|
Author
|
Topic: beyond protesting
|
|
|
feerit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3293
|
posted 17 November 2002 07:40 PM
A nice essay overall! Only quibble I have of course would be an insistence that overall, the current path of world economics is *precisely* what the "founding fathers of American Free Enterprise" would have hoped for, maybe not in the sense of corporate control of the government but in other outcomes it would be acceptable. Thereby meaning to cut out of this downward spiral, capitalism must be cut out.That's just from an irrelevant old (well young, but old-fashioned) authoritarian Marxist, though! Run for the hills! Capitalism was certainly run a whole fucking HELL of a lot better than it is, previous to say the mid 80's. I would type out the few pages of stuff I could say on the topic, but I will only say this: Keynesian or what I call "left-wing capitalism" economic theories only survived as long as they did because of the post-WW2 situation and the state of international relations. Once certain things were made "certain", the necessity for maintaining the acceptable (to most people) aspects of corporate restraint and regulation for the public good were a nuisance, as they were only used to keep people supporting capitalism anyway, once all "alternatives" (I know I know, idiotic authoritarian Marxist-speak again) were rendered obsolete politically, then the offensive began. I'm of the dying trend though, I suppose capitalism can be made "better" for most people, and I fully support more "sensible" governments being elected than the pure insanity of who runs the show now. I'd take any gains over no gains. I just don't have any illusions about changing a system that has had over 220 years to solve the world's problems, and has especially been given carte-blanche to do what it has been wishing to do over the previous 60 that it was prevented from doing, ever turning into anything better. I'll shut up now, though. [ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: feerit ]
From: Outside of Atlanta, otherwise known as loonyland | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 19 November 2002 01:44 PM
I'd say we're on road 2.I've stated before that capitalism is in the condition of "monopoly". That is, it is the only economic system now in existence, for the large part, and as a result it has no competition. There is no incentive for capitalism to deliver the goods to anyone except the rich guys that benefit from the way it's set up. Thus, we now see all the inefficiencies in capitalism that are routinely levelled at monopolies - bureaucracy, lack of attention to anybody but the top echelons of the company, coziness with government regulators, and so on. Of course, it's not a perfect analogy, but you can see the broad similarities. 
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 19 November 2002 10:18 PM
quote:
View 1: Capitalism has learned to treat people better.
Has it? Better than what? Right now, capitalism is treating people like shit. All over the globe. In the piss-poor far east, it treats them like expendable slaves. In the 'prospering' west, it gives them just a little less than enough money to live on, just a few hours less work than enough to qualify for benefits... and is working hard to make the legislators outlaw those benefits. quote:
View 2: With no opposition, capitalism's greed will run society into the ground until there's another revolution.
Of course it will. You don't even need a revolution. Just throw enough people out of work, or into minimum-wage jobs, so they can't afford to buy the crap they produce. What happens to capitalism when production cost to profit ratio is optimal, but there is nobody left who can afford to buy the product?
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
