The problem of Capitalism

We haven't had communism. We have had state capitalism.

The problem with capitalism is that, given market concentration, rent seeking will always be a factor. Take the US and its application of neoliberalism. The result? Blurring of the public and private sectors such that extreme inequalities, independent of any criteria such as productivity, are enforced.

 

It is called CORRUPTION.

 

A form of rent seeking. I always get surprised when an American refers to it mind you, given America has taken rent seeking to the nth level...

 

These days there is political corruption right round the globe. There have been a few non-corrupt governments but they've fallen during the last few decades. None-the-less I do not think there is any government quite as corrupt as the one in the U.S. so using it to exemplify the OP "The problem of Capitalism" is highly appropriate.

 

I love the current regime in their inability to disguise their corrupt nature. However, you can go much further back (and include the Democrats). Ultimately these issues are intensified through 'free market economics'. That isn't about achieving laissez faire That is unachievable. It is about creating a consensus favouring big business to the detriment of Average Joe.

 

So each individual owns their own house, land etc?

Public ownership can be a thing- for example in some communes the land is shared.

Yes, I understand how a capitalist society works, but even in a capitalist society with a government the fruits of your labor can be absconded via taxation and other methods. Thus, even in a capitalist democracy one can be a wage slave.

This is authoritarianism. Reiver and bringiton preaches a strong authoritarian presence. My belief is that it doesn't matter if you preach left, right, commie or capitalist as long as there is an authoritarian presence it is wrong.

Voluntaryism is best.

You are welcome.

 

You talk about the U.S. regime's “inability to disguise their corrupt nature”. Ha! Let's see now …. the earliest I can think of was the clandestine CIA political coup in Iran called “Operation TP Ajax” with hardly an American still today who knows the details. The Kennedy regime did a good job of disguising“behind the scenes” Soviet's demand to remove U.S. missiles in Turkey in exchange for the removal of Soviets missiles on Cuba during the so-called “Cuba Missile Crisis”. How many Americans knew the truth about that? Then there was the Gulf of Tonkin fake attack against U.S. naval ships. Americans didn't know about that either.

Fast forward to their “inability” and I think we can safely say it began somewhere about the time of the “Watergate” break-in. That was headline news despite Washington's efforts to obscure the whole thing. Clinton's sexual escapades with Monica Lewinski and Reagen's “Iran Gate” couldn't be concealed no matter how much they tried.

Now they hardly make an effort. The illegal invasion of Irak on the strength of their lie of WMD's and support of ISIS are an open book. They don't give a stuff what we know any longer. The U.S. regime of today reminds me of another Fascist nation that was unopposed when it took the Rhineland and Sudentenland (cum Czechoslavakia) and so felt privileged to carry on uninhibited, indefinitely.

 

Certainly the US is a history of aggression. The military industrial complex, while they wrap is up in cosy "influence costs" comment, is a mass killer. Things, if anything, are easier today. We are seeing investigative journalism go through the floor (as illustrated by the Syrian "chemical attack"). That is coupled with a post-truth perspective where politicians can seemingly get away with the ridiculous.

 

Alternative media is all that we have today but it's a balance between what is reported and what makes sense/logic. I don't think its a matter of who you trust but who you know to be a liar and then rely on the opposite view. I watch strictly RT but it doesn't mean I believe everything they say. It's just that I wouldn't believe FOX or CNN if they said the sun is coming up tomorrow morning.

 

I don't mind a source with a clear bias (e.g. never worried about reading The Economist). Its the ones that pretend otherwise which are problematic. The BBC is a classic example. Insidious bias towards the establishment which largely goes unchallenged.

 

Billy: "I consider murder wrong"
Bob: "So what do you think is going to happen when Tom murders Amy?"

 

Yes, the BBC has fallen from being THE most respected news source to nestling into the deepest recess of the muck pond and it's only taken them .... what .... less than 20 years to accomplish it.

 

there is no 'class' in the collective. everyone works, no exceptions.

 

True! Their part in smearing Corbyn is supported by academic research. They rely on "everything attacks the non-biased" defence, but they've been found out. Crikey, even my parents won't watch it now and they were brought up on it being the truth. They're more likely to believe conspiracy theory (and that ain't necessarily good either, fitting in with their elite agenda)

 

1) individuals, or families, or groups. as for land .. that's a matter of personal preference. we have arable land with timber and water because we prefer to produce our own essentials for life, but others prefer apartments. we know several collectives which own small apartment complexes.

2) small voluntary collectives aren't really a 'public', in the usual sense. properties are held in one or several names, but title is still bog ordinary. the sharing of the space is by choice and agreement, regardless.

3) Taxes are important (IMO), as they provide the funding for 'opportunity' ... public education and healthcare. I don't regard wage slavery as a negative, other than in the personal sense. It's a choice. I currently choose not to be a wage slave, but spent many years doing just that .. and it was essential to where I am now. A couple of decades of consistent full time income (no matter how modest) on a background of absolute frugality and ruthless saving, can get you all the basics for a life. It might not make you rich, but it will make you a debt free property owner.

4) I despise authoritarianism. For all the same reasons any reasonable person does.

5) Agree. Democracy means we can choose how much or how little we'll participate in the contextual economy.

 

I understand and this is the most damaging testimony imaginable. Question is if there is any replacement? I don't think there is. What source(s) do you rely on?

 

Socialists call socialism "socialism" until it fails catastrophically, and then they call it "state capitalism." Socialists the world over pointed gleefully to the USSR as a shining example of socialist success for decades until it was no longer deniable that it was a catastrophic, blood-soaked failure. Then it suddenly became the absurd oxymoron, "state capitalism."

 

What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about? That is so remote from being a valid analogy as to bring your humanity into question. TITS said he thought government was wrong, so I asked him what he thought was going to happen without a government. GET IT?? Your brainless "analogy" asks what happens if there IS a government. GET IT????

 

Nope. All your claims based on that false claim are also false.

 

Underpayment? Under what?

 

You can play pretend, but its accepted across the different political economic schools of thought. Wage making behaviour, generating underpayment, is economic rent. That rent is an inefficient redistribution from employer to employee which destroys economic activity. Job search modelling, for example, should how it increases equilibrium unemployment rates (i.e. we don't see exhaustion of mutually beneficial exchange).

 

I'd always go independent and often refer to the investigative journalists (that still remain) directly. The likes of Double Down is an example of what's available (https://www.doubledown.news/)

 

There is no underpayment. Hence your other bullshyt is moot.

 

Despite being incorrect.

Nope. Economic rent is a return obtained by legally depriving others of access to economic opportunity that would otherwise be accessible.

Not all inefficiency is rent, sorry.