I am either, nuts, or...

[MantaRevan]

I'm just saying. I know I can make capitalism work. Because it's been done. You don't know that communism can work. Because it hasn't been done.

I think overall capitalism has been quite a bit more successful however. The way I see it, *someone* is successful right now. And that's either a capitalist nation or a communist nation.

 

[aelf]

I had a physical reaction that I can only compare to that instant that I saw the first of the Towers pancake down.

Your tower pancaked down?

 

[innonimatu]

And yet socialism and communism are less on the minds of people than any time in centuries.

It doesn't matter, some form of socialism - whatever it may get called - is an historical inevitability. There won't be jobs for everyone, which means that the social-democrat arrangement for stabilizing capitalism's tendency towards the accumulation of wealth and subsequent demand crisis is finished.
I don't think that there is even a margin to go through another iteration of collapse-rebuilding of the capitalist system. Once it crumbles - as it is right on course to do - it'll have to be replaced with something else. There is no way to to effectively manage a "service economy" under a capitalist system. Capitalist economy was planned as much as communism was, that's how it was stable: companies planned ahead for investment and for recouping it, governments taxed them, planned its own spending and politically arbitrated wages and consumption while keeping high employment. Nothing from that system works any more. The shift to services wrecked the whole system of balances.Unrestricted international trade worsened the situation, but I believe that the shift to services would eventually be fatal by itself, it'd only have taken a little longer.

The service sector now moves most of the wealth and provides most jobs, but people's wants of services are fickle, planning too often goes wrong. Thus businesses rise a fall too fast, jobs are uncertain, and private finance failed to mitigate the risk of that - its instruments to supposedly do it have only added more instability!
That is why socialism and communism are not on many minds - it's a service economy problem, and Marx apparently wrote only about an industrial economy. That's a wrong perception: Marx diagnosed the economic problem of capitalism correctly (in one word: accumulation), but all the famous subsequent work built on his analysis of capitalism has assumed an industrial society. Thus all standard (tried) "socialist" answers seem inappropriate and the ruling elites dismiss them. Though they certainly are desperate to find some exit!

That exit will have to be some form of socialism, in that finance must become a public service and capital profits must cease to be accumulated solely by the nominal owners and by the controllers of businesses. But there's no packaged solution to do it, and it looks like too radical a departure from the present way of running things. It'll take a few years for someone to come up with a "general theory of the services economy", and then it'll be eagerly embraced and applied by desperate governments all around.

 

[Core Imposter]

Absolutely disagree that socialism is the answer or the future.

Some sort of modification of free enterprise with individual responsibility that also includes a vested interest from participating members of society will probably emerge after all the carnage. In the next iteration of the American Republic. I dunno what will happen in Europe.

This really has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism. The Chinese invented paper money and that was a failure, time after time. Rome minted coins of silver and gold and over time diluted the content of those metals as the Empire weakened. Spain went broke multiple times during the height of the exploition of South American gold. How can all this be? Its always the same, the ruling class always spends more than it takes in. It happened to England, and all over the world many times and under all varities of government types.

Its all about the debt, which is too big the moment people decide it is and always happens sooner than people think it will. They always devise schemes to extend and buy time and those schemes almost always fail.

If you stop and think about it, each generation always thinks they are smarter and better informed than the last and thus invest more in hubris than caution with pretty spectaclularly consistent and gruesome results.

I held out hope that this time it would be different. No more.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Buy gold and buy silver. Prepare for one bumpy ride.

 

[Leoreth]

Absolutely disagree that socialism is the answer or the future.

Some sort of modification of free enterprise with individual responsibility that also includes a vested interest from participating members of society will probably emerge after all the carnage.

So it's okay as long as it's not called socialism?

This really has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism. The Chinese invented paper money and that was a failure, time after time. Rome minted coins of silver and gold and over time diluted the content of those metals as the Empire weakened. Spain went broke multiple times during the height of the exploition of South American gold. How can all this be? Its always the same, the ruling class always spends more than it takes in. It happened to England, and all over the world many times and under all varities of government types.

You should really read this thread. Oh, I see that you already did. Maybe you should do it again.

 

[classical_hero]

What is means is that when you allow conservatives to run economic policy in capitalist countries, they will do so much damage to it that nothing can stop it from melting down. And heroic measures after heroic measures still may not be enough to protect the nations from conservatism.

That is not true, since Australia has basically escaped this mess so far relatively unscathed. And the ruling government that had most to do with the proper rules and regulations in place was a conservative government. What caused the mess in my opinion was libertarian ideas, that government should be not be in the business of regulating certain industries and that self regulation is the way to go. That was an huge failure, the lack of regulations. But don't forget that in Europe where the problem is even worse than in America, the governments in control were certainly not conservative in nature, certainly not by the standard of America or even Australia.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm just saying. I know I can make capitalism work. Because it's been done. You don't know that communism can work. Because it hasn't been done.

Well, firstly, you know that it was done in certain circumstances, but those circumstances are not going to be repeat, so the same reactions can't be applied with any guarantee of receiving the same results. You just can't apply this sort of vulgar positivism to something as complex and inconsistent as the market.
Secondly, I don't know that I can't make communism work, because societies can't be made and remade by sheer strength of will. So that's not the best comparison.

Uh, yes?

Spoiler :

Perhaps this is exceptional, but I've not encountered any particular reason to believe that it is.

I think overall capitalism has been quite a bit more successful however. The way I see it, *someone* is successful right now. And that's either a capitalist nation or a communist nation.

How are you defining "success", in this instance?

 

[timtofly]

Feel free to disagree with it, but, really, to call it unsubstantive is a wishful thinking far more profound than any that you could accuse me of.


I'm a humanist, Quackers, not an economicist. Capitalism ends when we end it, not a moment sooner.

World War III?

 

[Traitorfish]

World War III?

Could be. Marx always left room for self-destruction. (Although, personally, I'd say that environmental catastrophe, rather than nuclear war, is the gun that we're currently holding to our heads.)

 

[Cutlass]

That is not true, since Australia has basically escaped this mess so far relatively unscathed. And the ruling government that had most to do with the proper rules and regulations in place was a conservative government. What caused the mess in my opinion was libertarian ideas, that government should be not be in the business of regulating certain industries and that self regulation is the way to go. That was an huge failure, the lack of regulations. But don't forget that in Europe where the problem is even worse than in America, the governments in control were certainly not conservative in nature, certainly not by the standard of America or even Australia.

Yeah, that's right. You didn't have the problems we had because you didn't have the conservatism dismantle the regulatory structure that we had. The conservative and libertarian ideas on economic deregulation are pretty much the same thing.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Yeah, that's right. You didn't have the problems we had because you didn't have the conservatism dismantle the regulatory structure that we had. The conservative and libertarian ideas on economic deregulation are pretty much the same thing.

So what you're saying is that the number of laws on the books has been declining, that the laws we have are simpler and less complex, that the number of government departments has reduced, that government spending has fallen, that taxes have gone down, that the power of government has been curtailed...

 

[Cutlass]

So what you're saying is that the number of laws on the books has been declining, that the laws we have are simpler and less complex, that the number of government departments has reduced, that government spending has fallen, that taxes have gone down, that the power of government has been curtailed...

Actually, if you knew anything about US politics and government, you would know that the core of our problems has been that government is no longer doing it's job to keep a lid on things.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Actually, if you knew anything about US politics and government, you would know that the core of our problems has been that government is no longer doing it's job to keep a lid on things.

Yep, that's why America needs MOAR GUVENMENT!!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You mean that capital is less concentrated, the economy more localised, industry more technologically primitive, the global working class smaller, and feudal societies more common than they all were in 1880? My my, I really need to brush up on my modern history...

Indeed. It will be fun to see what the paladins turn up to combat this.

And yet socialism and communism are less on the minds of people than any time in centuries.

Uh, yes?

Once sentence jabs. Hardly worth the effort of replying to.

I'm just saying. I know I can make capitalism work. Because it's been done. You don't know that communism can work. Because it hasn't been done.

No, you know how to temporarily fix capitalism until either the measures you used to fix it breaks in its own crisis, or people erode what you fixed it with and it creates a new crisis.

Let's try and imagine that it's possible to create a system where there are no crises, because people aren't trying to screw each other over to get "theirs." Socialism would be the most permanent fix on your system possible, because capitalism is founded upon and functions upon class conflict, which is inherently unstable.

It doesn't matter, some form of socialism - whatever it may get called - is an historical inevitability. There won't be jobs for everyone, which means that the social-democrat arrangement for stabilizing capitalism's tendency towards the accumulation of wealth and subsequent demand crisis is finished.
I don't think that there is even a margin to go through another iteration of collapse-rebuilding of the capitalist system. Once it crumbles - as it is right on course to do - it'll have to be replaced with something else. There is no way to to effectively manage a "service economy" under a capitalist system. Capitalist economy was planned as much as communism was, that's how it was stable: companies planned ahead for investment and for recouping it, governments taxed them, planned its own spending and politically arbitrated wages and consumption while keeping high employment. Nothing from that system works any more. The shift to services wrecked the whole system of balances.Unrestricted international trade worsened the situation, but I believe that the shift to services would eventually be fatal by itself, it'd only have taken a little longer.

The service sector now moves most of the wealth and provides most jobs, but people's wants of services are fickle, planning too often goes wrong. Thus businesses rise a fall too fast, jobs are uncertain, and private finance failed to mitigate the risk of that - its instruments to supposedly do it have only added more instability!
That is why socialism and communism are not on many minds - it's a service economy problem, and Marx apparently wrote only about an industrial economy. That's a wrong perception: Marx diagnosed the economic problem of capitalism correctly (in one word: accumulation), but all the famous subsequent work built on his analysis of capitalism has assumed an industrial society. Thus all standard (tried) "socialist" answers seem inappropriate and the ruling elites dismiss them. Though they certainly are desperate to find some exit!

That exit will have to be some form of socialism, in that finance must become a public service and capital profits must cease to be accumulated solely by the nominal owners and by the controllers of businesses. But there's no packaged solution to do it, and it looks like too radical a departure from the present way of running things. It'll take a few years for someone to come up with a "general theory of the services economy", and then it'll be eagerly embraced and applied by desperate governments all around.

Very much so. I always enjoy your posts.

Absolutely disagree that socialism is the answer or the future.

Some sort of modification of free enterprise with individual responsibility that also includes a vested interest from participating members of society will probably emerge after all the carnage.

You mean like that which arises when workers own and operate businesses cooperatively?

This really has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism.

I can't wait to find out what it does have to do with...

The Chinese invented paper money and that was a failure, time after time. Rome minted coins of silver and gold and over time diluted the content of those metals as the Empire weakened. Spain went broke multiple times during the height of the exploition of South American gold. How can all this be? Its always the same, the ruling class always spends more than it takes in. It happened to England, and all over the world many times and under all varities of government types.

What's your point? You think capitalism is a government type or something? Life isn't like Civ, laddie.

I held out hope that this time it would be different. No more.

It sounds to me like you are quite conflicted about what you want. On the one hand, you say that socialism is neither the answer nor the future. Then, you lament about centuries of capital accumulation and wanton behavior with that beautiful capitalist tool called "money," and about the irresponsible and consumptive behavior of the "ruling class" (your words). So either you really hate yourself enough to want to live under such a system, or you're ashamed to openly admit that you're a socialist. Perhaps even to yourself.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

......you are all blind. Oblivious. Don't you know what this means?

Being oblivious I don't know what this means, being blind I don't even know what this is.

 

[Cutlass]

Yep, that's why America needs MOAR GUVENMENT!!

It needs smart government. Not that ideological insanity based on ignoring the real world that we get from the right wing.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yep, that's why America needs MOAR GUVENMENT!!

As opposed to "LEZZ GUVENMENT!!", which is usually what your good self can be found demanding? If you're going to accuse others of advocating over-simplistic schemes, at least try to offer something more than their inversion.

 

[Ayn Rand]

As opposed to "LEZZ GUVENMENT!!", which is usually what your good self can be found demanding? If you're going to accuse others of advocating over-simplistic schemes, at least try to offer something more than their inversion.

I'm not criticisng it because it is over-simplistic, but because government is inherently and naturally corrupt

Although I'm starting to see the fun side of gaming the legal-financial system - I can certainly see why they do it. After all, if the "common people" are just begging the elites to eat all the pies... well, then it would be rude not to

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not criticisng it because it is over-simplistic, but because government is inherently and naturally corrupt

Although I'm starting to see the fun side of gaming the legal-financial system - I can certainly see why they do it. After all, if the "common people" are just begging the elites to eat all the pies... well, then it would be rude not to

Government is no more "inherently and naturally corrupt" than the private sector. Less really, because it is the efforts of the private sector that corrupt the government. So if you want less corrupt government, the method is to prevent the private sector from doing the corrupting.