What the World Crisis Teaces Us about Capitalism

[dann]

Public meeting Thursday Sept. 3,
in San Fransisco, 522 Valencia @ 16th Street

The public’s initial outrage at the machinations of investment banks has long since turned into the hope that these greedy speculators get back on their feet again and do business in a more stable fashion. Meanwhile, capitalists are rescuing their property and protecting their profits by passing on the damages to their employees, sacking them and exposing them to greater deprivation. And the victims – they accept that sacrifices will have to be made in order for “our” economy to get off the ground again.
What the World Economic Crisis Teaches Us about Capitalism

 

[Puppycow]

Whatever the failings of capitalism may be, compared to Stalinism, Maoism or Juche, it appears to be very humane.

 

[drkitten]

Whatever the failings of capitalism may be, compared to Stalinism, Maoism or Juche, it appears to be very humane.

And lung cancer is much less deadly than pancreatic cancer.

That doesn't mean we should cease our quest for actual health.

 

[Skeptic]

Every time there is an economic downturn or depression those who offer another economic version -- fascists, communists, whomever -- claim it is the "end of capitalism" and that it is time to "look for an alternative". This has gone on for the last 100 years, at least, probably longer.

What such "searches for economic health" are worth can be easily seen by looking at the fate of all such alternative economic system "of the future" which should have replaced the "dying" capitalism long ago.

 

[Puppycow]

And lung cancer is much less deadly than pancreatic cancer.

That doesn't mean we should cease our quest for actual health.

If there's something better, I'm all ears. AFAIK, it's like democracy: the worst system except for all the others.

(BTW, I am for a social safety net, public goods, and all that. My first principle is utilitarianism.)

 

[dann]

Every time there is an economic downturn or depression those who offer another economic version -- fascists, communists, whomever -- claim it is the "end of capitalism" and that it is time to "look for an alternative". This has gone on for the last 100 years, at least, probably longer.

It’s always easier to go with your gut instincts and presume that you’ve heard this before than to actually read something and discover that you’re wrong. However, I can’t find any claim of the ”end of capitalism”, which your alleged quotation seems to claim:

Public meeting Thursday Sept. 3,
in San Fransisco, 522 Valencia @ 16th Street
What the World Economic Crisis Teaches Us about Capitalism

What such "searches for economic health" are worth can be easily seen by looking at the fate of all such alternative economic system "of the future" which should have replaced the "dying" capitalism long ago.

Nor do any of the articles claim that capitalism is ”dying”, so congratulations with your straw man. What the articles actually do is analyze the present crisis. You could say that the logical next step would be to put capitalism to sleep in order to spare its victims, but nowhere do the articles say or even imply that capitalism is ”dying” of its own accord.

 

[DC]

What the World Crisis Teaces Us about Capitalism

Managers love freetrade when making profit when in crisis they suddenly turn into Socialists and demand the government, that otherwise should keep its nose out of profit making, to help them financing theyr horendous bonus payments.

?

 

[Toke]

The crisis just confirmed to me that capitalism must be kept on a short leash, as in mixed economy.
As for skeptic's straw, just ignore him.

 

[drkitten]

If there's something better, I'm all ears. AFAIK, it's like democracy: the worst system except for all the others.

I think Scandinavian-style "socialism" is a better solution than Reagan-style unfettered free market capitalism. I.e. there's no reason not to raise taxes substantially to mitigate the effects of all the unemployment created by corporations cutting jobs,.... especially if they're paying multimillion dollar bonuses to their top executives at the same time.

This unfortunately seems to put me at odds with most of the US government, and almost all of the Republican party that typically controls half of that government.

 

[lomiller]

I think Scandinavian-style "socialism" is a better solution than Reagan-style unfettered free market capitalism.

They both seem to be on the opposite outer edges of what works. I’d probably feel more comfortable someplace in between. An even better approach is to look at each issue individually, ask where you are now and decide which, if any, direction to move.

The worst approach seems to be the people who always call for a move in one direction of the other regardless of the current situation. Even Reagan was willing to raise taxes when faced with large budget deficits. Not enough, perhaps, given the increases in large ticket military spending he favored, but he was actually more sensible then the Gingrich crowd that followed him.

 

[Marc39]

Bull markets inevitably lead to bear markets.

 

[Puppycow]

I think Scandinavian-style "socialism" is a better solution than Reagan-style unfettered free market capitalism. I.e. there's no reason not to raise taxes substantially to mitigate the effects of all the unemployment created by corporations cutting jobs,.... especially if they're paying multimillion dollar bonuses to their top executives at the same time.

This unfortunately seems to put me at odds with most of the US government, and almost all of the Republican party that typically controls half of that government.

I think that I favor "Scandinavian-style socialism" too, at least as I imagine it to be. Maybe we are just arguing over semantics. I consider the "Scandinavian" system to be a kind of capitalism, with a social safety net and public goods.

What is the distinguishing feature of "socialism" as you see it? Is the "Scandinavian" system closer to capitalism or Marxism? The OP and the link in the OP seems to be Marxist-based. Which governments have been officially based on Marxism? Have the Scandanavian countries been more closely aligned with the Marxist countries or the Western countries?

 

[drkitten]

I think that I favor "Scandinavian-style socialism" too, at least as I imagine it to be. Maybe we are just arguing over semantics. I consider the "Scandinavian" system to be a kind of capitalism, with a social safety net and public goods.

What is the distinguishing feature of "socialism" as you see it? Is the "Scandinavian" system closer to capitalism or Marxism? The OP and the link in the OP seems to be Marxist-based. Which governments have been officially based on Marxism? Have the Scandanavian countries been more closely aligned with the Marxist countries or the Western countries?

Well, this is a hard question, because "Marxism" bears little relationship to "Leninism" and even less to "Stalinism." I'm hardly the first person to point this out; Trotsky was drummed out of the Party for it. (In particular, Trotsky differed with Lenin over what was called the "Two Stage Theory," which is the idea, espoused by Lenin, that underdeveloped countries like Russia could not transition to the true communist utopia directly, but instead had to pass through a stage of technological development.... which hardened into the command economy in an effort to achieve maximum technological progress.)

Trotsky pointed out, correctly, that this intermediate command economy stage looked almost nothing like "Marxism."

So my first question to you is what are you comparing Scandinavia to? Scandinavia has more or less always been an affluent and technologically advanced society, so "Marxist" theory suggests that it should have an easier time redistributing wealth to the benefit of the populace as a whole while maintaining a reasonably healthy and productive economy. This seems to be true. If anything, I would suggest that Scandinavia is actually a pretty good demonstration of "Marxism" (and specifically Trotskyist Marxism) in action, but that what most Americans understand as "Marxism" is the failed Stalinist-Maoist experiment (which is actually closer to Fascism, despite the well-publicized differences).

And I suspect that the Marxists cited in the OP are closer to Trotskyists as well, simply because, well, no one supports Stalinism except for the old FSU apparatchniks, and (oddly enough), the proto-fascists.

 

[Puppycow]

From the link in the OP:

The answers to these questions suggest that the capitalist system doesn’t deserve to get back on its feet, but to be abolished. The domination of capital reveals its absurdity and brutality all the more in times of economic crisis, when the expansion of capital – because it doesn’t succeed – strangles the entire material life-process of society. We invite you to come and find out.

Before we "abolish" the "capitalist system" I want to know exactly what it will be replaced with. Assuming that the answer is Marxism, show me a Marxist society that is more humane and gives more benefits to its inhabitants.

(ETA: Wrote this post before seeing the post #13 above)

 

[drkitten]

Before we "abolish" the "capitalist system" I want to know exactly what it will be replaced with. Assuming that the answer is Marxism, show me a Marxist society that is more humane and gives more benefits to its inhabitants.

(ETA: Wrote this post before seeing the post #13 above)

Does post #13 answer your question fully enough?

 

[drkitten]

Before we "abolish" the "capitalist system" I want to know exactly what it will be replaced with. Assuming that the answer is Marxism, show me a Marxist society that is more humane and gives more benefits to its inhabitants.

Further to above. I submit that Scandinavia can provide us with a good example of what such a Marxist society can look like.

In particular, I'd like to remind you of Marx's dictum "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." This is often misrepresented as being "to each according to his wants"; the idea that I can't have anything better than my neighbor. A better understanding is that I can't have have luxuries until my neighbor has had his necessities taken care of. In theory, in a Marxist dictatorship, no one should starve -- but that doesn't mean that everyone has to eat the same thing. That's a Leninist/Stalinist issue, because under Stalin, there wasn't enough food to go around, in part because the economy was so backwards. That's really not a problem in the United States today; we're more than capable of providing an adequate diet to everyone in the country. Indeed, since the green revolution, the planet as a whole has been capable of providing an adequate diet to the entire population -- and certainly Sweden doesn't seem to be having problems with mass starvation and food riots.

In fact, the infant mortality rate for Sweden is less than half that of the USA, due to the fact that Sweden does a better job of providing medical care and food to everyone "according to their needs."

Of course, once you've satisfied everyone's "needs," then there's nothing in theory to prevent people from doing as they like within the rather broad confines of state policy. Again, the Stalinist idea of forced employment ignores the fact that in a technologically advanced society, it actually takes very little labor to keep everyone fed, clothed, and housed. The problem isn't to get people to do the work,... a more serious problem is that there's not enough work to go around, which is why we have "socialist" issues like maximum work weeks and mandatory vacations, just to make sure that anyone who wants a job can have one. That's a far cry from the mass conscripts of Stalinist corvee labor....

So, yeah, I'm actually pretty comfortable looking at Sweden and saying "that's what Marxism is supposed to look like; that's what Marx had in mind."

 

[Puppycow]

Does post #13 answer your question fully enough?

Sort of. So the successful examples of "Marxism" are the Scandinavian countries? But, correct me if I'm wrong, but do any of the Scandinavian countries purport to be based on Marxism? It seem that the people who claim to be Marxists tend toward the Lenin-Castro-Mao-Kim models in practice.

In theory, in a Marxist dictatorship, no one should starve -- but that doesn't mean that everyone has to eat the same thing.

The Scandinavian countries are not dictatorships, are they. What was Marx's position on democracy and private property? What about freedom of speech and dissent?

 

[Piggy]

Properly regulated capitalism is the most successful economic system in the world.

That said, it has enormous blind spots.

Bubbles are one.

The tragedy of the commons is another.

But other systems are also prone to those same glitches.

I think the primary problem that faces us now, and it may be an existential one, is more psychological than anything.

Human beings are prone to trade their tomorrows for today, as the rock 'n' roll cliche goes.

We're also bad to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

It's difficult to see how we're going to avoid ecological disaster if we cannot come to accept the situation that we're in and all agree to give up something in order to save our collective bacon.

But we seem to be stuck in a cycle of "Joshie got more juice than I did!"

Could be the death of us all, in the end.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Managers love freetrade when making profit when in crisis they suddenly turn into Socialists and demand the government, that otherwise should keep its nose out of profit making, to help them financing theyr horendous bonus payments.

?

Ironic, isn't it?

That said, I agree with the earlier comment: capitalism is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing we have so far.

 

[Puppycow]

Ironic, isn't it?

That said, I agree with the earlier comment: capitalism is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing we have so far.

I would favor allowing some relatively small areas of land to be set aside for social experiments with willing participants. Give the Marxists and the Libertarians each an unpopulated area of land in the west of a few hundred square miles and let them test out their theories to see if they work. As long as they aren't practicing slavery or sacrificing children or doing anything dangerous to the rest of us.

Maybe one of those experiments will come up with a better system.