Skip to main content

View Diary: The "Marxism is coming back" trope (264 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is spot on: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sweatyb, JJ In Illinois
    capital is itself defined as money designed to make more money.  So of course capital accumulation makes you richer -- it's defined that way.  However, Marx also walks us through the process of capital accumulation: the capitalists skim off the surplus produced by wage labor, and redeem this surplus as profit through sales.  The capitalists watch the money roll in, while the workers must be satisfied with mere wages, which they use to buy back a portion of what they themselves produced.

    Even though you wrote that as a pejorative capitalism is still the most efficient system for getting the most goods to the most people.

    For instance Amazon "skims off" about 2% as profit.  

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 04:14:24 PM PDT

    •  Capitalism is the most efficient system (8+ / 0-)

      for getting the most goods to the families at the top of the economic pyramid.

      "Assume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one: then you can exchange love only for love, trust for trust" -- Karl Marx

      by Cassiodorus on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 04:21:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So if Medicare served more people (55 up) (0+ / 0-)

        but were privately administered to reduce cost you would oppose it?

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 04:27:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Huh? (11+ / 0-)
          "...privately administered to reduce cost..."
          Privitization never reduces cost, at least not without reducing quality.

          "If you lose your sense of humor, it's just not funny anymore" Wavy Gravy

          by offgrid on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 04:47:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And yet... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JJ In Illinois

            ...major companies outsource ("privatize") various functions all the time. It must be because they like throwing away money.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 08:35:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Collectives (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lucid, RabbleON

              can do the same: they can coordinate with other collectives, allowing each to produce what they produce best.

              The difference is the lack of worker exploitation. It doesn't have to one big monolith owned by a central communist state. The Soviet model didn't work. Federations of collectives, with workers in each collective self-managing their own workplaces, can have diversity and a plethora of choices.

              "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

              by ZhenRen on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 09:08:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Like I said (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JJ In Illinois, nextstep

                Go nuts, nothing stops you from making a collective today.
                In this nation, people are free to voluntarily form economic relationships in any form they want.

                (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                by Sparhawk on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 09:21:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  With what resources? (0+ / 0-)

                  Most of us live hand to mouth, thanks to you capitalists and your wage slavery.

                  "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                  by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 01:03:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So there we go.. forced collectivization (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sparhawk, nextstep

                    "Collectives" have only ever been successful in a coercive society.. and only briefly successful at that.

                    Collectives run against human nature, which is why you don't see collectives, even in very small scale, much less at the national level.

                    With what resources?
                    Workers have the resources of their labor.  As Sparhawk says, nothing stops laborers from collectivizing.  Without labor - i.e. a person's work hours traded for capital - capitalism doesn't work.  Yet, most critiques of capitalism ignore this point.  Those critiques concentrate solely on the top end of capitalism.. those "exploiting" laborers.
                    •  Nonsense (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lucid, offgrid

                      You've made a series of unsubstantiated statements supported only by capitalist conventional wisdom.

                      The old human nature canard, which isn't what capitalists claim it is, or wish it to be. We're social animals.

                      And apparently, when you speak of coercion, you're referring to your notions of authoritarian socialism, with centralized authority, rather than a society founded on participatory communities based on free association, and direct democracy, where each person has an equal voice.

                      People have collectivized without coercion, unlike capitalism which by necessity is based entirely upon coercion and violence to protect the private assets of the owning class, a minority.

                      Capitalism is highly coercive, which is why so much effort has been spent on crushing unions and worker uprisings from the onset. The one thing capitalists fear more than anything else is a coming together of the working class (an overwhelming majority) into a unified power, which is why so much effort is placed on pitting the working class against itself, using patriarchy, racism, and nationalism to keep the workers fighting amongst themselves. You tell them over and over that it is their natures to behave as competitive, rugged individualists, rather than the social animals that they are.

                      Reciprocity and cooperation is stamped out as much as possible by the ruling class, and after centuries of serving masters, lords, monarchs, and capitalist bosses, who have long ago seized resources as their own property, its no wonder people have forgotten they don't need to be rendered into slaves.

                      You speak of socialist coercion? Really? Only a person completely out of touch thinks workers have real choices, and that they aren't completely dominated by their employers for the duration of their lives.

                      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                      by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 10:23:11 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Start small and grow (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sparhawk

                    just like most every other human organization that became substantial in size.

                    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                    by nextstep on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 09:39:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're rather optimistic... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      offgrid

                      considering that the reality is that most new business start-ups in capitalism fail. The statistics were, in the past, something like 1 out of 17 attempts to create a new business succeeds, the rest failing. And those failures mean losses of capital (one's life savings) by those who make the attempt. And in today's economy this can't be any better. You do know, certainly, that it is almost impossible for most working people to get business financing? Most refinance their own homes, putting their families at risk of losing everything.

                      You just have no real clue. Have you ever tried to start up a business with insufficient funding?

                      Forming collectives is not any different. It takes a great deal of money to start a successful business, all of which is at risk of being lost. This is one reason few will donate their savings, or refinance their homes to liquidate the equity, to start a co-op. People tend to hold fast to what they have secured in a competitive, dog-eat-dog market place. Many small enterprises have been run out of business by big corporate players like Wall-Mart.

                      My father had small businesses. So have I. It is very difficult to break out of the pack and succeed. For every success there are countless failures.

                      Despite this, there are some good examples of co-ops which have done well. But capitalism favors the wealthy, and often it is the very wealthy who succeed in killing off the competition, since they, with more money and assets to draw on, have the enormous staying power required to endure the first years of a start up enterprise while trying to secure a positive cash flow.

                      Go visit any main street of a small town and notice the series of empty commercial spaces. The old bicycle shop, the lawnmower repair guy, the stationary store, the appliance store... probably all gone, or just barely getting by. Then seek out the nearest Wall Mart and notice how well they're doing, with the stream of customers. They kill small business. Easier to go work for Wall-Mart than try to make it on your own.

                      You really just don't have a clue.

                      I agree that more co-ops should be founded. But make no mistake. It is very difficult to start a business.

                      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                      by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 10:47:33 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I didn't say it would be easy (0+ / 0-)

                        And I have started successful businesses and have been in businesses that failed.

                        I suspect that the success rate of coops is lower than conventional businesses, as the people with the strong entrepreneurial, organizational, sales and marketing skills are far more likely to go to businesses founded on capitalist principals as they will be better compensated there.

                        If cooperatives were a better way to organize economic activity, it would be far more commonly used.  

                        You say in your comment that you had started a business, why didn't you choose to form it as a cooperative?

                        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                        by nextstep on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 02:38:38 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It is "easier" (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          offgrid

                          to create a business which exploits workers... that's why capitalists do it. Of course they compensate themselves more than they do their wage slaves. That's the entire point of creating a business in capitalism. When "successful," it results in wealth for the owner(s) at the expense of the workers. It is only due to the class difference (owning vs working) that there is disparity in wealth. And yet without the labor of the workers the business can't succeed. Or do you think only the owning class has the knowledge to successfully manage a business? Many good, well trained managers are working class.

                          I have a friend who worked at a liquor store recently. The owner was rather handicapped in intellectual ability, and had inherited her business from her father. She relied on her workers to do everything for her, and her business succeeded despite her ineptitude, since employees quietly ignored her orders and corrected her mistakes when she was absent.

                          Newsflash: Many workers can run a business far better than their bosses. Day in and day out, it is the workers who make the world function.

                          Its easier to thieve the wealth produced by the working class than to distribute the wealth with more egalitarianism.

                          Duh. Reread my comment. It seems you missed my point.

                          As Kropotkin wrote in the book, The Conquest of Bread:

                          Every machine has had the same history--a long record of sleepless nights and of poverty, of disillusions and of joys, of partial improvements discovered by several generations of nameless workers, who have added to the original invention these little nothings, without which the most fertile idea would remain fruitless. More than that: every new invention is a synthesis, the resultant of innumerable inventions which have preceded it in the vast field of mechanics and industry.

                          Science and industry, knowledge and application, discovery and practical realization leading to new discoveries, cunning of brain and of hand, toil of mind and muscle--all work together. Each discovery, each advance, each increase in the sum of human riches, owes its being to the physical and mental travail of the past and the present.

                          By what right then can any one whatever appropriate the least morsel of this immense whole and say--This is mine, not yours?

                          "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                          by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 03:07:25 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  It's a commonplace among economists that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nextstep

                co-ops and collectives have a "horizon problem." People join a co-op for whatever reason, but have different time horizons from other people in the co-op. So co-ops are prone to dissolution as members eventually go their separate ways.
                   Corporations solve the horizon problem by making ownership sellable. A shareholder who is no longer interested in the corporation can simply sell her share to someone else.
                   Co-ops that have longevity are those that have a large number of incoming members to replace those who leave - co-op bookstores near a university campus, eg.

                •  I was referring (0+ / 0-)

                  to a society completely based on collectives, rather than forming collectives in a capitalist society. There would be no private ownership of the means of production.

                  "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                  by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 10:55:11 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Nobody said privatization was bad -- (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kurt, RabbleON, offgrid

              for the privatizers.  It doesn't raise costs for those who are making a profit from it.  Duh.

              "Assume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one: then you can exchange love only for love, trust for trust" -- Karl Marx

              by Cassiodorus on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 09:16:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Companies outsource... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JJ In Illinois, nextstep

                ...because it saves money.

                (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                by Sparhawk on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 09:19:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually (2+ / 0-)

                  One practice of large corporations is to get a small company to produce a needed item (a part for a machine, for example), and then coercing the small business into a contract which requires them to sell the item for tiny percentage above cost, over a period of years.

                  These small companies, meanwhile, must pay for all of their operating costs, even if they are struggling. They become essentially owned by the larger business, without the larger business risking its own capital.

                  That is why they outsource.

                  "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                  by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 11:00:41 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  So if we were to save the world (6+ / 0-)

          from runaway global warming mass death, saving billions of human lives, but we got rid of the capitalist system and redistributed the investment wealth of the richest 1% to the people as a whole, would you oppose it?

          "Assume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one: then you can exchange love only for love, trust for trust" -- Karl Marx

          by Cassiodorus on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 04:50:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I never ever shy away from a good question. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cassiodorus, WB Reeves, claude

            And yours is a good one.

            I think AGW is our gravest concern so I would accept your proposal.  I don't think we could achieve consensus on it but in theory - yes.  I agree to it.   I would not oppose.

            "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

            by shrike on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 06:48:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Privately administering Medicare would (10+ / 0-)

          not reduce cost. Adding a profit-seeking entity in the middle would never reduce cost in a million years without drastically reducing the quality of service to the end-user.

          "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

          by Lost Left Coaster on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 05:00:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ever heard of Medicare Advantage? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cassiodorus, kurt, IreGyre

          We already have a private option for Medicare and it's been a disaster.  The costs of Medicare Advantage are far higher than traditional Medicare plans.  Anything you privatize is going to just end up costing more with the parasites we have running private corporations.  Health insurance companies are the worst of the scum.

      •  Awesome, I see the troops have finally arrived. (0+ / 0-)

        Sound the trumpets, cavalry!

        Half a league, half a league,
         Half a league onward,
        All in the valley of Death
         Rode the six hundred.
        "Forward, the Light Brigade!
        "Charge for the guns!" he said:
        Into the valley of Death
         Rode the six hundred.
        Or is it more like this:

        Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 05:50:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's also the most efficient system (0+ / 0-)

        for destroying the planet's potable water and arable land in short order.

        Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 05:51:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This is what we call begging the question (5+ / 0-)
      capitalism is still the most efficient system for getting the most goods to the most people.
      This is a massive assumption that you're going to have to back up with some evidence. What is "efficient" about capitalism when so far it has left millions hungry, homeless, and dead from imperialist wars?

      "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

      by Lost Left Coaster on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 04:59:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You have added a moral dimension to the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        side pocket

        equation.

        Mechanistically, the system is efficient as described. But add the dimension that the system needs to incorporate an element of the humane, and the system shows its moral bankruptcy.

        The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. ~ John F. Kennedy

        by 4Freedom on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 05:15:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How is the system 'mechanistically' efficient? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          congenitalefty, ChadmanFL

          It is predicated on exploiting both material resources and human resources in order to have access to both the material resources and the products of human resources. The whole thing is structured so as to waste all of the above in the pursuit of wealth & thus bring on the environmental calamity we now face.

          I can imagine many economic arrangements that are more efficient than that, including feudalism.

          “It takes no compromise to give people their rights...it takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

          by lucid on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 06:12:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If the goal is rapid wealth accumulation with no (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cassiodorus

            regard for consequences, there is a window of opportunity some are willing to seize.

            The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. ~ John F. Kennedy

            by 4Freedom on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 06:51:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  True but it is not efficient at distributing (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              congenitalefty, ChadmanFL, 4Freedom

              resources [which is usually the claim], nor is it efficient in using them. The whole thing is a homage to waste.

              “It takes no compromise to give people their rights...it takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

              by lucid on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 07:05:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have worked on Wall Street with high level (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lucid

                bankers and brokers. When I say they have little or no consideration of the consequences of their actions, I am speaking from my experience with most, but not all, of those in power positions that I have personally met.

                In truth, I believe that if there was a moon or Mars colony they could escape to after pillaging this planet, that is what they would do.

                They simply lack the moral compass that directs so many of our actions. Considerations about systemic waste or inefficiency isn't part of their lexicon. They are the masters of smash and grab, and they know how to get out of potentially sticky situations quickly because they have the funds to buy their way out.

                Attempting to understand them as you might others you meet would be a fallacy. Yes, if you prick them they bleed, but that would be the last time you were permitted anywhere near them.

                The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. ~ John F. Kennedy

                by 4Freedom on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 08:38:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  It's mechanistically efficient at (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lucid, Lost Left Coaster

            wrecking the potable water and arable land on the planet in short order.

            Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 05:52:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's where we are. Thanks capitalism! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SouthernLiberalinMD

              Although I would add that communism as practiced in the 20th century was pretty good at wrecking the environment too. But communism is a non-issue now. China is an authoritarian capitalist state. There are no real communist states of influence out there.

              "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

              by Lost Left Coaster on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 09:29:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Correct. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lost Left Coaster

                Communism was way too entranced with the Big Dirty Industrial Factory System.  But I guess everybody was back then.

                Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 01:38:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Not at all - LLC is factoring in the externalities (3+ / 0-)

          which you would prefer to neglect, as your thin pretense of an 'apples to oranges' comparison shows very clearly.

          Imperialism as not accidental to modern capitalism; it is and has been essential to it.  You don't have to read Lenin to know that (or even Hobson, who was no marxist) - just go and read Shoup and Minter's Imperial Brain Trust

          The system is only 'efficient' when you arbitrarily ignore the aspects that are inefficient.

          •  Bingo. (0+ / 0-)

            Been thinking a lot lately about the concept of subsidies, and applying it to cultural ideas, ideologies, etc; if an idea needs massive help, in the form of propaganda, the control of politicians via bribery and blackmail, etc., from a culture to stay in place, doesn't that perhaps say something about the internal value of the idea?

            Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 06:07:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It is all just "Godfather" Unrefusable offers... (0+ / 0-)

            stripping away any bargaining power by others in an economic agreement/social contract in whatever form it takes.

            Gaming leverage to one party only in the exchange or deal.

            Mafias are very efficient means to the desired ends....

            Robber Barons, Barbarian raiders, slavers, locusts corporate raiders... all cut out indirect means... eliminate sharing with other parties to a deal providing goods, services, labor, creativity, innovation...

            Stealing via means and methods defined or codified as legal... and made admirable and exalted as good for all... is a lot less troublesome than using weapons and killing lots of people directly to "extract value"... wealth transfer in genteel and creative ways is admired for its finesse and for its much greater efficiency as much as for the magnitude of the plunder.

            Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

            by IreGyre on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 07:08:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  First: Economists describe efficiency as getting (0+ / 0-)

          goods and resources to their highest valued use; or production of goods at the minimum average total cost (thus without waste of resources) or maximizing consumer and producer surplus.
            Since "value" is based on the buyer's willingness to pay, capitalism is, by definition, the most efficient possible system.
            And, since labor is a resource, the lower the cost of labor, the more efficient the system is.
            Now, does capitalism get the most goods to the most people? Probably. But its weakness is that it requires "the most people" to constantly demand more and more goods. If consumers decide that they just don't want any more i-phones, Apple is in trouble.
            If consumers decided that they'd better start saving for retirement, the economy goes into recession.
            And if consumers earn money to buy goods by selling their labor, and if capitalists are forcing wages down in order to make production more efficient, then we have what Marx would call a contradiction.

          •  Value? (0+ / 0-)

            I think "value" is selling for more than the cost of production. What would make capitalism more efficient than Marxism?Are you supposing that only Marxists want to sell products that have no market? Especially based on your last paragraph!
            Contradiction indeed.

            Another bone to pick, capitalist don`t usually force wages down to make production more efficient, machines do that,  they force wages down to increase the surplus value.

        •  Yes, morality is one more externality. (0+ / 0-)

          The great thing about capitalism is that you can justify it by externalizing any and all of the things wrong with it.

          Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 05:53:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Those are just side effects. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost Left Coaster

        Stop internalizing what are clearly external events.

        Or, alternatively, proclaim loudly that that's just life. Inevitable.

        Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 05:52:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Shit happens, right? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SouthernLiberalinMD

          At first I thought your comment was serious...but I saw your other comments above and saw that we're on the same page here. But yeah, people do that, they appeal to "shit happens" a lot as if that justifies something. I'll never forget protesting the Iraq war, telling people there would be and were civilian deaths, and they would say, yeah, well, that's what happens in war. You can't avoid it. And I would say, yes, that's why I'm protesting it! That's why it shouldn't happen!

          "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

          by Lost Left Coaster on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 09:35:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The inevitability meme is WAY strong (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lost Left Coaster

            over the past 3 years or so. Mostly because (I think) it's the only talking point they've got left to derail resistance/opposition.

            Well, that, and "here's my gun in your face, shut up" which isn't exactly a talking point.

            Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 01:42:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, as long as you don't care about the relative (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cassiodorus

      quality of the goods, or the concentration of their distribution across a population.

      Nothing human is alien to me.

      by WB Reeves on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 07:23:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Capitalism is the worst, except for all the others (0+ / 0-)

      There is no perfect system. There is no system that delivers perfect social justice and perfect capital allocation. There is no system that delivers either of those things.

    •  it cuts out the "Fat" of people below (0+ / 0-)

      getting much return for their contributions to the economy... and takes money out of circulation in increasingly strangled localities and speeds it to investment portfolios and bonuses at the top...

      Fat cutting... like Walmart underpaying its huge army of employees using every squeeze tactic they can dream up... and likewise squeezing all their suppliers out of business if they cannot become like little Walmarts in their operations... and eventually turning to 3rd world sources and that destroyed even more livlihoods in the USA...

      And before all that they destroy all the other locally owned and operated retail and distribution just by moving into an area... stores on main street, mom and pop operations, family businesses... with deeper stock and better customer service and knowledge...

      and Amazon? they are just as bad they have an army of poorly paid drones in their vast warehouses and their delivery drivers are all "self employed"  contractors who bare survive on the low fees and only a punishing delivery schedule every day that barely covers expenses to have something close to a fair return or a decent income... and they like more and more people have to go to Amazon and Walmart because they cannot afford to shop anywhere else...

      all of this is "efficient"... but it is a race to the bottom... their business model has already squeezed a large portion of their customer base... their own employees and all the people they ran out of business and the local businesses that relied on them...

      This does run up against a limit... when the average person's income has stagnated or shrunk to the point that mere hand to mouth survival with no appreciable discretionary income there is no more "fat" to scrape off the bones... Walmart is already hitting that wall... they have overworked skeleton crew staffs and their stores are not getting stocked properly and their customer base has less to spend...

      Amazon's model is to undersell everyone so completely that they become as close to the only source for anything that reality can allow... at that point they have no customer base worth mentioning... wages in China will go up and the artificially suppressed value of their currency will come closer to its real value internationally and the US
      and Amazon and Walmart will all suffer...

      Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

      by IreGyre on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 06:57:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site