Capitalism: A Success or Heavily Marketed Failure? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15178660
From my perspective we've had fifty years of capitalism taking over various systems of Western society... particularly in the USA. Capitalists have been responsible for the decline of unions... whether politically, via Reaganism for example, or simply by pursuing automation or sending jobs to countries with lower labor costs. During this same fifty years the USA has spent incredible amounts of money... not so much on war... but on war profiteering, because that helped capitalists and distilled remarkable power into their hands.

In this same period of time, we've watched our prison population explode to the highest of any country in the world... including China which has over three times the USA population. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated. Free country?

{shrugs}

http://www.prisonstudies.org

Our standing in the world has slipped in a variety of measurable ways. The climate damage we've done in just the past fifty years is catastrophic. We are the country with the most mass murders, while other more positive social indicators slowly slip out of the first tier.

Much of this damage done escapes business's bottom line... these costs are externalized... even socialized, not just on the West but on the entire world. Business simply would not be profitable if it were required to pay for the ecological damage it does.

Our politics are mired in recrimination and deceit, both in the base and at the national level. But leadership are remarkably united in taking care of a relative few corporations and individuals who donate hugely to both sides.

In the past year or so, we've had to resort to giving our citizen's "stimulus checks", just to keep capitalism and the social order intact. Cruise lines and race horse owners have queued up to the trough to get their share of the trillions disbursed. The Federal Reserve has declared itself willing to make good all losses in the stock market by creating money and disbursing it to large banks and corporations.

And all of this has happened in a country with two firmly capitalist parties... all fiction of the Democrats being Leftists aside.

Typically, I lay the blame for climate change on business activity in general, and tend to dismiss those who want to defend capitalism specifically by claiming that the USA has some alternate more abusive form of capitalism that makes it not really capitalist at all. I've never bought this notion and to me it doesn't really matter... because I see the main problem resting with profit seeking market systems in general... not some particular branding of them.

But I'm interested in the opinions of others who count themselves as capitalists and supporters of profit seeking.

Do you think Capitalism has been a success? Is it responsible for the ills that currently beset and divide us?

Because in my view, unless we start treating this planet more like a life boat and less like a strip mine... our civilization is likely to be gone within a hundred years.

In my view, we need to start producing and distributing by need, not greed... as if we are all in a lifeboat.
#15178751
PataOneil wrote:
Typically, I lay the blame for climate change on business activity in general, and tend to dismiss those who want to defend capitalism specifically by claiming that the USA has some alternate more abusive form of capitalism that makes it not really capitalist at all.



Good rundown, and I'd just like to point out that capitalism quickly outlives its usefulness once it's accomplished its 'primitive accumulation' function, which historically happened early on in colonialist history (though this mechanism *continues* to operate, incessantly, even requiring *destruction* and *artificial scarcity* if empirical scarcity no longer exists).



The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signaled the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production.



The different moments of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more or less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England. In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the state, the concentrated and organized force of society, to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive ... of_capital
#15178758
I wouldn't disagree with anything you have written @PataOneil. However when did capitalism start for you? Capitalism is older than 50 years, and many of the ills you wrote about could well be solved in its framework anyway. The problem is that it would require a political desire to enact change as the Bourgeois aren't going to tax themselves in order to redistribute their wealth are they.
#15178759
B0ycey wrote:I would disagree with anything you have written @PataOneil. However when did capitalism start for you? Capitalism is older than 50 years, and many of the ills you wrote about could well be solved in its framework anyway. The problem is that it would require a political desire to enact change as the Bourgeois aren't going to tax themselves in order to redistribute their wealth are they.


From my perspective, the New Deal and unions checked Capitalism for several decades. And you are correct, Capitalism has been gaining in strength since the end of the Civil war. Prior to that the USA was variously a slave economy, mostly in the South and a mercantile economy in the North. But FDR created a nation... in order to save Capitalism... that was profoundly socialist. Then over time Capitalists managed to undercut most of these programs/laws by lowering their taxes through lobbying, which had the effect of defunding many of the New Deal programs... and once again resources began pooling at the top.

Remember "starve the government until is small enough to drown in a bathtub"? That's a government that serves a small, rich constituency. Mostly arms merchants and financial institutions in the case of the USA.

The key to this advancement of Capitalism has been a litany of SCOTUS decisions based on the 14th amendment that recognize Corporations as people. Most of these laws have been enacted since the Civil War. The creation of limited liability subchapter S corporations in 1958 had a profound effect as did Reagan's attack on unions, supported by the media propaganda against unions from that time forward... and rich business people corrupting union leaders. In the late seventies rich individuals began consolidating power in media companies until today six corporations control the bulk of our media. This has essentially killed the fourth estate by forcing it to pander to Corporate interests. Leading to any number of abuses, like lying us into wars and the demolition of public approval of unions. Citizens United was in my view a killing stroke to democracy and ensured that corporations could legitimately buy our public officials.

The idea that capitalists could enact change to share resources is of course theoretically possible. In practice they don't, after all such people are not motivated by either the product/s they sell or community spirit... they are quite openly motivated by greed. So instead of a wise disbursement of resources we see a steady concentration of wealth as production and distribution consolidates under the idea of profit taking.

The political desire for change even with the New Deal only came when FDR convinced oligarchs that they'd lose everything if they did not agree to pay for a variety of social programs. That period taught the rich that they couldn't allow unions and were vulnerable to the concerns of labor. So they took the time of the New Deal to deal with such problems by corrupting unions, our public servants, the media and the courts. And began to throw a lot of effort into automation. Keep in mind that all this was done, at least since the fifties while knowing they were destroying the environment in their rush to convert community wealth to riches for themselves.

Of course all of these things have simply recreated the problems that came along with the roaring twenties which led to the Great Depression. The difference now is that the huge pools of labor necessary in the mid twentieth century are no longer necessary due to automation and the movement of the USA from a production oriented economy to a finance oriented economy.

Unfortunately for Capitalists they are left with the huge populations they demanded as labor, but with no way to actually employ them. Thus the need for mass incarceration, and huge police and military forces.

Like I said above, Capitalists will do their level best to get the entire society that creates them to serve the Capitalist's interests instead of the broader interests of society. Thus they tend to destroy the society, usually quite intentionally through divide and conquer tactics, in their attempts to gain more riches. This is a weakness not just of Capitalism, but all market systems... even Communist systems like Soviet Russia... which still had it's resource privileged elites. Which is why I used the term sociopath to describe the rich. They tend to destroy society in order to enrich themselves at society's expense.
#15178760
Again @PataOneil, I wouldn't disagree with any of this. And given how the invisible hand works, the whole point is to act in a way to enhance your own self interest so sure people will act in a way that is against the collective interest which means we would have to be controlled by the state somehow to counter that.

Also it is difficult for me to side with Capitalism at all given I have been clearly seeing the contradictions it is creating for a while now and that these contradictions have been breaking society down since Reagan - and perhaps this has been more noticeable for everyone since 2008. But given society has enhanced greatly every year since the Industrial Revolution and wealth creation along with social reform, education, infrastructure, health, technology and luxury with it, to say Capitalism was a failure would be to suggest that feudalism was better. Like Socialism, which I can only assume you want more of, Capitalism isn't perfect. But it would take a hard critic to say it hasn't improved society and really the question is how can we improve on it today so nobody gets left behind? And given you mentioned FDR, who you could argue was faced with a worse economic situation than today, as he managed to solve it by bringing in a social program and more government involvement in the Capitalist market, I would say the solution should be obvious. Social Democracy. In other words Capitalism can only survive with more Keynes and less Heyek.
Last edited by B0ycey on 27 Jun 2021 19:15, edited 2 times in total.
#15178761
ckaihatsu wrote:Good rundown, and I'd just like to point out that capitalism quickly outlives its usefulness once it's accomplished its 'primitive accumulation' function, which historically happened early on in colonialist history (though this mechanism *continues* to operate, incessantly, even requiring *destruction* and *artificial scarcity* if empirical scarcity no longer exists).



I agree, market systems are great for exploiting new territory. Which is why they were developed at about the midpoint of the history of civilization. And as long as there is easy obtained new territory to expand into, they work wonderfully well at building wealth... though abysmally at distributing it.

This latter flaw and the lack of new territory that can easily be exploited is a major reason why such systems are failing now. We need a new form of economy... one that shrinks to a sustainable equilibrium point and then holds there... while allowing steady improvement of quality of life, through the advancement of knowledge and technology.

Market systems simply are not designed to do that.
#15178766
B0ycey wrote:Again @PataOneil, I wouldn't disagree with any of this. And given how the invisible hand works, the whole point is to act in a way to enhance your own self interest so sure people will act in a way that is against the collective interest which means we would have to be controlled by the state somehow to counter that. Also it is difficult for me to side with Capitalism at all given it has been clear of the contradictions it is creatinv is breaking society down since Reagan and perhaps more noticeable since 2008. But given society has enhanced greatly every year since the Industrial Revolution and wealth creation along with social reform, education, infrastructure, health, technology and luxury with it, to say Capitalism was a failure would be to suggest that feudalism was better. Like Socialism, which I can only assume you want more of, Capitalism isn't perfect. But it would take a hard critic to say it hasn't improved society and really the question is how can we improve on it today so nobody gets left behind? And given you mentioned FDR, who you could argue was faced with a worse economic situation than today, as he managed to solve it by bringing in a social program and more government involvement in the Capitalist market, I would say the solution should be obvious. Social Democracy. In other words Capitalism can only survive with more Keynes and less Heyek.



The invisible hand is trained into people's that are civilized. This is largely due to specialization and the advantage specialization gives individuals toward self empowerment. But this kind of ethic is learned, not inherent. We have 188.000 years of a human ethic that is based in community living. And we actually are still highly dependent upon community. Even though the hidden hand ethic largely contradicts the human ethic. Thus the problem...

So for example, how many people do you know that have enough grasp of human knowledge, not to mention time, to start with only their hands and from there build themselves a fully featured pickup truck?

Human knowledge was gained in community and requires a community to exploit.

No one is really an "I"... everyone is a "We"... our use of knowledge, language and history dictates this.

Concerning you comment on capitalism being better or worse than feudalism.

{points at climate change}

Feudalism literally could not have accomplished that. And in my view, it's not really Capitalism that is the problem... it's the market systems that capitalism uses. Capitalism is largely a brand name for a particular philosophy of markets. One that is flawed in it's definition because it depends on free markets... which simply do not exist in the real world.

We can say of Capitalism and market systems in general that they have in some ways improved society. But not if it all ends in the destruction of the environment that sustain such systems. I like to compare it to the heroin user. Sure it might feel great to become addicted to heroin... especially at first, but if it kills the user, that user has not adopted a survival strategy that is effective.

The other problem you bring up, that of equitably sharing resources in a stable way using market systems. We don't actually have any sustained examples of that. Typically what happens is that the individuals who are more concerned with "winning" than community gain power over resources and then use that power to influence society in their interests. Typically myths are a much stronger way to create stability than markets systems. Which is why market systems are so strongly informed by myth and belief.

Sure FDR created more equity, but left the markets in place, creating a means for greedy individuals to undercut all the programs that saved the markets in the first place. This is a result of the fact that profit-takers care about taking profit, not about nationalism, or community health and safety... or really even the product/s they produce and distribute.

This fact is one of the reason why I believe that civilization itself is a fatally flawed system... at least the way we do it now.

Not a big fan of socialism, precisely because all known forms of it count on markets to operate. And in my view it is markets, not the brand name philosophy of the market that is the actual problem.

As far as I know we don't have an economic system that is long term stable while maintaining a sustainable and equitable life for the individuals involved.

There is a possibility that general automation... wherein machines and computers provide the labor, and the solar system provides the resources... will usher in a new form of economy that breaks the cycle of failure inherent in the current forms. But we haven't developed it yet.

I do find it an interesting idea that market economies are kick starters to a better form of economy in such a way. But only if the better form can be developed and sustained. It is also interesting to note that market economies are pushing the very automation which could replace them... and the rich people who benefit from them.

Kind of hard to sell products made completely with machine labor... because no one would have the money gained from labor to buy such products.

Interesting times...
#15178769
B0ycey wrote:
I would say the solution should be obvious. Social Democracy. In other words Capitalism can only survive with more Keynes and less Heyek.



Any comment on *military Keynesianism* -- ? (I've been shopping this one around lately, but to no replies.)


PataOneil wrote:
I agree, market systems are great for exploiting new territory. Which is why they were developed at about the midpoint of the history of civilization. And as long as there is easy obtained new territory to expand into, they work wonderfully well at building wealth... though abysmally at distributing it.

This latter flaw and the lack of new territory that can easily be exploited is a major reason why such systems are failing now. We need a new form of economy... one that shrinks to a sustainable equilibrium point and then holds there... while allowing steady improvement of quality of life, through the advancement of knowledge and technology.

Market systems simply are not designed to do that.



I'll note that market systems are *hands-off*, meaning everyone is reliant on 'the invisible hand' mechanism, and we've just covered the perilous shortfalls with that kind of societal dependency.

The *alternative*, from history, is something that's *hands-on*, but then historical Stalinism was still *elitist*, and still got wrapped up in *competition* with the West's market system.

I've identified the problem as this -- we want the *convenience* of something hands-off, like the market, but we want the *control* of something 'hands-on', like a professionally administered economy (Stalinism).

So -- I'm pleased to say that I have my *own* contribution here, for your perusal and consideration, and I'm always glad to explain and elaborate.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338
#15178770
PataOneil wrote:The invisible hand is trained into people's that are civilized. This is largely due to specialization and the advantage specialization gives individuals toward self empowerment. But this kind of ethic is learned, not inherent.


Sure. But the invisible hand also explains the motivation of innovation along with creation. Unless you believe that society today would have been better or even more enhanced than it is today without self interest, then you would have to explain to me now what would encourage anyone to improve on the basic?

We have 188.000 years of a human ethic that is based in community living. And we actually are still highly dependent upon community. Even though the hidden hand ethic largely contradicts the human ethic. Thus the problem...

So for example, how many people do you know that have enough grasp of human knowledge, not to mention time, to start with only their hands and from there build themselves a fully featured pickup truck?


Yes I agree, I would say we as humans can only survive by community living given we are social animals. And sure nobody can create everything by themselves, but knowledge is due to learning and until Capitalism was a thing, education was granted to the noble only. So again why are you dismissing the link? If we left learning just to Nobleman as the serfs tended to the land, where do you think we would be today?

Concerning you comment on capitalism being better or worse than feudalism.

{points at climate change}

Feudalism literally could not have accomplished that. And in my view, it's not really Capitalism that is the problem... it's the market systems that capitalism uses. Capitalism is largely a brand name for a particular philosophy of markets. One that is flawed in it's definition because it depends on free markets... which simply do not exist in the real world.

We can say of Capitalism and market systems in general that they have in some ways improved society. But not if it all ends in the destruction of the environment that sustain such systems. I like to compare it to the heroin user. Sure it might feel great to become addicted to heroin... especially at first, but if it kills the user, that user has not adopted a survival strategy that is effective.


OK, so I don't disagree with this. Capitalism is the reason for climate change. If we were to base its performance on just the point alone, then Capitalism was a failure. But you seem to ignore the things it has improved society for the better on, like health, education, technology, social reform etc etc etc along with being a cause for innovation and the wealth of nations.

Also, capitalism may well also solve this problem given today there is profit in renewable technology. Are you aware that the USSR was a pollution ceasepit given the environment wasn't a major concern for the ruling party but instead they wanted to keep up with the growth of the US? Which means that there must be other factors than just an economic model for pollution in any case given two nations with separate economic models are just as guilty for the environment impact we see today. The main one is the drive build as it is a by product of it which doesn't need to be profit motivated I would say but is instead a motivation to enhance.

The other problem you bring up, that of equitably sharing resources in a stable way using market systems. We don't actually have any sustained examples of that. Typically what happens is that the individuals who are more concerned with "winning" than community gain power over resources and then use that power to influence society in their interests. Typically myths are a much stronger way to create stability than markets systems. Which is why market systems are so strongly informed by myth and belief.


I have no issue of sharing resources and think monopolies should be regulated. If you have read anything I have written you would know I advocate a hybrid economy. There are many things that should always be run as a social program. So we should share many things and nobody should control national resources but the state. However I would always say enterprise is best run in a free market. As long as what is on offer is not needed for a society to function, market forces should dictate whether there is a need to manufacture the item or not.

Sure FDR created more equity, but left the markets in place, creating a means for greedy individuals to undercut all the programs that saved the markets in the first place. This is a result of the fact that profit-takers care about taking profit, not about nationalism, or community health and safety... or really even the product/s they produce and distribute.

This fact is one of the reason why I believe that civilization itself is a fatally flawed system... at least the way we do it now.


Indeed. But FDR controlled the market and as such solved the problem that caused the depression to begin with. Besides a lot of the wealthy went bust given shares lost value and people had borrowed an a 10% deposit to hype the demand of shares and then hadn't the money to pay back when things crashed. I guess what I am saying is greed can be controlled by regulation and taxation and those solutions could be repeated today. That and a social program to get everyone back into work. And we could also increase the minimum wage to improve everyones living standards. All these things can be an extention and not a replacement for Capitalism.

Not a big fan of socialism, precisely because all known forms of it count on markets to operate. And in my view it is markets, not the brand name philosophy of the market that is the actual problem.


If not Socialism then what? If Capitalism is a failure what are you saying isn't? That isn't a trick question. If money doesn't exist tomorrow, what would make society function?

As far as I know we don't have an economic system that is long term stable while maintaining a sustainable and equitable life for the individuals involved.

There is a possibility that general automation... wherein machines and computers provide the labor, and the solar system provides the resources... will usher in a new form of economy that breaks the cycle of failure inherent in the current forms. But we haven't developed it yet.

I do find it an interesting idea that market economies are kick starters to a better form of economy in such a way. But only if the better form can be developed and sustained. It is also interesting to note that market economies are pushing the very automation which could replace them... and the rich people who benefit from them.

Kind of hard to sell products made completely with machine labor... because no one would have the money gained from labor to buy such products.

Interesting times...


Sure. Have you heard of technocracy? It would basically be run by machines and we just benefit from their production, which is fine if machines were 100% reliable.

But going back to the start of this quote, sure no economic system is perfect and they all seem destined to fail. That is basically what Dialectical Materialism suggests. But every stage of society evolution is merely the needs of the times and when those needs change, society changes with it. That doesn't mean Capitalism is a failure. It just means it was right for us once and will change an evole in the future when enough people revolt and ask for something better.
Last edited by B0ycey on 27 Jun 2021 20:52, edited 1 time in total.
#15178775
ckaihatsu wrote:
Any comment on *military Keynesianism* -- ? (I've been shopping this one around lately, but to no replies.)



B0ycey wrote:
Sure, not needed. :lol:

Borrowing should be based on growth, not to send competition into a dustpit.



Sure, agreed, but the reason for raising the idea is to say: What would prevent a capitalist-type society from *turning* to military-Keynesian-type government spending -- ?

Hopefully the prevailing politics would be as you're indicating, for social services (as originally intended), for 'human capital' (excuse the term), for economic growth and general well-being.

But knowing how capitalist political economy works, there's no 'firewall' that would prevent the nationalist-minded argument along the lines of 'national security *is* social spending' -- the usual protection racket, in other words. Also note the *current* U.S. military / defense budget.


B0ycey wrote:
I have no issue of sharing resources and think monopolies should be regulated. If you have read anything I have written you would know I advocate a hybrid economy. There are many things that should always be run as a social program. So we should share many things and nobody should control national resources but the state. However I would always say enterprise is best run in a free market. As long as what is on offer is not needed for a society to function, market forces should dictate whether there is a need to manufacture the item or not.



Understandable, but same argument here -- how would an appropriate 'firewall' be implemented between the interests of the private sector (for profits), and the interests of the common-good (ostensibly in the state, but certainly not necessarily).

How would that line be drawn, and how would it be maintained -- ?



B0ycey wrote:
Indeed. But FDR controlled the market and as such solved the problem that caused the depression to begin with.



Actually, no. Please feel free to explain *how* FDR "solved" the economic problem -- my understanding is that the U.S. economy continued to stagnate and didn't recover until the Second World War, in which the U.S. sold arms to both sides and profited tremendously as a result.


B0ycey wrote:
If money doesn't exist tomorrow, what would make society function?



Yes. I just posted a formulation like this the other day, to another thread:


ckaihatsu wrote:
I just thought this up today, so I may as well post it to this thread....

What about this economic 'nightmare' scenario: Everyone issues their own debt, endlessly, and unregulated by anyone else, or any institutions -- much of the modern world is ad-hoc, anyway, so people make and break relationships strictly based on 'going-forward', socially, economically, and politically.

Would it be better to wear a suit, than not? Would it be better to use cash, or to just issue new personal debt, since one could, that's not backed by anything. Limitless personal debt could even undermine *cash*, since governmental authority would no longer be needed to uphold a currency regime, and currency values.



viewtopic.php?p=15178026#p15178026



---


B0ycey wrote:
Sure. Have you heard of technocracy? It would basically be run by machines and we just benefit from their production, which is fine if machines were 100% reliable.



My own standing position on conventional 'technocracy' is that it would be *elitist*, because the technocratic governance would basically be *unaccountable* to the larger population.

That said, though, there may be a more contemporary case to be made for some kind of an *AI* approach to the problem of optimization of supply chains, in a strictly *logistical* manner, setting aside all economic / financial considerations.
#15178809
ckaihatsu wrote:What would prevent a capitalist-type society from *turning* to military-Keynesian-type government spending -- ?


The answer: the government in power. There are many democratic capitalistic nations are out there today, most don't borrow to finance going to war. The US is the exception, not the rule. So to answer that, I would say the US should consider their democratic rules and control party donorship in elections. If governments aren't bound to outside interests they are subject to their voters interest instead and as such won't make these type of political decisions. There is a reason that governments in Europe seem to function significantly better for their populous than the US right now. Controls on party donors.

Understandable, but same argument here -- how would an appropriate 'firewall' be implemented between the interests of the private sector (for profits), and the interests of the common-good (ostensibly in the state, but certainly not necessarily).

How would that line be drawn, and how would it be maintained -- ?


I am not asking for free market libertarianism and no legislation. And to be honest, I am not really asking for Capitalism. But to answer your question, capitalism can be controlled by state monitoring, taxation and legislation. The issues arise when these things are compromised due to self interests of lobbyists. Which means more restrictions on party donors to help these things being compromised.

Actually, no. Please feel free to explain *how* FDR "solved" the economic problem -- my understanding is that the U.S. economy continued to stagnate and didn't recover until the Second World War, in which the U.S. sold arms to both sides and profited tremendously as a result.


By creating jobs maybe? If people aren't earning they aren't able to spend and growth isn't possible. I never said it was a quick fix anyway. I just stated the obvious that America began to build and grow (so not stagnation) with the New Deal initiative.

My own standing position on conventional 'technocracy' is that it would be *elitist*, because the technocratic governance would basically be *unaccountable* to the larger population.

That said, though, there may be a more contemporary case to be made for some kind of an *AI* approach to the problem of optimization of supply chains, in a strictly *logistical* manner, setting aside all economic / financial considerations.


It might end up that Technocracy will end up elitist, however from my understanding the target would be something akin to like Wall-E. That robots become our servants and we don't lift a finger. Yet someone neglects to consider maintainance and that robots are only as good as their programming anyway (so human input). I doubt production could ever be fully AI or automotive given that. The best we could hope for less working hours not the end of working hours.
#15178811
Hmmm... dunno.
Capitalism has been responsible for bringing more people out of poverty, and expanding their horizons, then any governmental system in history ? From that point of view, it must be regarded as a success.

Recall that 'capitalism' isn't about the mega-rich; it's about millions upon millions of people just like us, either as wage-earners or small businessmen/women ?

Want to see somebody who has benefited from capitalism ? Look in a mirror !

As for the environmental impact; I'm not so sure. I think that EVERY system of government has had a deletorious impact on the environment ?
#15178845
B0ycey wrote:
The answer: the government in power. There are many democratic capitalistic nations are out there today, most don't borrow to finance going to war. The US is the exception, not the rule. So to answer that, I would say the US should consider their democratic rules and control party donorship in elections. If governments aren't bound to outside interests they are subject to their voters interest instead and as such won't make these type of political decisions. There is a reason that governments in Europe seem to function significantly better for their populous than the US right now. Controls on party donors.



And what would you say about *lobbying* -- *after* the event of the elections themselves?


B0ycey wrote:
I am not asking for free market libertarianism and no legislation. And to be honest, I am not really asking for Capitalism. But to answer your question, capitalism can be controlled by state monitoring, taxation and legislation. The issues arise when these things are compromised due to self interests of lobbyists. Which means more restrictions on party donors to help these things being compromised.



So you're saying that there can somehow be a firewall between the government, for the public's interests, and the private sector, in its own interests for private profit-making.

What role do you think government should have in regards to the private sector? Should it be encouraged, as with R&D? Should it be proactively *supported*, as with government bailouts (2008-2009, 2020) -- ?


B0ycey wrote:
By creating jobs maybe? If people aren't earning they aren't able to spend and growth isn't possible. I never said it was a quick fix anyway. I just stated the obvious that America began to build and grow (so not stagnation) with the New Deal initiative.



Nope, that's not really the case -- the '30s were a period of intense labor struggles, and FDR was mostly a *politician*, trying to 'maneuver' between the conflicting class interests:



[T]he mood both of US capitalism and the mass of people was one of desperation at the end of 1932. It was expressed in a feeling that something, however unorthodox, had to be done to get the economy moving. Congress even gave serious consideration to a bill to reduce the working week to 30 hours in a desperate attempt to create more jobs. In the end Roosevelt pushed through emergency powers which involved state controls on the operations of capitalism. These included guarantees of the funds of banks through the Federal Reserve system, use of government money to buy up and destroy crops in order to raise their price, a civil construction corps to provide work camps for 2.3 million unemployed young men, a limited form of self regulation of industry through cartels to control price and production levels, limited amounts of direct state production through the Tennessee Valley Authority, and even measures which made it easier for workers to form unions and raise wages, so increasing consumer demand. The speed and audacity with which these measures were implemented caught the enthusiasm of those suffering from the recession, and of political liberals who wanted an alternative to fascism or socialist revolution. They seemed to stand in sharp contrast to the previous administration. Its response to mass unemployment had been to send in 25,000 troops with bayonets fixed, led by General MacArthur on a white charger, to disperse a protest by unemployed war veterans. At least Roosevelt seemed to be providing some jobs, even if at rock bottom wage rates and under appalling conditions.

However, Roosevelt’s measures were neither as innovative nor as effective as many people thought. Roosevelt remained highly orthodox in one respect—he did not use government spending to break out of the crisis. In fact he cut veterans’ pensions and public employment. As Kindelberger writes, ‘Fiscal means to expand employment remained limited, since the Democratic administration under Roosevelt remained committed to a balanced budget’.224 He also suggests investment was bound to start rising at some point from the incredibly low level to which it had fallen (from $16 billion in 1929 to $1 billion in 1932), and it began to do so once the level of bank failures had peaked. In any case, Roosevelt got the credit for a rise in production from 59 percent of the level of the mid-1920s in March 1933 to 100 percent in July, and a fall in unemployment from 13.7 million in 1933 to 12.4 million in 1934 and 12 million in 1935. Many people believed his ‘New Deal’ had worked miracles—a myth that remains prevalent today. Yet one person in seven was still jobless in 1937 when output finally reached the level of eight years earlier.

Then in August 1937 there was ‘the steepest economic decline in the history of the US’, which lost ‘half the ground gained by many indexes since 1932’.225 Steel output fell by more than two thirds in four months, cotton textile output by about 40 percent, and farm prices by a quarter.

The economic recovery had been short-lived. But, combined with a mild improvement in union rights, it had one very important side-effect. It created a new feeling of confidence among sections of workers in their ability to fight. There was an upturn in recruitment to the unions, although workers who struck still faced vicious attacks from employers and the police. In the first six months of Roosevelt’s New Deal more than 15 strikers were killed, 200 injured and hundreds arrested.226 But three strikes in 1934 showed how such confidence could fuse with the sense of bitterness created by the slump to explode into a level of militancy not known since the defeat of the steel strike in 1919. Autolite car component workers at Toledo, teamsters in Minneapolis and waterfront workers in San Francisco struck in a militant fashion, defied court injunctions, defended themselves physically against scabs and cops, and won resounding victories. Furthermore, it was militant socialists who took the lead in each of these struggles—Trotskyists in Minneapolis, Communists in San Francisco, and followers of radical ex-preacher A J Muste in Toledo. In the aftermath of the disputes, trade unionists in the increasingly important auto industry began to recruit widely and demanded a union based on the industry as whole to replace the existing craft unions organised along skill lines



[The organizing committee] ‘told workers that all the “New Deal” public officials were “labour’s friends”, and that the strikers should “welcome” the National Guards, state troopers and police sent to “keep order”.’ 232 The workers were thoroughly demoralised when these ‘friends’ attacked them with clubs and bullets. In Pennsylvania the first Democratic governor for 44 years declared martial law in the steel town of Johnstown. State troopers reopened the factory, restricting the number of pickets to six, and herded ever-greater numbers of scabs into the plant. In Youngstown, Ohio, where there was also a Democratic governor, deputies shot two pickets dead. In Chicago police sent in by the Democratic mayor killed ten strikers. When CIO leaders looked to Roosevelt for help he declared, ‘A plague on both your houses’.233 The biggest organising drive was broken just as the economy began to plunge downwards into renewed slump.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 513-514, 516



---


B0ycey wrote:
It might end up that Technocracy will end up elitist, however from my understanding the target would be something akin to like Wall-E. That robots become our servants and we don't lift a finger. Yet someone neglects to consider maintainance and that robots are only as good as their programming anyway (so human input). I doubt production could ever be fully AI or automotive given that. The best we could hope for less working hours not the end of working hours.



On a *technical* level there could always be *machines* repairing machines, especially using AI, so I don't think the 'maintenance' would be the issue -- or, personal-type service machinery might become *disposable*, like electronics today, making 'maintenance' moot.

You make technocracy sound like a foregone conclusion. What would guarantee that the technocratic elite would *pass along* the products of their production to people who need it? There's the critique that in a jobless world (of full automation) people wouldn't have enough from wages to afford what's being produced.
#15178871
ckaihatsu wrote:And what would you say about *lobbying* -- *after* the event of the elections themselves?


In general I am against lobbying full stop @ckaihatsu. But if you cap donors you weaken the power of the lobbyists anyway. In the UK, you have to declare donors which helps.

As I said, the US, especially in terms of Western Democracy, is the exception, not the rule which is why America has all the issues it has right now. Insured healthcare wouldn't even be accepted in Europe. In the US it is regarded as Socialism.

So you're saying that there can somehow be a firewall between the government, for the public's interests, and the private sector, in its own interests for private profit-making.


No I am saying there is a reason Gorbachev ultimately had to promoted Perestroika and China allows International investment in many of its sectors today. Self interest creates, supplies and innovates things people want to buy. It also allows supply chains to occur naturally. Without self interest you are left with the state doing everything for their people. After all the SU made some great things and their technology was on par with the US. But it looked like shit and you had no choice. Ultimately even though everything worked, R&D stagnated and they got left behind which ultimately caused its collapse in 1989. You also had to wait for everything even when you bought something. If you could afford to buy a car for example, there was a waiting list of three years. So what I am saying is there is a place for Socialism and Capitalism in a state economy. The problem we have today is there are many sectors in the economy that shouldn't be in the free market due to necessity driving up the sectors price. And you can solve that by electing more Social Democratic parties. But to get there you first need electoral reform. In other words Capitalism isn't the problem. Lobbyists that control the political parties are as they ultimately run the US.

What role do you think government should have in regards to the private sector? Should it be encouraged, as with R&D? Should it be proactively *supported*, as with government bailouts (2008-2009, 2020) -- ?


Well the state should regulate the financial institution more heavily than they are (and were) if that is what you are getting at ( by saying 'the bailouts'). They however should limit its involvement and legislation in the private sector though. However when I say that, what I mean is there are specific things such as health, education, housing, utilities, telecom, postal etc that shouldn't be the private sector at all. In other words no restrictions on Musk building Tesla cars but plenty of restrictions (and indeed the elimination on the need of) insurance in healthcare.

Nope, that's not really the case -- the '30s were a period of intense labor struggles, and FDR was mostly a *politician*, trying to 'maneuver'


But your source says unemployment dropped? And the US started to begin to grow in the 30s so clearly his New Deal did something. But sure not as quickly as in the 40s given you were basically supplying the world with everything back then and perhaps there was a drop in GDP in 1937. But even so enough to say Keynesianism works and people voted for FDR for four terms after all. Are you suggesting Keynesianism doesn't work btw?

On a *technical* level there could always be *machines* repairing machines, especially using AI, so I don't think the 'maintenance' would be the issue -- or, personal-type service machinery might become *disposable*, like electronics today, making 'maintenance' moot.

You make technocracy sound like a foregone conclusion. What would guarantee that the technocratic elite would *pass along* the products of their production to people who need it? There's the critique that in a jobless world (of full automation) people wouldn't have enough from wages to afford what's being produced.


A machine maintaining a machine? I think you give AI more credit than it deserves by comparing it to the complexity of the human brain. AI is ONLY as good as it's programming and as such will always have limitations even a thousand years into the future. Also hands have evolved into being nimble and flexible. Something steel doesn't have. Perhaps you have been watching Terminator too much.

As for Technocracy being a forgone conclusion, not at all. I think human labor in some form will always be needed. What I will say though is machines should reduce our working day perhaps in the future.

And finally the elite will always be the minority. History has proven that if they become greedy, the majority always just takes everything away from them in the end once the string snaps. So self interest means they will either share or lose out completely. Not that we will have savages in the reservation!
#15178881
B0ycey wrote:
In general I am against lobbying full stop @ckaihatsu. But if you cap donors you weaken the power of the lobbyists anyway. In the UK, you have to declare donors which helps.

As I said, the US, especially in terms of Western Democracy, is the exception, not the rule which is why America has all the issues it has right now. Insured healthcare wouldn't even be accepted in Europe. In the US it is regarded as Socialism.



Okay, I wouldn't be *against* such reforms.


B0ycey wrote:
No I am saying there is a reason Gorbachev ultimately had to promoted Perestroika and China allows International investment in many of its sectors today. Self interest creates, supplies and innovates things people want to buy. It also allows supply chains to occur naturally. Without self interest you are left with the state doing everything for their people. After all the SU made some great things and their technology was on par with the US. But it looked like shit and you had no choice. Ultimately even though everything worked, R&D stagnated and they got left behind which ultimately caused its collapse in 1989. You also had to wait for everything even when you bought something. If you could afford to buy a car for example, there was a waiting list of three years. So what I am saying is there is a place for Socialism and Capitalism in a state economy. The problem we have today is there are many sectors in the economy that shouldn't be in the free market due to necessity driving up the sectors price. And you can solve that by electing more Social Democratic parties. But to get there you first need electoral reform. In other words Capitalism isn't the problem. Lobbyists that control the political parties are as they ultimately run the US.



You want capitalism without lobbyists. Care to elaborate?


B0ycey wrote:
Well the state should regulate the financial institution more heavily than they are (and were) if that is what you are getting at ( by saying 'the bailouts').



Okay, along these lines, then, how could the subprime mortgage crisis or the Libor scandal have been avoided?


B0ycey wrote:
They however should limit its involvement and legislation in the private sector though. However when I say that, what I mean is there are specific things such as health, education, housing, utilities, telecom, postal etc that shouldn't be the private sector at all. In other words no restrictions on Musk building Tesla cars but plenty of restrictions (and indeed the elimination on the need of) insurance in healthcare.



What about food and housing? Would these be added to your list above?


B0ycey wrote:
But your source says unemployment dropped? And the US started to begin to grow in the 30s so clearly his New Deal did something.



Hmmm, you seem to have missed this part:



Then in August 1937 there was ‘the steepest economic decline in the history of the US’, which lost ‘half the ground gained by many indexes since 1932’.225 Steel output fell by more than two thirds in four months, cotton textile output by about 40 percent, and farm prices by a quarter.

The economic recovery had been short-lived.



---


B0ycey wrote:
But sure not as quickly as in the 40s given you were basically supplying the world with everything back then



"I" was supplying the world with everything back then? I wasn't even *alive* back then, nor am I a nationalist.


B0ycey wrote:
and perhaps there was a drop in GDP in 1937. But even so enough to say Keynesianism works and people voted for FDR for four terms after all. Are you suggesting Keynesianism doesn't work btw?



So Keynesianism worked from 1933 to 1937.


B0ycey wrote:
A machine maintaining a machine? I think you give AI more credit than it deserves by comparing it to the complexity of the human brain. AI is ONLY as good as it's programming



I don't think you understand the mechanism very well.


How AI Learns To Walk - AI Series #13




The Stilwell Brain




---


B0ycey wrote:
and as such will always have limitations even a thousand years into the future. Also hands have evolved into being nimble and flexible. Something steel doesn't have. Perhaps you have been watching Terminator too much.

As for Technocracy being a forgone conclusion, not at all. I think human labor in some form will always be needed. What I will say though is machines should reduce our working day perhaps in the future.

And finally the elite will always be the minority. History has proven that if they become greedy, the majority always just takes everything away from them in the end once the string snaps. So self interest means they will either share or lose out completely.



So you see it as a pitchforks-and-torches kind of scenario -- fair enough.


B0ycey wrote:
Not that we will have savages in the reservation!



Do you mean 'Native Americans' -- ? Doesn't this wording sound kind of *racist* to you?
#15178886
ckaihatsu wrote:You want capitalism without lobbyists. Care to elaborate?


No. I want politics without lobbyists. I want Capitalism restricted and amalgamated. Capitalism has got society so far and it needs to evolve. I think we both agree that capitalism is failing ordinary people today. But where we differ is you think we need to start from scratch. I however would prefer if we start changing things that are failing and retaining things that work.

Okay, along these lines, then, how could the subprime mortgage crisis or the Libor scandal have been avoided?


By only lending what people can afford and regulation perhaps...

What about food and housing? Would these be added to your list above?


Housing is on the list FYI. Food should be on the list. However given most food isn't basic and much of it consists of ingredients, we buy a lot of corporate food. I don't think a state run food program could work anyway. I look at Zimbabwe and think I wouldn't rock the boat.

Do you mean 'Native Americans' -- ? Doesn't this wording sound kind of *racist* to you?


Ask Huxley. It was a reference to his work. I don't see us becoming elite and savages. I see the elite needing the proletariat so a technocratic society won't be solely elitist which you said it would.
#15178888
B0ycey wrote:
No. I want politics without lobbyists. I want Capitalism restricted and amalgamated. Capitalism has got society so far and it needs to evolve. I think we both agree that capitalism is failing ordinary people today. But where we differ is you think we need to start from scratch. I however would prefer if we start changing things that are failing and retaining things that work.



This is *incredibly* vague, and you seem to think that there could be a way to separate the influence of money away from the political process.

Let me try something here -- would you care to comment:



Soviet democracy, or council democracy, is a political system in which the rule of the population by directly elected soviets (Russian for "council") is exercised. The councils are directly responsible to their electors and bound by their instructions using delegate model of representation. Such an imperative mandate is in contrast to a free mandate, in which the elected delegates are only responsible to their conscience. Delegates may accordingly be dismissed from their post at any time or be voted out (recall).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy



---


B0ycey wrote:
By only lending what people can afford and regulation perhaps...



In the case of the subprime mortgages it was the *credit rating agencies* that hyped bad credit risks, to the point of being fraudulent. I attribute such hyping to capitalism's dynamic of supply-and-demand, while you seem to think that *people* or *institutions* are to blame, and could have somehow been 'regulated' (from where?) to have acted differently.

In the case of the Libor scandal it was *banks* that acted fraudulently. How would any proposed new 'regulations' be *enforced*, exactly?

And, since you're so 'hands-on', governmentally, would you like to wrap-up *this* one -- ?



The FinCEN Files are leaked documents from the U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), that have been investigated by BuzzFeed News and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), and globally publicised on 20 September 2020.[1][2] The reports describe over 200,000 suspicious financial transactions valued at over US$2 trillion that occurred from 1999 to 2017 across multiple global financial institutions.[1] The documents appear to show that while both the banks and the United States Government had this financial intelligence, they did little to stop activities such as money laundering.[1] The information implicates financial institutions in more than 170 countries who played a role in facilitating money laundering and other fraudulent crimes.[1] Journalists around the world have criticized both the banks and the US government, the BBC stating it shows how the "world's biggest banks have allowed criminals to move dirty money around the world", and BuzzFeed News claiming the files "offer an unprecedented view of global financial corruption, the banks enabling it, and the government agencies that watch as it flourishes."[1][3]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FinCEN_Files



---


B0ycey wrote:
Housing is on the list FYI. Food should be on the list. However given most food isn't basic and much of it consists of ingredients, we buy a lot of corporate food. I don't think a state run food program could work anyway. I look at Zimbabwe and think I wouldn't rock the boat.



Yeah, I saw that after I posted it....

So would you agree that society could provide a 'baseline' of health and welfare to everyone, regardless of all other factors?


B0ycey wrote:
Ask Huxley. It was a reference to his work. I don't see us becoming elite and savages. I see the elite needing the proletariat so a technocratic society won't be solely elitist which you said we would.



I happen to be a 'fully-automated luxury communist' myself, meaning that once society reaches *full automation* everyone would have their basic modern humane needs provided for, most-likely (pitchforks-and-torches, if need be), so then everything would effectively be *luxurious* for everyone, for the first time ever.

This paradigm shift, if it does happen technologically, would also, incidentally, annihilate the classes of the proletariat and bourgeoisie.
#15178893
ckaihatsu wrote:This is *incredibly* vague, and you seem to think that there could be a way to separate the influence of money away from the political process.


In terms of what? I live in the UK with perhaps the worse PM in my lifetime running a shitshow. But despite everything, BoJo doesn't make major decisions to the extreme to please his sponsors and always does what he believes is right. Why? Because there are rules on the amount you can sponsor a political party and you have to declare who sponsors you anyway in the UK which isn't the case in the US so any favors done here are minor. For example Obama couldn't do anything for the environment and compromised on his healthcare. Nobody can even ban guns in the US as the lobbyists run politics over there. So yes it is vague because what I suggest is occurring throughout Europe right now. You want to know what I advocate, read up 'The Nordic Model'. You can separate politics with money but you have to have the right political institution and regulations in place to begin with. Either that or have the political will to change the system.

Let me try something here -- would you care to comment:


Sure, I support Democracy. The more democracy the better.

In the case of the subprime mortgages it was the *credit rating agencies* that hyped bad credit risks, to the point of being fraudulent. I attribute such hyping to capitalism's dynamic of supply-and-demand, while you seem to think that *people* or *institutions* are to blame, and could have somehow been 'regulated' (from where?) to have acted differently.


Well I don't think it, it happens to be the case. Regulations and practices changed after 2008 and as such those bubbles are not on the radar today. Others are but that is another issue all together. Regulations do work and it is only when you reduce regulations do people execute bad practices. Besides, the subprime mortgage scandal could have been prevented by lending to people who could afford it. What more can I say than the obvious?

In the case of the Libor scandal it was *banks* that acted fraudulently. How would any proposed new 'regulations' be *enforced*, exactly?


By sending people to prison perhaps and making them pay back their gains...

And, since you're so 'hands-on', governmentally, would you like to wrap-up *this* one -- ?


Yeah send them to prison. Given we just had McAfee, I would say if financial institution agencies have information of money laundering and financial crimes, they should follow up on that just the same way they did with him. Not only because it is illegal but because it will help reduce the US debt burden given it is worth $2tn.

I happen to be a 'fully-automated luxury communist' myself, meaning that once society reaches *full automation* everyone would have their basic modern humane needs provided for, most-likely (pitchforks-and-torches, if need be), so then everything would effectively be *luxurious* for everyone, for the first time ever.

This paradigm shift, if it does happen technologically, would also, incidentally, annihilate the classes of the proletariat and bourgeoisie.


So you see the future as Wall-E suggests?
#15178896
B0ycey wrote:
In terms of what? I live in the UK with perhaps the worse PM in my lifetime running a shitshow. But despite everything, BoJo doesn't make major decisions to the extreme to please his sponsors and always does what he believes is right. Why? Because there are rules on the amount you can sponsor a political party and you have to declare who sponsors you anyway in the UK which isn't the case in the US so any favors done here are minor. For example Obama couldn't do anything for the environment and compromised on his healthcare. Nobody can even ban guns in the US as the lobbyists run politics over there. So yes it is vague because what I suggest is occurring throughout Europe right now. You want to know what I advocate, read up 'The Nordic Model'. You can separate politics with money but you have to have the right political institution and regulations in place to begin with. Either that or have the political will to change the system.



Sure, I support Democracy. The more democracy the better.



Okay.


B0ycey wrote:
Well I don't think it, it happens to be the case. Regulations and practices changed after 2008 and as such those bubbles are not on the radar today. Others are but that is another issue all together.



I've heard that there's a new bubble developing in *commercial* real estate, this time around.

Do you still think that market dynamics can be adequately corralled and controlled through legislation?

For example, what should be done about *rent* for those who are still unemployed due to the economy recovering from the coronavirus? Shouldn't wages offered be *raised* as an incentive towards employment?


B0ycey wrote:
Regulations do work and it is only when you reduce regulations do people execute bad practices. Besides, the subprime mortgage scandal could have been prevented by lending to people who could afford it. What more can I say than the obvious?



By sending people to prison perhaps and making them pay back their gains...



Yeah send them to prison. Given we just had McAfee, I would say if financial institution agencies have information of money laundering and financial crimes, they should follow up on that just the same way they did with him. Not only because it is illegal but because it will help reduce the US debt burden given it is worth $2tn.



Do you think that 'regulations' will be sufficient for addressing global warming and reducing the carbon footprint in time to avert environmental catastrophe?


B0ycey wrote:
So you see the future as Wall-E suggests?



Well, it's a caricature / dramatization of its own, of course, but fully automated humane distribution is arguably just-around-the-corner, first for those who can afford it, of course.

I don't think that the *class* issue will necessarily be resolved in the process, but I think that the two dynamics of increasing-automation and working-class-empowerment would be mutually constructive.

Also, btw:


Film Theory: Wall-E's Unseen CANNIBALISM! - YouTube

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]