Is Capitalism Broken?

so...i take a few weeks off to do fun life things and come back only to find a lot of the same old same old...for example, you'd think ace would take borla's post a bit seriously, not only in that it crushes such magic his arbitrary numbers had earlier, but also because it points to the persistent problem with his style of posting--the arbitrariness of his movement from the anecdotal to the system level. in the end, this is "resolved" for ace because capitalism is whatever he wants it to be, a series of nice ideas, blah blah blah. whatever.

capitalism is an economic system intimately linked to a political and social order--what marx back in the old days called a mode of production. the main problems with contemporary american-style capitalism aren't new or surprising--the explicit dominance of strata of the dominant economic class over the political system that has been elaborated historically to shape it's boundaries and address the myriad irrationalities it generates as night follows the day.

all you have to do to see that capitalism generates almost continuous crisis is move to the register of---o i don't know---history for example. you know, the actually existing past and actually existing things that happened in that actually existing past.

modern capitalism is a hybrid state-economic form in which the state's primary role--exercise through law and the institutions that articulate and enforce it--is to operate to preserve the overall political legitimacy of the existing order by shaping differently the more repetitive/routine consequences of capitalism, particularly in that it is a system the history of which is one of more-or-less continuous crisis.

the exceptional periods operated on bases that the metaphysical right can't accept (think fordism for example---that whole heavily unionized workforce, collective bargaining as an institutional frame that legitimated high-wage employment and all that), but that by the by.

but the metaphysicians on the right have worked for a very long time to undermine the political bases for such coherence that the political form elaborated across the history of capitalism has managed from time to time. thatcherite neo-liberalism again--*the* problem with contemporary capitalism as a mode of production.

so there are two problems, really---the dominance of the political system by the same social groups dominant in the capitalist economic order compounded by the fact that, against all reason, neo-liberalism continues to be the ideological base from which these people operate and, somehow, continue to legitimate themselves.

capitalism is broken most of the time.
capitalism in actually existing reality is a complex system that tends to generate crisis.
crisis erodes political consent for the political order the function of which is to manage problems of consent for capitalism.
so the more functional modality is for there to be a conflictual relation between these general sectors, which would entail conflict over system objectives.
this is why democratic-socialist type orders operate better in the abstract.
in a more concrete sense, this is a translation of a normative conflict over things like maximizing shareholder returns vs. full employment.
in that more-or-less everywhere case in the world that is not the united states, this conflict both generates political objectives that mitigate how capitalism tends--which is to concentration, if to anything---and also works to maintain the legitimacy of the order within which the gangrene of capitalism operates because it generates the impression of opposition within the dominant order.
if maximizing shareholder returns is the only game in town, problems corrode people's belief that this system makes any sense, unless they are either benefitting massively from it, or they are religious people who Believe in Capitalism like the lady miss kier believed in the power of love.

and she believed.

but i digress.

so if you look at that pesky history thing, of course capitalism is broken.

well, you might say, if that's the case why don't people see it?

that leads to the question of social reproduction.
you want to hamstring people educationally so that the dominant order, no matter how fucked up, remains for them the only game they can imagine.

you control people's imaginations, you control their worlds(tm).

btw..hello.

 

I'm sorry Levite, but that is complete rubbish.

For one, the general German population is becoming increasingly hostile towards Israel's crimes of war/against humanity and there is a growing rejection of accepting the national guilt imposed on the population by the political and intellectual classes. Jews may not agree, but rejection of Israel's actions and the current status quo in the holy land is, in most cases, mutually exclusive of actual anti-Semitism. That is, prejudice/hate towards Jews. One does not need to be Jewish to have the right to criticize Israel for what it does, and being German does not diminish this either.

Second, you may view the increasing size of the Muslim community in Germany as an indicator for rising anti-Semitism due to the Muslim world's hatred for Israel, but you couldn't be more mistaken. In fact, the Jewish and Muslim communities often get along better than they do with the Christian or secular ones. An example to underline this would be the recent joint Jewish/Muslim protest against a ruling banning circumcision.

Third, Germany's growing Neonazi community is matter of concern for all immigrants and non-Atheist ideologies (with the Christian denominations being a general exemption). However, anti-Neonazi sentiment is growing and becoming more hostile as well.

To purport that you being a Jew is a reason not to live in Germany, given the vast German demographics that resent anti-Semitism and the protective manner in which German politicians support the Jewish community, is an absolute joke.

Maybe you prefer France instead?

 

I watched that Frontline episode tonight. I had it saved on my DVR since January...

I highly suspect that there were some backroom deals made during the financial meltdown when the bank CEOs got called to DC and had to take bailout money/merge...that part of the deal was that the DoJ wouldn't prosecute any of them criminally. Like the one guy said at the end, if one bank exec went down, it would cast a dim view and uncertainty across every bank. Plus, would it be worth ruining whatever recovery there is to send a few people to jail? It is sad that that happened, but the whole thing is a mess.

What I am disappointed in, would be that there isn't a movement towards dropping out of the rat race or finding a different way to live where money isn't the sole goal of your existence. And you have to compete against these guys on Wall St. that can skim off a percentage or two and make millions of dollars for doing pretty much nothing.

 

Actually, it has nothing to do with Germany's Muslim population. There is actually fairly cordial relations between German Jews and Muslims. And I wasn't speaking as much about criticism of Israel-- though there is a fair amount of anti-Semitism in Europe wrapping itself in the guise of "humanitarian concern" over the Israel-Palestinian situation. The fact, by the way, that you describe the slackening of real awareness about and national responsibility for the Shoah-- which only took place seventy years ago-- as "rejection of accepting the national guilt imposed on the population by the political and intellectual classes" is itself a problematic demonstration of how dim memories are growing about what the road toward aggressive anti-Semitism looks like.

What I was referring to was the recent trend in anti-circumcision laws (which are xenophobically targeting of both Jews and Muslims), and the recent trend of laws targeting Jewish and Muslim ritual animal slaughter practices, as well as social antagonism being reported toward Jews and Muslims on the streets of many European countries, Germany included. I have a friend who lived in Germany and Austria for a year as a Jewish educator and he spoke of encountering so much casual hatred and verbal abuse on the streets that he couldn't go around wearing his kippah (yarmulke).

I am not at all sure that France is any better, by the way: I have French cousins who also cannot go out wearing their kippot, and who regularly have to deal with anti-Semitic graffiti vandalizing their local synagogues or institutions. But the unfortunate realities of the atmosphere that European Jews are living with...that is not rubbish at all. And that it would be so easily dismissed as such is troublesome indeed.

 

While there is growing criticism from within Germany regarding the Israel/Palestine situation, some is indeed a poorly-veiled anti-Semitic agenda (see: Guenter Grass). However, Media organizations and political analysts often vastly underestimate how the new generation of Germans views Germany's ugly past and differentiates between two independent eras.

Young Germans don't reject the imposed national guilt due to some ill-founded hostility towards Jews, or due to unawareness (which is akin to accusing our education system to be as bad as in America). Both World Wars and the Holocaust are central parts of the German education curriculum and the topics are covered quite extensively. Young Germans reject the national guilt because it is often perceived as a grave injustice to be held accountable (whether directly or indirectly) for crimes that one has had no part in.

One would think that the misgivings we have towards the concept of "guilt by association" should be especially understandable for Jews. Currently, the national guilt imposed in politics, academia and wider German culture is stifling any attempt at a rational, objective discussion of the Holocaust. The banning of Mein Kampf, and thus prohibition of access to raw information, while the same is freely available worldwide; the criminalization of choosing not to believe, and stating as such, that the Holocaust happened; and the constant political prostitution the German government continues to exercise towards all matters concerning Israel; these all serve to breed discontent in young Germans, which is something the far-right groups build on in their quest to expand.

There is no question Germans have learned from history. Arguably, they have excelled in doing so. Germans understand the ramifications of a fascist and racist Government, and have in large part no interest in going back to tho time.

Why then should we feel a collective shame for what happened 70 years ago? Exactly why is our deep appreciation for those events, and resolve not to repeat them, not enough? This persistence in telling Germans to continue to carry a burden, any burden, is what is really troublesome and will eventually come around to harm the Jewish community again.

Regarding the circumcision issue, I followed German media and the discussions as they happened and I saw no indication that the movement against circumcision is was doing anything more than to target a practice they perceived as barbaric. What basis do you have to think it was racially-motivated, other than that circumcision is practiced in particular by the Jewish and Muslim communities?

I brought up France precisely because it is far more difficult to live there as an immigrant, Muslim or Jew than in Germany.

But to get back to my orginal point: I do not believe it is harder for a Jew to live in Germany than in most of the world. Your cousin's experience is better explained by Germany's large Atheist population and their disapproval of anything religion, than actual anti-Semitism.

 

I choose not to further threadjack a very fine thread about another subject. But much could be said about what is going on in Europe right now regarding Jews, Muslims, and European xenophobia. Perhaps I will start a different thread on the subject.

 

No worries. I'd be happy to participate.

 

The only thing broken concerning capitalism is the delineation between financial capitalism and so-called real capitalism. Everything is operating as a well-oiled machine. As rochboy said above, these crises aren't perversions of capitalism but part and parcel of its operations. The only innovations we can believe in are of the sort that don't benefit us but the bourgeois financial sector. And whether these innovations fail or succeed, they still work toward the transformation of masses (and our children by way of astronomical debts) into debtors who own nothing but their debts, who if lucky can only afford to manage said debts, and must shoulder the burdens of whatever capital externalizes on to us in the form of an ever-diminishing social safety net.

Those who still blame the poor for being so should look outside themselves. I think I'd be thrilled if poverty was caused by poor spending choices. Stratification is real.

 

That's an extremely limited view that I couldn't disagree with any further. Cheers.

 

I'm not going to say that poor or nonexistant reproductive choices are not a factor in poverty situations but "mostly caused by" is an awfully big statement. I'm not even sure I'd put reproductive choices in the top five contributing factors. Maybe not even in the top ten. Pinning poverty on excessive reproduction seems like it ignores a whole lot of extremely pertinent and problematic issues in both Western and global society regarding class stratification and the disappearance of the middle class, corporate plutocracy, deregulation and poor regulation, inadequacies of social services and education, and inadequate distribution of extant basic resources on a global scale-- as well, most likely, as some other things.

 

This depends on what we are discussing. It appears your focus is on trivial matters, mine is on big picture concepts. A market exchange is a market exchange, if it occurred 5 minutes ago or 500 years ago - a market exchange involving an abacus is at the core no difference than a market exchange involving a Square Credit Card Reader on a smart phone.

It is the buyers responsibility to do due diligence. Fraud is illegal. Certain forms of negligence are subject to damages.

Same answer as above.

True - a few days ago I pointed out my approach when riding my motorcycle - it doesn't matter if I am right if I get involved in a collision with an semi-trailer truck - I may be right but I may also be dead. So it goes when I enter the market place, I may only have one opportunity and if I am harmed, I may be able to file a complaint, sue, etc. - but my preference is to not go through that - in some cases the damage may be un-repairable, not to mention the loss of time. In some cases I have had to learn the hard way, do the work up front. An extremely important lesson.
--- merged: Mar 6, 2013 at 11:38 AM ---

You have got to be kidding. borla was simply being argumentative, he knows it, I know it, and I assume you know it. It gets truly silly when people don't think things through before posting.

Just to illustrate one simple consideration on new v. used - think about a new vehicle getting 30 mpg compared to the same older model getting 25 mpg and your plan is to keep the vehicle for 100,000. that is 3,333 gallons of gas for the new vehicle and 4,000 for the used one. Difference is 667 gallons over the planned use - at $3.75/gallon that is about $2,500. One can easily make up the depreciation difference depending on the circumstances. And if you and others won't do the math, you enter the market place il-prepared - that ain't the fault of capitalism!

 

ace, the way you operate is like trying to describe how american cheese is manufactured by talking about how much you like grilled cheese sandwiches. it's nice that you like sandwiches. and you are likely correct about your liking of them. but....

 

If you can distinguish the difference between why a person looks at a subject and what they know about the subject you would not have the view you describe above - disagreement on the conclusions I draw is a separate matter as well. It is amusing what most of you focus your responses on.
--- merged: Mar 6, 2013 at 2:56 PM ---

Can you restate your view? Do you believe it is always financially advantageous to purchase a used vehicle rather than a new one and that my view that it depends is wrong?

When I run the numbers there have been occasions when buying new is best and other occasions when buying used is best. If you don't look at all the factors in addition to depreciation, I think it illustrates a problem that people ascribe to the market. Buying a car is often described as a bad experience ranking somewhere around going to the dentist - interacting with you I am getting a better understanding why this is. You complain about the presentation of simple examples to illustrate the importance of looking at what may appear to be immaterial variables - but unless you run the numbers you don't really know. There have been many occasions where I have maintained detailed spreadsheets of every cost during the time I have owned some vehicles and I revist my projections v. actuals. If you are going by feelings or some rule of thumb, sellers in the market will easily take advantage of that.

 

ace, for the record, when i note things like your grilled cheese-level of thinking, i do it in order to highlight the problem you persistently have in moving from the particular to the system level.

and, ironically, you didn't even catch the implication of my earlier response, which is that no, capitalism is not "broken" now any more than it's usually broken.

maybe because you have no way of recognizing that crisis is one of the most predictable outcomes of the operation of capitalism as a system. want proof? take a look sometime at the track record of the "structural adjustment" idea.

what's breaking apart is the coherence of the social consequences of capitalist operation, and this as a direct result of the domination of the political process by the same economic class as benefits from capitalist operation. plutocracy with some shallow veneer of pseudo-democracy.

this opens onto is the lack of alternative political perspectives...the result of lots of unfortunate things about the american systems of social reproduction, it's monolithic ideological space, the dominant role played by repetition in the main opinion co-ordination systems...on and on.

i suppose somewhere out there in the national-security state there's an idea that the u.s. of a. can be held together in the longer run by militarizing the police and making increasingly arbitrary the boundary that separates inside from outside, a kind of metastasizing of the notion of "terrorist"...you know, business as usual in the u.s. of a.

but of course people still like grilled cheese.