[SpiderMonkey]

In a recent speech, President Bush stated 'democratic capitalism (sic) is the best system'. The fact he had to state this is a victory for the left and for rationality itself.

Only a year or two ago, the koans of the neoliberals were accepted as scientific fact by the majority of western intellectuals and most western citizens. The fact Bush is having to reaffirm these articles of faith shows they are being widely questioned, and that what he calls 'democratic capitalism' (a contradiction in terms; private ownership of capital precludes democracy in its traditional sense) is on the ropes, and needed to public justify itself.

Nationalisation of banks has reversed the almost religious pursuit of privatisation in English-speaking countries, and people are openly asking "If the government will step in to look after banking institutions, why can't they do the same for institutions that matter more to ordinary people?". It is hard for them to bail out the banks with one hand and say basic utilities should be run for profit on the other.

The marketeers are desperate, and scrabbling for some reason why their ultimate bugbear of 'the state', i.e. the part of the state they don't depend on to enforce their property paradigm and their contracts, must be responsible for what has happened. They are failing to convince either the public or mainstream intellectuals, and thus by shouting their theories more loudly are only discrediting themselves more.

Make no mistake; we still live in an unjust society and that will not change soon - but there is a shift in culture underway. Ordinary people unconcerned with economics and politics are starting to sit up and take notice; and it has our leaders scared.

[ingliz]

Why is it a good time to be 'Red'? Social democracy is not socialism; it's "capitalism with a human face". Social democrats are just capitalists touting their version of an improved capitalism; Nothing has changed, the system remains essentially the same.

[SpiderMonkey]

Which I said.

What I am referring to is the cultural shift; the capitalist narrative has lost a degree of hold on the minds of the population, because you can't express the supremacy of private capital over public whilst throwing taxpayer money at failing banks...

[Potemkin]

The internal contradictions of capitalism are coming home to roost....

[Kasu]

George W. Bush

Despite corrections in the market place and instances of abuse, democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised. It has unleashed the talents and productivity and entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens. It has made this country the best place in the world to invest and do business.

I also noticed something about this. Why does he feel the need to point out that democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised? Is we worried that there will be a strong leftist anti-capitalist movement, and that the majority of Americans are beginning to lose faith in Capitalism? Maybe.

The night is darkest before the dawn.

[Clausewitz]

The internal contradictions of capitalism are coming home to roost....

I can't help but recall how often people have thought this before - in 1917-1919, in 1929, or in 1973-1979.

Or for that matter, in 1987 or 2001, when people gleefully compared the S&L crisis and the 87 crash to 1929, or dot-coms to radio stocks. There's a cottage industry in prophesying doom.

Yet the responses to the Great Depression were social democracy or fascism. The responses to the 1973-1979 situation were...Reagan and Thatcher.

And right now I hear a lot more people bitching about Ron Paul than even Nader, so...I wouldn't count your chickens.

[Abood]

Unfortunately, the trickle down effect theory is still shouted out by the economic elite and many of the public still swallow it. And this whole bail-out can be easily seen in that light; that it would actually benefit everyone at the end of the day. But the irony of all is that the champions of the free market are now saying we should intervene to save the economy. Whatever happened to being a risk-taker? You're not taking any risks if every time you make losses you get compensated.

Could it be that without this intervention, the economy would collapse and the world would enter another Great Depression? Is it possible that the intervention is only to save the legitimacy of capitalism and the free market, albeit maybe a bit less free this time? Will people forget about this in a few decades and continue talking about an absolutely free, individualistic market? It's an interesting period we're living in.

[Arina]

(For example) You've got high school taxes in the USA - the government does not seem to care about just education. But. You pay the scientists from abroad - the Russians educated for free in the Soviet Union ... . They just flew to the US after the collapse of the SU. Who could get angry about that and what did he already do to you?

[Eauz]

I'm not sure if it is a good time to be a red, so much as it is a great time to be a reformist. Even though economic philosophy has been moving towards free markets, the markets themselves have been fairly well regulated by government. I think what this is mostly going to do is help make the argument for reformism throughout the future a key to success of our development and apparent progress.

However, with the recent rejection by congress of the bailout, it should be interesting to see what issues are brought about. We might see capital tighten its straps on funds and fall into a worse depression, one never knows. However, I doubt the issue will get there so quickly, since the government still has an interest in stability of the population.

[Red Star]

Exactly as Eauz said, this is an excellent time for reformism. Note the Tories for example, in Britain. Despite calls by people like Boris Johnson blaming the borrowers and saying that "you can't nationalise your way out of recession" or something to that effect, David Cameron is siding with the "ordinary people" as against the super rich. It is populism on the back of reformism. It is an excellent for such parties and political movements that can be seen as stepping into the breach.

[SpiderMonkey]

I don't see it as being any better a time for reformism at all; it might well go that way but it is far from certain.

Previous economic downturns did spawn revolutionary as well as reformist movements. They were mostly crushed by force, but that doesn't devalue them.

[ingliz]

The only revolutionary movement with any base is the far right in the UK. If it came to revolution the fascists are better organised and better led, their message is simple and populist. The revolutionary socialists are a spent force since the 80's and could raise little support on the street.

[Red Star]

I agree that it is a problem of organisation. Also, in the popular mind the struggle is between "unregulated" capitalism and "regulated" capitalism. The discourse is dominated by predictions that we see the end of capitalism as it has been over the past 20 years. It seems that the other side - capitalism may have run its course - is of course not advocated now that 1989-1991 has happened and most leftist organisations' publicity is marginal and non-existent.

[M-Mann]

It could perhaps be a good time to be red simply in the fact that we can observe the hypocrisy of the formerly "de-regulate" supporters now scrambling and striving to get government intervention on the now nosediving economy.

[Vera Politica]

I agree with Eauz, although I wouldn't go so far as to say that there has been any effective government regulation. The regulation has staved off, for the last three generation, any significant uprisings on the part of the working class. It was also effective in combating and silencing the labor movements of the early to mid 20th century. However it failed on an epic scale when considering the very function of capitalism.

[Lazy Faire]

The marketeers are desperate, and scrabbling for some reason why their ultimate bugbear of 'the state', i.e. the part of the state they don't depend on to enforce their property paradigm and their contracts, must be responsible for what has happened. They are failing to convince either the public or mainstream intellectuals, and thus by shouting their theories more loudly are only discrediting themselves more.

I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell to anyone who thinks that the state will protect private property rights. It has neither legal nor practical incentives to do so.

But hey, I guess that the government giving incentives to banks to make risky loans and expanding credit never happened because the public and intellectuals don't accept it.

[Vera Politica]

I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell to anyone who thinks that the state will protect private property rights. It has neither legal nor practical incentives to do so.

What is a 'legal incentive'?
The legal distinction between, say, public or private property is still a protection of private property - just that it may be the case that the government has nationalized much of the property. This is still a case of legally protecting private property - certainly if the administration has adopted corporatist policies. This rapid centralization is a 'natural' outcome of capitalist as it moves from less to more regulation in order to stave off its collapse.

[Lazy Faire]

What is a 'legal incentive'?

A law. There are no laws that say that the government must protect private property. They can choose not to if they don't feel like it.

The legal distinction between, say, public or private property is still a protection of private property - just that it may be the case that the government has nationalized much of the property. This is still a case of legally protecting private property - certainly if the administration has adopted corporatist policies. This rapid centralization is a 'natural' outcome of capitalist as it moves from less to more regulation in order to stave off its collapse.

Well, if you enforce "public property rights" you're infringing on private property rights, so it kind of defeats the purpose. If the government says people aren't allowed to go onto land that they don't actually own, they are disallowing people from using land that they have every right to use under private property rights.

Otherwise, I'd agree with you. Assuming, of course, that "capitalist" refers to the quasi-government, quasi-market system that we've got right now.

[Vera Politica]

Ok, when talking strictly about law leave the value-laden language about 'incentives' out. It was confusing.

What I am saying when I refer to some 'abstract capitalist' is that property becomes nationalized and can be deemed, say, 'public'. However, individuals may still be taxed, they must still rent and must still work for a wage. This notes a distcintion between what is traditionally used (at least in socialist spheres) as 'communal property' and 'public property'.

The distinction is really made dependent on what type of economy one is under. So for our sakes I suggest we use 'public property' when noting nationalization under a capitalist economy system and 'communal property' as nationalization under a socialist economic system.
Nationalization can occur under either or system. The false argument you have made or assume is that 'nationalization' somehow entails 'socialism'. This is blatantly false and presumes a very warped misunderstanding of what socialism actually is.

[Lazy Faire]

Whoa now, I never said that I believe that a quasi-government, quasi-market system is socialist. I try to avoid using words that have about a billion different definitions unless I at least attempt to define solid definitions with the people I am discussing them with.

"Socialist" seems to be able to mean anything from the USSR to voluntary hippie communes. If you're talking more along the lines of the latter definition, you can count me as a socialist. "Fascist" or "corporatist" would be far better terms to describe the system we've got now, anyways.