Why capitalism is the problem
1) What we usually get in defense of capitalism these days is "gee, if we could have well-regulated/ environmentally conscious/ socially equitable capitalism then it would be totally kewl." You get the capitalism they feed you, not the stuff you want. The reality is that under capitalism Bill Gates, for instance, makes $23,148 per minute and you don't, so he can buy anything and everything -- your education systems, your food, your government, your climate change mitigation, you. Now multiply Bill Gates by whatever number the top echelon of the system has, and you get the point. You don't decide, they do.
It's important not to confuse capitalism with choice. The capitalists let you choose between Verizon and MetroPCS, or they let you choose different places to live (which they've standardized), or they might let you choose a career path (depending upon which of your abilities they will buy -- good luck busking for a living, and I'm sure that being an adjunct professor is the path to prosperity), or other such trivial choices depending upon how much money you have. Until such time as you have actual choice, you live where the rent is affordable, and you pursue a degree in Medical Billing and Coding or something like that while loudly proclaiming to the world that such a discipline is your real passion in life, because to do otherwise would be to go insane or to die of some preventable disease because neither you nor anyone in the bottom 99% of society can afford American health care. And that probably won't work either.
2) In that regard capitalists do not let you choose a system of political economy. Your choice is capitalism or -- okay, capitalism. The point of this essay is to suggest, first of all, that you do have a choice, and that you should start by figuring out how you can choose. In this regard it's important that we all start making metachoices. Choosing a system of political economy involves at least some minimal rebellion against the existing system.
I have seen some "let's kill capitalism" sentiment expressed of late. Capitalism is not the problem, nor is any other economic 'ism inherently better. The key to "better" is in the implementation details.
Do we get to choose how capitalism is implemented?
Yes, I know, there's Bernie Sanders, who wants to run a campaign on the premise that we get to choose a cute, kind, and cuddly capitalism as opposed to the vicious sort that rules our lives right now. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, assets that you don't get to choose their candidate. Moreover, the Sanders campaign only makes sense as a form of class struggle. Class struggle is your tool, and it only works -- it only gets any traction in the same way in which you can only rotate a nut on a rusty bolt with a wrench if you spray the bolt with WD-40 beforehand -- when the whole class struggles together. The capitalists want you to think that you are "just one person," when in fact you are only "just one person" in the absence of solidarity. Solidarity, there, that's the prerequisite of your having a choice.
And to actualize this choice, the working class in solidarity needs to pursue the choice all the way to a humanized society, which, under today's conditions, means a post-capitalist society, a society which does not subordinate people to money. The conditions of subordinating people to money, today, are too harsh for the dream of a humanized society to progress under the conditions of the sort of cutthroat capitalism that keeps the elites in business today. Pursuing the half-baked dream of a slightly better capitalism in an age of climate disaster is a good way to get nothing at all. You can watch the TV while your politicians, clients of Big Money to the end, mouth empty promises as the capitalists pick your pockets. Or you can be evacuated and sent to the beach to live, as the Australians are now, while your Prime Minister pledges eternal allegiance to the coal industry. When do you say it's not working? You at least need the dream of something better.
3) Capitalism may have once accompanied some significant increases in the working-class standard of living, which one actually got to experience depending upon one's position within the working class. But the era in which that's going to happen is over. Capitalism achieved such gains in the context of European society's conquest of the world and in the context of what I'm calling the Age of Utopian Dreaming. Those ages are over. The Age of Utopian Dreaming was that age in which it was assumed that the future was going to be better than the present, and in which it was assumed that the future was headed toward one of a number of conceived utopias. If you want this notion outlined baldly, read the Marquis de Condorcet's "Sketch", written in 1795. Condorcet lays it out in its full glory, and maybe the generations that came afterword didn't believe in all of what he said, but they believed in most of it.
The Age of Utopian Dreaming did not always involve the common use of the word "utopia," but the utopian dream was there nonetheless. Progress, for instance. Progress carries a meaning depending upon what society is progressing toward -- during the Age of Utopian Dreaming progress was progress toward a utopia. Development offers the same thing -- development is development of a utopia. Life was often hard during the Age of Utopian Dreaming, but people lived with its difficulties because they were possessed by the sentiment that the future would be brighter.
If the Age of Utopian Dreaming hadn't been brought to a close at the end of the Seventies or so today's reality would be quite different. David Graeber wrote a piece on this for the Baffler awhile ago, titled "Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit." To summarize the argument: during the Age of Utopian Dreaming, we once dreamed, society was eventually going to be like what was depicted in the cartoon series "The Jetsons," with flying cars, mechanical servants for everyone, and so on. And we could have had the world of "The Jetsons," too. "The Jetsons" was a boring cartoon series because there were no real problems in its universe -- life was so much better than it was in the real world that its plots were unimportant. All of that dream, and its intended progress, came to a screeching halt when it was proclaimed toward the end of the Seventies that the utopia of money was going to be the only available utopia, that, in Margaret Thatcher's words, "there is no alternative." The world has been in decline ever since.
Graeber blames bureaucracy for this situation, but that portion of his argument isn't really of much consequence. The Age of Utopian Dreaming was in fact characterized by a vast diversity of utopian dreams, many of them realizable. A thousand utopias bloomed -- it wasn't just the Jetsons. These utopian dreams, moreover, manifested themselves in a broad variety of ways, from manifestos of freedom (start with the Declaration of Independence, with 1776,) to communes to anarchism and socialism to Edison inventions to utopian novels to Gilbert and Sullivan's play "Utopia Inc." to the concepts and diversities of the Golden Age of Science Fiction. What matters is that the Age of Utopian Dreaming has, since at the latest 1980s, confronted an elite-directed movement to abolish it, and to substitute in place of that age a "normal" world in which all utopian aspirations were based solely upon the purchase of consumer products and in which there's never enough money. If you want to read about that world in its baldest manifestation, read Jennifer Silva's "Coming Up Short."
There is today only one utopia that matters today, and that is the utopia of sustainability. It's exclusive of the only utopia we've been told we're permitted to have. Capitalism can't be part of that. The capitalists can't pursue dreams of infinite profit on a finite planet while the rest of us survive. Conversely, we can't prosper while the rich swallow up an ever-increasing share of total wealth (when they've already got it to the point where 78% of American workers live paycheck to paycheck). Toxic capitalist growth (and it's invariably toxic to something or other) is incompatible with a guarantee that society will not collapse. We've gone down the path of toxic growth far enough, now, to figure this out. Enough, already.
Okay I think I've stated the case. If I need more I'll publish another diary.
Comments
Utopia via a change in consciousness?
I'm not sure but it sounds like that's what you're advocating. That sounds a lot to me like Charles Reich's The Greening of America written in 1970. I recall friends going to live on communes and whatnot. Only a very few of these social experiments survived and those that did wound up relying on capitalist endeavors to survive. Maybe I'm missing something re what you're saying. I try to always be focussed on getting from point A to point B. From my perspective borne of a certain experience, it's always turned out to be a crooked road with lots of strategic and tactical compromises involved.
We essentially agree on the evils of capitalism. But I'll stick to class struggle as the only means to overcome it. And I also strongly disagree with your assessment that Bernie Sanders is running "a campaign on the premise that we get to choose a cute, kind, and cuddly capitalism." That sounds more like "capitalist to the bones" Liz Warren to me. Bernie's a Democratic Socialist who has studied history from a socialist perspective, the only candidate who is not hesitent to carry that mantle.
There are two very recent articles that I've just read that I'm gonna recommend very highly to everyone, both of which focus on getting from point A to point B, and which also address and critically respond to RIP's emphasis on "implementation":
White Collar Populism: On the Politics of Professional-Class Anxiety by Dustin Guastella
and
Is This the Future Liberals Want? by Matt Karp
Bernie Sanders is a social democrat.
When he says "socialism," he means social democracy. This is probably okay for now because social democracy is the best thing people can imagine at this point. But I would be interested in any particular plans Sanders has for ending capitalism and bringing about post-capitalism. So far I know of nothing in this regard.
Utopian hippy communes were only able to make it so far as co-housing institutions within capitalism (which is still a lot! See e.g. Twin Oaks) because the outside world has only been able to make it so far as a capitalist outside world. But what if the outside world weren't capitalist?
To be sure, good co-housing would be a plus. And the global social makeover that this would entail can only be described in piecemeal fashion just yet. We'll need a lot of agencies for planting trees even when tree-planting is not guided by ANY considerations of profit. We'll need a way to shut down the fossil fuel industries, probably with a deadline set in the future. (Has Bernie promised this?) And we'll probably need something to replace what is currently called "money," as it currently rules our lives. Three British women have written a book about this: "The Politics of Money." I'll leave it there for now.
"The Resistance will be patchwork at first, but we’ll find each other
quickly, a constellation flickering to life.." -- Malcolm Harris
Driver Training
I am reminded of this high school kid during the driving skill session approaching the I-80 interchange driving on the four lane cross road. He moved into the left lane in plenty of time. As he approached the teacher nearly had a heart attack as he proceeded to turn left to take the I-80 exit ramp.
Your comment was almost there, but then …
RIP
One step at a time
And for my two cents, I'm pretty sure the tipping point is coming much sooner rather than later. And if we've already passed that point as some folks argue, then I don't much care.
We can quibble on and on about Democratic Socialism vs Social Democracy (I'll allow Bernie to define himself and his outlook) but if we don't get across the bridge we're coming to this year (I was going to write this coming year but, holy shit, time flies), we're not going to get across the next bridge before our chances of sufficiently combatting climate change have passed.
Imagine no capitalism? Much harder for me to do than imagine another four more years of Trump if we don't get our acts together real quick.
On a side note, I do recall Twin Oaks, and even subscribed to Communities.
I also see Steven Gaskin's The Farm has suffered a similar fate: https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/article/13050290/a-dispute-involving...
More recently, I saw a TV documentary series episode with a Black comedian (I forget the guy's name and the name of the series) visiting there and interviewing the few folks still homesteading there. Seems they are making some decent beers.
Edit/add: Found it: https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/22/opinions/living-off-the-grid-usoa-kamau-b...
The "tipping point" is --
a sort of ceteris paribus (all other things remaining the same) concept. "We will have a tipping point if we keep doing what we're doing." But what if all other things don't remain the same?
"The Resistance will be patchwork at first, but we’ll find each other
quickly, a constellation flickering to life.." -- Malcolm Harris
And what if things keep getting worse?
As in Trump is re-elected coz we don't unite behind Bernie who is the only candidate with so much as any chance of getting the nomination and going on to beat Trump?.
One step at a time.
Bernie or dust.
You just keep organizing.
I really don't know why everything has to hinge on the effort to elect one person to one office. What about the downticket candidates? Or join Extinction Rebellion or something of that sort. There's always something to do.
"The Resistance will be patchwork at first, but we’ll find each other
quickly, a constellation flickering to life.." -- Malcolm Harris
I just don't think we have that much time
... to begin to effect necessary societal change in the US.
It seems to me we have a golden opportunity this time around in 2020, much better than the chance we had in 2016, to take the steps we have to take. I don't think a similar chance will come again anytime soon enough. There's a critical mass with Bernie larger and more unified than any I've seen in my lifetime of close to seventy years. Good luck on seeing it happening any time again.
I don't think it's "time"
that's needed. Rather, something actually has to happen, and that can require as little or as much time as is needed.
"The Resistance will be patchwork at first, but we’ll find each other
quickly, a constellation flickering to life.." -- Malcolm Harris
What will happen is Trump
. . . if we don't get our acts together pronto, the alternative to which will set us back so far that we might as well just buy craft beer instead of trying to save money by buying the watery tasteless stuff (if we are so fortunate).
We have already passed the tipping point
It is now just a matter of scale.
But there will be expanded opportunities. When a house burns down it is a tragedy for the owner but a windfall for the carpenter, plumber and electrician.
Look at the bright side. We have choices.
“When faced with a radical crisis, when the old way of being in the world, of interacting with each other and with the realm of nature doesn't work anymore, when survival is threatened by seemingly insurmountable problems, an individual life-form -- or a species -- will either die or become extinct or rise above the limitations of its condition through an evolutionary leap.” ― Eckhart Tolle
Going past a tipping point
. . . doesn't lead to expanded opportunities. Not for anything good at least. A tipping point is a tipping point, not a tragedy that can be overcome.
Of course we have already gone past a "tipping point"
We are going to get a 1.5 to 2 deg. temperature increase by 2100 and we cannot stop it from happening. But that doesn't mean the end of the world or humanity. We could even end up with an Miocene climate and still survive as a species.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvuse7a1c54]
Human efforts at ameliorating global warming are just beginning and will be ramped up in the coming decades. Of course this will not stop my land from becoming a nice waterfront property for my grandchildren but c'est la vie. Who said life is fair?
Then all I have is a choice between your opinion
. . . or that of most scientists.
I think I will opt to go with believing we have 12 years or so before we reach the tipping point.
Otherwise, we're phluckled and this discussion is really quite meaningless.
Yup
The government has lied to us since its creation. Why would you believe them when they tell us we have 12 years left before the point of no return?
Apparently holocaust denial is not an issue anymore. Lots of people are denying the one in Gaza with absolutely no repercussions.
Trump is telling us there is no climate change
Right now, he pretty much is the gubmint.
I'll trust other folks who have studied climate change and have reached a certain consensus. And if we have passed the tipping point, again, I'd consider this discussion meaningless.
lied
All governments lie. All governments always have and always will.
These facts relate to the axiomatic "All power corrupts absolutely".
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
What is the tipping point for you?
Do you think global warming is like thermal runaway in a nuclear reactor where it suddenly increases by an order of magnitude if we don't keep it below some (undefinable) threshold?
Will it be like the flu pandemic of 1917 with an est. 100 million deaths or maybe global deaths during WWII at 70-80 million or the est. 300 million deaths in the 20th century from malaria?
At this point I am more worried about the US starting a global conflict that would end in the Mother of All Wars.
BTW, the US (and Europe) are responsible for the global base load of atmospheric CO2 in creating their high standard of living. I suggest these nations have their power turned off for twenty-five years to allow the rest of the world to catch up.
I share Naomi Klein's idea of a tipping point
. . . as she details it in This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate and in On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal .
Seems quite a few other folks are in agreement.
I also think the best way to get the US and Europe on the road to assuming a saner role in combating climate change and western corporate greed and militarism (which go hand in hand) is by doing what we can to elect Bernie.
If we can't do that then it reminds me of the history of the CP in the US thinking they could stage a revolution overturning capitalism after they resolved they couldn't bore from within and take over trade unions.
I want to know how to switch
to 100% renewables to cover total world energy consumption in a period of 10 years as called for with the Green New Deal.
Here's the current situation:
Here's a much more reasonable time line. Complete conversion to renewables by 2050. Keep in mind that the entire energy infrastructure must also be converted at the same time.
Video produced in 2017.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiBMklgawDA&feature=emb_logo]
My Professional Opinion
The time line for conversion (away from Methane, Oil, and Coal) is much shorter than most projections. I will not quote a time because from a technological perspective we can move much faster, we just need to decide it is worth the effort. We have already begun to hit several of the tipping points. Climate change is not simply a function of a single tipping point, sigh, please stop the lies. Also, tipping points are not singular points, they are more like tipping ranges … sort of like losing your grip while free-climbing.
We are running out of time. The problem is not a matter of not doing damage it is more about making the damage as little as possible.
My personal view from my experiences: As a population particularly in the good ol' USofA, we are too stupid to do the right thing. We would much prefer to shuffle the deck chairs than do anything really useful. Hysteria is so much more fun than engaging our critical thinking skills. And besides that experts are just fake hacks … right … RIGHT.
RIP
I never said it was.
I put the word in "quotes". It will be an exponential/log function. With each 0.1 deg change we will have a new scenario vis-a-vis climate change and sea levels. Unfortunately this is almost impossible to calculate with a large degree of accuracy because we do not know all the variables nor how they interact with one another.
I see many nations now doing much more work on this problem than the US is. Maybe if TPTB would spend less on
defenseoffense the country could make better headway in solving the problem.You do realize that ameliorating global climate change is going to be the most CAPITAL extensive project as well as the most socially disruptive the world has ever encountered - especially if it has to be done quickly.
Not maybe
And the only candidate with any chance whatsoever of winning the Democratic nomination and beating Trump and making a real effort to deal with corporate greed, militarism/imperialism and climate change before we reach whatever environmental tipping point(s) you want to mark is . . . .
https://fortune.com/2020/01/03/democrats-iran-biden-sanders/
If you think there is still time come 2024 through 2050 for another such viable candidate with the necessary critical mass in any political party to emerge, may the fates bless ya.
Bernie or Dust:
https://twitter.com/mahmoudkenny98/status/1213445145544265728
I'm loosing faith that ANY
electedchosen POTUS can do much of anything w/o express assent by the oligarchy which holds real control. The citizens of the country are just bit players for the kabuki spectacle held every four years. Anyway, if Bernie was to do something not permitted he would have to be JFK'd. (He has a problematic heart doesn't he?)The US is the world's largest glutton for energy, by far, and it is not going to back away from the table voluntarily.
You sound a lot like Arendt from daze of yore (time flies)
Hey, I'm not optimistic about Bernie getting nominated, elected or not getting the JFK treatment as he tries to implement his policies if he pulls off a miracle. I'm not going to be the one to kill off Don Quixote, though (I just read that Terry Gilliam is coming out with a new movie with a title to that effect). My greatest fear right now is that Warren will cut a deal with Biden to deny Bernie the nomination on the first ballot. So it goes. All we can do is what we can do. I'll keep sending Bernie moola til it looks absolutely hopeless.
If we don't take it with extreme prejudice
… we will never recover. We have to show the opposition that we are serious, we are mad as hell, and we are going to make it hurt if they don't get on board with implementing solutions.
RIP
Projections about everything are going to be off
Because projections about global population are wrong. Most of the world is in shrinking population mode now. All of Europe. Even China and Japan. The US and even Brazil. India is now at population replacement. We will not hit the numbers that were predicted by 2050 and after that population will be in significant decline.
This also means that if we can't get a prediction of something as simple as population right, we may need to rethink our ability to predict far more complex things like climate, and the huge number of variables you allude to.
There's a baked-in increase in the near future
because of all the begetting that was done in the last 50 years. That will neither stop nor reverse overnight - short of a universal pledge of celibacy for at least ten years, and I can't see that happening, can you?
What *would* reverse it are the old standbys: Plague, Famine and War.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Of course
But all the predictions had those baked-in increases already and many more on top. We were supposed to get to 11 billion by 2100 and we may not make 9 billion before we start to decline. Having an average of a billion less people for fifty years or more is a big fucking deal when it comes to projecting what will happen.
**cough**
No, they're not. There have been no human efforts at ameliorating "global warming." Instead, what the EIA statistics show is an ever increasing production of fossil fuels, and this can be combined with other statistics that show a continuing destruction of the lungs of this planet, its forests. Nobody is doing anything of consequence about climate change. As a result, increases to Earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide endowment themselves increase each year.
"The Resistance will be patchwork at first, but we’ll find each other
quickly, a constellation flickering to life.." -- Malcolm Harris
I suggest you have a look at these figures.
Global renewable energy consumption
Of course CO2 is increasing every year. That is because CO2 production is directly related to economic output and rising standards of living as well as population growth due to better living conditions. China alone has brought more than 600 million people out of poverty into the middle class in the last 2 decades at a small fraction of the cost in CO2 emissions compared to a North American doing a similar thing over the last 10 decades.
So what would be your solution to reduce global CO2 levels at a faster rate? Denial to 2nd and 3rd world citizens of amenities that even the poorest American receives? How about starvation, war, pestilence, disease, genocide, sterilization or forced abortion to reduce population growth?
Did you ever think that the remarkable global reduction of these factors in the last several decades have been the primary contributing factors to increased requirements for energy and resultant CO2 emissions?
In the following diagram, show me where we can reduce the most CO2 emissions:
***cough*** indeed....
This is why the capitalist thought is an exercise in futility.
"Rising standards of living" could just as well be accomplished through what Karl Marx called a "union of free producers," in which everyone in society was doing something productive, rather than what one sees in a capitalist society, in which "rising standards of living" are achieved by those who can use government coercion, finance schemes, or stuff like entertainment and advertising to separate those few who have money from their money. And, in the case of countries like India and China, I do mean few -- maybe 2-5% of such countries' populations count as middle class, depending upon how one defines it.
Also it's obvious from the statistics that the populations with the best living conditions (for instance Europe) are those with the lowest population growth. Populations of urban poor, however, grow rather prolifically.
And your statistics for alternative energy are just what one would expect from a global society in which alternative energy is a marginal cottage-industry sideshow to the serious business of fossil fuel production unto death.
So I stick to my earlier point. There has been no climate change mitigation under capitalism.
"The Resistance will be patchwork at first, but we’ll find each other
quickly, a constellation flickering to life.." -- Malcolm Harris
You have a lot of preconceived notions
The entire world is changing much more rapidly then you realize. You need to get out and about.
Did you know that almost 150 million Chinese travel outside the country every year? China has the largest and most modern international airport in the world. It is expected to handle 300 flights per HOUR.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MmJF_KebMA]
Are you sure? Would you like to know what is happening in Germany?
thanks for telling me what I realize
While ignoring my primary argument.
"The Resistance will be patchwork at first, but we’ll find each other
quickly, a constellation flickering to life.." -- Malcolm Harris
While looking at different country's efforts
to reduce carbon emissions I was surprised at the amount that has already been accomplished.
They have the breakdown at that site.
So?
When polite countries in Europe need to "reduce emissions" they simply export their industrial emissions elsewhere, preferably to countries which don't need nice-looking statistics or good PR with the environmentalists. The global economy is interrelated -- you need to get out more.
"The Resistance will be patchwork at first, but we’ll find each other
quickly, a constellation flickering to life.." -- Malcolm Harris
I didn't say economic activity is not globalized
ALL major economic activity is now globalized. America depends on China and other developing nations to produce their shoes, underwear, children's toys and virtually every electric/electronic and household device they buy.
This is why China's emissions are so high. They make more stuff for the world than they consume at home. That's why their GDP yearly increase is so high. The US is the converse. It effectively exports emissions because it consumes more than it produces by a very wide margin.
Fortunately, China has realized they needed to get a handle on all emissions, including CO2. They are now at the world's forefront in engineering and manufacturing equipment designed to minimize or eliminate these emissions. This will become a huge global profit maker. Even the US will soon become a major customer for these goods (provided Trump stops putting up trade barriers). China will supply state-of-the-art 12MWh wind turbines to replace inefficient 2MWh American turbines to power new, efficient HS electric trains they will build and install for America. But the US will have to wait a few years until China has fulfilled their own requirements.
Speaking of capitalism, China learned from the masters and are adding a bit of it to their state socialism. It will be a good way to pull in foreign funding. They have big plans for additional electric HS trains. 5,200 HS train sets running on 30,000 Km of HS track is only half of what they require. China is a big country with 4 times the population of the US and they need more investment to improve their people lives
I posted the following three videos in DKos when it came out. I got attacked. They said China could only make worthless junk. They also said Chinese HS rail was destined to failure and would become a money pit that would bankrupt the country. The US was #1 and would remain so for the next century or more.
The writer, a Chinese American, purposely produced it in such a crude manner to reflect how Americans perceived China at the time.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmANxHJ6s9M]
Ha Ha Ha America Part 2
Ha Ha Ha America Part 3
Class struggle?
As in humans vs. AI? Seems like Yang is the only one who realizes this is the class struggle of the quickly emerging future.
Hello
Well I have a Thirty five plus year record of doing the right things in Kearney Nebraska. So, there is that.
Dr. Robert I. Price
Would you be willing to go to Australia?
Perhaps you could team up with the Australians and together you could do things right? They have some brush fires and a coal industry that needs fixing.
"The Resistance will be patchwork at first, but we’ll find each other
quickly, a constellation flickering to life.." -- Malcolm Harris
Cute
but a bit snarky don't you think …
RIP
Well the Australians have a climate change problem
which is compounded by the fact that they're big believers in capitalism and that they have coal reserves they want to sell on the global market, probably to the Chinese. If you're a believer in capitalism, that means you don't have persuade them to adopt a new system, which would be my sticking point. So how would you persuade the Australians to adopt a better way?
"The Resistance will be patchwork at first, but we’ll find each other
quickly, a constellation flickering to life.." -- Malcolm Harris
What?!
Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
RIP
Well it's good to see you
joining the post-capitalist camp, then.
"The Resistance will be patchwork at first, but we’ll find each other
quickly, a constellation flickering to life.." -- Malcolm Harris
Really?!
Why are you so very obsessed with sticking a label on me? You sound like the K-12 crowd I endured through all those years and through college. I was only able to be free of that stupidity by going off to graduate school. I had hoped for a more mature discussion at caucus99percent. You disappoint …
RIP
Australia has been producing coal
since 1881, starting from 2 million tons to the current 18,000 million tons per year. Australia's current wealth is entirely due to coal and other mining such as iron and gold (which depended on coal). Without the energy contained within coal as a power source we would still be living in the 17th century with a world population less than 1 billion.
All the inventions we now take for granted would not exist if it wasn't for coal.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhL5DCizj5c]
But it is time to move on.
Forward, not backward. Not to some primitive Eden that never was, but to a future we can make. Eliminating private enterprise is not the answer. mass castration is not the answer to rape. Controlling the predators is the answer.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
WE have been moving forward
We in America just don't see it as much because we are what the future is by Third World standards.
Here's some charts to see what has been happening in the last decades around the world.
Of course this could have been done a lot more quickly and effectively if much of the money had not been siphoned off by the capitalists.
Hmmmm
Yeah, I couldn't read entirely through that wall of text, but I completely subscribe to what you seem to be arguing against.
Guess, what? ALL economic systems are systematically abused by a more powerful few to the detriment of the vast majority. This includes socialism, communism, anarchy, and whatever else you can come up with. History has demonstrated this always.
Capitalism is definitely very disfunctional right now globally, for sure. But, back when regulations were in place in the United States--such as the richest being taxed 90% on their income, banks couldn't speculate and create fake debt money out of thin air, etc., the results were noticeably better. The powerful worked systematically to undo those safety mechanisms and we have the result we have today.
Socialism has similar issues. Rules are in place, rules are dismantled for the powerful, or safety nets don't apply to migrants or select unpowerful/minority groups, and we get examples of failed socialist states.
I look through all your points, and they are equally applicable to the Soviets, or Mao's China, or anywhere really. Where money isn't the rule maker, those who control the military or police forces often are (and every point you make still applies)--and really even then it comes down to money. Religious fanaticism or cultural castes are other governmental routes (see Iran and India for examples). Those who control the masses, control the discussion and control everybody's wealth, outlook, and life.
At least in the United States, in the past, in some demographics (yeah, big issue there!), there has never been the number of people who have achieved a comfortable middle class, or the number of people who have moved from poverty into the working or middle classes or even wealthy classes anywhere else in the world. That ability to change 'class' has always been what has impressed me the most. That was under heavily regulated capitalism. And, you are right, over time that has been destroyed.
I think new regulations like wealth taxes, and legalizing companies not being required to show growth (maybe some version of B corporation legalized status), and actually enforcing regulations again could get us back there.
Honestly, I do not want to live in a world where everybody makes the same amount of money (e.g., communism)--talk about a lack of incentives and a dull society! Even socialist/capitalist Europe is less dynamic than the United States--less innovation and social mobility happens there, even today.
Sorry--pretty incoherent rant there, but I think my gist is communicated. I'm busy today!
Is there any point in advocating a democratic economics then?
First off, I'm a bit wary of arguments that conclude that "history has demonstrated this always." The appearance is that nothing new can be introduced into history. Is this true? Can we introduce nothing new into history?
Secondly, it might benefit us to look at safeguards. The Zapatistas in eastern Chiapas in Mexico have a three-layered consensus system in which, as they put it, "the people rule and the politicians obey." Since "history has demonstrated this always," are you saying that the Zapatistas are a society of tyrants and sheep, like every other?
"The Resistance will be patchwork at first, but we’ll find each other
quickly, a constellation flickering to life.." -- Malcolm Harris
I think you make my point . . .
With the Zapatistas example. It's not the economic system, it's the regulations in place.
Question: if we kept 'capitalism' and implemented a system like the Zapatistas have, do you think it would improve? (I do.)
If we mandated that companies incorporate sustainability and ecological renewal into their charters, or else face leadership expulsion without golden parachutes, would that improve things? (Probably.)
If we mandated that individuals could only reach an unrealized wealth of $100 million total (pick your level), and companies a profit of $1 billion (pick your level) per year--and everything in excess of that goes to things like social security, national health care, science, education, ecological renewal, paying down the debt, a fund where a large portion of that excess wealth and profit gets redistributed equally to all citizens of the country every year, would that improve things? (I think so . . . it would still allow success stories and incentives, but equalize things more.)
If we reinstalled Glass-Steagall, and made it so banks could not tie themselves into debt traps with credit default swaps or otherwise dangerous financial innovations, would that help? (I think it did in the past.)
It's all how you set it up in the end. The rules, in addition to the system.
I don't recall human DNA have changed all that much
During recorded history.
However, history is mostly fiction, often not much less so than literature. So relying on the saying "history repeats itself" can be quite problematic.
Sounds like your gist is
You're advocating for the Cuddly version of Capitalism, Of which Cass has stated ( and I believe correctly ) is not sustainable for any meaningful length of time. Some of the problems I have with Capitalism is Class itself and these incentives you speak of and who decides what class one is allowed to be part of and who gets these incentives. As far as dull societies if we all have housing, food and healthcare life is what you make it. I don't have the answers but in the world we live in now I just don't see any form of Capitalism that we are familiar with working.
Yes, that is my gist.
See my response to Cass above.
Who decides definitely is one of the main issues. Cass's Zapatista illustration might be a decent way to start mitigating that, and I'm sure there are other ideas.
Regulate the hell out of capitalism for sure.
But, now we are mixing economics with democratic forms of government and class systems. Who decides is not decided at all by capitalism as a system. That goes into other areas.
Honestly, if Socialism or Communism had similar safeguards, I'd look upon them more kindly as well.
Safeguards are the bitch
In any system. And the elite of any system gets to abuse them. Then the elite abuses get perpetrated on every one else.
Another vote here.
Laissez-Faire Capitalism must go. State Capitalism (Fascism) musty go.
Communism is not the answer.
Some La-La-Land hippie commune is not the answer. (Some animals are always more equal).
Absolute Equality regardless of ability or effort is not the answer.
Tight regulation of Capitalism is the answer.
We had a good economy here in America in the '60s and '70s. The Vietnam war and te OPEC attack on the USA ruined that. Inept nice guy Jimmy Carter couldn't deal with it (too nice?).
So the Country turned hard right to Reagan, the immediate problems went away and the working class dissolved into Walmart "gig economy" poverty.
So the answer is Lenin's or Stalin's or even Kruschev's Soviet Union? How many Russiand believe that?
And people will NOT control their greed and prejudice voluntarily. Rich powerful men will ALWAYS degrade their underlings and abuse women. That's the kind of wild animal we are.
Control and Freedom need to be balanced. There is no panacea. Karl Marx was wrong! So was Adam Smith and especially the Chicago School.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
In a world where corporations are popping up everywhere
and are global, there is no way for any nation state to control or regulate them with any real effectiveness. These are non-governmental entities that either buy-out nation states, or bankrupt them, or just simply ignore any attempts to regulate them.
Until the world addresses the issue of corporations and other business entities akin to them I see governments as being very ineffective at stopping corporate ability to run roughshod over a government.
We need the corporate equivalent of nuclear weapons anti-proliferation because corporations are as deadly to any kind of system of government as nuclear weapons are to people.
Corporations are the means by which the rich get rich and get obscenely rich. The reason to incorporate in the first place is to avoid personal liability and responsibility. Avoiding personal responsibility and liability is how the rich get rich. And once that is the case, the rich can corrupt any economic system or any government, no matter what kind.
Corporations are the elephant in the room that few even see, as is evident not only by the comments here and but everywhere else.
Very few people ever see this elephant in the room or appreciate its power.
The only corporation I trust these days
Is Ben and Jerry's. Yes, I'm serious. All of the others have failed socially or me personally.
This shit is bananas.
Is it the economic system
or is it the nature of the people in control of the system that determines the eventual outcome?
I believe all economic systems, including the myriad permutations of capitalism, socialism and communism, are doomed to eventual failure if human nature is not taken into account.
So, what is human (in contrast to animal) nature? The best I can come up with, it is the permutations and combinations of the "traditional" Virtues and Vices:
Virtues: humility, charity, chastity, temperance, patience, kindness and diligence
Vices: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth
And, to make matters even more confusing, virtues can become vices and vices virtues depending on circumstances.
What kind of economic system can we come up with that takes into account the nature of the human animal, especially that of the psychopath who tends to lead and control any of the current systems?
Another important question that needs to be asked: What do we want to achieve with this economic system?
Personally, I think a mixture of all three would work the best if used with prudence, compassion and reason. Maybe what we need is an economic system which has at it's core humanism (w/o the religious/secular divide)?
Really
What you describe here is a large part of the point I was trying to make earlier. Who controls it--that's what is key.
Should workers have more control of a capitalist society to make it work better for them? Hell yes! How does that happen? Enforced regulation. Punishment for those who do not follow the rules. Holding people accountable.
How to keep capitalism from destroying the environment, making people poor, using up all our resources? Ingrain these rules into the system from the start, and don't allow them to be discarded.
Sounds like a lot
Of what you say could work but again it isn't any form of Capitalism we are familiar with so why even call it Capitalism. Anyway CB may be on to something as well by using some form of all three, We have created the term Socialist Democrat so we could call it Communal Socialistic Capitalism or CSC. As long as its a system that is humane, what's in a name anyway names change definition and are co opted so much now its hard to keep up.
Fair enough!
Agreed.
When we talk about "human nature" --
it's important that we capture those moments which are versatile, especially if we are thinking of doing comparisons between human beings and other animals. Sure, people can be rather un-versatile at times -- but mostly this is because they are fragile and can be easily damaged.
I find a particular piece useful: "Epigenesis, Brain Plasticity, and Behavioral Versatility: Alternatives to Standard Evolutionary Psychology Models." It's by Kathleen R. Gibson, it's in an anthology titled Complexities. Gibson goes through, in great detail, the reasons why evolutionary psychology is incapable of buttonholing people. It's a recommended read.
As for my diary topic, I think that we ought to be creating societies in which people have opportunities to use and enjoy their abilities to be versatile, similar to what BF Skinner wanted to do in Walden Two but without all of the behavioral psychology baggage. I do not think capitalism spells out the limits of what we can do, nor am I enthusiastic about the notion, common to neoliberal discourse, that people ought to be forced into the mold which "markets" impose upon them.
"The Resistance will be patchwork at first, but we’ll find each other
quickly, a constellation flickering to life.." -- Malcolm Harris
Lincoln freed the slaves -
Reagan freed the rich. Here's some perspective. In the 1950s and 60s a single parent worked on full time job and raised the family in the middle class. If you project the increses in productivity to today you would calculate that one wage earner would need to work 3.5 days to support a family in a middle class lifestyle. What went wrong? As I said, Reagan freed the rich to take all of the increase in productiviety, plus more.
FDR really created the modern middle class. From the Capitalist standpoint it was a mistake. But he was facing the twin threats of eternal depression and Communism in the USSR. His solution was to regulate and tax. The highest bracket was confiscatory, I think 93%. Business owners used tax loopholes to aoid this, mostly by leaving money in their company by expanding, technology, etc. All in all about as healthy as Capitalism could ever get. But he wasn't really satisfied and saw the drawbacks in his published second bill of rights, involving the real isues of the people such as guaranteed employment. This was a bridge too far for Capitalism. Besides, try as hard as FDR did, the rich eventually gain total political and economic control. We now work for them and have almost no rights, except for those from FDR's New Deal which managed to survive, which involves keeping the retired class from extreme povery, which used to be their fate.
As I mentioned before, Communism played a big part in creating the middle class in the US. Not only was the USSR a competitor for hearts and minds, but there was a large Communist Party in the US in the 1930s. One could argue that FDR's Socialism played a huge part in keeping the US from transitioning to Communism. If we are to go forward we need to understand Communism, as that will inevitably play a large part in the future ... if we survive as a civilization.
There are so many misunderstandings about various Communist governments, fueled by total fear from Capitalists. All of us have been massively brainwashed to think Communism-bad. So much so that we can't begin to think about how to evolve our society. The thing is, there are many issues and all of them are fully confused. They divide up into Capital, how it's formed and how its allocated, and human rights. As an example not ever seen in the Western press, before collapse the Sovied Union held a nation wide vote as to wether the people wanted to dissolve the USSR. 76% of the people were against dissolution. Only in the Baltic Republics and in Georgia did the people favor collapse, and that was more about independence. Today it's very different situation. Russia wants to be Russia and has no interest in empire. Collapse killed the economy, the hard earned capital of the Soviet people totally stolen by the new Capitalists. Today Russia is bringing back the rights of the people of the Soviet era. They have the right to health care, education through college and a lot more. The economy is mixed, state organizations still control many of the largest industries, or in partnership with private owners. Most large state projects occur because the government funds them, kind of a mixed Communist-Captialist system. Most people I meet in Russia wished that the USSR had gone through a gradual liberalization. They definitely dislike any form of totalitarinism, and jealousy guard their rights. It would be a mistake to think that the USSR was an economic mistake. It twice brought the country out of poverty into the industrial age, initially in the 1920s and then after total destruction after WWII.
I'm not suggesting that we follow the Russian example, but what I am saying is that we desperately need to evolve, in the areas of capital, wealth and rights. My opinion is that Capitalism is a dead end. The Capitalist motto that government can't pick winners and losers results eventually in all of us becoming losers, except for the top 1%, and they will lose that when the economy eventually collapses. Our real GDP is abou $9 Trilion, the rest is economic rent, the MIC, the investment sector, the way overpriced health care sector and the higher education sector, and or course the lawyers. But even that much is not realized by the totally stressed out and shrinking middle class.
Since we leave it up to the private sector, we can't do anything big. The last big project was the moon landing. Compare that to China and Russia. Now add in the problem of the global climate crisis. It is inconceivable that we will survive as a civilization structured as Capitalist economies. The scale of fixing this is enormous. Optimistically we are talking about $100 Trillion dollars to sequester carbon and another $100 Trillion to convert to all clean energy sources. The current world GDP is about $80 Trillion. Can we do this with cap and trade and tax incentives? OK, you can stop laughiing now! We are going to have to all work together globally and purposefully allocate capital. Meanwhile, human rights are lagging way behind, including the right to education and a job.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
you've outdone yourself in making your case so elegantly
and simply, cass; thank you! i wish i had time tonight to comment, especially because by tomorrow i'll have to read it again due to...Holey Head Syndrome.
i'd add that capitalism has commodified everything, including nature, which is exactly what the vast numbers of Green Capitalist business are doing full-tilt in their efforts to Capitalize and Profit from...declared Climate Emergencies!!!!
the zapatistas are a bottom-up democracy; the five caracoles (snails) decide on a plan, then send it upstream to a de facto general assembly to vote on, then send the vote back down to the five villages (or at one time there were five). i also love that their motto is: 'If it doesn't work...try something else'.
gotta scoot for now, back tomorrow, lord willin' and the creeks don't rise. ; )
good job. rec'd.
But if we dump capitalism, we could end up with
kabuki uniparty elections, a secret police that surveils us 24/7, a legal system that ignores due process and tortures dissidents, and a few elites will live large while the majority of the population suffers in deprivation and depression.
You know, nothing at all like what's in place now.
\Snark! :-D
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
from anthony freda:
in my exceptionally Unprofessional Opinion,
US capitalism is predatory and rent-seeking, always has been, including the fact that the constitution was based on property rights, not human rights. capital profits mightily from the fruits of our labor, and yes, globally strikes are increasing, so that wsws claims that ‘The decade of socialist revolution begins’, 3 January 2020.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/01/03/pers-j03.html
but of course there are myriad notions as to what constitutes socialism, including the panic of allowing the pink tide nations in ‘our backyard’ to stand, including first obomba then trump, declaring the Marduro administration a ‘direct threat to US national security’. it may have been so ahead of dilma’s putsch in brazil, then lula’s, but socialized industries and mineral wealth cannot be tolerated by Capital, nossir! eco-socialist evo morales was overthrown by the US/OAS/and CIA, but that also involved lithium needed for Green electric car and soar panel batteries.
which brings us here: Amerikan capital’s handmaiden is of course Empire and militarism, including NATO/Africom, the latter’s mission statement reading ‘to seek out chaos in subsaharan africa, root it out’, etc. of course they never say that africom is aided by cia/mercenaries who foment rebellions they can quell, then set up US-friendly puppet governments to er...trade their labor and mineral wealth to US corporations.
Renewable energy, but: Sustainable?
Big Green bill mcKibben: ‘trade in your gas-guzzling SUV for an electric one!’ hey, bill, from what source is the power from that electricity generated?
yes, it’s gotten worse since post WWII, and yes, FDR created the original social safety nets (what’s left of them) nets in fear of the IWW’s ideas taking hold.
here are the key economic sectors howie hawkins would like to socialize, and i like his list, but how that would be accomplished is a mystery to me:
https://howiehawkins.us/perspectives-and-policies/
but sadly, imo, what he’s really running on is his version of the Green Party’s green new deal. (as if it matters what the US does or doesn’t do by now...or even pretending that a President doesn’t need usually recalcitrant congress to enact plans)
ah, i gotta scoot; a neighbor just called to ask if he can come over. but tomorrow or the next day i’ll try to post john steppling’s take on Capitalism.
oh, and. p.s.: sheldon wolden calls US democracy ‘inverted totalitatiarianism, govt. in
thrall to corporate power. if he included US War, Inc. and its profiteering, i agree.
i can’t imagine coming back, due to chores and watching the Trump Insanity Wars on Iran and Iraq, save to say: it’s far too late for anti-capitalism in the US of A, imo, save for the bern’s DSA reform capitalism, or naomi klein’s 'this changes nothing' ‘fettered capitalism’.
Thanks for the round-up wendy davis!
Okay I know you didn't do this but I think it needs to be brought up because I see it everywhere: I personally tend not to shame people for their consumer habits. If people drive gasoline-burning cars maybe it's because they have to. I drive a gasoline-burning car.
Also, I've tried to phrase the situation -- in this diary and in others -- to encourage the utopian dream, to get people to think: how would it be if it could be like you want it to be? IMHO people are at their best when muddling through how things should be, which is what Howie is encouraging. BTW do you know Howie, have you seen him recently? How is he?
"The Resistance will be patchwork at first, but we’ll find each other
quickly, a constellation flickering to life.." -- Malcolm Harris
welcome, cass;
and sorry i'd had to cut my thoughts short, but it's how it goes at times. you're right, i wasn't involved in shaming, i was poking fun at Big Green Capitalists like mcKibben: 'buy some vehicle (or anything) that's more eco-friendly', but is it? not on your nellie. hell, a used hybrid car makes more sense than an e-car to me. i can't drive any longer, but both my old car and mr. wd's work truck are gasoline.
kinda wish i could recall my interrupted train of thought, but one thing re: my rant about nato and africom was that i'd meant to say that bernie sanders voted for the 'defense of nato (thus africom) act. bad form, i say!
yes, i do understand your reasons for encouraging utopian dreaming, and a hella job you did; even I could understand most of it. ; ) no, i've never met howie, but iirc you have? i have interacted a bit on the boards with him, mainly suggestions such as: 'please don't quote fucking oligarch-funded bill mcKibben! ya know, polite stuff like that, lol./s
best to you, cass, and thanks for making the case.