H01464
Headlines : MiscellaneousThe End of Rational Capitalism
If we want a stable, just, egalitarian, sustainable world in which the “free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” there is no alternative but a long march to socialism propelled forward by a growing socialist movement. There are already signs of a new dawn—a spectrum that ranges from the antiglobalization movement to the brave revolutionary youth in the hills of Nepal. It is to this new arc of revolution that we must now dedicate ourselves and lend our support.
[Posted By gaanjah_mama]Republished from Monthly Review
The two economists who did the most to promote this idea were John Maynard Keynes and Joseph Schumpeter. Both were responding to the great historical crisis of capitalism manifested in the First World War, the Great Depression, and the Second World War. In the wake of the greatest set of horrors the world had ever seen, accompanied also by the rise of an alternative, contending system in the Soviet Union, it was necessary for capitalism following the Second World War to reestablish itself ideologically as well as materially. In terms of the ideological requirement, the two economists who accomplished this most effectively were Keynes and Schumpeter—not simply because they epitomized the best in bourgeois economic ideology, but also because they were the leading representatives of bourgeois economic science. What they set out in their analyses were the requirements of a rational capitalism and at least the hope that these requirements would be achieved.
Let us consider Keynes first. Keynes, located at Cambridge in England, was the embodiment of rational capitalism. He not only perceived contradictions of the system but also believed they were subject to rational management. This was true with regard to both the relations between capitalist states and the…
Posted by gaanjah_mama
"The global village is deteriorating at a rapid pace, and in the children of the world the result is rage." -Romeo Dallaire ____________________________________________________________ Harold: "You're good with people." ...
Wonderful. Should be required reading for the misguided “leftists” in the US, many of whom populate this site.
Absolutely. Materialism pervades most American “leftists”. The people empowering society that we want so bad is socialism. It doesn’t have to be pigeon-holed into Soviet socialism or even European socialism. But it must be true and trustworthy, which may ultimately be impossible, because at some point somone or group will control the fate of many, which usually leads to corruption.
Define Socialism.
And Capitalism while you’re at it.
Then a meaningful dialogue can take place.
Define Socialism
Public ownership and control of public resources. Cooperation. Equality. Democracy.
And Capitalism while you’re at it.
Private ownership and control of public resources. Competition. Hierarchy. Fascism.
I had to have a good look for definitions that worked for me, in the end it was good old wikipedia descriptions of the phenomena that most appealed to me. I do agree that without a consensus about the definition, it’s virtually impossible for the conversation to proceed.
Socialism While there is wide variation between socialist groups, nearly all would agree that they are bound together by a common history rooted originally in nineteenth and twentieth-century struggles by industrial and agricultural workers, operating according to principles of solidarity and advocating an egalitarian society, with an economics that would, in their view, serve the broad populace rather than a favored few.
Capitalism Capitalism has been defined in different, sometimes competing, ways. Nevertheless, virtually all definitions of capitalism describe a system composed of some combination of the following conditions, many of which became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries: the right of individuals to own and trade private property including capital goods such as land and labor; the right of groups of individuals acting as “artificial legal persons” (corporations) to do so; a free or relatively free market where price is determined by supply and demand; pursuit of profit; investment and distribution decisions are made privately rather than by a centralized governmental authority preempting those decisions.
I think if any truly productive discussion is going to take place, we should just throw out the dictionary and learn to express these ideas in a new way. Instead of capitalism vs. socialism try private vs. public property. There will never be a consensus on definition of these -isms so long as people can manipulate the discussion by twisting their meanings. Language is critical, and the intelligent use of is what revolutionary political power will be made of.