Ever ask yourself why there's an economic crisis?
Why are people suffering and unable to afford necessities, many driven into the streets because they can no longer afford to live under the shelter of a home or apartment or single tiny room with dirt as their floor, people forced to hustle, sell their bodies or children, driven to drink and other drugs to escape the awful reality of their world? Why are people who have been perfectly good and hard and uncomplaining workers for years or even decades thrown out of their jobs, discarded like so much dross? When there is so much wealth, so many resources, and so much technical and scientific know how, why must people still be dying from preventable causes like lack of access to good water or access to affordable health care? 25,000 children everyday in the world die from easily prevented causes like diarrhea from drinking bad water. 25,000 a day. Children.
Why are people rioting in Greece in reaction to yet another round of austerity measures? Did all of these people become gluttinous, eating more than their share, buying things they didn't need and couldn't afford, wastrals of the common resources so that they must now be punished en masse?
None of this is because average people have caused this to happen. None of this is necessary. It's utterly insane. It's completely irrational. Economic crises are gripping the world and threatening to spread further and deeper because of one reason and one reason alone: we are living in a system called capitalism that only employs people when a big enough profit can be made on it. When there isn't enough profit to be made then the owners of the means of production lay people off and when their profits are being squeezed they squeeze the people to extract more from them. There is no reason for all of this suffering. It's totally unnecessary.
But of course, this is what the 1% tell us is the way of the world and that this is the best of all possible worlds. Anything else, they say, is unthinkably horrible. Talking about anything else is just plain seditious. They must know what they're talking about. They're the best and brightest, aren't they? If they aren't, then how come they're the 1% and the rest of us merely the undeserving 99%?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall
Watching Frogs Boil
Karen McKim
Erica K
Jennifer Prestholdt
Julie Morse
Salon.com
Comments
A self-fulfilling profligacy. It's a thing that can't stop till it drops.
Because people keep waiting for a "Leader" to emerge that will change it, so people aren't inclined to change it because a leader won't emerge and they don't have the will to do it themselves... (repeat sentence).
Dang...the more I write here, the more it's looking like a death spiral.
You're right that the will to change has to be there. I wrote this now because I believe that that will is emerging nationally and worldwide. The Occupation movement is a sign of this and the "waiting" for a Leader has not stopped leaders on the grassroots level from acting and mobilizing others.
The will is there among the people. Getting them to act in a way that draws most together and gets noticed enough to penetrate the media fog is the thing. Here, at least. Not sure about Europe, they're a bit more politically fractured and fractious.
Here, we need a velvet revolution.
The one thing we don't need, in my opinion, is leaders. Leaders led us here. We need representatives. In government as well as speaking to the problem.
Representatives can be understood, and I assume this is what you mean, as representing the people's will. But within the people are varied sentiments and differing levels of understanding and desires. What I mean by leaders are those who see most clearly the broadest horizons and the highest interests of the collective and who are motivated least by personal agendas and most by the group interest and the widest sense of justice and fairness. Those kind of leaders do in fact lead the group based on the group's highest sentiments as opposed to their worst and lowest sentiments. For we have both within us all. Representatives cannot only mirror because the mirror contains many different reflections.
--sinclair louis
"One withstands the invasion of armies; one does not withstand the invasion of ideas."
--victor hugo
occupy party reaches critical mass/seismic effect--now what?
I get that too. It's maybe more semantics than significant difference, but yes, it would be nice to have both in one. If the D Party was what it used to be, some one would have risen by now. The Repubs being crazy is what allows the craven D Party leaders to get away with doing next to nothing. The D party doing nothing allows the Repubs to act crazy.
There's that loop thing again...
Who ALL take themselves far too seriously and think the world awaits their solution. Time to open yer eyes, folks. This “Occupy" thing is going to have some serious teeth any day now. Those teeth are going to bite much, much more that “1%" butts!
.
We are stuck in a mind-set that demands that everyone “earn” a living. Some people (perhaps most people) simply cannot make a positive impact on production…or on the creation of wealth—and may actually impact negatively. We should not want those people working. It would make more sense to pay them to stay the hell out of the way.
In any case, there will NEVER ever again be enough decent paying jobs for everyone who needs and wants one. NEVER! Our technological evolution has made that an impossibility. Such jobs as do exist or can be made to come into existence must be rationed out only to people who actually can do them in a way that impacts positively on production. Having a job should be a luxury—a reward, if you will.
We have no “unemployment problem.” “Unemployment” is not a problem for the majority of the population—in fact, the long lines at the lottery machines are there because people want to create “unemployment” for themselves. The real problem is a “lack of means to get the things needed and wanted”—which, of course, raises its ugly head during times of unemployment. We tend to mistake the two…suppose them to be one; but “unemployment is not a problem”—it is a condition much sought after. And since we don’t have enough decent jobs to go around—it is a perfect fit. “Lacking he means to get the things needed and wanted, IS a problem…but a much easier one to solve.
We have got to get great minds working on the problem of how to get stuff in the hands of the people who “shouldn’t be working”; don’t want to work; create reduced production by working; and who cannot find jobs anyway—without them actually having a job to “earn” that stuff.
Do you have any ideas on that, Dennis?
What I didn't mention explicitly earlier in my comments was that it is also, and mainly, a question of the system that is dominant. So it's a) a question of the system and its logic and b) the kind of leadership within that system and what standards they're setting. The reason it's both is because leaders can, under certain circumstances, lead others to overthrow the existing system, but they can only do so if they are leading a movement. That is why individual leaders, even if they really wanted to do something different from the existing system, can't and are hemmed in to the existing system's logic unless they are leading a movement that is expressly aimed at replacing the existing system with a different system that operates according to a different logic. That is why the point that SkyPixie is making when he says that this is much bigger than the GOP and the Dems is correct.
Frank: You have to step outside of the confines of the box and think about this - is there any reason why even with technical innovations, many must be unemployed? Aren't there jobs that need doing everywhere we look? For example, aren't there decent dwellings that could be built where favelas now exist? Aren't there trees that could be planted on a massive scale throughout the planet? Clean up the oceans, estuaries, etc. and so on. The list is seemingly endless of what can and should be done and yet these things aren't being done because capitalist economies don't look at it that way. It's all organized now on the basis of whether or not it will produce more profit for the owners of capital, not what the society and planet need.
There are only a few GOOD capitalists, much to our misfortune.
You are correct that there are many jobs that need doing. Repair of our infrastructure would keep millions of people busy for decades. And you are correct that our unfettered allegiance to capitalism prevents us from looking at that in a way that could benefit our economic recovery.
However, I specifically mentioned “decent paying jobs”…which I suspect many of those “jobs” and the others you mentioned will not be. Capitalism, as you suggest, is a huge part of that problem…but even if we were to work outside its clutches (something I suspect could happen sooner than most of us think), we will still be left with the problem of those unable (or unwilling) to be productive—the people I mentioned who are a drag on productivity.
My guess is you know of some people like that—perhaps many; “colleagues” who would benefit the institutions in which you work by simply retiring or in other ways absenting themselves from the effort. My guess is that almost every working person in America knows people like that.
Bottom line: I think the notion that people have to “earn a living” is as big a drag on economic sanity as is capitalism.
Do you not see anything worth further consideration in that notion?
People who can, should work and contribute however much they are capable of. If there are those who are lazy, then they should be compelled by social pressure to work and contribute. If what they're doing is poorly done and it's a matter of aptitude or ability, then they should be transferred to something else. If it's a matter of a bad attitude, then again, social pressure should do it. Social pressure's a very powerful thing.
Even such a humble way as our local 're-use centre', at the country dump, where people put-and-take clothing, kitchen ware, books, bedding, toys, furniture...and it ain't crap either. Despite this being officially a very poor township, great stuff gets discarded (sez she, lounging on a tapestry-patterned chaise-longue, newly installed on porch built of scavenged materials).
It's a hopeful sign that Cantor chickened out of an appearance when it was going to be opened to whoever got in first... Do they hear the rumble of the tumbrel?...
I’ve told this story before, but it is worth repeating…and is apropos of our discussion.
At a point in my life, I worked as a night janitor in a YMCA. I put in eight hours a night…four to six of which were actually spent cleaning and putting the Y in shape for the next day. I was often complimented on the thoroughness of my work—I got the place spotless each night in those abbreviated hours. And even though my boss knew I could do the job in less than eight hours, he was okay with me shooting hoops, punching the speed bag, taking a short nap, or enjoining the occasional sauna.
Every once in a while the local judge would send over people who had to work off what they call “community service.” I’d get eight to ten people to “help” me clean the Y. (Understand that I have supervised people in all sorts of work, janitorial work was a relief from that kind of thing—and I consider myself to be above adequate in supervisory skills.)
On the nights where I had four hours of “help” from eight to ten “community service people”…the Y did not get anywhere near as clean as when I worked alone…and I usually had no time for hoops, naps, saunas or the speed bag.
Forcing people to work ends up costing more than letting them stay out of the way. Ask Lindsay Lohen about it…she’ll tell you. Society’s pressure is a joke…and has a huge cost.
I won’t interrupt again, Dennis. I understand your point. Mine, unfortunately, is so far outside the box...it is difficult to get some people to even give it reasonable consideration.
Myriad: I agree with you about the embryonic new society that the Occupation Movement represents. And yes, the Cantors of the world are very afraid of this movement.
To bring this down to Repubs and Dems is Political. You can laugh all you want, but protest movements don't accomplish much without a political component. The walls won't fall because some march around them. What happens in the rest of the world won't have any impact here.
You make a nice emotional appeal, but it only sounds good to some. A rally cry to the winds.
Without a political effort, OWS will fail under the weight of its own attraction to the protest being the cause.
Politically and in America, only the D Party or Independents can or will help. If OWS remains a protest movement and weighs itself down with a long laundry list of complaints...it won't bring change.
Dennis,
OWS won't change the system. Americans like "the system" even as they don't like the corruption and results of the system. Americans won't throw everything aside for some new system. That will not happen. We will not become a democratic socialist system, or anything but a capitalist, free enterprise system. Anyone trying to work outside of that frame will fail. Americans like the familiar and want to cling to it and will. They see all of that as consistent with being 'merican.
As of now OWS isn't much bigger than Code Pink. Start talking about the revolution of the proletariat-ish type of thing or the glorious socialist goal, and OWS will fold like a lawn chair.
Thanks for continuing the dialogue. What OWS represents is something different. Yes, politics is where decisions are made but what politics and whose politics is the germane question. The reason why OWS happened and is happening and spreading is because of international events first and foremost (Arab Spring in particular) and secondarily, but extremely importantly, because of the economic conditions and the related politics in this country. The system as it is does not offer young people and not so young people a real future. It's offering young people a terrible job market and sucking them dry with student loan debt, even as the educational system is being ruined from within by its top administrators who are in collusion with those from without who a) don't understand education and b) are implementing their neoliberal philosophy of treating everything, including education, as if it's an assembly line process, students are consumers and knowledge is a product that can be simply transmitted like a widget.
What people in OWS think needs to happen is quite varied at this point. (OWS is bigger than Code Pink by the way.) If we were to adopt your logic here and we rewind a couple months ago, you could be saying with equal validity as now that a movement like OWS could never ever happen. You want to be careful about making sweeping generalizations about what Americans will and will not accept and consider. The nature of neoliberalism is that it is relentless and ruthless in its character. It's not going to create a future for youth because it's about globalization and globalization has and is more and more rendering superfluous large numbers of people. OWS is grappling with these questions and trying to find answers. They are operating akin to an outdoor university. And this is a very good thing.
My son lives in NYC and has been at OWS, lending his energy.
I wrote a piece on this. If you want a fuller grasp of the way I see things, give it a read. I address neoliberalism, but not using that word. I address it for what it's done, but offer what I see as the best shot at an effective political message.
It’s also the central tenet of socialism where all are intended to put “society” ahead of themselves to the point that individual initiative is punished rather than applauded. Unless, of course, it is “initiated with permission” of the “perfectly equal” leaders (who often become “Great Leaders” - in their own minds anyway).
It is definitely time to consider that income be separated from production/service just as it is for the elite. There are those who “contribute” in ways that just don’t compute in the usual manner. How do you determine the contribution of a person who spends 40 years developing a talent to paint and then only ever paints one painting, when that painting is so very, very good that it enriches generations of mankind?
We have been so well indoctrinated by greed capitalists to the idea that money is everything that we seem unable to even discuss a potential or hypothetical society in which it is not. The same holds true for social structure. We’re so locked in to the pyramidal form, with its apex of “leaders” (who seldom really are capable of leading except at the beginning of a society’s coming into being), that we cannot even begin to think of how we might organize our society in a horizontal form. To us, orders have to come down from “on high.”
DEMOCRACY is a forlorn hope until we all have a genuine opportunity/duty to participate in the managing of our society.
CAPITALISM has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. The greed capitalists and the silly socialists love to blend the two together, each for their own, different, purposes. We could use a form of capitalism that ensures a relatively decent distribution of wealth yet offers the interesting opportunity to “play the game” via competition. It must NOT however, offer any chance for the “wealth acquisition game” to become the only game in town or to dominate our socio-economic-political structure. It ought to be just another personal choice just as being a doctor is a choice; or a musician; or a dancer.
And never, ever, ever, should the wealth amassed by anyone be passed on to his own progeny only. They have not earned it as much as have all members of the society which makes possible that acquisition of wealth. It MUST be returned to the members of the society from which it came.
.
.
I'd also argue that the debt problems in Greece are not the fault of capitalism, but rather can be blamed more on rampant consumerism, a poor work ethic, and an unwillingness of individuals and government to actually pay for what they consume. The failure to do so is not a failure of capitalism. In fact, it resembles more the failure of the socialist states of the late 20th century which likewise attempted to procure goods and services which they could not afford (such as military hardware and a huge and unproductive bureaucracy and standing army).
Capitalism surely has its faults, and laws and regulations have been instituted to limit their impact. Our current problem is that the mixed capitalistic society that was created between 1933 and 1970 has slowly been eroded through deregulation and poor enforcement. What's more, our system seems to encourage short-sightedness, placing far more imp0rtance on a firm's quarterly profits than on long-term economic outlook. That has little to do with capitalism, but much more to do with poor judgement.
Our current domestic troubles stem more from a corruption of sound economic policies on the part of our capitalists, i.e. bankers, investors, and gov't regulators, than on the economic system itself. Indeed, I'd say our troubles are due to the failure of individuals, financiers, and government officials, to follow basic economic principles, like the idea that eventually you must pay for the goods and services you consume.
My singling out the tragedy of 25,00o children dying daily is an indictment of capitalism even if capitalist economies aren't solely to blame for it. Capitalism's proponents tout its virtues as bringing wealth and prosperity to everyone everywhere but in fact it enriches the few and impoverishes the many. There are only so many resources to go around and if they're being hogged by some, then that makes it a zero-sum game. Capitalists have made deals with feudal, semi-feudal and even pre-feudal powers in order to ensure that they can get what they want and that is the picture that one sees in places where enforced backwardness continues.
But let me get to your main point: that the problem isn't due to systems and capitalism as a system in particular but due to greed, corruption, etc.
Systems have system logic that governs them. Deregulation is not due to distortions of the capitalist free enterprise system. It's an inevitable product of the increasing power of capitalists to dictate the terms, and in particular, the power of oligopolies and monopolies to dictate the terms in the absence of any rivals such as socialism in the world. In other words, it's not due to poor judgment as the fact that short-sightedness is how the system works. Witness the selling of derivatives and the housing mortgage bubble. The people selling these items knew that they weren't secured but they were making too much money to worry about the consequences. If you think that we should blame regulators and the government for their failure to stop this, remember that the record of what has been happening to government is fairly clear by now and that for the last 30 years, government has been revised to eliminate regulation increasingly. You could argue that neoliberal philosophy and policies are bad judgment, and in a sense you'd be right, but that is a useless argument given that what we're talking about here is the reality of a power struggle between those who are exponents of a system that is by its fundamental nature short-sighted and those who recognize that on some level or other and are fighting for different policies and philosophies.
People who say that these problems are entirely or mainly due to faults in human judgment or human nature aren't really understanding how systems and the doctrines that defend those systems operate.
Certainly I agree that the greed and consumerism that permeates our society contributes greatly to the world's problems. While our economic system is a major factor that creates those forces, I'd say there are additional factors contributing to those forces as well. There is spiritual/moral/ vacuum that has created a lack of empathy for our fellow human beings. There is a lack of intellectual curiosity. There is climate change. There are cyclical patterns of drought and flood. Capitalism, or at least the incessant drive to acquire our limited resources which that system fosters, contributes to these problems, but it is not the only factor to do so. Surely, the old USSR polluted the global environment more than its adversaries in the West. Capitalists aren't the only destroyers of the environment. They are simply the most successful ones nowadays. They could also be the solution if they had the will to be.
To your other point, yes, our ruling oligarchs and monopolists, have been the chief instigators of the current economic malaise, whether through greed, incompetence, corruption, or all three. But, we as a society have allowed them to do it. I don't buy the argument that it was an inevitable consequence of our economic system. Oligarchies and monopolies were even stronger a hundred years ago, and yet we as a society had the will to change things for the good of society, doing away with laissez faire policies in favor of a mixed economic system. Similarly, the old Soviet bloc's oligarchs were as powerful in their own way as ours are today, yet the people of those countries eventually overcame them, too (with a strong push from one of those oligarchs, Mr. Gorbachev). We could do the same again today if we only had the will to do so. Sadly, too many Americans (and others) have become too apathetic or jaded, or even duped, to do what is probably in their best interests. Blame capitalism for that if you want, but I think the problem is deeper than that.
I do not think that your claim that capitalism MUST inevitably reach this point is properly supported. It is not our job to refute your claim. It is your job to support it adequately. Capitalism could, with the right incentives, just as easily put “the common good” as its primary objective.
Procopius also makes the excellent point that naming capitalism as the sole, or even the main contributor to all of the world’s ills is inappropriate. To be sure the uses to which capitalism has been put, along with many, many other factors, all interacting with each other through the agency of fallible, error prone humans, has played its role in exacerbating a lot of our problems. But let us not forget the great good that capitalism has brought to a great many people either.
I cannot support the claim that capitalism is “at fault” for most of the world’s problems. Capitalism, as is true of perhaps all economic systems, offers the opportunity for unscrupulous and greedy individuals to rise to the top and achieve positions of power and wealth. Such people will abuse ANY system if they can do so. This was evident in the old USSR and in some other socialist regimes as well as in capitalist ones.
It is the responsibility of the political/social bodies to establish regulations so as to direct the economic system in the desired direction. Those bodies, when controlled by “the people” are supposed to ensure that the economic system benefits ALL the people of the society; no matter what kind of social system the society has. It must do so in such a manner that it cannot be seriously effected by the greed and excesses of unscrupulous individuals who would seek to corrupt the economic system with any of the various “diseases” that arise from greed, fear, arrogance, and other personal disorders.
To blame capitalism is to blame the automobile for the faults of the drivers. Regulate and supervise those “drivers” properly, in a manner by which they cannot be corrupted and you’ll find that the vehicle works as advertised.
Let me cite one example of what I mean. In the Stanford Prison Experiment, Stanford students were randomly assigned (after undergoing a battery of psychological tests to make sure that they didn't suffer any pathologies) as prison guards and prisoners. Within a very short period of time, their behaviors mimicked that of prisons and their occupants. The reason this experiment is famous in social science circles is because it shows the power of the situation. Even elite white undergraduates behaved like prisoners and prison guards. This was not because these individuals were fallible or corrupt. It was because of the social situation.
Capitalism is not, it is true, to blame for everything. I never said that it was. Class society precedes capitalism and class society and caste societies are unequal and unjust systems. But for most of human history (about 200k years) humans did not live in class or caste divided societies. We lived in rather egalitarian formations. But to argue that capitalism current state of corruption and plunder can be turned around is to miss not only the theoretical character of capitalism as a system but to misread historical experience. Again, something I elaborate on in my book regarding that historical experience. I'm not going to try to summarize that because it would take too much space to even try to summarize. Suffice it to say as to the theoretical character of capitalism: it is animated by the drive for profit. To think that the government could somehow regulate that drive without undoing capitalism is to mistake the reason why the New Deal in the U.S. was present for a few decades. The New Deal which did regulate capitalism came into being because there was a revolutionary challenge to capitalism in the U.S. and worldwide and because capitalism/imperialism was in crisis. The absence of a rival internationally (as of the end of the 1980s) meant that capitalism/imperialism were now and have been the only game in town. They have been expanding their power relentlessly as a result and within ten years of being unrivaled top dog the first major economic crisis hit and we see what has been happening since.
Capitalism's drive for profit MEANS that capitalists are driven to try to wipe out/buy out their competition. Making more profits means that you try to get rid of competition so that you can monopolize the market. You are obviously going to do this and you must do this if you are a significant capitalist player. In other words, it's got nothing to do with being fallible or particularly greedy. It has to do with acting within the logic of the system. It's like when you play Monopoly with your family and your kids in particular. If you accept the game's logic your actions are aimed at bankrupting your kids. Does this mean you're a bad person? No, it means that you're operating within the game.
Did the USSR act in some ways that mimicked the western world? Yes, it did, beginning during the Stalin years. If you study the policies and theories being implemented in the Soviet Union over the arc of time from 1917 to the 1950s and beyond you can see how capitalist logic (and giving ever widening scope to bourgeois right) came to take over. But this is a much longer issue that I can't get into entirely here but I can refer people to work that others have done on it if people want to know more about it.
It's nice to see somebody addressing capitalism as having its own nature...or maybe predilection..as a system just as humans act in a certain boundary of our nature. I look at it that way also, though I may draw different conclusions.
Obviously, taken to its conclusion, a few will own everything. That's why it has to be controlled. If truly uncontrollable, then we're screwed anyway. A system of private ownership has to have limits and back when the roots of neoliberalism first sprouted, around the latter 1830s, there was still seemingly limitless land to be had. It sounds better to people when "no limits" matches the scenery.
Jefferson made the claim that if there are unemployed hands and unused private land the natural right of property needs to be reexamined. Same basic idea when he worked to end primogeniture. Same point Sky makes.
Today, nobody seems to take the ultimate conclusion of capitalism as a consideration. That has to change, and a rebirth of of the idea of turning property back to availability at some point has to be put into place.
I'm not offering the solution, but a point to ponder.
The question of the actual relationship between systems and individuals, by the way, is not a matter for real debate in the sense that it remains unsettled. This issue is a settled question in Sociology in the same way that calculus is a settled issue in mathematics. That is, it is known to be true. Sociology as a discipline is based on this foundation. It is also a settled question in Anthropology. People who argue otherwise might as well try to disprove calculus.
Except the Communists. Didn't work out well for them.
And obesity is the biggest problem of the poor.
Yea. Yea.
I'm a fucking liberal. Shoot me.
I know two things. One is there is no absolute predictability between a system and those who interact with it. The other is people can get invested in an idea or viewpoint and attempt to offer it as a reality which can be as much as mathematically proven.
Perhaps it can.
I know another thing about interacting with a large group called Americans and they don't like changing systems. If it can't meet a political threshold, it's a theory.
Don,
I also see a lag in the realization this time is different. Not from the public, as I believe most Americans know this is different. But I keep seeing supposedly enlightened pundits and business poobahs discussing this "as if" it's just a bit deeper than normal recession that will turn around when (insert whatever delusional reason).
One of the problems of perpetuated profligacy is there's a cloud of capital floating around, seeking increase by non productive schemes. It can only manipulate and take because, like The Blob, it has to. It's in its nature. I think of it as capital without context or wealth without purpose. One of the factors in maintaining it is that buying governments is pocket change.
One of the wise sayings one of my B2B customers gave me when I was a wet-eared entrepreneur was to never bastardize my customers by pricing so high it breaks them. Same idea of a card player never killing a sheep they can shear a few times a month. I think there's a case to be made, in a big picture sense, that this wealth-sucking Blob has made this a zero sum reality. They 'won," but what did they win? Everyone else lost. Dysfunctional disequilibrium. Game over.
Any ideas on how to reset the game?
I don’t think the error here is on my part. I think it is in the way that you speak of capitalism in sociological terms and frameworks. The Stanford Prison Experiment was entirely a sociological one and had nothing whatsoever to do with any economic system. This is a standard error made by socialists who attach mean, rotten, evil attitudes and motivations to those individuals who have done well in the capitalist system and kindly, loving, touchy-feely, motives to those who advocate socialism.
It seems to me that one can understand these things better when we look at capitalism as an economic system that has the ability to operate in the most ugly fascist state, the most touchy-feely humanitarian state and for everything in between.
I repeat; an economic system is merely a tool - a vehicle, if you wish. It is the responsibility of the social/political bodies to establish the shape of that tool and its legitimate uses. They also have the responsibility to oversee, constantly assess, and regulate the economic system to ensure that it is performing its proper job of supporting the social systems that the population have chosen.
To say that capitalism “requires” those who engage in it to become corrupt is simply not true. Examples have been cited here and I’ll add my own personal experience. I became financially very well off due to my participation in capitalist economics. I do not see now, nor did I see then, in myself any hint of the sort of corruption you claim is induced in those who participate in it.
Capitalism is no more a cause of improper behaviour in individual capitalists than the Catholic Church is responsible for the behaviour of individual pederasts.
Evil men have gotten into positions of power in every system of economics as well as every social/political system ever devised. Capitalism cannot be unfairly singled out because it too has these same faulty individuals in it.
That capitalism has not, to date, been properly regulated and made to operate in the interests of all the population is the fault of those charged with doing so - our political power structure. Those individuals instead allowed them selves to become corrupted by bribes and power seeking.
That certain capitalists contributed to this state of affairs is undoubtable. These individuals were not properly supervised and controlled by the citizens. That the citizens contributed in no small part by their lack of intimate control of those to whom they assigned roles of authority is also undoubted.
When the citizenry assumes its proper role in managing the nation then, and only then, can the greed of a small number of individuals be held in check.
It also wouldn’t hurt to have any wealth amassed by any individual be returned to the society upon his death instead of being handed over to his personal progeny, who have done nothing to earn it that any other citizen hasn’t also done.
.
Skypixie, I'm going to take your earlier example of automobiles and accidents to illustrate this point more. You said that accidents can be ascribed to bad drivers. Yes, if someone's a bad/inattentive/drug addled driver, then they are much more likely to have an accident and they are much more dangerous than the non-drug addled driver. Individuals do have choices that they make and those choices make a difference. However, if you step back a moment and think outside of the existing framework, it would stand out that having a transportation system that mainly involves steel machines that weigh a 1.5 thousand pounds on average traveling at high speed on not enough roadway relative to the numbers of cars and trucks on them, you can see that the principle cause of accidents isn't driver shortcomings but the intrinsic character of a system of transportation based on vehicles of this kind. The main reason there are so many auto accidents is because of that, not because of poor drivers. Yes, poor drivers is a factor, but if you really want to make a real difference in the number of accidents occurring then you'd have to change the way people get around. Cities that rely mainly upon public transportation don't have the accident rate of cities that rely upon cars and trucks.
This is true of all systems, whether you want to describe them as "sociological" or not. Sociology is the study of human groups and human groups exist in every context, economic and otherwise. So there is no such thing as saying that the Stanford Prison Experiment, for example, is "sociological" and your experiences in the economy is not sociological.
If someone hasn't studied a social science such as sociology or anthropology it's difficult to understand the perspective and the empirical data because one doesn't know what one doesn't know.
There is a difference between saying that there is some absolute correspondence between a system's character and the individuals who function within that system and what I said. I never said that there was an absolute correspondence. What I said what that systems have a system logic. That is what makes them a system. If they didn't have that, then it wouldn't be a system. As I argue in the example above (and we can take any example you want), yes, individuals make choices but they do so within a certain framework. There is certainly a range of responses that given individuals have within any system. Some of them, a minority, resist that system to varying degrees. Some of them are extreme proponents of that system. Most of them, the vast majority, behave in accordance with that system's logic.
Let me give another example that I use in my book.
Let's suppose the new CEO of Walmart decides one day that she's going to change how Walmart operates and that she's going to offer Walmart workers a living wage instead of what they give them now which forces their workers to seek government assistance. Walmart executives actually tell their employees to do this because the company doesn't give them enough in wages and benefits to live decently. So this new CEO decides to change this and furthermore decides that Walmart isn't going to hollow out Main Street anymore and it is going to pay its suppliers more decently so that its suppliers don't have to constantly scour the world looking for the cheapest labor it can find. This CEO takes this bold new proposal to change Walmart's image to the stockholders' annual meeting. What do you suppose would happen at this meeting? They'd want to fire her as insane. But let us suppose that this CEO is extremely convincing and charismatic and convinces the stockholders that this is a good idea. They announce this to the media. What happens once word gets out to Wall Street? The answer is obvious, Walmart stocks would get clobbered.
One shouldn't confuse the fact that there IS variation in what individuals do in any given situation and the fact that individuals are all part of systems that are larger than ourselves at all times. The idea that systems are the way that they are because individuals are what they are is an error and I say that not because I'm personally invested in proving that this is true. It's because it IS true and if it weren't then Margaret Thatcher's famous declaration that there is no such thing as society would be correct. Except that she's wrong. The notion that there is no such thing as society, "there are only individuals and families" is the heart of neoliberal philosophy and it's wrong and destructive.
When one observes that a political and economic system functions in a certain way over time, then the first question one should ask is why. The reason why the political system and economic system function in tandem is not because for hundreds of years people have somehow not going their act together. It's because it's supposed to be that way and it only makes sense that it would be that way: to think that the political system can somehow operate according to a different set of rules than the economy is to misunderstand the relationship between the economic sphere and the political sphere. If you were a billionaire and you liked your wealth more than justice, would you allow "one person, one vote" to decide public policy? You'd be a fool to do so.
Paul:
The B2B customer is right except that he hasn't heard what the neoliberals say and he doesn't get the fundamental nature of capitalism. As I go into in my book, short-term goals are the only goals as far as the big capitalists are concerned. They didn't stop to think that their actions would endanger their whole game. And they were right, it didn't because when they took the economy to the brink of disaster public officials bailed them out. The question isn't how do we reset the game. The question is how do we change the game.
Come, come, my dear sir. Surely you know better than to try to whiz an “argument from authority” past me like that. The fact that you presume that I’ve not studied sociology or anthropology is bad enough. Worse even is to try to offer unsupported statements, based upon your supposed superiority in those fields, to bolster an argument that is without crucial support. It is incumbent upon you to offer evidence of your claims - evidence sir, not intimations of superior knowledge. (I suggest that you would be jumping all over me were I to try such an argument on you.)
Is there anyone alive today in North America who has not been taught that the basic tenet of capitalism is “maximize profits”? Where did that come from? I know of no one who ever sat down and designed capitalism. It grew out of the conditions of the times and places where it originated, itself a difficult thing to pin down.
I would think that somewhere along the way a potential investor either demanded that this precept be the dominant one, so as to protect his investment, or that someone wanting to attract investors offered this as his dominant attitude so as to do so. But it is not carved in stone that capitalism “must” operate solely, or primarily, on this precept. There is plenty of room for “profit taking” to be part of an economic system without it necessarily becoming the be-all and end-all of an economic philosophy.
We have seen many an erudite and intelligent individual try to come to grips with just how, why, and upon what principles capitalism works. The truth is that we really do not understand it all that well. Certainly not well enough to make predictions about whether or not it will “always” lead to greed concepts that will put us into a position of one entity eventually becoming the only game in town as all others will have been absorbed into that one.
Nor have we, at any point that I’m aware of, made a concerted and deliberate effort to alter the maxim “maximize profit” by either removing it from the position of pre-eminence that it occupies or by modifying it by restricting it to only taking such profits as will not do harm to the society which nurtures it.
In recent years I, and you no doubt, have noted the rise of “eco businesses” whose dominant theme is ecological responsibility. There are companies that are thriving very nicely by offering an eco-conscious public products that fit with that priority. I buy such products, even though more expensive at the check-out, because I know that they are less expensive in environmental damage in the long run.
I must say also, sir, that you appear to have started from the conclusion that capitalism is “bad” and, as you do here, you present examples of that “badness”. I note also that mention of the good that capitalism has brought is ignored by you. Not very scientific of you. Especially since you are yourself the beneficiary of many of those products of capitalism.
I have not asked if you are a socialist but some of the assumptions that you make and the conclusions you draw from partial evidence are very similar to what I can see of socialist methods and attitudes.
I cannot help but re-iterate the position that capitalism, as with any economic system, can be “driven” in such a manner that it need not give priority to “maximize profits” but can be directed to “maximize social responsibility” or “maximize employment” or even to “maximize quality of product.”
The vehicle, within its limits of performance, CAN be driven properly; it does not create the mind-set of the driver. Your claim that it is the transport system that is at fault is ludicrous. If you are going to go back to that point it becomes easy to say that no vehicle accidents at all would ever harm anyone if we got rid of all of them entirely!
Again: Capitalism is a tool. What it does is what we make it do. If we use it properly it is a wonderful tool that has, and can continue to, enrich our lives immeasurably. If we continue to use it the way we have done in recent decades, it will continue to harm us. The same is true of any economic system, or, if you prefer, socio-economic system.
.
If you were an auto mechanic and I came to you to find out why my car isn't working, then would it be presumptuous of you to offer me advice based on the fact that automobiles are your stock and trade and that you've studied mechanics and auto systems and have had experience not only personal but that of all of the thousands of other mechanics who over the years have acquired expertise in their area of study? Would I think you were being unreasonable?
Then, why would it be unreasonable of me to tell you that if you haven't studied sociology (which if you have you aren't demonstrating that) or anthropology, then this would explain why you aren't understanding THE basic tenet, the fundamental premise, in those disciplines?
There is a reason why the system of capitalism operates the way that it has for hundreds of years - and why for a period stretching from the New Deal in the 1930s to the end of the 1970s it operated slightly differently. That reason has to do with factors that I discuss in my book (which I believe you have a copy of but either don't agree with it at all or you haven't yet really read it) that have to do with the Cold War and the challenge to capitalism that existed during the Great Depression both nationally and internationally.
I have studied the nature of capitalism, I am drawing upon the work of countless others including people like Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, and Karl Marx, etc. When you say that capitalism has no intrinsic nature and that no one ever said that it did and that there is no intrinsic character to it that is like saying that water doesn't flow to the lowest point and seek the path of least resistance. Of course capitalism has a basic character to it, just as any other system does. To question whether it has a basic character or not and to claim that it doesn't is to claim that systems aren't systems. It makes no sense. Do you not live in a system of your family of origin? Are there not unstated rules that guide how you behave in relation to your parents, your siblings, your children (if you have any)? Are there not unstated rules that nearly everyone follows within the system of the nuclear family? Are there not reasons why people who occupy the same roles and statuses within these family structure tend to act in similar (though not identical) ways? That is an illustration of the nature of the logic of systems.
To complain that capitalism has no real logic to it is to also fly in the face of everyday experience and historical study. Capitalism organizes production on the basis of profit (which by the way isn't the same thing as greed, although they overlap with each other). That is what makes it capitalism and makes it fundamentally different than previous economic systems. Under feudalism production was primarily for use value. Under capitalism production is primarily for exchange value.
If you want to continue to claim that the reason why capitalism has been this way for hundreds of years is because no one until you have figured out that people should behave differently and that the solution is to get people to act "responsibly" and not be so "greedy" and "corrupt" or however you want to put it, then you have the right to do so. But you would be following a dead end. When systems produce certain outcomes, and keep on doing so for centuries, does it not make more sense to acknowledge that maybe the system is doing what it's supposed to do as opposed to somehow it's all an aberration?
Now sir, this is getting ridiculous. I have never argued that capitalism is not operating on a “for profit” basis. What I DO argue is that “for profit” does not necessarily mean “to satisfy greed”.
Nor have I ever argued that capitalism does not have an intrinsic logic to it. Of course it does, and I have said as much; are you reading what I’ve written here or just assuming, from your lofty, scholarly heights, that you “know all about my argument”?
I have also NEVER made the argument that I have somehow discovered anything at all that was never seen or understood prior to my look at them. Are you not getting a bit too socialist in your manner of arguing? You AGAIN appeal to the "argument by authority” (you’d be laughed out of any university level debate for that!) only this time you list a number of authorities. Most of whom disagree with each other!!
I had thought, from the tone of your book (which I’ve had no chance to continue reading) that you were seriously looking into these matters. It seems now that you are merely another socialist hack who will do anything, say anything, and offer any insult to anyone who might question your “socialist-inspired” theories.
I accuse you directly of having begun with a conclusion and built your arguments, premise by premise, upon only that evidence which supports your predetermined conclusion.
Even your analogy breaks down. My father was an auto mechanic and I grew up in a service station (back in the days when they didn’t just sell gas and soda pop). I have seen it happen over and over that a customer’s assessment of what was wrong with his vehicle was more correct than my dad’s “professional” one. Not all the time, certainly, but occasionally. My father always taught me to “never know so much that you fail to listen to others.” A lesson that those who “know” all about capitalism, business, businessmen, etc., from “book larnin’" might take to heart. I have operated a number of businesses - successfully (eventually; there is a definite learning curve).
I need not be a sociology major to understand how to attract business and keep it coming back - my degree in “capitalist sociology” was earned “in the field” instead of behind a desk in a nice warm office provided by funding from a capitalist system I was seeking to denigrate and replace with the monstrosity called socialism.
Of course capitalism has within it opportunities for the unscrupulous to abuse it. Every system does. B U T, I say again, it is up to the socio-political bodies which represent the society to establish the rules under which ANY economic system, chosen by the society, may operate. Water does indeed flow downhill because of its propensity to seek the lowest level. That does not stop us from limiting how it does so and making use of its doing so for our own benefit; see mountainside rice paddy construction in China and elsewhere.
Where you seek to get rid of water (and replace it) because it “can” be destructive to us and our works, I seek to establish control over it so that it can be put to work on our behalf. The potential that capitalism has for destruction is great. We can, speaking of experience, see that it can also be enormously beneficial to us.
And those folks you mentioned? Those knowledgeable ones whom you’ve studied so hard? It may shock you to learn that their books DO NOT contain the total of all economic knowledge on this planet. It is still possible for anyone to have an idea that they’ve overlooked or not even thought of. Innovation often comes from the “non-erudite” as has been shown many times.
.
Please do not mistake rigor in argument for insults. There is nothing personal about this. I'm trying to get at the truth and in the course of that I will speak sharply about things but none of it should be taken to be personally insulting. I have not meant to nor do I believe that I have insulted you. When I said that your insistence that capitalism is not any particular thing and your assertion that systems are not the primary way to understand systems (I'm paraphrasing you) and that if you had studied sociology this would have helped that wasn't meant as an insult. It was meant in the same way that someone who says that they don't believe what someone who does calculus (e.g., the use of the square root of a negative number) knows what they're doing because it doesn't conform to their personal experience.
Forgive me if I missed it, but where is it that you said that you recognized that capitalism has an inherent logic to it? I'm not saying that to be sarcastic, I mean it sincerely. Forgive me if I missed it, but if you did say it please reiterate it again so I can know what it was that you said.
Please indicate where I said anything that could be construed as, “"your assertion that systems are not the primary way to understand systems”” - you added, “"(I'm paraphrasing you)””.
I wonder sir, if your knowledge of what others have written about capitalism, undoubtedly better than mine, has led you to think that reading the writings of others has made you knowledgeable about anything more than, “the writings of those others”. There is an old Jamaican saying that applies here, I think, “He who feels it - knows it.”
If you have not lived as a capitalist, or in the “real world” of competition every day of your life, you will, no doubt, have many fine theories about how it all works. If I too may be allowed to "speak sharply”, - you know shit. You can theorize about the wetness of water until the cows come home but I’ll know more about it than you with my first step into the lake.
I’ll admit a bias against you folks whose “knowledge” of things has all been gleaned from the writings of others. Just as you have patiently explained to poor ol’ stupid me (imagine trying to argue with someone who has your education when I only have a BA) an auto mechanic has knowledge that you and I might not have. I assure you sir, I have worked in construction, also a trade, and seen the results of the scholastic courses taken by pre-apprentice kids who come on the job site thinking they have some “knowledge” gleaned from “book theory.” What a joke! The first thing we needed to do was to “unlearn” them. Then teach them the right way as quickly as possible before they hurt themselves or other men on the job-site.
I recommend that you initiate an enterprise and see how well your actual experience coincides with your lovely theories. The halls of academia are filled with those very bright people who can read copiously on a subject, combine in a novel way the ideas of those writers whose work they’ve read, and earn plaudits from their fellow academics for their “learned papers” when they are published in academic publications. C’mon out here and use your theories to survive in the real world. That will be the true test of them - and of you too!
..................................................................................................
Re: Your added comment.
You said: “"The point I was making is that economists agreed in looking at the nature of capitalism that it is organized according to the principle of profit. That is something virtually all of the economists, no matter what they're other differences of perspective are or were, agree on.””
I have never argued that capitalism is anything other than “organized according to the principle of profit”. What I HAVE said, and repeatedly, is that there is nothing wrong with the “principle of profit” per se. Where things go wonky is when that principle is hijacked by those who change “principle of profit” into “maximize profit” without concern for the damage they might do if they do that in a greedy and selfish manner.
I consider it quite possible for capitalism to operate with honour and principle and for those of lesser morals and ethics to be kept under “heavy manners” by those bodies we have whose job it is to do so.
I suspect that our argument boils down to you thinking that capitalism affects individual capitalists and makes them adopt a “profit is all” philosophy, which they then do their best to have laws passed to facilitate. This amounts to greed of the nth degree. You’re right.
I see nothing wrong them having this concept of capitalism. BUT.... I see a great deal wrong with it being allowed to be implemented. When you state that capitalism “will always do certain things in order to operate in this manner”, you ask me to assume that any form of capitalism where it is held in tight control has never been able to control this greed. Since, to my best knowledge, only the present “American” form of greed capitalism is predominant in the world and it has been allowed to encroach into areas of authority, not properly belonging to it, by those who have been subverted to its cause of greed, I wonder how you can “know” that it cannot be controlled for the greater good?
Your connecting of the social to the economic has validity when those charged with protecting the society become corrupted by those who wish to drain it of all wealth by using a perverted and unscrupulous form of capitalism, namely “Greed Capitalism”. Where the reasonable expectation of profit has morphed into a cancer that attempts to eat the society that fosters capitalism by altering “for profit” to “maximize profit at all costs."
I am convinced that we can excise that cancer and return to a capitalism that is “for profit” again. I’d sure like to see us give it a try before we throw the baby out with the bath-water and jump into the horror of socialism.
.
Thank you for clarifying for me your position:
"What I HAVE said, and repeatedly, is that there is nothing wrong with the 'principle of profit' per se. Where things go wonky is when that principle is hijacked by those who change 'principle of profit' into 'maximize profit' without concern for the damage they might do if they do that in a greedy and selfish manner."
As a preface to my further discussion of your point, I do need to say something about the tone of your comments.
To say that I don't know "shit" and to make statements about the fact that I am somehow living some isolated and comfortable existence in the ivory tower and that therefore I only have book learning, is a stereotype of me that doesn't conform to my life, my experiences, or to my views. I will allow that there certainly ARE people who are exclusively book-learned and who don't know what they have studied through books very well or who are in fact rather ignorant about what they claim to know. You don't really know me well enough to say these things about me. And they're not true. So please stop with the insults and stereotypes.
I would also like to say that my analogy about auto mechanics still holds true. The fact that sometimes experts are wrong is of course true. But my point in the example was that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with someone who does have expertise (as your father did about automobiles) to make statements about cars with some confidence of what they're talking about. I certainly don't try to fix most problems on my car because I know that there are people with the expertise and experience who can do a much better job than I can. That is all. To claim that sociology has nothing to teach us, which is essentially what your objection was to my saying that if you were to take a sociology class that you'd understand what I'm talking about, is not and wasn't intended as some kind of aspersion upon you but a statement no different than my saying that an auto mechanic knows a lot more about how a car works than I do since I've not studied cars and worked on cars the way they have.
Now, as to the point about the intrinsic nature of capitalism. You say that capitalism is fundamentally good and it only goes wrong when some capitalists become greedy. Please realize here that by making the value judgment that you do, which is that you believe very firmly and vociferously that capitalism is fundamentally good, that this is a value judgment that makes it hard for you to entertain a contrary view that I'm coming from: that capitalism isn't fundamentally good and isn't in its fundamental nature what you believe it to be. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean either that a) I'm not listening to you, b) discounting what you say, c) insulting you, or d) that I'm an idiot because I don't see it the way that you do. It means simply that I have a different view on this and that my different view has to do with both my reasoning process, my experience and study, and my values. People, as I'm sure you've noticed, have different value systems. You have an investment in believing that capitalism should be preserved and I don't. I cannot convince you that your values are wrong nor can you convince me that my values are wrong. Values cannot be subjected to proof and disproof. Nobody can reasonably tell someone that their values are wrong. This is something that I talk about in my book.
Values reflect a stance that people take in relation to what they think is most important and what is less important. To use an example: there are children who delight in torturing animals. Children who are like this are very likely to become serial murderers. This is a pattern that has been observed repeatedly. But as bad as this is, we cannot say that children who delight in torturing animals are wrong in their values. We can say that we disagree with those values and regard them as repugnant, but we cannot prove that their values are wrong.
To settle the argument we are having about the fundamental nature of capitalism, in other words, isn't possible. No matter what evidence, historical and theoretical, concrete or abstract, that I offer you will not agree with me. That is because we are having a disagreement about values. I would point you to my book which you will find a book length argument about why I take the positions that I take and why I am arguing that capitalism's fundamental nature is the pursuit of profit AND that this means that while there is a spectrum of the types of behavior on the part of capitalists, that the very big capitalists, precisely because they are in command of such gigantic assets, MUST behave as ruthless and greedy corporations or else they will be swallowed up by their competitors. That was the point of my thought experiment about Walmart. The stock market is where finance capital meets internationally to determine where money is going to flow. If you were to talk to market traders and tell them that they should not be greedy and that we should exercise some restraint over that, what do you think they would tell you if they were being entirely honest with you? What do you think the record of the behavior of Goldman Sachs et al tells us? And if you reaction to that suggestion is to say that the people to talk to would be the politicians who need to exercise control over the corporations and over finance capital, what have their actions been over the last few decades? And if your response to that is to say that well, we need better politicians in office, then I would point you to Chapter Five in my book where I go into great depth and examine from multiple angles from the historical evidence and for theoretical reasons why that will not work and why it hasn't worked. So that is what I would suggest. Read the whole book of mine that you bought and I am pleased that you bought it. Then see what you think. But know that as you approach it that you and I are coming from different values and that values cannot be proven or disproven.
The subject of most of the first part your reply needs no further comment by me.
The part that interests me is where you say that I consider capitalism fundamentally good. I agree that what I said can easily be taken that way; I actually meant that when given only the two choices - good or bad - I would opt for good. In fact, I doubt that any economic system is fundamentally either “good” or “bad” in any moralistic sense. In terms of economics a system is neutral until it is taken up and used. If it is mis-used and does harm we tend to note the harm it has done while ignoring the fact that it is being mis-used. We tend to call that system “bad” in such cases.
You appear to make the claim that capitalism “when operating at its best, will force corporations into a "maximize profit at all costs” position and therefore it is capitalism itself that is at the root of any harmful results of it being the system used.” This position assumes that only one form of capitalism is possible; the kind we now have.
I suggest that it is possible to “order up” various options, just as one does when purchasing a new car, and have your capitalist system designed to meet those criteria. I further suggest that this is exactly what greedy folks have done to the present system. They have, through various honest and dishonest means “ordered up” laws and loop-holes in laws that allow them to satisfy their greed.
I can agree wholeheartedly that this form of capitalism where competition is carried to ridiculous, harmful extremes, is not very good for the people who live within that system.
However, I also contend that the “greed” form of capitalism is not the only possible form it can take. I suggest that we can design, or “order up” from those who have the ability to design such things, a form of capitalism that operates on another premise than greed.
I also think that if we had another system completely - say socialism - we could expect the same greedy individuals to try to pervert it to their advantage. Most socialists that I’ve talked with seem very confident that socialism can keep these greedy people in check so that the system can be operated for the benefit of the population. Examples abound, however, of that not being the case. Few would argue that Stalin was benevolent in his dictatorship. Same with the “Gang of Four” in China or Pol Pot in southeast Asia.
Both economic systems have the same problem with greedy, power-hungry people trying their best to use the system to put their own interests ahead of those of all others. I cannot think that all systems are “bad” when this sort of person gets into a position of power and/or wealth. I must conclude that the system is a tool - a neutral tool, if you will - that can be used properly or mis-used no matter what system is employed.
It is this mis-use that must be prevented.
.
If you were to do a close and thorough study of capitalism over time throughout its existence, you would, I suspect, come to a different conclusion about the fundamental nature of capitalism. Perhaps not, but at least you'd learn things about it that might surprise you and cause you to reconsider your assumptions and conclusions. Again, you can read my book for a more developed and thorough treatment of these questions. Check out the comments, for example, of Professor of Economics, L. Randall Wray, no Marxist, in what has happened to finance capital in recent years and why it has happened who I cite in my book. He does not speak of it as being hijacked. It is, instead, the logical working out of a situation in which capitalism has no rivals in the world (This last point is not something that he says. It is, however, the context in which what he observes is happening.)
The difficulty with those who’ve “examined" capitalism is that they’ve only examined the greed form of it. In doing that, they’ve arrived at certain conclusions about it that they apply to any and all possible forms - not, I think by intent, just by not even having considered that there can be other, differently oriented forms. I think that you too have made the assumption that “capitalism is capitalism” and made no allowances for it to take different forms. This is odd since I’m quite sure that you are fully aware that socialism can take different forms, as can communism, etc., etc.
Perhaps not so odd, if you grew up or lived a long time in the U.S., since their form of capitalism is, to them, the only form of it that can exist (aside from the laissez faire form espoused by most libertarians). Most Americans are astonished at the concept that there can be any other form of capitalism than the one they are accustomed to. Many will even deny that this could be possible!
Heck, most Americans have capitalism all mixed up with democracy as well! A “mix up” deliberately fostered by those who see personal advantage in retaining this form of capitalism since it has either already rewarded them very nicely indeed or they expect it to do so.
I suggest to you that in a form of capitalist system where bribery cannot happen, the laws and regulations CAN indeed control the worst aspects of capitalism. Since the present political system is one that requires candidates for public office to “run” a campaign - an expensive campaign - to be elected, it is an open invitation for those who can afford it to “buy” wanna-be politicians and even whole political parties. Were we to do away with political parties and career politicians, we could reduce such bribery drastically. Forbidding lobbying - on pain of death - would also be of great help in stopping the corruption of government individuals and bodies.
I also suggest that, were we to all be prepared to play a role, for a short few years of our lives, in being part of the managing of our society, chosen by lot instead of elected, we could do much to enhance democracy as well as severely reduce corruption in the governing bodies and individuals.
.
Dennis, I am carrying on this conversation with you, not because I want to know what Marx, or Keynes, or Mill, or any other person thinks about this matter, but because I want to know what YOU think of it. Not what you have memorized of other people’s work, not what you think they thought, but YOUR personal ideas. The ones that are not built upon the thoughts of others but upon your own thinking. Yeah, I know. In modern academia, “that’s not the way it is done”. You are supposed to read and understand what many others have thought and said and synthesize their thoughts into an “original” paper or book.
Heck “Prof”, I can read those books too - and may have read more than you suppose that I have. I am constantly running into quotes that people who write cite in their writing. One can often gain a good understanding of what someone has written, over time, by means of the quotes and the examinations of their writings by others who’ve spent much time studying them.
One of the things that is slowing my reading of your book is that I must constantly check out those you cite (and you cite a LOT of other writers) to see that you are not quoting them out of context or inappropriately. I also am still waiting to get a scent of your thoughts - not those of others. So far I’m having little success at that.
.
In Chapter One of my book you'll see that I argue that ideas are not entirely novel to individuals since if they were, then it wouldn't be possible to group all opinions in a limited set of a range of ideas. I show why it makes sense to understand the relationship between individuals (and their ideas) and the group (and its ideas and interests as a group) with each of them being in an organic relationship to each other. Inventions, for example, are not bolts out of the blue but the next logical step in the progression of technical and scientific innovation for the whole society. Even genuises such as Einstein and Shakespeare were part of a group and they could only do what they did because of that movement that they were part of and that they drew from. In turn leaders in various arenas help to advance the interests and sights of the groups that they are part of.
So your desire to see what I think is not something that you're going to get, anymore than your ideas that you think are only your ideas are novel.
Science, which I'm part of as a social scientist, operates through collectivity. That is why academics cite other people's works, not because we're trying to hide behind other people's ideas or because we have no ideas of our own, but because what we do is all based upon what others have done before us. That is how societies operate and how humanity has been able to survive - through drawing upon and sharing with each other what others have done.
As for what your views on capitalism are, I'm not going to comment on it further than I have in this thread and what I say in my original post and instead refer you to my book. That is why I wrote a whole book because it isn't possible to really get into things in shorter works the way that one can in a book.
......one who DOES think - and DOES have ‘new’ and original ideas.....
.
That was not a capitulation. I'm sorry that you can't understand what I'm saying. I think perhaps it might be too hard for you to think from any other perspective than the one that you are accustomed to you and when confronted with a sufficiently different approach, you misunderstand it.
I was speaking to your mistaken notion that someone can have their OWN ideas as if this was something that anyone possesses like a jewel that no one else has ever seen. That is why I said you're not going to hear what I think because no one's got entirely unique ideas, not you, not me, not anyone.
If you want to understand, on the other hand, what someone such as myself, since you're so interested in MY ideas, thinks since no one is identical to someone else as we all are a unique amalgam of traits yet are still part of the legacy of those who came before us and those who influence us in our lifetimes: it's easy enough to do. Look at what they say. Look at how they say it. Look at what they leave out and what they put in. If you're bright enough, you can figure out what someone thinks that way. The notion that you CAN'T figure out what I think because I cite other people's work shows that you don't understand how social knowledge comes into being in the first place. You think that YOUR ideas are ONLY YOURS. That's not how things work in society or in history. Your views match, in that sense at least, the views of the neoliberals who hold to the idea that individualism is everything. It's a mistake and it's a major theme in my book. If you don't see that in my book then you're going to have a terrible time really getting the argument because it's fundamental to the entire book.
You persist in making the same error. Because I say that I can think and can have new ideas, you jump to the conclusion that I’ve said that ALL my thinking is new and original - or t least you attempt to put those words into my mouth. If you have education enough to READ WHAT I SAID, instead of assuming you know what I “mean” by what I said, you might see the difference - or is “seeing the difference” what you are running from?
I am sorry to say that I find your intellectual dishonesty to be unworthy of any more of my time. I’m sorry I bought your book and even sorrier that I thought you might have a fresh NEW outlook on things. Oh! That’s right you CAN’T have anything new or fresh to say because it’s all been said before by others; all you can to is regurgitate.
You’re so busy trying to put me down because I don’t knowingly regurgitate that you’ve ended up making a complete ass of yourself here.
I wonder if you think mankind came into being with all thoughts already thought and all ideas already old hat. Can you not see that every idea, every thought, had an origin at some time? Who was the first to think of anything? Your silly claim that all comes from the society or the past is not even worth refuting.
I may have had the same thoughts as anyone/everyone else for all of my 70 years of life EXCEPT for ten minutes 40 years ago - or two minutes last week. So might you if you’ve lived that long or could stop regurgitating long enough. I may not be able to quantify exactly how many or when I have had original thoughts and neither might you, but I’ll bet that both of us have had them at some point(s) in our lives.
I am sad that you are so locked in to socialist clap-trap that you’ll only accept ideas compatible to it. All others are, to you, rigid adherence to that weird notion you have about what capitalism “must be” in order for your socialist ideas to make any sense. All different ideas must, of necessity, therefore be held by people who cannot clearly see your wonderful socialist paradise in your writing. This, in the usual socialist manner, means that no thoughts or ideas put forth by others need be considered by you as having any value at all - you know all of them already and rejected them before I, or anyone else could even have thought of them.
That anyone could or would try to think of anything outside or your “known concepts” indicates to you that they “need to study” those fields that you’ve studied so as to become indoctrinated in the same style of “thought” that you’ve adopted - it couldn’t be original - original can’t happen.
I do not care one whit if I come up with an idea that someone else has had a thousand years ago - or last week. If I did not know of it before I thought of it then I invented it as surely as did anyone who came up with it independently. The only difference is that I would not have been its first inventor. You have repeatedly insisted that I have had no new ideas. You are wrong. Every idea that anyone has, which they come up with on their own, is new to them and legitimately “theirs.” I have never claimed to be the sole owner of any idea; I claim that I thought up my ideas on my own because that is exactly what I did; and without benefit of your self described education and erudition too! Imagine that! Well, no. I suppose you can’t imagine that, at all.
What a shame.
Your blog - your last word. I’ll not be back. Bye.
I am sorry that you don't understand what I'm saying. Perhaps someday when you're not feeling so pugnacious you'll come back and look at it all again. I also don't understand why you have felt it necessary to hurl insults so much, such as this latest one that I'm intellectually dishonest. Why do you find it necessary to argue by insults rather than actually listening to what the other person is saying and thinking it through? When I suggested that if you had studied sociology or anthropology that you'd understand better the fundamental point that makes those disciplines disciplines in the first place, you lost your temper and have been resentful ever since, misinterpreting what I said right and left.
I will try to state this again in the hopes that you might be open to hearing it: when you said that you didn't care for the fact that in my book I cite the works of other people and that you wanted to hear WHAT I THOUGHT what you showed in making that statement was that you don't understand the fact that what I think is all over the book. That should be apparent to anyone. Who out there can't figure out that when someone writes a book that their personal views are everywhere you look? One cannot help but express one's opinions by the way that we choose to express ourselves. The fact that you regard the works of others who I cite in the book as somehow impeding your ability to understand what I think indicates that you don't understand how knowledge is developed. You think, instead, that it's intellectual dishonesty. If that's true, then you're going to react badly to a whole lot of what has been written over the ages by others since what people have done, whether they are honest and open about it or not, is draw upon what others have done. Individuals can and DO add to the collective knowledge of society, just as leaders help groups advance further. If I didn't think this than why would I write a book in the first place? This point about the relationship between the individual and the group and between freedom and necessity I develop at considerable length in my book. We could have a really interesting conversation about the meaning and implications of that fact, but you'd first have to be open to understanding how that view is very different than what you are accustomed to. Evidently, your discomfort with it is so great that you find it necessary to have fits over it and to impugn me. That's too bad.