There is an Alternative to Capitalism

[Lerxst]

You may call Capitalism a "necessary evil" but what if an alternative proved itself viable and the "necessary " part of that phrase got cut off?

Really? We are to believe, with Margaret Thatcher, that an economic system with endlessly repeated cycles, costly bailouts for financiers and now austerity for most people is the best human beings can do? Capitalism's recurring tendencies toward extreme and deepening inequalities of income, wealth, and political and cultural power require resignation and acceptance — because there is no alternative?

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/9...pitalism-spanish-city-mondragon-shows-the-way

 

[This]

"We are either kings or pawns of men"- Napoleon Bonaparte

The point is that it is our responsibility to bring our own selves up. Be a king or be a pawn, the choice is yours.

 

[muir]

"We are either kings or pawns of men"- Napoleon Bonaparte

The point is that it is our responsibility to bring our own selves up. Be a king or be a pawn, the choice is yours.

Napoleon was born into a noble family so he had advantages from the get go

He then launched a wave of violence across Europe saying that he was spreading the ideals of the French Revolution (libertie, egalite, fraternite) when in fact he was entrenching authoritarian rule

His invasion of Russia was a strategic blunder of monumental proportions and he was eventually captured, imprisoned and poisoned by the British.....i'm not sure why he's being used as a role model here? He was also a member of hidden hand secret societies and had agendas many people aren't even aware of

The group of cooperatives that lerxst has posted here have used their innitiative to raise themselves up as an alternative system to capitalism (dual power)

Despite the lack of social mobility now in capitalism these guys are truely transcending the nonsense of capitalism and they are doing it together as a community....good luck to them....they will of course be treated as a threat by the reactive capitalist powers

The aim in my opinion shouldn't be to make everyone else your pawn it should be to make a society where there are no kings and there are no pawns and that is what these guys are doing

 

[Nixie]

I feel compelled to say there is an alternative to meat too--tofu.

Anyway. The argument is based on the idea that parity exists for the opportunity to accumulate weath without one person/group having an unequal advantage. We know that isn't true. Capitalism in it's current incarnation does have a basic flaw. If the goal is to make the product the cheapest and sell it for the highest profit and labor is the most expensive cost--you cut labor. Cutting labor takes people out of the market to be able to buy the products that are produced. The wealthy individuals and companies fail to recognize the most viable part of the equation--you have to spend money to make money. Capitalism isn't "bad" per se, nor really evil. The inequity of how we utilize the system is....that is a people thing....not to be blamed on the process.

 

[elect locution]

You may call Capitalism a "necessary evil" but what if an alternative proved itself viable and the "necessary " part of that phrase got cut off?
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/9...pitalism-spanish-city-mondragon-shows-the-way

How can such a corporation that is so worker-friendly compete with the leaner and meaner corporations of capitalism? Almost by definition, wouldn't the more ruthless corporations (those that have no qualms with cutting labor wages, firing workers, and short-changing small/dependent suppliers) be able to out-compete and undercut a corporation as fluffy as Mondragon in the long run?

For example:
Wal-Mart has the lowest prices and is able to so well undermine its competitors for a reason.
Please, no counterpoints to the tone of people's voting with their money--people don't have a lot of money so their hands are tied (to Wal-Mart).

 

[muir]

How can such a corporation that is so worker-friendly compete with the leaner and meaner corporations of capitalism? Almost by definition, wouldn't the more ruthless corporations (those that have no qualms with cutting labor wages, firing workers, and short-changing small/dependent suppliers) be able to out-compete such a corporation as kind as Mondragon in the long run?

No because there are no more markets to exploit. Things are cooling everywhere even in the 'BRIC' countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China......we simply cannot keep consuming like we are and capitalism is a rapacious blood thirsty beast that demands new victims daily

These guys have to win out in the end because sustainability has to be the future

 

[Lerxst]

I feel compelled to say there is an alternative to meat too--tofu.

Anyway. The argument is based on the idea that parity exists for the opportunity to accumulate weath without one person/group having an unequal advantage. We know that isn't true. Capitalism in it's current incarnation does have a basic flaw. If the goal is to make the product the cheapest and sell it for the highest profit and labor is the most expensive cost--you cut labor. Cutting labor takes people out of the market to be able to buy the products that are produced. The wealthy individuals and companies fail to recognize the most viable part of the equation--you have to spend money to make money. Capitalism isn't "bad" per se, nor really evil. The inequity of how we utilize the system is....that is a people thing....not to be blamed on the process.

You can't change the people, but you can change the process. If you have an inept co-worker, do you blame the coworker, the manager that hired them, or the system the allowed them to be there to begin with?

 

[elect locution]

No because there are no more markets to exploit. Things are cooling everywhere even in the 'BRIC' countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China......we simply cannot keep consuming like we are and capitalism is a rapacious blood thirsty beast that demands new victims daily

These guys have to win out in the end because sustainability has to be the future

Of course I agree that there should be change, but my point is that it is impossible for the Mondragons of the world to beat the Wal-Marts of the world. People are too poor (and usually too ignorant) to afford idealism.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

You may call Capitalism a "necessary evil" but what if an alternative proved itself viable and the "necessary " part of that phrase got cut off?



http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/9...pitalism-spanish-city-mondragon-shows-the-way

Bailouts and austerity measures are the exact opposite of capitalism. That's socialism. Government backed FHA loans caused the housing bubble. Ridiculous amount of regulation are what make health care so expensive. People can very easily argue that socialism is what causes the problems, or Keynesian economic policies. We don't live in a truly free market and haven't for a while, so it's hard to say that capitalism is the problem. Nobody knows the real answer.

 

[Lerxst]

How can such a corporation that is so worker-friendly compete with the leaner and meaner corporations of capitalism? Almost by definition, wouldn't the more ruthless corporations (those that have no qualms with cutting labor wages, firing workers, and short-changing small/dependent suppliers) be able to out-compete and undercut a corporation as fluffy as Mondragon in the long run?

For example:
Wal-Mart has the lowest prices and is able to so well undermine its competitors for a reason.
Please, no counterpoints to the tone of people's voting with their money--people don't have a lot of money so their hands are tied (to Wal-Mart).

Similar to what [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] said. Companies like WalMart are going to cannibalize themselves in the long run. They take money from the system and put it into their own pockets. There's nothing to cycle back into the system, nothing left to replenish.

Economies need to operate based on the flow of money and globally, that flow is decreasing rapidly - poor people who are working for those low wages, don't have the money to spend to buy the products the millionaires are producing in their companies. So the companies cut wages, reduce workforce and outsource to lower prices but still, their consumers are now even poorer and they get stuck in a cycle. Eventually the system will run itself dry.

A co-op ensures that everyone involved has something, even if it isn't a 7 figure salary, they have something. That something gets dispersed and then recycled back into circulation as people continue to buy the products these companies would produce. No one single person will accumulate a huge amount of wealth and be able to hoard it like they do around the rest of the world.

 

[Lerxst]

Bailouts and austerity measures are the exact opposite of capitalism. That's socialism. Government backed FHA loans caused the housing bubble. Ridiculous amount of regulation are what make health care so expensive. People can very easily argue that socialism is what causes the problems, or Keynesian economic policies. We don't live in a truly free market and haven't for a while, so it's hard to say that capitalism is the problem. Nobody knows the real answer.

But they aren't put in place to remove or renovate a capitalist system. Their purpose is to perpetuate the system and resuscitate it for a few more years.

 

[Nixie]

You can't change the people, but you can change the process. If you have an inept co-worker, do you blame the coworker, the manager that hired them, or the system the allowed them to be there to begin with?

Your logic eludes me. If the people don't change then the process will always be bound to fail. Even a granola revolution co-op will fail if the people do not change the way the see and manage wealth.

In your example, it would be the co-worker and the manager who shared blame. The job is there because it represents an unmet need it is neither good nor bad nor responsible.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

But they aren't put in place to remove or renovate a capitalist system. Their purpose is to perpetuate the system and resuscitate it for a few more years.

My point is that by being in place they inherently remove the capitalist system. So that's wrong, they did remove the capitalist system by using public money to resuscitate private companies. Using public funds to keep a system running is the definition of socialism.

 

[elect locution]

Similar to what [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] said. Companies like WalMart are going to cannibalize themselves in the long run. They take money from the system and put it into their own pockets. There's nothing to cycle back into the system, nothing left to replenish.

Economies need to operate based on the flow of money and globally, that flow is decreasing rapidly - poor people who are working for those low wages, don't have the money to spend to buy the products the millionaires are producing in their companies. So the companies cut wages, reduce workforce and outsource to lower prices but still, their consumers are now even poorer and they get stuck in a cycle. Eventually the system will run itself dry.

A co-op ensures that everyone involved has something, even if it isn't a 7 figure salary, they have something. That something gets dispersed and then recycled back into circulation as people continue to buy the products these companies would produce. No one single person will accumulate a huge amount of wealth and be able to hoard it like they do around the rest of the world.

Mmm, I see your point.
*Now waiting for the capitalist apocalypse.*

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

"We are either kings or pawns of men"- Napoleon Bonaparte

The point is that it is our responsibility to bring our own selves up. Be a king or be a pawn, the choice is yours.

I often think of the commandment "Thou shall not worship a false god". Sometimes the government and multinational corporations are false gods. We fear that if they fail, we will fail. It doesn't matter what system you are living in, if you look within and follow good principles then you have nothing to worry about. But when we put something above ourselves, like a system, a government, or an ideology we begin to make ourselves vulnerable.

 

[Nixie]

Mmm, I see your point.
*Now waiting for the capitalist apocalypse.*

Actually consumer spending is only a 1/3rd of the equation. Government spending and investment are the other two. I think it is safe to say that the problem is that the economy has been consumer driven to the point where the consumer is now overspent so the government is trying to step in and fill the gap. Investment is the only part of the equation that grows the economy and it has been in the toilet for awhile. So ideally, we should be doing things that stimulate investment/investing.

 

[muir]

Of course I agree that there should be change, but my point is that it is impossible for the Mondragons of the world to beat the Wal-Marts of the world. People are too poor (and usually too ignorant) to afford idealism.

No man thats not correct, look at the zapatistas they are dirt poor but they are living by an alternative system to capitalism

What they are reacting again st and speaking out against is neoliberalism which is funnuling the wealth upwards to the hands of the few super rich. The people in the majority world have been worst affected by this and now it is affecting us in the 'western' world as well

What we can't afford is inequality on the scale we have it....idealism doesn't need to come into it this is about being practical

 

[muir]

My point is that by being in place they inherently remove the capitalist system. So that's wrong, they did remove the capitalist system by using public money to resuscitate private companies. Using public funds to keep a system running is the definition of socialism.

No that's not the definition of socialism it is the definition of socielism that the corporate media wants you to have

Socialism is when the workers run the means of production and that is not what we have

What we have is elites owning the means of production and hijaking government to further their corporate interests

That is STATE CAPITALISM not socialism. Another word for the blurring of the boundaries between corporate power and government power is FASCISM

The capitalist system is not removed it is still up and running and the same people are running it

The elites lobbied the government for deregulation which they got. An example of this is the repeal of the glass steagal act which seperated commercial banks from depository banks which enabled the bankers to start playing casino games with peoples money.

They created financial instruments which were very complex such as derivitives to hide what they were doing. They exported toxic mortgages that were like a ticking time bomb throughout the system

This is what people need to realise.....that the bankers knew that this crazy game they were playing would come to an end.

The banks then ended up bankrupt. They owed massive amounts of money to their creditors. Well who are their creditors? their creditors are international speculators. The governments could have refused to pay the debts to the creditors and allowed the real economy to keep going but instead they have taken momney from the taxpayers and given it to the super rich global speculators

The global speculators are now using the money to buy up the assets of now destitute countries cheaply

This is all carefully orchestrated to enable a small number of global speculators to end up owning eveything in order to create a new system....a centrally controlled system controlled by an elite

You might say 'but how could they get away with that?' Well the reality is that they are getting away with it so far

 

[Apone]

Not that this is related, but I do think it's interesting how you really didn't hear about how much capitalism sucks when we weren't in a recession.
It makes me think that people just hate recessions, but don't want to sound redundant.

I don't think that anyone would argue that socialism can work on a local level… as a novelty, or among friends, it's doable. But I can't imagine an entire nation, or an entire world held together like that. There have always been imbalances of power and wealth in successful civilizations, and probably always will be… unless you want to return to the jungles and live a simple life among a small population of villagers/nomads, it's going to happen.

 

[88chaz88]

I don't think that anyone would argue that socialism can work on a local level… as a novelty, or among friends, it's doable. But I can't imagine an entire nation, or an entire world held together like that.

Norway and it's $53,471 GDP per capita says "Hi."