When Capitalism Fall, What`s Next? Do Progressives Have A Plan?

The economic system is fine. If you are advocating economic democracy, you never worked for a firm that made decisions based on democracy. It is too painful to experience, and at the of day, one more committee meeting and you want to comit suicide.

The political system is screwed up, most because we were early adapters of Democracy. Most European governments are OK. The main thing is to restrict the use of money in politics and media by large corporations.

Capitalism, technically, failed a long time ago, as did Socialism, and what we have today is a mix of private and public institutions.

Dr.Econ wrote: The economic system is fine. If you are advocating economic democracy, you never worked for a firm that made decisions based on democracy

poly replies: Maybe you ought to live in a monastery for awhile...and see how an economic democracy functions. Sounds to me like you were working with a failed model..

Democracy is never easy...and is usually preferable to tyrannies large and small..

Dr. Econ wrote: The political system is screwed up, most because we were early adapters of Democracy. Most European governments are OK.

poly replies: And European governments are beginning to morph into the same system we have here...becoming, like here, more and more One Party States with an illusion of differences.

That tends to happen when any group obtains the financial clout and influence to  get legislation written to support its own narrowly defined interests. A slow erosion of democracy becomes a part of the process...even in a parliamentary system which is more democratic than our own.

Parliamentary Britain is beginning to look like a U.S. twin in economic and foreign policy. Pity the Brits if they continue down that road....

In egalitarian societies...as in Native American cultures, for example....that doesn't happen...Government doesn't get captured to serve "special interests"...because there aren't any..

Dr, Econ wrote: The economic system is fine.

poly replies: If an economic/social  system worked "fine", the double think of poverty existing amongst plenty making sense wouldn't come into play.

If an economic system worked fine.....slaughtering dairy herds because of an over supply of milk.....when people needed milk....would be seen as non-sensical rather than making sense as it does today.under our current structures.

If an economic system worked fine..., dumping oranges in the Pacific because there was an "over-production" of food in the Great Depression...when people with malnutrition were standing in soup lines a block away would have been seen as nonsense rather than sound economics.

If an economic system worked fine, it would probably be seen as nonsensical having vacant hospital beds...when people desperately needed them..

If an economic and/or political  system worked fine...it wouldn't take double think to explain its failures rather than addressing them...

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"..

Capitalism will not fail, because we do not, nor have we had for quite some time, a Capitalist economy.  We have a mixed economy, with elements of a free market as well as elements of government & corporation control.

What exactly is economic democracy and why should we support it?

"We have the biggest gap between rich and poor in history"

But we had the largest in post WWII. The difference is the political system, not the economic system, which is a mix of free markets and government regulation, and some production.

Yes magazine is a plethora of great ideas. http://www.yesmagazine.org/

Dr. Econ: Worker-ownership is alive, well, and growing in reponse to the collapse of poorly regulated markets. Perhaps you've had a bad experience, but that's anecdotal. Worker-owners in general are very happy to be involved in democratic work places. And how decisions get made is dependent on how the workplace designs it (because they get to make it up), so it doesn't have to be done with an abundance of committees.

To the responses:

@ Common_Man_Jason - Can you give me some examples, because I have no idea what you are referring to.  Please be specific.

@ tayl44 - As I mentioned before, how can there be "dead canaries" when we don't even have a capitalist system?  What would economic rights look like?  How could everyone be the boss?  Why do you assume that I give my money to people who don't care if I live or die?  I invest my money where I believe I'll earn a return (I believe that's the responsible thing to do).  Are you advocating free markets or government control of the markets?  

I love discusssing these issues, but I get frustrated when people (from both sides of the political spectrum) speak in generalities and spew platitudes.  So forgive me if I'm overly ignorant, but please provide some more specifics so I can understand your point.  

Ah yes, a monastery. There's a successfull model! How could I be so dense!.

I think the way most countries do things is have a private market and a welfare system. So, yes, the economic system will generate disparities, but then you have welfare, training, and so on to reduce the disparities.

If employees owned the firms, you could still have poverty amongst plenty, recessions and the lot of it. But you would just have both an incredibly inefficient economy and a huge welfare payments.

Sure, that happens all the time. Actually, during most recessions, the scarcity is either money or bonds, and the excess supply is labor.

Actually, come to think of it, most bakeries give their excess of baked goods to charity, becasue each day they make as much as expected maximum output, whereas the actual output is expected (mean) output. So I think you could say that  the creation of excess at times is not irrational at all.

Must I report to you the horrors of Democracy? Repeat after me: "President Sarah Palin".

And sure 'we' learn to vote - the people here on this blog. But have you been to *their* blogs? The rightwing zombie I-never-said-he-was-a-muslim blogs? Stephen King couldn't write the horror that goes on there.

polycarp2 wrote:

 If an economic system worked fine.....slaughtering dairy herds because of an over supply of milk.....when people needed milk....would be seen as non-sensical rather than making sense as it does today.under our current structures. 

Dr Econ replied: Sure, that happens all the time. Actually, during most recessions, the scarcity is either money or bonds, and the excess supply is labor.

poly replies: And only in a wacky system does it make sense. Stuff is needed...stop producing it. Absurd. Defending the model...that's wacky and full of contradictions. is supposed to make sense.

Stuff is needed...stop producing it. . There are perfectly good reasons to do that...within the model. of how we do things. The model itself is wacky.

If an Abbot told us to stop producing food...when we needed it,  he'd be whisked off to an insane asylum.regardless of his reasoning to justify it. The system the U.S. operates under is wacky.

Milk is needed...cut back on production. Wacky.... and justifiable under a wacky system. of how things "have to be done"..Thank God the craziness of hunger amidst potential plenty  remains outside of monastery walls..

Stuff is needed....stop producing it. Justifying insanitity....is in itself insane. and done daily through popular consensus to support a failed, accepted model.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease...

When this version of 'capitalism' collapses, it should be replaced by a a system that is as anti-globalist and anti-elitist as possible.

1) Localisation of production and consumption

This would maximize job creation, while minimizing the need to transport food. It would also create maximum protection against external shocks. When a local economy fails, higher (federal) government agencies can step until the problem is fixed. 

This model would prevent the globalized economic meltdown that is so characteristic of 'free trade', deregulation and a free hand for transnational corporations.

2) Decentralisation of government in developing countries

There is are many levels of inefficiency introduced because central government needs to keep a hold of power. Hiring and budgeting should be delegated to lower levels of government, while at least 50% of national revenues should be directly distributed to local government.

3) A switch to green and sustainable energy

The US maintains 700 military bases worldwide, mainly to protect oil supply lines from Saudi Arabia to the US, while the US military is the biggest user of oil of any organisation.

Talk about a perpetual motion machine. Or perpetual motion process.

When oil and gas are replaced by solar energy, thermal energy and biofuels, a lot of developoment is going to take place, and it will not be at the cost of the environment.

4) Organic agriculture

Organic agriculture is based on the use of microbes to build a healthy soil, and continually recycle nutrients and carbon, which can be done in a manner that is 100% sustainable. There is no need for chemical fertilizers, pestices and other *cides, when you are returning the non-crop parts of the plants to the soil it was grown on, and add compost tea and worm tea made from foliage from unused (unarable) land. In East Asia, farmers used higher lands as a source for plant material for composting, thereby speeding up the natural (rainfall and gravity based) transfer of nutrients from higher ground to lower ground. This practice is 100% sustainable, makes greater use of labour than machinery, and is good for people and the planet.

Also, there is a lot of marginal land that can be turned into farmland through human endeavor. Biochar is a solution, as is the application of composts, worm compost and teas made from composts.

5) Learning how use our biotope

I have no doubt that in the coming centuries, people will recreate earth like conditions on different planets. We're going to need a lot of people to populate the universe, which is why I'm never concerned about 'overpopulation'. The population of the planet may be growing, but technology is not standing still. We will have to know how to turn other planets into habitable places. We can already travel to the moon. Not long, there will be permanent moon bases. The next logical step is to turn the moon or mars into a planet with an atmosphere capable of sustaining carbon based life. Space will be the new frontier.

Conclusion

The only question is: who will be in charge to make such changes? We need to not attack the present democrats, but help pull them into the left, not push them away. We need to replace corporatists in government with progressives. But most of all, we need to educate people about the truly disastrous nature of the Republicans/Corporatists, and the economic model they have in store for our planet.

On the issue of localisation - let's have the government get advice from the experts in the field, instead of the Larry Summers Wall Street types. For a few practical ideas:

LETS (Wikipedia) - Local Exchange Trading Systems

Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS) also known as LETSystems are locally initiated, democratically organised, not-for-profit community enterprises which provides a community information service and records transactions of members exchanging goods and services by using the currency of locally created LETS Credits.

Credit Union

A credit union is a cooperative financial institution that is owned and controlled by its members and operated for the purpose of promoting thrift, providing credit at reasonable rates, and providing other financial services to its members.

Agricultural cooperative

An agricultural cooperative, also known as a farmers' co-op, is a cooperative where farmers pool their resources in certain areas of activity.

A broad typology of agricultural cooperatives distinguishes between agricultural service cooperatives, which provide various services to their individually farming members, and agricultural production cooperatives, where production resources (land, machinery) are pooled and members farm jointly.[1]

Tayl44,

In theory, in a cooperative, you could keep most of what you produce.

In non-profits, the owners of the non-profit are allowed to keep 12% of their earnings and remain a non-profit. Well if there is a profit, that means that 88% of profits should be reinvested in the company (capital goods) or can be returned to labor. In other words, this is a system in which workers can keep most of what they produce.

Let's say a non-profit cooperative has 10 farms working 10 farms. These farmers could pay 20% of their turnover to the cooperative, instead of paying taxes. The cooperative then uses that money to reinvest in capital goods or other farms, and returns the rest to the farmers as end of year bonuses. The farmers also benefit indirectly by increased profits from having their produce processed by the capital goods bought the cooperative, as well as reduced costs by lower prices paid for inputs because a coop can buy them in bulk.

In other words, the farmers/workers keep most of what they produce.

How is that for a motivator?

MrK wrote: "The only question is: who will be in charge to make such changes? We need to not attack the present democrats, but help pull them into the left, not push them away. We need to replace corporatists in government with progressives. But most of all, we need to educate people about the truly disastrous nature of the Republicans/Corporatists, and the economic model they have in store for our planet"

poly replies: When you get that a slow-moving coup has taken place, you'll get that the Dems are now functionaries of the Corporate State. Economic Royaiists won....we lost.

The stumbling block to change is an entrenched Corporate State. We are living the solutions of Economic Royalists to their problems.... de-regulation, lower wages, lower taxes, dismantling social programs,, increasing application of military muscle, and the capturing of democratic institutions. That won't change.

Problems and solutions for Economic Royalists are much different then problems/solutions of the majority. They contradict one another.

We are living the solutions to the problems of our new Economic Royalty....and are stuck with the Corporate State they've installed  to serve  those interests. Presidential candidates in opposition to that, if they have a chance of winning...won't appear on the ballot.. Wolin's "managed democracy"...an "illusion of democracy", is in place.

.Unless progressives at some point get that, reform is  a pipe dream

As  Chris Hedges notes, "The coup is over. They won. We lost"...while we were debating who can marry who. Economic serfdom is on the horizon. The battle field is totally changed, and "The Imperial State is collapsing from the inside out".. Economic Royalists will do all they can to maintain power in the face of that collapse. They control the armed forces. Addressing that requires a new approach.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/9217110#utm_campaigne=synclickback&source=http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_on_moral_courage_20100901/&medium=9217110

On Obama: "Sure, he'll playfully joust with his GOP rivals, but he'll never seriously diverge from the path cleared by his ideological twin, Ronald Reagan." - Whitney http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney09102010.html

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

.

Just let the whole economy crash.  It needs to anyway.  Then rebuild.  Oops, that means the rich will be broke too.  Can't have that can we?  They are our gods (according to the right and libertarians).   I see collapse as the only way out of the mess.  It's just part of a natural cycle.  Make do solutions won't work.  We need a real economy even if you wake up and find you weren't worth as much as you thought.  Oh, and BTW a lot of high educated folks are finding that out already.

Well, the merging on economic/environmental collapse is in the cards. Collapses are dealt with in three ways. Reform, technological change, or represssion. Repression is usually the favored course by any powered elite They've worked very hard to bring us where we are today..Reform undoes their own privilege. It's costly..

When the economy collapsed in the 30's, FDR was told he had a year before outright rebellion that the army wouldn't be able to put down. Reform rather than repression became the obvious choice.

The Economic Royalists of the day didn't like envisioning themselves being hung from lamp posts.

I don't think that's the case today. Besides, there are too many right wing wackos with guns willing to accept scapegoats as the cause of their own demise. Propaganda of the corporate media...6 giants that control nearly everything people read, see or hear, has been pretty effective....and diversions from how things actually function really well done.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Folks could always run them out of town as they do here <wink>:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbgBpldEazo

Actually from what I have read in other posts here at Thom's, it appears as if many of the Progressives have a very good idea of how to cope with the pending implosion of the American capitalistic system. 

As usual they are way ahead of the game. They are not waiting around for some authority figure to tell them what to do or how to interpret what is happening all around them.

So I can already see who is best prepared for what is about to happen, and it certainly isn't the fellows sitting around mocking those who discuss REAL solutions.

I am presently reading the book, Reinventing Collapse by Dmitry Orlov.  It's an account of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the parallels to what is happening in the US.  He states early on in the book, that the people LEAST able to cope with the collapse of the American economy and society will be the upper middle class (white) males (I added the white).  He wrote these are the individuals who are usually the first to either drown themselves in drugs and alcohol and/or commit suicide...

Survival of the Fittest.

Mel wrote: I am presently reading the book, Reinventing Collapse by Dmitry Orlov.  It's an account of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the parallels to what is happening in the US.

poly replies: Mr. Orlov gives a talk on the subject here:

http://fora.tv/2009/02/13/Dmitry_Orlov_Social_Collapse_Best_Practices

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease" .

Here are the examples I shared in another thread, just to demonstrate this subject matter isn't a hypothetical conversation.

http://www.chroma.com/

http://www.equalexchange.coop/

http://www.kingarthurflour.com/

http://www.carris.com

http://www.pizzagalli.com

http://www.gardeners.com

http://www.davey.com

http://www.usworker.coop/about/memberlist

"Collapse" is inevitable if we are talking about the present economic system.  Our current political system has been bought and sold to support the ends of greed and established wealth.  It happens.  As Orlov points out, those most invested in the system with the worst safety nets are the middle upper managers.  The crooked rich have stashed their safety net bank accounts, and the poor have already learned to live without the system working for them.

But I prefer Mel's point.  We are thinking about alternatives to what does not work.  We are not depending upon fixing what does not work.  We may be limited to working at local levels because the politics of DC are too entropic and dysfunctional to make the difference needed, but we are not without resources or options to being spectators at the fall of this piece of human absurdity.

We call it capitalism and we distinguish it from communism.  What we don't recognize is that these are sibling twins of Enlightenment Liberal Economic and Social theory.  We can see them as the two poles of a both/and in polemical struggle against their own shadows.  The false debate between individual and social human images frames the struggle, but it also hides the abstractions of rationalism that make "growth" and "the price of everything" more important than the human quality of the economy.  Both seek to gain the whole world but lose their humanity.  What has failed is the human connection as money has replaced value and quality in determining real wealth.

I don't think it's so much a matter of Capitalism falling. Despite its failures, it does have its redeeming qualities such as the accelerated advancement of technology that was noted by Marx in its infancy. What it hopefully will come down to is an expansion of the public economy in which the government provides basic needs (such as food, shelter, healthcare, etc.) in generic forms that, sans the profit motive and CEO bonuses, will be affordable for those working lower end jobs. This allows those who benefit less from the private sphere to achieve a reasonable amount of comfort while allowing Capitalism (with the added benefit of less inclination towards government restraint) to do what it does best: develop luxury products and technology under the incentive of higher profits.

This could be beneficial for two reasons:

For one, it would address the one point Marx has proven correct on (and Keynes reinforced): the consequences that grow proportionally with the differential between the natural value of a given product and its exchange value. If you look closely at the economy we face today, and the disappointing results of Obama's application of Keynesian economics, one might see that much of it is the result of working under a market that is residual in nature, that is a residual result of real products made in other countries. In other words, almost every form of employment we might take on in this country is always a value added, and is not part of the natural value of any tangible product. For instance, one might make a living as a marketer. But the act of marketing does make any direct contribution to the product being sold. Not only that, the janitorial company that cleans the office of a given marketing agency, while providing a service, makes no direct contribution to the product being sold. Yet these things always go into the price of the product.  They are residual values-added that increase the differential between natural and exchange value.

An expanded public economy could counteract this: minimize the differential by basing the exchange value on the cost of labor and the materials put into it. Furthermore, this would force the private sphere to adjust their profit expectations by virtue of their predicament of having to compete with the public sphere, at least in matters pertaining to basic needs.

And secondly, as has been said: every once in a while, even a blind pig can find an acorn. Likewise, every once on a while, even a conservative can say something that makes sense. In this case, it was Edmund Burke when he pointed out that society is an organic thing that tends to work better with slow change -although I, myself, would not dismiss the occasional necessity of revolution. And it seems to me that the expansion of public economy could be implemented in a step by step process that would be far less disruptive than say a complete overthrow or collapse.      

Solutions abound for preventing a collapse...however, they are in opposition to  the solutions already put in place.

It's taken 40 years to lower wages, de-regulate, outsource, lower taxes, dismantle social programs, extract more of the national income into fewer and fewer pockets and take charge of the levers of government to do that.

The solutions the elite have finally put in place to support their interests aren't likely to be undone..

Hedges: "We've experienced a slow-moving coup d'état . The coup is accomplished. They won. We lost".

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/9217110#utm_campaigne=synclickback&source=http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_on_moral_courage_20100901/&medium=9217110

The recent Supreme Court decision on extentions of corporate personhood rights sanctified it.

Interests of the majority and interests of the new economic royalty aren't the same. We are living the solutions to their problems. They're in charge. That's just the way it is..

"The Obama administration again demonstrates that while presidents come and go, the permanent regime rumbles on." -  Sheldon Richman

http://www.counterpunch.org/richman09142010.html

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

.

When do they fail to fool enough of the people enough of the time to keep the game going?  I think that old saw has an entropic opening beyond the cynical idea that the sheeple can be managed into consent on a permanent basis.

Their problem is that they have to run a society as well as an economy.  There are human beings, families and communities with social and human realities that do not get much respect in their game of fiduciary responsibilities and financial opportunities.  The reduction of everything to the economic bottom line has reduced everything of value to cash.  At some point the distress breaks the will to conform or the fear of punishment.  It may not be the poverty or the hunger as much as the disrespect that moves the revolution.

When they cannot fool us into thinking we are free or part of the greatest nation in the history of the world or part of a middle class or likely to have the money to retire or to afford our kids' education, or healthcare--maybe then we will ask why Americans can't be part of the American Dream.

Or better, we will desire to be part of the human family and the dream of a green world of shared security and prosperity.  I think globalism is fine as a vision, but not as a unified system.  Localism united, or the old think globally and act locally, will be the formula.  We could reform our thinking about the Federal government by seeing it as both the regulator of civic conduct for citizens and commerce and enabler of local development.

Instead of command and control flowing from kings or CEO's, we need managers and leaders who respect the value, power and authority of the "indigenous."  Nobody wants a "big, powerful central government," but that is what every military empire must be.  It is not public services for citizens that threatens democracy or local initiatives, it is the empire and its corporate monsters.  It is the military budget that gets us little value for our investment.  It is also the stupid banking system and its Phantom Wealth that must go if we are to make government work.  Or have an economy.

Loss of faith in this system increases even if knowing what to do about it does not.  It will fail whether or not we have the answers to the future.  

Wow, some excellent comments and points above. My contribution:

Investigate the Federal Reserve, illuminate it, audit it, shut it down and throw the international financial terrorists in jail. Well, I suppose we are a nation of laws, so put them on trial first and then throw them in jail and seize their ass . . . our assets. Let the federal government issue, print and control the money, not private bankers.

Outlaw financial gambling, Wall St. short selling, hedge funds, derivitives, speculation, puts and other financial shenanigans that offer a reward for undermining companies and production or otherwise just make commodities overly expensive. Change the corporate charter to read, a corporation must demonstrate a public service instead of the corporate CEO must make his shareholders profit. Investors have no stake or interest in the communities that the corporations set up operations in and could care less about community sustainabilty or quality of life for residents. The corporate charter and the investment class is all about narcisistic, get rich as fast as possible, selfish greed. A hostile takeover should be considerided a hostile act and be countered with equally hostile force.

Nationalize the oil and gas industry. They've proven that, yes, you can be too rich, when they buy politicians and lobbyists and subvert democracy.

Establish fair trade, not unregulated free trade. Outlaw offshore bank accounts. Make corporations pay their fair taxes, eliminate tax loopholes. Outlaw corporate sponsorship of politics. Create instant runoff voting and expand the political spectrum and allow more candidates to debate. Eliminate cross ownership of media and corporate interests. Segregate the media, one owner, one medium. Outlaw private ownership and control of voting systems, duh!

Expand organic gardening, outlaw GMOs and put Monsanto execs in jail for conspiring to control all food everywhere, after the trial, of course. Shop for handcrafted locally made products. Grow hemp and produce hemp products. Ship less goods less distances.

Render the fat from our morbidly obese and use as auto fuel. Outlaw all conflicts of interest within politics and corporate. Reward people for intelligence not greed. Invade Saudi Arabia just for shits and giggles. Send all republicans to Texas, put fence around Texas, give Texas back to Mexico, invade Mexico for their oil, just the part that has Texas. Outlaw war profiteering. Outlaw war, after the Texas and Saudi invasion, of course.

People in large houses, McMansions, should be required to do their own upkeep, mow their own lawns, wash their own windows, cook their own food. People in McMansions use more precious and diminishing resources so they should pay a proportional escalating amount for utilities, water, natural gas, electricity, etc. People who claim to be Christians who live in McMansions should be required to house the homeless, and cook for them, and wash their clothes, nurture and provide succor for them.

TVs and radios of habitual republicans, especially those in the deep south should be monitored so that people who are willingly and wantonly subjecting themselves to evangalism, FOX commentators or other obvious brainwashing charlatans should be disallowed from the voting process and taxed more for all the trouble they cause the rest of us.

You should have to pass a minimum intelligence test before being allowed to vote. You should have to be able to name some magazines and supreme court cases other than Roe vs Wade to be able to vote.

Ok, there's a mix of serious and tongue-in-cheek there. But that's my contribution for now.