Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

@xris,

xris;118079 wrote:

Democratic socialism has the ability to prove or disprove its worth, if you dont like its effects you can vote them out of office. Authoritarian socialist, communists, are not so inclined to do the same.

Yes, in a democracy the people can change their government, but they almost always in all times and places choose to increase the power of the government in order for it to solve the problems that it previously - this fact unrealized by the people - created*.

*Deliberately, in my opinion

Considering also that all major political parties in the western world have very close relationships with the same London-New York corporate oligarchy, and are regularly observed to make election promises against the wishes of said oligarchy only to ignore them after coming to office - one wonder if this 'democracy' is worthy of the name.

Elections do not constitute democracy if a narrow oligrachy approves all candidates before-hand. And, in any case, democracy does not constitute freedom. Napoleon III, emperor Napoleon III, was elected democratically. So was Hitler. For that matter, so was Bush, Obama, Blair, Brown, etc. These people do not serve the people of their respective nations.

If the advocates of moderate social democracy in this thread cannot approve of equallity before the law without equality in practice (i.e. equality of opportunity), how I wonder do they approve of democracy in form but not in substance? How can it be acceptable to have elections and all the trappings of a democratic society (assuming such is desireable), but in fact NOT have a democratic society - but rather one that it CLEARLY and DEMONSTRABLY controlled by and for the benefit of a narrow oligarchy?

The question then becomes - if we accept the failure of this 'social democracy' to achieve anything remotely resembling government by and for the people - what other form of government would be better?

My opinion, often repeated I know, is that the best way to protect the freedom and prosperity of a people is NOT to give them a right to interfere with every aspect of society: i.e. NOT democracy. The government should be democratically elected, but its realm of authority within the society should not be unlimited.

The single most important realization I've had, personally, regarding political science et al, is that power WILL be abused. The ultra-wealthy and established people/families WILL coopt the government sooner or later. We can try to avoid this, but the best way to mminimize the cost of such control by unscupulous people is to minimize the power of that government which we know they will eventually, through every form of corruption, come to control.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

I totally agree but when freedom is threatened we will revolt. It becomes a balancing act between observed and conceived acts of democracy. Those who abuse us know not to go to far and we as fools let them play this charade. Im not happy about it but I'm too old to be revolutionary.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;119233 wrote:

I totally agree but when freedom is threatened we will revolt.

I hope so, but it won't happen if we don't know what freedom means. By my definition, and the definition of the founders, freedom is not only threatened in this country, it's already gone in many important respects.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

hi guys

Quote:

brightnoon

My opinion, often repeated I know, is that the best way to protect the freedom and prosperity of a people is NOT to give them a right to interfere with every aspect of society: i.e. NOT democracy. The government should be democratically elected, but its realm of authority within the society should not be unlimited.

The single most important realization I've had, personally, regarding political science et al, is that power WILL be abused. The ultra-wealthy and established people/families WILL coopt the government sooner or later. We can try to avoid this, but the best way to mminimize the cost of such control by unscupulous people is to minimize the power of that government which we know they will eventually, through every form of corruption, come to control.

..... but why should the unscrupulous only seek power through government? There is power outside government, and the less government potentially the more the power outside it.

Surely its not a question of government or heirarchies outside government .... its a question of scale. ie the size of governments and the size of heirarchies outside governments. A large corporation can do as much damage as a large government. To demand for the limitation in the size of government without a corresponding demand 'through government' in the limitation of the size of other institutions, is just to shift the opportunity of corruption rather than address it?

Socialists should ask for the limitation in the size of capitalist institutions, not the end of them (historical mistake). Capitalists should ask for the limitation in the size of government, not the end of it(historical mistake). If thats what each actually asked for i would agree with both of them .... on condition that they both agree with each other!

The beaurocracy both inside and outside the government is too large. Ultimately we need to reduce our numbers to protect us from this tendency of the machine to rule and corrupt us.

2 Replies

@pagan,

A common revolution to usurp oppression has to be followed by true freedom otherwise we are constantly returning to the status quo. I have confidence that smaller more independent communities could satisfy that need. Waring tribes are not always the outcome, trade is more important.

0 Replies

@pagan,

pagan;120211 wrote:

..... but why should the unscrupulous only seek power through government? There is power outside government, and the less government potentially the more the power outside it.

The unscrupulous, as we shall generously label them, do not seek power only through government; however, in the western world at least, there is enough of a tradition of law and a sufficiently stable social order that it would be impossible for these individuals to privately conduct searches of homes, imprison people, tax people, print money, raise armies and fight wars, etc. These functions are generally the province of government. Of course, as we have seen increasingly in recent years, some of those functions are being privitized - albeit still with the government acting as intermediary, thus granting the appearance of legality. So, until society is ready to acccept completely private armies, police forces, prisons, etc., the private interests that want to use those functions for their own ends - and prevent them from being used against themselves - must control the government

Quote:

Surely its not a question of government or heirarchies outside government .... its a question of scale. ie the size of governments and the size of heirarchies outside governments. A large corporation can do as much damage as a large government.

In the world now, a corporation acting legally (i.e. acting as a corporation managing its own interests, pricing, labor, etc.) can cause economic harm, but it cannot use force against people; it cannot, e.g., put people in prison who refuse to buy its products. That sort of harm, the use of actual physical force - legally sanctioned - is as of yet a prerogative of government alone.

Therefore, powerful private interests need to control government in order to (1) persuade it to use those unique powers to further its own interests, and (2) to prevent the government from using those powers against it's private interests.

Quote:

To demand for the limitation in the size of government without a corresponding demand 'through government' in the limitation of the size of other institutions, is just to shift the opportunity of corruption rather than address it?

I don't think so. If the government does virtually nothing but prevent one party from using or threatening to use physical force against another, and also uphold legitimate contracts, what can a corporation or other private institution do? Not imprison people, not tax people, not draft people, not print money, not borrow money in the people's name, etc. The potential that a large government has to damage a given population is much greater than the potential a corporation in a libertarian society - of any size or power - has to damage that same population.

It is primarily through the cooption of government that corporations engage in massive abuse and fraud, not to mention - obviously - promote imperial wars and oppressive domestic policies. They (private interests and corporations) could not do these things without control of the government.

The current crisis is a perfect example. AIG, Goldman Sachs et al colluded to commit a number of different kinds of securities fraud and MOREOVER, fraud which they KNEW would explode in their faces and cost them billions. Why? Because they controlled the government sufficiently (former Goldman CEO Hank Paulson in the treasury e.g.) to be sure that, when the bubble burst, they would be saved by injections of public funds. AND, because they knew that, for the same reason, no government official would investigate or prosecute anyone criminally. Yes, the same thing could have been done without control of the government, but it would only happen once and that would be the end of it forever. Why? The firms involved, absent a bailout, would go completely bankrupt, their assets would be sold to others, and the lesson would be learned by those competitors. Furthermore, the people actually involved in the fraud would be imprisoned.

This if course didn't happen. Rather, because the government has the power to intervene in markets - in the people's interest of course :sarcastic: - instead of their fraud ending in their own impoverishment and/or imprisonment, it has ended in record bonuses and continued life for these corporations. The point: this kind of activity is only possible with the collusion of government. Private corporations can certainly commit fraud and wreak economic devestation on their own, but they cannot maintain an instrincally fraudulent system indefinately without government protection, both in terms of subsidies, tax advantages, and bailouts, and also in terms of de facto immunitity from criminal prosecution.

Quote:

Socialists should ask for the limitation in the size of capitalist institutions, not the end of them (historical mistake). Capitalists should ask for the limitation in the size of government, not the end of it(historical mistake). If thats what each actually asked for i would agree with both of them .... on condition that they both agree with each other!

Those are contradictory views. One cannot limit the size of government and of corporations, as doing the latter entails increasing the power of the government.

Quote:

The beaurocracy both inside and outside the government is too large. Ultimately we need to reduce our numbers to protect us from this tendency of the machine to rule and corrupt us.

I couldn't agree more, but the solution is not more government 'regulation' of corporations. The corporations will always - and do now - control the government, and all 'regulations' simply further their dominance (through selective enforcement: i.e. competitors are subjected to the rules, but not the big boys with friends in washington) or they are simple ignored. The only solution is to remove the powers of government to intervene in the economy. Watch Wallstreet shrivel up and die, revealing its bone-deep incompetence and corruption, if the Federal Reserve stops printing money and lending it to them at privilaged interest rates, if the war machine stops turning, if the corporate welfare stops, if the tax code is simplified, if the government 'investment' (lining of pockets of friendly corporations) in the economy stops. The image of the all-powerful corporation that threatens our freedom and and prosperity has nothing to do with a really strong, vibrant corporation that is so because of essentially superior practices, products, etc. It has everything to do with the corporations being in bed with the government. These things are parasites, they'll die on their own if you take away their federal nourishment.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;118969 wrote:

What would you have me say? Your stated views on capitalism and socialism have changed dramatically while we have been debating. You now see government interference as a capitalist exercise , just as a socialist government would do.

I have never changed any views, they just don't fit your paradigm.
This isn't very hard to understand; when government tells you that you only may have one child, that is government interference. When government prohibits you from stabbing your neighbor, that is limiting you in infringing on his rights. One is the limitation of freedom, the other is the protection of freedom. Those two roles are different, just because they are both "doing something" doesn't mean that they are either socialism or capitalism. Capitalism is not "not doing something" and socialism is not "doing something". If you see all political questions as a question of "doing something" or "not doing something", you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Capitalism means that all transactions are voluntary, this means that government may not force you to do certain transactions, but it also means that it should protect you from other people forcing you to to do certain transactions.

xris;118969 wrote:

The most recent change you have made is that the US is capitalist, for ages you supported the opposite opinion...I am lost for words in your change of heart.

I have tried to explain to you for a while that capitalism is a mechanism. The US is using capitalism, but it is also using socialism. All nations are both. The question is the degree to which they are what. The US is socialist, but it is sill the most capitalist nation on earth.

xris;118969 wrote:

What is left is your lack of stated opinion on taxes. You have failed to accept that any government needs to gather them.

Sure most governments need to gather taxes. But again, it's not about gathering taxes or not, it's how and for what. Gathering taxes is not necessarily socialist in nature.
I'm not even opposed to a social safety net. Just against one that rewards failure and punishes success; one that distorts the market.
Look up negative income tax.

xris;118969 wrote:

When you consider that the US is capitalist you must accept the damage it has suffered recently? or is that the odd percentage social issues that created these probs.

The recent problems of the US are due to it moving away from capitalism.
The more you move away from capitalism, the more problems you get.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Just as imagined, you tell me the capitalist part of America has not caused any of the problems. The banks excessive stupidity in trying to manipulate the housing market is a socialist ideology,I think Karl mentions it, silly me.

Once again you refer to fascist china as an example of democratic socialism acting against the freedoms of its population. How many times have I to tell you. China in fact, is more dictatorial capitalist than democratic socialist.

When does the tax system of a socialist country differ from a capitalist? If you proportion your tax levies its only natural that certain citizens will pay more. Can you explain how failure is rewarded in a democratic socialist government?

2 Replies

@xris,

Quote:

brightnoon

Those are contradictory views. One cannot limit the size of government and of corporations, as doing the latter entails increasing the power of the government.

i agree that they are contradictory views IF one believes that only through government beaurocracy can the corporations be limited, or through global corporations that government can be limited. I just don't accept this view, and i think we have been subject to propaganda from both sides. Rules limiting corporation power are simple if we want them to be. Simple as defining burglary.

Quote:

The corporations will always - and do now - control the government, and all 'regulations' simply further their dominance (through selective enforcement: i.e. competitors are subjected to the rules, but not the big boys with friends in washington) or they are simple ignored. The only solution is to remove the powers of government to intervene in the economy.

i completely agree with this collusion between big money and government beaurocracy, and i respect the arguement to get goverment out of big contracts and such. But i disagree with the solution in the sense that i feel that government should restrict corporation sizes and thus the lobby of big money (and institutions) - compared to blind confidence with deregulated capitalism. The latter has failed. It is size that matters when it comes to corruption, whether in money, beaurocracy or the combination of the two. We are trapped by fear into the machine. We have become removed from each other and what we do, while being now dependent upon the coordination provided by corporations and governments to keep things running. To even begin disengaging would mean 'inefficiency' in the language of the machine.

The damage done by corporations is different to the damage of government, but there is considerable damage nonetheless. They are still machine institutions feigning care and personality. They are liable to exploit by their very nature. Exploitation may not be the same as a police state, but it would be naive not to recognise the advantages gained by corporations to create cheap labour and pollution. Advertising is so utterly ubiquitous, 'entertaining' and part of culture that it is rarely recognised as potentially brainwashing propaganda under a different name.

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;120860 wrote:

i agree that they are contradictory views IF one believes that only through government beaurocracy can the corporations be limited, or through global corporations that government can be limited. I just don't accept this view, and i think we have been subject to propaganda from both sides. Rules limiting corporation power are simple if we want them to be. Simple as defining burglary.

Who defines burglary? The government, no? Who is to make and enforce these rules governing the size of corporations if not the government? And then, if so, how would limiting the size of corporations NOT neccessarily increase the role/power of government? I think you may - with all due respect- be a little naive if you think that legislation to signficantly regulate global corporations could be a simple as the statute that defines burglary. It would be a complex 'regulatory framework' - as the NewSpeakers like to say these days - that would require a great deal of active government involvement in all aspects of commerce.

Quote:

i completely agree with this collusion between big money and government beaurocracy, and i respect the arguement to get goverment out of big contracts and such. But i disagree with the solution in the sense that i feel that government should restrict corporation sizes and thus the lobby of big money (and institutions) - compared to blind confidence with deregulated capitalism. The latter has failed.

In what sense? Any specific examples? I'm sure you're not referring to the present financial crisis, as the system existing during the inflating of the bubble and the system existing now as the bubble is bursting has nothing at all in common with a free market system. Most fundementally, the crisis is the result of a fiat monetary system administered by a private central bank - granted the power by government to print the currency - in collusion with Wallstreet, which controls said central bank. There's nothing less laizze faire than that. The first two, most important requirements for a free market are (1) the right to own and dispence freely with private property and (2) sound money.

Quote:

It is size that matters when it comes to corruption, whether in money, beaurocracy or the combination of the two. We are trapped by fear into the machine. We have become removed from each other and what we do, while being now dependent upon the coordination provided by corporations and governments to keep things running. To even begin disengaging would mean 'inefficiency' in the language of the machine.

The damage done by corporations is different to the damage of government, but there is considerable damage nonetheless. They are still machine institutions feigning care and personality. They are liable to exploit by their very nature. Exploitation may not be the same as a police state, but it would be naive not to recognise the advantages gained by corporations to create cheap labour and pollution. Advertising is so utterly ubiquitous, 'entertaining' and part of culture that it is rarely recognised as potentially brainwashing propaganda under a different name.

I agree with all your statements regarding the problems entailed by BigBusiness and BigGovernment alike. However, the very fact - irrefutable as far as I'm concerned - that the government and the big corporations are in all essential respects one, precludes the possiblity of 'regulating' or 'limiting' corporate power and influence by granting the government additional powers of intervention.

As long as the government has power to intervene in the economy, the corporations will corrupt government and coopt that power for their own purposes. It follows that, if the above is true, any new powers granted by government to limit the corporate power will simply be coopted by those corporations and in fact further their power.

The idea that the government can be cleansed of corruption and corporate influence, so that if we grant it new powers it will use them honestly and not allow them to be coopted by the corporations, is fallacious - as the very basis of the corruption is the fact that the government has these powers which the corporations desire to be used for their purposes.

Though I do not believe in principle - or speaking pragamatically - that the government can or should regulate private enterprise, if you believe such is appropriate, the best way to go about realizing such a genuinely socialist system would I think be to first abolish all government powers of regulation - so as to cleanse the government of corruption. I know that sounds strange, but only then, once that is accomplished, would it make sense to grant government powers of regulation, and expect it to actually use them as intended, and not have them coopted by business.

But, ultimately, those powers will be coopted again and you'll find yourself exactly where you started: fascism.

---------- Post added 01-18-2010 at 06:01 PM ----------

xris;120417 wrote:

Just as imagined, you tell me the capitalist part of America has not caused any of the problems. The banks excessive stupidity in trying to manipulate the housing market is a socialist ideology,I think Karl mentions it, silly me.

If you're going to try to determine the prime causes of the housing bubble, you cant attach equal weight to all causes. One wouldn't blame the existence of oxygen in the atmosphere for an arson (though that clearly was a conditio sine qua non for the event); neither would one blame the existence of human greed in the seats of commercial power for an asset bubble (though that is clearly a required precondition). There is always oxygen in the atmosphere, humans are always greedy. The prime cause(s) of the housing bubble are the more immediate causes: the factors that aren't always present - like the arsonist in the fire.

What are those causes? (1) Legislation from the Clinton and Bush Adminstration, sponsored by Barnie Frank and Chriss Dodd among others, that lowered lending standards for sub-prime mortages issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (2) The practice by those same Government Sponsored Entities of buying sub-prime and other high-risk mortages from private mortgage companies and banks: thus creating a situation in which a primary lender would lend to someone he knew would default (so-called 'liar loans' e.g.), because the lender would make money immediately by selling the mortgage to the GSE's, which then assumed the risk. (3) The easy money (i.e. low interest rates) of the Federal Reserve after the 2001 recession; when money is loaned into the economy, it's going to find a home - given the above practices of the GSE's, that home was the newly established mortgage-backed-securities market. (4) Rising crude and gasoline prices, due to the above-mentioned monetary inflation. This didn't create the bubble, but it was one of the immediate causes of the bubble's collapse. (5) Rising unemployment and/or lack of employment growth following the 2001 recession - a result of that same inflation and the various 'free trade' agreements of the period.

The 'predatory lending practices' and other unethical - if not actually illegal - practices of Wallstreet were indeed neccessary for the bubble to inflate. HOWEVER, those practices were all reactions to the above-mentioned government policies. Without the easy money and the GSE's reckless behavior, Wallstreet could never have created such a monstrosity as the derivatives market. Not to mention the fact that these wallstreet moghuls are NOT stupid, as some analysts would have us believe. The top people were not surprised the collapse of the asset bubble. My point: no sane person would have, in light of the knowledge of impending disaster, continued to fuel the fire had they not known that the government would bail them out. Moral Hazard. Another cause that is impossible without government intervention: i.e. impossible in a free market.

Quote:

When does the tax system of a socialist country differ from a capitalist? If you proportion your tax levies its only natural that certain citizens will pay more.

A graduated income tax is a socialist policy. In a free market system, there actually should not be an income tax at all: only capital gains and corporate income should be taxed, not labor. But if there is one, it would be levied equally against all citizens.

Quote:

Can you explain how failure is rewarded in a democratic socialist government?

I assume that a social democracy would include a gradual income tax and a fairly extensive welfare system, correct? If so, then wealth is neccessarily redistributed not only from the rich to the poor, but from the productive to the unproductive. Not everyone on welfare is unproductive because they are lazy or incompetant certainly - some are genuinely unlucky - but many are lazy or incompetant. If one considered lazyness or incompetance to be failure, then indeed, such a system rewards failure.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -Jefferson

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

Quote:

brightnoon

I agree with all your statements regarding the problems entailed by BigBusiness and BigGovernment alike. However, the very fact - irrefutable as far as I'm concerned - that the government and the big corporations are in all essential respects one, precludes the possiblity of 'regulating' or 'limiting' corporate power and influence by granting the government additional powers of intervention.

As long as the government has power to intervene in the economy, the corporations will corrupt government and coopt that power for their own purposes. It follows that, if the above is true, any new powers granted by government to limit the corporate power will simply be coopted by those corporations and in fact further their power.

i disagree. If the people demand such a law against big corporations and the government legislate it, then people will see for themselves if the big corporations have corrupted it, by the very fact of their existence. Corporations need people to work for them and buy from them, and if they are big the people will see it ..... and see that the government has permitted it against the law.

the real problem is that people are not motivated to reduce the scale. There are savings of scale when it comes to the machine. But those savings come at other costs. The divorce of people from the purpose and products of their labour. Our dependency upon the scale of the machine because the savings of scale are used by the machine not to create leisure and freedom, but exactly the opposite. To be tied in and dependent. And once we are tied in, pragmatically and in the language of existence that the machine gets us to sell to each other.... then our only appeal is in the language of the machine. Whether it be government over corporations or 'free market' over government. The right to buy a house with a huge loan, or the right to work for a corporation. The two are indeed not seperate. To promote one over the other is not to be seperated from either. They are the same, and what they both have in common is scale. Big government, big business...... big dependent populations.

The damage of big corporations is there for you to recognise or reject brightnoon, or to blame upon the corruption of big government. You don't need me to highlight them. They are obvious and well known and documented throughout history. For you the dream is a 'truly' free market. For me (and many others) its just another nightmare. We don't trust them. We have worked for them. We get the vibe of how they work and what they care about.

Corruption has and always will exist, but there exists the possibility that it will occur in the context of a much smaller scale, where people get back in touch with each other. They would know who and where the administrators and company directors are. They would be real people in a real community. At present they are either invisible ..... or media 'personalities'.

2 Replies

@pagan,

I hope and pray the day will come when we the great general population will realise its power and its ability to make governments tremble and corporate bandits quiver in fear. I thought of hot chocolate and cadburys today and wondered why british banks ,the british public bailed out, are furnishing the cash to sell british jobs abroad and we let them get away with it...

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Couldn't you prevent a "too big to fail" company or a corrupt government with the same thing? Knowledge and empathy? If people were informed and cared (which I would hope is a byproduct of knowledge) wouldn't they keep a rein on any corruption.

I mean - we all seemingly know that a lot of things went wrong to cause the latest bubble, and its collapse. We all, and I now mean most of the industrialized world's population, know that politicians are liars almost all of the time - bullshitters.

Why don't we all just stand up and say enough is enough? People always call me quixotic, or a dreamer, because I talk to my friends "about the same things" and they don't seem to really ever think about it. The government, in the US, is 40% of the economy. We owe trillions of dollars to China. Each person has a $35,000+ share of debt from the federal government. 2/3 of Americans are overweight, 1/3 is obese, most have thousands in personal credit card debt, most hate their jobs, 1/4 of us have had a mental health issue in the past year, our literacy rate is dropping while education's price keeps inflating compared to its rewards (compulsory and college).

We fought a revolutionary war over a bailout of a tea company (and other things) and called it taxation without representation.

Now we roll our eyes and change the channel to watch American Idol instead.

I wonder how hard it would be with the grip the "system" has on today's society to walk in the shadow of MLK or Gandhi. To really rile up a lot of people to fight for what's right. I think it would be almost impossible now with how many other things can occupy the general populace's time rather than justice.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Your prognosis suggests America has gone sick.
It needs bed rest.
The fats needs to be shed, conspicuous consumption needs a kick in the butt, more leg job and hand work is the need of the hour, dump the fast car, get a small car instead, take a scissor and cut the plastic card, walk to your work, stop watching television, burn the adult stores, forget Micheal Moore, George Bush or Tiger Woods, Gifts and cakes are not a necessity for social life, go hike up a hill - America is beautiful.
If some of these things are done, there will not be any need for the services Like the doctors, lawyers, accountants, scientists, engineers, bankers, advertisers, media and industrialists/corporates and the politicians ofcourse who all have sucked out everything out of the American financial system, and left the main street man high and dry. Like a jerk, a dude with a Coke in one hand and Mcdonalds in the other, cant scratch his bums, because the big billboard says it is criminal to drop those things for an itch since people can even steal those super-precious products.

May God Bless America!

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

At least I am not the only one that thinks we have a problem - bigger than a political party.

And, also, shouldn't political philosophies have to play by the same rules as philosophies. Shouldn't they have to be applied hypothetically to everyone to see if it works?

And, if so, then would capitalism or socialism ever work? Capitalism, as it is now, uses way too many resources per population (USA is 5% of world population, uses 25% of resources) and socialism, as described in this thread, requires capitalism in the global economy to have it's own economy work. Or so it seems. There has to be fat pigs across the Atlantic for European socialism to afford itself, does it not?

1 Reply

@bmcreider,

bmcreider;121588 wrote:

At least I am not the only one that thinks we have a problem - bigger than a political party.

And, also, shouldn't political philosophies have to play by the same rules as philosophies. Shouldn't they have to be applied hypothetically to everyone to see if it works?

And, if so, then would capitalism or socialism ever work? Capitalism, as it is now, uses way too many resources per population (USA is 5% of world population, uses 25% of resources) and socialism, as described in this thread, requires capitalism in the global economy to have it's own economy work. Or so it seems. There has to be fat pigs across the Atlantic for European socialism to afford itself, does it not?

exactly so any government needs the resources to convince the voting populace. I still believe in true socialism because it considers all its citizens.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Would a democratic socialism entail an informed populace making real democratic choices, similar to "consumer choice" in libertarian hypothesis, or would we be voting in a body of representation and then entrusting them with power?

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;121200 wrote:

If the people demand such a law against big corporations and the government legislate it, then people will see for themselves if the big corporations have corrupted it, by the very fact of their existence.

Is it not obvious already to anyone paying even the slightest attention that government is controlled by corporate interests? And yet the corruption continues.

Let's say the government manages to pass legislation that, if enforced honestly per the spirit and letter of that law, would really restrict corporate influence; but the government doesn't enforce it honestly, rather selectively and otherwise disengenuously, so that corporate influence is not affected. Now, you suggest that, in such a scenario, 'the people will see for themselves if the big corporations have corrupted it (government/law).' Let's say that is true, and following the dishonest enforcement of this new law, it becomes clear to all in the nation that the government is owned by the corporations. What then? As stated, don't we already know that: i.e. that the government is owned by Wallstreet? Haven't we been through periodic 'populist' reactions before, only to find that the machine is able to direct the anger toward one or another false solutions? Wouldn't the reaction of the people to the realization of corruption likely be to dump whichever party is in office, only to elect the other party which exists in the exactly the same vassalage to Wallstreet?

Let me be clear, I'm not trying to make an argument for the futility of any attempt at reform. Quite to the contrary. What I am suggesting is, however, that any regimen of reform is doomed which rests on the assumption that government will respond to popular outrage against the corruption by actually, actively persuing real regulation of the corporations. That will never happen. Wallestreet has too much money and its tentacles are too firmly wrapped around the neck of Washington for the latter to engage in a sustained fight against the former. The best chance, I believe, is to try to reduce the power of the government to intervene economically: ostensibly in the interest of the people, really in the interest of Wallstreet. It's easier, for example, to abolish the federal reserve by legislation in one instance than it is to sustain an honest CFTC for years.

Quote:

Corporations need people to work for them and buy from them, and if they are big the people will see it ..... and see that the government has permitted it against the law.

But is there not massive corruption now? Do the people see it? If not, then you are incorrect. If so, then the fact that the people see it is apparently of no cosequence to Washington.

Quote:

the real problem is that people are not motivated to reduce the scale. There are savings of scale when it comes to the machine. But those savings come at other costs. The divorce of people from the purpose and products of their labour. Our dependency upon the scale of the machine because the savings of scale are used by the machine not to create leisure and freedom, but exactly the opposite.

Aesthetically, I sympathize with what you're saying. But I cannot actually abide but a Marxist notion of ending the 'alienation of labor' and so on. Modern life certainly has its uglyness, its impersonality, lonelyness, etc., but I do no believe that you or I or anyone has the right to use state power (i.e. coercive force) to engineer society.

In general, there economies of scale will correspond to growth and modernization, etc., so if you oppose them in principle - on whatever ground - there is really no solution other than 1) deevolution of society or 2) engineering society into something more collectivistic through the power of the state. However, our particularly offensive consumer culture is not the product of natural economic development and free markets. The American economies of scale of largely creations of our monetary system and government, which we can change without violating the liberty of individuals. A prime example of something that makes us slaves of the machine is debt. This level of personal debt never would or could have accumulated without the Federal Reserve, among other government sponsored monopolies and institutions.

Quote:

To be tied in and dependent. And once we are tied in, pragmatically and in the language of existence that the machine gets us to sell to each other.... then our only appeal is in the language of the machine. Whether it be government over corporations or 'free market' over government. The right to buy a house with a huge loan, or the right to work for a corporation. The two are indeed not seperate. To promote one over the other is not to be seperated from either. They are the same, and what they both have in common is scale. Big government, big business...... big dependent populations.

Again I agree, but where is the solution that doesn't require a more or less totalitarian state to enforce some new system and/or deevolution of society?

Quote:

The damage of big corporations is there for you to recognise or reject brightnoon, or to blame upon the corruption of big government. You don't need me to highlight them. They are obvious and well known and documented throughout history. For you the dream is a 'truly' free market. For me (and many others) its just another nightmare. We don't trust them. We have worked for them. We get the vibe of how they work and what they care about.

I don't trust them either, I know how they work and what they care about: profit. Do you know why American companies in particular - in comparison to German e.g. - are so hell-bent on short term profit instead of long-term economic development, technological innovation, etc? Corporations don't have to be this way. They are this way in this country, and others, because of the utter domination of multinational banks over productive industry, which forces the real production companies into debt and quick profit-making schemes to service that debt. The federal reserve itself was founded largely as a result of the displeasure of the New York Banks at the growing tendency of non-east coast corporations to fund themselves, without resorting to the banks for entangling loans. Again, corporations don't have to be this way.

Quote:

Corruption has and always will exist, but there exists the possibility that it will occur in the context of a much smaller scale, where people get back in touch with each other. They would know who and where the administrators and company directors are. They would be real people in a real community. At present they are either invisible ..... or media 'personalities'.

How exactly would you go about creating this 'context of a much smaller scale, where people get back in touch with each other?' Sounds nice, but by what means do you change the present system in that system? Would the state allocate labor and organize production so as to keep the organization small and more personal? We know how that experiment usually turns out, and it's much worse than sitting in a cubicle eating GMO food.

1 Reply

@bmcreider,

bmcreider;121615 wrote:

Would a democratic socialism entail an informed populace making real democratic choices, similar to "consumer choice" in libertarian hypothesis, or would we be voting in a body of representation and then entrusting them with power?

I would hope that we could have legal frame work that required governments to perform to their proposals.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

brightnoon i completely agree with you re the federal reserve (and the bank of england etc.). The names are a lie in themselves. Do i think that the people recognise the corruption? yes and no. I don't think people generally trust politicians or big corporations, but i don't think we realise the full extent of the in bred system and the way the media psychologically ties us in. Advertising, news propaganda, content generally.

What i am saying is that scale is the problem. It isn't just the scale of government and corporations. It is the scale of the population, the scale of the electoral process, the scale of religions. Scale means beaurocracy. The language of the machine. Scale requires the language of the machine to function. Its promise is savings of scale and stability of scale. Its a promise that comes at a great cost. It is impersonal and requires media to tie us all in and give it a 'personal' image. (else why would we vote?) Once we become locked in (psychologically and with infrastructure) it tells us what to aspire to. eg mortgages, insurance, careers, consumerism. The images are subliminal because on the face of it they are saying one thing (a government message, a product, the news) but written in are the assumptions of who you are. A worker, middleclass, a patriot, a christian, a consumer, a law abider. All of which are large scale descriptions. They sound personal, they claim you are free to choose, you see individual personalities and larger than life characters on the box ..... but it is a smoke screen. It isn't personal, it is distant. It cannot respond to your individual life, it is beaurocracy upon beaurocracy. It has to be because scale cannot function without it.

And we have forgotten the alternatives. Local politics is a choice amongst the large political parties now. They follow their rules. They are beaurocrats. Why bother to get to know those small fry when you can be stimulated through the media by their 'leaders'.

And we don't bother. We don't bother because part of us is sucked in and part of us thinks that it is too big to do anything about.

But if a law was passed saying 'no to large scale' then we would see it blatantly being flouted. Large corporations cannot hide their scale, however much influence they have in government. We work for them we buy from them. I am not talking about restricting the influence of large corporations i am talking about completely disasembling them. The same for government. The same for any large beaurocracy. And yes we will lose savings of scale, but we would regain relationship.

I am not talking about going back to the dark ages. We have gained a great deal of technology. Keep it. Use it. Imagine the uk without 70 million but 7. The US without 250 million but 25. There would be no need to fight for oil from the middle east. There would be no need for a carbon tax. The internet would still connect us. We could know about countries hit by famine and the like.

In my country it is illegal to buy your own land and live peacefully and ecologically. Local councils actively search them out. Get caught and refuse to sell up? You are sent to court and you pay for the cleanup. You are not permitted by law in my country to live peacefully and responsibly outside the machine.

The main problem is pychological. People think the machine is normal, but it is inhuman. It is abnormal. And i don't think for one moment that the corporations and the government are in control. Individual top dogs like to think they are and they celebrate their gains and influence. But the beaurocracy survives because nobody is in control, everyone is dependent. Whether they are part of a power base or not.

The beaurocracy has become a life form. We are its cells. We follow its rules. And when we complain we use its language. We look for solutions to our problems within the language of the machine. We make films and music that criticises the machine, then leave the theatre feeling we have hope and gained a small victory. It is normality. Buy the film, buy the cd, take it home and watch it ..... then go to work, vote and abide by the law.

Saying that beaurocracy is a large scale life form are the words of a nutter.

1 Reply

Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know