People should note that the Right's labeling of any kind of government entrance into the market as "Socialism". Another attempt at diverting attention from the problems of corporate rule by by misinformation and misdirection.
We certainly need to haul out and dust off the Sherman Antitrust Act. Monopolies stifle competition completely.
We also need public investment in the common good; those things that enable people to help themselves to better lives. Here I am mainly talking education. After WWII, free education was offered to returning veterans who then got better jobs or started businesses, earned more money and paid more in taxes and returned more to the government. Economists have estimated that this bill returned 7 to 1 back to the government.
Another area that has been shortchanged is research, primarily by private companies. In 1980, I had landed my dream job. I was doing literature searches for the research team at Ralston Purina. We formed a good team. I was aware of their interests and could snag papers of interest to them. I even had the opportunity to write papers on my own. Then we got a CEO who emphasized profits, considered research unnecessary spending, and the whole team was shown the door.
People need to realize the differences between spending and investment, and between spending and saving. There seems to be confusion.
This is a notoriously difficult issue to discuss, but absolutely critical for American citizens to understand. You've done a great job -- thanks! We do need to look a little deeper, into the private property privilege that supports the formation of oligarchies -- and has done so at several points in our history, when we've struggled to regain a government of, by, and for We, the People. Here we are again.. Let's take the next step, and return to the people's control over unearned privilege and unfair advantage -- in pursuit of real competition, so loudly proclaimed in business media but undermined in boardrooms. Reform corporate power, stop wage theft and corrupt and unearned private account give-aways. Moreover, the fiduciary duty should extend to ALL the players, including communities that provide stability, peace, and safety, and the workers who get stiffed with crappy, shameful "minimum wage". Too much baloney is going around from big business people, and we need to refocus on small business and labor, promote worker-owned and cooperative businesses.
It used to be that there were public-owned utilities. They were sold off because America is, and always has been, an oligarchy by design. Now, in order to heat and cool their homes, citizens are forced to pay for corporate profits, bloated CEO compensation, and shareholder dividends, just because conservatives were trained like rats to believe that everything the government does is bad. It's time for a revolution to overthrow this mess. This time we won't using black powder muskets, but instead a peaceful revolution powered by the internet. mosquitorevolution.net
While I agree with much of what you said, I think it is vital to understand the power of modern psychological warfare, how it is being waged around the world and how to help people see the lies and think for themselves. Dehumanizing the people who have been "brainwashed" through sophisticated propaganda and disinformation campaigns only serves the authoritarians.
No one is suggesting that the government should just write checks. That's stupid, and not even remotely accurate.
The only thing about which you are correct is that competition is needed. You try to make it sound like Democrats and Progressives are anti-competition, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is the Republican Party and Conservatives who are anti-competition. Look at all the moves the Republican Party has made to try to ensure that Democrats can never win another elections in states around the country by booting hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats off of voting roles, closing polling places in minority neighborhoods, and gerrymandering voting districts. Take a look at Texas.
It's Republicans who are doing away with regulations regarding monopolies. They are not only allowing mega-mergers and removing competition, but are working towards that. They are doing away with regulations that protect small businesses and consumers. They are taking money away from the working class and middle class and giving it to the Rich. Trump is even attempting to dismantle our government, and is being aided and abetted by the Republicans in Congress and on the Supreme Court.
You also echoed the conservative right's use of "socialism." Only a few left-wing nut jobs are advocating for true socialism or communism. The rest of us want Democratic Socialism like is practiced in the Scandinavian countries. The fact is that the police, fire deptment, public roads, public education, the Post Office, Social Security, Medicare are all "socialism." Think of where this country would be without any of these things. The Scandinavian countries have the happiest and healthiest citizens in the world. Their citizens have just as many freedoms as we do, and their countries aren't run on greed and power like the US is.
Corbin, I greatly admire your analysis of America's economy but take a somewhat different view. First, terminology. Every economic system label, such as capitalism, socialism, communism and Marxism have been intentionally misused and emotionally loaded through political propaganda so often that, I think they need to be defined whenever they are used because they will be misinterpreted. Capitalism as typically defined means private (i.e. nongovernmental) ownership of the means (tools and resources) of production of commercial goods for the purpose of accumulating wealth. What is clear from the practice of capitalism, is that without regulation or restriction (i.e. free markets), capitalism is anti-competitive and drives toward monopoly because monopoly is the greatest possible accumulator of wealth. Capitalism, as an institution, is anti-societal because it promotes unrestrained selfishness and greed. Unrestrained selfishness is a marker of immaturity, both individually (like a toddler's temper tantrums) and collectively (authoritarianism). The programmed emotional response to seeing capitalism for what it is to accuse critics of being communist/socialist/Marxist bogeymen so I fully expect that reaction. In anticipation, let me say that I do admire Marx, NOT for his communist manifesto, but FOR his critique of capitalism which came first.
The thing capitalist kool-aid drinkers always selectively ignore is that capitalism is by design a zero sum game. Sure when the market is competitive it’s great for the consumer, but the thing about competitions is that eventually somebody wins. And the winner takes all.
Isn’t the hallmark of capitalism not competition but private ownership (by capitalists) of the means of production? I don’t get the framing of this one.
Capitalism is not "when markets" nor is socialism/communism "when the government does stuff" but instead both are a conglomeration of ideas and policies that work and act in the favor of an economic class. Capitalism's base belief, what predicates the entire ideology, is private ownership of the means of production and the belief that someone pursuing their own economic self interest is working towards the public good (Adam Smith, On The Wealth of Nations). The argument from critics of Capitalism is that the assumption that someone pursuing their own economic self interest is by definition "good" for society is incorrect and will always lead to a contradiction in what "should" happen and what does. Without a clear understanding of the mechanisms that create the system you will recreate the problems of what you are trying to solve for, and push for things like Ezra Klein's "Abundance", a right wing concept of de-regulation masked in the belief that so long as it's done for "the right reasons" surely it will be fine this time. By dismissing socialism and communism with no clear understanding of what they even mean and stating simply that we just need to "build" you are going to push for all the things that the right wing and capitalists want with no understanding of why they now support everything you're saying. "Neither left nor right" is always right wing. It is always building on top of assumption of the ways the world work that have been built by ideas of keeping the status quo and are inherently conservative in nature, never wishing for new or different. Without a class analysis or material analysis you will never defeat the forces that wish to run the world into their own private playground. A wasteland where only those with the resources to hoard wealth can ever keep it. Without a clear understanding of why capitalism has led us to where we stand you will lead us right back to the same place we are now. Imagining a long forgotten American past that we can go back to if only we stop "the wrong people" from hurting us more. Material conditions are what lead to fascism, and a lack of ideological rigor lead them there. Capitalism needs to die, we cannot continue pretending it will work.
One way to get rid of corrupt monopoly capitalism is to not double down on anti-trust or CFPB in a revived Dem. admin; but to scrap it all with ONE law/constitutional amendment that says only this: all incorporated for profit companies must undergo quarterly audits that they must pass that show that ANY product or service that they sell is at or below a ceiling of 5% market share. This would then evolve to a top tier of 20 or more 5%er companies FORCED to compete with each other on quality, safety, customer satisfaction and service rendered. This would have nothing to do with the false Milton Friedman/U. of Chicago concept of low prices being the guide, that has shielded many companies since the start of Reaganism in 1980.
This article is right on the mark — making complete sense within the current paradigm (essentially “captialism”). Yet I have a growing sense that a more fundamental, seismic shift in economy and culture is called for at this stage. Simply returning to the foundational principles of the 20th Century is probably a step backwards (and I believe you’ve said as much in past posts).
Capitalism works well during the initial building phase of an endeavor — be it a career, company, or country — especially when exploitable resources are abundant. Yet upon reaching maturing, any growing entity needs to shift to a steady maintenance mode lest it become predatory and destructive. Many of our current social and ecological challenges are so because we are hitting the limits of that which can be exploited.
“Competition” in particular is most relevant to that initial building phase, when the best new solutions are being sought. However, as an ongoing operating principle it is wasteful of resources (unnecessary duplication) and harmful to living systems (corporate and flesh-and-blood) by producing one or a few “winners” and usually many more “losers”.
Given the human fascination with sporting events, I realize the following may require a mind-shift beyond the capability of most, but are we at a point in our evolutionary history when social progress does not need to depend upon the constant generation of losers?
Ultimately, we are a common species with a shared destiny, living on what futurist Buckminster Fuller referred to as “Spaceship Earth”. Would it not make the most sense to work together toward realizing our highest potential?
Thanks for this nice bit of writing. There's more myth than fact in discussions about political economy. Red baiting and ongoing anti-socialist rhetoric show many Americans are still confused and easily duped.
You are one of the few writers that can produce an essay that's both brilliant and brief.
This message is exactly what the dems need to be selling. It’s not liberal or conservative it’s just getting back to the fundamentals.
People should note that the Right's labeling of any kind of government entrance into the market as "Socialism". Another attempt at diverting attention from the problems of corporate rule by by misinformation and misdirection.
We certainly need to haul out and dust off the Sherman Antitrust Act. Monopolies stifle competition completely.
We also need public investment in the common good; those things that enable people to help themselves to better lives. Here I am mainly talking education. After WWII, free education was offered to returning veterans who then got better jobs or started businesses, earned more money and paid more in taxes and returned more to the government. Economists have estimated that this bill returned 7 to 1 back to the government.
Another area that has been shortchanged is research, primarily by private companies. In 1980, I had landed my dream job. I was doing literature searches for the research team at Ralston Purina. We formed a good team. I was aware of their interests and could snag papers of interest to them. I even had the opportunity to write papers on my own. Then we got a CEO who emphasized profits, considered research unnecessary spending, and the whole team was shown the door.
People need to realize the differences between spending and investment, and between spending and saving. There seems to be confusion.
This is a notoriously difficult issue to discuss, but absolutely critical for American citizens to understand. You've done a great job -- thanks! We do need to look a little deeper, into the private property privilege that supports the formation of oligarchies -- and has done so at several points in our history, when we've struggled to regain a government of, by, and for We, the People. Here we are again.. Let's take the next step, and return to the people's control over unearned privilege and unfair advantage -- in pursuit of real competition, so loudly proclaimed in business media but undermined in boardrooms. Reform corporate power, stop wage theft and corrupt and unearned private account give-aways. Moreover, the fiduciary duty should extend to ALL the players, including communities that provide stability, peace, and safety, and the workers who get stiffed with crappy, shameful "minimum wage". Too much baloney is going around from big business people, and we need to refocus on small business and labor, promote worker-owned and cooperative businesses.
It used to be that there were public-owned utilities. They were sold off because America is, and always has been, an oligarchy by design. Now, in order to heat and cool their homes, citizens are forced to pay for corporate profits, bloated CEO compensation, and shareholder dividends, just because conservatives were trained like rats to believe that everything the government does is bad. It's time for a revolution to overthrow this mess. This time we won't using black powder muskets, but instead a peaceful revolution powered by the internet. mosquitorevolution.net
While I agree with much of what you said, I think it is vital to understand the power of modern psychological warfare, how it is being waged around the world and how to help people see the lies and think for themselves. Dehumanizing the people who have been "brainwashed" through sophisticated propaganda and disinformation campaigns only serves the authoritarians.
No one is suggesting that the government should just write checks. That's stupid, and not even remotely accurate.
The only thing about which you are correct is that competition is needed. You try to make it sound like Democrats and Progressives are anti-competition, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is the Republican Party and Conservatives who are anti-competition. Look at all the moves the Republican Party has made to try to ensure that Democrats can never win another elections in states around the country by booting hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats off of voting roles, closing polling places in minority neighborhoods, and gerrymandering voting districts. Take a look at Texas.
It's Republicans who are doing away with regulations regarding monopolies. They are not only allowing mega-mergers and removing competition, but are working towards that. They are doing away with regulations that protect small businesses and consumers. They are taking money away from the working class and middle class and giving it to the Rich. Trump is even attempting to dismantle our government, and is being aided and abetted by the Republicans in Congress and on the Supreme Court.
You also echoed the conservative right's use of "socialism." Only a few left-wing nut jobs are advocating for true socialism or communism. The rest of us want Democratic Socialism like is practiced in the Scandinavian countries. The fact is that the police, fire deptment, public roads, public education, the Post Office, Social Security, Medicare are all "socialism." Think of where this country would be without any of these things. The Scandinavian countries have the happiest and healthiest citizens in the world. Their citizens have just as many freedoms as we do, and their countries aren't run on greed and power like the US is.
Corbin, I greatly admire your analysis of America's economy but take a somewhat different view. First, terminology. Every economic system label, such as capitalism, socialism, communism and Marxism have been intentionally misused and emotionally loaded through political propaganda so often that, I think they need to be defined whenever they are used because they will be misinterpreted. Capitalism as typically defined means private (i.e. nongovernmental) ownership of the means (tools and resources) of production of commercial goods for the purpose of accumulating wealth. What is clear from the practice of capitalism, is that without regulation or restriction (i.e. free markets), capitalism is anti-competitive and drives toward monopoly because monopoly is the greatest possible accumulator of wealth. Capitalism, as an institution, is anti-societal because it promotes unrestrained selfishness and greed. Unrestrained selfishness is a marker of immaturity, both individually (like a toddler's temper tantrums) and collectively (authoritarianism). The programmed emotional response to seeing capitalism for what it is to accuse critics of being communist/socialist/Marxist bogeymen so I fully expect that reaction. In anticipation, let me say that I do admire Marx, NOT for his communist manifesto, but FOR his critique of capitalism which came first.
The thing capitalist kool-aid drinkers always selectively ignore is that capitalism is by design a zero sum game. Sure when the market is competitive it’s great for the consumer, but the thing about competitions is that eventually somebody wins. And the winner takes all.
You are a Zionist bootlicker, trying to brainwash people. Fuck off.
Isn’t the hallmark of capitalism not competition but private ownership (by capitalists) of the means of production? I don’t get the framing of this one.
Capitalism is not "when markets" nor is socialism/communism "when the government does stuff" but instead both are a conglomeration of ideas and policies that work and act in the favor of an economic class. Capitalism's base belief, what predicates the entire ideology, is private ownership of the means of production and the belief that someone pursuing their own economic self interest is working towards the public good (Adam Smith, On The Wealth of Nations). The argument from critics of Capitalism is that the assumption that someone pursuing their own economic self interest is by definition "good" for society is incorrect and will always lead to a contradiction in what "should" happen and what does. Without a clear understanding of the mechanisms that create the system you will recreate the problems of what you are trying to solve for, and push for things like Ezra Klein's "Abundance", a right wing concept of de-regulation masked in the belief that so long as it's done for "the right reasons" surely it will be fine this time. By dismissing socialism and communism with no clear understanding of what they even mean and stating simply that we just need to "build" you are going to push for all the things that the right wing and capitalists want with no understanding of why they now support everything you're saying. "Neither left nor right" is always right wing. It is always building on top of assumption of the ways the world work that have been built by ideas of keeping the status quo and are inherently conservative in nature, never wishing for new or different. Without a class analysis or material analysis you will never defeat the forces that wish to run the world into their own private playground. A wasteland where only those with the resources to hoard wealth can ever keep it. Without a clear understanding of why capitalism has led us to where we stand you will lead us right back to the same place we are now. Imagining a long forgotten American past that we can go back to if only we stop "the wrong people" from hurting us more. Material conditions are what lead to fascism, and a lack of ideological rigor lead them there. Capitalism needs to die, we cannot continue pretending it will work.
One way to get rid of corrupt monopoly capitalism is to not double down on anti-trust or CFPB in a revived Dem. admin; but to scrap it all with ONE law/constitutional amendment that says only this: all incorporated for profit companies must undergo quarterly audits that they must pass that show that ANY product or service that they sell is at or below a ceiling of 5% market share. This would then evolve to a top tier of 20 or more 5%er companies FORCED to compete with each other on quality, safety, customer satisfaction and service rendered. This would have nothing to do with the false Milton Friedman/U. of Chicago concept of low prices being the guide, that has shielded many companies since the start of Reaganism in 1980.
you are a fascist that supports a dictator. cancel my subscription/
James McPherson
What do you mean?
This article is right on the mark — making complete sense within the current paradigm (essentially “captialism”). Yet I have a growing sense that a more fundamental, seismic shift in economy and culture is called for at this stage. Simply returning to the foundational principles of the 20th Century is probably a step backwards (and I believe you’ve said as much in past posts).
Capitalism works well during the initial building phase of an endeavor — be it a career, company, or country — especially when exploitable resources are abundant. Yet upon reaching maturing, any growing entity needs to shift to a steady maintenance mode lest it become predatory and destructive. Many of our current social and ecological challenges are so because we are hitting the limits of that which can be exploited.
“Competition” in particular is most relevant to that initial building phase, when the best new solutions are being sought. However, as an ongoing operating principle it is wasteful of resources (unnecessary duplication) and harmful to living systems (corporate and flesh-and-blood) by producing one or a few “winners” and usually many more “losers”.
Given the human fascination with sporting events, I realize the following may require a mind-shift beyond the capability of most, but are we at a point in our evolutionary history when social progress does not need to depend upon the constant generation of losers?
Ultimately, we are a common species with a shared destiny, living on what futurist Buckminster Fuller referred to as “Spaceship Earth”. Would it not make the most sense to work together toward realizing our highest potential?
Thanks for this nice bit of writing. There's more myth than fact in discussions about political economy. Red baiting and ongoing anti-socialist rhetoric show many Americans are still confused and easily duped.