Senate Richard Wolff and Mark Blyth

He is one of my favorite critics of capitalism, not sure if anyone here has heard of him, He believe worker co ops and democracy in the work place is the cure for capitalism.
http://www.rdwolff.com/

http://www.democracyatwork.info/media



Mark Blyth actually likes capitalism, but believes in the end the welfare state exists to keep the rich alive as the Hamptons is not a defensible position.

http://www.markblyth.com/

Does anyone here follow either one? What do you think of their views on capitalism?

Do you believe capitalism has a future?

That it is a positive way to order an economy?

 

Firstly; like anything good in this world, the greedy and stupid Americans ****ed it up for everyone because that's what America does. It ruins things.

Capitalism is not what America has. You cannot read Adam Smith and think the pig-eyed greed of America was it. The war on organised labour and the poor is neither the point nor the right outcome of capitalism. This is a different ideology that co-opted the pursuit of being rich

From the country that gave us the ideological equivalent of a whore-in-a-Lady's-clothing that is libertarianism - and if anyone reading this is a lolbertarian, you're an idiot. I say this comfortably because ideologically you elected to pick a stupid and myopic system, so... - it's unsurprising that a destructive reimagining of an ideology could take place. Just like Lord of the Flies showed what happened when people who are emotionally immature children are removed from any constraint to be nice fall apart quickly, the US illustrates what happens when you take a country and divorce it from the concept of a society - and then apply economics to it.

Having said this, I've done two threads on this topic already...
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/capital-a-discussion-on-what-it-is-and-isnt.50039172/
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...than-others-inequality-and-the-west.50043999/

 

I am quite critical of American society, but you cannot seriously blame all the problems of capitalism on the United States, The South Seas economic bubble, the Opium War, the destruction of the English commons for the wool industry.

I believe the United States blind faith in the concept of capitalism massively exacerbated the systems ills to a breaking point, but those ills exist regardless. As for the other threads I could not find them.

 

I don't think it's even that Americans are all that enamored with capitalism. It's that Republicans are able to successfully slander and defame the Democrats (and Democrats are too goddamn clueless to even defend themselves), and appeal to the prejudices of their voter base. This gets them elected, and then they can pursue their radical libertarian agenda.

 

What do you mean, you could not find them? Those are links.

 

But capitalism is ok with the notion of boom bust. Are you seriously questioning it?!

 

When looking for a thread, but especially a Senate thread here since there's not as many of them, you can just click on the "Senate" tag and then you only see the Senate threads, very easy to scroll through them.

What I also do a lot is go to google and put what I'm searching for, with the site tag at the end. Like this, in the google search bar:
economics site:boards.theforce.net
(if you wanted to search for threads with the word "economics" on these forums)

 

of course, if your economic system is inherently unstable, so unstable it crashes are identified as cycles its a poor system.

 

What is better?

 

You can't read Adam Smith and imagine he had any concept of the modern world in mind. What are you doing? What exactly are you trying to argue?

Economic and government systems are what they are. You've never accepted arguments from Marxists that "true" communism would work, so why do you want us to listen to a bunch of bleating about what "real" capitalism is like? Either defend what exists on Earth or abandon the point.

 

Smith wrote in a time that pre-dated modern industrial capitalism. He wrote at the height of early American republicanism, not modern capitalism. You can't really apply his work to today. It remains a touchstone but a historical one.

 

Ah ok, I didn't realise neither of you had read Adam Smith.

It's clear in Wealth of Nations he regarded a need for regulation as paramount. He categorises it as the invisible hand, a form of human connection that compels a common interest approach in all dealings. He was, as you say, writing in a pre-modern era but you cannot read his work and say he felt unregulated monopolies were the way forward.

Capitalism has worked with a far less inhumane cost outside the US, Wocky. If you marry it with socialism and don't buy your way out of correction cycles that is.

Do you even know why you get peaks and troughs in an economy? Do you know the benefit of a trough cycle?
These are signs of a robust cycle. Anyone who thinks they can "control" an economy, and that crashes "[identify]...a poor system" is broadcasting that they don't understand basic macroeconomics.
Applause mate. Your ignorance is a great basis for a thread.

 

Would... would you say that capitalism works in theory but not in practice?

 

lol.

 

Great post Shane, I see we're going to get lots of "insight" from you.

The theory that you should buy your way out is the work of Keynes, a single economist. But the basic safety net/welfare state idea has been a conceit of capitalism for years. It's hardly unique or unorthodox to suggest you should have basic services provided - so, to your question, no. It works in practice too. It has shown it works in practice. That's somewhat the point; the stresses we have now are because we ignored the natural cycle and in 2008 bought our way out of trouble. Obama's greatest legacy will be the profound economic depression coming our way.

 

Woosh.

 

Jesus Ender. Schwarz gives you a snark and you still miss it.

 

I got it.

I am just not willing to joke when people like Wocky and likewocky are here.

 

I first thought Richard Wolff was the "eat organic food" guy.

 

We tried.

 

Its not about control of an economy, its about an economy that doesn't primarily benefit the few at the cost of the many. To say nothing of the vast destruction of the global south to fuel capitalism growth, When profit is your motive and you can socialize costs. For example using a mechanization to replace workers rather than simply reduce individual work time, and not caring the effects increased unemployment has on a community of people, because it grants a small minority of people extra profit, is socially unstable.

 

A mixed economy of capitalism and worker Co ops?

 

How do you know it would be? Show a state with that system that has greater levels of overall prosperity and wealth than capitalistic ones.

 

So the answer is no, but you have a bunch of tired and regurgitated opinions from anyone but yourself likewater?

The Russians had a term for people like you.

 

It's funny you mention elites an economy "for the few" at the expense of the many. The Soviet Union was dominated by a Nomenklatura for decades. That was a de facto elite or elite in practice if not in law. Most capitalist nations have economies that have benefited more people than any other system ever. All others that have been tried on any large-scale, command economies, etc., have been tremendous failures.

And market economies allow better environmental protection than state economies do. After the Soviet Union collapsed, they found thousands of acres of environmental disasters because central planners were too inflexible and couldn't adapt to changes like markets could. These pollution problems lingered and Russia is still dealing with their ill effects.

The best systems are capitalist ones that have a rigorous social insurance/regulatory regime to blunt the negative externalities of capitalism and bridge large inequalities existing in growing vibrant markets. At their most advanced levels like Scandanavian countries, they also tend to have less pollution and more environmental protection.

I wish small and peaceful republics of agrarian farmers were the best and ideal for most…but they're not.

You have to accept what works best for the most, i.e. the common good, or public good. Market economies on the whole tend to do just that.