Occupy London - Occupy Protests go global!

[Guest sibon]

 

The Occupy protests are inspiring and welcome but the really important and interesting one is Greece. Capitalism has failed most Greeks; the 'solutions' that keep them within capitalism - massive wage cuts, massive unemployment, defaulting - are not solutions at all. They have a clear choice, either stick with capitalism and suffer real poverty for generations or try something else.

 

It is pretty clear that the Greeks are going to try something else. They don't seem very keen on austerity and abject poverty. Who can blame them?

 

We live in very interesting times. Those of us old enough to recall the fall of communism in the late 80s should be able to draw some parallels.

[TeaFan]

It is pretty clear that the Greeks are going to try something else. They don't seem very keen on austerity and abject poverty. Who can blame them?

 

We live in very interesting times. Those of us old enough to recall the fall of communism in the late 80s should be able to draw some parallels.

 

Except that the fall of 'communism' was really the fall of state-run capitalism. States are very bad at running capitalism, as the Eastern Bloc countries and Cuba have demonstrated. China is not state capitalist, they have allowed a liberal market economy within a totalitarian regime. In the 80s the Eastern European countries simply swapped state-run capitalism for market capitalism*, which was a good call. What's significant about Greece is that they have the option of swapping market capitalism for... what?

 

* except Russia, which swapped state capitalism for the 19th century, with added rape porn.

[Harleyman]

It is pretty clear that the Greeks are going to try something else. They don't seem very keen on austerity and abject poverty. Who can blame them?

 

We live in very interesting times. Those of us old enough to recall the fall of communism in the late 80s should be able to draw some parallels.

 

I've heard that a lot of Greek buisnesses dont bother to declare income for tax purposes. They just squirrel it away out of sight instead.

 

If this is true then small wonder the Govt is bust

[Guest sibon]

I've heard that a lot of Greek buisnesses dont bother to declare income for tax purposes. They just squirrel it away out of sight instead.

 

If this is true then small wonder the Govt is bust

 

Not only Greek businesses, or the Greek Government. That is a pretty common characteristic of many businesses. And one reason for the tented villages springing up across the World.

[Guest sibon]

Except that the fall of 'communism' was really the fall of state-run capitalism. States are very bad at running capitalism, as the Eastern Bloc countries and Cuba have demonstrated. China is not state capitalist, they have allowed a liberal market economy within a totalitarian regime. In the 80s the Eastern European countries simply swapped state-run capitalism for market capitalism*, which was a good call. What's significant about Greece is that they have the option of swapping market capitalism for... what?

 

* except Russia, which swapped state capitalism for the 19th century, with added rape porn.

 

But this time, we have the fall of capitalism, which is really the fall of state run capitalism.

 

Repeat to fade.

[jabba25]

It depends what you mean by opting out. What is it that Proudhon said? Build the new from within the old (...more profound than that but you get the jist!). The structures of change are already there within the existing economic system, we just have to capitalise and empower the right institutions, "vote" for them with our feet and our money. Easier said than done, I know, but to me opting out isn't going to change a thing.

 

It reminds me of people not bothering to vote simply because they don't see any point.

 

I may have completely misinterpreted your position but there we go.

 

I agree opting out won't change a thing, and as already stated it is hardly an option anyway. I disagree that the structures for change already exist in the current economic system. Anything less than a resource based economy is ridiculously short sighted in my opinion.

Personally I don't see that change occurring in my lifetime although I hope I am wrong. But it seems logical to attempt to move towards that, and in the meantime I intend to take back as much as I can to provide for my family and share with as many as I can. I have a long way to go but hey that is my aspiration.

 

As with voting I empathise with those who see no point. What is there to vote for? Change cannot occur within our current political framework. I personally send in my ballot paper (and recently my census)with the words The Zeitgeist Movement which is almost as futile as not voting at all.

[donkey]

Of course you can opt out. You could close your bank account, emigrate to a country with a different economic system or go and live on a self-sufficient commune in a remote part of Wales for example.

 

But since it's not allowed to build on common land, this commune would need to be on private land which would need to be paid for. And the building would need to be paid for. And if it was a new building you would have to pay the state and get the state's permission to build it. It would be liable for council tax to the state. If you had children the state would make you send them to school. It's not possible to opt out. For a system that believes itself to be superior to all possible alternatives, capitalism allows very little opportunity to test alternatives out.

.

 

 

Even if it were a possibility, why should people give up on society because of the actions of a tiny minority? Surely they would be better staying where they are and confronting the systems which allow a parasitical elite to grow ever richer and more powerful at the expense of everyone else.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Except that the fall of 'communism' was really the fall of state-run capitalism. States are very bad at running capitalism, as the Eastern Bloc countries and Cuba have demonstrated. China is not state capitalist, they have allowed a liberal market economy within a totalitarian regime. In the 80s the Eastern European countries simply swapped state-run capitalism for market capitalism*, which was a good call. What's significant about Greece is that they have the option of swapping market capitalism for... what?

 

* except Russia, which swapped state capitalism for the 19th century, with added rape porn.

 

Err... I must've missed something ... or are you confusing capitalism with state-run socialism?

 

When, exactly, did the Eastern Bloc and Cuba embrace capitalism? Did the Berlin wall fall, did the one-time Soviet republics and the satellites fail because they were failed capitalists?

 

Please define 'State-Run capitalism' and compare it to 'Capitalist-Run capitalism'?

[TeaFan]

Err... I must've missed something ... or are you confusing capitalism with state-run socialism?

 

When, exactly, did the Eastern Bloc and Cuba embrace capitalism? Did the Berlin wall fall, did the one-time Soviet republics and the satellites fail because they were failed capitalists?

 

Please define 'State-Run capitalism' and compare it to 'Capitalist-Run capitalism'?

 

State capitalism: means of production owned by the state. Existence of a manager/owner class who are part of the state. They employ workers who are on less favourable terms, wages etc. Produce goods which belong to the state and which the state sells, takes its cut then pays the small remainder to workers. The state enforces the status quo to the advantage of itself.

 

Market capitalism: means of production owned by private individuals. They are the manager/owner class and are not part of the state. They employ workers who are on less favourable terms, wages etc. Produce goods which belong to the private individuals and which they sell, take their cut then pay the small remainder to workers. The state enforces the status quo to the advantage of the manager/owner class (the 1%).

 

Communism: common ownership of means of production. No manager/owner class. Ventures are co-operative, no-one is employed by anyone else. Decisions are made democratically. Produce goods on the basis of what's needed rather than what will sell. Everyone shares the products. There is no state.

[epiphany]

State capitalism: means of production owned by the state. Existence of a manager/owner class who are part of the state. They employ workers who are on less favourable terms, wages etc. Produce goods which belong to the state and which the state sells, takes its cut then pays the small remainder to workers. The state enforces the status quo to the advantage of itself.

 

People don't seem to appreciate how broad both capitalist and socialist theory are. There are statist and non-statist branches of both. In fact that is where the true ideological conflict lies, which is why you'll find anti-state communists as vehemently opposed to Soviet-style communism as libertarian capitalists. Rothbard has more in common with Proudhon than he may have ever wanted to admit!

 

I think history shows us the true dichotomy is not capitalism vs socialism, but rather state intervention vs free markets, whether those markets would be capital based or resource based.