[KaiserJeep]

No, those are ape instincts instilled in all primates by evolution. We happen to be the only primate with the smarts to accumulate knowledge. Perhaps you would personally be happier with the lifestyle of a gorilla or baboon, but I would definitely not be so. I'll keep technology.

[Ibon]

Wise up. That thing called Capitalism is the only viable economy around. The human overshoot arises from other ape instincts, and has nothing to do with the economy, the overshoot is greatest in environments where humans face difficulty in securing the necessities, and their instincts react by having them breed like rabbits.

'Capitalism was the greatest enabler of a strong middle class globally. So how do we explain that in the USA, the country most embracing this economic system, has seen its middle class declining since 40 years while paradoxically, the European middle class with greater taxation for social and public projects, has not seen its middle class erode economically during this time. Or how China has seen the emergence of a robust middle class estimated at over 200 millions (2/3 of the US population) in spite of central government planning and corrupt nepotism?

Why are the capitalists in the USA failing?

[Pops]

I confess I roll my eyes when socialists say they aren't for the state taking over private businesses and private property and "the means of production" and such, since thats what socialism calls for and thats what it is based on.

Plant, you are being too literal. Yes the dictionary defines socialism as social ownership but the OP article included social policy in it's rant. I was addressing the OP article:

Not when there are a handful of Scandinavian countries operating generous welfare-state programs propped up by underlying vibrant capitalism and natural resources.

Of course, socialism exists on a spectrum, and even if we accept that the Nordic social-program experiments are the most benign iteration of collectivism, they are certainly not the only version.

When it comes to social welfare benefits, like libraries and social security and government subsidized healthcare, these have nothing to do with socialism,

But they do in the common mind, most people think they do. Like many things your average citizen doesn't study politics that much, they just know the illegals are on welfare. The reason the article shows up is calling social programs socialist works for conservative whose prime objective is to eliminate tax on the upper class.

IF we want higher social security or cheaper medical care, a good place to start is making our society as rich as possible.

LOL, we're not rich now?

And of course, when its the Ds turn to increase taxes on the wealthy, its the Rs who squeal.

Agree. Clinton and the Third Way threw a wrench in the works lately, but as I mentioned somewhere, class struggle is the basis of political tension since awayback.

PS: I understand you might not want share any personal information at this time. However, if you have some stories to tell, please go ahead and tell them. Your stories were always very interesting.

So what kind of story do you want to hear?

.
Edited because I goofed up the quotes bigtime

[Pops]

Me too. I bet most people are mostly anti-authoritarian except for the communists, fascists, technocrats, oligarchists, elitists, and monarchists and such folks.

By political compass I meant the quiz site:

That plot's from this page

They term antiauthoritarianism "libertarian" but that has a rightwing connotation to me. Most of American politics is fought in the right-authoritarian quadrant. I'm about as far left as Bernie but way down near the bottom at last brain scan.

[KaiserJeep]

Wise up. That thing called Capitalism is the only viable economy around. The human overshoot arises from other ape instincts, and has nothing to do with the economy, the overshoot is greatest in environments where humans face difficulty in securing the necessities, and their instincts react by having them breed like rabbits.

'Capitalism was the greatest enabler of a strong middle class globally. So how do we explain that in the USA, the country most embracing this economic system, has seen its middle class declining since 40 years while paradoxically, the European middle class with greater taxation for social and public projects, has not seen its middle class erode economically during this time. Or how China has seen the emergence of a robust middle class estimated at over 200 millions (2/3 of the US population) in spite of central government planning and corrupt nepotism?

Why are the capitalists in the USA failing?

Because the Middle Class has NOT DECLINED. Nor has any other strata of American Society. In fact the very lowest income level, the homeless, often addicted and mentally ill street people here in Kalifornia now have "tiny homes", soup kitchens, vocational training, etc. This frustrates me to no end, because we already had safety nets that worked quite well for those homeless who wanted back into society. Soon they will have homes, internet access via free wifi and "bama phones", and very probably that thing called a UBI, which will probably effectively snuff a great many addicted people by allowing them to purchase a lot more of their drug of choice.

Meanwhile every income strata above the homeless has also seen an increase in the quality of life. As we have noted before, our US non-working minorities on Welfare and in public housing, are among the wealthiest 10% on the planet called Earth.

What actually changed was the ratio of the top 0.1% which grew ENORMOUSLY and out of proportion to the income strata below. People like Bill Gates and the other tech billionaires far exceeded the classic wealth of the Rockefellers/Gettys/Austins. The absolute difference between a tech billionaire and anybody else is HUGE. This blowing up of the top income scale is the only thing that makes it appear that anything has declined, if you go to simple dollars or even inflation-adjusted dollars, everybody is better off than before.

The second largest increase was the 9.9% below the 0.1%, which was the topic of the Atlantic article I linked to a few days back. That would be the new aristocracy we are both members of, including YOU, unless you want to claim you are not among the 9.9% high incomes in Panama.

Bottom line: The USA's Capitalism is still working better than anything else on Earth. For this type of measurement, "per capita" figures are more appropriate than GNP's etc.

Have you noticed how many US citizens visit the cloud forest, relative to other countries? Is that number increasing?

[Pops]

Because the Middle Class has NOT DECLINED. Nor has any other strata of American Society.

another view:




Final picture

[mmasters]

The focus of the system has to be on rewarding those that achieve great things (capitalism) because that moves us forward. Otherwise, when you make focus the system on the average person (socialism) you get mediocrity, weakness, stagnation, little motivation to make things better and people are ill equipped to deal with the problems that arise. A weak country then becomes ripe for dictators to come in. A move towards socialism also motivates the rich to leave because of the excessive taxation or fear of nationalization of their assets. Then the bloated social welfare programs can only be paid by the printing press and we all know where that leads.

[KaiserJeep]

As the saying goes, there are fools and damned fools. There has NEVER been a Marxist society of any degree that really succeeded. I include the Scandahoovian countries that have layered a thin veneer of socialist mores over a thriving capitalist economy. They are young as yet.

Meanwhile Capitalism has continued to conquer the world. It is only when you begin to change the defintion of success to account for a limited planet that one can even formulate any valid questions of the rabid success of Capitalism.

That's one possibility, we choke and die on one small planet. Another is that we spread off of that planet and into space, spreading throughout our solar system, subjugating and converting the planets and asteroids and all into the Capitalist wealth to support tens or hundreds of TRILLIONS of humans in space.

Right now, I'd say the odds are even. My lifetime includes the complete history of space travel and we have multiple space probes to the planets and asteroids at this very moment.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Bad post. Previous long post with lots of data, citations, links, etc. disappeared after I posted it. *sigh*

[onlooker]

Not to belabor the points made on this thread and others but I think all of you can make up your mind. You live in a priviledged country or countries for the most part. Yet we in rich countries are but 1/5 of the world's population. The majority have barely seen improvements to their lifestyles compared to centuries back in time. I speak of basic things like sanitation, healthcare, adequate shelter, security, rest time, sufficient food, diverse diet etc. You can all peruse the Net to find the statistics. This thread is not and should not be just about the US, we are taking a world view.

And then the casual way Kaiser referenced "to account for a limited planet". History will judge Capitalism it its totality both in time and in scope of positive and negative influence. It is NOT a minor point to say, that the ethos of Capitalism embodying and encapsulating some primate traits is leading humanity to a devastating downfall. For we are wrecking the habitability of this planet because this ethos of greed, competiton, war mongering, profit at any cost has exploited to the largest extent possible both life on Earth and all the Ecosystems of it in the pursuit of profit and material comforts and luxuries. So, I turn the point of Kaiser 180 degrees and say that the only redeeming value of having created this type of world, is that a relatively small number of humans for a relatively short time , enjoyed a rather pleasurable, comfortable and enjoyable life. At the expense of posterity. As the attorneys say "I rest my case"

[KaiserJeep]

Yet it is the nature of mankind the ape that has caused our population overshoot, and not the type of economic system in use. That which we have labelled Capitalism is merely natural ape behaviors. The exact way apes behave because that is the nature of the beast.

[lpetrich]

The focus of the system has to be on rewarding those that achieve great things (capitalism) because that moves us forward.

Randroid hero-worship.

Otherwise, when you make focus the system on the average person (socialism) you get mediocrity, weakness, stagnation, little motivation to make things better and people are ill equipped to deal with the problems that arise.

The large majority of people are "average", so they don't deserve anything? So the large majority of people must lose so that a few people can win?

Egalitarianism can be carried too far, but so can inegalitarianism. Consider the antebellum South. According to this conception of capitalism, it was a capitalist utopia, with a few winners and lots of losers. On the top were the plantation owners, who lived like aristocrats. Then were middle-class and poor white people. Then a large population of slaves. Plantation owner and slavery apologist James Henry Hammond proposed the Mudsill theory of society that higher civilization requires that a small elite be supported by a large and miserable population that does menial labor on the behalf of the elite.

Was the antebellum South capitalist? Yes. Plantation owners sold cotton, they hired free workers, and they owned, bought, and sold slaves. Slavery was a form of property rights.

As a postscript, during the Civil War, JHH described in his diary a Confederate army officer requisitioning some of his corn. He tore up the requisition order, tossed it out a window, and stated that it was like "branding on my forehead: SLAVE" (The Fall of the House of Dixie: The Civil War and the Social Revolution That ... - Bruce C. Levine - Google Books).

[lpetrich]

In fairness, the North was also plenty capitalistic, but at least in its early years, it had lots of small farmers, people who were neither employers nor employed. Thus having a relatively egalitarian form of capitalism. However, the rise of big business introduced some rather gross inegalitarianism.

It must be noted that the antebellum South was more purely capitalistic than the antebellum North in having less public services, like less public education. Even law enforcement was often in the hands of vigilantes and private militias.

[KaiserJeep]

In the end, those who favor Socialism are proposing to replace Capitalism - a system that has never failed to both succeed and to replace all others - with some form of Marxist collectivism - a system that has never worked anywhere at anytime.

Good luck with that.

[onlooker]

In the end, those who favor Socialism are proposing to replace Capitalism - a system that has never failed to both succeed and to replace all others - with some form of Marxist collectivism - a system that has never worked anywhere at anytime.

Good luck with that.

A system that has always succeeded for just a minority and never failed to conquer, destroy or corrupt all others
Consistent with its exploitative cutthroat modus operandi

[KaiserJeep]

By my count, over 45 failed governments, all some form of Marxism, since the Russian revolution. Plus another five who still claim to adhere to such but are in the process of failing.

Then I count 142 countries, more or less, that practice Capitalism and Democracy. The cover all sizes and some have been stable for centuries.

Finally there 18 remnants of Royalists, Dictatorships, Oligarchies, and Theocracies. None are notably successful.

Hard to argue with numbers like those.

Note that what I am calling "success" is the classic definition, simply producing the most quality of life for the most people. I don't hold with any defintion other than that, nor do I believe that the overshoot population is at all related to the form of government or economic system in use. Instead I believe that common primate instincts produce those behaviors that we choose to label Capitalism, and are also responsible for the human overshoot.

[onlooker]

"Instead I believe that common primate instincts produce those behaviors that we choose to label Capitalism, and are also responsible for the human overshoot."
I don't dispute that. Or even that Capitalism is the best economic system we have devised. What I am saying is that it is immoral and its success has been instrumental in this OVERSHOOT dynamic ie organizing economically around growth and consumption and profit
More people = more workers, soldiers , consumers, taxpayers etc = more economic growth

[Ibon]

Yes socialism leads to misery and destitution. This is a tired 20th century topic.

Or not. Are we discussing this because we fear that the false promises of socialism could once again raise its ugly head for those who feel disenfranchised?

How about addressing the 21st century question on what is required to reform capitalism to solve two egregious problems:

1) Skewed disparity of wealth that has eroded the middle class

2) Unbalanced power of corporations and their influence in government.

[Cog]

Socialists end goal is communism, along with the genocide which always follows. What more needs to be said?

[Pops]

1) Skewed disparity of wealth that has eroded the middle class

2) Unbalanced power of corporations and their influence in government.

These are features not bugs to the people who believe the homeless are prospering all out of proportion to their value. Instead of acknowledging people have different abilities and circumstance, and their own good fortune, they imagine their luck in life as deserved reward and even celestial blessing and others as lacking, even cursed. Rather than question why people are homeless, they are incensed that someone should try to make them a roof. Rather than even admit the inequality, they demonize the thing that would show them as not really all that deserving, just lucky.

Socialism is not one thing, it ranges from Soviet communism to public schools. But even in a time of unlimited and endless communication we can't achieve much nuance can we? The paradox is they say riches abound yet they should keep every penny, even when their professed religion says giving to the poor is the same as lending to the lord. Funny thing about the party of Lincoln and Jesus.

"The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities."
Abe