What comes next after capitalism fails?

[Binkie The Clown]

Face it, there are more symptoms every month that capitalism is failing. Failing the workers, failing the consumers, failing the environment, corrupting governments all around the globe, and generally coming apart at the seems.

Here's one take on the question:

After capitalism, what comes next? For a start, ethics

Jenny Cameron, University of Newcastle; Katherine Gibson, University of Western Sydney, and Stephen Healy, University of Western Sydney

If the comments generated by the recent publication of excerpts from Paul Mason’s forthcoming book, Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future, are anything to go by, its release at the end of the month should kick up a storm.

Mason’s book is about a seismic economic shift already underway, one that is as profound as the transformation from feudalism to capitalism. In the excerpts, Mason observes that:

… whole swaths of economic life are beginning to move to a different rhythm.

The shift is evidenced by developments such as collaborative production and the sharing economy. Mason attributes this economic transformation to advances in information technology, particularly the global networks of people and ideas that are now possible.

Full text at THE LINK.

[msongs]

1. go back to barter? nt

[4139]

2. Jan. 2, 2013: "Euros discarded as impoverished Greeks resort to bartering"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/02/euro-greece-barter-poverty-crisis

[DJ13]

3. What comes next after capitalism fails?

I would probably say military intervention.

The world's governments have been building a military force far beyond whats needed in a normal world for a reason.

The oligarch's wont surrender power without a fight.

[jwirr]

19. Most of the rest of the world will end up as a Democrat Socialism like in Europe. The USA the

haven of the 1% will never surrender. The 99% will just continue to suffer

[daleo]

75. There usually comes a point where soldiers won't fight for oligarchs anymore

Though, a lot of havoc is wreaked upon people first.

[Gregorian]

4. It never succeeded.

What comes next should be what we're calling democratic socialism.

[Alkene]

11. +1

The seduction of limited historical recollection blinds many to alternatives.

Capitalism, as most of our great-grandparents knew it, was so awful that even Soviet communism looked good.

As World War II ended, the west met at Bretton Woods to hammer out a new system. Unlike World War I, the new postwar world gave both the workers and the middle class a reason to stick with capitalism.

...the result was a Long Boom, a quarter-century when a single-income, working-class family could buy a house and send the kids to the unheard-of opportunity of college. From 1945 to about 1970, prosperity cut the legs out from under North American and European communism. Then came the Longer Downturn, which is still with us..

“For Marx, capitalism is bad because it is a systematic set of social relations in which humanity is prevented from realizing its capacity for ‘real wealth,’ human potential, justice, and a non-arbitrary distribution of the means of life… The point is not to redistribute capitalist value, but to overcome it, to destroy it as the relation that rules the world.”

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/07/is_there_a_viable_alternative_to_capitalism_partner/

[appalachiablue]

129. Les Trente Glorieuse, The Glorious Thirty, 1945-1975 as the French call it and in

Thomas Piketty's new book, "Capitalism in the 21st Century".

[Alfalfa]

12. That won't work

The only thing you can do is regulate capitalism. Capitalism may not be perfect, but it's all we have.

[Alkene]

16. Really?

"Capitalism may not be perfect, but it's all we have."

<yawn>

[Alfalfa]

17. What else has ever worked?

[Alkene]

18. Democratic Socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

The point is not to redistribute capitalist value, but to overcome it, as the relation that rules the world.”

[Alfalfa]

28. They have many problems in Scandinavia

[Cleita]

33. What problems? Could you give some examples?

[Alfalfa]

35. They have big problems with crime and other social unrest

[Cleita]

37. Crime and social unrest? That still isn't very specific.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Links to stories about those crimes and social unrest would make your blanket accusations have more gravitas.

[Alfalfa]

39. There were riots in Stockholm just the other year

[Cleita]

41. What kind of riots? If they were so devastating why don't they make the news?

[Alfalfa]

43. It was in the news

Someone got electrocuted while they were running away from the police, and it was followed by riots.

[Cleita]

44. Well then a link to back up your story would be helpful.

[Alfalfa]

45. ...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22650267

[Cleita]

52. Thank you.

Now we are getting some place. This is not because of their economic system. It's because of good old fashioned racism and the same causes. "The brown people are coming and taking our jobs and dating our children." It's happening all over the world with refugees from our wars moving to those countries. Also Sweden's government is being taken over by conservatives which always leads to lower wages among the blue collar working class. They will get past this as other European countries like the UK has. Really, stop clutching your pearls and blame the real causes not the ones Fox News tells you to.

[Alfalfa]

57. Their social policies and economic system are to blame for this

They encourage refugees to move there in the first place, and that has led to destabilization. It's the same in the UK and other European countries. They are far from "past it".

[Cleita]

61. Yes. Isn't it awful that they lent a helping hand to people in

distress from OUR wars that we started and are still fighting in the Middle East. Perhaps they should build walls on their borders. After all that's our answer to keep out impoverished Mexicans. Could it work for them? Everything you are saying comes out biased and conservative news' sources.

[Alfalfa]

62. Uncontrolled immigration isn't a sensible policy for anyone

Obviously it's going to put pressure on the people already there and the housing, schooling, welfare, etc. There is a point when lending a helping hand becomes dangerous to yourself.

[Cleita]

64. Well, of course, one must always look after oneself because those

others are just too different and too smelly.

[Alfalfa]

67. That's not what I said

But it's easier than addressing the real issues I guess. Having to confront some uncomfortable realities is not always pleasant.

[Cleita]

69. Your assertion was that they were having big problems with crime and social unrest,

which you wrongly blamed on socialism. This is not true. It's an adjustment they are going through that I'm sure they will solve. Socialism will live on long after the problems with absorbing an immigrant population are solved. Look at our history in the nineteenth century. Now, most white Americans are decedents of those immigrants.

[Mojorabbit]

118. It will all need to be hashed out in the future

I read(think it was a DOD analysis) a long while back commenting on mass migration of people and civil unrest that may happen down the road due to climate change. It will be a mess. Sorry to go off on a tangent.

[RichVRichV]

55. If police violence leading to riots just the other year negates democratic socialism

then what does police violence leading to riots happening every other month in this country do to capitalism?

[Alfalfa]

58. It wasn't police violence that led to the riots

[RichVRichV]

86. My bad.

You stated someone was elecrocuted while being chased by police which led to the riots. I assumed some police impropriety (real or percieved) was the catalyst.


None of that changes the fact that there are many more riots in this country than in Scandanavia.None of this changes the fact that Scandanavia has much lower crime rate than we do, and favorable crime rates to the rest of Europe.


There is no crime or social issue being caused by their democratic socialism policies. In fact the rise in their low crime rate can be linked largely to their immigration policies. Those have nothing to do with their economic model.

[RichVRichV]

46. What are you talking about?

Scandenavian countries are known for having low crime and incarceration rates. Especially when compared to the US.

[Alfalfa]

47. The low incarceration rates aren't a good thing

It just means they're not taking crime seriously, because the crime rates themselves have been growing over recent years.

[RichVRichV]

51. Rising or falling

Scandinavian countries are ranked better than the US in almost every crime metric. So obviously they're doing something better than we are.

[Alfalfa]

53. They benefited from some good circumstances

However, their policies over the last few decades are starting to undermine all that.

[RichVRichV]

87. You didn't just say that.

Their policies over the last few decades are starting to undermine that?!


That's like saying trickle down is starting to undermine the middle class. Any policy implimented decades ago would long since have taken effect. It's either effective or it's not.


What you imply is simply good luck is actually good policy in the real world. If it's such a poor system then why has it worked so much better than ours?

[Alfalfa]

96. Their policy of uncontrolled immigration

The crime rate in Scandinavian nations is rising, and the crime is almost entirely committed by immigrants or descendants of immigrants.

[uppityperson]

100. I'd like to see a link to a reputable source. thank you for providing one.

And you could say the same about the USA since the majority of people are descendants of immigrants.

[Alfalfa]

104. Define "reputable source"

A source you agree with isn't necessarily a reputable source. There is a difference. And no, you couldn't say the same thing about the USA. Not all "immigrants" are the same, for a start. It's not even accurate to call many people who settled in the US "immigrants". How could it even be a "majority" otherwise?

Either we're all immigrants or none of us are immigrants. You can't have it both ways.

[uppityperson]

105. Start by giving a source and we can talk whether or not is reputable.

t's not even accurate to call many people who settled in the US "immigrants".

Someone who immigrated is an immigrant. No matter if it is "majority" or not.

[Alfalfa]

106. We could do that, but why not just settle the issue here and now?

And are you saying the people who immigrated to North America from Asia tens of thousands of years ago are not really "natives", but immigrants?

[uppityperson]

107. You refuse to give any source for your claim until I tell you what is acceptable? Wow.

You will give no link until I tell you what might be acceptable and you hash out with me whether or not it is.

Why do you say Native Americans are a majority?

[Alfalfa]

108. Who appointed you the judge of what is "acceptable"?

I didn't say "Native Americans" are the majority. I said either we're all immigrants, or none of us are immigrants. You were the one who said the majority of Americans were "immigrants". Who, in your opinion, are the minority who aren't immigrants?

[uppityperson]

109. You will give no link to your claim. None. Gotcha.

[Alfalfa]

110. I will give you a link when you define "reputable source"

You also dodged my question about who the minority who aren't "immigrants" are.

[uppityperson]

111. a place, person, or thing from which something comes or can be obtained...having a good reputation

rep·u·ta·ble
ˈrepyədəb(ə l/
adjective
having a good reputation

source
sôrs/Submit
noun
1.
a place, person, or thing from which something comes or can be obtained.

[Alfalfa]

112. Ok, so give me a list of all the places, people or things that have a good reputation

And then explain to me who made you the sole judge of who or what has a good reputation.

[uppityperson]

113. goalpost moving. You demanded a definition, I gave one. Your turn to provide a link, any link

to your claims.
will give you a link when you define "reputable source"

[Alfalfa]

115. We all already knew that a reputable source referred to a source with a good reputation

What we still haven't established is who or what has a "good reputation", and why. You also still haven't answered the question about who the minority of people who aren't "immigrants" actually are.

Stop deflecting.

[uppityperson]

122. 'will give you a link when you define "reputable source"'. Definition given. Link? nt

[Alfalfa]

123. It hasn't been given. What is a source with a "good reputation"?

And, more importantly, who decides?

You still haven't answered my other question either.

[uppityperson]

126. goalpost moving. You demanded a definition, I gave one. Your turn to provide a link, any link

Any link you so desire. Any source.

[Alfalfa]

127. You didn't give a definition

We all already knew the meaning of "reputable" and "source". What you haven't made clear yet is who you're referring to when you describe someone or something as a "reputable source" (or a source with a good reputation, take your pick).

Stop talking in circles and answer the question. And my other question.

[uppityperson]

130. Have you ever answered a question directly? Have you ever just simply given a link when asked to

back up your claims? I don't remember.

Rather than simply giving a link to back up your claims, you try to make the discussion about some vaguely associated thing, and still never give a link. I am coming to the conclusion that either you don't have a link, or you like to type one handed.

[RichVRichV]

102. So you admit that thier democratic socialism has nothing to do with any crime issues.

Glad we cleared that up.


A capitalist country can have the same open immigration policy. In fact the US once did.

[Alfalfa]

103. The US never had anything of the kind

[RichVRichV]

116. Tell that to the USCIS.

[link:http://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies|

[Alfalfa]

117. I will tell them that

The law at the time stated that only free white men of good character were able to immigrate. I do not care for revisionist history.

"Relative" is a relative term, by the way. Relatively speaking, the immigration policy of Scandinavian countries is much more uncontrolled than the US in the 18th and 19th centuries.

[RichVRichV]

120. That is not entirely true

the law applied to naturalization, not immigration. In fact by the very definition of the laws by 1790 someone had to have immigrated here and been a resident for set number of years before they could become naturalized.



A non-white could move here but not become a citizen. This was a rather racist country at the time, a fact not unknown to most.

[Alfalfa]

125. A distinction without a difference

A country can not be rather racist and still have an open and uncontrolled immigration policy. People who can "immigrate" but not really be a part of society are not real immigrants.

[RichVRichV]

128. It might seem like semantics and it definitely wasn't right

but it's also history. Why do you think there was so much crime and violence around immigration cities such as New York? Why do you think this country is called a melting pot? It's not because we had tightly controlled immigration laws.



As I have already stated, the lax immigration laws in the Nordic countries has absolutely nothing to do with them being democratic socialists. Any country can have very tight or very lose immigration laws regardless of their economic models, they're not intrinsically linked. And since you have already stated that the crime increase is being caused by immigration then their social democracy can't be what's at fault.

[Cleita]

56. Yes. They would be so much better off with our system of privatized

prisons where we stick all the people with brown skin in and throw the key away. Maybe we should send Sheriff Joe Arpaio there to tell them how to do it.

[Alfalfa]

60. What else should they do with them?

You can't rehabilitate people who don't want to be rehabilitated.

[Cleita]

63. Rehabilitating people? FFS I can't believe I'm reading this

on DU. Scandanavian countries actually have very advanced programs for rehabilitation of their criminals, some of the highest in the world. Other than that, anything else would be like what we did to Native Americans in the last century to make them lose their culture and be like us.

[Alfalfa]

65. I'm aware of their rehabiliation programs

And their reputation for having very comfy prisons. However, that doesn't change the fact that some people can't or won't ever be rehabilitated. Letting them loose on society isn't an option. And why shouldn't they adopt to Scandinavian culture and become one of them? That's called integration, and it's the only hope for peaceful co-existence.

[Cleita]

66. I don't think they are letting them loose in society.

Look at what they are doing to go after Julian Assange.

[Alfalfa]

68. Julian Assange is a special case

[Cleita]

74. Yes, he's so special that they made special laws for him.

[Adrahil]

49. Even Democratic Socilaism has capital-based market economy.

It is regulated, and many vital services are nationalized, but capital markets are still very much in action.

[Alkene]

77. Very true.

But still a far cry from simply regulating capitalism as the only choice available to us.
I'll also confess to error, as the Nordic model is also termed, Nordic capitalism, Nordic social democracy- rather than Democratic Socialism.

[Cleita]

78. Regulation being the key word.

Also capitalism serves the people. In our society the people serve capitalism.

[Adrahil]

92. Well, capitalism serves the owners of capital....

But in a well-regulated system (more regulated than we have now, for sure, the people can still benefit.

I think we are in basic agreement.

[Cleita]

93. I would just as soon chuck out the system, but since I have to

live with it well regulated works for me.

[Adrahil]

94. Yeah, I agree with Marx's criticisms of it, but I'm left...

... with a "then what?" like most people. None of the proposed alternatives sound even remotely workable to me.

[Gregorian]

23. I don't look to the past to find what works in this case.

It's pretty well established what will work. Why do you think we had the communist witch hunt? Marxian economics is the way forward, despite being demonized by those who want to rake in the profits off of the backs of the workers.

[Alfalfa]

30. We have the richest workers in the world

Communism would ruin all that.

[haikugal]

31. Communism and democratic socialism isn't the same thing.... nt

[Alfalfa]

32. I don't think that poster was proposing Democratic Socialism

[Gregorian]

71. Call it anything as long as it addresses the employment problem capitalism is plagued with.

I

[Cleita]

38. Actually, the Scandanavian countries have the richest workers in th world

because most are unionized and they can earn anything from $30 to $60 an hour in our money.

[Lee-Lee]

42. What's the actual "take home" after they pay their tax rates?

And what's the cost of living?

You can't compare just wages without all that factored in.

[Cleita]

48. I would put up a link but I'm on a mobile device right now.

I'll come back and post some links later. However, I believe they pay an average of 30% in taxes. In exchange for that they get free education through Phd studies and free health care and many other social benefits like paid maternity leave, child care, elderly care and much more. They have plenty left over to live well, not luxuriously but well and enjoy a lot of travel because of their six weeks of vacation every year.

I have a lot of Swedish and Danish friends whom I met while they were on vacation here in the USA and whom I keep in contact with. Trust me they don't miss that tax money because they get so much in return instead of endless wars that our taxes pay for.

[Gregorian]

70. We have a criminally large schism between those who own us and those who do the work.

Not to mention the inherent conflict it has inflicted, society-wide.

Just how would communism ruin it? We already have communism in the US. It's called profit sharing. And the companies that operate that way are consistently happier and more inventive.

There is nothing wrong with communism except what our country has tried to lie us into believing. It didn't work in the USSR because they failed to take the most important factor into consideration.

[Exilednight]

84. No we don't. Although we are not the worst in terms of income inequality, we

Are among the worst.

http://www.bloomberg.com/ss/09/10/1013_biggest_rich_poor_gap_globally/1.htm

[Exilednight]

82. Read chapters 1 & 2 of the Prople's History of the United States and

You will see that other economic forms have worked. Socialism was alive and well in North America until the settlers showed up and brought the idea of property rights with them.

[Cleita]

40. Capitalism is an economic system than can work or fail in any kind

of government. Right now it's working fine in totalitarian dictatatorships like China and Malaysia. But it finally reaches a cancer stage like what is happening in this country. That's when it becomes lassez faire or unregulated capitalism where a few wealthy oligarches control and own everything. It's happening in Europe too. It breeds corruption and it will bring down any society once it reaches the cancer stage. It happened in Rome. It was a major cause of the French Revolution and every revolution in Latin America. When our present monopolistic economic system crashes we will see another revolution here in the USA and it will be soon.

[Gregorian]

72. Capitalism is inherently flawed by virtue of the employer/employee configuration.

It isn't working anywhere. By working I mean, it's not fair to those who do the labor. But it's fabulous for those running the business.

This is what Bernie gets, and why he is so important.

[Cleita]

73. I agree. I wasn't implying that it was wonderful.

Actually, pure capitalism in the small shop sense can work. You open a dress shop downtown and are in competition with other dress shops. You pay your license and taxes and obey the laws you are subject to to be legitimate. Competition forces you to specialize. So one dress shop may cater to high end customers, another to working class, another to petites, another to plus sizes and so forth. There's a market for each niche. When one store buys out all the others and creates a monopoly, that's where the concept falls apart. The labor especially loses because they can't look for better paying jobs in the other dress shops. They all have the same boss and he can pay them whatever he wants. So maybe they unionize but it's just not a good system because it can metastasizes into the oligarchy we have now. We are in the cancer stage I believe.

[Cleita]

5. How about a moneyless society, like Star Trek?

Everybody has a job who can work according to their ability and education/training for twenty to twenty five hours a week as their duty to society with no pay. If you need or want stuff you go to the store and get it. A giant computer somewhere calculates how much food will be grown to meet population needs, what goods will be manufactured
and buildings built to meet needs. Everyone gets a home and patch of land. Once you put in your hours to make society work on a practical level, then you can pursue sports, arts, travel or whatever makes you happy. There is plenty for everyone but hoarding goods and accumulating excess property is not allowed. There will be a government that is a management type of government that is hired by a citizens committee for their ability and talents and can be fired as well for incompetence or corruption. Everyone partakes in making decisions by vote. Well this is off the top of my head and no doubt the concept needs a lot of thought.

[BlueJazz]

8. I'm in.

[Alfalfa]

13. Not all homes and land are equal

How do you decide who gets what? And what happens when the stores inevitably run out of all the things everybody wants. There isn't a factory in the world big enough to manufacture enough goods for everybody who wants them.

[Cleita]

22. Any suggestions?

All that has to be worked out. In my universe, it goes by need and vacancy. Also the best land should become parks for the enjoyment of everyone. Why does it only need to be one factory? Ther was a time that a village castle or town did manufacture what they needed. If they produced excess then they traded for another village, castle or towns excess goods. I'm sure a modern variation on that theme could happen.

Instead of dismissing the whole notion, add some of your own ideas.

[FrodosPet]

20. Can I get a job programming that computer?

That sounds like a prosperous gig. Perhaps I can hook it up to say that I need a Cranbrook area house and surf and turf twice a week.

[Cleita]

24. Sure if you are hired by the committee that does those things.

Also you would be working with other programmers so there is a system of checks and balances to ensure all is above board.

[FrodosPet]

26. Then we can work together to really get the primo stuff

In a cashless, computer controlled society, computer geeks will finally have enough power to get laid!

[Cleita]

27. Oh that wouldn't be a problem because you would have plenty of leisure

time for recreation. It would be up to you to polish your approach to a potential partner.

[RKP5637]

29. Yes, this would be ideal, and I think this will eventually happen, no idea when. The current

system is ridiculous and is not sustainable into the future. My fear is a massive decline in civilization might happen before this is achieved, or some subset does do this and the rest are left out to eventually die off. Whatever, those holding the reins and cash will not migrate from the current system easily if at all. There will be IMO massive social upheaval resulting in an improved society for all, "or" some destitute militarily enforced life for most.

[AOR]

89. You have just entered the next level...

of understanding Marx. What you describe is the end game and it's called super abundance and actual super Communism. There is nothing "utopian" or "unicorn thinking" about it. With technological advancement, automation, and continued innovation... what you describe is perfectly possible.

Many have a very dark and dreary view when the topic of ending capitalist social relations comes up. Nothing you describe is dark or dreary and what you describe is the actual Communism that Marx envisioned as the end game. Communism does not mean going back to the land or a primitive state as many would lead people to believe. Innovation is good thing, technology is a good thing, automation is a good thing. All of those things and more are good in the hands of the public as a WHOLE. All of those things are bad in the hands of a ruling class of privateers and capitalists.

The object is to first produce for the needs of the whole. After that prime directive is accomplished...the sky is the limit on advancement for the human race. There is no need for the greed of the few when super abundance is available for all.

[Cleita]

90. Thank you. I thought I was on the right track.

btw I haven't really read much Marx. It was kind of forbidden back in the days of the cold war. Communism is evil, ya know. Yet the very same commie haters who were my teachers, the nuns, practiced communism themselves.

[Mojorabbit]

119. I'm in also! nt

[First Speaker]

6. Mad Max

[Katashi_itto]

15. Only for a while. Lots of deaths but another system will eventually arise.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

54. I was gonna say 'Thunderdome!', but you beat me.

So I'll just walk away, just walk away.

[NobodyHere]

7. Well something needs to happen

It seems that more and more things are being automated and pretty soon human work will be obsolete.

[laundry_queen]

9. Yup

Years ago we were told that automation would mean we would all work 20-30 hour work weeks with 6 weeks of vacation every year, because everyone would share in the extra productivity.

Instead, the .01% stole it all. Apparently their mamas (and papas) didn't teach them right.

[LostOne4Ever]

10. It failed long ago

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]What came next were tons of socialism-capitalism hybrid systems. But finding the perfect mix of the two seems to elusive...and it possibly could vary from country to country.[/font]

[DetlefK]

14. "Soziale Marktwirtschaft"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy
Basically a heavily regulated capitalism with socialist elements.

The main elements of the social market economy in Germany are the following:[49]

The social market contains central elements of a free market economy such as private property, free foreign trade, exchange of goods, and free formation of prices.

In contrast to the situation in a free market economy, the state is not passive and actively implements regulative measures.[50] Some elements, such as pension insurance, universal health care and unemployment insurance are part of the social security system. These insurances are funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions and government subsidies. The social policy objectives include employment, housing and education policies, as well as a socio-politically motivated balancing of the distribution of income growth. In addition, there are provisions to restrain the free market (e.g., anti-trust code, laws against the abuse of market power, etc.). These elements help to diminish many of the occurring problems of a free market economy.[51]



-------------------------------------------------------

About one or two years ago I found an article via DU. The author visited some country where there was a boom in founding small unregulated companies that technology had made possible and that would fill every possible niche of the economy. (Like Uber, but way before Uber was a thing.) But if you read between the lines, you realized the author was really praising an exploitative sweat-shop economy as the model for the future.

[DFW]

21. Germany may be no paradise

But it still is a hell of an improvement over the "socialism" of the DDR. So-called "socialist" countries like the former East Germany, China or India have far worse environmental records than we do because in a purely socialist economy (and I realize none of them really were/are), the polluters are on the same team as the regulators.

[HereSince1628]

76. It's also because in those states, one ideology (system of values) dominated over most others

Generally speaking the ideological perspective was one that placed development and expansion of industry (and later management wealth) as a priority to environmental issues. It's less about socialism and more about narrow-minded ideology.

The fault of American capitalism isn't that it can't use money to advance development and expansion of an economy. The problem is that it also has turned into a very narrow-ideology that venerates creating bigger and bigger capital accounts than could ever occur simply through expansion of production.

The only way to build such bigger capital accounts, is to expand profitability through mechanisms that create greater social and economic asymmetries.

At some point this narrow-minded ideology must fail. Concentrating money requires consumers from whom money may be concentrated. As it is American neo-liberalsim seems to completely ignore the importance of productivity and consumption of the working masses. It's a system that seems to be headed for despotism wherein foreclosing others' property rights will provide the mechanisms to squeeze out the last pennies of free men to be added to the money mountain ranges of the last tycoons.

[Cleita]

79. I think the problem was that the governments that ran everything, were totalitarian dictatorships.

I don't think the likes of Stalin etc. really cared much about environmental damage, just staying in power. The same is going on in North Korea today, a perfect example of the old socialist, totalitarian governments run by a dictator who answers to no one.

[JoePhilly]

25. Christo-Facist Theocracy.

[haikugal]

36. They'll try, that's certain!

[GliderGuider]

34. Different things in different places. Feudalism, theocracies and warlords are all possibilities. nt

[2banon]

50. I disagree with the premise of failure. Capitalism is a roaring success for the Capitalists.

The Ruling Class / Capitalists / Corporate Power has never been more successful, more supreme in power and scope.

and the commoners/surfs aka (low wage slaves) have yet to collectively pull out the pitchforks. We may recognize the failure capitalism in terms of how we define it, the Ruling Class are doing quite well and will continue to do quite well until a massive paradigm shift occurs in the consciousness of the 99%.

[flobee1]

97. I think it has to get a lot worse

Before peoples attention is drawn away from american idol and focus on why the bridges are collapsing, and are being charged 25 bucks in "misc fees" in their bills and bank statements each month

[2banon]

101. I agree.

too many wage slaves still tolerating highway robbery in the form of "misc fees", monopolized cable, telecommunications etc over priced services and those "misc. fees".

and that's just a few of the toys. what about healthcare, education. ?

We the people should NEVER have accepted anything short SINGLE PAYER healthcare.

We the people should NEVER have accepted high tuition fees for higher education.

Never mind propping up the Too Big to Jail banking/mortgage companies..

why even bother anymore?

[Nye Bevan]

59. Venezuela is running an intriguing experiment as a non-capitalist system.

Sure, there are a few bugs to work out but surely it could be a blueprint for non-capitalism.

[DFW]

80. Just a few, mind you............. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. What happens at the end of a game of monopoly? The winners stuff goes back in the box. n/t

[justaddh2o]

83. After capitalism? Worker-owned businesses!

With a worker-owned business, the workers, not the CEO and Board of Directors, determine how a business' profits are spent, where the business produces its goods and services, how it produces those goods and services, and who gets the profits. It's bringing the democratic process to the business environment. Right now, under capitalism, we don't have democracy in the workplace.

Why is it that we don't have a democracy in the one place that we spend the majority of our working lives?

Richard Wolff has been talking and writing about this for a while now. See rdwolff.com and democracyatwork.info.

[RichVRichV]

88. And not suprising

worker owned businesses, along with co-ops and credit unions, are a core objective of democratic socialism.

[brooklynite]

124. Is something stopping a worker owned business today?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. Hopefully, civilization.

[kydo]

91. The Apocalypse. End of Days. But then...

After the collapse of everything we rebuild. Hopefully the rapture happens so we can rid ourselves of the right wing crazies. Then oh happy days. We can make a better world. Especially with out wal-mart.

[moondust]

98. Whatever it is

needs to do whatever it can to prevent parasitism, i.e. anybody getting fat off somebody else's work. That was the basic sickness of feudalism and slavery and it largely continues with global corporatism and laissez-faire economics.

[raouldukelives]

99. We don't have capitalism.

We have inverted socialism. And no, it doesn't work. Capitalism might if we wanted to try it. Of course, like Adam Smith imagined without monopolies and without corporate interference in politics, we might have actual democracy again.

Nobody defending our current system is defending capitalism. They are defending global corporate fascism.

[AngryAmish]

114. Mercantilism

More stable economic system than capitalism. We see that already with the unification of interrst between large enterprise today and government.

[DirkGently]

121. Re-re-re-reformed capitalism?

We've failed already at both ends of the spectrum.

Regulate nothing, and let power and ownership accumulate indefinitely, and the population will eventually explode in revolt.

But try to regulate everything, and distribute resources identically, and you wind up with an effective oligarchy where some animals are inevitably "more equal than others."

This is the cycle we've been repeating for a while now. Monarchy and feudalism gives you peasants, who revolt and demand the right to go into business for themselves. Then entrepreneurs become moguls, and start annihilating the public good to increase their own wealth and power.

And then we dial it back a bit. Child labor reforms. Environmental protection. Market regulation. We went through all of this before with trust busting and labor reform. Then things get better, and pretty soon we hear about how we don't need Glass-Steagall and everything self-regulates and oh, hey, look, more depressed wages and speculative bubble economies and market collapses.

So we require checks and balances. Enough freedom to allow innovation and growth; enough regulation to prevent power from accumulating in pockets that promote corruption.

Question is, how bad does it have to get before we insist on the reforms we need -- apparently the 2009 market crash wasn't enough to regulate the banks.

And, if we ever get there, how do we make reforms stick?