For the Marxists and Socialists at DU - Happy Tuesday - a most thoughtful read

[malaise]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/18/yanis-varoufakis-how-i-became-an-erratic-marxist
<snip>
In 2008, capitalism had its second global spasm. The financial crisis set off a chain reaction that pushed Europe into a downward spiral that continues to this day. Europe’s present situation is not merely a threat for workers, for the dispossessed, for the bankers, for social classes or, indeed, nations. No, Europe’s current posture poses a threat to civilisation as we know it.

If my prognosis is correct, and we are not facing just another cyclical slump soon to be overcome, the question that arises for radicals is this: should we welcome this crisis of European capitalism as an opportunity to replace it with a better system? Or should we be so worried about it as to embark upon a campaign for stabilising European capitalism?

Europe’s elites are behaving today as if they understand neither the nature of the crisis that they are presiding over, nor its implications for the future of European civilisation. Atavistically, they are choosing to plunder the diminishing stocks of the weak and the dispossessed in order to plug the gaping holes of the financial sector, refusing to come to terms with the unsustainability of the task.

Yet with Europe’s elites deep in denial and disarray, the left must admit that we are just not ready to plug the chasm that a collapse of European capitalism would open up with a functioning socialist system. Our task should then be twofold. First, to put forward an analysis of the current state of play that non-Marxist, well meaning Europeans who have been lured by the sirens of neoliberalism, find insightful. Second, to follow this sound analysis up with proposals for stabilising Europe – for ending the downward spiral that, in the end, reinforces only the bigots.

Let me now conclude with two confessions. First, while I am happy to defend as genuinely radical the pursuit of a modest agenda for stabilising a system that I criticise, I shall not pretend to be enthusiastic about it. This may be what we must do, under the present circumstances, but I am sad that I shall probably not be around to see a more radical agenda being adopted.

[socialist_n_TN]

1. The problem with this view.........

is that present day capitalism CANNOT BE "STABILIZED" WITHOUT MASSIVE HARM TO THE WORKING CLASS. The underlying reason for neo-liberalism is to restore the Rate of Profit for the capitalists so they will reinvest the profits that they've ALREADY made into productive sectors of the economy, which will, in turn, result in hiring workers and buying raw materials and making things. But they aren't reinvesting because they can't make enough profit on their reinvestment WITHOUT cutting wages and benefits FOR THE WORKERS. And that cutting both private AND public benefits for the masses.

So there's the rub. To only way to stabilize the system is to further screw the working class. I don't want to come down on the side of people who want to further screw the working class

[el_bryanto]

2. That is a self destructive plan though - the bit about cutting wages and benefits for workers

At the end of the day that's a plan to shrink the pie, while making sure that the wealthy have control over more of it. That's not a good deal for anybody; not even the wealthy.

Bryant

[socialist_n_TN]

3. No it's definitely NOT a good plan, but it IS capitalism.....

Capitalism doesn't think long term. Capitalism thinks in terms of the next quarter, especially when it comes to that rate of profit. So the only real way to "stabilize" capitalism is to RESTORE that rate of profit and, as the capitalists tell us ALL THE FUCKING TIME, labor costs are the biggest impediment to profit that they face. Ergo, the only way to "stabilize" the system is to screw the workers out of taking a larger share of the surplus value created BY those workers.

Now that doesn't mean that some sectors of the economy and their leaders don't see worker wages stagnating as a bad thing. Being that capitalism is based on the anarchy of the marketplace, there will always be conflicting currents, but right now and for the foreseeable future, the sectors that need labor costs to go down are ascendant in that anarchy of the market.

[el_bryanto]

4. That's why you need a well regulated capitalism

Capitalism is like a kid with a bunch of halloween candy - what it wants is generally not good for it. But after some 35 years of neo-liberalism and conservatism, neither party is in the habit of telling Wall Street no.

Bryant

[socialist_n_TN]

7. And now we come to the crux of the matter.........

Regulation might work for a while, especially if you have a little room for the system to expand and for the RATE of profit to grow. That room for expansion has become nonexistent and the rate of profit has begun to fall which is why we're having this conversation. Today you have the classic "irresistible force meets and immovable object" scenario RE: capitalism. The earth as a closed ecosystem meets an economic system that must expand or die

BTW, there IS another way to restore the RoP and the expansion possibilities of capitalism, but it's not very good for workers either. It's by destroying built up holdings, so the cycle can start over again. Similar to beginning a game of Monopoly over again. The world wars were examples of this type of restoration of the RoP.

It would be easier just to get rid of this flawed system all together.

[el_bryanto]

8. Well - I agree we are up against a wall, but it's a wall created by the myopia of capitalism

Not an actual wall; not yet.

And I haven't seen much evidence of a working alternate system, particularly when you consider our current population.

Bryant

[socialist_n_TN]

11. Well ideally we can learn from our mistakes AND.......

even the USSR, as degenerated and Stalinist as it was, still had better conditions than those people are living in now under the capitalism that replaced it. At least those at the bottom of the ladder.

You also have to consider the fact that the USSR was under constant pressure FROM IT'S INCEPTION by the capitalist system. Pressure that ran the spectrum from outright war and invasion to covert sabotage in ALL areas of social life. That SHOULD make one wonder what a Soviet style system could have done without that constant interference.

[KingCharlemagne]

16. Even with all the interference and obstruction from the capitalist sector(s), the USSR still

managed to defeat Nazi Germany, put the first earth-orbiting satellite into space and put the first man and woman into space. Not too shabby for a bunch of dirty f*ng commies, imo.

[Diclotican]

20. KingCharlemagne

KingCharlemagne

But the cost of defeating Nazi-Germany to go all the way back to Berlin and to stomp out the 3 Reich all together was on a enormous cost - most of the european part of Russia in ruins - most of its industry either in a horrible state or just devastated to the ground - million of people displaced for years - most of its great city's more or less in ruins - it took years and years to just rebuild the basis - even to this days - in some prominent places at Volgograd - the old name was Stalingrad - you can se some of the ruins, and how fierce the battle was in the city under the war.. And the cost of humans - who was killed by the war - or as a result of the war is staggering 20 million men, woman and children, at least it is the number most historians work with when they try to estimate how many russians who was killed in that war.... And that alone would have been devastating enough for any nation to be honest...

After the war - when the cold war started - Russia was in ruins - and had to rebuild everything more or less from scratch - and had not the ability to get help from the west, as the ideological infighting between the great ones intensified - specially as Stalin and Truman never really got along - not even on a personal level - and the consequences of that - was the splitting of Europe in two - and Berlin as the flash point for many near misses for war until 1989, when the east german people was not taking it anymore and deiced they wanted more freedom and the end of the old regime - and was more or less literary tearing the wall who symbolized the cold war down on their own....

Even as Russia, or the Soviet Union it was also known as was able to build a working nuclear bomb in less time than hoped for in the west - the cost for that bomb was great - as most resources was turned from building the infrastructure back to what it was before WW2 - was used to make sure the Soviet Union had a working bomb by the end of 1949 - at least 5 years to early from the perspective of USA - who believed they could have a vindu of opportunity for some years against the Soviet Union... And the other triumphs like the first space-orbiting satellite, (who scared the hell of most people, but who really scared the americans, who believed it was just a matter of time before the Soviet Union would nuke US, as they had shown they had the ability to send a satellite into space - therefore it could send a nuclear bomb into a city, a City-buster.. Thankfully it never happened ! - the first man into space was some of direct challenge to the americans I suspect - and in less than a year the first man from US also had visited Space - John Glenn (if I'm not forgotten) even if it was more or less a few orbits and then back to earth.... The Soviet Union was also first to put a woman into space - it should take years before that was happening in the US - and many other great feats who made the Soviet Union a gigantic in the manned or un-manned space race between US and the Soviet Union is not a bad feat for anyone - and Russia should truly be proud about the ability the have had to build, get into space, and at times maintained as in the case of MIR space station, something that was way over the latest date - it was not until the first modules for ISS was up in space - the old venerable MIR was deiced to end its time, burning over the pacific ocean - and to die... Not bad for a space station who worked 15 years overtime it designed time frame.. I wonder if ISS would do it the same way when it begin to age...

And not shabby at all, if you think about how bad the Soviet Union was after WW2...

Diclotican

[malaise]

46. That was a profound observation

and the capitalists haven't forgiven them yet.

[el_bryanto]

17. It's tricky moving from a command economy to a more true socialism

I don't know how you make that transition; what I do think is that if you give power to bureaucrats, the system will produce more bureaucrats.

Then again the thing that may decide more than anything is the population issue.

Bryant

[DonCoquixote]

34. sorry to say but

there is no evidence Stalin would have behaved better if he was left alone, indeed, World War II forced him to stop preying on his own people long enough to focus on Germany. Even as he was dying, he was planning his greatest purge yet. The facts is, when you let ANY ism, from capitalism to communism, run unchecked, it turns people into it's material, which is why the countries like Sweden, that mix cap and com, do well, because both the banker and the technocrat have checks on them.

[TBF]

18. "And I haven't seen much evidence of a working alternate system"

Define "working" for us please. Do you think capitalism "works"? If so, who specifically does it work FOR?

I don't think we can afford NOT to try something different. Whether brand new or modification of past ... but it needs to be community and resource based as opposed to driven by profit.

[el_bryanto]

19. I think a well managed capitalism works.

I think even with all of the problems over the last 30 years it still works well for a lot of Americans, and of course back in the 50s and 60s when we taxed the wealthy and used the money to build up infrastructure I think it worked very well.

Bryant

[F4lconF16]

22. I think in saying that you ignore everyone it HASN'T worked for.

Capitalism is what has brutally oppressed women and PoC for hundreds of years. It's the drive for profit that has marginalized them and driven them down. They are kept down for cheap labor. Think about all of the work women do at home, unpaid. Capitalism depends on keeping them in the home and bearing children for the machine. It also depends on keeping the black population in virtual slavery through mass incarceration and racism, because without that cheap labor source, it would not be able to succeed.

"Well-regulated capitalism" is a myth. It has never been, and never will be. It has to grow to survive, and that growth will happen no matter the consequences to human life. It is a flawed system that can only offer imperfect solutions for a small percentage of people, who, oddly enough, tend to be white males.

(Also, the programs you cite are all heavily socialist programs. Capitalism did not do that--socialism did. The common good will never be a factor in capitalism's view of labor and the economy).

[TBF]

25. It works for the owners -

and right now as the gap widens even further between rich and poor it is only working for the very few at the top (many smaller businesses are falling through the cracks as well). So, it's working great for those who still have their jobs and positive equity (by that I mean you take your savings and subtract ALL debts and see if you have money left over - I would hazard a guess that most Americans don't).

I'm not talking about your dreamland of the 1950s (that all evaporated very quickly when other countries recovered from WWII and the US decided it couldn't afford to tax the wealthy anymore). So that was a la la land of 30-40 years at best.

Let's look at it in pictures and see if that helps to understand. If you're in yellow, orange or even red you are likely to continue doing ok (barring job loss in the red squares - those are still working folks even if they are higher income). If you're in blue good luck.

[malaise]

10. It would be easier just to get rid of this flawed system all together

Yes

[socialist_n_TN]

12. I knew you would agree malaise........

And thanks for the OP.

[malaise]

13. I was thinking of you as I read it

[socialist_n_TN]

42. Nice to be thought of comrade.....

What's really ironic is that I saw a response to this article before I even read the article. A Marxist economist named Michael Roberts (check him out, he's really good) wrote in one of his blogs a few days ago about this "erratic" Marxist. Roberts came to the conclusion that he is more "erratic" than "Marxist".

[Adrahil]

50. And replace it with what?

TBH, I have yet to see a proposed replacement system that has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.

And honestly, I really want one. Capitalism IS exploitative. But now what? Marx did not offer any viable solutions, IMO. At least not any solutions that I find even remotely compelling.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. "capitalism CANNOT BE "STABILIZED" WITHOUT MASSIVE HARM TO THE WORKING CLASS."

word

[Jackpine Radical]

51. It's sorta like trying to "stabilize" or maybe "regulate" a cancer.

The cancer will continue to kill you, just a little slower.

The changes we need to make in the next few years need to be fundamental (Radical, I say!) and sweeping. Tinkering at the edges with marginal tax rates and minimum wages won't even make a perceptible deflection in the trajectory of the needle that is recording our descent into perdition.

[socialist_n_TN]

53. Good point and NICELY said Jack......

I especially liked that last sentence.

[Adrahil]

55. Can you outline those changes?

I hear this line of reasoning a lot. And I'm listening. What is it that you would have us do?

[socialist_n_TN]

66. I don't know about Jackpine, but I have some ideas.......

And remember that you're asking to have an entire political, economic, and social system explained in an internet post. By definition, it will be incomplete.

Nationalize under workers' control the "commanding heights of industry". Plan an economy at the LEAST to the point where everyone has food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, banking services, etc. Pay for it by turning the DoD into a REAL Department of Defense, rather than an imperial military arm. Expropriate without compensation the big owners. This could be done by capping the amount paid to "investors" at a certain level, say $100,000 (and that's a LOT) and nothing over that.

That's just a few personal ideas. Remember in a true workers' democracy, the workers would have the final decision in these matters.

[Stonepounder]

6. There is a basic point about Capitalism that everyone seems to miss.

Basic capitalism says: I will generate a good or service that I will sell. I will charge more for my good or service that it cost me to acquire it (through production, barter, whatever) and by charging more that it cost me, I will make a profit. The more I can charge for it the more profit I can make. It doesn't matter whether I am selling widgets, toothpicks, or mortgages; the basic theory is the same. Sell something for more that it cost me, the difference being profit. The goal being to maximize profit.

The part everyone seems to forget is that there has to be someone on the other side of the equation. No matter how great my product is, if no one buys it I can't make a profit. The middle class is the great driving engine of capitalism. When you, as a consumer, have 'disposable income', that is money left over after you pay for the absolute necessities - food, shelter, heat, water, etc. - then you can use it to buy other things. When you destroy the middle class, when the majority no longer has any 'disposable income', then who is going to buy your product?

Capitalism is consumer driven. Take away the consumer (as you do with severe austerity) and you have taken away the fuel for the capitalistic engine. The 1% can't seem to understand this simple concept.

[socialist_n_TN]

9. My post #3 addresses this.....

Capitalism in it's dotage is more than just consumer goods being sold. Which is why the falling RoP has caused what reinvestment that is happening to be confined to the financial sector and to more and more exotic fictional capital. If you can make 1 unit of profit on selling a widget and 3 units of profit trading paper, the laws of capitalism say you trade paper.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. "If you can make 1 unit of profit on selling a widget and 3 units of profit trading paper...

...the laws of capitalism say you trade paper."

Until the paper market reaches a point of oversupply, then prices drop in order to move inventory. Likewise, if there is an undersupply of widgets the price will go up.

Even then, there will still be widgets because not everyone can sell paper so others will move into the widget markets.

[socialist_n_TN]

68. Well, that's the point though. NO one moves into the widget market......

because it takes investment to set up in that market and there's not enough profit in widgets to reinvest in that sector. In addition, widgets are probably in a surplus for the market. As to the fictional capital market, that's not going away because the Fed is keeping the rates low for the banks. They can borrow money from the Fed for less than 1% and sell it for 4% or more, then they're going to keep doing it.


The entire POINT is that there's a buttload of surplus profit out there NOW. AND THE CAPITALISTS ARE NOT REINVESTING IT. Because the RATE of profit doesn't make it worthwhile to do so.

[DonCoquixote]

35. If you can make 1 unit of profit on selling a widget and 3 units of profit trading paper, the laws o

as opposed to communism which says if the party wants red flowers instead of widgets or paper, you trade flowers, regardless if no one wants flowers.

[socialist_n_TN]

69. Then the party needs to say that the people need food, clothing, shelter.....

and other necessities of life AT COST or with a small admin charge added. And the party will have to listen to the workers that make it up.

It's obvious when you talk about "communism" you're talking about a Stalinist bureaucracy and you won't find me defending a Stalinist bureaucracy.

[DonCoquixote]

71. not quite

Stalin was the extreme end, but all governments, be they Libertarian, Communist, or even self-labeled Anarchist have a way of looking at people as they want them to be, not as they are..There are many reasons, some evil, and some good, but in the end, it is a matter of "we know better than those stupid masses what they want and need." The reason why some of us prefer a Scandinvaian model as opposed to either Russian or American models is that there is an inherent knowledge that there are things to cut and thing to leave very well alone. Yes, spread the wealth around, no do not let ANY elite get control of the ways that product is created and give out. However, if any elite is not challenged, or forced to acocunt for themselves, then you will have a group of sheep and butchers. I can believe you would not defend a Stalinist group, just as many GOP would not defend a fascists group, but when an elite starts using the old us vs them spell to make a mass attack scapegoatys rather than the source of the problem, you end up in the same spot.

The reaosn we do not want a revolution is because revolutions always spin at 360. degress, right back where you started from. We want to change trajectory, not fasll into the same old lopp where we kill a few people, then become the people we used to have, then feed on our own.

[Adrahil]

56. Quite right. These people need to read Keynes. Smart guy. Knew a thing or two. n/t

[ND-Dem]

79. I think they understand it very well. It's the people who don't understand. Capitalism is just

another disguise for the pursuit of wealth and power. It's not essential, and when it stops being useful for those in power, it will disappear. It's just a tool to consolidate resources and power.

[mountain grammy]

15. Thanks for a very thoughtful read.

So, if capitalism appears unjust this is because it enslaves everyone; it wastes human and natural resources; the same production line that pumps out remarkable gizmos and untold wealth, also produces deep unhappiness and crises.

His discussion of Thatcher is fascinating. Just insert 'Reagan' for Thatcher and 'America' for Britain':

Instead of radicalising British society, the recession that Thatcher’s government so carefully engineered, as part of its class war against organised labour and against the public institutions of social security and redistribution that had been established after the war, permanently destroyed the very possibility of radical, progressive politics in Britain. Indeed, it rendered impossible the very notion of values that transcended what the market determined as the “right” price.

[malaise]

38. And we're all still reaping the madness of Reagan and Thatcher

[Diclotican]

21. malaise

malaise

Capitalism, at its root need to be controlled - regulated and keept in balance all time, capitalism is like a child of 4 you have to keep a eye on it all the time, if not you are really getting into some problems... And capitalism, who have been unregulated for more than 40 years now - since the neo-cons desied it was a smart move to deregulate everything as capitalism should to the trick ,and make everyone so mutch more happier it have given all of us what we have today - a system who is broke - and no one to know how to fix it....

And in Europe - many of the old enemies who was belived to be on the dustbin of the past are now growing at a rate never seen before - if you dosen't count in the inter-war period who was a political turbulent time in Europe - where conservatives and communist alike was fighting for the supremecy - and where everyone was afraid about the others - who often used violence to make sure they was the ones to win... For many conservatives, facism and nazism - was a less danger to them than communism was - and the result we all know about - the supremecy of the facist regimes of Germany and Italy - the innflucense it had on many other european nations, specially the ones who had traditonally links to the german spoken world, or who was hurt badly by the ressession of 1929...

The current ressesion of 2008 is in many ways the same ressesion as it was back in the late 1920s, and early 1930s - and I we are no near the end of it all even today.... And I fear for a new World War with all the consequenses that would have for us all... I do know enough history to know what war is - and the consequenses it have for the ones who survive it all.. Something I think the current leaders of the world could care less about...

Capitalism need to be controlled - and to be regulated - strickly and also disiplined when they disbehave - at the current no one dear dispiline the ones who do overstep the laws - and billions worth of money are going somewhere - not to the ones who owned it - but to the ones who stole it...

Diclotican

[Yorktown]

24. Well said. nt.

[malaise]

26. Look when it appeared to be working it was at the expense of minorities

and the working class of the world - particularly in our hemisphere where US and British multinationals exploited governments and citizens alike, fought against workers' rights, unions, health care. a decent education, etc. Governments who disagreed were overthrown or faced embargoes like Cuba.
Sadly they are now trying the same tactics in America.

[Diclotican]

28. malaise

malaise

It was problery more easy to excuse the excesses when it was on the minorities of the world - and the working class of the world, who for the most part had no voice who talked for them - specially after the USSR broke up it was no one to keep some of the worst excesses at bay - and in the last 25 years since it have been more and more difficult for the ordinary man and woman to get an even foothold -like our parents and grandparents was able to do when they had to settle down, taking care of their children and so one..

And as you pointed out - workers right, unions, health care, a decent education for everyone in a country and so one - have had some great problems being able to win the day - because of as you point out, again because of US involvement in overthrowing the government - or in the case of Cuba near 60 year of embargo - because someone doesn't like Fidel Castro - who first wanted to make sure US gave its "okay" after he overthrown the old regime of Batista, who run away with all the state money by the way.. When that failed, he got friendly with the russians - and as the saying goes - the rest is history..

And now, its coming back to root in the US also - as it have been doing it all over the planet - and I suspect many in the US to be less able to fight it than the "others" was back in the south and central america... At least that part of the world have when US was busy messing their money on Iraq, been able to build up a lot the last decade or so - and is more independent minded when it come to US now than they was before... I doubt it will be that easy to measure control over Latin America again as it once was..


Diclotican

[malaise]

36. THoughtful post - I hope you're right

but these days you just call them terrorists and invade

[Diclotican]

40. malaise

malaise

I have my doubts anyone who is "against" the US - can be noted as a terrorist - and then be invaded. The world is allways larger and bigger than US belive them to be - and even though US have the greatest military in the world - I doubt they can invade every country who want to have a different path than americans want them to have... It wil break the bank in the end if US was to invade everyone who had some issues with the current state of affairs to be honest..

Diclotican

[malaise]

41. That will be true for as long as Obama remains President

The neo-cons and their tools are already accusing him of lacking fortitude because he refuses to start more wars.

[Diclotican]

70. malaise

malaise

The Neo-Cons are the ones who benefit from wars - not the one who have to fight the wars - I suspect most of them who are most willing going to wars - is the ones who would not even dear treading near any form of war zone in real life...

Obama have never stated, as I know it, that he is against war - he stated that rather clearly in 2009 when he was in Oslo for his nobel prize speech - he stated rather clearly, for everyone who might have believed him to be a person who would not fight wars - that if Necessary US would go to war - but that the President would not use war as the first result, Rather han using other means before going to war - and that is the prudent way to go, if you first have to start another war - try your best using every tool before you choose a war.... If GWB had being going that route - he might have been remembered as a whole different President than he is remembered currently - even the re-write of history can not paint him in a better suit than he is currently - and I suspect as more things are coming to light the next 50 or so years - we would maybe despise him more than we already do... Not that he is despeased all around as it is. I think for his own saftly it is best he never travel abroad - and keept himself hidden in Texas for the rest of his natural life...

I think President Obama have no lack of fortitude because of his lack of willing going to wars all the time - I think he might have more fortitude doing what he does - than most of the others candidates for the presidency currently have - to be a president is so much more than commanding troops in war - it is about protecting the country - and hopefully also make the future little better than the past - not ruin it beyond pale like the last republican President did it... And he have been smart enough to keep good advisor's so he doesn't need to be to much messed up.. As the old russian saying goes "sometimes the tsar ride the bear - sometimes the bear rides the tsar" currently it is Obama who ride the bear - that be the ones who want war at all cost - hopefully the bear can be kept in shackles as long as possible - and Obama can keep his priorities strait - getting US back on track... Not a easy task when the last republican President managed to almost broke US..

Diclotican

[bemildred]

63. You are correct. nt

[Yorktown]

23. Radicalism is a dead end. Controlled Capitalism is th way to go.

Evolution trumps Revolution any day.

Capitalism is like Democracy, an imperfect system better than all other alternatives.

Right now, the Gini inequality indexes are shooting through the roof,

and that has to be redressed. Not by throwing away baby with the bathwater.

[malaise]

27. I think the best thinker on this subject is Ellen Meiksins Wood

Her Democracy against Capitalism:Renewing Historical Materialism suggests that unless there is real democracy Capitalism will only work for the minority because our governments are owned by the wealthy.

So we have to have a Democratic revolution and as much as we optimists wish, it will not come from any traditional political party anywhere in the West.

Right now I'm pinning my hopes on Greece and Spain

[Yorktown]

60. Greece is in an economic and poitical meltdown

The PASOK had banana republic clientelist, corrupt policies.

Creating as many state jobs that could only be maintained if PASOK got reelected.

Then they added to it cooking of the books of industrial proportions.

Final touch: the Euro umbrella allowed Greece to get more in debt to finance all this nonsense.

Now, the situation has become so bad there is no real solution.

In desperation, Greeks are now fleeing reason to elect crackpots (Golden Dawn, Syriza)

Don't count on a Happy Ending.

[socialist_n_TN]

65. Over 90% of the funds to "bailout" Greece went to the banks....

that held previous loans and NOT to the people. It's like you continuously refinancing your house. Every refinance merely pays off the principle and adds fees on the new loan and gives you less and less. But I guess the important thing is the banks don't lose anything.

The banks didn't lose, but the Greek people did. Another point. in some of these neo-liberal scenarios, most notably Argentina and Chile the money was borrowed by fascist dictatorships and used primarily to oppress the people, sometimes brutally. When the fascists were ousted, according to the rules of the capitalist banks, the countries STILL owed for the whips and chains that were bought to enslave them. I have a problem with that.

[Yorktown]

72. Your point banks did not lose is wrong.

(1) The lenders agreed to a 'haircut' = a percentage of the debt was waived off
(2) The refinancing loan is at zero interest rate = inflation erase part of the debt

[socialist_n_TN]

77. Giving you that your assertions are correct ........

(I'm too lazy to check on it), my first answer is "What inflation". There's more of a danger of deflation in the Eurozone than inflation. And the lenders "haircut" was minimal. To hear you tell it those poor bankers will be lucky to be able to keep the electricity and heat on in their fancy boardroom. Oh, wait, the ones having problems keeping their electricity and heat on are the Greek (former) working class. IF THEY CAN FIND A JOB AT ALL BECAUSE OF THE TRIOKA'S AUSTERITY. I have no doubt that the bankers have already made their original loan investment back and MORE through all of these bailouts and refinancing. If you think that a banker or ANY capitalist is going to LOSE money on any deal, you are woefully uninformed about what's going on.

And it's not like they would lose anyway. They'll be buying up Greek assets, PAID FOR BY THE GREEKS WITH TAX MONEY, at fire sale prices to, thanks to the Trioka's "austerity reforms" make profit on from them here to eternity. Or until some REAL Reds give them a "haircut" about 9" lower than what they got when the Greek debt was first renegotiated.

[TBF]

31. I will ask you the same question I asked the other capitalist

who managed to find this OP ... define "controlled".

Be specific. Exactly who are you helping with capitalism? What would you like to "control"?

What I see is capitalism humming along exactly as it's designed to with a few at the top reaping all the rewards & everyone else being left behind.

The only way to address the GINI is to talk about taxation and redistribution. We can only tax the people that have the money. Still wanna talk?

[malaise]

37. +1,000

Any response??

[socialist_n_TN]

49. Speaking about addressing the GINI.......

A FB comrade from GB posted a poll from one of the British tabloids (the Mail maybe?) a little while ago. The question was what party would be best at combatting income inequality? The Communists came in at 70%. The British public seem to be getting fed up.

Edited to add: It was the Mirror.

[Yorktown]

61. Yup; still wanna talk

'Pure' Capitalism doesn't exist. It's got to be constrained -and it is everywhere- unless you're ready to let poor people die of disease or hunger. (india is close to that)

The arc of 'constrained Capitalism' goes from not-too-constrained (USA) to rather-constrained (Sweden). The US, has food stamps and ObamaCare. But far too many tax breaks which don't allow enough money for infrastructure and schools. Sweden has first class education and infrastructure, but has had long years of stagnation. It's a trade-off.

But when you completely ditch Capitalism, you eat into your reserves at the expense of the future (Venezuela, France, Cuba)

[TBF]

64. Cuba has done pretty well for a little island

that was mostly cut off from the rest of the world. Of course we will see that happens to it now that capitalism is coming (I don't see that as a plus). Venezuela is in trouble right now not because it helps it's people but because gas prices are low. Petroleum exports are at least 50% of their economy. And where did you get the idea that France has "completely ditch(ed)" capitalism? Hollande may call himself a socialist but France has a mixed economy.

So, you would like "constraints" on capitalism. What exactly would you do to constrain the beast?

[Yorktown]

73. Cuba and Venezuela are disasters

• Cuba: dilapidated houses, chronic shortage of medicine, etc, etc.
I am amazed anyone could say 'Cuba has done pretty well'

• Venezuela: Chavez has bought his many reelections by giving away all of the oil boom.
That is a totally irresponsible policy. The oil won't grow back.
And his price controls have destroyed the production capacity.
No care for the morrow isn't the mark of a statesman or of a sustainable policy.

• France: tops the charts of state expenditure as % of GDP in all democracies.
That state expenditure is financed by deficit, and is used to overpay the state clientele.
While not having the means to defend itself externally (Russia) or internally (islamism)

Three fine examples of failed policies.

[TBF]

74. Thanks for that stunning assessment Eugene

I'm glad to see red-baiting is alive and well.

Now we'll look at actual facts rather than your hysterical commie calls:

CUBA:

Cuba's Health Care System: a Model for the World
Posted: 08/08/2014 9:46 am EDT Updated: 10/08/2014 5:59 am EDT

According to the UN's World Health Organization, Cuba's health care system is an example for all countries of the world.

The Cuban health system is recognized worldwide for its excellence and its efficiency. Despite extremely limited resources and the dramatic impact caused by the economic sanctions imposed by the United States for more than half a century, Cuba has managed to guarantee access to care for all segments of the population and obtain results similar to those of the most developed nations.

During her recent visit to Havana in July of 2014, Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), impressed by the country's achievements in this field, praised the Cuban health care system: "Cuba is the only country that has a health care system closely linked to research and development. This is the way to go, because human health can only improve through innovation," She also praised "the efforts of the country's leadership for having made health an essential pillar of development"

Cuba's health care system is based on preventive medicine and the results achieved are outstanding. According to Margaret Chan, the world should follow the example of the island in this arena and replace the curative model, inefficient and more expensive, with a prevention-based system. "We sincerely hope that all of the world's inhabitants will have access to quality medical services, as they do in Cuba," she said.


VENEZUELA:

Opinion and Analysis: Politics
What is Going on in Venezuela?
By Peter Bohmer , March 17th 2014

There are two different stories about Venezuela—one view is that the protesters there are part of a world- wide protest upsurge such as what has been happening in Turkey, Brazil, Chile, Ukraine and Egypt in 2011, against an increasingly repressive and poorly functioning economic system. In this narrative, the protesters in Venezuela want more democracy, less corruption and an economy where goods are available.

My view is quite different. It is based on my study and teaching about Venezuela and Latin America and taking classes of over 30 students each with another faculty member from the Evergreen State College, where I teach political economy, to Venezuela for two months each in 2009 and 2012, and spending another two months there between 2009 and 2012.

First, a little context! Hugo Chávez was elected President of Venezuela in 1998 and died a year ago in office after being reelected three times. Hugo Chávez’s death was a major loss for Venezuelans and all people around world who are concerned about economic justice and a world not dominated by global capitalism. Yet, it is wrong to reduce our analysis or opinion of Venezuela to Chávez, pro or con. Most important is the changes in the daily lives of people in Venezuela, economically, politically, and culturally. That is my focus.

The popular classes in Venezuela, 80% of the population, workers in the formal and informal sector, the unemployed, small business and campesinos, have improved their lives significantly not just economically but also by their inclusion in society. There has been a drop in poverty by over ½ and extreme poverty by 70% since the 1998 electoral victory of Chávez. The access to education and healthcare has been huge. This is also true in terms of access to food and food security. There has been a major increase in caloric intake, from 2000 to 3000 calories per capita per day, while both the quality and quantity of food has increased.

More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salim-lamrani/cubas-health-care-system-_b_5649968.html

FRANCE:

Mundi Index: France Economy Profile 2014

Economy - overview The French economy is diversified across all sectors. The government has partially or fully privatized many large companies, including Air France, France Telecom, Renault, and Thales. However, the government maintains a strong presence in some sectors, particularly power, public transport, and defense industries. With at least 82 million foreign tourists per year, France is the most visited country in the world and maintains the third largest income in the world from tourism. France's leaders remain committed to a capitalism in which they maintain social equity by means of laws, tax policies, and social spending that mitigate economic inequality. France's real GDP stagnated in 2012 and 2013. The unemployment rate (including overseas territories) increased from 7.8% in 2008 to 10.2% in 2013. Youth unemployment in metropolitan France decreased from a high of 25.4% in the fourth quarter of 2012 to 22.8% in the fourth quarter of 2013. Lower-than-expected growth and high spending have strained France's public finances. The budget deficit rose sharply from 3.3% of GDP in 2008 to 7.5% of GDP in 2009 before improving to 4.1% of GDP in 2013, while France's public debt rose from 68% of GDP to nearly 94% over the same period. In accordance with its EU obligations, France is targeting a deficit of 3.6% of GDP in 2014 and 2.8% in 2015. The administration of President Francois HOLLANDE has implemented greater state support for employment, the separation of banks' traditional deposit taking and lending activities from more speculative businesses, increasing the top corporate and personal tax rates, including a temporary 75% tax on wages over one million euros, and hiring an additional 60,000 teachers during his five-year term. In January 2014 HOLLANDE proposed a “Responsibility Pact” aimed primarily at lowering labor costs in return for businesses’ commitment to create jobs. Despite stagnant growth and fiscal challenges, France's borrowing costs have declined in recent years because investors remain attracted to the liquidity of France’s bonds.

http://www.indexmundi.com/france/economy_profile.html

[Yorktown]

75. ROFL, thanks for the laughs. Have some data.

• Cuba: Neglecting the global picture, you focus on the health system in Cuba.
Which is below those of Dominica or Costa Rica, just above that of Barbados.
But more importantly, you can see how the Castro regime sunk the economy of Cuba:





• Venezuela: gee, a pro domo text by a foreign Chavez groupie. Wonderful.

Now, for some facts: Chavez had the good fortune to be president during the boon years:




And yet, the economy grew LESS than those of neighboring countries:




Conclusion: Chavez was too much of an egotistical prick to know how to use Santa's gifts.



• Last but not least, France:

GDP/capita started to go south with shortened work weeks and longer vacations (82 to now)





Thanks for your haphazardly chosen texts. They were fun.

[TBF]

76. Your "data" consists of pointing out profits of the owners -

of course I wouldn't expect anything else from a capitalist. Have you ever given a thought to the actual folks who do the work? From your comments in this thread I would guess not.

The major limitations of GDP
The GDP fails to measure or express changes in a nation's:

Income distribution
Quality of life
Unpaid labour
Intangible valuables (e.g. feeling secure)
Real Savings
Standard of Living
Uneven inflationary price changes (e.g. a housing bubble)
Transactions on the Blackmarket

[Yorktown]

78. facts prove Castro and Chavez were bad leaders

I wrote I believe in Gini-index corrected capitalism, i.e, capitalism with a safety net.

But the fact remains that data proves that:

• Chavez squandered the oil boon money
• Castro led his country into decades of stagnation

You can't share wealth if you don't let it grow.

The anti capitalist hot air speeches of Castro and Chavez have cost the common people.

And I admire your bravery at raising the question of standard of living.

You do know that basic grocery items are rationed in Venezuela?

And things are only improving in Cuba since Raul relaxed the controlled economy of Fidel.

State controlled Socialism always failed. But free market social democracies work

Sweden, Si! Cuba, No!

[TBF]

82. I'm really not statist so it's not

Last edited Tue Feb 24, 2015, 11:19 AM - Edit history (1)

that brave at all.

Leaving aside your characterizations of Castro and Chavez, I think we do have common ground. But I would focus on the democracy rather than the free market. As David Swanson says "Let's try democracy" - it certainly is very clear in the US that our "democracy" is representative at best and that is on a very good day. I don't think capitalism is going to solve our problems but I don't think state controlled socialism will do it either (although I will still comment that the USSR managed to write equality for women into their 1977 constitution and they did have full employment - which are things I'll never see in this country).

If I were designing a country I'd look back to something like the Paris Commune (which Marx at the time found very intriguing) and figure out how to fortify it so it could last longer than 2 months.

[Yorktown]

83. We probably have lots of common ground, but not the Paris Commune

Like you could see from my previous posts, republicans would shoot me down

I agree with Obamacare, safety nets and I think 'intelligent design' is stupid.

But I insist on taking all facts at face value, no ideological sacred cows. Ergo:

1- Chavez and Castro were incompetent clowns (data above)

2- The Paris Commune was a popular revolt badly led astray

Their leaders were bigoted ideologues who murdered priests at point blank.


NB: while we're on the topic, most historians are lazy and/or bought by ideologies.

The aura of positive myth surrounding the Paris Commune was paid for by the Soviets.

[TBF]

84. lol re Paris Commune

that's just silly. Nobody except political junkies even knows the PC existed let alone the positives and negatives of it. But I'm glad we agree on Obamacare (as a start anyway - I'm still pushing for single payer), safety nets, and reality. That is a start.

[bemildred]

29. Thanks, I was looking for that.

[malaise]

30. You're welcome

I want to find the complete lecture

[bemildred]

32. And I can see I agree already.

You don't want to make Bremer's mistake and just throw the old system away. They do that all the time in the software business and it costs them an arm and a leg, and so often the result is worse, not better. And politically the result is even clearer, chaos does not lead to a new and better order, or war either. But peace and economic democracy can lead to a better future. We can start putting or money and effort into improving things here.

[bemildred]

43. Yeah, I like this guy.

I'm not sure he is being entirely candid in his argument, but I agree firmly with his basic point, which is you don't just install utopia, you have to build it, over time, one brick on the next. A robust and free society will be complicated too, and unpredictable, creative, interesting, and it won't want or need much coercion.

And I think the point about how getting wrapped up in your own sense of entitlement and worth is the road to corruption is so right. I have gotten in big fights with myself over that more than once. The line between respect and due deference, and submission must be guarded well. There are always lots of people who want to be told what to do, and always that desire to get your way. You have to resist that.

[malaise]

45. That sectionabout having to check his own sense of entitlement and worth

was bang on target.

I agree with you.

[2banon]

33. KnR Excellent Discussion

Thanks for starting this discussion in GD malaise. Personally, I have no answers to provide, but I'm of a mind that a corrupt system must be torn down either by it's own volition (which I believe will happen eventually, maybe i won't live long enough to see it) and replaced with perhaps, an array of different alternative cooperative/barter/trade systems working on micro levels in terms of communities.

I don't quite have it worked out in my mind how those systems extend beyond that though, i.e. internationally (nation states with other nation states) except for using the micro as the fundelmental building blocks for the macro. dunno.

I'm not an intellect on these matters, but I do know what we've got going now isn't working for the working classes. That much is painfully obvious.

[malaise]

39. I don't think I'll be around for the change either

but I know human beings never lie down and die - we fight for change and we can only hope.
Capitalism's contradiction must lead to its destruction one day.

[2banon]

57. I was actually cheering on the collapse in 2008.

it seemed to me that moment in history FINALLY arrived.

But of course it was just a dream some of us had.

[TBF]

44. I usually bring up the Venus Project -

because a DUer was kind enough to tell me about it a few years ago.

https://www.thevenusproject.com/en/ - it may seem a little "out there" and I'm sure it will be hard-fought to get to a situation like they describe. But I do like to read about it because it gives me hope that a resource-driven economy might somehow emerge one day. We may both be long gone by then, but it makes so much more sense to share resources according to need than the system we have now.

[2banon]

58. Thanks..

Will bookmark the link and give it a read. I don't think I've heard of it before now. We need to consider many different systems that hasn't been allowed to come to fruition by various forces, to date. Pass on the ideas even if we aren't able to create it in our lifetime.

[ND-Dem]

80. imo fresco's resume reads more like some kind of intelligence asset than anything else.

[TBF]

81. Very astute comment -

and yes I have wondered where the funding comes from.

[ancianita]

47. How is the regulated capitalism v. letting it collapse econ talk related to the EU's collapse?

Last edited Thu Feb 19, 2015, 12:03 PM - Edit history (1)

The reading itself drives me nuts because it offers no specifics in the EU that seem to balance out the whole abstract level it's written in.

1. I'm just trying to understand how the EU could collapse, really, because this essay doesn't convince me that any such thing is imminent.

2. The gist of my read leads me to wonder: This Marxist's opponents' system is going down in the EU, but because Y.V. doesn't know what will then happen -- directly or indirectly to the EU and the rest of the world -- we get some rationalizing about why Marxists shouldn't welcome it? Because he wants to postpone the alleged collapse, and because neoliberals have failed, here come the neo-Marxists?

3. Also, due to Varoufakis' lack of balance between his ideas and the events that provoked them, I flounder with random questions below which I would appreciate and learn a lot from anyone's answer(s) to.

Is this imminent collapse connected loosely to all the recent banker suicides?

Specifically, what the hell is that supposed to mean, that the Left "admit that we are just not ready to plug the chasm that a collapse of European capitalism would open up...?

What in heaven's name is the "current state of play" referring to? And why would he trust neoliberals?

What forms will stabilizing take? Bank closings + Martial law + Income drop + Rationing + Riots + Border closings ?

There are 700+ US military bases worldwide, but as betrayed as US ground troops have been at home, isn't there the possibility that their level of the proletariat might decide not to enforce orders against civilians propagandistically mislabeled terrorists in any collapse?

I'm probably stupid to say this, but what if the Greeks do "slam the door" on EU austerity terms, and "shake down the EU's House"? It seems more realistic to me that financiers will then eat their losses as the debt refusenik PIGS stand up, one by one. Because whatever the hoarding of all the .01%'s wealth has been for -- THIS should reset their use for it. Labor's refusal to pay debt should shake them down, force them to pour their money into "saving civilization."

Labor might be prior to capital, as Lincoln said. But the destruction of Labor's land base -- its environment, the very heart of its "form-giving fire" -- will refire up that allegedly neoliberal-caused "lost hostility." Labor will stay hostile. The capitalists' game is up. Time to reset in favor of the real house -- Big Mama Earth's House.

Anyway, hope my struggle to understand this didn't bore you. It was a good read, thanks, even if my reaction is all over the place.

[socialist_n_TN]

48. Erratic response to an erratic Marxist?......

[ancianita]

52. ...

Sure. You call 'em erratic, I call 'em neo.

[socialist_n_TN]

54. That's what he called himself......

One of the blogs I follow is from Michael Roberts who seems to be a really good Marxist economist. Roberts called this guy more "erratic" than "Marxist". I tend to agree.

[ancianita]

59. Okay, didn't know. But he's also too abstract to inform about an alleged imminent EU collapse.

[malaise]

62. Is Gramsci neo-Marxist? n/t

[ancianita]

67. Gramsci wasn't trepidatiously writing in the context of an EU collapse.

Didn't you get the real point of my first post? You are presenting Varoufakis as a good read, and I'm admitting my problems with it.

I read Gramsci forty years ago and haven't had occasion to read him since. I accept Marxism. I appreciate this writer's thinking, but in this essay he fails to make a case that's accessible to working class Marxists like me.

How could any good reader who would rightfully expect referents -- specific events, system problems, etc. -- convince anyone there's an imminent EU collapse, nevermind hold back a Marxist critique about what hasn't even happened. Sorry, I just don't get it.

Don't let me waste any more of your time here. The problem's probably mine. I'll give it another read this morning.

Edit: Maybe it's better to help the guy out here and talk about what a "good model of Marxist capitalism" would be. Maybe he's hinting at some variation of the Chinese model, but what do I know.