Capitalism, Communism, Socialism? Maybe something in the Middle:
Good Morning all of you big thinkers out there; your King of Simple News is on the air.
Allow me to once again define the problem and separate it from the symptoms. I can do so with one statement, “Exponential growth is the plan; it ain’t possible is the problem.”
When we note the continual inflation of the dollar over the years; that inflation was created by the need for exponential growth. When we note that unbridled capitalism is on its last legs, the need for exponential growth is what brought it down. When we note the unemployment in America; the attempt to grow population to purposely create exponential growth and the accompanying consumption met the ugly end of physical possibilities. That is, met the end while at the same time attempting to maintain a level standard of living for all.
When I mention that capitalism in its present form is dead and stinkin’, the thing that most people do is to first get angry, and second, in their surliest tone, say something like, “What do you suggest, socialism? Capitalism is the best system until something better comes along.” Of course, they have not a clue as to what that better idea may be.
There have been many quotes contributed to our system of pure capitalism. One of the most famous is;
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” ― WINSTON CHURCHILL
Another is the quote by Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged;
America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America’s industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance — and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way. ― AYN RAND, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
We can see that capitalism has vast virtues when compared to socialism and is certainly superior to communism from a human development standpoint. However, we can also observe that there are elements of capitalism that are unsustainable in a finite world; such elements as compounding interest and the quest for ever greater production with ever lesser involvement by humans. This involvement by humans is often stated as employment.
I’ll take the risk of introducing a couple of quotes from Karl Marx that make perfectly good sense;
“Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth — the soil and the labourer.”
“The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.” ― KARL MARX, The Communist Manifesto
So then, was Marx correct in his statements? Were Rand and Churchill correct? My opinion is absolutely, they were all correct.
Marx unfortunately favored communism which totally neglects the natural human condition and the ever present quest for power and greed. You know, “One for all and all for one. Share equally. Everyone will work for the common good.” Sure, you betcha.
Churchill and Rand saw the virtues of capitalism when combined with personal liberties, but neglected to address the very real fact that exponential growth is impossible.
A “steady state” economy in all reality is the only semi sustainable model available to us at this point in time. Here is a link that discusses a steady state model. http://www.steadystate.org/Index.html
I and two friends who collectively own Dodge, Ford, and Chevy pickups with diesel engines were having lunch last week when the conversation turned to the virtues of each.
We decided that if we could combine those virtues, we could all own one fine pickup. Our economic basis is no different. The greatest virtues of every economic model in the world should be given consideration regardless of the name that economic basis has been given.
Subscribe to this blog
Nitpick: isn’t Ayn Rand’s book titled “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”?
Your essay highlights the essence of a thriving society and economy: the freedom to choose the best system for yourself. Societies begin to degenerate as soon as someone attempts to impose a system, any system on everyone. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about the economy or health care. Any attempt to impose a one-size-fits-all system on everyone fails. The most thriving and resilient system is one in which everyone can choose what’s best for them.
Here’s a quote I ran across today that seems so appropriate for Mike’s platform:
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. — Edward Abbey
Dave - Erstwhile Urban Wanderer
Dave,
“Unknown Ideal” it is and I should have spotted that; thanks.
In our instance, it isn’t growth for the sake of growth, it’s growth or our whole damn system fails. That is the corner that we have painted ourselves into by electing the same tired political hacks year after year after year….
Obama said that with his stimulus plan and supreme guidance, we would not rise above 8% unemployment. Guess what?
Obama now says he may not be spending the stimulus fast enough. I stated all along that this administration believed that the economy would somehow right itself and were saving some of the stimulus money to stimulate the ratings for the 2010 midterm elections!
By the way, this outstanding speech seems relevant to Mike’s post today. It’s from Dmitry Orlov, who lived through the Soviet meltdown. It’s titled Definancialisation, Deglobalisation, Relocalisation, and one of the more compelling quotes is this one:
The press has recently been filled with stories about “green shoots” and the economists are discussing the exact timing of economic recovery. Mainstream opinion ranges from “later this year” to “sometime next year.” None of them dares to say that global economic growth might be finished for good, or that it will be over in “the not-too-distant future” — a vague term they seem to like a whole lot.
I, for one, would be delighted to learn that global economic growth was finished for good. But there are many more worthwhile insights in this speech. Everyone should read this speech.
What angers me, however, is that government is increasingly positioning itself to thwart individual efforts to do what Mr. Orlov recommends. For instance, taxes are increasing, including property taxes, creating a disincentive to own land; the government is imposing onerous restrictions on the raising of livestock and crops; of course, there are long-standing environmental restrictions on landowners, even when those restrictions make no sense. It’s as if the government wants no solution that does not emanate from itself.
Dave - Erstwhile Urban Wanderer
Dave suggested reading Dmitry Orlov’s Definancialisation, Deglobalisation, Relocalisation. I second that. Read everything he has written, including his book Reinventing Collapse. Not only is he smart, he’s funny too. You will appreciate his humor as you are learning about what happens when societies collapse - especially your own.
Dave also mentions government actions to thwart individual efforts at self-sufficiency. That is no accident, they are passing this legislation at the behest of their corporate overlords. Congress is remaking the rules of the game to confer an advantage on corporations, and in the process make all of our viable alternatives illegal.
I have been studying the rise and fall of past civilizations and find it very relevant to understanding civilizations today because even though history does not repeat itself, it does have patterns that repeat. Archaeologist Joyce Marcus calls the patterns a “Dynamic Model,” in which civilizations advance, decline, and are then replace by other civilizations. For example, Mesoamerica the rise and fall of Teotihuacan, followed by the Toltecs, and eventual the Aztecs.
I highly recommend reading Joseph A. Tainter book, The Collapse of Complex Societies. Tainter argues that all society eventually become too complex and reach a point of diminishing marginal returns. This happened to the most systems in the United States during the 20th century. For example, healthcare had a declining marginal return of 57% between 1930 and 1982. This book was written in the 1980s and things have only got worst since then.
The complexity of government can also be seen in the employment sector. In the 1950s, GM was the largest employer in the U.S. Today the largest employer in the U.S. is the Federal Government (http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm, accessed June 25, 2009). This shows the increase the “hierarchical specialization” and decrease in marginal returns of bureaucracies. In the 1950s, there was a saying, “As goes GM, so goes the nation.” GM filed for bankruptcy last month, is the United States Government far behind? If you look debt ratio of the U.S. government, It is obvious that it is actually worst off than GM. However, unlike GM the government can print more money whenever it needs or wants too. But how long is this debt going to be sustainable? Here is a link to a chart that shows how bad the U.S debt to GDP is http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/crisis-explained-one-chart-debt-gdp/11570.
As Mike said, it doesn’t matter whether a system is capitalistic, socialistic, or even chiefdom. A system that relies on growth, especially exponential growth is bound to fail. On course, I am hoping it fails soon because when civilizations fail they become simpler and more equalitarian. Just as Mike always says when we finally collapse we will all have to “live simple and live well.”
I think that the best government that money can buy along with Wall Street and global corporations have created a new ‘ism’ I’d like to call Kleptoism.
hotrodinoh said: I am hoping it fails soon because when civilizations fail they become simpler and more equalitarian.
True, it will be simpler and more egalitarian; however, total collapse takes a long time. In his book The Long Descent, John Michael Greer looked at past civilizations and the fastest collapse he could find was about one- hundred years. Most took three-hundred to five-hundred years.
If that is accurate, only a sudden and catastrophic collapse would spare the biosphere from massive damage as seven billion people fight tooth and nail to stay alive.
In that scenario, even people who think they are well prepared will probably die. Unless there is an entire community out there that is already completely unplugged from the fossil fuel economy, a hand full of semi-prepared residents has little chance if the fossil fuel rug is suddenly and completely pulled from under them. If the removal of the rug isn’t complete, the collapse will play out over many decades, if not longer according to Greer.
All of this to say that most Americans, Europeans, Australians, Scandinavians, or any other group of people from “developed” countries are probably toast. The survivors will likely be “primitive” peoples living in the Amazon basin, on Borneo, or in the African bush who never became dependent upon fossil fuels.
I think the old adage, “be careful what you wish for” applies here.