US Does Not Have Capitalism Now: Stiglitz

[el_chavista]

Declarations of Stiglitz at CNBC: (http://www.cnbc.com/id/34921639)


"Today, (at) most of the big companies you have managers who, when things go well, walk off with a lot of money. When things go bad the shareholders bear the costs," he said.

It's a system where "you socialize the losses and privatize the gains," which is not capitalism, he said.

Then what USA have is a kind of a state capitalism with a fascist dictatorship of the financial bourgeoisie.

[Patchd]

No, it's just capitalist. It's a society where, when things go bad, the shareholders walk off with a big government bailout, and the workers have to pay the price for it.

[ZeroNowhere]

So capital doesn't exist any more? Wage labour has ceased? Huh, that makes life a lot easier.But seriously, the US is not fascist, and fascist countries have been capitalist anyway.

[Guerrilla22]

That is a typical example of an excuse used by advocates of a market economy as to why economicaly the US is falling apart. "What we have here isn't technically capitalism therefore capitalism is not failing."

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Declarations of Stiglitz at CNBC: (http://www.cnbc.com/id/34921639)


Then what USA have is a kind of a state capitalism with a fascist dictatorship of the financial bourgeoisie.
Capitalism has always depended on the state. Stiglitz is just upset that actual capitalism fails to live up to the unworkable fantasy of the free market.

[Agnapostate]

I find it amusing that the same people who claim that the capitalist economy is "corporatist" and not truly capitalist turn and ineptly attempt to mock socialists who declare certain forms of self-described socialism "state capitalist."

[robbo203]

The title of this thread is misleading.

Stiglitz did not say "US Does Not Have Capitalism Now"

What he actually said was .

"Layers of money managers that don't bear the brunt of losses but walk away with big payouts when things go well have turned the US economy to a type of "ersatz capitalism"

Not that I take much heed of what Stiglitz has to say. A typical reformist apologist for mere regulated capitalism

[leninpuncher]

Isn't Stiglitz a communist?

[spaßmaschine]

No.

[Tatarin]

Or, to shorten it down more, capitalism is just another way to power. Call them kings or businessmen, it is the same bag of cobalt-blue tarantula shit 10,000 BC or AD. I mean, isn't it just like during the middle ages, when one king pointed a finger at another kingdom and said that that kingdom wasn't really a monarchy because, in secret, demons were controlling that king?

[RadioRaheem84]

Declarations of Stiglitz at CNBC: (http://www.cnbc.com/id/34921639)


Then what USA have is a kind of a state capitalism with a fascist dictatorship of the financial bourgeoisie.

Noam Chomsky's been saying that ALL his career.

But pretty much Stiglitz is spot on. How did anyone not notice that we have elements of both the third world and the first world in this country? We look like Eastern Europe for pete's sake!

[RadioRaheem84]

Isn't Stiglitz a communist?

I believe he's part of the neo-Keynesian camp.

[h9socialist]

No. Stiglitz is petty bourgeois . . . A petty bourgeois idiot, if you ask me! If we don't have "capitalism" what has the Treasury and the Fed spent bookoo trillions trying to save?

The acid test is that whatever exists in the US now certainly is NOT socialism . . . much to our detriment and disgrace!

[RadioRaheem84]

Well it was actually the idiots talking to Stiglitz (who clearly couldn't keep with him) that mentioned that "this wasn't capitalism" and he just agreed. That's been going on a lot in the media in response to this mess, every pundit or economist brought to discuss the crisis always assures people that this isn't capitalism, it's "socialism" for the rich (always injecting socialism), or it's "corporatism" or it's this or that, but never capitalism. Did they ever stop to think that the free market theories in their textbooks are incompatible with reality? That capitalism changes it's face time and time again to avoid collapse? It was always capitalism. What elese could it have possibly been?

Do you guys sometimes feel that NO ONE in the mainstream gets it? How is it that marginilized Marxists and Anarchists know more about the system then they do?

[cyu]

Do you guys sometimes feel that NO ONE in the mainstream gets it? How is it that marginilized Marxists and Anarchists know more about the system then they do?


From Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one (http://everything2.com/title/Freedom+of+the+press+is+guaranteed+only+to+those+w ho+own+one):

A quote from A. J. Liebling, a writer for the The New Yorker.

Freedom of the press is considered to be one of the cornerstones of a functioning democracy. Without it, you wouldn't know what you were voting on, and the process of voting would be worthless.

Silvio Berlusconi is Italy's wealthiest person. He also controls more "freedom of the press" than any other person in Italy. Of course, he also happens to have been elected to the most powerful post in Italy multiple times. Not too surprising.

Control over the media translates to control over the ideas and issues discussed at election time. The more that control is concentrated into fewer hands, the less of a real democracy the nation becomes. Authoritarian regimes use the same method to win their sham elections. Since they control the media, they control all discussion and critiques of various policies. Once you control the ideas, you control what people will vote for. The more control of the media you have, the easier it is to control the vote.

While the electorate may not be "illiterate" in the sense that they can't read or engage in complex feats of engineering, they can still be rendered politically illiterate by surrounding them with media that only pretends to be "fair and balanced" or "pravda" when it is not.

As the gap between the rich and poor widens, it shouldn't be surprising that many members of the wealthy classes would use their growing power to influence the media. The more influence they gather, the more they can consolidate their wealth, and further widen the gap. If left unchecked, the democracy itself would be destroyed.

As Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1864:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and cause me to tremble for the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic destroyed."

[The Idler]

Stiglitz is the worst excuse for a leftist I have ever come across. For all its hype as progressive, Globalization and its Discontents was a painful disappointment to read.

[Kayser_Soso]

"It's a system where "you socialize the losses and privatize the gains," which is not capitalism, he said."

Next he'll say something like- Water is a compound made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen, which is not water. Read these and other revelations in Stiglitz's new book "I'm a Fucking Moron."

[h9socialist]

Well it was actually the idiots talking to Stiglitz (who clearly couldn't keep with him) that mentioned that "this wasn't capitalism" and he just agreed. That's been going on a lot in the media in response to this mess, every pundit or economist brought to discuss the crisis always assures people that this isn't capitalism, it's "socialism" for the rich (always injecting socialism), or it's "corporatism" or it's this or that, but never capitalism. Did they ever stop to think that the free market theories in their textbooks are incompatible with reality? That capitalism changes it's face time and time again to avoid collapse? It was always capitalism. What elese could it have possibly been?

Do you guys sometimes feel that NO ONE in the mainstream gets it? How is it that marginilized Marxists and Anarchists know more about the system then they do?

No, Comrade, the mainstream doesn't "get it" at all! That's why it's the mainstream -- and that's why mainstream politics can't find the solutions to the problems of modern society. The solutions lie outside the mainstream.

[Raúl Duke]

I wonder if it's a matter of perspective...

We view the social relationships to production to ascertain what kind of economy this is. We know that the capitalist class control the capital and through having capital they control/manage/etc the means of production. The capitalist class also uses capital to exploit workers, they give them less for what they make and the difference is revenues/profits. Capitalism is the control of the means of production via capital.

I don't think libertarians who say "we don't live in capitalism" see it or think of it this way.
Although I'm not even sure they have any clear idea on this at all.

[Kayser_Soso]

I wonder if it's a matter of perspective...

We view the social relationships to production to ascertain what kind of economy this is. We know that the capitalist class control the capital and through having capital they control/manage/etc the means of production. The capitalist class also uses capital to exploit workers, they give them less for what they make and the difference is revenues/profits. Capitalism is the control of the means of production via capital.

I don't think libertarians who say "we don't live in capitalism" see it or think of it this way.
Although I'm not even sure they have any clear idea on this at all.

Libertarians divide the world into "free market"(good), and "government"(bad). In the real world, the state will always intervene to one degree or another in the private sector, because there really is no choice. Who the hell would honor contracts without the state? Who keeps the workers from walking out the door with the shoes they made? Libertarians can't fathom this though, due to their extremely poor reasoning capability(rarely exceeds the level of a twelve year old). Their argument in favor of capitalism is basically a non-stop No True Scotsman fallacy.

[cyu]

I don't think libertarians who say "we don't live in capitalism" see it or think of it this way.
Although I'm not even sure they have any clear idea on this at all.

I think it would make more sense if you see pro-capitalist "libertarianism" not as an ideology that evolved out of people seeking what is right, but rather an ideology that evolved as a result of capitalists looking for justifications of capitalism, rationalizations for their own behavior, and support from the weak-minded who could be duped into propping up their masters.

Excerpts from http://www.struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/anarchism/libcap/refuteAC.html

It is no coincidence that "anarcho"-capitalists try to limit the definition of anarchy or anarchism purely to opposition to the state or government. This is because capitalist property produces authoritarian structures (and so social relations) exactly like the state. By focusing on "government" rather than "authority," they hide the basic contradiction within their ideology namely that the "anarcho"-capitalist definition of private property is remarkably close to its definition of the state.

So if the state were a legitimate landlord or capitalist then its authoritarianism would be fine?

The liberal tradition "anarcho"-capitalism happily places itself in has a long history of sophisticated defences for autocracy based on consent.

Capitalism, in other words, is based on economic power, which ensures that people "consent" to be subjected to authority structures identical to those created by the state. This means that a consistent anarchist, as Chomsky noted, must oppose both state and capitalism.

Opposing the latter does not mean opposing the market. Not all anarchists are communists (although most are). Capitalism is just one form of market system, one rooted in specific property rights and social relationships. For those "anarcho"-capitalists who genuinely seek a free society and still think that markets are the best way to organise an economy then the ideas of anarchist mutualism should be of interest. This is a socialist system based on "occupancy and use," where self-employed workers and co-operatives govern themselves and sell the product of their labour to their fellow workers.

[h9socialist]

It is no coincidence that "anarcho"-capitalists try to limit the definition of anarchy or anarchism purely to opposition to the state or government. This is because capitalist property produces authoritarian structures (and so social relations) exactly like the state. By focusing on "government" rather than "authority," they hide the basic contradiction within their ideology namely that the "anarcho"-capitalist definition of private property is remarkably close to its definition of the state.

Even Adam Smith wrote that "private property could not last a fortnight without government. The inexorable contradiction of "libertarianism" or "anarcho-capitalism" is that private property (their dearly beloved crown jewel) can exist without government, because private property is a legal concept requiring enforcement by the state.

[Agnapostate]

Well, as noted elsewhere, the threat of these pseudo-libertarians does not lie in their ability to implement any of these schemes (which are all based on fanciful utopianism and the absurd idea that capitalism could possibly function without reliance on the state), but the fact that their economic rightism is supported by donations from corporate power for the purpose of maintaining their dominance through propertarian policy, which ironically acts against the market by sustaining concentration.

The most enthusiastic fan of Mises and the Austrian school that I've met was a multi-millionaire mutual fund manager who angrily screeched at me to "cut the crap" when I opined that the country was characterized by limited social mobility, vehemently insisted that progressive taxation was unconstitutional, and boasted that his departure from California after the progressive tax increase had cost the state the equivalent of 8,000 taxpayers' offerings. The man has no interest in the implementation of Austrian economic principles or the "anarcho"-capitalist ideology that many of them advance so much as the ability of their aims to shift things right and defend and exacerbate presently unequal wealth distribution.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well, as noted elsewhere, the threat of these pseudo-libertarians does not lie in their ability to implement any of these schemes (which are all based on fanciful utopianism and the absurd idea that capitalism could possibly function without reliance on the state), but the fact that their economic rightism is supported by donations from corporate power for the purpose of maintaining their dominance through propertarian policy, which ironically acts against the market by sustaining concentration.

The most enthusiastic fan of Mises and the Austrian school that I've met was a multi-millionaire mutual fund manager who angrily screeched at me to "cut the crap" when I opined that the country was characterized by limited social mobility, vehemently insisted that progressive taxation was unconstitutional, and boasted that his departure from California after the progressive tax increase had cost the state the equivalent of 8,000 taxpayers' offerings. The man has no interest in the implementation of Austrian economic principles or the "anarcho"-capitalist ideology that many of them advance so much as the ability of their aims to shift things right and defend and exacerbate presently unequal wealth distribution.

What I don't understand is how the CATO Institute can publish publications on the ills of corporate welfare and all sort of extreme libertarian stuff and still be sponsored by major corporations that rely on subsidies, tax breaks, and whatever else the state offers them?

[h9socialist]

Since when do you think consistency between theory and practice matters to capitalism? The corporations love to perpetuate the lie! It helps to have a bunch of "over-educated shitheads"* making a case against government of any kind -- that way you can hide the dirty laundry!

* thanks to Frank Zappa for terminology!

[GPDP]

What I don't understand is how the CATO Institute can publish publications on the ills of corporate welfare and all sort of extreme libertarian stuff and still be sponsored by major corporations that rely on subsidies, tax breaks, and whatever else the state offers them?

I imagine it goes something like this:

Corporation: Alright, CATO, we've decided we're going to grant you founds to continue your think-tank research.

CATO: Thank you.

Corporation: We are especially pleased with the study you did about how welfare programs damage economic growth, and how labor unions undermine economic security. Truly masterful. Rest assured the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times will cover this extensively.

CATO: Indeed, we did our best. We also came up with a groundbreaking study about how government subsidies to corporations also undermine the free market's ability to induce growth through competition. We believe it will be a highly contentious study.

Corporation: Yeah... cool story bro. We'll help publish it... in some journal nobody will read. Now, about that other article...

[Die Neue Zeit]

After having done a rare read of the Economist, I've come across yet another shit article screaming "State Kapitalism!" on the mere basis of the % of G in C + I + G + X (the GDP formula).

Can we just come up with a retaliatory term and say that such disproportionate government spending is not socialism or even "state capitalism" (unless nationalizations or sovereign wealth funds are involved), but state consumerism? Then at least the welfare state can be defined as the left-wing of state consumerism.