What is wrong with capitalism?
- Thread starter Supine
- Start date
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
But media ownership can influence the voting process, especially where large amounts of money are involved. Nobody has been elected as PM in the UK since 1979 without Rupert Murdoch's backing. Not coincidentally, he hasn't paid any corporation tax during that period.Supine said:
Supine
Newt Member
Laptop, I'm on your side mate. I'm not a full on capitalist by any stretch of the imagination. I think for society to function our current capitalist/regulated system should be focussed more towards a community and the common good.
My original question was about how this mix of ideas could be improved by the anticapitalist movement. Although I do admit to wording the question badly.
My original question was about how this mix of ideas could be improved by the anticapitalist movement. Although I do admit to wording the question badly.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
There's a good overview of Murdoch and News Corporation here - http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=357
Supine said:
As others have pointed out, it's hard to find examples of alternatives to capitalism, but I'd like to tentatively suggest one which may have lessons for those of us who feel that a different way would be a Good Thing.
Consider the UK during the 1939 War. Effectively, the whole economy was diverted to a common aim, that of winning the war. Much of the working population put themselves at the service of the nation. Millions of people were in the forces, of whom a high proportion faced long seperation from family, hardship, mutilation and death. Half a million were killed. They were emphatically NOT doing it for the money. (And, as an aside, they came home and voted Socialist).
In a small way I have an insight into the way this worked, from my own military service in the 80s-this decade. A military unit is not in it for the money. The soldiers work together to a common purpose, and 'reward' is respect and esteem, comradeship, pride, acheivment. No-one on operations is thinking about the money. Admittedly, when you get home, you happily spend it. The people I knew who left for better pay did so reluctantly, by and large; it was usually a wrench to leave. Talk to old guys about the war, the pay they got doesn't really figure.
I think, and this is only a personal opinion, that when the work you are doing is demonstrably important to yourself, friends and the wider community, you don't need to be bought. Sadly, most of the economic activity in our society is frankly worthless in terms of utility.
You note that all the important things - food, transport, education, health, defence - are outside any real market forces. Does this suggest that important things, in a society that hopes to care about it's members, can't be left to capitalism? Is that what's wrong with it?
inflatable jesus
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
Supine.
I'm curious, what is it that you believe an anticapitalist believes in?
I'm curious, what is it that you believe an anticapitalist believes in?
Supine
Newt Member
inflatable jesus said:
Something else?
This recent talk about capatalism and oil proves that this debate is years away from a conclusion. Oil may run out but other fuel sources will be used. That really doesn't have anything to do with the conversation though.
I think we have a great system personally. We just need to take time to realise how to optimise it and react to the whims of gaia.
It might be argued that most of what is labelled as an "anticapitalist movement", sometimes self labelled as such, is not in the short term, nor even in the long term in many cases aiming for the complete abandonment or supercession of the key features of the capitalist system. To do this you would have to achieve the abolition of the wages system, supercession of the private ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange and probably supercession of the modern nation state in its recognisable form. Most of the "anticapitalist movement" is not aiming at any of that anytime soon. 
If "Another world is possible" there are a vast range of views on how and when! Many are justified in feeling that the most important things to consider in the short term are how to resist attacks or defend ourselves from further encroachments of amoral corporations now.
The interesting question is of course the historical perspective. Looking at the current trajectory of capitalism in its most advanced sectors, then barring ecological/natural or financial disaster (which certainly cannot be ruled out and unfortunately look increasingly likely), the evolution of capital appears to be towards ever larger and more powerful corporations and consolidation of economic blocs on a global scale - i.e. the progressive destruction of economic activity outside the corporate framework except in a residual or parisitic form (think supermarkets, catering chains, offshored manufacturing, transnational domination of all sectors of the advanced economy - and corresponding disappearance of small shops, small farms, small manufacturers, "independent" nations or politicians, a vista of endless corporate shopping malls, industrial estates, leisure venues and ring roads.) Of course independent small producers and retailers may survive in pockets, but as "niche" marketing, often for the better off or self-consciously "alternative", not as a significant sector. As well as being strangely evocative of old marxist ideas about the evolution of capitalism towards forms that are virtually indistinguishable from state monopolies, the prospect is also of the shoehorning of all instincts - towards either independence and creativity or altruism and solidarity - into the corporate monopoly. This equates to the "proletarianisation" of the bulk of the population in terms of their relationship to work, if not in their living standards - that "proletarian" working condition is ironically reflected in the OP's confession that he/she only works for the dosh!
We are reaching the point where the choice is stark - it now being technically possible for the domination of corporate capital to become complete (virtually all media, legislative processes, community and nation state activities controlled at first or second hand.) or the population decides a different route, a different route that will of necessity be based on different criteria of success and fulfillment to those of corporate capitalism.
For the real horror of the prospective future for most - if the trajectory is not checked - read the fatalist brutalism of someone like Ian Angell of the LSE. He argues persuasively that in the final version of the global e-economy the trajectory will be simply "uncheckable" by any of the traditional political methods, even were these not already under corporate domination. The global economy will simply crush any opposition or alternatives, no matter how mild or unthreatening. Angell masochistically celebrates this, assuring himself that he will be on the right side of the fence when the techno-elite separate from the rest of us.
The question is perhaps not "what would you replace capitalism with?" but where the technological and social evolution of late capitalism will take us, and at what tipping points, crises or upheavals will alternative routes be possible. The historical location of these forks in the road will of course have a very great effect on what alternative systems are viable.
That is of course (perhaps optimistically) assuming that the current evolution of the system leaves us with a habitable environment
If "Another world is possible" there are a vast range of views on how and when! Many are justified in feeling that the most important things to consider in the short term are how to resist attacks or defend ourselves from further encroachments of amoral corporations now.
The interesting question is of course the historical perspective. Looking at the current trajectory of capitalism in its most advanced sectors, then barring ecological/natural or financial disaster (which certainly cannot be ruled out and unfortunately look increasingly likely), the evolution of capital appears to be towards ever larger and more powerful corporations and consolidation of economic blocs on a global scale - i.e. the progressive destruction of economic activity outside the corporate framework except in a residual or parisitic form (think supermarkets, catering chains, offshored manufacturing, transnational domination of all sectors of the advanced economy - and corresponding disappearance of small shops, small farms, small manufacturers, "independent" nations or politicians, a vista of endless corporate shopping malls, industrial estates, leisure venues and ring roads.) Of course independent small producers and retailers may survive in pockets, but as "niche" marketing, often for the better off or self-consciously "alternative", not as a significant sector. As well as being strangely evocative of old marxist ideas about the evolution of capitalism towards forms that are virtually indistinguishable from state monopolies, the prospect is also of the shoehorning of all instincts - towards either independence and creativity or altruism and solidarity - into the corporate monopoly. This equates to the "proletarianisation" of the bulk of the population in terms of their relationship to work, if not in their living standards - that "proletarian" working condition is ironically reflected in the OP's confession that he/she only works for the dosh!
We are reaching the point where the choice is stark - it now being technically possible for the domination of corporate capital to become complete (virtually all media, legislative processes, community and nation state activities controlled at first or second hand.) or the population decides a different route, a different route that will of necessity be based on different criteria of success and fulfillment to those of corporate capitalism.
For the real horror of the prospective future for most - if the trajectory is not checked - read the fatalist brutalism of someone like Ian Angell of the LSE. He argues persuasively that in the final version of the global e-economy the trajectory will be simply "uncheckable" by any of the traditional political methods, even were these not already under corporate domination. The global economy will simply crush any opposition or alternatives, no matter how mild or unthreatening. Angell masochistically celebrates this, assuring himself that he will be on the right side of the fence when the techno-elite separate from the rest of us.
The question is perhaps not "what would you replace capitalism with?" but where the technological and social evolution of late capitalism will take us, and at what tipping points, crises or upheavals will alternative routes be possible. The historical location of these forks in the road will of course have a very great effect on what alternative systems are viable.
That is of course (perhaps optimistically) assuming that the current evolution of the system leaves us with a habitable environment
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Interesting perspective. In an odd sort of way, it makes me think of Fields, Factories and Workshopsfoggypane said:
Profit isn't the only conceivable motivation, doing right by your community is a very powerful one, if the bonds of community are really strong as they are in the cases you're talking about.
One might even argue that totalising capitalism cannot tolerate such strong community bonds, because if they spread beyond a few specialised areas like small military units, they become a rival to capital accumulation as an organising principle. Especially if the means of production is organised to work around small tightly knit communities, which is what the book I linked is on about.
Yes... as the good things about society seem to crumble and fade under the assault of capitalism, it is hard to believe yourself paranoid for thinking there may be a Grand Plan.
The sad thing about my example (and I'm glad you liked it) is that the guys in it are, effectively, fighting to defend something that they mostly hold in contempt, i.e. the individualistic and lazy gimme gimme world we live in.
Going back to ww2, the lads who came home voted, frankly, for a humane socialist state, which was almost immediately under relentless pressure from capital. Like you say, the market hates enemies.
What do you make of my point about the important things being left outside of markets?
.... and thanks for the link
The sad thing about my example (and I'm glad you liked it) is that the guys in it are, effectively, fighting to defend something that they mostly hold in contempt, i.e. the individualistic and lazy gimme gimme world we live in.
Going back to ww2, the lads who came home voted, frankly, for a humane socialist state, which was almost immediately under relentless pressure from capital. Like you say, the market hates enemies.
What do you make of my point about the important things being left outside of markets?
.... and thanks for the link
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I think you're dead right about the important things being outside markets, or at least, that they work best if they're kept outside capitalism. Look at our health service for example. People only started rotting to death in large numbers from MRSA after it was part-privatised and responsibility for hygenie was taken away from people who cared about medicine and given to people who cared about profit.
