This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Is Capitalism Incompatible With Democracy?
Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds
Is Capitalism Incompatible with Democracy?
Failure and losses are the essential feedback in capitalism which clears the way for success and innovation. Eliminate losses and failure by changing the rules to protect either an Elite or the majority and you doom the system to collapse.
Is the marriage of capitalism and democracy doomed to discord? The question has been pawed over many times, but longtime correspondent M.M. recently summarized the core issue very neatly:
Isn't capitalism actually incompatible with democracy?
Some wise person said "Capitalism without failure is like Christianity without hell."
I agree. Failures are an essential part of the workings of capitalism. But what happens if a very large group invests in a false or foolish enterprise, for example 70% of the citizens become involved in that undertaking. Democracy allows those 70% to change the rules instead of accepting their failure...
Capitalism can be subverted by either an Elite or the majority. Marx traced out how Capital (wealth) naturally consolidates into monopolies or cartels (shared monopolies). These concentrations of wealth then buy political influence via campaign contributions, armies of lobbyists and the full spectrum of cronyism: sweetheart deals, envelopes of cash, revolving doors between the cartels and their regulators, plum jobs for lazy nephews and so on.
This base corruption of the Central State, which is now the dominant force in the economy, allows Elites to change the rules rather than accept failure (also known as losses). Thus we have Crony Capitalism: profits are private and yours to keep, losses are transferred to the taxpaying public.
This mechanism is well known and catches most of the attention. But M.M. highlighted the way the democratic majority can subvert capitalism. This is generally ignored for the simple reason that most commentators are part of the majority subverting capitalism to benefit their own self-interest.
This leads to a terminal state of self-delusion and self-justification: Half of US social program recipients believe they "have not used a government social program" (via Patrick.net)
Two examples that come to mind are the housing bubble and Medicare. Slightly more than two-thirds (65%) of U.S. households "own" a home. (The quotes denote the paucity of actual ownership if the mortgage exceeds the value of the home. In that case, it's more like a lease with a balloon payment.) This super-majority is keenly interested in maintaining housing subsidies and any policies aimed at re-inflating the housing bubble: zero-rate interest policy (ZIRP), government-guaranteed mortgages to marginally qualified buyers, and so on.
The fact that this "changes the rules" so failure (the accepting of losses, bankruptcy, etc.) is voided or transferred to the public ledger is perfectly acceptable to the majority of homeowners pining for a return to bubblicious prices.
Their self-interest is misplaced, of course, because when you change the rules to protect yourself from losses, the market can never clear itself of rot and deadwood, and so the system becomes a zombie market dependent on a steady transfer of losses to the taxpaying public. This transfer of risk to the system eventually leads to systemic collapse.
I have reported on Medicare's fundamental unsustainability in depth: That Which is Unsustainable Will Go Away: Medicare (May 16, 2012). Though nobody knows because only a tiny sliver of transactions are audited, it seems about 40% of Medicare's expenses are fraud--phantom patients, phantom clinics, phantom tests, and so on. Another chunk is squandered on unproductive or even counterproductive tests, procedures and medications.
Recall that Medicare and Social Security are "pay as you go" entitlements: the "trust funds" are pure propaganda illusions, as any shortfalls are funded just like any other government agency, by the Treasury selling bonds.
The typical recipient pays in perhaps 10% ($30,000) of the average payout ($300,000-$500,000) in a lifetime of working. The system only functions in the long-term if the worker-beneficiary ratio is close to 10-to-1. It is now roughly 1-to-1, with 100 million Medicare/Medicaid benficiaries and 115 million full-time private-sector workers.
Once a majority of the voters believe they are entitled to something that is "too good to be true" (housing market bubbles, entitlements that pay 10X what is paid in, etc.) then they will refuse to accept its demise. But that which is unsustainable will go away, one way or another; keep changing the rules to avoid failure and what happens is the "too good to be true" system brings down the entire State, economy and nation.
This leads to a fundamental conclusion: In a sustainable system of democracy and capitalism, the Central State's sole role is to protect the commons and enforce and enable competition, transparency, accountability, open markets and dissent. It cannot redistribute funds, as those disbursement streams will quickly fall under the control of wealthy Elites, nor can it distribute entitlements, as those will soon attract super-majorities that demand the rules be changed to protect their share of the unsustainable swag.
The Central State cannot be in the "business" of "managing" the economy, as the mechanisms of this management will quickly fall under the control of wealthy Elites or demagogue politicians promising "too good to be true" riches to a super-majority.
Those in the super-majority are delighted to blame the Elites for everything rotten while holding themselves blameless in the subversion of capitalism's key mechanisms (transparency, accountability, failure, loss and clearing the market) to protect their share of the "too good to be true" swag.
I cover these topics more in depth in my latest book Resistance, Revolution, Liberation: A Model for Positive Change.
- 15994 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Our Republic will bounce back in a remarkable fashion. We have an open and free Market and free capitalism is still alive that will ensure that fact. A chicken in every pot!
Unicorns and skittles for all.
"Unicorns and skittles for all."
So in other words, you do not want to see justice and the rule of laws and contracts enforced. I really need to stop feeding the trolls.
Although in the philosophy of law Republic and Democracy are inseparable and I am aware that USA has a different view of the meaning of Republic, I can argue you that even the States don't practice the purest form of Republic.
The meaning of the American form of Republic is that the elected representatives are held responsible and their duty is to represent the voice of the electorate that've put them in the governing seat (res publica = public matter). It has nothing to do with the right to wave your .45 in public, but with your duty to select a Congressman who will oppose voting "pro" CISPA (just an example here) if the majority of the people (here comes democracy) in his community are against the proposed law.
However, if your Congressman have voted for the proposed unpopular legislative act, the Republic gives the people right and opportunity to sack that SOB from his chair.
The US is not working towards Democracy, but is surely the leading example of Plutarchy in the world.
Capitalism means if you have done stupid things you should go bust and your assets liquidated. I don't see this happening. I see too big to fails getting bailed out, I see the government propping up big businesses that would have otherwise failed, and I don't see the cops investigating anyone over the downright fraud perpetrated up and down the system for the last ten years. We don't have capitalism, we have socialism for the cronies. But capitalism we certainly don't have. Enough with this straw-man argument of the closet Marxists. Anyway, you cannot have capitalism or a free economy for that matter when you have central banks.
One of the founders said something to the effect that Democracy(or a Republican form as we have) depended on an informed electorate. Ever since the Progressives commandeered the educational system and the MSM turning both into indoctrination arms of the banking cartel we've been in a downward spiral. The cartel is absolutely opposed to true capitalism so it goes down the toilet as well.
The founders - at least one of them explicitly - said that for the constitutional republic to succeed the people would need to be both moral and religious. Nowadays morality is relative and Christianity is something most misunderstand (in it's Biblical sense) and only practice around Christmas time. It is no surprise, therefore, that the US is decaying. But what else can be expected to emerge from an educational system rooted in the Humanist ideas of its most notable proponent, John Dewey? To control the classroom is to control the next generation.
There's been a lot of debate on that premise, actually. One view is that each voter need only represent HIS OWN interests, so there's no reason to make determinations about who is "informed."
Even the most cosmopolitan voters in the early 19th century were nowhere NEAR as well "informed" as the hordes of great unwashed are today. Mass information distribution has really changed the world a great deal.
Democracy is a disaster. Even the Greeks, who invented democracy, knew it was a completely unworkable political system.
That's why the United States was founded as a REPUBLIC. The Republic has been gradually dismantled over the last 150 years thanks to:
* Direct election of Senators (17th Amendment)
* Expanding the voting franchise beyond those who owned real property (i.e. limiting the vote to those who had a responsible stake in the system, which automatically marginalized freeloaders)
* Income tax (16th Amendment)
* Third branch (judiciary) has spun out of control and wrecked the Consitution via perverse "interpretations"
* Gradual expansion of the powers of Corporations which started with a corrupt Supreme Court "interpretation" in the late 19th century
* The marginalization of the principle of Jury Nullification (juries are the REAL interpreters of the Constitution, NOT judges)
* Congress abdicating its sworn duties by "delegating" them (which is blatantly unconstitutional)
* The abomination that is called the 14th Amendment
* The disappearance of the original 13th Amendment
This is by no means a comprehensive list.
Notice your rulers and your political "leaders" never mention Republic...
If a "Leader" says Democracy: They are either an Idiot or a Fascist
Because the US Republic protects the rights of the minority with amendments 1-11... Democracy is mob rule...
Democracy is mob rule...
________________________________________
The ancients knew this. That is why they called mob rule ochlocracy.
Democracy is ochlocracy.
Excellent list, but it omits a most insidious mutation: the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
Contrary to Charles Clueless Smith, democracy is incompatible with fiat currency.
Don't blame capitalism, when fiat currency is the root cause of our economic disease.
Oh, did all the previous World Reserve Currencies use fiat as well?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/there-can-be-only-one-china-sovereign-wealth-fund-says-renminbi-will-become-reserve-currency
No? then perhaps whether the currency is gold or silver or paper or digits is not that important after all.
You're absolutely right, but be warned: suggesting that there's not some MAGICAL PERFECTION associated with a gold standard will draw a lot of hate around these parts.
Agreed, Blunder. I got the beat-down for supporting Bill Still, who makes a lot of sense to me. Still even allows for the possibility of a gold standard as I hear him in the documentary. But for some on here, the gold standard is necessary for true freedom. I'm not sure that I see it that way yet, but I'm still here, listening.
My point, in alliance w/Still, is that sovereign fiat would be loads better than debt-based, FRN fiat. Of course, JFK tried that....
+1 for acknowledging the expansion of the voting franchise. it never ceases to amaze me how well the framers understood what they needed to do to build a structure for viable and true liberty. How arrogantly their lesser successors have destroyed it in a misbegotten quest for equality of outcomes.
No
In US presidential election years, something like 50 to 75 million people turn out to vote. And laying aside years w/3rd party candidates, that means somewhere between 25 and 40 million decide for everyone else whose turn it is to be king. This isn't democracy so much as it is a bloated oligarchy.
So what do you think that bloated oligarchy does after it seizes the reigns of power? It votes itself benefits from the remaining 80% of the populace who arent in the oligarchy. And just because the composition of the oligarchy changes every 4 or 8 years, it does not change the essential nature of the plunder involved...only the identity of the particular victims.
At root, this is why government (or more properly, the lawful application of force over a specified geographic area) needs to be chained, caged, and radically limited in its scope.
Apparently, in the recent voting in Wisconsin, we observed several anomalies.
1) several persons in and around Racine were observed to have voted several times, thus offsetting those that didn't bother to vote
2) some voting precincts apparently had well over 100% of registered voters participate.
There, doesn't that make you feel better?
And kudos on your last sentence.
"Is Capitalism Incompatible with Democracy?"
No.
But Corporatism and Corrupt Crony Capitalism both run by a criminal oligarchy are...
Enabled by Useful Idiot career politicians and a corporate owned propaganda whore of a media as an excuse for an independent press most certainly are...
BTW: -1... An Obama-bot has spoken...
When I say Useful Idiot, how do they know I am talking about Obama Bin Lyin'?
Oh yeah... I call Barry Soetoro an idiot all the time...
The achilles heel of America's founding was the arguement between Jefferson and Hamilton as to whom would be granted the franchise to vote. Hamilton argued that only those with property (skin in the game, so to speak) should be given the franchise while Jefferson insisted all should have it. Well, all have it. And as a consequence, "Obama gonna pay my rent."
The words you are having are being with stupidness and having a sound that is being with racist overtones. The words you should be thinking are more like little peoples are gonna be paying my subprime loaning mistakes.
Don't sell the race card here baby.....we're full up. Take that shit to Wisconsin or some other communist shithole and spew it.
Yep, and US citizen FF Jefferson thought of negroes when he requested that point.
Not only do we have problems with dead people voting (for instance, Chicago 1960, and the presidential election), apparently now some get to vote more than once. Meanwhile, Holder's DOJ is preventing Florida from purging its voter rolls.
I wonder what Jefferson's reaction would be to this.
From http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/06/Irregularities-in-Rac...
"One election observer reported seeing the same woman vote three times at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center polling place, and another sent me the following in an email:
That's bullshit, old man. Voting rights were NOT given to everyone originally, and the people who you'd claim are responsible for what's "wrong" with electoral outcomes are not proportionally represented, because voting demographics skew towards the old and affluent.
Blunder is appropriate in your case. I'd like to buy you for what you know and sell you for what you think you know son. Now...go get your shine box!
When it comes to a philosophical discussion, I'd take Joe Pesci a lot more seriously than you, old man. That's really pathetic. Heh.
Capitalism is incompatible with fiat! Bitchez!
First off: we're a Republic, or were. NOT a "democracy"
Only the Gangster System we live under is incompatible with a Republic. Capitalism in less exploitative and death-based applications is what helped make this once great nation great once.
'Course that was before the global financial oligarchy murdered, bribed, and coerced their way into control of the money supply, the media & Hollywood, and the politicians.
Is "Capitalism" at all the real issue here???
democracy sucks. it sucks because there is no guarantee that the majority makes the right decision, even for itself. it sucks because the average iq of the majority is 100. it sucks because the education level of the majority is, well, average. it sucks because the majority is gullible.
Middle class ruling... US citizen dream.
AnAnonymous, ranting for renminbi, said:
Only in your hallucinatory fantasy existence of US citizenism.
If you could go back in time and reinstate this idea of zero economic management by the state, and pop there goes the internet...
Actually the internet would have been invented in 1930. Instead a monopoly was given by the state to a company that hated innovation. Read up on the history of the cell phone to learn more.
That's why you need libertarianism. A government so small that elections don't matter.
You think that if all the (federal) government provided was the military, police and court system, it wouldn't matter who is in charge of writing laws, handling nuclear weapons, and deciding who to throw in jail?
The rich, the smart, and the corrupt will always take advantage of the rest of the population in order to make the most money. Same in America, same in Europe, same in China.
The difference is the amount of safety net provided for the have-not's. Will the country still be a democracy if the safety net is taken away?
this THEORY crap is all well and good. but it is only pointing out a truism without pointing out the other truism .
wealthy elites and super majorities will influence and destroy 'society' without the help of a corrupt 'democratic' government.
it's called private monopoloy power, criminal syndicates, and squatting.
fundamentally, you are talking about a system that is not isolated from society, ----government GOVERNS-----a private society. and it is the private society that is always struggling and the governance that is there to enforce property rights and CONSTRAIN property rights for example stopping SLAVERY.
yes......oh i forgot , we can't have a democratic government because it will dish out influence. well....what if the influence being dished out is protecting people from having their property trampled upon , or having their lives trampled upon ( preventing murder by way of a police action).
yes---these exist under democracy.
The Reboot System: every 50 years all debts are erased, the constitution is burned and a new one written, all property is evenly redistributed, the currency is replaced, all legal precidents wiped out, and all elected officials and public sector employees have to compete to get their jobs back.
Because every political system, legal system, economic system, currency, and property system inevitably fails, so wipe it out and start over regularly to keep things fresh.
Nice piece!
These are really the two main issues facing the US and Europe today. I doubt that either are solvable either. Nobody ever gives up any advantage they earn and deserve. If either side gets the upper hand, the demise of the empire quickens while doublethink destroys all rational thinking.
Sad state of affairs.
After the revolution, the COMMERCE CLAUSE needs to be nuked from orbit... same goes for the ``General welfare`` clause.
And of course the 16th and 17th amendments. And the FED needs to be taken out in the back and shot in the head.
All laws on the books need to be erased. EVERYTHING. Every single law + every single executive order, GONE. Start anew. All laws must conform to the bill of rights. If any representative bring forward an unconstitutional bill, he shall be sent to prison. If a bill is passed and found unconstitutional, anyone who voted for it shall be sent to prison. Every president abusing his power shall be sent to prison.
Get over it, democracy is just modern marketing of state power.
In a sustainable system of democracy and capitalism, the Central State's sole role is to protect the commons and enforce and enable competition, transparency, accountability, open markets and dissent.
The state has no role in the marketplace under capitalism. The marketplace takes care of itself via the invisisble hand.
Excellent. I've always been a believer of simpler laws, and less of them. Regulation of giant companies doesn't work. I think most of these issues are avoided by applying anti-trust laws. This would eliminate too-big-to-fail, enhance competition, and improve corporate efficiency (if you believe that size eventually leads to diminishing returns/efficiency). And just think of all the government regulators we could eliminate!
The greater the competition the greater the efficiency of capitalism.
You contradict yourself, my friend. First you say regulation doesn't work, then you're for antitrust laws.
You should browse the articles about antitrust laws at mises.org. You'll find that all the major antitrust cases were bogus and hurt consumers.
Is Capitalism Incompatible With Democracy?
Lots of things are incompatible with democracy all by itself. Democracy isn't what makes (made) America special. Things like a written constitution with explicit individual rights against the state, the rule of law, property rights, enforceable contracts etc. are far more important. You'd rather live under a monarchy that has these things than a democracy that doesn't.
Democracy isn't the problem per se here but the erosion of the rest of the above.
...but free market capitalism cannot be regulated if it's to work - so how do you get 'enforceable contracts' and 'property rights' without regulation (law)
Failed before you even began.
I stippulated "rule of law" and pretty-free markets are good enough as are not-so-free markets form the perspective of foreign entities looking to access (our) domestic buyers and sellers.
Of course it's all a bit of a ballancing act but utopians condition aren't a requirement here. We did have quite an impressive 100 year or so run.
Free enterprise isn't some kind of grand theory or -ism with a whole bunch of rules and dogma, it just is. It's as natural a human impulse as food-gathering, shelter-seeking and sex. And like sex it can still work just fine within some, not too onerous regulations.
Not. Quite.
You assume that government involvement is required, first as a "regulator" of financial transactions, and also as an enforcer of contracts or laws.
History is full of instances where societies develop conventions, customs, even "legal" strictures *without* and *outside* of government involvement. You don't stiff the tavern owner after drinking his mead. You move the fence between your farm and the next with full expectation the other farmer may well brain you in retaliation. And just look to the reams of successful merchant traders/caravaners to see finance in action across borders with zippo government involvement.
History shows that many many things are brought into being by people in response to a need (heh! true capitalism!), only to have those things eventually co-opted by governments as *their* exclusive domain.
democracy is an end; capitalism is a means to an end. If we don't prioritise we will always be up against an unsolvable conundrum. FIrst define what we wish to achieve as a society; then define the means to achieve it, taking into account the rules of the game, which are defined by the people or their elected reps, taking into account material and eco system constraints. The people's government defines the objectives, sets the rules and ensures good adherence to it by society which organises the means, aka labour and RM and capital, and stays within the boundaries of the rules; using litigation and law to resolve grey areas. Never allow those in power to cross those Rubicons of law.
Capitalism should never be an end in itself but a means, its a lever to gain optimum return from labour and RM within the predefined rules of society. Controlling markets via a monopoly trend in capital formation and use is its natural slope. It requires strong, good government and separation of powers to enforce the law and antitrust litigation. Nothing in human society is inevitable, but nothing is perfect and nothing is forever; its a recurrent struggle between power and justice, to serve the general good.
Today, capitalism has become an end in itself for .1% at the expense of the 99.9% and its a crazy criminal runaway train heading for the wall. Simple if we learn from past history about rules, means and ends. Not simple to put it into practice; never was for long periods of time. But that is why we are human and not gods. We have to reinvent the game with each generation, when civilization reaches a tipping point; its called Kairos or the Machiavellian moment. But it has to be to the benefit of general good, the resolution or reset; otherwise its just more pain and more reset!
Current PAx Americana is a sham apology for good governance at world level, for allocation of resources, for people's representation in honest, sincere, accountable and practical fashion. That's why it has to change and it will. Better if the people of USA take their destiny into their own hands, or they will lose what little liberty is left. As will all others in the world as what the US does conditions world equilibrium.
We are today in civilization tipping point as Pax Americana is being shaken to its very roots.
Well democracy isn't an end for me. I have no wish to see the 51% piss in the cornflakes of the other 49% just because "we voted on it".
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a good enough end for me and I'll make the rest up as I go along thank you. And the best way to achieve this, as most of the history of this country has aptly demonstrated is by means I have outlined above.
I don't want to achieve much of anything "as a society" other than facilitate and maintain the kinds of systems I have already described. Doing otherwise sounds suspiciosly like central planning.
Its not enough to say 'I don't want this', 'cos as Plato and Churchill both said the number of choices are limited. If you don't want some form of minimal solidarity to achieve general good with your fellow citizens; those who could live and die shoulder to shoulder to you in case of war; you can only choose a political system which will be in the eyes of history; if we believe these two eminent commentators of historical facts; "systems which are worse than democracy, the worst system barring all others".
Central planning is NOT an end in itself, its a system, a methodology, its a means like capitalism. Means are something society uses in small doses or in large amounts depending on its needs; its NEVER an end in itself. Its like sex...a two edged sword. Always has been, always will be. The End to which we all aspire in life, is the pursuit of...you know what I mean.
Go look at your Fucking PM's and the handwriting of his speech is on the wall. No QE. Operation twist ends whith our downgrade. Bonds deemed non investment grade.
He clearly stated..
"Greece can not borrow any money at this point at any rate"
So what does that tell you? They can't use austerity in a broke Country.
Done. Greece goes, so goes the world, pressure and time, that's all it is. Sick of hearing.. "oh.. Golds going to do this! and Oh! PM's are going to do that!" It's all bullshit! TPTB want you broke and destitude and you lose all your shit. Debtor society X 10 is on the way. So shut the fuck up about PM's, they own the printer, they control the pricing of PM's. No price discovery in our lifetime.
I think people confuse democracy and freedom which are actually opposites to a large degree. Capitalism is an economic system based on freedom. If I want to sell something and you want to buy then we do so, free from people telling us we can't or from people deciding after the fact one of us has made too much money. Democracy is the rule of the majority.
The idea that the majority must by nature be benevolent is absurd, particularly so when people feel frightened or threatened. Fear combined with the validation of other fearful people can result in truely horrible things happening. The idea that democracy is synonymous with freedom is equally as absurd. Unchecked the power of the majority can be just as brutal and unfair to the minority as any dictator.
People focus too much on democracy as the strength of the US, when it is not. What has always been our strength is freedom and no greater threat to freedom exists than a majority willing to surrender the freedom of the minority for some perceived degree of security or protection from a perceived threat.
Wrong - you are basing this freedom on teh assumption the good (or service) you trade has a viable and readily available supply or alternative.
Capitalism is not free if I own all the land and I want to charge you "your wife, your 3 kids and all your stock" to rent it - is it?
The problem you have stumbled on there is private property rights and how Capitlaism allows the exploitation of one man over another for a resource neither of them actually own!
I'm assumiing normal and necessary government regulation to prevent the profit motive from being a motive to do harm to another. But, then again I wasn't talking about whether capitalism is good or bad, only that it is the economic implementation of freedom. Just as freedom has limits so must capitalism.
Isn't the bigger problem how the privileged minority subverts capitalism, not the majority?
You're assuming what we have is capitalism. In a free market it is difficult to maintain an advantage against any and all competitors for long, unless there is some form of natural or government sanctioned monopoly.
No, I'm not. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I would call what we have fascism.
And I recognize the potential problems with majority rule.
But the biggest (not the only--just the biggest) problem now, to me, is not welfare or Medicare. The biggest problem is the Luciferian bankster elite making war, attacking the middle class, and using the media and police to their ends.
So I then ask the question.
The "capitalism" in my question is in response to the piece and its question.
OMG - THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS! - I GOT IT FROM MARX - HE WROTE THIS OVER 100 YEARS AGO!!!!
WTF HAVE YOU ALL BEEN DOING - SLEEPING?????
Capitalism is based on a false premise - a premise that if you allow success and failure deemed by profit - and you don't interfere - then the losses and failures will be so evenly balanced over the long term that there is no drift towards monopoly.
Whilst a great theory - this is total practical bullshit.
If I drop 1000 pins, I can work out the probablity of them all landing facing the right way - I know that in theory, if I drop 1000 pins 1 million times I will get the result.
HOWEVER as any 1 year statistician knows - this doesn't mean that if I drop 1000 pins a million times I am GUARANTEED to see the result I expect.
The same goes for Capitalism - but worse - because each 'success' reduces the chance of failure next time - especially when the profits from the first can affect the outcome of the second (i.e. you repeat the peofit process - knowing how it went last time)
This will ALWAYS lead to monopoly power as there will ALWAYS be a clutch of heavy winners and a lot of heavy losers - the more you win, the greater your chance of winning next time.
This is why Goldman sachs never lose anymore - remember the passing of profit from one individual to the next (inheritance) or within a corporation (legacy) means you can control markets through massive monopoly power.
Governments try to undo this fact by regulation - but as we can see this is not only ineffective - unaffordable and unbalancing in itself - but it conveniently gets 'the blame' for the underlying problem mentioned above (which capitalists refuse to accept is the case - despite all the evidence around us!!)
On the brightside I'm pleased people are beginning to learn - on the downside - it's far too late.
Well at least you'll know why the economic missile hit - even if it's too late to do anything about it.
People will deny and deny this is the case - simply because they have no alternative and they think they can ride this one out.
Simpletons blame the symptoms - which is why the 'anti-tax' lobby blame the 'theiving Government' - but the existence of tax is as a RESULT of the imbalance capitalism produced - not what caused the imbalance.
Maybe they should have issued every kid in America with a copy of Das Kapital instead of a bible and the dumb fuckers might not be praying to a fictional God to save them and instead could be tackling the problem logically and reasonably based on facts. Plus the current events would have come as no surprise and plans could have been made to avoid it (dismantling it before it collapses)
...wishful thinking...
So you're saying, yes it's incompatible, so lets abandon capitalism and stick with democracy??
Arghh! <double facepalm>
Very few of the "great thinkers" here have read any Marx.
It's not that they're not paying attention--it's that they've been programmed to prevent conflicting ideas from entering their brains. Conflicting concepts causes cognitive dissonance, which is uncomfortable for people who have a need to rationalize and justify their opinions. Best to prevent any unwelcome ideas from penetrating the consciousness than to be confronted with the fact that one just might possibly be WRONG about something.
Marx was an occultist Thule fellow merely using Hegel who was using Thule, occultist duplicity.
Freemasons say they bring order out of chaos but don't say that they create the chaos in order to produce their order.
Most of the "famous" writers in history have been put forward by the elite for a purpose. Few if any have grown naturally into existence to be read by millions.
People can actually read Marx, think for ourselves, and be utterly disgusted by him, Blunderdog.
And that doesn't mean that we can't see flaws in capitalism that were obvious long before he wrote about them.
People can actually read Marx, think for ourselves, and be utterly disgusted by him...
Absolutely, some can. Most DON'T. I'm getting the impression that you're claiming to have read the stuff.
What do you think he said that was so DISGUSTING and why?
That could actually be interesting.
You're wrong about one thing--it's not true that the flaws of capitalism were so obvious long before he wrote about them. Capitalism is a fairly recent development--it requires a lot of ingredients that didn't exist until the Enlightenment period, primarily contract enforcement and property rights for the commoners.
There was no such thing as "capitalism" in 1500, for example. It just didn't (and couldn't) exist--in the same way that there wouldn't be a railroad until we'd really worked out the details of an ENGINE.
I'm enjoying communicating w/you, Blunder. :)
I find it productive. That's why I'm on here. My FB encounters were too non-productive and time-wasting too often. For years I have admired the intellectual discourse on ZH, so I finally joined this year.
Thanks.
I will disagree that I'm wrong--we don't have to go back to 1500, and some can argue that mercantilism is a form of capitalism. But let's not be picky. Adam Smith wrote a hundred years before Marx, and he points out flaws in capitalism, eh? Tough to disagree with that one, I think.
As for why Marx is disgusting, let me brush up on it and find some quotes, to do a good job, okay? Now I have to eat. I will return to this worthy challenge, though. In the meantime, you might check out what I call the occultist dialectic--what others call the Hegelian dialectic--and Marx's involvement with the occult circles around what became the Thule Society (and Hegel's, too, though those are hotly disputed, I'll admit).
Give me some time to eat and tend to a few matters, and I will try to justify my comments.
Again, thanks. Enjoying it. :)
Adam Smith's work was phenomenal, and most of what he wrote predicts Marx's work, but he's almost impossible to read. I couldn't do much of it, anyway.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."Marx had to repeat this and give it a new name, but Smith was the one who first recognized the threat of monopoly and what Marx later labeled "oligarchy."
Yep, that's one of the Smith quotes I was thinking of.
Marx said that "Religion is the opiate of the masses," and that's one that I find quite repugnant. But let me take a closer look now that I'm back.
Okay, here goes. Thanks for your patience. All quotes except the ultimate one are from the CM, and I am in no way being thorough b/c of the obvious length of the post. I am already pushing the limits of decorum by posting something so long to the thread, but I am not one to shrink from this type of worthwhile, important challenge, and hopefully readers will have some patience and understanding, given the context. I can comment on any or all of these quotes but will wait to do so until questioned, okay? And yes, some quotes will be out of context. Do I need to post the whole, disgusting treatise? Hopefully not. Hopefully, too, this is enough? I have been sickened merely by doing it. I have separated each quotation from another, to distinguish that each, separate section sickens me for one reason or another, often for the lavish degree to which it is incorrect, overblown, or spitefully contrived. Finally, his presentation that this evolution is somehow scientific or inevitable is even more detestable:
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between people than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation.
Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.
In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. What is more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labor increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time, or by increased speed of machinery, etc.
The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labor, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeois property.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.
And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Your Shakespeare is weak, sir. Your list of quotes means nothing--you bring nothing to discuss.
What do YOU think?
My Shakespeare is weak? I doubt that. Sure, there are far better Shakespeare scholars than me, but I'm not sure how he comes into play here? Did I miss something?
I would have to comment on each quote to explain why each disgusts me. Instead, I listed a flurry of them that do. I thought that was what you wanted?
What do I think? I think Marx was and is an occultist tool.
I think that the economic freedom offered by slightly regulated capitalism is much more beneficial to the "proletariat" than communism, by far.
I think that Marx was a shill for his occultist masters and served them well.
I think he served them exactly as the banking elite serve them now.
The enemy--the greatest enemy--to the Luciferian elite is an educated, economically free, middle class. These are the people Marx wanted to destroy. Marx clearly says he wants to destroy this class, destroy the family, destroy religion--their goals exactly. Coincidence? Nope. He was Thule.
Why you're not seeing this, especially with the quotes I've provided, is beyond me.
I teach community college. I help "underpriveleged" or "non-traditional" students rise out of poverty and out of welfare cycles every day, and I get paid a low wage to do it, but I enjoy it (sometimes). It is redundant, thankless work. I think I make a difference. And I read plenty of Shakespeare to get where I am today, I'll tell you that.
The fear the elite have is just this--that the working classes will, en masse, slowly gain independence financially and intellectually. They will be able to think for themselves, afford technology that could not have been dreamed of 100 years ago, connect worldwide, and throw off the artificial shackles that have constrained humanity for eons.
It's all about control, Blunderdog: They want it badly. They foment wars, fiscal crises, ignorance for this very purpose.
Basically, what I'm saying, is that with a few, reasonable restrictions, the capitalist system and the free market (if really allowed) will do exactly the opposite of what Marx suggests.
And communism in practice, in most areas, has been far worse for the poor humans stuck in its grip.
I do appreciate the interaction. As for the comment about me bringing "nothing to discuss," I'm not sure that I apprecate that. I thought I was bringing several quotes to examine for their repugnant value.
The bourgeosie weren't "the middle class." The bourgeosie are the people who decide to embrace the control of society through money. Love of money above all else and desire to ascend to "elite" levels of control of their neighbors.
I don't think you read his stuff, to be honest.
There are plenty of things you may think were wrong about his predictions. It sure seems like he nailed the "late stage capitalism" thing, though, if you look at the world we live in today. He was contemptuous of religion, and if you love religion, there's good reason for conflict on that point.
I'm not so interested in the conspiracy-theory bit. True or false, it has little to do with his work.
"Occultist masters"? What makes you think YOU'RE not a tool of them?
Blunder, his ideas do not exist in a vacuum at all. Take a look at Engels, for example. Yes, I have read Marx. Because I read him differently than you does not mean that I have not read him. Because I do not read him as often as you does not mean that I have not read him carefully and thought about him often. I had many, many years of college, man. I double majored in ENG/Pol Sci, with enough credits for minors in both Phil and History. And that was just undergrad.
There's no need to be insulting, either, just because we disagree. I enjoy you. :)
But on this we definitely disagree. That's cool. It's good to know where we disagree, I think, because it helps frame future interactions and helps us communicate w/each other.
I wish you blessings, honestly. :) I do not expect that you would say, "Oh, now I see! Thanks for the info, Clashfan." I expect that you would react as you are. Few folks change their worldview immediately. But I am trying to show you something important of which you are not aware. I am aware that processing it will take you a while. Maybe you won't even begin to look at it until a host of others tell it to you, too. Maybe you aren't meant to look. Fine. I will do my best, though. :)
Whether or not you're interested in what you label "conspiracy-theory bit" matters little to how it affects Marx's writing. Again, I advise you to look into Thule. Marx's ideology is not as original as you are led to believe. With as much education as I've had (great hs and all university education at three different, major universities), I did not really, really learn stuff until after school, when I started researching on my own and taking a hard, long look at the elite and their subculture. I would advise you that this is very productive research, especially if you have a footing in basic understanding of the literature in question.
I would also call your attention to the differences between "religion" and faith or a personal relationship with God. "Religion" is a word with a lot of trappings. And Marx was no stranger to different religions, actually, even though he claims to be against "religion" per se. Occultism is a religion.
You can research Marx and occultism, satanism, or Thule Society, at will, or not. These links below are just some I have quickly found for you. I cannot vouch for them and have not thoroughly examined them: I'm just trying to get you started.
The point is that there is a belief system, Luciferianism (the most accurate term for it--see Albert Pike if you will), that links the secret societies. These societies have a huge degree of control over world events, including the dissemination of ideas (media).
Marx borrows a lot from Hegel, and Hegel from Thule, but there is a lot of other evidence linking Marx to these folks. Germany, in fact, was a haven for this kind of thought among certain intellectuals. This stuff is just fact, man. The bulk of the Third Reich were Thule or occultists. This has been well researched and documented by many. As you will see if you examine it, they (Marx and Hitler) spring from the same sources of thought.
No, he did not "nail the late stage capitalism thing" at all. What is happening now is not free market capitalism at all but fascism, a form of socialism. And it, like the fascism of WWII Germany, is being led by occultists.
The Thule Society did not officially form until later, but it existed in various, other names, and the folks involved are not that hard to follow.
I think I'm not a tool of them because I try to give myself to Jesus, and I try to expose what these folks do.
Because you have not researched occultism and because you probably do not understand it, you say ignorant things like "It has little to do with his work." I'm sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth. And I'm not trying to be insulting here, just accurate. You don't know what you're talking about here. That's fine. In time, if you want to learn this truth, you will.
In the meantime, disagreeing is fine. We can still appreciate and enjoy each other. But you might look back over the list of Marx quotes I've given you, thinking about them in the context of how I'm presenting them as part of an occultist, global agenda.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/G_007_MarxSatanism.html
http://thirdreichocculthistory.blogspot.com/2011/07/thule-gesellschaft.html
http://rexcurry.net/theosophy-madame-blavatsky-theosophical-society.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread384357/pg1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1121228/posts
No, he did not "nail the late stage capitalism thing" at all. What is happening now is not free market capitalism at all but fascism, a form of socialism.
He predicted that capitalism is guaranteed to result in a circumstance where the control of wealth overwhelms democratic processes, which is precisely what has happened in the economically-liberal "West." That's why the banks are more powerful than the governments and can extort all sorts of undeserved concessions. Fascism is not socialism in that there's no democratic representation at all involved. I don't accept any of your definitions. If you had told an Italian fascist in the '30s that he was a socialist, he'd probably have shot you.
I HAVE dallied with the sources you've linked. I do not find them at all credible. I have no interest because I don't believe any of it, not because I've never looked.
If that's what you're info, though, more power to you. Look at what Scientology has done for Tom Cruise. Bless him too.
Mind sharing what region in the US you're teaching?
Is toast incompatible with beer.
Not if it's a good, creative toast. On the other hand, titties are always compatible with beer.
I take issue with the statement that people take out 10X what they paid in. That is because the Money has been paid in over a 50 year period. During which the money paid in was worth a lot more than the same amount of Money today. What was the Dollar worth 50 years ago vs today. If the Money paid in had been property invested then there would be ample in the so called Trust Fund to pay for the Benefits.
Instead the Money was taken and put in its place were worthless IOU's that were not getting even a return close to Inflation. So, the Money was taken for spending and then put the Benefits to be paid, as spend as you go. With the huge inflation in Health Care over even the last 10 years it is no wonder why there is not sufficient Money to pay Benefits. Yet, if the Money had been left in investments that went up with inflation then there would be ample Money to pay todays Benefits.
When ifs and buts are candy and nuts we will all have a merry christmas
A few points of contention:
1. Why even bother mentioning the political system? It's patently obvious that ALL political systems are beholden to their economic system counterparts. The economic system is completely tied in with the political system and attempting to separate the two is impractical. Further, given one ultimately controls the other, we need not mention the political system... it's a mere afterthought. I agree that there may be periods where political systems defy economic gravity, but I don't care to utilize the exception as a basis for my argument.
2. I've said it before and I'll say it again... economics does not fully acknowledge (actively denies) the degree to which rational actors will go to avoid the normalization of profits. The political system quickly becomes purely a construct for this mechanism. It is possible that this mechanism is "compatible" with virtually any type of government... at least for a period of time. The political system constantly morphs to account for changes in this mechanism. In short, there is no reason to solely include "democracy" as being possibly incompatible... each and every form of government can be compatible or incompatible depending on the circumstances. These are not outright, inherent determinations, but simply explanations of points on an ever shifting timeline...
You can talk about different systems all day long. In the end we live on a finite piece of dirt spinning around a big hot mother fucking star. This piece of dirt is all we have. Coupled with this piece of dirt is mankind’s seemingly inexhaustible need for $$$. Please I am not an environmentalist, neither am I a socialist- it works on paper but not in reality. I am a realist. You need rich people and you need poor people to make this crappy system work. It may not be prefect but that is what we have right now.
We don't have capitalism, if we did the banks would have been let go for fucking up.
As long as capitalism puts profits first, it is incompatible with Christianity.
"Seek first the Kingdom."
In communism, man uses man
In capitalism, it's the reverse.
Don Levit
As a Christian, I just want to be a good steward with the resources and skills with which I've been blessed for whatever purpose Christ has for me in this world. I'm thankful for freedom to pursue my endeavors and have choice. I don't idolize liberty, which is what Ayn Rand did, as she sadly believed in the reason of man instead of the fear of the Lord, from which all wisdom comes. With greed and lust and power hunger and all of man's vices, there is nothing perfect in this world. Not until Christ returns to reign in His Kingdom for a literal Millennium will there be perfect peace. Mankind is corrupt and sinful, and deserves hell, and only Christ could pay the penalty for our sin so that we might be reunited with our Father in Heaven. Put your faith in Jesus Christ, not in the wicked ways of the world. It is going to keep getting uglier and more turbulent. The Revelation tells us these things must come to pass.
And voluntary charity in giving to the poor honors the Lord. The Bible warns against hoarding one's wealth, and the camel through eye of needle makes that point clear. Robbing Peter to pay Paul-which is how the tyranny of the majority works-is not compassionate. It is theft. Let alone that the people doing the robbing don't even limit their spending to that which they took, as instead they spend profligately to encumber people in debt, and on things that evoke the moral hazard and restrict freedom.
Up vote from me. Jesus is Lord. We should work on ourselves instead of putting faith in other people or in isms.
And Luciferians will always be there, on the attack. No ism will stop them.
Capitalism is inherently non-democratic, except by way of shareholdership. The corporate management system is authoritarian because workers have little say in who runs the company. And they can be fired from that company at the will of the management. The only exception are employee owned corporations, which I believe should be strongly encouraged.
That said, as an economic model, Capitalism, and in particular, entrepreneurial capitalism, is the lesser of all economic models. But it must be harnassed in order to fulfill the goals of the state, and the citizenry who elect the officials who govern that state. Giving up our soveriegnty and invidual rights to comply with ANY economic model (Capitalist or Marxist) completely undermines the very reason this country was founded.
Economic models must serve the needs and aspirations of a nation's people, not the other way around. To fulfilling that role and purpose, Capitalism is the only system that comes close to meeting those goals. But on an international scale, corporations are utterly disloyal to any sovereign government. They will do what they have to do to advance their own interests and profit making potential. And that is directly threatening the soveriegn rights of the people of democratic countries.
Blah, blah, blah. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. A free market is the fairest and most efficient arrangement. People voluntarily enter into what they determine at the time of choice as a beneficial relationship. The problem has been and always will be tyranny and coercion, the presence of which eliminates free, voluntarily determined choices. It's really that simple, and government is by far the most egregious, tyrannical force that can be foisted upon a market.
What? In a free market, a tyrant can not look for mutually consented association in order to establish a tyranny?
The conclusion is nice though. Once the government removed as the most egregious, tyrannical force, does it make that second most egregious, tyrannical force is now the most egregious, tyrannical force? Elimination or not?
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.
You mean just like feudalism?
Seems maybe you're skipping some important elements.
"Economic models must serve the needs and aspirations of a nation's people, not the other way around."
What a load of collectivist crap. Economics is the study of Human Action as it relates to voluntary associations. As such, economics is DESCRIPTIVE, not prescriptive. We are in the trouble we are in because a self-annointed intellectual elite want to pull the levers of power and centrally plan the market. This has never worked and will only result in disaster because they are inevitably trying to push the market in directions that the non-coerced decisions of the free actors do not want to go.
That is quite a framing. War can not be economical by then...
http://youtu.be/acLW1vFO-2Q
George Carlin famously said.
Unregulated greed destroys Democracy.
In a Darwinian sense, unregulated anything is almost always terminal. Put another way: unregulated greed actually leans quite heavily on government "regulation" to protect the greedy b*stards from abrupt and painful failure.
Government draws its power in part by holding the reins of regulation, where it can play favorites, and garner funds/favors from those in power, while also claiming to be acting on behalf of the people. And the bad behaving greedy can side step failure and retribution, by hiding behind the government.
Eliminate the government authority entirely, and you leave greed standing exposed in the open, without cover, and subject to rapid failure. Greed will still exist, Scams will still be run. Be the people will learn the concepts of "wariness" and "risk", and will eventually become smart at not participating as dupes. (At present, our pretense at "regulatory protection" actually encourages them to remain ignorant of risks; abrogating that task to a wise and benevolent government.)
So.... Democracy (or any form of government that presumes the few can decide on behalf of the many) all too often protects and nurtures falsely regulated greed, allowing it to grow to extents that would not be seen in any truly competitive environment.
It would be helpful when discussing capitalism if people would be more specific. Since capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, it's really rather silly to ask whether or not it's compatible with democracy. Rather, one should examine the type of market when attempting to draw conclusions as to compatibility. There is a huge difference between laissez faire (free market) capitalism, state-controlled capitalism, crony capitalism, et al... There are way too many canards about capitalism that people use as basic premises when attempting to analyze and discuss it.
Even Adam Smith argued against monopolies. Anti-trust laws may not work well, but the need for some kind of regulation of capitalism has always been argued by capitalism's staunchest supporters: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/breaking-up-antitrust/
http://www.moginlaw.com/2008/06/antitrust-and-democracy-adam-smith-was-r...
I post two sides of this above, but the point, I hope, is not lost: Smith argued for controls of capitalism. The latter notes:
"Monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate," quoting Smith.
I could post many more links, but hopefully the point is clear. If there is a stronger proponent of "Laissez-faire" capitalism, who is it?
Rule of law? Under a democracy they change the laws to fit their needs. Was TARP and anything Paulson did illegal? Nope. Read the law. It said, by the law, he was granted immunity. Plus, laws ain't laws unless you enforce them. So you want another group running around interpretting what they think the laws really mean? Just another misdirection.
Rothbard made the link between anarchy and capitalism. The term anarco-capitalism is redundant. Because the state has nothing of its own, it is therefore necessary to take from someone else. Capitalism is a system where individuals decide how to deploy their own capital. If the state must take from someone else, it must necessarily be incompatible with a system that allows the individual free to deploy their own capital. It's a syllogistic truth.
In political economy classes, they ask this question: which must come first, capitalism or democracy? The answer is that they can't truly exist at the same time. Poli Econ majors usually go for that "the rule of law must be established first" and they bark back and forth which system establishes it first or more efficiently. It's how academia constantly asks the wrong questions.
Try defining rule of law. You get a million different answers. Same with the word "justice". It's quite sad that the underpinning of society can't be easily recalled even by kids who are supposed to be studying these things.
Proverbs 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.Yes ... but one wonders at the purpose.
I wonder if the self-serving nature that undermines our species best interest is an inherent or learned trait?!? Assuming this nature is a given, is it even possible to have a system that ultimately works.
Survival of the fittest may be the eugenicists wet dream. However, survival of the most corrupt and evil at the expense of everyone else, does not seem to be in the best interest of the survival of the species.
... and it is self interest that allows the corrupt and deficient to maintain multigenerational control due to some inhereited artifact .. be it money or someonthing else.
But Marx did not have the answer. He was selling something, but it was not equity or fairness.
And here I thought that the title was a rhetorical question suggesting ditching capitalism. Silly me, this is ZH after all.
This article is regressive as in it wants to turn back the clock to achieve a system we supposedly had. The problem is that the system we had led to the system we now have. Any ruminations on the system we supposedly had is fantasy just like communism is supposedly a heaven on earth for workers.
The answer to the title's question should really be, "No, because capitalism is just an evolution of feudalism."
Let's not beat around the bush. This is how fascism comes to Ameria. In a couple years, people will be asking, "Is fascism compatible with democracy?" and rhetorically throwing democracy under the bus.
Problem is that we tried capitalism but we haven't really tried democracy yet. How about we try ACTUAL democracy and see how that works out? Keep in mind that while most people are for SS, Medicare and Medicaid, they are also against the kind of war spending, bankster bailouts and tax cuts for the rich that are responsible for the debt. Yes, the ENTIRE DEBT as started by Mr. Star Wars, deregulation and morning in America himself, Reagan. Also, I don't remember having a say in NAFTA, repealing Glass-Steagall and such under Clinton either so both parties are complicit in this charade that is the US election system, which gives the appearance of democracy without the actual content of democracy. How about having a say in what you do EVERY DAY? Most of us spend most of our time earning a paycheck and yet have zero decision making say at work. Sure, you make decisions at work but there is ALWAYS someone reviewing and approving them. I'm sure you don't have to imagine what would happen if they disapprove.
I'm not sure that we have ever really tried either, especially with everyone starting on equal footing--equally funded, equally vested, equally intelligent--I could go on.
But you make some very good points about "democracy" that definitely belong in the debate.
"corruption of the Central State, which is now the dominant force in the economy"
in a capitalist system, corruption of the government by special interests happens, but its corrupt, we all know its corrupt, but it continues so long as the people pretend its ok and allow it.
its by marx's foundational principles that the state has any role in the economy that philosophically justifies government involvement in the first place. in a marxist world it doesn't just happen, its a legally mandated integral part of the system, and along with all of the corruption of the system it claims to despise.
the huge difference, under a marginally democratic capitalist system, the people can try to make changes. under marx, attempts at change aren't just difficult, they are considered treasonous.
America in the post Progressive, post Keynsian era is increasingly living under the model of a marxist derivative system.
marxism is the ultimate monopoly. and the truly big money interests just love monopolies.
If by marxism, you mean fascism, then I totally agree with you. Please please please learn SOMETHING about the words you use.
Don't get confused by labels. Insidious forces have implemented elements of both marxism AND fascism into our current system.
Marxism is worse because of its insidious and utterly evil ideology--it represents the total negation of the human spirit. The ideology of fascism is typically limited to appeals to nationalism or racism.
Yeah, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." How fucked up is that? /sarc
Buck, wouldn't you say that fascism is more like what we have today because of the corporations and banksters having access to tax dollars or to tax breaks? To bailouts? To politicians? GE? GM? Monsanto?
The socialism for corporations and the attacks on civil liberties are fascist. How is this any better (or worse) than Marxism?
Both end in mass murder. Both have been championed by satanists. Both are extreme forms of socialism.
Capitalism may in fact be incompatible with both interest charges and the fiat creation of wealth.
"Christianity without....." some wise person once said, "making a metaphor a concrete FACT of history makes one certifiable", Joseph Campbell....
So which CAPITALISM are we talking abou? Certainly you can't seriously contend that the present situation in the perverted and distorted and totally corrupt U.S. economy has anything to do with CAPITALISM, can you? This is SLAVE Plantation Capitalism ala NYC/Wall Street...Maybe you would like to talk about REAL Capitalism some time? Say, by looking at how the whole Silicon Valley 'thing' got started. (and buried BIG BLUE, remember?) Marx has very useful insight into crypto-facist Mafia Syndicalism, i.e. NYC?WALL Street UofChicago 19th Century Neo-Feudalism!
CAPITALISM = Long Term Investment that produces Long Term Value
NYC/Wall Street - Sociopathic, Nihilistic Speculation
The typical recipient pays in perhaps 10% ($30,000) of the average payout ($300,000-$500,000)
What kind of nonsense is this?! If you work from 25 to 65 - unimaginable now, of course, that you'll find a job at 25, but quite doable for the boomers who'll retire in the next 10 years - and you put in $500/yr, which is matched by your employer, and you assume 5% average rate of return going back to 1972, which encompasses the huge bull market of 82-99, you get a simple future value of $160,000. Make the contribution a measly $2,500 per year (i.e. what you and your employer kick in if you earn $25,000), and the FV is $400,000. Union schlub making $20+/hr? You and your employer pay about $4,500 yer, meaning your contributions have an FV of $700K.
Then, you retire. Assume you'll live from 65 to 95, and that you get 2% on your $700k.. you can withdraw $31,000 per year for that time, which is way more than SS pays today.
When people can't even do simple arithmetic, it kinda taints their entire argument. FAIL.
Frank - you must have been typing the same time I was. I make the same point about this bull shit data below.
You may be interested in the link I provide for some actual data on this.... Be well.
Mr. Smith, where do you get your data?
While your central thesis might be valid, using made up or inaccurate figures undermines your credibility and position.
The most thorough analysis done of what people pay into SS and Medicare (FICA taxes) over a lifetime compared with what they get out (benefits) was done by the Urban Institute. See http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/social-security-medicare-benefits-over-...
A worker being paid an average wage over their working life will have paid in about $60,000 into Medicare. That is twice what you wrote. Did you guess it was $30,000?
The research shows what various earners would pay in for both men and women and single and married people compared with the expected payouts.
Yes, even adjusted for inflation forward and backwards and an opportunity cost of money, the average person gets more than they pay in. And this is unsustainable. But why not check yout facts and come up with solid grounding for your views? Every other data source suggests that teh pay in is about the same. I can't find one that even hints at it being $30,000.
Further, where did you find support for your assertion that "40% of Medicare's expenses are fraud--phantom patients, phantom clinics, phantom tests, and so on."? That's mindless and reckless. Does fraud occur? I would bet it does. But 40%? Not on your life. I would bet the real fraud number would be no higher than 5%. Again, your point that the system is unsustainable and can not continue as is, is valid. Why wreck it with bullshit attention seeking.
Is the trajectory not dire enough for you? Does dying in the nuclear fireball of economic cataclysm not seem bad enough on it's own that you have to give people another kick in the teeth just for fun?
Come on man, you are better than that and Zero Hedge's readers deserve better.
Capitalism alone can’t survive due to the inherit constant flow of income from labor to capital and by pointing that a totally transparent and accountable democratic political system can exist without the basic human sing of *Greed* ruing everything is hugely and criminally naïve!
Capitalism can exist if it’s converted to Democratic Capitalism and that needs to implement the equal opportunity clause that made Thomas Jefferson back in 1780 to legislate in constitution the right of access to education without discrimination of wealth for everyone. Equivalently we should apply in our Democracies the right that every citizen should have the opportunity to be able to create without the discrimination of wealth.
Today everyone can’t, if an entrepreneur has a good idea to start a business his chances are 2-3% and that’s because of our inherit differences of income inequalities.
95% of the population is simply unable to start a business without an investor, no matter how good their ideas are. 95% of the population is simply unequal…
Investors on the other hand, have a tremendous range of tools to make money from money, away from the real economy without really creating anything.
Since we have allowed investors to profit from destruction (short selling) with the current status of capitalism, expect only destruction to happen because to destruct it’s hundred times easier than to create…
So do the math… It’s a matter of time when everything will collapse.
How we can combine Democracy and Market driven Capitalism?
That’s the solution: http://bit.ly/mTZbGw
Capitalism has been kidnapped by the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. What's democracy?
great read,... thankyou
Ps. tis a shame marx's was such a 'debbie downer' --- if only his negative energy could have been channeled? Unfortunately, Marx's was so hubris coupled with arrogance that it's highly unlikely he ever listened in to his subliminal liminality. Perhaps he should have taken acting lessons - thus playing himself as, the devil's advocate'.
Super majority: US citizen middle class. They are the ones making the elections.
AnAnonymous babbled:
Insanitation, thy name is French Indo-Chinese Antarctic AnAnonymous citizenism.
This is a rhetorical question, right?
Dumbasses Bernake said no QE3 = deflation = lower gold prices. You HAVE to have INFLATION for gold to "work". Bernakes speech means high USD lower gold/SPX
Mr. Smith is one of my favorite frequently-posted guest posters at ZH. When the Tyler's don't post him, which isn't often, I go over to Mr. Smith's own site to see what he's thinking about now. What I really like about his posts is that they get me--and everyone else--thinking. We don't have to agree, but if we don't think, we've all had it.
That said, I think he's missed a connection here. Why do the housing bubble and Medicare seem such great examples of "free lunches" that will doom us all? I'd say it's because of the fraud in them, carried out by crony capitalism. It isn't just that the masses like "free" medical care and houses that only go up in value. The Masses would love free everything if they could get it. Why did we get the chimerae of "free" medical care and enlessly appreciating houses, and not (let's just say) "free" college tuition and a bubble in automobiles? I'd suggest it's because people don't have a choice about buying medical care when they need it (at least, not an acceptable choice), and they have to live indoors and ownership is a cultural value. College education and new cars are viewed more as discretionary items by Americans, but we are willing to take out expensive financing to pay for them.
The difference is that the crony capitalists bought themselves control over both carrot and stick in health care and housing, and then they managed to eliminate all the risk, as far as they care.
So it's more corruption, not so much the "American Citizens are Irresponsible Toddlers" meme that seems so popular today among those who don't want anyone to notice how much of the proceeds from the bubbles are in their pockets.
Or at least, that's what I take from today's offering from Mr. Smith. Feel free to disagree. That's the beauty of his contributions.
A Capitalist works hard to get a Monopoly. A Citizen in a Democracy works hard to stop the Capitalist getting a Monopoly. The Oligopolist buys the Politician to give him a Monopoly.
Democracy and capitalism are the necessary results of the idea of freedom.
Freedom requires a moral population, without people that will abide by the rules, maintaining freedom becomes a real challenge.
Charles has it entirely wrong, a moral people will see that freedom is the best choice and will then build a system based upon democratic principles and capitalism.
As our culture has lost its moral direction, especially our leaders, it therefore follows that the system cannot be maintained as our freedom is/will be lost.
The actions of our government, our dysfunctional legal system, our hopelessly corrupt political climate and the ensuing loss of freedom are due to our immorality.
sschu
Nothing wrong with democracy, it worked well until 1963 when Kennedy died,
it went corrupt with Johnson, Nixon, to our current "THINGAMAJIGS for everybody" , that's not democracy , I would call that organized kleptocracy, give some crumbs to the masses so they get something for nothing and make them part of the system.....!! that's how we got all the unsustainable social programs out there and
That's why nearly half the population gets some government dole and a full 20 % are on foodstamps and growing.....
2008 just made all these things come to the fore as the tide went out....
Who gives a rats ass about what does or does not affect democracy? It's just another form of servitude to another ruling class... ones that wear different hats or suits than that "bad" ruling class over there in the east somewhere.
Why does nobody see the problem is giving a governing class the power to make laws over other human beings? It's not a problem of democracy, or cummnism, or this guy or that guy.. it's a problem inherent in all political flavors.
We'd be all much better off to just rid of any form of government and let voluntarism and trade guide our morals and needs. Everyone is hacking at the branches deciding what is good or bad for our rapists, but nobody ever brings up the idea of removing the rapists alltogether.
Plato had major errors, such as the death penalty for private religious meeting: because the pre-Christian world was always "sacral" (expressing the religious or spiritual sphere in the physical/temporal realm), the purpose of spiritual practice was always to support physical prosperity and unify cultural order...hence all religious expression had to be in the public domain because private expression of religion tears society and culture apart rather than unifies it. Constantine destroyed Christian faith in this way. He moved "faith" from conscience/personal decision to a matter of being a member of society. He removed faith from a spirtual matter and put it in the public domain....interestingly, Luther did exactly the same thing a mere 5-7 years after he started his split from Romanism: he instituted the death penalty to Anabaptists who refused to batpize their infants (the fact that water baptism was always only a Hebrew practice and never for any gentile is another story...there is not one gentile water baptized in all the NT).
Luther and later Calvin stepped right into Constantine's shoes and cursed the so-called "Protestant" movement even to this day.
But, as this article demonstrates, Plato was apparently correct in rating our so-called "democracy" only one short step above dictatorship among all forms of government.