So You Despise Capitalism? Please Give Us Your Alternative...

[G.T.]

I just wanted to take this opportunity to give the Anti-Capitalism crowd a chance to elaborate on their Anti-Capitalism stance. I would also like to give them a chance to explain in an articulate fashion what they would replace Capitalism with. Because in my opinion it's just not enough to 'occupy' and screech slogans. And i'm really not trying to be a smart ass here either. I am very interested in hearing their ideas. Shouting angry slogans at each other wont get us anywhere. So lets hear those ideas on what you want to replace Capitalism with. Thanks.

I don't think it's a problem of wanting to end Capitalism in that realizing capitalism has to reform.

We've recovered from the recession, but the jobs haven't appeared, and we are likely to go into another recession because of it.

The old school was that capitalism produced jobs. Jobs produced consumers. consumers produced profits.

Somewhere along the line, they figured out how to create profits without creating jobs, and the system is off kilter.

It's really just that simple.

 

[Intense]

I just wanted to take this opportunity to give the Anti-Capitalism crowd a chance to elaborate on their Anti-Capitalism stance. I would also like to give them a chance to explain in an articulate fashion what they would replace Capitalism with. Because in my opinion it's just not enough to 'occupy' and screech slogans. And i'm really not trying to be a smart ass here either. I am very interested in hearing their ideas. Shouting angry slogans at each other wont get us anywhere. So lets hear those ideas on what you want to replace Capitalism with. Thanks.

I don't think it's a problem of wanting to end Capitalism in that realizing capitalism has to reform.

We've recovered from the recession, but the jobs haven't appeared, and we are likely to go into another recession because of it.

The old school was that capitalism produced jobs. Jobs produced consumers. consumers produced profits.

Somewhere along the line, they figured out how to create profits without creating jobs, and the system is off kilter.

Progressive or Marxist Reform is not the answer. Making the creation of Jobs unaffordable is not the answer. Making the cost of doing business undesirable is not the answer. The Left, is the least credible adviser of the Free Market, Capitalist system.

 

[Dragon]

Anyone who uses terms like "corporate greed" is an anti-capitalist.

Thanks for that clarification. Finally, someone is willing to at least start on a definition of terms!

If anti-capitalism is defined to include opposition to the excesses of capitalism, and not restricted to opposition to the system itself, then we must include among anti-capitalists Republicans such as Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon, as well as Democrats such as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Lindon B. Johnson. We must include economists such as John Maynard Keynes, and also economic thinkers such as Adam Smith. All of these people have, at one time or another, expressed disapproval of the greed of the very wealthy, and favored measures to temper that greed.

We may therefore say that what you mean by "capitalism" is a system in which capitalists not only own the means of production, but are allowed to run amok without any restraints or regulations at all, and encouraged to do so by government at every turn.

I can therefore answer that what I would propose as a replacement for this type of "capitalism" is the regulated economy (which was also called "capitalist," incidentally) of the post-WWII decades, when unions were encouraged and strong, trade and tax policy were set to benefit the people as a whole instead of the very rich, and banks were regulated so as to prevent the kind of shell-games that led to the recent collapse.

You now have your answer. See how easy that was?

 

[Intense]

Anyone who uses terms like "corporate greed" is an anti-capitalist.

Thanks for that clarification. Finally, someone is willing to at least start on a definition of terms!

If anti-capitalism is defined to include opposition to the excesses of capitalism, and not restricted to opposition to the system itself, then we must include among anti-capitalists Republicans such as Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon, as well as Democrats such as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Lindon B. Johnson. We must include economists such as John Maynard Keynes, and also economic thinkers such as Adam Smith. All of these people have, at one time or another, expressed disapproval of the greed of the very wealthy, and favored measures to temper that greed.

We may therefore say that what you mean by "capitalism" is a system in which capitalists not only own the means of production, but are allowed to run amok without any restraints or regulations at all, and encouraged to do so by government at every turn.

I can therefore answer that what I would propose as a replacement for this type of "capitalism" is the regulated economy (which was also called "capitalist," incidentally) of the post-WWII decades, when unions were encouraged and strong, trade and tax policy were set to benefit the people as a whole instead of the very rich, and banks were regulated so as to prevent the kind of shell-games that led to the recent collapse.

You now have your answer. See how easy that was?

Actually .... no. You list allot of Progressives. You do know that Progressivism is Anti Small Enterprise, Pro Monopoly, Pro Centralist control, One Size fits all Solutions. Progressivism is Anti Individual Liberty, Anti Property, and interested only in It's desired End, It's Leaders on the Pedestal in total Control, being Worshiped. Good try there, though. Creating the Corporate Monsters to eliminate competition and make the end Round Up easier. Good One.

The thought of Necessary Regulation brought on by circumstance and the consent of the Governed never occured to you, huh? I guess it is too much fun misinforming people, telling them what to think, and what hoops to jump through is just too much of a rush. Got it.

 

[paulitician]

I just wanted to take this opportunity to give the Anti-Capitalism crowd a chance to elaborate on their Anti-Capitalism stance. I would also like to give them a chance to explain in an articulate fashion what they would replace Capitalism with. Because in my opinion it's just not enough to 'occupy' and screech slogans. And i'm really not trying to be a smart ass here either. I am very interested in hearing their ideas. Shouting angry slogans at each other wont get us anywhere. So lets hear those ideas on what you want to replace Capitalism with. Thanks.

I don't think it's a problem of wanting to end Capitalism in that realizing capitalism has to reform.

We've recovered from the recession, but the jobs haven't appeared, and we are likely to go into another recession because of it.

The old school was that capitalism produced jobs. Jobs produced consumers. consumers produced profits.

Somewhere along the line, they figured out how to create profits without creating jobs, and the system is off kilter.

Good reply. Thanks.

 

[G.T.]

libocalypse now

 

[Dragon]

Actually .... no. You list allot of Progressives. You do know that Progressivism is Anti Small Enterprise, Pro Monopoly, Pro Centralist control, One Size fits all Solutions.

LOL no I don't. And neither do you.

Not even going to bother with the rest of your post. If you're that afraid of the way the U.S. economy was run in the decades following World War II, which resulted in the strongest middle class and the highest level of opportunity for the most people of any economy anywhere in the world in all history, then you have issues.

It's pure hyperbole to call that "anti-capitalism," of course. Just as the things you said about progressivism are silly, paranoid nonsense.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Some of the very "left" of the left wing wishes for NO borders with a globalist system of one human race; yes I said it, one race under one government singing around the camp fire.

Some on the very right of the right wing wish for NO borders, with a globalist system of one American empire, yes I said it, one empire under one government singing around the camp fire.

 

[Londoner]

This original poster has been lied to by his media sources.

Americans are lead to believe that the choice is between A) the current version of capitalism or B) some variant of socialism. The people framing this kind of question presuppose that Adam Smith's pre-globalized version of free market capitalism is possible in a post nation-state world with open borders. We live in a world run by transnationals whose workforces are larger than the Edinburgh of Smith's youth. Perhaps we need to update the way we describe our current economy, and thus resist the seductive narrative of evil government versus innocent entrepreneurs.

That is, does our current model account for the fact that big business and big government have merged? Does it account for the fact that big business owns government & media, and exerts "extra"-market control over most markets? MEANING: I propose that the current simplistic model does not account for the reality of what Adam Smith's innocent capitalism has become. Worse: I stipulate that this model places its adherents inside Randian simplifications, e.g., evil government versus innocent John Gault. Much worse: I stipulate that those who have been manipulated to accept this framing are offering remedies which give even more power to those who already have a disproportionate amount of power, that is, it makes things worse.

Regardless, the well-meaning patriots who operate under this model are unwittingly supporting our transition to a world where a small group of mega-corporations and wealthy individuals (on both sides of the political spectrum) have all the money and political power, while the vast bulk of hard working consumers are slipping into a permanent underclass. Under the banner of freedom, the noble Tea Party Patriot has unwittingly supported a transition to a kind of proto-feudalism with exactly the kind of concentrated power they protest. In short, the benefactors of late monopoly capitalism have used their media assets to convince a startling number of people that polices which concentrate power actually do the opposite. They have convinced these well-meaning Americans that they represent Jahn Gault in his struggle against Stalin. But what if the story is more complex?.

What if the argument is not between free market solutions (based on the activity of free consumers, free workers, free investors, & free suppliers) and central planning (based on state control of everything). This simplistic view hides the elephant in the room, which is the control of state by a small segment of the private sector. Tragically, if we cannot name the problem, we cannot fix it.

FYI: I would love to live in a world where honest & innocent investors are brought together with honest & innocent entrepreneurs to bring products to market where the free choice of consumers not only determines what products survive, but also imposes efficiency and discipline on suppliers …because only those who innovate in the direction of consumer choice (while offering competitive pricing) survive. I just don't think we can get there if we accept a simplistic framing of the problem.

 

[paulitician]

This post signals the political takeover of our media system. Americans are lead to believe that the choice is between A) the current version of capitalism or B) some variant of socialism. The people framing this kind of question are typically lead to believe that Adam Smith's pre-globalized version of free market capitalism is possible in a post nation-state world with open borders, - a world run by transnationals whose workforces are larger than the Edinburgh of Smith's youth. These well-meaning low-information voters chronically fail to see the reality behind our monopoly or statist capitalism (where big business runs government, media, and market. Worse: since they cannot see the reality of what Adam Smith's innocent capitalism has become - and since they are manipulated by their pundits to see only Randian simplifications, e.g., evil government versus innocent John Gault - they tend to offer remedies which give even more power to those who already have a disproportionate amount of power, that is, they make things worse. It doesn't help that they get all their information from those with disproportionate power.

Regardless, these well-meaning patriots are unwittingly supporting our transition to a world where a small group of mega-corporations and wealthy individuals (on both sides of the political spectrum) have all the money and political power, while the vast bulk of hard working consumers are slipping into a permanent underclass. Under the banner of freedom, they have unwittingly husbanded a transition to a kind of proto-feudalism with exactly the kind of concentrated power they protest. In short, the benefactors of late monopoly capitalism have used their media assets to convince a startling number of people that polices which concentrate power actually do the opposite. They have convinced these well-meaning Americans that they represent Jahn Gault in his struggle against Stalin. But what if the story is more complex?.

What if the argument is not between free market solutions (based on the activity of free consumers, free workers, free investors, & free suppliers) and central planning (based on state control of everything). This simplistic view hides the elephant in the room, which is the control of state by a small segment of the private sector. Tragically, if we cannot name the problem, we cannot fix it.

FYI: I would love to live in a world where honest & innocent investors are brought together with honest & innocent entrepreneurs to bring products to market where the free choice of consumers not only determines what products survive, but also imposes efficiency and discipline on suppliers …because only those who innovate in the direction of consumer choice (while offering competitive pricing) survive. I just don't think we can get there if we accept a simplistic framing of the problem.

Thanks. Very articulate and honest. I enjoyed reading it.

 

[DontBeStupid]

10 pages now and Paulitician still hasn't said what he thinks it means to be "Anti-Capitalism". Not surprising. Also not surprising is Bripat's 12 posts in a row.

Yeah, this thread is progressing nicely.

 

[paulitician]

10 pages now and Paulitician still hasn't said what he thinks it means to be "Anti-Capitalism". Not surprising. Also not surprising is Pripat's 12 posts in a row.

Yeah, this thread is progressing nicely.

It's progressing ok but i got a much more lively and honest discussion on another message board. I don't even care if you are Anti-Capitalism. I just like honesty. I enjoy hearing others' opinions and suggestions on this subject. But if you don't like this thread,you can always leave or just start one of your own. God Bless and have fun.

 

[DontBeStupid]

10 pages now and Paulitician still hasn't said what he thinks it means to be "Anti-Capitalism". Not surprising. Also not surprising is Pripat's 12 posts in a row.

Yeah, this thread is progressing nicely.

It's progressing ok but i got a much more lively and honest discussion on another message board. I don't even care if you are Anti-Capitalism. I just like honesty. I enjoy hearing others' opinions and suggestions on this subject. But if you don't like this thread,you can always leave or just start one of your own. God Bless an have fun.

I don't think you like honesty or honest discussion. You talk about this "another message board" but have never shared anything from there here to get a more lively conversation going. Which is what you claim you want. You have also ignored the numerous requests that you state what it means to be "Anti-Capitalism". And, you have ignored posts by people stating their position and asking if that makes them "Anti-Capitalism" in your eyes.

No, I don't think you want an honest discussion. Either that or you're scared of it. Which is it?

 

[kaz]

10 pages now and Paulitician still hasn't said what he thinks it means to be "Anti-Capitalism". Not surprising. Also not surprising is Pripat's 12 posts in a row.

Yeah, this thread is progressing nicely.

It's progressing ok but i got a much more lively and honest discussion on another message board. I don't even care if you are Anti-Capitalism. I just like honesty. I enjoy hearing others' opinions and suggestions on this subject. But if you don't like this thread,you can always leave or just start one of your own. God Bless an have fun.

The reason you're not getting an answer is they don't understand the question. To the left, socialism is a magic elixir that in itself solves everything. They think that socialism is better capitalism then capitalism is. They think capitalism is company driven, they don't understand that it's consumer driven. So they think by government controlling companies they improve capitalism and they don't grasp that by controlling companies government is actually removing consumer choice and destroying capitalism.

They will disagree with this as well, and yet everything they argue will demonstrate it's what they believe. Socialism is a one size fits all ideology. Why would they think that consumers getting unequal treatment by companies is desirable even when that unequal treatment was created by their own choices? It would never happen.

 

[paulitician]

10 pages now and Paulitician still hasn't said what he thinks it means to be "Anti-Capitalism". Not surprising. Also not surprising is Pripat's 12 posts in a row.

Yeah, this thread is progressing nicely.

It's progressing ok but i got a much more lively and honest discussion on another message board. I don't even care if you are Anti-Capitalism. I just like honesty. I enjoy hearing others' opinions and suggestions on this subject. But if you don't like this thread,you can always leave or just start one of your own. God Bless an have fun.

I don't think you like honesty or honest discussion. You talk about this "another message board" but have never shared anything from there here to get a more lively conversation going. Which is what you claim you want. You have also ignored the numerous requests that you state what it means to be "Anti-Capitalism". And, you have ignored posts by people stating their position and asking if that makes them "Anti-Capitalism" in your eyes.

No, I don't think you want an honest discussion. Either that or you're scared of it. Which is it?

Aw just have some fun man. If you're Anti-Capitalism just admit it and then discuss why openly and honestly. It's really not that big of a deal. It's a message board for God's sake. It doesn't cost you anything to be honest and up front here. You're free to express yourself.
I asked a direct question in my post. If you don't like the question then don't join the thread. It's not too complicated. Just have a little fun here. It's all good. God Bless.

 

[DontBeStupid]

10 pages now and Paulitician still hasn't said what he thinks it means to be "Anti-Capitalism". Not surprising. Also not surprising is Pripat's 12 posts in a row.

Yeah, this thread is progressing nicely.

It's progressing ok but i got a much more lively and honest discussion on another message board. I don't even care if you are Anti-Capitalism. I just like honesty. I enjoy hearing others' opinions and suggestions on this subject. But if you don't like this thread,you can always leave or just start one of your own. God Bless an have fun.

The reason you're not getting an answer is they don't understand the question.

No. The reason he's not getting the answers he wants is because he can't define the terms he's using. I posted a rather lengthy response to him a while back and ended it with asking him if that made me "Anti-Capitalism". I of course got no response, because the OP doesn't know what it means to be "Anti-Capitalism".

If he doesn't know what it means, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't, then THAT is the question you ask. You don't ask a misleading one and then insult anyone who doesn't answer it the way you want. That's just childish.

But hey, Paulitician might be a child for all we know.

 

[G.T.]

libocalypse now, retread

 

[paulitician]

It's progressing ok but i got a much more lively and honest discussion on another message board. I don't even care if you are Anti-Capitalism. I just like honesty. I enjoy hearing others' opinions and suggestions on this subject. But if you don't like this thread,you can always leave or just start one of your own. God Bless an have fun.

The reason you're not getting an answer is they don't understand the question.

No. The reason he's not getting the answers he wants is because he can't define the terms he's using. I posted a rather lengthy response to him a while back and ended it with asking him if that made me "Anti-Capitalism". I of course got no response, because the OP doesn't know what it means to be "Anti-Capitalism".

If he doesn't know what it means, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't, then THAT is the question you ask. You don't ask a misleading one and then insult anyone who doesn't answer it the way you want. That's just childish.

But hey, Paulitician might be a child for all we know.

lol! No one is required to meet your demands before you answer a question here. It's not my responsibility to define anything for you. Either answer the question in the post or simply move on. It's a message board. Come on man,have some fun. SHEESH!

 

[DontBeStupid]

The reason you're not getting an answer is they don't understand the question.

No. The reason he's not getting the answers he wants is because he can't define the terms he's using. I posted a rather lengthy response to him a while back and ended it with asking him if that made me "Anti-Capitalism". I of course got no response, because the OP doesn't know what it means to be "Anti-Capitalism".

If he doesn't know what it means, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't, then THAT is the question you ask. You don't ask a misleading one and then insult anyone who doesn't answer it the way you want. That's just childish.

But hey, Paulitician might be a child for all we know.

lol! No one is required to meet your demands before you answer a question here. It's not my responsibility to define anything for you. Either answer the question in the post or simply move on. It's a message board. Come on man,have some fun. SHEESH!

heh heh Let me guess. 12th grade Government class? This is your project and you want us to write it for you?

I answered your "question". Many of us did. If you don't understand it, that's your loss, not mine.

Good luck in life.

 

[kaz]

Not true Oldstyle, but I love the over dramatics!

What irks me about the state of our capitalism today, is "someone making a lot of money", at the expense of their workers!

Providing workers with jobs is at their expense? I'm an employer, I own two businesses. I could survive any of my workers leaving. I could replace all them if you gave me a year or so do do it in phases. But I walk out the door and they are closed and everyone goes home. I love my staff, I get rid of the ones who don't perform. I don't want to do that. But I'm saying to ask how it makes sense that "I" am making money at "their" expense.

Middle class wages have been basically flat for a decade while companies and owners are setting record profits almost every year

Because there are so many employees available because the economy is bad because the government is suffocating us with taxes and regulation.

But I will admit I work my staff harder. I bought another business in my industry in May and slashed expenses, including laying off about a third of their staff. And it made me more profitable. However, it did not grow the economy because I made more money by reducing expenses, not growing revenue (of the two companies combined).

You are right in that we are going to grow profits, but we are going to grow profits. We work harder, we are smarter, more disciplined. And if you support government suffocating the economy as is happening (I'm referring to Obama AND Bush of late), then we are going to figure out how to make money anyway. Your best solution is to allow us to grow companies and expand jobs, not shrink it and cut costs as government has insisted on doing.

A family of four can't afford medical insurance because the company wants to squeeze out 1% more in profit

Bull shit. Our medical costs are skyrocketing. And it's purely because of government mandates and control over the medical industry. We have absorbed doubling and redoubling costs and it's destroying us. Your portrayal is just ridiculous.

People explode in an uproar about passing a law to prevent pollution dumped in the air, but don't want to help the child who develops asthma

Our air is cleaner then it has been in decades, substantiate this.

Companies sit on $1.8T in cash and politicians call for giving them more cash

Again you are factually challenged. Most of that cash is overseas and government would take up to 30% if they bring it back, it's the politicians who "want" it. As for the money in the US, we need revenue. Not loans. And the way to do that is reduce government domination over the economy. Again like other companies I'm investing little and paying down debt. No advertising I do works, no one is spending. And it's all because of government making it impossible to predict what happens next.

and paying for it by cutting into the retirements of workers.

That's fucking ridiculous.

We pay market wages and retirements are part of their compensation, your statement is fucking ridiculous.

This country was not founded so that companies could run around and do and get whatever they want. Show me in the Constitution where it says a company is more important than a citizen. Hint: it doesn't.

Companies are logical structures created by citizens to serve a market. It is their owners that have rights you are trampling on. And their customers should be free as well and when you restrict companies you restrict choice. There is no freedom in the anti capitalist culture, only servitude to an all powerful government.

This country needs to start treating its citizens like people again, and if that makes me "Anti-Capitalism" in the eyes of cowards like Paulitician, then fine.

This country means the government, and that is correct, they do. But you want government to not do that but the reverse, restrict their ability to have free commerce so we can all serve the interests of the politicians you support because they will occasionally throw you a bone from their feast gorging on wealth created by others.