Think [the box] ing discussion

For anyone wishing to discuss or debate the merits and/or issues associated with Capitalism.

The following article, of which ill put a few quotes here, put forward the argument that Capitalism is not only an unsustainable system but also an inhuman one. This would closely mirror my own thoughts.

As the articles author, Robert Jensen, points out, we are often ridiculed to even suggest another option.

Is there an alternative to Capitalism?

If so, do you think it possible, and how so, for a Capitalist society to move from that into an alternative?

---
April 30, 2007

An Unsustainable System

Anti-Capitalism in Five Minutes

By ROBERT JENSEN

"We know that capitalism is not just the most sensible way to organize an economy but is now the only possible way to organize an economy. We know that dissenters to this conventional wisdom can, and should, be ignored. There's no longer even any need to persecute such heretics; they are obviously irrelevant.

How do we know all this? Because we are told so, relentlessly -- typically by those who have the most to gain from such a claim, most notably those in the business world and their functionaries and apologists in the schools, universities, mass media, and mainstream politics. Capitalism is not a choice, but rather simply is, like a state of nature. Maybe not like a state of nature, but the state of nature. To contest capitalism these days is like arguing against the air that we breathe. Arguing against capitalism, we're told, is simply crazy.

We are told, over and over, that capitalism is not just the system we have, but the only system we can ever have. Yet for many, something nags at us about such a claim. Could this really be the only option? We're told we shouldn't even think about such things. But we can't help thinking -- is this really the "end of history," in the sense that big thinkers have used that phrase to signal the final victory of global capitalism? If this is the end of history in that sense, we wonder, can the actual end of the planet far behind?

We wonder, we fret, and these thoughts nag at us -- for good reason. Capitalism -- or, more accurately, the predatory corporate capitalism that defines and dominates our lives -- will be our death if we don't escape it. Crucial to progressive politics is finding the language to articulate that reality, not in outdated dogma that alienates but in plain language that resonates with people. We should be searching for ways to explain to co-workers in water-cooler conversations -- radical politics in five minutes or less -- why we must abandon predatory corporate capitalism. If we don't, we may well be facing the end times, and such an end will bring rupture not rapture.

Here's my shot at the language for this argument.

Capitalism is admittedly an incredibly productive system that has created a flood of goods unlike anything the world has ever seen. It also is a system that is fundamentally (1) inhuman, (2) anti-democratic, and (3) unsustainable. Capitalism has given those of us in the First World lots of stuff (most of it of marginal or questionable value) in exchange for our souls, our hope for progressive politics, and the possibility of a decent future for children.

In short, either we change or we die -- spiritually, politically, literally."

He then goes on to list and briefly talk about a number of points. I will just list the points, please follow the link to read his thoughts.

1. Capitalism is inhuman
2. Capitalism is anti-democratic
3. Capitalism is unsustainable

"Here's [an] acronym about life under a predatory corporate capitalism: TGIF -- Thank God It's Friday. It's a phrase that communicates a sad reality for many working in this economy -- the jobs we do are not rewarding, not enjoyable, and fundamentally not worth doing. We do them to survive. Then on Friday we go out and get drunk to forget about that reality, hoping we can find something during the weekend that makes it possible on Monday to, in the words of one songwriter, "get up and do it again."

Remember, an economic system doesn't just produce goods. It produces people as well. Our experience of work shapes us. Our experience of consuming those goods shapes us. Increasingly, we are a nation of unhappy people consuming miles of aisles of cheap consumer goods, hoping to dull the pain of unfulfilling work. Is this who we want to be?

n the First World, we struggle with this alienation and fear. We often don't like the values of the world around us; we often don't like the people we've become; we often are afraid of what's to come of us. But in the First World, most of us eat regularly. That's not the case everywhere. Let's focus not only on the conditions we face within a predatory corporate capitalist system, living in the most affluent country in the history of the world, but also put this in a global context.

Half the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. That's more than 3 billion people.

Maybe everyone here is a little crazy. So, let's make sure we're being realistic. It's important to be realistic.

One of the common responses I hear when I critique capitalism is, "Well, that may all be true, but we have to be realistic and do what's possible." By that logic, to be realistic is to accept a system that is inhuman, anti-democratic, and unsustainable. To be realistic we are told we must capitulate to a system that steals our souls, enslaves us to concentrated power, and will someday destroy the planet.

But rejecting and resisting a predatory corporate capitalism is not crazy. It is an eminently sane position. Holding onto our humanity is not crazy. Defending democracy is not crazy. And struggling for a sustainable future is not crazy.

Source and full article

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11...

Actually 75% of thw world lives on $2 a day or less.

And it's because of industrialization, corporations, globalism, and money worship.

And if it doesn't end, people are going to either start dying by the millions, or start killing by the millions.

i agree with molly
we are going to revert to a simpler less corrupt system one way or another

I don't like capitalism. Other systems have been known to work, but so far on a small scale - I don't mean communism, but co-operatives.

Are we talking about economic capitalism (free markets) or philisophical capitalism (individual rights or laissez-faire)?

Hmm interesting question Kristjan, and one that had me a little confused. I have not seen the division described as such before. Thank you, now im reading up further on the concept of Laissez-faire Capitalism before i comment further in depth.

I would have said that capitalism is both an economic and philosophical system that promotes and consists of producing for private profit. Which I do not like.

I do however agree with the principal of laissez-faire, if that means what i think it does - that there should not be government intervention in production.

I wouldn't however necessarily put each together..ie Laissez-faire Capitalism, as it would still be capitalistic at its roots.

I guess my concern is that when something is done for profit (and not simply fair exchange) then someone will loose out. Multiplying this up in scale, will inevitably result in huge disparities, unfair "markets" and exploitation.

I am sure that i am ignorant in many aspects of this, so i certainly appreciate yer and anyone elses input into this. Interesting indeed thanks.

good direction
also not as well versed with terminology
the doctrine of laissez faire as in no market controls?

my thought is along the lines of schummaker and seek, elimination of production for profit

more people doing more for themselves to produce goods and services

smaller communities more interdependent

there's a great book The Gangs of America that describes the development of corporations in America but the original law came from British concepts of private property

the "american dream" is predicated on private property rights

as long as private property rights and production for profit prevail, there is no economic reform and no point of successful entry for the majority of people

small is sustainable but the will has to be there to promote and pursue it

the economics of scale and the ideas of distribution have to be radically changed

a severe blow to these systems would result in communities reverting to more self sustaining approaches to goods and services

however, as long as the ability to opportunistically manipulate production, distribution through private property rights and corporate legal protections (think Wal-Mart, oil, railroads, gov't services even) and market protections, capitalists will continue to prevail

a complete conceptual theoretical change would have to occur on the individual and community level

i think we are particularly primed for such changes
the payoffs and benefits for the middle class are rapidly erroding
dissatisfaction with economic conditions has spread upward from the lower economic classes to the middle to the middle-upper classes

just some thoughts-none original

Seek said: I would have said that capitalism is both an economic and philosophical system that promotes and consists of producing for private profit.

It is and it is not ... I have seem some organizations specifically divide the two principles, most likely because different arguments are used to defend them. I don’t particular like the economic part of the system as it relates to free trade, because it depends upon an assumption of efficient and equal markets that do not exist. My argument against is simply the devastating effect of very cheap food products into Africa were the local farmers just don’t have the means with which to compete and agriculture completely collapses. This cycle is exacerbated when rich countries dump excess production (disguised as aid, but it is really just a subsidy for their own farmers) into the same markets. This is also the part of capitalism that leads to globalization (and large international corporations), which IMO makes us all more vulnerable to human error and environmental factors (eg. Lead paint on toys and mad cow disease). Free trade between nearly equal markets doesn’t appear to be as bad ... for example, the economic disruption between Canada and the US is not as severe as that between the US and Mexico. Needless to say, I am not a free market trader ... although I am not as opposed to smaller markets combining into large trade zone to be able to compete better with the larger markets. In this regard capitalism is not the best solution and may not be viable in the very long term. I believe roughly equal sized trading blocks (or co-ops if you prefer) would be a better solution.

Although the organizations promoting capitalism that I was investigating put Laissez-faire into the philosophical side of the system, I think that it is more correct to keep it with the economics ... as in unplanned vs. planned economies ... or as RandomAnthony puts it, having the government involved in production [and trade] ... the drivers of economies. Without some market regulation (controls), it is sooooo easy to use market domination to greatly increase barriers of entry for competition that you are in fact crippling the one benefit capitalism is said to provide. The very fact that we have found it necessary to watch for and more heavily regulate monopolies is the only proof we need that such a concept can’t succeed on its own merits. The tendency to discount the worth of workers because they are a captive commodity also has a proven history, and is the reason why unions were initially created. This is the reason that the US has an already huge and still growing disparity between executive salaries and the middle-class producers who are actually doing the work. Frankly I don’t see much difference between true Laissez-faire capitalism and Fascism, given the amount of power business could (and typically does) accumulate without some form of government interference. On the other hand, the total control of a planned economy is not much better either ... some sort of balance is needed ... which is the idea behind Socialism IIRC.

I am more sanguine about the private-ownership philosophy, with some notable exceptions. This is the more familiar private (capitalism) vs public (communism) ownership debate that I am used to seeing, and frankly the track record for Marxist style economies is not very good as they scale up. Communism works great in families (and is in fact the default :) ... it can work in small communes, for awhile (Amana would be a good example) ... but rarely works in states where it is harder to get the complete buy in by all members needed to ensure that everyone works to their potential. The larger the group, the greater the decrease in per capita production. Private ownership is simply a motivational technique that unfortunately is required get people within a society to produce because it is easier to see the correlation between effort and reward. I am not sure how to classify a ‘fair exchange’ here, as any trade is typically done for some benefit, not all of which are financial. IOW all trades are for profit. I do recognize that when disparities in trading partner power exist, it is easier to take advantage of the weaker party though (as described above); however, I do not see this as a factor of private ownership per se. Government is frequently guilty of this when they change zoning regulations to limit what property owners can do (this is in fact a ‘taking’ if the value of a property is reduced because of this). The separation of mineral rights and property rights in the West also has problems where companies can ‘mine’ on conservations because the deed restrictions only cover surface use. I do believe that certain resources should be publicly ‘owned’ and managed for the common good and I really dislike the perpetual changes and extensions to various intellectual properties that have effectively prevented entry into the public domain. I also think that infrastructure (roads, rails, waterways, airways, etc.) should be government owned monopolies run/funded by royalties.

(Hi all!)

Lots to respond to, so I will take it from the top:

Actually 75% of the world lives on $2 a day or less.

Well, see, this makes poverty the *default* state of a human being, not wealth. So *wealth* should be seen as the abnormal way of being. (http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/globali...)

People always fall into the same (poverty) trap. If only we gave more money, the Third World would not be the Third World, etcetc. Not quite so. We now, at this point in time, have plenty of historical evidence that throwing money at (say) Africa DOES NOT WORK. Fifty years, trillions of dollars, no chance. So let us think smarter, eh?

Wait, I am off track. Hold on...

as long as private property rights and production for profit prevail, there is no economic reform and no point of successful entry for the majority of people

Erk. Stop right there. There *has* to be strong property rights. Else we descend into the evil that is Socialism, the politics of envy (which is what we have here in the UK) and hatred.

Sorry, meetings to attend, work to do. More later, honest!

no *change*, not no *chance*. Typo. And apologies for the HTML tags that didn't Do What I Thought They Would.

There is too much to say on this topic and I really couldn’t begin, but I would be interested to hear more of what Stray has to say. I’m always amused when someone quotes Adam Smith and talks about ‘the politics of envy’ only to complain about how much we have done for Africa. Hilariously funny. One couldn’t satirise this sort of stuff.

I can’t see why a good and economically rational man like yourself should have any problem with the politics of envy. Surely envy is a bit like greed, a wonderful motivator to make high achievers of us all in the endless quest to further improve our economic wellbeing.

There was a time when I was an idealist and believed people simply would not allow the world to die so they could keep living beyond their means. But now, as we reach peak oil and celebrate by purchasing more and more SUVs, while the majority of the world starves and we have fat vacuumed from our arses, while the leader of the free world seems to be hoping for the rapture as the solution to climate change – I have no hope.

Who knows, maybe the cockroaches will make a better job of it all.