Poverty Has Always Accompanied Capitalism

The following is a Truthout interview with Richard D. Wolff about Capitalism's Crisis Deepens.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36662-poverty-has-always-accompanied-capitalism

 

I watched something with Richard D. Wolff before. He fueled my interest in the Sanders campaign, while it still had a chance anyway. He has a lot to say about the economy, but I think when it comes down to brass tacks there are still no easy answers. I didn't watch the video but I just know that a socialist democratic society isn't magically going to make all my problems go away. There may be a problem with capitalism, but shouldn't we also look at problems that have been seen in these other forms of government? Just food for thought.

 

Yes, I agree with you. No "kind" of government is going to take care of all our problems. I am just so used to living in an income sharing community that seems to work so well that I lean towards democratic/socialism. I do not even know any more how I would make it outside the monastery.

 

The problem with all systems is when someone gets power they tend to gain even more. When you lose power or never really had it it's rare to not keep losing power.

What I don't get is people that think welfare is bleeding them dry. Most of the taxes go to the military, then corporations. Lot's of taxes go to paying off other countries that allow the military to operate there.

 

Very interesting, I will have to look at that later on when I get the time.

 

Give all your money to the government so they can take care of you. Sounds like a perfect recipe for totalitarianism to me. I am not a fan of any monied system, but at least under capitalism there is some semblance of freedom. The US is not a capitalist system, but a conglomerate of crony/corporate monopoly capitalism and state socialism. Interesting how as the US has drifted away from capitalism and more towards socialism, people lose more and more of their rights to an overbloated and unaccountable bureaucracy. I like freedom and individuality as opposed to authoritarianism and collectivism. Socialism is not conducive to freedom, but it may temporarily pretend to be.

 

You come across as far right sometimes PressedRat

 

I am neither left nor right. I just say what I believe, and if people want to label it far right, I couldn't care less. The fact is I do not belong to any political party and I do not vote.

I don't think liberalism (aka socialism) is a good thing, though. Truly conservative government (which is a minimal government that protects people's freedoms) does not exist anywhere in the world. But then again governments never cared about people's freedom regardless if those governments pretended to be right or left. This is why I am basically an anarchist in theory.

 

So you want to shoot it out in the streets? That's basically anarchy and it doesn't rest.

What about Sweden or Norway? There a little socialist but a lot of those ideas fail there.

Gotta be some direction now don't ya?

 

If Wolff wrote it, it must be true.

Do you have objective proof?

What you'd have to do is eliminate all confounding factors leaving only Adam Smith capitalism as causal.

 

Liberalism isn't "aka socialism". Liberalism is "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism Whereas classical liberalism emphasizes the role of liberty, social liberalism stresses the importance of equality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism Socialism, on the other hand, is "a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism Both terms are best viewed relatively and comparatively, as matters of degree. So it is possible to speak of countries which are social democracies, like Denmark, Sweden and Norway, which relative to the United States are both more liberal and more socialist, yet basically capitalist. More social liberal in gender equality, income equality, equality in the workplace. More socialist, although not much more, in the minor sensethat the government requires companies over a certain size to issue small amounts of stock to funds controlled by employees through their trade unions. However, the Scandanavian governments have veered to the right, and the Prime Minister of Denmark was insulted when Bernie called his country "socialist". Welfare states is a better term.

 

Progress according to whom??

 

According to the believers. The term is associated with political and social reform. You've heard of the Progressive Movement, I'm sure. Progressivism - "the political orientation of those who favor progress toward better conditions in government and society." Who says they're better? The reformers. During the sixties, the term progressive was revived because liberalism was seen as too wishy washy and progressive suggested more militant action.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html

 

THE PROBLEM,
5% of the people own 95% of everything.

THE ANSWER,
Is to take from the 5% and give to the 95% ..... not taxes they don't pay, but seizure of assets and redistribution.
For example, everyone with a net worth of $2M loses ALL the excess.

Also
Break up all corporations with over $100M, big corporations are worth nothing to the people.
(Or only allow companies to operate in ONE state, too big to fail is a major problem these days)

 

But the practical question is : You and what army?

 

How about the "basic income" concept? Everyone is apportioned a guaranteed sum of money every month.Would help alleviate poverty and the money would just trickle back into the economy anyway.Question is where does it come from? Maybe if some of that central bank printed money was used instead of just pumping it into the banking system.

 

Give me a gun and a list of names, I'd be happy to start.
My reward, $2M from the first one I get.
I think I'd have plenty of volunteer helpers.

 

But then OldDude.What would be the point of your two million assassination fee.Under your system you would then have to kill yourself for another two million reductio ad absurdum.

 

Nobody needs more than $2M .... after you have that, stop working and let another sucker take a turn.
Jeez .... what is wrong with you greedy people?

 

When we would answer such a question with 'the government' it is not like anti government people like PR like to put 'give the ones who rule over you all the responsibility for our problems and expect them to solve everything'.
In the first place a government has to represent its people (the citizens), if like 99% of these people don't wanna involve themselves in any of these problems because 'that's the gubberments task' and 'Im busy enough living already' then isn't your government for the large part a proper representation? And is it ALL just the fault of the goverment/the system? Or only partly.

People craving a form of anarchy because they lost all faith in the current government or system: how much are you participating in progressive change (and progress means here whatever YOU consider progressive, more asking people like PR here obviously, more than Okiefreak) in your society atm? And no, critically stating shit on the internet does not count. If you're not doing anything aren't you yourself kind of expecting either your gubberment or other people in your society to strive for progress (wether it is change or not)?
Why would an anarchist suddenly become an active and progressive member of society after the current system falls/is getten rid of? Better or more opportunities? In your dreams.