|
Post by chebob on Nov 5, 2011 12:15:16 GMT -7
Why or why not?
|
|
kim
Occupied
Posts: 82
|
Post by kim on Nov 5, 2011 15:48:43 GMT -7
I am anti-capitalist because capitalism separates the producers of market goods or services from the capital required to make those goods or services. As a result, as workers we must bow to those with money (power) and spend our working lives producing what those with access to capital decide is worthy of production, whether that's widgets or warheads.
In a capitalist economic system a concentration of wealth and power is inevitable. Those with power(capital) can choose to pick up and leave on a whim, with no real responsibility to the employees, leaving a gaping hole in the economy of the deserted community. If Smurfit workers had had a choice in the operations of the mill, would they have closed it, or would they have collectively figured out a better way to operate it? Maybe if there had been 400 employee-owners they would have met years ago and redesigned the mill so it could remain a source of employment. Instead shareholders with no connection to the community and no stake but capital investment in the company were able to pull out and leave those that had a real stake high and dry. This affected the train service that ran out to the mill, each and every business providing all the services that those 400 families previously used in Missoula, the housing values of all the people in Frenchtown as their neighbors fled the state looking for work, etc. How's that for "trickle down economics" and free markets. Those with power are free to move their money, out of state or out of country. They take a piss and we get wet. Keep the democracy, lose the capitalism I say. Because capitalism is not democratic, so we can't have both (as the current state of politics proves).
|
|
|
Post by troutsky on Nov 5, 2011 19:01:24 GMT -7
You go girl! The only thing I could add to that is that the logic of capitalism is perpetual growth and consumption and the earth and it's resources are finite. A collision- and guess who wins? Capitalism IS crisis.
|
|
josh
Occupied
Posts: 77
|
Post by josh on Nov 7, 2011 22:28:03 GMT -7
While I agree with all that Kim and troutsky say, I'm not going to say I'm an "anti-capitalist" because I think that by labeling myself in that manner I would alienate a lot of people who otherwise might actually be willing to talk. I just don't think we need to use the old names and categories anymore. The system we have is broken: self-declared "capitalists" and "anti-capitalists" can agree on that. I think we can forgo the capitalism vs. anti-capitalism debates and just start talking about what would be better. Then we get to be pro-something rather than anti-something, which is actually a lot more fun. So I'm not going to say I'm an anti-capitalist, I'm a cooperativist or a mutualist.
|
|
|
Post by stevew on Nov 8, 2011 12:52:13 GMT -7
I believe in a mixed market.
Certain aspects of our lives and culture lend themselves particularly well to socialism. For instance, things like utilities and insurance are socialistic in nature, and they work much better when done in a socialistic way. Like parks, libraries, and defense, socialism works well in these areas.
Other aspects of our culture, like restaurants and shoe making tend to be better when done by private people employing the "free enterprise" model.
Experience has shown us that neither pure socialistic nor pure capitalistic systems work. In fact they both fail miserably when they are the sole model in use.
But when they are well blended we can enjoy the bests parts of each approach and minimize the downsides of each approach.
i feel at this point we have gone far too much toward privatization. We are way out of balance. We need to get back to a well balanced mix.
|
|
|
Post by charlenaj on Nov 8, 2011 17:51:59 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by nicole on Nov 11, 2011 14:00:31 GMT -7
As troutsky says, "the logic of capitalism is perpetual growth and consumption and the earth and it's resources are finite." I've never heard anyone dispute this fact. So, once we've agreed that you cannot have perpetual growth in a closed system (the Earth), why do we even entertain a theory based on an impossibility? How and why are we even in this position? It strikes me as a psychological question to be explored.
|
|
|
Post by troutsky on Nov 11, 2011 17:51:45 GMT -7
Prof. Running's talk last night had me wondering about the psychological refusal to face crisis rationally. Stockholm syndrome, identifying with your kidnappers? Actually I think it is more about hegemony and capitalisms ability to reproduce the ideology which sustains it. All the talk of liberty and the social Darwinian aspects and Adam Smiths Invisible Hand all appeal to people in different ways. Plus, capitalism has been linked to democracy for some time now, it is patriotic to profit!
|
|
|
Post by stevew on Nov 13, 2011 12:47:03 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by troutsky on Nov 14, 2011 7:51:51 GMT -7
Why it isn't "instituted properly" is the question Steve. It's all about power.
|
|
|
Post by chebob on Nov 14, 2011 14:41:40 GMT -7
Capitalism is properly instituted...especially to capitalists! It is carrying out its objectives ruthlessly and efficiently...just as it is supposed to do. There are only adjectives to add to capitalism to parry criticisms (casino, crony, predatory, neoliberal, etc.), but the logic cannot be debated: accummulation, profit motive, and eternal growth. Capitalism is capitalism no matter what shade you try to paint it. And its logic does not jive with: equity; cooperation; solidarity; diversity; finite resources on a finite planet; and democracy. In Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith warned of the "vile maxim" of capitalism. In the very same Wikipedia article you linked about the "Invisible Hand" you ought to read the criticisms too.
|
|
josh
Occupied
Posts: 77
|
Post by josh on Nov 14, 2011 22:06:25 GMT -7
I graduated with a B.A. in Economics in 2004. Well before that I had actually found the paragraph in Wealth of Nations that mentions the "invisible hand" and realized IMMEDIATELY that what Smith was talking about no longer applied (I somehow doubt Stephen LeRoy would have listened at that point). Smith says that since the only way for a capitalist to increase profits is to expand and hire more people and since he will expand domestically to protect his investment from nationalization and the like, the profit motive leads him to create more jobs in his own country: i.e. the profit motive leads to outcomes good for workers and the country as a whole. Unfortunately, nowadays the profit motive leads to labor-replacing machinery (helicopter logging, for example) and outsourcing.
I've been saying for YEARS that the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith was no longer applicable, but it takes a financial crisis of epic proportions to get the academic economists to see the obvious. I want to feel vindicated, but really it's just upsetting.
On a related note: Smith also said that, as regards property laws, they are instituted to "protect those who have much from those who have nothing." Adam Smith: not as conservative as you've been led to believe. But still, I prefer Thorstein Veblen.
|
|
|
Post by vicki on Nov 16, 2011 21:27:41 GMT -7
I agree with what Steve W wrote several days ago. It is unregulated capitalism that got wreaked our economy. Reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act would be a good start in reforming our financial system.
|
|
josh
Occupied
Posts: 77
|
Post by josh on Nov 17, 2011 10:14:05 GMT -7
Vicki, the problem with just re-regulating without some fundamental change in the economic power structure is that any new regulation will immediately be undermined and fought against by the same people who convinced a Democratic president to repeal Glass-Steagall. Prof. Richard Wolff makes this point quite clearly in his "Capitalism Hits the Fan" video (look for it on Youtube). Do we really want another round of regulation followed by slow repeal? It seems like that's what re-regulation would lead to.
I think replacing capitalist enterprises with cooperative, worker-owned enterprises would be much more effective in the long run. The board of directors of Exxon has NO incentive to abide by environmental, health or safety regulations, etc., only the incentive to maximize profits and since violating regulations generally leads to higher profits than abiding by them, we can expect that that is exactly what they will do. If Exxon was worker controlled, on the other hand, abiding by those regs would be beneficial to those making the decisions. The workers at the Billings facility, for instance, will be directly affected by the spill caused by Exxon's not following safety guidelines; the CEO will not be. He doesn't live near the Yellowstone and could give a shit if it gets some oil in it. See what I mean?
I think it's time we start thinking outside the old boxes. If regulation were the answer, wouldn't it have worked the first time(s)? I don't think we need regulations, I think we need to alter incentives so that regulations become mostly unnecessary (you don't need a minimum wage law if all your businesses are worker-controlled co-ops).
cheers.
|
|
|
Post by vicki on Nov 20, 2011 11:00:37 GMT -7
This is a good topic, one worth exploring more. I hear you Josh, but I stand in support of Steve W’s comments. I think he was right when he wrote that “…neither pure socialistic or pure capitalistic systems work. In fact they fail miserably when they are the sole model in use. But when they are well blended we can enjoy the best parts of each approach and minimize the downsides of each approach.” He goes on to state that we have gone too far toward privatization and that we need to get back to a well balanced mix.
Our economic system is skewed in favor of those who have taken unfair advantage of their power and money. I think we can all agree on that. We didn’t get here overnight. It took the special interests 30 to 40 years to dismantle financial reforms of the Progressive Era and the Great Depression. We find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to put these latter day-Robber Barons in their place.
Josh makes a good point. Putting in place adequate financial reforms (i.e., re-regulating) will just invite those same special interests to start undermining any controls on their profitmaking and market manipulations. Bring it on, I say. This time we won’t be fooled by their whining. Regulate financial markets. Put thieves in prison, even the wealthy and powerful ones, and return the money they stole to the victims of their crimes. Change the form and financing of national political campaigns. (It is said that over a billion dollars will be spent on the 2012 presidential campaign—that’s obscene!) Pass legislation that reverses the US Supreme Court’s terrible decision on corporate personhood. If we do that and more, we could begin to create a fair and less destructive economy.
But to suggest that we replace the current economic power structure with an anti-capitalist system portends violent revolution. How else do you suggest we shift capital and the means of production to cooperative, worker-owned enterprises? Am I missing some intermediate steps?
I like what Josh wrote on Nov. 8th, suggesting that “we forego the capitalism vs anti-capitalism debates and just start talking about what would be better…to be pro-something rather than anti-something.” Being a cooperativist or a mutualist sounds good to me.
Occupy Missoula is a diverse group of Americans with deep concerns about our current economic system and the direction our country is heading. Given our consensus decision making model, the youth of our movement (we’re only 6 weeks old), and some of the challenges we face—like the mixed feelings we have about the encampment on the court house lawn—we have not yet developed a clear statement of what we want. That’s ok. It will come in time.
I look forward to the discussions.
|
|