Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism

[JoeNormal]

I stated that the WRONG PATIENT has been identified.

The reason being that the OP is criticizing FASCISM not CAPITALISM.

So, as long as we have FASCISM , things will NOT be "perfect as is"

Capisce?

/

The video is currently criticizing the current configuration of capitalism. No where was fascism even mentioned. Nice try to derail the original point.

The current configuration isn't capitalism. Hence the original point is built on a false premise.

You make the distinction between capitalism and corporatism. Don't you think that corporatism is the natural result of capitalism?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, i do not. Corporatism is the result of coercion, corruption and fraud. All of which have no bearing on capitalism at all. Capitalism requires freedom, especially freedom of the economic variety (not that much contrast can be drawn from individual and economic freedom).

 

[dblack]

This is essentially what we have for government, why is advocating the same approach to economics preposterous?

That's the question we really need to answer clearly as a nation: what IS government for?

I believe we create government to protect our freedom; to make it possible for us all to get along and enjoy the benefits of society, yet remain free to pursue our own individual goals and desires.

From that point of view, we don't need, or want, government dictating our economic decisions. Just as we don't want it dictating our religious beliefs or associations.

Mr Wolff asserts that government should have no part of this, unlike the synergy that exist currently with the lobbyist. He says the business could be setup like co-ops, etc..

Hmm... ok. Well, I'll have a listen. That's usually where socialism starts to get 'fuzzy'. At a base level, government is going to be enforcing rules regarding property rights, and I suspect that is where Mr. Wolff will want to make changes. If he's asserting government should have no part of deciding how businesses are setup, without changing property rules, then I don't see how it's any different than a free market approach.

 

[Newby]

I think that all of the predictive criticisms I've seen so far were addressed by about 27 minutes into the video. The things he advocates are:

A taxation, regulatory and public works role for government as existed in the 30's.

That is what helped, at that time, to pull the country out of the depression.

A worker participation in the decision making process in companies as exists in Germany today.

Not sure of the correlation of Germany, even though they are the strongest financial country in Europe. Mr. Wolff made no mention of Germany in the video.

Worker co-ops in which workers more equally share the profits of the company and share in the direction of its operation.

If people, regular people, like you and I work and help in deciding the direction of the company, why should we not all share in the profits of our labor?

Because you don't own it. You're being compensated for your labor, if you don't like what you're being compensated, then leave.

 

[dblack]

The video is currently criticizing the current configuration of capitalism. No where was fascism even mentioned. Nice try to derail the original point.

The current configuration isn't capitalism. Hence the original point is built on a false premise.

You make the distinction between capitalism and corporatism. Don't you think that corporatism is the natural result of capitalism?

It depends on what you mean by 'capitalism'. If you're talking about the perks and privileges associated with the current conception of the corporate charter, you have a point.

If, on the other hand, you're referring to a basic system of private property and free markets, then no - corporatism isn't a natural result; rather, it's a result of government attempts to interfere with that setup.

 

[JoeNormal]

No, i do not. Corporatism is the result of coercion, corruption and fraud. All of which have no bearing on capitalism at all. Capitalism requires freedom, especially freedom of the economic variety (not that much contrast can be drawn from individual and economic freedom).

The engine of capitalism is selling a better product or service as measured by some magical combination of quality, features and price. For most products and services, certainly complex ones, large corporations have a huge advantage because of economies of scale and specialization of skills within. It's a big enough advantage to counter the coercion, corruption and fraud.

 

[JoeNormal]

The current configuration isn't capitalism. Hence the original point is built on a false premise.

You make the distinction between capitalism and corporatism. Don't you think that corporatism is the natural result of capitalism?

It depends on what you mean by 'capitalism'. If you're talking about the perks and privileges associated with the current conception of the corporate charter, you have a point.

If, on the other hand, you're referring to a basic system of private property and free markets, then no - corporatism isn't a natural result; rather, it's a result of government attempts to interfere with that setup.

I think corporations would exist even without the perks that government provides them via lobbying.

 

[Moonglow]

The current configuration isn't capitalism. Hence the original point is built on a false premise.

You make the distinction between capitalism and corporatism. Don't you think that corporatism is the natural result of capitalism?

It depends on what you mean by 'capitalism'. If you're talking about the perks and privileges associated with the current conception of the corporate charter, you have a point.

If, on the other hand, you're referring to a basic system of private property and free markets, then no - corporatism isn't a natural result; rather, it's a result of government attempts to interfere with that setup.

But corporatism influences legislation coming from the govt.

 

[shikaki]

That's the question we really need to answer clearly as a nation: what IS government for?

I believe we create government to protect our freedom; to make it possible for us all to get along and enjoy the benefits of society, yet remain free to pursue our own individual goals and desires.

From that point of view, we don't need, or want, government dictating our economic decisions. Just as we don't want it dictating our religious beliefs or associations.

Mr Wolff asserts that government should have no part of this, unlike the synergy that exist currently with the lobbyist. He says the business could be setup like co-ops, etc..

Hmm... ok. Well, I'll have a listen. That's usually where socialism starts to get 'fuzzy'. At a base level, government is going to be enforcing rules regarding property rights, and I suspect that is where Mr. Wolff will want to make changes. If he's asserting government should have no part of deciding how businesses are setup, without changing property rules, then I don't see how it's any different than a free market approach.

Exactly.. His idea is that a collective..co-op, owns the business and provides direction for the business. The business is still in business to make a profit... Unlike what we have now, which is a Board of Directors and handful of executives that really have no skin the game outside of making a profit are deciding the complete direction of the business in a somewhat vacuum and by doing so are collecting all the profits.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, i do not. Corporatism is the result of coercion, corruption and fraud. All of which have no bearing on capitalism at all. Capitalism requires freedom, especially freedom of the economic variety (not that much contrast can be drawn from individual and economic freedom).

The engine of capitalism is selling a better product or service as measured by some magical combination of quality, features and price. For most products and services, certainly complex ones, large corporations have a huge advantage because of economies of scale and specialization of skills within. It's a big enough advantage to counter the coercion, corruption and fraud.

Large corporations have a huge advantage because they engage in collusion with legislators. That's what coporatism is. The bedding of favored economic entities that grow powerful through their partner, the legislator.

in captialism, legislators do not write legislation that curtails or destroys competition for the purposes of favoritism. The key component of corporatism is the coercion, corruption and fraud of government. Not of corporations having an advantage.

 

[dblack]

You make the distinction between capitalism and corporatism. Don't you think that corporatism is the natural result of capitalism?

It depends on what you mean by 'capitalism'. If you're talking about the perks and privileges associated with the current conception of the corporate charter, you have a point.

If, on the other hand, you're referring to a basic system of private property and free markets, then no - corporatism isn't a natural result; rather, it's a result of government attempts to interfere with that setup.

But corporatism influences legislation coming from the govt.

Corporatism IS legislation coming from government.

 

[Moonglow]

You make the distinction between capitalism and corporatism. Don't you think that corporatism is the natural result of capitalism?

It depends on what you mean by 'capitalism'. If you're talking about the perks and privileges associated with the current conception of the corporate charter, you have a point.

If, on the other hand, you're referring to a basic system of private property and free markets, then no - corporatism isn't a natural result; rather, it's a result of government attempts to interfere with that setup.

I think corporations would exist even without the perks that government provides them via lobbying.

The Founding Fathers were very anti-corporation. They knew that as in Britain that the national legislative body was rife with corporate owners and heads. They greatly influence legislation to corrupt the system. That is why there were strict rules and laws regarding corporations in the early US. After the Civil War when monopolies began to rise the GOP was supported by the rich to influence Federal legislation to change the recognition of corporations into that of an individual. That is when the federal govt. was changed from a republican-democracy to one of pluralistic representation.

 

[Moonglow]

It depends on what you mean by 'capitalism'. If you're talking about the perks and privileges associated with the current conception of the corporate charter, you have a point.

If, on the other hand, you're referring to a basic system of private property and free markets, then no - corporatism isn't a natural result; rather, it's a result of government attempts to interfere with that setup.

But corporatism influences legislation coming from the govt.

Corporatism IS legislation coming from government.

Which only benefits those corporations.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It depends on what you mean by 'capitalism'. If you're talking about the perks and privileges associated with the current conception of the corporate charter, you have a point.

If, on the other hand, you're referring to a basic system of private property and free markets, then no - corporatism isn't a natural result; rather, it's a result of government attempts to interfere with that setup.

I think corporations would exist even without the perks that government provides them via lobbying.

The Founding Fathers were very anti-corporation. They knew that as in Britain that the national legislative body was rife with corporate owners and heads. They greatly influence legislation to corrupt the system. That is why there were strict rules and laws regarding corporations in the early US. After the Civil War when monopolies began to rise the GOP was supported by the rich to influence Federal legislation to change the recognition of corporations into that of an individual. That is when the federal govt. was changed from a republican-democracy to one of pluralistic representation.

And at that time frame, it was syndicalism and mercantilism created by the crown. There were no owners, there were operators. the crown owned it all. The rest of what you say is pure partisan fantasy.

 

[JoeNormal]

No, i do not. Corporatism is the result of coercion, corruption and fraud. All of which have no bearing on capitalism at all. Capitalism requires freedom, especially freedom of the economic variety (not that much contrast can be drawn from individual and economic freedom).

The engine of capitalism is selling a better product or service as measured by some magical combination of quality, features and price. For most products and services, certainly complex ones, large corporations have a huge advantage because of economies of scale and specialization of skills within. It's a big enough advantage to counter the coercion, corruption and fraud.

Large corporations have a huge advantage because they engage in collusion with legislators. That's what coporatism is. The bedding of favored economic entities that grow powerful through their partner, the legislator.

in captialism, legislators do not write legislation that curtails or destroys competition for the purposes of favoritism. The key component of corporatism is the coercion, corruption and fraud of government. Not of corporations having an advantage.

Ok, I see the distinction that you make. Still, I think that government is only a convenient medium through which corporations gain SOME advantage. Without government intervention, the corporations would devise their own dirty tricks and even though corporations take advantage of government cronyism to some extent, government provides a more level playing field than would exist without it.

 

[shikaki]

I think corporations would exist even without the perks that government provides them via lobbying.

The Founding Fathers were very anti-corporation. They knew that as in Britain that the national legislative body was rife with corporate owners and heads. They greatly influence legislation to corrupt the system. That is why there were strict rules and laws regarding corporations in the early US. After the Civil War when monopolies began to rise the GOP was supported by the rich to influence Federal legislation to change the recognition of corporations into that of an individual. That is when the federal govt. was changed from a republican-democracy to one of pluralistic representation.

And at that time frame, it was syndicalism and mercantilism created by the crown. There were no owners, there were operators. the crown owned it all. The rest of what you say is pure partisan fantasy.

Today the banks own it all.. LOL

 

[dblack]

But corporatism influences legislation coming from the govt.

Corporatism IS legislation coming from government.

Which only benefits those corporations.

Right, but too often corporatism is perceived as corporations influencing government - and that misses the point. Corporatism is a form of government that operates by handing out favors to special interests (which aren't necessarily incorporated businesses). That's an important distinction to make because, usually, attempts to combat corporatism target those trying to influence the system, rather than the system itself - which is a mistake.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The engine of capitalism is selling a better product or service as measured by some magical combination of quality, features and price. For most products and services, certainly complex ones, large corporations have a huge advantage because of economies of scale and specialization of skills within. It's a big enough advantage to counter the coercion, corruption and fraud.

Large corporations have a huge advantage because they engage in collusion with legislators. That's what coporatism is. The bedding of favored economic entities that grow powerful through their partner, the legislator.

in captialism, legislators do not write legislation that curtails or destroys competition for the purposes of favoritism. The key component of corporatism is the coercion, corruption and fraud of government. Not of corporations having an advantage.

Ok, I see the distinction that you make. Still, I think that government is only a convenient medium through which corporations gain SOME advantage. Without government intervention, the corporations would devise their own dirty tricks and even though corporations take advantage of government cronyism to some extent, government provides a more level playing field than would exist without it.

Pure unadulterated nonsense. The ONLY reason that todays large corporatoins have gotten the advantages they have is because the government is fully corrupted and willing to get in bed with favored corporations. Writing laws for them (or, having them write them and simply passing them off and selling them to the public...see ACA and just about every single law authored of any importance economically over the last 100 years). It IS THE advantage they receive and that is what corporatism is all about. Corrupt government who shouldn't be meddling in economic affairs at all except to settle contractual disputes and cases of fraud.

Corporations that "devise their own dirty tricks" under a government kept in check and to its proper rule would be guilty of crimes which try to use coercion or other similar methods to sabotage capitalism.

 

[Contumacious]

Perfect as-is huh?

I stated that the WRONG PATIENT has been identified.

The reason being that the OP is criticizing FASCISM not CAPITALISM.

So, as long as we have FASCISM , things will NOT be "perfect as is"

Capisce?

/

The video is currently criticizing the current configuration of capitalism. No where was fascism even mentioned. Nice try to derail the original point.

There is NO "current configuration of capitalism" whatever the fuck that means. Fascism should have been mentioned.

.

 

[Moonglow]

I think corporations would exist even without the perks that government provides them via lobbying.

The Founding Fathers were very anti-corporation. They knew that as in Britain that the national legislative body was rife with corporate owners and heads. They greatly influence legislation to corrupt the system. That is why there were strict rules and laws regarding corporations in the early US. After the Civil War when monopolies began to rise the GOP was supported by the rich to influence Federal legislation to change the recognition of corporations into that of an individual. That is when the federal govt. was changed from a republican-democracy to one of pluralistic representation.

And at that time frame, it was syndicalism and mercantilism created by the crown. There were no owners, there were operators. the crown owned it all. The rest of what you say is pure partisan fantasy.

Sorry old chum but there were private corporations in England before, during and after the American Revolution.