After the failure of capitalism

[The Merchant Republics]

1. Such is why communism is so abhorrent, sacrifice as the only means of man to participate with the world, the most abominable thing is not that it wants you to lay on the altar of sacrifice, but that it wants you to do so willingly and happily. Give me greed any day over the imposition of such pure altruism.

2. Capitalism also provides no incentive for replaceable workers to tolerate abuse, and the obvious Capitalist solution to the Tragedy of the Commons is the elimination of the commons. As the solution has been with every case, common buffalo were hunted to near extinction, owned buffalo thrive.

for a given value of thrive
somethings cannot be owned as a whole such as the ocean, air, water tables ect. you cant just pollute "your" air, you pollute everyones. of course the other problem being in pure capitalism there is nothing to stop me from taking what you have by force or just ignoring your ownership cliams, since even legal restrictions or the right to sue requires government oversight.

You don't get it, why can't the ocean be owned? The air maybe since it's hard to cut lines into it, but the ocean, easy. Then allow the polluters to pollute in their own oceans, but the minute the current drags it out expect a lawsuit so fat it makes their heads spin. The perfect market solution. Commoditize everything. Air is the only exception and only because it can't be tracked and divisions maintained adequately. In water however it is a fairly easy business to discover who is polluting where, and can be divided accordingly.

So, as opposed to the Cod stocks of the North Atlantic being a free for all, get'em while you can, allow corporations to buy particular sea space in the Grand Banks for fishing, allow them only to fish in those areas and I guarantee you will see fish stocks rise within 15 years. This could be doubly effective in other areas.

[Occupied Deutschland]

1. Such is why communism is so abhorrent, sacrifice as the only means of man to participate with the world, the most abominable thing is not that it wants you to lay on the altar of sacrifice, but that it wants you to do so willingly and happily. Give me greed any day over the imposition of such pure altruism.

2. Capitalism also provides no incentive for replaceable workers to tolerate abuse, and the obvious Capitalist solution to the Tragedy of the Commons is the elimination of the commons. As the solution has been with every case, common buffalo were hunted to near extinction, owned buffalo thrive.

for a given value of thrive
somethings cannot be owned as a whole such as the ocean, air, water tables ect. you cant just pollute "your" air, you pollute everyones. of course the other problem being in pure capitalism there is nothing to stop me from taking what you have by force or just ignoring your ownership cliams, since even legal restrictions or the right to sue requires government oversight.

1) Pure capitalism is not necessarily Anarcho-capitalism
2) Everyone doesn't own the air, water, etc. They USE it, but usury and ownership are two far different things with far different rights and different limits on use/abuse.

[Occupied Deutschland]

American Capitalism will rightly be replaced by mixed market capitalism.

American "Capitalism" has basically ALWAYS been mixed market capitalism. It just swung between corporatism (1800's, as everyone loves to point out) and socialism (1900-?)

[Trotskylvania]

40 percent of the American GDP is in the state sector. States and municipalities employ hundreds of thousands of people, whose primary job is to plan zoning, public infrastructure, and tax policy to best attract business to that locality.

Even if we were to accept your ahistorical definition of capitalism as an economy with private ownership and a free market system, then how is the US, or any other successful Western nation a "mostly capitalist economy". Because from where I'm standing, that looks like a planned economy to me.

Then taking your point to a logical conclusion, you would accept that since a great deal of that government growth and rise of government planning occurred after 1970, when the OP believes Capitalism started failing, I must say I'm seeing a correlation.

I find it darkly comical that you consider the beginning of the undoing of the New Deal consensus and the onset of a major deregulatory period in American government to be "a great deal of government growth and rise of government planning".

[The Merchant Republics]

Then taking your point to a logical conclusion, you would accept that since a great deal of that government growth and rise of government planning occurred after 1970, when the OP believes Capitalism started failing, I must say I'm seeing a correlation.

I find it darkly comical that you consider the beginning of the undoing of the New Deal consensus and the onset of a major deregulatory period in American government to be "a great deal of government growth and rise of government planning".

But in terms of welfare state growth, of a actual state size, of welfare programs and social security the United States increased in size under that period.

[Meryuma]

American Capitalism will rightly be replaced by mixed market capitalism.

We already have "mixed-market capitalism". It fails.

American Capitalism will rightly be replaced by mixed market capitalism.

American "Capitalism" has basically ALWAYS been mixed market capitalism. It just swung between corporatism (1800's, as everyone loves to point out) and socialism (1900-?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

No, it hasn't.

[Grave_n_idle]

GnI - Statelessness alone does not make communism but the combinations of all the aforementioned traits.

Not at all. You made a claim that, when asked to back-up, you had to resort to off-topic nonsense.

It would be the equivalent of explaining why being English was full of failings, by listing the French accent, the inconvenience of having a capital in Paris, and the overwhelming predominance of Islam.

i.e. you either cited things that aren't intrinsic, aren't true, or that are common to more than just 'English-ness'.

[Grave_n_idle]

Capitalism is always on the verge of collapse, by it's very nature. It is inherently unstable and capricious.

Capitalism, economies of Capitalism, are doing just fine and a incredibly resilient. Capitalism, if it was always on the verge of collapse, would have crumbled millenia ago;

Your choice to ignore recent history (I assume the ignorance is deliberate) is bewildering.

Capitalism has 'collapsed', repeatedly and recently - and the only thing that stemmed a more universal collapse was massive changes in the policies of nations desperate to avoid it.

Next time you hear someone bitching about Alphabet Agencies, or the New Deal, gently remind them that those are the only reasons the Red Revolution didn't take America.

[Andaluciae]

Capitalism, economies of Capitalism, are doing just fine and a incredibly resilient. Capitalism, if it was always on the verge of collapse, would have crumbled millenia ago;

Your choice to ignore recent history (I assume the ignorance is deliberate) is bewildering.

Capitalism has 'collapsed', repeatedly and recently - and the only thing that stemmed a more universal collapse was massive changes in the policies of nations desperate to avoid it.

Next time you hear someone bitching about Alphabet Agencies, or the New Deal, gently remind them that those are the only reasons the Red Revolution didn't take America.

No matter the ineffectiveness of those alphabet agencies, they provided America a powerful bulwark against authoritarian socialism and right-wing fascism. Not to mention a degeneration into lawless anarchy, infested with battling falangists and Spartacists. Whatever the faults of Roosevelt and the New Deal, I'll take them over the second, third and fourth most plausible alternatives. So long as the people believe in the government, and democracy as a whole, it can survive, and FDR delivered.

[Soviet Engineers]

If capitalism ever failed, it was the 1930's.

This is nothing.

^This

I think capitalism will not be "replaced", but will be "phased out", replaced with an automated technocratic apparatus that manages most production/distribution services. A "new market" will emerge, where socially useful activities, such as inventing new innovations, taking classes, volunteering at soup kitchens, engaging in scientific research, creating new art, etc. is paid via a system of forced charity. Eventually, even this "market" will be phased out and we may experience the post-monetary world that Marx called "communism", but such a situation is not to happen in our lifetime (barring, of course, the possibility that human lifespan continues to expand in potential).

[Occupied Deutschland]

Capitalism, economies of Capitalism, are doing just fine and a incredibly resilient. Capitalism, if it was always on the verge of collapse, would have crumbled millenia ago;

Your choice to ignore recent history (I assume the ignorance is deliberate) is bewildering.

Capitalism has 'collapsed', repeatedly and recently - and the only thing that stemmed a more universal collapse was massive changes in the policies of nations desperate to avoid it.

Next time you hear someone bitching about Alphabet Agencies, or the New Deal, gently remind them that those are the only reasons the Red Revolution didn't take America.

Not to be one of 'those' guys but:
Revisionist history is revisionist

[Conservative Alliances]

The capitalist experiment that we have been doing in most of the western world is failing on a massive scale, it is not substainable an will at some point have to be replaced by something. This begs two question:

1. What will replace capitalism?
2. Will the current government be able to handle it, or will we see countries collapse as well?

I suspect that we will end up with some form of communism. It is a good system if the failures of the past can be corrected.

A laissez-faire system would be the most desirable replacement, in my opinion.

[Occupied Deutschland]

The capitalist experiment that we have been doing in most of the western world is failing on a massive scale, it is not substainable an will at some point have to be replaced by something. This begs two question:

1. What will replace capitalism?
2. Will the current government be able to handle it, or will we see countries collapse as well?

I suspect that we will end up with some form of communism. It is a good system if the failures of the past can be corrected.

A laissez-faire system would be the most desirable replacement, in my opinion.

Aye. But maybe it'd be easier to just convert the system we have now to a laissez-faire attitude? (looks at current state of Economy & Government ) Nevermind.

[Meryuma]

No matter the ineffectiveness of those alphabet agencies, they provided America a powerful bulwark against authoritarian socialism and right-wing fascism. Not to mention a degeneration into lawless anarchy, infested with battling falangists and Spartacists. Whatever the faults of Roosevelt and the New Deal, I'll take them over the second, third and fourth most plausible alternatives. So long as the people believe in the government, and democracy as a whole, it can survive, and FDR delivered.

1. There are other options besides Marxism-Leninism, fascism, and "progressive" bureaucratic regulation.
2. You're really misusing "anarchy" there.
3. Why is government surviving a good thing?

Your choice to ignore recent history (I assume the ignorance is deliberate) is bewildering.

Capitalism has 'collapsed', repeatedly and recently - and the only thing that stemmed a more universal collapse was massive changes in the policies of nations desperate to avoid it.

Next time you hear someone bitching about Alphabet Agencies, or the New Deal, gently remind them that those are the only reasons the Red Revolution didn't take America.

Not to be one of 'those' guys but:
Revisionist history is revisionist

I don't think revisionist history means what you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_history

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Just because a government claims to be capitalist doesnt mean it is, their really isnt a true capitalist country that i know of.

Sounds like you're describing communism there.

Actually, if 95% of the morons on team capitalist and team communist realized and admitted we've never seen a 'true' example of either, maybe we could have a reasonable debate instead of a bunch of blowhards shouting outdated rhetoric.

[Zutroy]

It's good that you would admit that.

It's not an admission, and I don't get why you would consider that to be some sort of damning self-admission. The communists and socialists who considered capitalism a dying, moribund system were wrong in the 1890s, wrong in the late teens to early 1920s, wrong in the 1930s and wrong in the late 40s. And they're wrong now. And not even quoting from the master, like so many leftists do, can justify this analysis of capitalism.

It doesn't change the proper reasons for rejecting capitalism. The rejection of capitalism must be for moral reasons: it's commodification of every aspect of life, the atomization of human society, the obliteration of the individual through labor-alienation as well as self-commodification.

Correctly stated. Marx's primary argument was not that Capitalism would inevitably fail, but that it was that Capitalists were a horrifically bad ruling class for the reasons you mentioned. Marx's predictions about the future of capitalism were definitely present, but the cause célèbre was Capitalism's (continuing) abject failure to provide for humanity.

[Herrebrugh]

The capitalist system prevents the world from descending into tyranny.

Communism is failed experiment and the ideology is pretty much extinguished.

Im sorry. But Capitalism has nothing to do with freedom. A capitalist nation doesn't have to be free. In the late 1800s and the early 1900s capitalism ment to oppress factory workers for the sake of cheap labour.

[Conservative Alliances]

A laissez-faire system would be the most desirable replacement, in my opinion.

Aye. But maybe it'd be easier to just convert the system we have now to a laissez-faire attitude? (looks at current state of Economy & Government ) Nevermind.

Converting the current system would require the use of politics, thus increasing the power of the state. Non-violent upheaval of the state would be preferable. Like you implied, the system is broken.

[The Scandinvans]

Capitalism, economies of Capitalism, are doing just fine and a incredibly resilient. Capitalism, if it was always on the verge of collapse, would have crumbled millenia ago;

Your choice to ignore recent history (I assume the ignorance is deliberate) is bewildering.

Capitalism has 'collapsed', repeatedly and recently - and the only thing that stemmed a more universal collapse was massive changes in the policies of nations desperate to avoid it.

Next time you hear someone bitching about Alphabet Agencies, or the New Deal, gently remind them that those are the only reasons the Red Revolution didn't take America.

Nope. There was no movement of socialists before hand large enough to provide the intellectual credibility and the numbers. The red scare in the 20's saw to that. In fact a fascist movement would have been far more likely.

[The Southron Nation]

The capitalist system prevents the world from descending into tyranny.

Communism is failed experiment and the ideology is pretty much extinguished.

Im sorry. But Capitalism has nothing to do with freedom. A capitalist nation doesn't have to be free. In the late 1800s and the early 1900s capitalism ment to oppress factory workers for the sake of cheap labour.

eh? brother, maybe i missed something but at the turn of the century wasn't all labor cheap. i mean, seriously. lets play a conceptualization game here, indulge me a little. suppose tomorrow, that you go to work, just like everyone else where you live, and you found that there were no computers. no trucks. no automobiles. no trains. no planes. no technology whatsoever. exactly how productive would you be? could you do your job with NO technology? unless you are a farmer with a horse and a cow.... the likely answer is you'd be pretty friggin unproductive. what employer, in his right mind, hell, in any frame of mind, would pay you more than the bare minimum to get by? could you honestly expect more than a few cents per day? jesus, your productive requires a certain level of capital investment in capital goods. at the turn of the century, THERE WERE NO CAPITAL GOODS YET. everyone was paid exactly what they were worth. whcih is to say, they were paid based upon what they could produce.

[Hellestia]

A laissez-faire system would be the most desirable replacement, in my opinion.

Laissez-faire isn't very appropriate for the government to rely on based on times like these.

[The Southron Nation]

A laissez-faire system would be the most desirable replacement, in my opinion.

Laissez-faire isn't very appropriate for the government to rely on based on times like these.

times where all the command economies the world over struggle amidst growing world financial crisis'?

laissez faire is the best chance any nation has of prospering during times like these.

[Hellestia]

Laissez-faire isn't very appropriate for the government to rely on based on times like these.

times where all the command economies the world over struggle amidst growing world financial crisis'?

laissez faire is the best chance any nation has of prospering during times like these.

Which is the same exact reason as to why laissez-faire is too extreme and arbitrary. Providing bailouts and stimulus packages in order to re-vitalize a collapsed economy is hopeless if not futile at best. Capitalism, as stated by previously mentioned posters in this thread, is going through its regular phase of the shits, its happened before.

The best method is to use a hint of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand and a touch more of government regulation, just to make sure no one is leaving any marks in the air. You can't just rely on laissez-faire EP to just magically save a nation from recession, it takes time/ Gradual, long and enduring time. The question is if the people are willing to resuscitate and provide effort in the struggle to save one's own economy.

[The Southron Nation]

^^^ spoken like a true statist.

[Sungai Pusat]

times where all the command economies the world over struggle amidst growing world financial crisis'?

laissez faire is the best chance any nation has of prospering during times like these.

Which is the same exact reason as to why laissez-faire is too extreme and arbitrary. Providing bailouts and stimulus packages in order to re-vitalize a collapsed economy is hopeless if not futile at best. Capitalism, as stated by previously mentioned posters in this thread, is going through its regular phase of the shits, its happened before.

The best method is to use a hint of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand and a touch more of government regulation, just to make sure no one is leaving any marks in the air. You can't just rely on laissez-faire EP to just magically save a nation from recession, it takes time/ Gradual, long and enduring time. The question is if the people are willing to resuscitate and provide effort in the struggle to save one's own economy.

No one said that free market capitalism ever magically saved anyone. But it saves the quickest, though. In the 1930s, the government then noticed there was a credit recession. They solved the problem by offering low liquidity, high-risk loans which the preisdent assured most businesses can pay. The market no longer went downards within a month and a year, the economy recovered completely. When the New Deal came though, the market just plumeted further, also because the gold the Fed was supposed to give to the people became locked away.