarian left, who just fester biting at each others throats.

[coalition_unwilling]

34. Exactly why are you insinuating that emigrating to Cuba or

Venezuela is to 'return to the Dark Ages'? Do you have any facts upon which to back up your slander? The peoples of Venezuela and Cuba have largely benefited from the revolutions there.

[Cool Logic]

46. In my view, those places are reminiscent of life in the Dark Ages...

For example, in Cuba and Venezuela, one of the ways that societal equity is achieved, is by means of rolling blackouts, which results in equitable darkness for all.

Similarly, many of those subjected to the rulers of the Dark Ages could live their entire under one ruler. The same can be said about those subjected to the rule of Chavez and Castro. For many Cubans and Venezuelans consider their leaders to be permanent fixtures of power.

There are, of course, many other examples...

[blindpig]

48. When a society has limited resources, how would distribute them?

As Cuba has been subject to a crippling embargo for half a century the limitation of resources is unsurprising, the surprise is that the society could continue as it has.

The leaders of Cuba and Venezuela are elected. Your analogy is worthless.

[Cool Logic]

51. "How would I distribute them?"

Well, the first thing I would do is get rid of the economic system that created the limited resources. Socialism has brought economic paralysis or collapse to every country that has ever tried it. The degree of socialization is directly correlated to the degree of disaster.

Thus, I would distribute some Capitalism; subsequently, I would not be faced with such questions as to how to ensure an equitable distribution of misery.

"Crippling embargo?" I don't know about crippling, but it was and is a failed policy. If it were up to me, the US would have simply overwhelmed Cuba with free-market Capitalism. For that would have caused the collapse of communism and set the Cuban people free a long time ago.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the cause of Cuba's problems is that it does not have economic relations with the US. However, an embargo is not a blockade. Thus, Cuba is free to trade with every other nation on the planet. It is also interesting to note that you are blaming the woes of communism on the lack of trade with the world's leading practitioner of Capitalism.

Thus, you have inadvertently acknowledged the superiority of Capitalism.

[hifiguy]

52. There is much more to "freedom" than the economic freedom

to brutally exploit others. And the heavily mixed quasi-socialist economies of Scandinavia and Germany seem to be working quite nicely, thank you.

"Free Market Capitalism" as defined by the likes of Milton Friedman is nothing more than a new sort of justification for the wealthiest to hold everything and rule over the rest with an iron hand. Everywhere it has been imposed - Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, China (yes, China - Friedman was a consultant to Deng Xiaoping) has resulted in brutality, torture, and thousands of "disappeared" people.

I suggest you read James Galbraith's "The Predator State" or Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine." IF those books don't wake you up, you are truly living the zombie dream.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. And China didn't have plenty of brutality, torture, and thousands of disappeared people under Mao?

I'll agree with you that pretty much everywhere in Latin America that tried socialism, the United States helped stop it and brought in a whole lot of brutal right wing dictators.

But China under Mao was a hellhole. It's still a hellhole for a large part of the country, but the standard of living has improved for a large percentage in the last two decades.

[coalition_unwilling]

60. Let's see, was China "under Mao" worse than China under

Chiang Kai-Shek? Perhaps you're arguing that China was worse under Mao than under imperial Japanese subjugation. Or perhaps that China under Mao was worse than the 19th Century when British colonialism and opium dens were the order of the day?

Puh-leeze, give me a break.

[Hippo_Tron]

62. 30 million people starved during the Great Leap Forward

Imperial Japanese subjugation was horrible and Chiang Kai-Shek was a brutal dictator, albeit one who could never control the entire country. But it's not like Mao was some saint who made life significantly better. And the Cultural Revolution was a pretty good display of how brutality, torture, and "disappearances" don't just happen under right wing dictators.

My point was that a significant percentage of China is better today because under capitalism their economy has grown significantly from where it was under Mao. Much of their population still lives in the same poverty, however. Their human rights policies haven't exactly improved, either.

[Cool Logic]

58. "There is much more to "freedom" than the economic freedom to brutally exploit others."

Indeed, there is. And it's name is Capitalism. For "the economic freedom to brutally exploit others" does not exist in *true* free-market Capitalist economy.

Under *true* free-market Capitalism, all market relations are voluntary. Brutality, suggests force; and force is an element that is typically applied in socialist, communist and other economies that are collectivist in nature, e.g., Cuban baseball players must "defect," i.e., escape, to the free-market.

[socialist_n_TN]

107. Voluntary. Kind of like I work your

16 hour day or I starve?

[Cool Logic]

108. Actually, the only people I have observed working...

16-hour days, are business owners themselves.

Success requires hard work, and some work harder than others; which, is why Capitalism has winners and losers.

That is also why losers prefer socialism.

[joshcryer]

68. The leaders of Cuba might be "elected" but they are certainly not chosen.

Huge difference between the Soviet ballot and the Liberal Democracy ballot.

[coalition_unwilling]

59. Before you go comparing Cuba and Venezuela to Europe

in the Dark Ages, you might want to look into two criteria of societal health, pre- and post-revolution: literacy rates and infant mortality rates. I'm not going to do your homework for you, only let you know that you are woefully misinformed and only digging the hole of your ignorance deeper with each of your utterances.

[Cool Logic]

84. Before you begin citing "official" statistics...

from Cuba and Venezuela, you should consider to totalitarian nature of their governments and the fact that they are nothing more than propaganda.

[joshcryer]

85. The health care statistics are uncontroversial.

And they're partially due to genetics (high smoker rate but low lung cancer rate? Genetics), but also due to preventative health care.

Venezuela, meanwhile, has a murder rate third highest in the world (Iraq is safer), has "reduced poverty" slower than Chile and Brazil (both considered "right wing" countries but which are really left of the United States), has 30% annual inflation, while having a windfall of oil profits.

That said, I am a socialist and I do not think any state system is immune from cronyism, what you see in Cuba and Venezuela are effectively state corporations run amok.

[Cool Logic]

94. "I do not think any state system is immune from cronyism"

Likewise, no private free-market is immune from immoral and/or unethical business practices.

Thus, it is not so much a question of which economic system, as it is a question of the morality of the humans beings who are employing it.

If all human beings possessed an impeccable moral code of values, the consequences of anarchy and oligarchy would be identical--any form of government would work. The same thing can be said about economic systems. Everything works in heaven; however, it is the imperfect nature of the human psyche, that necessitates the evaluation and selection of an economic system.

The evidence is incontrovertible, Capitalism, is the best socioeconomic system for dealing with the imperfect nature of the human beings. The contrast between North and South Korea is a perfect example.

[joshcryer]

99. I believe the market benefits greatly from regulation. SK is actually a good example.

Cronyism is rampant in a system without said regulations. I mean, the boom bust cycles are only proof of the cronyism, not of capitalisms' failure.

[coalition_unwilling]

90. Welcome to my Ignore list - n/t

[Cool Logic]

96. Oh well...I have a hard enough time believing fedgov stats; thus...

I am surely going to view numbers from the Dark Ages with a skeptical eye.

[joshcryer]

65. If you think there is benefit to a murder rate third highest in the world, and ramshackle housing.

Sure, they have "benefited."

Meanwhile the casinos are returning to Cuba and foreign land investment with perpetual leases is starting. (Hint: two things Batista was doing.)

[joshcryer]

64. Correct, the statistics are clear and authoritarian socialists fail in their critique:

http://www.gapminder.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPt8ElTQMIg

[sabo_tabby]

116. And where did those capitalist countries get their 19-fold increase?

From the backs of the poor, who still suffer and cry out for justice.

Nice find, cool logic - thanks for making our case :fistbump:

[Cool Logic]

131. "where did those capitalist countries get their 19-fold increase?"

By means of the ceaseless application of our intellect to natural resources and/or the products of natural resources.

[sabo_tabby]

137. A very kid-glove way of saying...

"By despoiling nature and stealing the product of poor peoples' labor."

Yeah, THERE's something to be proud of.

[Cool Logic]

138. Humans, like other elements of nature, can be destructive...however,

Capitalism has created the highest standard of living that has ever existed on this planet. Thus, rather than stealing, Capitalists have created, invented and developed the means by which poor people no longer have to remain poor. Optimism, progress and general good will, are the traits of a Capitalist.

That is indeed something to be proud of.

[sabo_tabby]

149. Despair, poverty and fighting for survival are the traits of those they oppress/nt

Proud of that, too?

[Cool Logic]

155. "Despair, poverty and fighting for survival are the traits of" collectivism.

The traits of Capitalism are hope, plenty and peace--traits to be proud of.

[Odin2005]

10. K&R

[Peace Patriot]

12. Excellent point! The "debt" doesn't exist. It's in the banksters' pockets!

But the most colossal failure of all, after that one and The War, is the elimination of hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs, when governments should be ADDING public sector jobs, as FDR did, the last time that banksters and speculators looted and destroyed the economy. You. Must. Make. Jobs.

Put money in the pockets of the poor majority, and they WILL spend it. Feed the poor and they will work. They have to. Give jobs to the poor and they will spend money. They have to.

It's not rocket science. And the rich need to be forced to pay for this or the stupids will wreck everything--everything! --in their hysteria to line their bomb shelters with walls of worthless cash!

[socialist_n_TN]

16. Thanks blind pig. Good article...........

Kick.

[socialist_n_TN]

32. Another kick. BACK to the front

page that is.

[Proles]

23. I endorse an economic change to

socialism.

[leftstreet]

27. K&R

[upi402]

37. with no media there's no chance for trade laws and campaign reform$

Given; there's no opposition party to fight corpotism. So we need real media where the likes of Amy Goodman and Thom Hartmann are heard by the squishy middle regularly.

That or relocate.

[malaise]

49. The working class need a good dose of Gramsci

It is the capitalist state that facilitates the capitalist economy.
That is its sole raison d'être. Every thing else is BS.

[hifiguy]

50. Kickety Rec!

:kick:

[FreeJoe]

53. I tell you what...

Show me an economic system not based on market prices that works better and I'll start paying attention.

[leftstreet]

57. What do 'market prices' have to do with rich people profiting from my labor?

:shrug:

[joshcryer]

63. The authoritarian socialists never cease to amuse.

[inna]

71. please elaborate

[joshcryer]

72. Capitalism hasn't failed as yet (just another boom bust cycle) and China is well on its way...

...to conquering the planet.

Oh capitalism is doomed to fail, but it's not hit its prime yet.

[inna]

73. that is your completely subjective opinion

based on little but your faith in your beloved capitalism.

(are you still an Anarchist, btw? just curious!)

[joshcryer]

74. What makes you think capitalism is "beloved" by me? Complete comprehension failure?

Golly gee. I'm merely stating facts. Capitalism is still on the rise, capitalism has still brought up the living standard of the entire planet, and so on.

I'm not the one parroting that capitalism is http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1451478&mesg_id=1455595">necessary like authoritarian socialists.

Meanwhile I'll be ardently anti-capitalist, and ardently anti-authoritarian left like the vile WSWS.

[inna]

75. lol, it's not the WSWS that is "vile"

[joshcryer]

77. I'm not fond of any authoritarian leftists, particularly those who are blind to totalitarianism.

[inna]

78. yawn, it's just a ridiculous, absurd and ignorant smear directed at wsws

- who are anti-stalinist, btw

(not sure if it was you or another "anarchist" who accused them of being pro-stalinist, authoritarian, etc, etc. ... )

[joshcryer]

80. WSWS are Trots which makes them neo-stalinists.

I highly doubt you're equipped to have a discussion about the history of Stalinism and how Trotskyism played a formative role in the eventual authoritarian tendencies that Stalinism underwent. WSWS is a slandering, vile, evil organization with no hope to ever become anything but a marginal and ineffectual group. They are propagandists.

[JoseGaspar]

132. You have nothing in common with your avatar...

I never agreed with Kropotkin on much but it's hard not to respect the man. He burned with indignation.

You burn with indigestion.

Take two Tums and change your avatar... maybe to Kermit the Frog?

[joshcryer]

140. And you base that on what? Uncritical assumptions about my stance on things?

Thought so.

[blindpig]

86. Supposed 'anarchists' who support imperialism are a giggle too

eom

[joshcryer]

100. Yep, like Cuba in Algeria.

Anarchists actually supported Cuba then... until their eyes were opened.

[robcon]

88. Capitalism is the last best hope for mankind.

It's the socialists - e.g., Castro/Chavez/Kim who are starving their people.

[blindpig]

91. What a sack of lies.

Capitalism leaves the majority in poverty, only the capitalists and their suckfish benefit.

Castro and Chavez have lead their people to great improvements in their lives. As for Kim, I don't kbnow what you call that.

[joshcryer]

101. Go to GapMinder and be amused. Capitalism did in 20 years what Communism couldn't do...

...in a century. :eyes:

State communism/socialism, that is.

[blindpig]

110. Dunno what you are talking about.

However, there have never been such massive improvements in the human condition as those achieved after the Russian and Cuban revolutions. Housing, nutrition, healthcare, education were all massively improved.

[joshcryer]

121. Easy enough to do when Russia killed millions and China purged a hundred thousand.

[dash_bannon]

123. Not really...

You're pointing at totalitarian governments that use a socialist model. In democratic socialist states, the people enjoy more benefits than we do in the US. (See Europe, Australia, and Japan for example. They embrace more socialist ideas than the US.) For example, in the US we have the most expensive health care system in the industrialized world and we get the least bang for our buck.

That's the price of capitalism. The drive for making a buck off of everything cheapens the quality of goods and services produced.

Also, it weakens the political power of the people because they have to work longer hours for less pay. This eats up people's most valuable resource: time. Europeans as a whole are much happier than Americans as a whole because they have way more personal free time than we do.

In France, they enjoy five weeks paid vacation times. It's mandated by law. In the US, you're lucky to get a 30 minute lunch break anymore. Vacations are almost non-existent, and people become slaves to jobs they hate for the benefits.

We can do better. We don't have to let the rich have all the fun, especially if they don't create jobs that pay living wages in the US anymore.

[kctim]

92. The 'fight for socialism' is only in the minds of the very very few

and only gives support to the right-wing rhetoric that all Democrats are socialists.

[joshcryer]

102. Not really, there's a decent amount of support for it in weakened countries.

Particularly if the propaganda can be utilized to effect and propagate cronyism and corruption.

Fortunately the United States will remain a corporate despotism as opposed to a state corporate despotism. (ie, I can type this without getting hung, as I would've in Soviet Russia if I lived there at the time.)

[kctim]

111. My only concern is the US

and there are very very few who want socialism.

Other countries are free to go whatever route they wish, I don't care. Their choice, not mine.

[Harmony Blue]

114. The United States has a rich history of socialism

It is merely overshadowed by the Capitalists, because they require a complicit workforce. Well, that is the core reason why public education is being attacked.

I am asked on a daily basis about socialism by ordinary Americans, and they are surprised to learn a lot of what they have been "taught" is completely untrue.

[TBF]

127. Excellent post -

and that rich history is why the right-wing (and also many dems) are very critical of socialists. We rock their carefully crafted elitist society by arguing for equality. That is a real threat - and it is why they purge us every 50 years or so and continually work at breaking up the unions.

Kick for the OP, sorry I didn't see this sooner.

[kctim]

129. We have a history of attempts of socialism, but it never catches on

as the few wish it would.

I am very open minded though, so, what have I been taught about socialism that is completely untrue?

[Cool Logic]

130. "The United States has a rich history of socialism"

Actually, government ownership of the means of production, would be un-Constitutional.

I will be most appreciative if you will enlighten me with respect to the "untruths" we have been taught regarding socialism.

[joshcryer]

141. That is patently false. The government can appropriate property if justly compensated.

That includes the "means of production."

[Cool Logic]

143. The United States has a federal structure, with power divided between the states and the fedgov.

The fedgov can only legislate in areas specifically delegated to it in Article 1 of the Constitution.

That is not to say that the Constitution could not be amended to allow the fedgov to buy the means of production. However, there is that little problem regarding "justly compensated." The fact of the matter is that the fedgov could not now, and will never be able to "justly compensate" the People for the "purchase" of the means of production.

There is also the matter of of the 9th and 10th Amendments, which would also have to be repealed in order to create a worker's "paradise" in the US.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[joshcryer]

145. The socialized internetstate highway system was built by appropriating land from individuals.

If the government, tomorrow, wanted to nationalize the coal industry, it need only bid, justly compensate, the coal industry. The Fifth Amendment explicitly says that the government can take property if justly compensated.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I don't think you've established in any way that the government can't nationalize the means of production.

The key here is that the US GDP is some tens of trillions of dollars and to "justly compensate" the owner class would be extremely expensive, take a decade or more, and would put us into massive amounts of debt. One need only look at Venezuela to see that this is true (Venezuela also enumerates the right to private property with just compensation for appropriation).

[Cool Logic]

151. Surely, you do not believe that the *intent* of the 5th Amendment...

was to allow the fedgov to acquire the means of production. For I can assure you, that it does not.

But don't take my word for it; for Madison or Hamilton are the Constitutional authorities...

Government is instituted no less for protection of the property, than of the persons, of individuals. The one as well as the other, therefore, may be considered as represented by those who are charged with the government.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed54.htm

[blindpig]

153. Why should we compensate thieves(capitalists)?

Expropriate without compensation, the wheel of history turns.

[Cool Logic]

156. "Expropriate without compensation, the wheel of history turns."

You better watch that wheel, for it is rolling backwards. If you don't reverse its action, you will wake up to discover that you have turned the pages of history back to the Dark Ages.

[defendandprotect]

105. kr

[unkachuck]

106. as long as....

....the same corrupt capitalist scum that crashed the worlds' economy in 2008 remain unjailed and in power, nothing will improve or change....why would we expect anything different?

[Cool Logic]

112. Indeed, that is why it is beyond my realm of comprehension...

as to why "We the People" keep electing the same people over and over and...

[defendandprotect]

118. Capitalism is finished but if we want to move to socialism we're going to need a liberal president-!

Bernie Sanders in 2012 --


http://www.stophoping.org

[dash_bannon]

120. Greed is part of being human

There are people who lack compassion for others and have insatiable greed and ambition. Without a political system to keep people like that in check, we devolve into oligarchic monopolies.

You think we would have learned our lesson. Maybe growing up with too much wealth, blinds people.

The greedy and ambitious didn't take control of everything overnight, they did it piece by piece. We dropped the ball on that, and now we're going to have to fight to get our democracy back.

[Cool Logic]

128. Actually, democracy is one of the problems...

The American system is a Constitutional republic. A democracy, is a system of unlimited majority rule, i.e., mob rule dressed in a coat and tie.

For example, under a democracy, if the majority does not like what you say, they can legally sentence you to death.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. ~ Benjamin Franklin

[jannyk]

136. Kick (too late to rec, or I would) nt