That's pretty much what I meant.
Tbh I find most of the people greeting the latest crisis like the Second Coming as funny, if unrealistic, as the ones who think it's just a small correction in the financial sector.
Capitalism has failed. So what is the alternative?
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
That's pretty much what I meant.
Tbh I find most of the people greeting the latest crisis like the Second Coming as funny, if unrealistic, as the ones who think it's just a small correction in the financial sector.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What do think abolut this bit RK?
I don't know. Do you?
<e2a> I can't see any alternative to some sort of capitalism on the horizon, though.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
In think it's got masses of markets it's not yet made viable, it's got cheap labour that it's not even touched on yet. And so consequently any talk about the sytem running itself out (capitalist or Communist) are worthless.
Fight for communism!
Fight for communism!
david dissadent
New Member
A little acknowledged part of the causes that led to this crisis was the steady draining of skilled jobs from the west to the east. Workers in the new chemical factories or call centers in the east could not afford a fraction of the consumption of the western workers they displaced. A huge imbalance was allowed to grow by both sides as many western countries (not all) ran up huge trade deficits and to prevent there currencies appreciating against western currencies, eastern nations bought debts from them. This is sometimes callled the Bretton Woods II. The debts that were accumulated in the west were partialy (by nowhere near totaly) funded by eastern economies spending the dollars and pounds they earnt from exports on western debts, to prevent them (the dollars, euros and pounds) coming on the market.
This allowed westerners to accumulate wealth they were not earning. A bubble. This wealth showed up in house values that were then used as collateral to borrow more for other consumption (HELOCS).
The current severe market correction has its roots in the fact that the most high risks western debtors could no longer service the debts they owed. The wealth that banks thought they possesed as huge IOUs turned out not to be worth the harddrive space they were stored on*. This gap in savings and inability to service debts will be around for a long while cumulating in the US government eventualy defaulting (years to come). Eastern savings will be massivly hit by this crisis and people their will see there meagre wealth diminished.
In the denoument of this crisis both sides will have to accept that the rules of a market apply eventualy. The East will have to allow its currencies to rise in value and its workers to increase in earnings while the west will have to see its lifestyles and total as well as comparative wealth errode.
This is a simplification of things ignoring the huge demographic problems in the west, japan and china. Also ignoring changes in resource availability and climate 'variance'.
Neither the much vaunted Chinese model nor the current Anglo saxon one will be presrved going forward. Probibly more socialism in the west and more free market in the East....
*metaphoricaly speaking
This allowed westerners to accumulate wealth they were not earning. A bubble. This wealth showed up in house values that were then used as collateral to borrow more for other consumption (HELOCS).
The current severe market correction has its roots in the fact that the most high risks western debtors could no longer service the debts they owed. The wealth that banks thought they possesed as huge IOUs turned out not to be worth the harddrive space they were stored on*. This gap in savings and inability to service debts will be around for a long while cumulating in the US government eventualy defaulting (years to come). Eastern savings will be massivly hit by this crisis and people their will see there meagre wealth diminished.
In the denoument of this crisis both sides will have to accept that the rules of a market apply eventualy. The East will have to allow its currencies to rise in value and its workers to increase in earnings while the west will have to see its lifestyles and total as well as comparative wealth errode.
This is a simplification of things ignoring the huge demographic problems in the west, japan and china. Also ignoring changes in resource availability and climate 'variance'.
Neither the much vaunted Chinese model nor the current Anglo saxon one will be presrved going forward. Probibly more socialism in the west and more free market in the East....
*metaphoricaly speaking
toblerone3
Grrrrr
The sensible socks answer.
This is a very interesting article in Die Welt by one of the most powerful men in Germany, Boss of the massive publishing empire Axel Springer, Dr. Mathias Doepfner, who is a convinced capitalist and deeply anti-socialist. In it he clearly states the pendulum is shifting to what he calls , the Far Left, , (in Germany anyway) and that the public is in a very angry mood indeed with the bankers, etc. He clearly thinks the Left will benefit from this crisis which he predicts will go much deeper, I am not so sure, maybe in Germany, Spain, etc but here?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
^^^
everything you post could be distilled as 'we're fucked in the next two decades, proper fucked'
everything you post could be distilled as 'we're fucked in the next two decades, proper fucked'
Captain kirk this is capitalism but not as we know it
.We could look at history ie 1931 to see were its going but really we have no idea how it will pan out .but the nu labour experiment as hit the buffers and neither the tories or the libdems as an answer.the depressing thing is their is no credible alternative
.We could look at history ie 1931 to see were its going but really we have no idea how it will pan out .but the nu labour experiment as hit the buffers and neither the tories or the libdems as an answer.the depressing thing is their is no credible alternative"...In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis..."
Sorry but this doesn't sound a very credible alternative to me.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Why?
So how come my mate's plumbing company, which has employed between 6 and 8 guys for the last 12 years, continues to rake in the profit? Businesses DON'T have to grow to maintain profit levels. What tosh.
Stick communism up your arse.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
You're on the list son.
While you can meet basic needs (eg healthcare etc) through a standardised service, I don't see how you can go about 'designing' goods and services that people want other than actually letting them choose what they want.
If things are "free" then what factors constain consumption? There will always be a cost (inputs) involved in producing goods and services so saying they are "free" is misleading.
I really can't see how you could produce any goods or services if people were not paid and work was voluntary. I know that this works on a small scale with a group of people committed to this lifestyle and being fairly self-sufficient, but I don't believe that it would either be possible to extend this much further than that, nor that people would willingly want to participate.
What would you do about people who decided they wanted to have a currency, set up a business and work for cash? Would you prevent them doing this by force?
Are you seriously proposing that your suggestion is a credible alternative that could be rolled out across the world? Sorry but to me it is not credible - it is utopian. Maybe it could happen some time far off in the future, but that isn't an 'alternative' - you need to have someething to offer people in the here and now - at the very least have some kind of 'transition' to your ideal utopian end-point.
But we would choose what we want.
"to each according to need". we consume what decide we need to produce for ourselves.
No at all. Saying they're free means they won't have a price tag on them or restricted access on the basis of exchange value.
Why not? Look how much unpaid labour people perform, out of need only... even capitalism couldn't survive without it.
If an irrational system like this one can extend around the globe then a SANE one can.
Why would they do that? It would be impossible, anyway. Maybe some people would like to engage in historical recreation-ism. I guess there might be museums in which people but stuff and trade etc. that will be ok, and visitors will observe how it used to be.
Yep. This is the future - socialism(/communism).
No transition; revolution. We don't need a transition or to try and change the system that exists now, just replace it. Once enough of us realise that we'll get rid of capitalism.
When you say "we would choose what we want" - how would this work exactly? At the moment I have a budget and within that I decide what to allocate it to depending on my own tastes and perceived needs and desires.
In your system how much of each thing is produced and how much does each person get?
Since different things (eg food, cars etc) are produced in different places (eg farms, factories etc), how does the food get to the factory workers and how do the cars get to the farm workers? Or does each community have its own mini-farm and mini-factory?
You say that things will not have "restricted access on the basis of exchange value". What will access be restricted on the basis of then (given that there are finite resources)?
People might perform unpaid labour for themselves and their friends and family, or for things they care about, but why do you think that they are going to do unpaid labour for everything? Who will do the shitty jobs? What is stopping people doing next-to-no work and still consuming as much as they want?
I asked you what you would do about people who decided they wanted to have a currency, set up a business and work for cash. You didn't answer the question apart from saying "It would be impossible". Does this mean you would stop them by using violent means?
"No transition; revolution" - sorry but without any actually concrete details this is just a meaningless slogan.
In your system how much of each thing is produced and how much does each person get?
Since different things (eg food, cars etc) are produced in different places (eg farms, factories etc), how does the food get to the factory workers and how do the cars get to the farm workers? Or does each community have its own mini-farm and mini-factory?
You say that things will not have "restricted access on the basis of exchange value". What will access be restricted on the basis of then (given that there are finite resources)?
People might perform unpaid labour for themselves and their friends and family, or for things they care about, but why do you think that they are going to do unpaid labour for everything? Who will do the shitty jobs? What is stopping people doing next-to-no work and still consuming as much as they want?
I asked you what you would do about people who decided they wanted to have a currency, set up a business and work for cash. You didn't answer the question apart from saying "It would be impossible". Does this mean you would stop them by using violent means?
"No transition; revolution" - sorry but without any actually concrete details this is just a meaningless slogan.
Here's an example (how it might work): what we refer to as towns (or states/counties/countries etc.) submit to vote the amount of each produce they need. Every other town does the same. Every town contributes to the production of the things that everyone needs (we have enough automation/computation to do this currently), the social produce is then allocated according to demand.
they will get what they decide they want, or need. remember that people will also likely share locally.
If some people somewhere can't provide for themselves things they need (which may happen a lot) they will be sent the things/ resources they need from other communities, via the processes of democratic decision-making.
We can't use up our finite resources. But we don't need to. We already use (more than) enough anyway.
Absolutely. We will be supported by everyone else, and will all chip in, and we will be able to do necessary work voluntarily. That is rewarding in itself. Wouldn't you?
We can get rid of those if possible, or make it pleasant as we can/share the burden out etc. After all, we're not being exploited or working in formal hierarchies etc.
Could you bear to do nothing? Nothing whatsoever? Don't you want to develop yourself and you abilities and take part in things...? It's our nature.
A socialist society could not produce capital, even if someone tried, and why would anyone work for them?
Usurp the state and begin using it to defend the revolution and take control of the means of production. There's a start.
Why do you think it's got to exhaust our resources for an alternative to come into being? Besides, once it's depleted our human and natural resources the alternative is weakened.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
I work it out quite easily. It's your meaning of greed that I do not understand.
Is a teacher greedy for wanting to get a pay rise when they could make do on less? Am I greedy for getting an education and working in the private sector?
You may call my company greedy for earning money by trying to deliver the best, what ever it is. However I would say that through efficiency and innovation the company I work for improve on the existing alternatives.
As I said you may call that greed, but I call it efficiency. As I said before it's when the free market fails its time for more regulation.
Back to banking. Part of the problem is surely that the products are so complicated and removed from reality a bank can never be sure what they own, or what it's worth.
DJWrongspeed
radio eros
From AdBusters of course.....
newbie
undisambiguated
Mutual Building Societies have been offering reasonable and ethical services to their members for well over a century. They continue to do so and they are- so far as I can tell- not really implicated in these money market shenanigans.
Why anyone would choose to use the services of a bank, and thereby enrich the shareholders, is a mystery.
Similar threads
- Poll
