Contrary to what many seem to think, Obama is not, I repeat NOT at fault for any part of the economic meltdown. Neither can he, or his government, do a damn thing about it. Neither could a Republican government. Or a “Green” one. Or a Nader one. Or even a Ross Perot one. The fact is that capitalism, as it is practiced in the world today, is melting down. It is NOT melting down, as was predicted by Marx, because it is unworkable, it is melting down because it brought forward with it, as the world moved from feudalism to capitalism, some of the ‘parts’ of feudalism. Those ‘parts’, while necessary to feudalism, and “systems” prior to feudalism, have festered in the core of our particular form of capitalism and this infection has grown over the years to the point where it has, today, rotted the heart out of the whole economic system.
These parts of feudalism prevent our form of capitalism from operating as it should. And by that I DO NOT mean “free market” or “laissez faire” capitalism. In order for capitalism to work properly it must, contrary to “Republican” and “Libertarian” thinking, be STRICTLY and TIGHTLY regulated so as to ensure every citizen a truly equal opportunity to advance his own interests and meet his own needs. With 96% of the wealth of North America (Yep, Canada is in this too) being owned/controlled by only 6% of the population, there is NO fair competition, and NO real opportunity for a majority of individuals to prosper. True, there is that small number who manage to do so. Some more by good luck than by good planning and some because they are the brightest of the bright. A proper capitalist system should offer good solid opportunities for ALL citizens without them needing to have IQs in the 130+ range or needing to inherit a huge fortune.
The biggest problem we face is that people have come to believe that our “present system” of capitalism and ultra-right, unregulated, laissez faire capitalism are all that capitalism has to offer. With it becoming more and more obvious that our system is breaking down people are turning towards either laissez faire capitalism or towards socialism in greater and greater numbers. They look at countries like Sweden and Norway and Denmark as examples of successful socialist nations.
They are right. Those countries ARE successful socialist nations. BUT, even though those countries are, INTERNALLY socialist, they operate INTERNATIONALLY as capitalist countries in a capitalist world. In other words, they are socialist ships floating on capitalist seas. Without world capitalism, they’d founder and die in damn short order.
Because we citizens don’t realize that there are OTHER capitalist systems available to us, we appear ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. We are on the verge of destroying our chance to design a capitalist system made-to-order to suit our needs. Until we realize that this is possible, far too many of us will listen to the siren song of world socialism. Too late will we learn of our mistake.
Don’t get all in a knot over the 2012 elections or any other elections. Neither the Dems nor the Repubs (in Canada: Liberal/NDP and Conservatives) have any answers to the problems we need to solve. They are both 100% committed to the present system. The differences between them are minor and more of a cosmetic nature than of a fundamental nature. The big dust-up between them is only for show. It keeps people focused on their “Punch & Judy Show” instead of paying attention to the REAL problems and becoming involved in a search for REAL solutions.
The goal of the main political parties is to preserve the status quo for the benefit of those who “have all the marbles” already and who want to remain in their positions of wealth and privilege. (Can’t blame them for that – if I were at the top of the heap, I’d want to stay there too!)
The goal of the rest of us should be to make real capitalism, which is the Rolls Royce of systems, work for everybody. Not for just a few at the top, but for everybody. It can be done. Capitalism can do it far, far better than socialism could ever dream of doing it. But it has to be a designed form of capitalism; not the mess we have right now.
I have designed a capitalist system that I think might do the trick. In my next blog I’ll begin to introduce it.
You make a lot of good points here. Most people don’t realize that there are other forms of capitalism than the one we’ve got. I completely agree that for capitalism to work for the common good, it MUST be strictly regulated or all of the wealth will inevitably be funneled to the very top.
Your point about Sweden, Norway, and Denmark only surviving as socialist countries because they are “floating on a sea of capitalism” is intriguing and I’d like to hear you elaborate.
I’ve believed for a long time that socialism can’t really work in the real world, but I’ve been hanging out with German communists for awhile and they’re beginning to convince me otherwise. It’s just that we need the RIGHT form of socialism in the same way you claim we need the RIGHT form of capitalism.
My supposition is that we need to combine elements of both, but that for any system to work in the interests of the common good and not just a privileged few, it would have to be adopted worldwide. Otherwise, most of the wealth would just end up in the hands of the elites in the least regulated capitalist country.
I look forward to reading about the system you’ve designed.
Kem,
You nailed the basic problem with our present form of capitalism, which I have labeled “greed capitalism”, in your first paragraph!
We are all, I think, certainly aware that capitalism can do a great job of creating wealth. It does not, however, do a good job of dispersing it to the benefit of our citizens. It accumulates in the hands of far too few people. Because of the monetary system that we use, that accumulated wealth eventually became so great that it could, in and of its self, earn large amounts of additional wealth through being loaned at interest. Thus the “pool of wealth” took on a life of its own and it, like all forms of life, is always attempting to take over its environment; to grow, expand, and dominate.
No system that allows wealth to accumulate in large amounts in the hands of a few people or companies or banks, can prevent this from happening. A major failure of socialism is that it does not consider that wealth “held by the state in the name of the people” falls into this category. It does; and it provides those who control that wealth, whether “evil capitalist oligarchs” or “progressive socialist leaders”, with the means to exercise unwarranted power over the lives and actions of their fellow citizens; even, as we see in the world today, to the extent of harming their fellows in order to maintain and “grow” that wealth and the system that allows its accumulation.
This state of affairs is tantamount to the tail wagging the dog. Mankind invented monetary systems in order to make use of them for his own benefit. We now have economic systems that demand that men support them and their interests rather than use the system for human interests. Greed capitalism falls into this area, as does socialist economics. The system predominates, not the good of mankind.
Those at the apex of the pyramid of power created by these economic systems and who benefit from them greatly are, quite naturally, very much in favour of them. They ought to be!! They are sitting pretty! The rest of us, the vast majority, are somewhat doubtful of their value to us. Those who benefit from this economic system go to great lengths to convince us all that these economic systems are intertwined with our political systems in such a way as to represent the “best of democracy” and to provide us all with “opportunity” to “better ourselves”. The top dogs have been largely successful at convincing the majority of the population of this with regard to greed capitalism in North America – less so in other countries where socialism has or is attracting many adherents by promising the same benefits or better. Neither system has any intention of delivering fully on their promises because that would mean sharing the wealth and thus reduce the power of those who control it.
In North America those who do the actual work of wealth creation (real wealth – not the sham wealth that comes from financial manipulation) are largely employees. Yet those employees do not share equitable in the wealth that they create. Socialism claims that it can “fix that” by “communal ownership of the means of production”. To my mind, that kind of ownership is no different from some capitalist owning it all. I don’t get to participate in the benefits of my labour in either case. Neither do I get to participate in the decision making that guides production. All I get to do is beg to be accepted as a rent-a-slave “employed” by what is essentially a powerful, wealth-controlling few. It is CONTROL of the wealth that matters – not the ownership of it.
As to socialist countries “floating on the sea of capitalism”: In every modern country there is a huge amount of international trade occurring. It usually represents about half of the country’s economy. Since that trade brings in great amounts of money it is, when taxed, a great source of government income. Should that source of income dry up, as in the inevitable collapse of world capitalism, many of the presently affordable “people’s programs” in nominally socialist countries, such as free education, free medical care, etc., would not be affordable based on that country’s internal trade or income taxes alone.
It may be possible that “the right form of socialism” could work to the benefit of people. I have been involved in left-wing politics for over 50 years. I have NEVER seen such a “form of socialism”. Let me repeat, any socio-economic system that is structured as a pyramid, i.e. a few at the top of the pyramid run things, can ever be of benefit to the majority who are not of that elite at the top. It will ALWAYS be run to the benefit of that elite. That such an elite go by the name of “socialist leaders” or “capitalist elite” is of no consequence. A master is a master is a master. I don’t give a hoot what his doggone name or “designation” is. If it talks like a master and walks like a master and profits personally like a master, then it IS a doggone master. As Orwell said of socialism (Animal Farm), “All are equal – some are more equal than others”.
The German people, because of their history, have a strong inclination to a quasi-military organizational structure. German communists see no problem with a “strong leadership” that will “whip the people into line” for their own good. They probably represent a truer, more honest form of communism than most communist parties would admit to. I admire the German people’s ability to survive the vagaries of the last few hundred years of European wars and invasions. Their discipline was necessary for them to do that. Yet that discipline, well used in international defense, or even offence, is not appropriate in the internal organization of the country when applied to its own citizens UNLESS agreed to by those citizens. German communism would probably remind one of Orwell’s “1984″ very much.
As to an “amalgamation of socialist and capitalist” features: Any system is made up of many parts, just as any house has many materials used in its construction. All systems use some of the same parts. Just as I would not expect to invent all the materials I would use in building a house, neither have I built a system of “all new” parts. How many words can possibly say, “fair” or “representative” or “equitable” any better than those that already exist. But keep in mind that just because some of the building blocks used by socialists, capitalists and me are identical, the “plan” each builds upon is very different in each case.
During the transition phase the wealth may indeed end up in “the least regulated” capitalist country. There are many ways of dealing with this by means of tariffs, duties, control of banking systems, etc. The economic benefits, to the population, of any successful system will encourage the population of other countries to adopt that system before very long. Besides, when I show you how to make the amassing of wealth good for the system and the citizens, you will see that it is not necessary for the wealthy to run off with their wealth. Remember, I am NOT proposing a “take all their money” socialist system. I am proposing an alternate capitalist system. In a capitalist system, amassing wealth need not be a bad thing. In a GOOD capitalist system amassing wealth is beneficial to that society. In a bad one, such as ours, it is harmful.
I hope that I have adequately addressed your comment.