Ah, the Nirvana fallacy with a Panglossian half twist. Always a favourite of neoliberal fundies.
11 Likes
Did I ever say one should not criticize? If this is just wringing hands, discussion is fruitless. I merely asked if someone imagines or knows of a better way, and can come up with reasons why.
As to the problems of capitalism, they are many, including using a Marxist word to cover the classical liberal tenets of private property, individualism and the freedom to trade and treat with anyone willing.
What?
That doesn’t even make any sense.
10 Likes
I didn’t expect to see fascism take over the US any time soon precisely because I figured there would have to be a disaster first. But we’re seeing it taking over (both in the US and abroad) when there’s been no disaster. We’re heading towards disasters, plural, but what we’ve experienced so far doesn’t rise to the level of disaster. Once everything actually goes to shit - I can’t even begin to imagine what the political situation will be in the US.
Shit, that’s not even wrong.
8 Likes
It doesn’t take much imagination to grasp that full-blown socialism and the subsequent nationalization or heavy regulation of all major industrial contributors to climate change could reverse the warming trend much quicker than any market forces could ever hope to, if that was the only goal. It stands to reason that some more pragmatic approach short of that would work much better than the “free hand” would as well. Perhaps look at how the world dealt with other similar issues such as atmospheric particulates, leaded gasoline or ozone depletion. I seem to recall all of those solutions being much closer to command economy-style socialism than market economy-style capitalism.
6 Likes
Well, also breaking the Middle East with the Iraq invasion created waves of refugees and non-voluntary migrants, which created social pressures in Europe that the fascist parties took advantage of.
3 Likes
Reading through these replies, especially about how in the last 30 years, capitalism has so beneficently lifted people out of poverty…
Well, for the last 30 years, I have been hearing a drumbeat and chanting. “Less red tape! Regulation is killing us!” It hasn’t been the poor, asking to have easier access to benefits – they’ve whispered and pleaded while the drumbeats got louder. “Less red tape! Regulation is killing us!”
Regulation like the Clean Air Act. Like rules that put limits on how much water you can divert from the watersheds, or the minimum amount you have to pay for your workers. Movement of labour to more “business-friendly” locales: places where you can run your sweatshop with impunity, and dump the toxic outflow straight into the nearest body of water. And while, yes, people there make more money than they did, it’s still all on credit.
Meanwhile, we march towards fascism on the widening of the precariat to include much of what was once the middle class, fed by the propaganda of the business owners and financiers that it’s all the fault of these pesky regulations. They use that precariousness to insert pry-bars to tear us apart, encouraging racism, demonising attempts to find common ground as “class warfare”. Jobs can’t be stolen, merely given away by the employer, but that’s not how they phrase it.
And why are the financiers and business owners suddenly so eager to abandon the democracy that has served them so well? Because it hasn’t. In a democracy, everyone gets a voice, even those who realise they aren’t rich enough to outrun an apocalypse. They demand things like fair wage laws, Clean Air Acts and medical care. But with the right dictator… None of those things become a problem.
Do I have a solution? Not entirely, but the unfettered market is far from it. Regulations with teeth, where a fine is not merely the price of doing business, would be good for a start. More equitable taxation would help. Unfortunately, you can’t regulate empathy.
But Ponticus was right about one thing: writ large, greed is quite literally a deadly sin. Problem is, it’s killing everybody except the biggest sinners.
19 Likes
11 Likes
“The billion people lifted from poverty came after socialism started to gain power, and the capitalist classes started worrying about the gallows and guillotine.”
One day soon I hope for the one % to fear the feel of the blade again.
Let’s see how far they push before this becomes commonplace.
3 Likes
And certainly, don’t work together for the common good…
5 Likes
The timing thing really isnt all that remarkable… this system was never going to mature out of it’s own accord, despite what the true believers preach. This machinery will continue to eat the world until theres no more world to eat, or it breaks of it’s own accord, or until someone deliberately sets out to break it and succeeds.
The “good news” , if you like to think of it this way, is that by the time you engineer an alternative that takes human need for reasonable climate into account, theres no added cost to account for all the other needs we have, like sexual autonomy and clean water and reproductive liberty and whatnot.
Of course Capitalism will claim it’s gotthis covered, no need to revolt, you just have to trust that this time its telling the truth.
2 Likes
I have to give Monbiot credit in this – he recognizes that a return to Keynesian thinking isn’t going to be a workable solution, let alone Marxism. Something actually new needs to be offered. The question is what?
3 Likes
If that’s what Libertarians say, they’re in for a shock. On the contrary, Fascism takes the conservative idea of not straying far from traditional values and takes it to the extreme: Ensure your movement comes out on top by rounding up everyone who doesn’t fit your ideal and have them all killed.
9 Likes
So something ridiculously utopian that is never going to be implemented? No. Like Keynesianism before it, what needs to be proposed is something that can be added to practically improve the existing system.
Never?
6 Likes
I believe that many of us have indeed noted curbs on capitalist excess, and even alternatives. You seem to want a fully formed plan in order to replace capitalism… that’s not how capitalism itself emerged on the scene, so why should whatever replaces it arrive fully formed?
11 Likes
There’s plenty of issues with the whole argument that prosperity was distributed more equally under the rise of global capitalism post-ww2. For one, much of those gains in countries like Nigeria weren’t equally distributed to labor and often because foreign investors would direct the government to impede such developments in wage/living-standard gains. This is not really disputable considering how even companies have hired death squads in parts of Latin America to keep local farmers in line. All to get you that cheap trinket or chocolate bar (yes, it sounds crazy but it happens more than you think). So the whole prosperity rise thing only went to a few countries and even fewer lower economic classes than you can imagine.
7 Likes
I mean, where do these guys think we got the term “Banana Republic” from?
From fascist puppet states that pretended to be republics, directly controlled by United for profit.
7 Likes
Good point. A case can be made that stable societies evolve, with minimal direction. Breaking the system to replace it with glorious ideas has had a poor track record.
The American revolution, while restructuring the state, kept almost all local government infrastructure. I suspect had they wiped the slate clean and started from scratch the country would have quickly failed.
