Criticism of Capitalism: It's unstable; It's inefficient; It produces inequality; It's undemocratic.

[Gregorian]

Furthermore, by not having a democratic workplace, any democracy we do have is meaningless in the sense that the resulting economic inequality gives those with wealth the ability to buy the system. And our resulting political democracy will never be real or genuine because the inequality in the economy will corrupt the political democracy.

Without a democratic workplace, we live in an undemocratic society, since work is where we spend most of our time.

For it to be democratic, everybody who is involved in the workplace has to be an equal decision maker with everybody else. Right now, a tiny block of people at the top make the decisions. The vast majority of working people are excluded from the process of making decisions that affect their lives on the job. That's the definition of no democracy.

These are a few paraphrases from the talk given in the link. I have to wonder what it is going to take for people to realilze they can enjoy a much better life than the one they have now. Why would we continue on this dismal path when something much better is within our reach?

http://www.rdwolff.com/content/economic-update-labor-day-economics

[msongs]

2. let's go back to barter and make our own gasoline and electronic devices from raw materials :-)

[ruffburr]

3. Say this to yourself 3 times A day-

And you will be Cured "Capitalism Without Robust Regulation Becomes Facisim"

[Shandris]

4. So does Capitalism WITH robust regulation.

So does Communism. And anything smaller than those BECOMES those. Any system that doesn't depreciate its medium of exchange will have this problem because it can be stockpiled and, eventually, used to seize control either directly or indirectly. Greed got us innovated enough to get to where we are now, but it has become a self-limiting mutation now and needs to be pared back some.

And I don't mean depreciate through inflation, either, but at the principal source.

For at least 4,000 years the concept of money has been static. It can't be anymore. It MUST change.

[Shandris]

7. I think in the right circumstances yes, they can.

The election-year charade is a wonderful distraction for them, and anytime there might be the slightest chance of progress...another shooting just happens to dominate the news cycle and everyone hates everyone else again. Myopic, ego-stroking silliness.

The source of the problem is inequality (and I hate using that word because so few people bother to define it, but right now it fits in its intentionally-vague form) and that inequality stems from disparate power and disparate economics, both of which are fundamentally related. EVERYTHING else stems from there. Anyone talking about 'other problems' is simply prolonging this one, whether by accident or intent.

A cohesive message can and will change the world. First, we have to stop trying to dehumanize a third of our own population and start working on the real problem -- money.

[Rex]

5. Criticism of Plutocracy: we need to get back to well regulated capitalism.

There is nothing democratic about a plutocracy.

[Gregorian]

11. That helps, but it's still a poor situation for the workers.

It's that very relationship which is the problem. In other word: making money for the boss. Why not instead have the workers be their own bosses? That's what we're talking about.

[Rex]

15. I agree and can state that is a really big issue.

If you work for someone, expect 8% to 10% of that income to go toward taxes. If you work for yourself, expect 1/4 of your income to go toward taxes. That smaller the business, the more hostile the government is toward it.

I never understood what people meant when they say this government hates small business and loves big business, until I went into business for myself.

A real eye opener.

[Ron Green]

9. Richard Wolff, Bernie Sanders, Pope Francis;

there are some people we all ought to be hearing.

[hifiguy]

10. Richard Wolff

GETS IT.

[Gregorian]

12. He took things to a higher level yet, which I found surprising.

It takes a village to raise a child, he said. I was quite uncomfortable with that notion. But then I thought about the mess our rugged individualism has caused. I've watched forums and groups evolve. What I have found is that when society is self policing, people learn to be civil. This idea that two people (who more than likely have not a clue how to raise a child) can produce someone who is civilized, is mostly a myth. I continue to discover the nightmares that went on in the families of friends as we grow older and share stories.

Wolff is looking at a bigger picture than just economics. He's looking at what will create a society that is truly healthy and enjoyable. And I find so many people who aren't willing to entertain change because it's scary. What's scary is having a heart attack without insurance.

Thanks for the reply. You are one who does get this stuff. I have my criticisms of this forum, yet I have gained tremendously from it.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Capitalism seems to work OK in places like Denmark and Switzerland.

Universal health care, generous social benefits, paid for bu higher taxes.

[hunter]

14. I'm 100% in favor of free markets...

... that pay comfortable living wages, don't abuse or endanger workers, contractors, customers, or anyone else, are entirely voluntary and not subsidized by government, don't damage the natural environment in any way, are not fraudulent...

Hmmm... that list is much longer.

I can't think of many, maybe any, free market enterprises like that; not even "socialist" or "communist enterprises.

I think money is primitive. Reducing the "value" of anything to a few fraudulently "hard" currencies or precious metals is irrational, but I haven't figured out how a Star Trek Next Generation economy works.

I hate how our more primitive than Ferengi oligarchy works.



I'd rather lick an interesting Ferengi's ears for gold-press latinum than work for some foul dark creature like Mitt Romney.