ACTUEL: When you describe capitalism, you say: "There isn't the
slightest operation, the slightest industrial or financial mechanism that
does not reveal the dementia of the capitalist machine and the pathological
character of its rationality (not at all a false rationality, but a true
rationality of *this* pathology, of *this madness*, for the machine does
work, be sure of it). There is no danger of this machine going mad, it has
been mad from the beginning and that's where its rationality comes from.
Does this mean that after this "abnormal" society, or outside of it, there
can be a "normal" society?

GILLES DELEUZE: We do not use the terms "normal" or "abnormal". All
societies are rational and irrational at the same time. They are perforce
rational in their mechanisms, their cogs and wheels, their connecting
systems, and even by the place they assign to the irrational. Yet all this
presuposes codes or axioms which are not the products of chance, but which
are not intrinsically rational either. It's like theology: everything about
it is rational if you accept sin, immaculate conception, incarnation. Reason
is always a region cut out of the irrational -- not sheltered from the
irrational at all, but a region traveresed by the irrational and defined
only by a certain type of relation between irrational factors. Underneath
all reason lies delirium, drift. Everything is rational in capitalism,
except capital or capitalism itself. The stock market is certainly rational;
one can understand it, study it, the capitalists know how to use it, and yet
it is completely delirious, it's mad. It is in this sense that we say: the
rational is always the rationality of an irrational. Something that hasn't
been adequately discussed about Marx's *Capital* is the extent to which he
is fascinated by capitalists mechanisms, precisely because the system is
demented, yet works very well at the same time. So what is rational in a
society? It is -- the interests being defined in the framework of this
society -- the way people pursue those interests, their realisation. But
down below, there are desires, investments of desire that cannot be confused
with the investments of interest, and on which interests depend in their
determination and distribution: an enormous flux, all kinds of
libidinal-unconscious flows that make up the delirium of this society. The
true story is the history of desire. A capitalist, or today's technocrat,
does not desire in the same way as a slave merchant or official of the
ancient Chinese empire would. That people in a society desire repression,
both for others and *for themselves*, that there are always people who want
to bug others and who have the opportunity to do so, the "right" to do so,
it is this that reveals the problem of a deep link between libidinal desire
and the social domain. A "disinterested" love for the oppressive machine:
Nietzsche said some beautiful things about this permanent triumph of slaves,
on how the embittered, the depressed and the weak, impose their mode of life
upon us all.

Q: So what is specific to capitalism in all this?

GD: Are delirium and interest, or rather desire and reason,
distributed in a completely new, particularly "abnormal" way in capitalism?
I believe so. Capital, or money, is at such a level of insanity that
psychiatry has but one clinical equivalent: the terminal stage. It is too
complicated to describe here, but one detail should be mentioned. In other
societies, there is exploitation, there are also scandals and secrets, but
that is part of the "code", there are even explicitly secret codes. With
capitalism, it is very different: nothing is secret, at least in principle
and according to the code (this is why capitalism is "democratic" and can
"publicize" itself, even in a juridical sense). And yet nothing is
admissable. Legality itself is inadmissable. By contrast to other societies,
it is a regime born of the public *and* the admissable. A very special
delirium inherent to the regime of money. Take what are called scandals
today: newspapers talk a lot about them, some people pretend to defend
themselves, others go on the attack, yet it would be hard to find anything
illegal in terms of the capitalist regime. The prime minister's tax returns,
real estate deals, pressure groups, and more generally the economical and
financial mechanisms of capital -- in sum, everything is legal, except for
little blunders, what is more, everything is public, yet nothing is
admissable. If the left was "reasonable," it would content itself with
vulgarizing economic and financial mechanisms. There's no need to publicize
what is private, just make sure that what is already public is beeing
admitted publicly. One would find oneself in a state of dementia without
equivalent in the hospitals.
Instead, one talks of "ideology". But ideology has no importance whatsoever:
what matters is not ideology, not even the "economico-ideological"
distinction or opposition, but the *organisation of power*. Because
organization of power-- that is, the manner in which desire is already in
the economic, in which libido invests the economic -- haunts the exonomic
and nourishes political forms of repression.

Q: So is ideology a trompe l'oeil?

GD: Not at all. To say "ideology is a trompe l'oeil, " that's still
the traditional thesis. One puts the infrastructure on one side-- the
economic, the serious-- and on the other, the superstructure, of which
ideology is a part, thus rejecting the phenomena of desire in ideology. It's
a perfect way to ignore how desire works within the infrastructure, how it
invests in it, how it takes part in it, how, in this respect, it organizes
power and the repressive system. We do not say: ideology is a trompe l'oeil
(or a concept that refers to certain illusions) We say: there is no
ideology, it is an illusion. That's why it suits orthodox Marxism and the
Communist Party so well. Marxism has put so much emphasis on the theme of
ideology to better conceal what was happening in the USSR: a new
organization of repressive power. There is no ideology, there are only
organizations of power once it is admitted that the organization of power is
the unity of desire and the economic infrastructure. Take two examples.
Education: in May 1968 the leftists lost a lot of time insisting that
professors engage in public self-criticism as agents of bourgeois ideology.
IT's stupid, and simply fuels the masochistic impulses of academics. The
struggle against the competitive examination was abandoned for the benefit
of the controversy, or the great anti-ideological public confession. In the
meantime, the more conservative professors had no difficulty reorganizing
their power. The problem of education is not an ideological problem, but a
problem of the organization of power: it is the specificity of educational
power that makes it appear to be an ideology, but it's pure illusion. Power
in the primary schools, that means something, it affects all children.
Second example: Christianity. The church is perfectly pleased to be treated
as an ideology. This can be argued; it feeds ecumenism. But Christianity has
never been an ideology; it's a very specific organization of power that has
assumed diverse forms since the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages, and which
was able to invent the idea of international power. It's far more important
than ideology.

FELIX GUATTARI: It's the same thing in traditional political
structures. One finds the old trick being played everywhere again and again:
a big ideological debate in the general assembly and questions of
organization reserved for special commissions. These questions appear
secondary, determinded by political options. While on the contrary, the real
problems are those of organization, never specified or rationalized, but
projected afterwards in ideological terms. There the real divisions show up:
a treatment of desire and power, of investments, of group Oedipus, of group
"superegos", of perverse phenomena, etc. And then political oppositions are
bilt up: the individual takes such a position against another one, because
in the scheme of organization of power, he has already chosen and hates his
adversary.

Q: Your analysis is convincing in the case of the Soviet Union and
of capitalism. But in the particulars? If all ideological oppositions mask,
by definition, the conflicts of desire, how would you analyze, for example,
the divergences of three Trotskyite groupuscules? Of what conflict of desire
can this be the result? Despite the political quarrels, each group seems to
fulfill the same function vis-a-vis its militants: a reassuring hierarchy,
the reconstitution of a small social milieu, a final explanation of the
world.... I dont't see the difference.

FG: Because any resemblance to existing groups is merely fortuitous,
one can well imagine one of these groups defining itself first by its
fidelity to hardened positions of the communist left after the creation of
the Third International. It's a whole axiomatics, down to the phonological
level -- the way of articulating certain words, the gesture that accompanies
them -- and then the structures of organization, the conception of what sort
of relationships to maintain with the allies, the centrists, the
adversaries.... This may correspond to a certain figure of Oedipalization, a
reassuring, intangible universe like that of the obsessive who loses his
sense of security if one shifts the position of a single, familar object.
It's a question of reaching, through this kind of identification with
recurrent figures and images, a certain type of efficiency that
characterized Stalinism--except for its ideology, prescisely. In other
respects, one keeps the general framework of the method, but adapts oneself
to it very carefully: "The enemy is the same, comrades, but the conditions
have changed." Then one has a more open groupuscule. It's a compromise: one
has crossed out the first image, whilst maintaining it, and injected other
notions. One multiplies meetings and training sessions, but also the
external interventions. For the desiring will, there is --- as Zazie says--
a certain way of bugging students and militants, among others.
In the final analysis, all these groupuscules say basically the same
thing. But they are radically opposed in their *style*: the definition of
the leader, of propaganda, a conception of discipline, loyality, modesty,
and the asceticism of the militant. How does one account for these
polarities without rummaging in the economy of desire of the social machine?
>From anarchists to Maoists the spread is very wide, politically as much as
analytically. Without even considering the mass of people, outside the
limited range of the groupuscules, who do not quite know how to distinguish
between the leftist elan, the appeal of union action, revolt, hesitation of
indifference...
One must explain the role of these machines.. these goupuscules and their
work of stacking and sifting--in cr*shing desire. It's a dilemma: to be
broken by the social system of to be integrated in the pre-established
structure of these little churches. In a way, May 1968 was an astonishing
revelation. The desiring power became so accelerated that it broke up the
groupuscules. These later pulled themselves together; they participated in
the reordering business with the other repressive forces, the CGT [Communist
worker's union], the PC, the CRS [riot police]. I don't say this to be
provocative. Of course, the militants courageously fought the police. But if
one leaves the sphere of struggle to consider the function of desire, one
must recognize that certain groupuscules approached the youth in a spirit of
repression: to contain liberated desire in order to re-channel it.
Q: What is liverated desire? I certainly see how this can be
translated at the level of an individual or small group: an artistic
creation, or breaking windows, bnurning things, or even simply an orgy or
letting things go to hell through laziness or vegetating. But then what?
What could a collectively liberated desire be at the level of a social
group? And what does this signify in relation to t"the totality of society",
if you do not reject this term as Michel Foucault does.

FG: We have taken desire in one of its most critical, most acute
stages: that of the schizophrenic--and the schizo that can produce something
within or beyond the scope of the confined schizo, battered down with drugs
and social repression. It appears to us that certain schizophrenics directly
express a free deciphering of desire. But now does one conceive a collective
form of the economy of desire? Certainly not at the local level. I would
have a lot of difficulty imagining a small, liberated community maintaining
itself against the flows of a repressive society, like the addition of
individuals emancipated one by one. If, on the contrary, desire constitutes
the very texture of society in its entirety, including in its mechanisms of
reproduction, a movement of liberation can "crystallize" in the whole of
society. In May 1968, from the first sparks to local clashes, the shake-up
was brutally transmitted to the whole of society, including some groups that
had nothing remotely to do with the revolutionary movement--doctors,
lawyers, grocers. Yet it was vested interests that carried the day, but only
after a month of burning. We are moving toward explosions of this type, yet
more profound.

Q: Might there have already been a vigorous and durable liberation
of desire in hostpry, apart from brief periods. a celebration, cartnage,
war, opr revolutionary upheavals? Or do you really believe in an end of
history. after millenia of alienation, social evolution will suddenly turn
around in a final revolution that will liberate desire forever?

FG: Neither the one nor the other. Neither a final end to history,
nor provisional excess. All civilizations, all periods have known ends of
history--this is not necessarily convincing and not necessarily liberating.
As for excewss, or moments of celebration, this is no more reassuring. There
are militant revolutionaries who feel a sense of responsibility and say: Yes
excess "at the first stage of revolution," serious things... Or desire is
not liberated in simple moments of celebration. See the discussion between
Victor and Foucault in the issue of *Les Temps Modernes* on the Maoists.
Victor consents to excess, but at the "first stage". As for the rest, as for
the real thing, Vicotr calls for a new apparatus of state, new norms, a
popular justice with a tribunal, a legal process external to the masses, a
third party capable of resolving contradictions among the masses. One always
finds the old schema: the detachment of a pseude-avant-garde capable of
bringing about syntheses, of forming a party as an embryo of state
apparatus, of drawing out a well brought up, well educated working class;
and the rest is a residue, a lumpen-proletariat one should always mistrust
(the same old condemnation of desire). But these distinctions themselves are
another way of trapping desire for the advantage of a bureaucratic caste.
Foucault reacts by denounding the third party, saying that if there is
popular justice, it does not issue from a tribunal. He shows very well that
the distinction "avant-garde-lumpen-proletariat" is first of all a
distinction introduced by the bourgeoise to the masses, and therefore serves
to crush the phenomena of desire, to *marginalize* desire. The whole
question is that of state apparatus. It would be strange to rely on a party
or state apparatus for the liberation of desire. To want better justice is
like wanting better judges, better cops, better bosses, a cleaner France,
etc. And then we are told: how would you unify isolated struggles without a
party? How do you make the machine work without a state apparatus? It is
evident that a revolution requires a war machine, out this is not a state
apparatus, it is also certain that it requires an instance of analysis, an
analysis of the desires of the masses, yet this is not an apparatus external
to the synthesis. Liberated desire means that desire escapes the impasse of
private fantasy: it is not a question of adapting it, socializing it,
disciplining it, but of plugging it in in such a way that its process not be
interrupted in the social body, and that its expression be collective. What
counts is not hte authoritarian unification, but rather a sort of infinite
spreading: desire in the schools, the factories, the neighborhoods, the
nursery schools, the prisons, etc. It is not a question of directing, of
tatalizing, but of plugging into the same plan of oscillation. As long as
one alternates between the impotent spontaneity of anarchy and the
bureaucratic and hierarchic coding of a party organization, there is no
liberation of desire.

Q: In the beginning, was capitalism able to assume the social desires?

GD: Of course, capitalism was and remains a formidable desiring
machine. The monary flux, the means of production, of manpower, of new
markets, all that is the flow of desire. It's enough to consider the sum of
contingencies at the origin of capitalism to see to what degree it has been
a crossroads of desires, and that its infrastructure, even its economy, was
inseparable from the phenomnea of desire. And fascism too--one must say that
it has "assumed the social desires", including the desires of repression and
death. People got hard-ons for Hitler, for the beautiful fascist machine.
But if your question means: was capitalism revolutionary in its beginnings,
has the industrial revolution ever coincided with a social revolution? No, I
don't thing so. Capitalism has been tied from its birth to a savage
repressiveness; it had it's organization of power and its state apparatus
from the start. Did capitalism imply a dissolution of the previous social
codes and powers? Certainly. But it had alread established its wheels of
power, including its power of state, in the fissures of previous regimes. It
is always like that: things are not so progressive; even before a social
formation is established, its instruments of exploitation and repression are
already there, still turning in the vaccuum, but ready to work at full
capacity. The first capitalists are like waiting birds of prey. They wait
for their meeting with the worker, the one who drops through the cracks of
the preceding system. It is even, in every sense, what one calls primitive
accumulation.

It's not perfect but we're learning all the time. Freedom for all and protection for the vulnerable, that's something to be proud of.

It's not perfect but we're learning all the time. Freedom for all and protection for the vulnerable, that's something to be proud of.

----------------------------------------------



If you actually believe what you said above, and are not simply regurgitating propaganda, I can't help you.

The only "freedom" that exists in the United States, and other capitalist states, is the freedom you are able to buy. . .And, I suspect that you are not among the minority of the wealthy, the top of the pyramid, of this country. So you do not really have much freedom.

Freedom for the wealthy is suffering for the rest of us. Always has been, always will be, until there is an evening of resource distribution. Even worse, the actual situation of the depletion of the earth's resources, in a human sense, is being ignored and thus furthered by mindless growth engendered by capitalists' endless quest for ever more surplus wealth. Capitalism is not, and will not ever be, a good thing: it is an exclusive system, always leading to imbalance, and, thus, crashes.

Capitalism is arguably mankind's greatest single invention. We owe our high standard of living in the western world to Capitalism. It's a truly great system.

It's given us so much.
Job flight overseas at tax payer expense.
Air, water and food pollution.
And war, always war for other people's land and resources.

owe it capitalism?

are you fucking serious?

then i suppose the low standards of living, in the united states and everywhere else, are owed to the laziness of the impoverished? or perhaps to terrorism? or is it socialism? or revanchist feudalism?

come now. you'll need to explain how capitalism is somehow responsible for the high standard of living for the wealthy elite but not for the misery of the vast majority.

otherwise, you are simply not serious.

Capitalism is what happens when people make voluntary decisions about what they do with the fruits of their labor. Quite simply, it is the economic result of free choice.

Therefore, capitalism is morally superior than any other economic system. Socialism is immoral because it is based upon compulsion. Under socialism you don't have choice as to where to buy your goods, how much to pay, etc. Those decisions are made by burueacrats and compelled upon the people.

There is a direct correlation between economic freedom and wealth. Those nations that have the lowest tax burdens, the lowest regulatory burdens, and the highest protection of contract and property rights are the most affluent in the world.

In most third world nations, government interference with the economy chokes development. In other, governmental failure to protect private propery makes any kind of development useless. How much will you spend to develop a factory, if its only going to be burned down by rebels next week?

...with what would you replace it?

And how?

What about the people who won't go along?

And what about the Guard's tanks and jets?

Do any of you actually have a plan, or are you just armchair revolutionaries?

I've just heard more complaints. I asked was there a better alternative? No point complaining unless you believe there is a better way.
Redistribution of resources??? I think that's been tried before in Russia. didn't work out.

As for Point saying we're "only as free as the freedon you are able to buy". He doesn't realise that most of the population of this planet has no freedom to vote, form political groups or to speak their minds. he's become decadent and takes his freedoms for granted.

So? anyone got any alternatives? No more whining about other people being rich. There's no law to stop you getting rich, if you're jealous then it shows you are unable to accept that you haven't got what it takes to make money.

A first big step would be the stripping of human
civil rights from artificial constructs like corporations.
Another fix would be the banning of collaboration or bribing
of elected officials known as private political contributions.

"A first big step would be the stripping of human
civil rights from artificial constructs like corporations. "

What do you mean? Please elaborate.
-------

"Another fix would be the banning of collaboration or bribing of elected officials known as private political contributions."

This isn't a question of capitalism. This has to do with democracy and the constitutional protection of free speech.

I agree with you there. In the UK, political parties are required by law to make public all monies received and the identity of the donor.

Memebers of parliament must also publish details of income received personally in a Register of Memebers Interests which is also made public.

An alternative often suggested is state funding of all political parties to create a level playing field. Never seems to get off the ground though.

No alternative to capitalism though?

-"A first big step would be the stripping of human
civil rights from artificial constructs like corporations. "-

What do you mean? Please elaborate."
***
The basis of granting corporations constitutional rights
came from no law that was ever passed but a footnote to a
judicial decision that ruled AGAINST granting these rights
to a corporation. I'll look for the specific links involved.
They were in a previous thread posted months ago.

"Capitalism is what happens when people make voluntary decisions about what they do with the fruits of their labor."

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing people have in their heads. Economics is purely propaganda, and propaganda for the benefit of the wealthy
at that.

Capitalism is the expropriation of surplus value by the few, those few unencumbered by simple notions of morality. As the current upsurge in militarism exemplifies. Rather than use surplus value for the building of human culture and needs, Capitalism expropriates the surplus value for individual capitalists, who thus amass greater and greater wealth at the expense of human culture and needs.

Our current situation is a classic example of the conditions brought about by Capitalism. We have so much overproduction that around 30% of productive
capacity is sitting idle, which translates into not enough profit being made for the capitalists. The current notion that a tax break for the wealthy will
encourage investment is ludicrous given that fact: capitalists are not going to invest any money in an already over-capitalized environment. They are already awash in funds, and this is the result. The tax break would be simply a transfer of wealth to the capitalists from the public treasury. The aforementioned militarism is another example of such a transfer of wealth to capitalists in need of profits. You see, capitalists have a never-ending "need" for profits, despite being awash in capital. Thus they will dream up ever more ingenious schemes to funnel surplus value their way.

As far as Josef's remarks go: the saying " If your vote actually mattered, it would be against the law," comes to mind. In actual practice, the ur-capitalists send out the death squads as soon as actual communication
begins to seep out under their flood of commercialism that parades as communication.

And, personally, I'm not interested in being "rich" if it entails the deprivation of other human beings and the degradation of the planet for future human beings. I support myself by actually working: building cabinets,
doing architectural woodwork, and furniture making. No jealousy here. No lack of skill either.

Ways exist to order our cultures without the boom/bust self-centered exploitation of Capitalism. Trying to communicate them is difficult to be sure, as the plutocrats do not want people to consider that there are such ways. It's not really rocket science, it's just that there is no profit in it. . . ;~)

Point

Good considered response there. But unless there is a coherent alternative to the present system (which does not entail any form of communism) then all the complaints about the current system will simply sound negative, destructive and malcontented.

Perhaps capitalism is still evolving? We've come a long way from baronial feudalism in our part of the world.

" We have so much overproduction that around 30% of productive
capacity is sitting idle, which translates into not enough profit being made for the capitalists." What are you talking about? your telling me this percentage applies to all production companies in the US. if you are then your wrong. Communism doesn't work, but if you like it so much why don't you visit china and see how it's working.

will someone please explain concepts like
average, individual and total, to joey jeff basinge?

Many of the respondents who are supportive of capitalism seem to be convinced that the only alternative is a centrally planned, Stalinist economy, which most certainly does not work and is even more repressive than what we have now.

But what about our neighbors to the north, Canada? Or all those Scandinavian countries which produce all of your Nokia cell phones and Ikea furniture? They are social democracies. On the bad side, you gotta pay a lot of taxes. On the positive side, though, you get:

1. Reliable and cheap public transportation

2. Well-funded, quality public schools

3. A dole (often referred to stateside as "welfare") for people who are stuck out of work for a while (unemployment is unavoidable in a capitalist economy -- go ask your favorite conservative economist!)

4. Public healthcare for millions of otherwise uninsured folks. And plus, if you can afford to pay for a better plan, or your employer provides it, you don't have to use the national one!

That's an alternative. So what have you got to lose?

P.S. If you don't believe me, take a visit to Vancouver or Stockholm and see for yourself! Peace and love.

Josef and others,

The right wing of the U.S. political scene has been undoing the work of the Keynesians since after the Korean War, and began doing so in earnest in the 1970's. The Keynesians are not "radical communists" by any stretch of the imagination. Except to the neoconservatives, that is.

John Kenneth Galbraith, one of the leading Keynesians, has a slim volume entitled, "The Culture of Contentment," wherein he points out several trends that reveal this undoing. One of the main errors of the neoconservatives is the use of monetary policy (basically tweaking the interest rates) rather than tax policy to guide the economy. The use of monetary policy does very little to moderate the swings of the economy for those of us who are not wealthy, while tax policy can be very specific in targeting the wealthy during weak times, while avoiding the rest of us. In strong economic times, the tax policy can be broadened to include more of the population. That is a simple example.

The Neoconservatives are actually radicalizing the culture in the U.S. by their dismantling of the Keyenesian structures put in place by the Roosevelt Administration. They will have only themselves to blame should a more severe "restructuring" take place at some point in the future.

And this is entirely within the bounds of Capitalism! Galbraith notes that the advanced state of the corporate capitalist form seems to know no limits, as he sees it cannibalizing its own forms. The current crop of U.S. capitalists, and their political support group, is shooting itself in the foot, big time!

They are retreating to the "pure" form of Capitalism as practiced in the late 19th century, and in some regimes such as Nigeria today. This is when 12 year olds worked 12 hour shifts in factories, women got 1/2 the pay of men when they worked, no safety rules, no unions, etc. People forget that the Capitalists didn't "give" them the 40 hour week, a living wage, sick/vacation time, etc. These came from serious, bloody struggle by people insisting on a humane culture.

Strange, to have to insist on a humane culture, eh?

Point

we have somewhat more socialism in canada than the u.s., but we're still a capitalist country, always have been.

Capitalism is simply the empowerment of the individual to make something of hemself, to elevate herself, to succeed economically.

Capitalism is the empowerment of the most precious of citizens, the entrepreneur.

In Cuba Bill Gates would be teaching elementary school and Steve Jobs would be working in a dead-end government job.

America's success is based on the entrepreneur and Capitalism.

Capitalism is simply the empowerment of the individual to make something of hemself, to elevate herself, to succeed economically.

Capitalism is the empowerment of the most precious of citizens, the entrepreneur.

In Cuba Bill Gates would be teaching elementary school and Steve Jobs would be working in a dead-end government job.

America's success is based on the entrepreneur and Capitalism.

BA, you are so unimaginative! Not to mention simplistic. You really think John D. Rockefeller or Andrew Carnegie, etc., are "heroic American entrepreneurs?" They were simply cut-throat, greedy bastards. . .The only reason Carnegie started creating foundations in his dotage was because he "got religion" at that late date. Hell, I'm probably the closest thing to an "entrepreneur" you've ever been close to. . .As Galbraith said, corporate capitalism is cannibalizing itself as the coming crash works it way closer and closer. Without some serious intervention, the world economy, due to the seriously imbalanced accounts of the U.S. and those who depend on it, is headed for hole. Platitudes will not help one bit.

I'll agree Rockefeller was not the most shining example of the human animal. It also has been stated as a fact many a time that it would take five of the planet Earth to suport the present population of the world at the grandeur of the American lifestyle.
However, capitalism and greed are to different ideas, thus the two words.
Greed is what drives cost analyst to 'cut back' on environmental protections and lay off a few thousand employees to boost profit margins.
Simply because one has not had a good experience with capitalism does not mean the entire concept is born of err.
Case in point Colorado Sheepskin Company my first job the owner is one of the most honest men I've ever known and he is an entrepreneur, a capitalist. When sales were low did he lay off employees, no. Ask him why and, I don't know but I always got the impression, he would say because you need to eat too. Gives to charities, doesn't cut corners, compensates fairly, gives second and third and forth chances whole nine yards. <-capitalism working.
Now I am not about to dogmatically argue capitalism is utopia.
However I'm also not prepared to dogmatically argue capitalism is not the foundation of a utopian society.

Once again only my opinion.

I agree entirely. I knew a comunist from china (who now designs Visual basic) He was one of the finest examples of a person you could care to meet. as he took comunism to be a help everyone sort of a philosophy. I also know another person who is very socialist (almost comunist) who is very angry and bitter at the world and takes socialism to be a form of hate against certain minorities who have more than others.
One would have hoped that the first version was the true form of comunism but many people seem to fall into the second catagory.

Response to Ted.
“"A first big step would be the stripping of human
civil rights from artificial constructs like corporations. "

What do you mean? Please elaborate.
-------

"Another fix would be the banning of collaboration or bribing of elected officials known as private political contributions."

This isn't a question of capitalism. This has to do with democracy and the constitutional protection of free speech.”
***
Ahh... the issue of 14th amendment rights towards corporations: a very
critical issue. Another midnight deal to thwart the idea of justice, the
beginning of the cancer that is killing the rights of individuals at the
benefit of the major stock holders that are puling the strings behind the
facade of ‘representative government’ .
<>The Supreme Court ruled on an obscure taxation issue in the
.... Santa Clara County vs. The Union Pacific Railroad case, but
the Recorder of the court - a man named J. C. Bancroft
Davis, himself formerly the president of a small railroad -
wrote into his personal commentary of the case (known as a
headnote) that the Chief Justice had said that all the Justices
agreed that corporations are persons....[ note from Sheepdog; the court refused to rule on this case but the headnote (not a legal ruling in any sense) was used to falsely claim that the justices HAD ruled on this case]
http://www.thomhartmann.com/restoredemocracy.shtml
Further reading for the people interested in such things:
http://users.michiana.org/greens/corp.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporations/KnowEnemy_ITT.html
So there...

Go fuck a camel, you liberal towelhead.

And I like your references & links.
Thank you for your support.

(to the child who hijacks my name to spout vulgarities: get a life)

I read the links and still don't understand what you are talking about vis-a-vis corporations as people. Don't forget that this railroad non-decision they talk about has been superceded by numerous anti-trust and consumer-protection laws since the 19th century. In any event, please explain what you mean (in your own words, since those websites are more cryptic than your posts).

And to the Canadian, what is so great about paying for services with taxes versus writing a check to a private company to provide the same services? If you believe in the market and competition (I do, I have been content and lazy and been steamrolled by competitors), then the private company should be able to offer these services (health insurance, healthcare, education, etc) better than a monopoly can.

Go suck a donkey dick, you asshatted clown.

It's pointless to argue with that child; hijacking names to spout vulgarities IS its life.

At least I have a man-sized TOY, davie boy!

...very often have no reason to.

Let your wife know when you grow some balls.

ted: health care is heading for a shapeup like education already is. 2 camps, each separately paid for, public and private. I don't like the idea of denying someone medical attention because they're poor, but I agree with the profit motive and competition needed to improve it. If as ive heard/read that 40% of americans have no health coverage, and this is ok with you? that's close to refusing someone a lifepreserver on a sinking boaat.

Canadian,

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I also don't like the fact that so many are uninsured. The disgraceful fact is that a significant percentage of the uninsured are NOT too poor to afford coverage, but people who CHOOSE to not purchase health insurance -- taking their chances (and they usually bet correctly, as these non-poor uninsured are 20somethings who choose to use the money on other things). I agree that health insurance is a possible exception to the true free market. The ideal solution: allow everybody to have the government coverage at a minimum, but allow for tax credits to those who purchase (or whose employers purchase) private health coverage.

Yes sir, Ted, I will do so.

The history of the judiciary granting 14 amendment rights to the entities we know as corporations was based upon a head note not a decision by judges. To build upon it was a blind sided (and I suspect a profit motive driven) framework that has no legal foundation. Corporations DON’T have
14th amendment rights. They are not organic, mortal, and most importantly accountable for capital crimes. No 1st, 2nd 3rd 4th...... amendment protection should be allowed to shelter these ever hungry organizations
driven by very human greed and all the other shallow, stew of failings that form a cess pool of petty human error and cruelty...
The point that I am making is, corporations, are artificial economic
war lords .at this point because they are untouchable in the real sense by the rule of law, since they direct the tax structure through special interests and lobbying if not out right bribery (contributions) and revolving door chairmanships
This a musical chairs game from pentagon to corporations which coincidentally happen to be the very ones benefiting from the legislation , bailout or war,. these creatures help promote with the help of all the other weasels waiting in the wings ready to spring in to share the feast.
Have you seen families starting off in the sun rise all with those wicked banana machetes poppa, momma, and kids going to work for one of your artificial entities just to get enough to eat because the government these guys bought off sent death squads into the village where their families had lived for generations and killed, raped and tortured the residents of that land off so bananas could be grown for export. Nice bottom line there..
Do your own research on causes of poverty.
Don’t ever tell me people are lazy, stupid or unworthy to have a happy safe life.

To Scottie I wholely agree to every Marx there exist a Stalin to every Meres (Otto Meres colorado railroad buider) there is a Wabash (railroad tycoon). The issue is not that each is capable of a preversion but that nether is inherantly preverted in it self.
Just my opionion.

Sheepdog,

I must disagree with you. A corporation is one of the greatest non-scientific inventions in history. It separated the owners from the managers/workers and allowed for a vast increase in investment -- which did wonders for the wealth of the working class and built up the middle class in the USA and Britain that were second to none in the world.

And don't forget that corporations go bankrupt when the misbehave. They aren't immune, like you fear.

Corporations are a great example of creating and cementing hierarchies in place while sacrificing human potential. Through the use of carrot and stick techniques, indentured economic systems that snare people, commercialism, and corrupting politicians and systems, corporations have taken any good points of capitalism and transformed them into a system of control that even the ancient slave societies never came close to creating.

What one needs to decide is 'what makes happiness' rather than 'where will i work for the next 40 years'. Corporations do not want individuals to decide this. The create a sense of delirium in the populace by redefining what we need to live happily. The commodities produced, even if absurd and dangerous, become the endall of human existence. This type of behavior borders on an enforced imbecility.

Even worse is the duplicity of corporations in sacrificing human life for profit. A good example of this is the Union Carbide Bhopal disaster and the judicial outcome which required extradition from US to India of the responsible CEO. Guess what, he lives comfortably still in a guarded mansion in upstate NY. These types of examples indicate that there are two sets of books for justice in america, and corporate murderers have better protection than the average joe. The list of corporations that flout natl and intl law is endless but they are not prosecuted because of a corrupt wealthy class and a situation where everyone else is exposed to a quasi-addiction state.

Until corporations are rqeuired to be as accountable and responsible for their actions as citizens they deserve less protection under our laws rather than more. Republicans, and democrats, seem willing to sacrifice huge #s of human populations and huge chunks of the planetary biosphere for the luxury of producing useless and pointless commodities. This is the dementia of capitalism, and it's source, it's pusher, is the corporate state. Entreupeneurship is merely a bone thrown out to a rapidly downward mobilizing population, and like a carnival geek, or a court jester, once in a blue moon do they gain any real power, and in the meantime thousands sacrifice their lives and their hopes to chasing a brass ring.

The actions now occurring by design by corporate controllers
are to obliterate the middle class.
Why aren't you aware of this?
All the basis of a strong middle class have been deliberately
dismantled for purpose. Drop production, increase debt
dependence and increase disenfranchisement of the popular consent and control of the functions of government.
These structural changes are re enforced by many layers of
lethal force beginning with the police and topped with
weapon systems (now or soon) in orbit. Many shot guns pointed at this fragile race.
All for the prize.

"Corporations" are legal structures run by regular people -- people with families, parents, friends, etc. Not some alien race.

I'm not sure what you mean by "production" decreasing, but if you mean manufacturing, then -- yes, this is true. Of course. The rate that unskilled manufacturing has left for cheaper production areas has been more than offset by the increase in services and high-tech production jobs (proteins, for example -- my particular field).

The take home point? Always be educating yourself. The OEDC countries now have a knowledge economy. If you long to work on a production line, move to another country. If you long to work in the most intellectually exciting industries in the world (or invest in them), you're in the right place.

Are you into scat or golden showers?

Who's on first, What's on second, and some idiotic philosophyzing liberal is on third. What a bunch of Bozos.

What happens to the toxic waste generated by your work? Do you just dump it into the nearest stream like Rocketdyne? Is your company one of those who takes advantage of a pro business anti-personnel tax code so it escapes paying taxes and is not a good neighbor for schools, clinics, and regulatory agencies that are not for profit but do provide essential services?

You seem like you have a good job that you love and I am sure you worked hard to get there, but what about those who have been downsized or locked out of the 'work' world by the consolidation practices of multinatl corps, monopolies, and corrupt companies? Internationally that number is huge, nationally we are in a severe recession that teeters on worse. Is it their fault that they brought into a system that is turning it's back on them? If times got really tough would you be protected? Are you worth that much to your corporate dad? What happens if they declare bankruptcy and get the citizens to bail them out? Why should that happen?

To go into work happy each day is very lucky. To go to work for a corporation with blinders on is not too lucky.

You figure it out.

Look, all I do for my "corporation" is scrub toilets. Don't blame pollution on my peon ass.

My comments were for Ted.

Eric keep on scrubbing, just be careful about breathing those cleaner fumes...I think you already have had enough.

Cleaner fumes are great. I also huff gold paint, especially before I post my comments.

The rent is cheap and there's lots of space available.

"Cleaner fumes are great. I also huff gold paint, especially before I post my comments."

LA-IMC,

Do us all a favor. Hunt down and block the IP of this pretender. He won't remove himself from the gene pool as has been requested by everyone, including his mother, the whore.

That WAS me, you paranoid schizo.

I'm so tired of reading about that bogus cyber-nadda club for 12 year olds. What a joke. Hey poser, who would win in a fight between Jabba the Hutt, Bobba Fett, or that jabbering lizzard creature Jar Jar Binks?

Look, you little fucknut. My dad is a mess hall sergreant and he will kick your puny little ass if you don't stop making fun of my club!

Remember what we were talking about.

My take on the problems of corporate power in this post by Ted.
***
April 29, 2003 01:49 PM

"Corporations" are legal structures run by regular people -- people with families,
parents, friends, etc. Not some alien race.
<>
But the entities who control the policy are ruthless bastards, get real yourself<>
I'm not sure what you mean by "production" decreasing, but if you mean
manufacturing, then -- yes, this is true. Of course. The rate that unskilled
manufacturing has left for cheaper production areas has been more than offset by
the increase in services and high-tech production jobs (proteins, for example --
my particular field).
<>
I really don’t believe that humans like to change ‘career fields, jobs, locations etc., at the whim of social engineering perpetrated to ravage the social contract these corporations were chartered for.<>
The take home point? Always be educating yourself. The OEDC countries now
have a knowledge economy. If you long to work on a production line, move to
another country. If you long to work in the most intellectually exciting industries

in the world (or invest in them), you're in the right place.
<>I used to like it here when corporations:
paid taxes
provided jobs with benefits
were amenable to the wishes and welfare of their workers in less desperate times.<>
It seems the great trade agreements has only provided publicly subsidized
job flight for the good of the few at the expense of the many.

Perhaps I could get a better view of your perspective if you would share with me your occupation and education level & field of study.

Thanks.

I can read.
I been around.
I've done many things for many masters, now I work
for myself.

B.A., theres a bush behind every terrorist! I got two words for you, Enron and MCI. Do you even know what the Ceo's of these companies did? How can you come on this site, be exposed to all this information and not be able to digest it. I would think by now you would have some second thoughts as to what your being told by your beloved Fox News. Either you are the most ignorant person in the world or you are getting paid by the word. And that goes for the rest of you fachisist nazi bastards. Come clean and tell us who your working for!

Some management at Enron and MCI broke laws and committed illegal acts. They have been indicted and tougher regulations instituted.

You can't indict an entire system because of some illegal acts. It would be like me saying that all organic farmers are immoral because I saw that a few of them broke laws and used illegal pesticides.

A couple of exceptions! These two are just the tip of the iceberg. This scandal is the result of a systemic relaxing of anti-trust laws which enabled Arthur Anderson and other invesment instiutions to move right in an aid in their fraud and embezelment of investors and employees pensions.
And its your beloved fachist dictator who is the poster child for these crooks. And what has happened to all this free enterprise competion is better crap. The multinational corporations keep consolidating and elminating the eantropenures you righ-wingers like to hold up as examples of why capitalism is so great.

It is obvious that transnational corporations exist in an extralegal world set up by capitalists to destroy any sense of liberty in econmic creation. By consolidating all production (what the plutocrats and their simps call 'diversification') these corps steal the productive capacity from communites and individuals. Oftentimes they are also fed by the state to increase their putrid bulk, after all the same executives that function as corporate overseers also burrow their way into the political infrastuture like termites, weakening the fndtn of the state while eating away the peoples revenues.

This is our democracy. It has been stolen away from us. The same corps that poison our water, dirty our air, shortchange the schools, corrupt the politicos, enslave children in factories also our the real reason we fight reasource wars such as Afghanistan (natural gas) and Iraq. Columbia, Venezuela, and the Phillipines also must fall according to these nonhuman protocols established by these mobsters.

And of course, and American who challenges their butchery is labeled a traitor.

"It's amazing that anyone could have such an erroneous and upside down view of the world."

I do. I am a conservative.

The leash would be public review and input on
Leased Charters and the whip would be public boycott.
Yeah and a few more dashes of ice water into the
economic face of the now thoroughly pissed off middle
class to make it happen.
Boys, boys, you're just too
damn greedy and impatient; to say nothing about being
stupidly arrogant.
Like you're dog or something equal.
You guys do fuck up badly now and then. He he.

It's too bad you (Sheepdog et al) aren't able to make an interesting life for yourself -- in this, the system with the most freedom and opportunity in the planet's history.

Ted
Satisfied member of the US middle class

Bend over, assclown.