Revolution of Capitalism

[alecstilleyedye]

it's alright 'cos the historical pattern has shown
how the economical cycle tends to revolve
in a round of decades three stages stand out in a loop
a slump and war then peel back to square one and back for more

bigger slump and bigger wars and a smaller recovery
huger slump and greater wars and a shallower recovery

you see the recovery always comes 'round again
there's nothing to worry for things will look after themselves
it's alright recovery always comes 'round again
there's nothing to worry if things can only get better

there's only millions that lose their jobs and homes and sometimes accents
there's only millions that die in their bloody wars, it's alright

it's only their lives and the lives of their next of kin that they are losing
it's only their lives and the lives of their next of kin that they are losing

it's alright 'cos the historical pattern has shown
how the economical cycle tends to revolve
in a round of decades three stages stand out in a loop
a slump and war then peel back to square one and back for more

bigger slump and bigger wars and a smaller recovery
huger slump and greater wars and a shallower recovery

don't worry be happy things will get better naturally
don't worry shut up sit down go with it and be happy

dum, dum, dum, de dum dum, de duh de duh de dum dum dum... ah ah
dum, dum, dum, de dum dum, de duh de duh de dum dum dum... ah ah

i think stereolab had it right…

 

[MacB]

You say Capitalism will fail So what will replace it ?
I agree it will fail - it already has! But as Churchill said it seems to be the best option

Why is it such a bad thing for TESCO to get so big? Economically speaking I mean They will still have competition via other super markets and smaller villages will still have local business

Tesco's increase the competitive edge and drive down costs which benefits the consumer - Downside is this will squeeze profits of producers and mean there is less money in the system
Tesco's create Jobs albeit at the expense of some others(local business) - but overall can you argue that there would be more jobs around if Tesco were not there?

If the below could be sorted capitalism could work
Some way to get the super rich AND the super rich companies to plough their profits back into the system that will benefit everyone
Plus some way of reducing the risk taking displayed by the banks and limiting the amount of debt at all levels in society

I'm not so sure it will fail, or at least not in any sense that would help people in general, though in a theoretical sense it's been failing since the beginning. But the big mistake, writ large over communism, is to believe that any of the 'isms' would succeed on its lonesome. Examine any of the most successful periods, of any system, and you'll find that it's a mixed economy. We can argue all day about how that mix should be made up but I can't see anything but a mix being able to cope with the diversity of human life and attitudes. Go too far towards any single ism and you always end up with totalitarianism and that will always lead to revolt.

The problem with ever increasing size of the likes of Tesco is the way in which it limits choice and inhibits the market. This leads into the debate around supply/demand economics, managed economies and, most importantly, the stultifying effect on creativity that occurs when suppy chain margins are cut to the bone. Creativity always involves an element of risk and the fear of the risk, or of dropping behind the pack, just becomes too great. don't forget that growth and profit, the twin 'gods' we live by, pay little attention to social costs. If you compare the earlier stuff from Friedman to his, sometimes rambling, late life analysis, you'll find that he was experiencing more than a modicum of doubt. The problem was that his theories were, and are, very seductive and he was also a very good speaker and debater. but I view the neo-liberal, or total free marketeers, in the same way as I view the hard left communists....they live in cloud cuckoo land. The theories have always been seductive and the equations persuasive but none of them have stood up to the rigours of the real world....when shoot happens they fail abysmally.

What you describe, when you mention a way of capitalism working, is a form of social democracy that mixes capitalism and socialism via shared responsibility and redistributive taxation. An interesting way of describing it is that capitalism gets the job done and socialism presents the bill for the externalities. In short there's not a lot wrong with what we had developed it's just that the bills had stopped being paid.

 

[007fair]

What you describe, when you mention a way of capitalism working, is a form of social democracy that mixes capitalism and socialism via shared responsibility and redistributive taxation. An interesting way of describing it is that capitalism gets the job done and socialism presents the bill for the externalities. In short there's not a lot wrong with what we had developed it's just that the bills had stopped being paid.

When I meant for the EXCESS money from companies and companies owners to get put back into the system in some way I didn't neccessarily mean Taxes as this would then rely on a wise Government to use this money properly. No guarrantee of that ! However I don't know of another way..

But whatever way - for a company or 'captain' of industry or investment banker to have millions / billions in the bank just does not do anyone any good - Including the ones with the money.
Because if the economy fails and people spend less then their company or investment potential falls too Its in their own interests to redistribute their wealth so jobs are kept / created and the general economy is kept on the boil (plus greed is restrained).
£1million in 1 persons hand means some back into the economy (spent) on everyday goods some on high value goods and the rest saved
£1million in 100 peoples hands means it ALL gets spent on every day things and therefore better for the economy

Now - I just need to find a bright person who can tell me simply how they will do it and then get them to start a political party!

 

[MacB]

Well I suppose you have the other end of the scale, or ism, where the perfect system would be to share everything equally according to needs, ie communism, but I don't see that happening and wouldn't personally support it. But a fairer compromise, promoted by some economists, is to level the inequality at source, ie pay most people more and some people less so that there isn't such a reliance on redistributive taxation. But my personal favourite is a Basic Income for all citizens as I also favour minimising the size of the state, this would enable the removal of the entire 'benefits' side of the state edifice.

You'll find the closest match to your beliefs in the policies of the Green Party, but you'll also find the view that these sorts of policies make a party unelectable. It's a bit like the turkeys voting for Xmas line, people get agitated over, and defend rights, that they'll never realistically have the benefit of. There's something eminently sad about the vehemence with which the poor can be stirred to defend the rights of wealth that they, or their descendants, will never share.

Add to the BI the idea of one adult one property and again people get up in arms over the trampling of their sovereign right to own as many properties as they want. Yet there is nothing unreasonable about the concept of limiting property ownership to one per adult, a couple could still have a holiday home or a retirement investment. In fact a limitation of this sort would inconvenience a tiny fraction of the population and would force house prices to a far more realistic level.

 

[Monsieur Remings]

I'm not so sure it will fail, or at least not in any sense that would help people in general, though in a theoretical sense it's been failing since the beginning. But the big mistake, writ large over communism, is to believe that any of the 'isms' would succeed on its lonesome. Examine any of the most successful periods, of any system, and you'll find that it's a mixed economy. We can argue all day about how that mix should be made up but I can't see anything but a mix being able to cope with the diversity of human life and attitudes. Go too far towards any single ism and you always end up with totalitarianism and that will always lead to revolt.

The problem with ever increasing size of the likes of Tesco is the way in which it limits choice and inhibits the market. This leads into the debate around supply/demand economics, managed economies and, most importantly, the stultifying effect on creativity that occurs when suppy chain margins are cut to the bone. Creativity always involves an element of risk and the fear of the risk, or of dropping behind the pack, just becomes too great. don't forget that growth and profit, the twin 'gods' we live by, pay little attention to social costs. If you compare the earlier stuff from Friedman to his, sometimes rambling, late life analysis, you'll find that he was experiencing more than a modicum of doubt. The problem was that his theories were, and are, very seductive and he was also a very good speaker and debater. but I view the neo-liberal, or total free marketeers, in the same way as I view the hard left communists....they live in cloud cuckoo land. The theories have always been seductive and the equations persuasive but none of them have stood up to the rigours of the real world....when shoot happens they fail abysmally.

What you describe, when you mention a way of capitalism working, is a form of social democracy that mixes capitalism and socialism via shared responsibility and redistributive taxation. An interesting way of describing it is that capitalism gets the job done and socialism presents the bill for the externalities. In short there's not a lot wrong with what we had developed it's just that the bills had stopped being paid.

Will try and answer you via MacB's post 007.

I agree with what you say MacB in that we forget that the system we now describe as capitalism requires state intervention and rigid social policy to maintain it. The balance, as you say, is disrupted when the ideology of the laissez-faire stops paying the bills and hence its own responsibility to the system breaks down, leading to further differential between rich and poor, as is happening now. I rather think however that the social democracy you describe to 007 has already been tried and tested and found to fail also, given that redistribution only seems to go so far to bridging the gap between the richest and poorest sections of our own society and less still that of the international community.

What alternative indeed 007? Perhaps the alternative requires a global compromise and not one that suits just us in the west. My point was that I do not believe Marx can ever be proved wrong when he said that capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction. Is this not self-evident when competition eventually cancels out diversity? Is this not the same as soviet civilians queuing up for the same bread at the same store eventually, when Tesco's or someone else, puts paid to the competition? I'm struggling to see how an aggressive, non-cooperative, working system such as the free market can sustain itself indefinitely with the level of diversity we now enjoy.

 

[MacB]

I agree with what you say MacB in that we forget that the system we now describe as capitalism requires state intervention and rigid social policy to maintain it. The balance, as you say, is disrupted when the ideology of the laissez-faire stops paying the bills and hence its own responsibility to the system breaks down, leading to further differential between rich and poor, as is happening now. I rather think however that the social democracy you describe to 007 has already been tried and tested and found to fail also, given that redistribution only seems to go so far to bridging the gap between the richest and poorest sections of our own society and less still that of the international community.

Hmmm, this could get interesting, firstly the highlighted bit, I was talking in general and worldwide not specifically about the UK, as I think we've made more of a hash of it than some others. I also think it's all too easy to look at the negative state of play we currently have and extrapolate backwards to the idea that a capitalist/social democracy mix can't work. I feel this overlooks, or gives too little merit, to some of the enormous achievements this system has brought us. Universal healthcare, universal welfare and universal education are the three biggies that spring to mind.

You could spend all your life reading the theories about what went wrong, when and why - personally I favour a combination of vested interests and the media they control versus the total lack of cohesion on the left and a rigidity that meant they were unable, or unwilling, to be proactive in seeking alternates and working compromise.

The question of what would, or could, work in a socially democratic system only needs to look at the best of times and the factors underlying these. The part that shines out is 'Universality' which is why I favour something like a BI, 'rationing' of the housing stock and re-nationalisation of the essential externalities that benefit us all - energy, water, and transport. However I'd want to see more of a performance related pay aspect within these nationalisations, to keep the ability to pay and retain talent that works. If these basics are guaranteed to all then we can afford the laissez faire attitude to the rest and allow free marketeers a free reign in that respect.

I've deliberately ignored wealth/capital above(barring the domestic housing supply) as the hoarding/misuse of such is an international, not a national, issue and needs the appropriate level of co-operation. But it needs a lot more than the farcical latest agreements with Switzerland, wealth needs to have the tables turned on it. If it's all honest and above board then there should be nothing to hide. But I'd go a step further and do away with the concept of a company as an equal, or better, of the individual. Do away with any and all forms of business taxation and place the entire tax burden on the individual with strict controls on capital movements across national boundaries. The latter being something that would/could benefit the third world far more than existing legislation. This should have the effect of shutting down loopholes, tax havens and the ridiculous practice of multiple shell companies. The word 'universality' arises strongly again here, without that these methodologies are bound to fail. As soon as there are 'competing' tax regimes then there is the desire to arrange wealth to benefit from these.

This all may seem a long way from what we have but the actual changes required would be pretty small and the impact would be positive for most of us. Those negatively impacted would be the ones that could afford it anyway, it wouldn't diminish their quality of life despite the amount they'd whine and moan.

 

[GaryA]

The whole money system needs to change but at the same time conceptions of what we (humans) are here on Earth for also need to change- they wont because the vested interests against are huge.
Money is a social agreement what it means is symbolic; change those agreements and symbols and you could, in theory, change the world.