We Don’t Want a Post-Pandemic “Return to Normal,” We Want the End of Capitalism

[Hum Dinger]

We need a real ambition, but the ambition to return to normality within capitalism is surely no ambition at all. To be politically salient, the desire to return to “normal” has to be seen as an expression of desire for the good life — for us to escape hardship. “Normal” is used as shorthand because, whatever the miseries forced upon us by capitalist depredations, the memory of small day-to-day pleasures from pre-pandemic life contains hints of broader freedoms. Rather than yearning for normal, we should insist on the good by insisting on socialism.

We Don’t Want a Post-Pandemic “Return to Normal,” We Want the End of Capitalism

In 2022, we limped out of the pandemic frying pan into the fire of resumed capitalist crises. Popular yearning to “get back to normal” is a desire for the good life — and making such a desire a reality will require fighting for socialism.

jacobin.com

"Capitalism" isn't the problem. "Capitalism" in the narrowest and accurate sense, means investing money for the purpose of making a profit, while supplying businesses with the capital they need to be dynamic. This benefits the economy and allows the individual to build equity.

Unfortunately, the term "Capitalism" has been misinterpreted. What we have had isn't "Capitalism" it's been "anything goes opportunism". We have not had "free-market", we have had "free-for-all-market". May the best thief win. What we need is "Fair-market", because you cannot have a truly "free-Market" unless you have a "Fair-market".

To transform the current opportunistic free-for-all market, we need severe government regulation. Stop assuming that allowing total economic freedom - only slightly regulated, when absolutely needed - will result in the best result. It has been a gross failure for the majority of the people and is creating a defacto world-wide neo-monarchy.

Instead, we should default to the assumption that people are thieves- and have no respect for the rights or welfare of others. Markets should have maximum regulation - liberalized as needed to maintain the goods parts of the free-market (competition and innovation for example).

Socialism - the government seizure and control of all economic assets - has already proven to be a complete failure (i.e. the Soviet Union and pre-1990s China). Socialism leads to economic stagnation and general poverty for all. It does provide only the most essential needs and services, and with that a sense of security. That security can be provided within a fair-market system while allowing a dynamic economy and universal prosperity.

 

[alang1216]

Reality is whatever democrats want you to believe it is.

Does that mean reality is whatever Republicans tell you it isn't?

 

[alang1216]

In this case it is correct,'Socialism always fails

If I walk out my front door I'm on a sidewalk I don't own, next to a street I don't plow when it snows. Up the street is a school I didn't build. Etc., etc.

 

[Likkmee]

"Capitalism" isn't the problem. "Capitalism" in the narrowest and accurate sense, means investing money for the purpose of making a profit, while supplying businesses with the capital they need to be dynamic. This benefits the economy and allows the individual to build equity.

Unfortunately, the term "Capitalism" has been misinterpreted. What we have had isn't "Capitalism" it's been "anything goes opportunism". We have not had "free-market", we have had "free-for-all-market". May the best thief win. What we need is "Fair-market", because you cannot have a truly "free-Market" unless you have a "Fair-market".

To transform the current opportunistic free-for-all market, we need severe government regulation. Stop assuming that allowing total economic freedom - only slightly regulated, when absolutely needed - will result in the best result. It has been a gross failure for the majority of the people and is creating a defacto world-wide neo-monarchy.

Instead, we should default to the assumption that people are thieves- and have no respect for the rights or welfare of others. Markets should have maximum regulation - liberalized as needed to maintain the goods parts of the free-market (competition and innovation for example).

Socialism - the government seizure and control of all economic assets - has already proven to be a complete failure (i.e. the Soviet Union and pre-1990s China). Socialism leads to economic stagnation and general poverty for all. It does provide only the most essential needs and services, and with that a sense of security. That security can be provided within a fair-market system while allowing a dynamic economy and universal prosperity.

Fascism. Corporate conglomerates with control of a govt and all tax revenues.
Military Industrial clusterfuck comes to mind.

 

[BluesLegend]

If I walk out my front door I'm on a sidewalk I don't own, next to a street I don't plow when it snows. Up the street is a school I didn't build. Etc., etc.

MY money paid for the sidewalk, street and school. Plus I fund a bunch of mooching deadbeat welfares on my dime.

 

[Soupnazi630]

If I walk out my front door I'm on a sidewalk I don't own, next to a street I don't plow when it snows. Up the street is a school I didn't build. Etc., etc.

None of which is socialism

 

[alang1216]

"Capitalism" isn't the problem. "Capitalism" in the narrowest and accurate sense, means investing money for the purpose of making a profit, while supplying businesses with the capital they need to be dynamic. This benefits the economy and allows the individual to build equity.

Unfortunately, the term "Capitalism" has been misinterpreted. What we have had isn't "Capitalism" it's been "anything goes opportunism". We have not had "free-market", we have had "free-for-all-market". May the best thief win. What we need is "Fair-market", because you cannot have a truly "free-Market" unless you have a "Fair-market".

To transform the current opportunistic free-for-all market, we need severe government regulation. Stop assuming that allowing total economic freedom - only slightly regulated, when absolutely needed - will result in the best result. It has been a gross failure for the majority of the people and is creating a defacto world-wide neo-monarchy.

Instead, we should default to the assumption that people are thieves- and have no respect for the rights or welfare of others. Markets should have maximum regulation - liberalized as needed to maintain the goods parts of the free-market (competition and innovation for example).

Socialism - the government seizure and control of all economic assets - has already proven to be a complete failure (i.e. the Soviet Union and pre-1990s China). Socialism leads to economic stagnation and general poverty for all. It does provide only the most essential needs and services, and with that a sense of security. That security can be provided within a fair-market system while allowing a dynamic economy and universal prosperity.

Businesses begin as champions of 'free' markets but, once they are successful, they want government to protect them from their competitors or they want the ability to create a monopoly for themselves. Capitalism must be strictly regulated by the government so everyone gets an equal chance to play by the same rules. Imagine a football game without a referee. He doesn't pick sides or play the game but he is essential.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Businesses begin as champions of 'free' markets but, once they are successful, they want government to protect them from their competitors or they want the ability to create a monopoly for themselves. Capitalism must be strictly regulated by the government so everyone gets an equal chance to play by the same rules. Imagine a football game without a referee. He doesn't pick sides or play the game but he is essential.

Always a failure

government regulation creates and protects monopolies and nothing more

 

[alang1216]

MY money paid for the sidewalk, street and school. Plus I fund a bunch of mooching deadbeat welfares on my dime.

You must be very old since my street was here before I was born or moved here. I wonder who I'm mooching off?

 

[alang1216]

None of which is socialism

So what is your definition of socialism?

 

[alang1216]

Always a failure

government regulation creates and protects monopolies and nothing more

Tell that to Standard Oil.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Tell that to Standard Oil.

They had no monopoly without government

 

[Hum Dinger]

Fascism. Corporate conglomerates with control of a govt and all tax revenues.
Military Industrial clusterfuck comes to mind.

That's pretty much what we've had for the past 70 years.

 

[basquebromance]

pandemics are a social problem, and so the only solution is socialized medicine!

 

[Soupnazi630]

pandemics are a social problem, and so the only solution is socialized medicine!

Wrong

'Socialized medicine is a failure. Leaving pharma companies alone to develop vaccines works better than draconian lock downs and stupid mask edicts

 

[basquebromance]

the end of capitalism was coming anyway, but the cool thing about covid is that it ACCELERATED the end of capitalism dramatically, not that i wanted covid to happen lol

 

[Soupnazi630]

the end of capitalism was coming anyway, but the cool thing about covid is that it ACCELERATED the end of capitalism dramatically, not that i wanted covid to happen lol

Not even close.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Wrong

'Socialized medicine is a failure. Leaving pharma companies alone to develop vaccines works better than draconian lock downs and stupid mask edicts

Socialized medicine was first implemented in Germany by Bismark. It has since been implemented in every industrial country and a few non-industrial countries. It is an over-whelming success.

BTW - The government funded and oversaw the covid-19 vaccine research:

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20210512.191448/

 

[Uncensored2008]

Capitalism doesn't exist so you can't end what doesn't exist.

You should have finished second grade.

I mean that with all sincerity. You would have had a better life.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again I say, having a Real Job is the "boot camp" of American life. Without that experience, you are figuratively speaking, a child. A Real Job is a job with a private employer, one where you must perform or our will be cast out into the darkness, and BTW you must have that job in order to survive.

Most Leftists have never had a Real Job, hence they are totally ignorant of the comparison between what we casually refer to as "Capitalism" and what we casually refer to as "Socialism."

No one who has ever had a real job fails to see the stark difference between, let's say, Singapore, where they have Capitalism up the ass, and North Korea, where they have real socialism.

Articles like this are total foolishness, produced by oblivious fools. Sadly, this clown has hundreds of counterparts in leadership positions in government in the U.S. And they RULE Academe.

That's the thing, once real socialism is in place, those who don't perform are thrown into mass graves. Things still have to get done, even under socialism.