Global Capitalism = 21st century Facism?

[fool]

I think that the author does not understand the modern economy and even Marxism (because Marx postulated the certitude of crises under capitalism).

Where does the author deny "the certitude of crises under capitalism"?

The author brings together under the name of '21st century fascism' the diverse phenomena: strengthening the state, nationalism, technological and economical progress and many other things.

Are we reading the same article? I don't recall mention of nationalism, and technological and economic progress were attributed to "Emergent transnational capital" (well, implied anyway).

We perceive the world all-in-all, not just in the form of logic signals, and therein lies our strength.

This looks pretty interesting, but I can't work out exactly what you're trying to say. Care to rephrase? Thanks.

[sirveri]

Doubtful. How would they pay for it?

I think that you are speaking about B2C market and available cash only. However, comparatively low wages can help the growth of industry, so B2B market rising. I don't know how was the case with Ford trucks in those years

Why would a business expand their business to business purchases without an upswing in demand for their products? All demand stems from consumer spending. By continuously seeking lower and lower wages those businesses attack their very base of demand.

Lets say I make automotive engines. In order to produce those engines I will purchase materials to create them. But I will only build enough to supply my purchase orders (thus I will only buy enough materials to make that many engines), if the automobile manufacturer I sell to can't sell any of their vehicles (either because their cars suck, or because nobody can afford them), then I can't sell them any product, and thus I won't purchase any materials.

All Business to business purchasing has a purpose, that ultimate purpose is fundamentally tied to consumer spending, which is only harmed by the continual desire for cheaper labor.

[Lea]

Where does the author deny "the certitude of crises under capitalism"?

When he call ordinary crisis 'crisis of humanity' and etc. without proofs. He scares readers intentionally from a first paragraph. Why does he want the ordinary occurrence scare us so much?
Some para later he notes in passing that such crises are once every 40 years. Great, we have to believe that crises of the 30's and 70's was an another threats to human survival.

Are we reading the same article? I don't recall mention of nationalism,

3rd 'key features of a 21st century fascism',

and technological and economic progress were attributed to "Emergent transnational capital" (well, implied anyway).

'Emergent transnational capital underwent a major expansion in the 1980s and 1990s, involving hyper-accumulation through new technologies such as computers and informatics, through neo-liberal policies, and through new modalities of mobilising and exploiting the global labour force'.
Also 3rd 'mechanism to sustain global accumulation'.

This looks pretty interesting, but I can't work out exactly what you're trying to say. Care to rephrase? Thanks.

Probably I spoke in Russian by English words...
I wanted to say that people perceive not only by logic. Humans has emotions, intuition, experience. We can use all this, it is our strong point.

All demand stems from consumer spending.

Obviously you have not lived in socialism. Where the main consumer is the state.
Well, think about industrialization. It is a huge increase in production without huge consumer enrichment.

Lets say I make automotive engines. In order to produce those engines I will purchase materials to create them. But I will only build enough to supply my purchase orders (thus I will only buy enough materials to make that many engines), if the automobile manufacturer I sell to can't sell any of their vehicles (either because their cars suck, or because nobody can afford them), then I can't sell them any product, and thus I won't purchase any materials.

If you pay a little wages you will be able to sell cheaper to another people and regions (markets). So your sales grow, and your suppliers sales grow too.
It is going and it is profitable.

[fool]

When he call ordinary crisis 'crisis of humanity' and etc. without proofs. He scares readers intentionally from a first paragraph. Why does he want the ordinary occurrence scare us so much?
Some para later he notes in passing that such crises are once every 40 years. Great, we have to believe that crises of the 30's and 70's was an another threats to human survival.

This is not a cyclical but a structural crisis - a restructuring crisis, such as we had in the 1970s, and before that, in the 1930s - that has the potential to become a systemic crisis, depending on how social agents respond to the crisis and on a host of unknown contingencies.

Together with (paraphrased) "an unprecendented scale", doesn't this show that the current crisis could be a survival threat without contradiction? For the record though, I think you're right and it's merely hyperbole.

3rd 'key features of a 21st century fascism',

Wasn't explicitly stated, but I can see how nationalism was implied. I am somewhat surprised it wasn't mentioned more, really.

'Emergent transnational capital underwent a major expansion in the 1980s and 1990s, involving hyper-accumulation through new technologies such as computers and informatics, through neo-liberal policies, and through new modalities of mobilising and exploiting the global labour force'.
Also 3rd 'mechanism to sustain global accumulation'.

So do you agree that this was attributed to the normal functioning of global capitalism, rather than this supposed emergent "21st century fascism"? Especially since it was actually mentioned as taking place during the 20th century.

[Lea]

Together with (paraphrased) "an unprecendented scale", doesn't this show that the current crisis could be a survival threat without contradiction? For the record though, I think you're right and it's merely hyperbole.

The fact that it is not Marxism. Marx argue like the sirvery: capitalists have appropriated most of the surplus value, growth of the production outstrips the growth of consumption, crisis of overproduction arise. Then again. There is no system crises in Marxism except long-expected proletarian revolution. Also I don't see referencing to another theoretical basis.

Wasn't explicitly stated, but I can see how nationalism was implied. I am somewhat surprised it wasn't mentioned more, really.

I think that nationalism is a only method of managing common people inside states. It goes everywhere in the form of the patriotism, dynamically compensates for the globalization and interpenetration between societies.

So do you agree that this was attributed to the normal functioning of global capitalism, rather than this supposed emergent "21st century fascism"? Especially since it was actually mentioned as taking place during the 20th century.

I think that the author of the article pushes reality into a mixture of cliches and stereotypes, tries to describe the world of the 21st century through the scraps of theories of 19th century, and wants to hurt the conservatives (I suspect his point there).

[Lightbringer]

All Business to business purchasing has a purpose, that ultimate purpose is fundamentally tied to consumer spending, which is only harmed by the continual desire for cheaper labor.

Perhaps you didn't phrase that correctly. Are you claiming that the single solitary factor which can harm consumer spending is whether or not a corporation desires cheaper labor? Quite a claim. And even if you mean it the other way around, that cheaper labor can provide nothing positive, I ask you to explain Wal Mart. I'd call that a pretty positive effect on consumer spending. I keep thinking that you look at the economy as a closed system, with a sum total of wealth that can only be divided and never multiplied or created. I look at it as a system where if one opportunity leaves, you find or create a new one even better.

In any case, I am not wild with glee over the concept of outsourcing jobs. I do find it hard to stridently object to people being forced to learn something better than turning a wrench on an assembly line, and I'll be damned if I am going to raise holy hell demanding that third world people be deliberately denied the chance to work and perhaps help overall modernization of their countries. Is that really the message you want to stand behind?

(sarc)"Support your local workers! Keep those stinking Third World Savages in their Place!!! We want to keep earning middle class wages doing mindless, antiquated labor that illiterate children can do after 1 hour training!!!"(sarc/off)

-Light

[fool]

@Lightbringer
I'm fairly sure that meant: "the continual desire for cheaper labour can only harm consumer spending."

[sirveri]

All demand stems from consumer spending.

Obviously you have not lived in socialism. Where the main consumer is the state.
Well, think about industrialization. It is a huge increase in production without huge consumer enrichment.

Well the government is supposed to represent the people (at least on some level), and make purchases in their stead that they would like/need to make but wouldn't be able to afford individually. Basically I can't go out and build my own power plant, but I still need(want) electricity. So in a sense, government spending is consumer spending since the government represents a consumer bloc.

Lets say I make automotive engines. In order to produce those engines I will purchase materials to create them. But I will only build enough to supply my purchase orders (thus I will only buy enough materials to make that many engines), if the automobile manufacturer I sell to can't sell any of their vehicles (either because their cars suck, or because nobody can afford them), then I can't sell them any product, and thus I won't purchase any materials.

If you pay a little wages you will be able to sell cheaper to another people and regions (markets). So your sales grow, and your suppliers sales grow too.
It is going and it is profitable.

This assumes that there are other markets that can afford the goods.

All Business to business purchasing has a purpose, that ultimate purpose is fundamentally tied to consumer spending, which is only harmed by the continual desire for cheaper labor.

Perhaps you didn't phrase that correctly. Are you claiming that the single solitary factor which can harm consumer spending is whether or not a corporation desires cheaper labor? Quite a claim. And even if you mean it the other way around, that cheaper labor can provide nothing positive, I ask you to explain Wal Mart. I'd call that a pretty positive effect on consumer spending.

1) What fool said.

Walmart is another ball of wax entirely. The only reason any of their employees are able to spend what they do spend, or even survive in some some cases, is due to government subsidies. According to one study:
"Reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to the taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance."
"The families of Wal-Mart employees in California utilize an estimated 40 percent more in taxpayer-funded health care than the average for families of all large retail employees."
"The families of Wal-Mart employees use an estimated 38 percent more in other (non-health care) public assistance programs (such as food stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit, subsidized school lunches, and subsidized housing) than the average for families of all large retail employees."
"If other large California retailers adopted Wal-Mart’s wage and benefits standards, it would cost taxpayers an additional $410 million a year in public assistance to employees."

In addition I haven't seen anything to indicate that Walmart actually stimulates consumer spending, merely displacing it from more expensive venues to itself (which also destroys the traditional downtown sector of the local community, costing higher paying jobs and shifting the burden of supporting those workers to the community as shown in the study).

I keep thinking that you look at the economy as a closed system, with a sum total of wealth that can only be divided and never multiplied or created. I look at it as a system where if one opportunity leaves, you find or create a new one even better.

That's because the economy is ultimately a closed system. There is one ultimate energy source (solar), and we found some energy storage sites and have tapped them. All oil is is stored solar power, same with coal (not the same with fissionables). The only thing we have learned is to how to more efficiently harvest and convert that energy (which can be considered multiplication). Ultimately there are only X dollars on earth, which can afford X products, and as an economy is an engine and must go in a cycle, if you remove large chunks of those dollars from every cycle, eventually the engine stops running. The accumulation of wealth is both the bane and purpose of capitalism. The ultimate goal is its own destruction. Capitalism is nothing more than a system to allow the merchants to become the nobility they so desperately aspired to become.

In any case, I am not wild with glee over the concept of outsourcing jobs. I do find it hard to stridently object to people being forced to learn something better than turning a wrench on an assembly line,

For some people, that's all they can do, and that's fine, they still deserve a certain standard of living for being our fellow countrymen, otherwise what's the point? Not like they can move to India, India won't allow it.

and I'll be damned if I am going to raise holy hell demanding that third world people be deliberately denied the chance to work and perhaps help overall modernization of their countries. Is that really the message you want to stand behind?

Yes. Screw them. We're either a community united under a common flag, or we're not. If we are then we owe it to ourselves to provide ourselves with the best possible quality of life, even if that means 'the foreign' go hungry. If they don't want to go hungry then they can join our community (provided we want them to). If we are to be our brothers keepers, then let us start with our own neighbors first. If the people of those foreign nations want to modernize then they can band together and do it themselves. If anything it's a greater insult to assume that the only way they can achieve greatness is through us.

[Lea]

Well the government is supposed to represent the people (at least on some level), and make purchases in their stead that they would like/need to make but wouldn't be able to afford individually. Basically I can't go out and build my own power plant, but I still need(want) electricity. So in a sense, government spending is consumer spending since the government represents a consumer bloc.

The government can order to build goods certainly not intended for consumers (battle tanks, machine-tools, etc.), can sell electricity (or another products) to other purchasers. There are many ways to take away capital from consumers.

This assumes that there are other markets that can afford the goods.

Сertainly. That is why people of many countries do not like Americans historically. Because US consumers are buying a cheap outsourced goods.

1) What fool said.

Another terminated theme... I want to said 'Sh1t!' and slam the door.

That's because the economy is ultimately a closed system.

Absolutely not. I work in banking and I see how the credit system multiplies the money.

For some people, that's all they can do, and that's fine, they still deserve a certain standard of living for being our fellow countrymen, otherwise what's the point? Not like they can move to India, India won't allow it.

I will not advise Americans how to live in US. However, to observe the proposed option should be fun.

[fool]

Another terminated theme... I want to said 'Sh1t!' and slam the door.

Not that, about his ambiguous phrase.

[sirveri]

The government can order to build goods certainly not intended for consumers (battle tanks, machine-tools, etc.), can sell electricity (or another products) to other purchasers. There are many ways to take away capital from consumers.

Yes, but those government purchases are ultimately for the use of the people in some fashion. The tanks and jet fighters and what not are used to protect the people (or in some cases exported to build better relationships with allied nations, which also is beneficial to the people of the home country by securing the good will of other can guarantee access to needed raw materials.

That's because the economy is ultimately a closed system.

Absolutely not. I work in banking and I see how the credit system multiplies the money.

That explains your outlook. Banking is magic, it creates things that don't exist, assigns them value, then trades them all over the place. That doesn't mean that anything in reality has actually changed, just that you managed to pull a trick to make numbers on a piece of paper increase. As we've seen recently, loaning out money at six times the amount you take in doesn't work so well if more than 1 in 6 people start to default. It also doesn't mean the system isn't closed, if I take a dollar bill and move it quickly back and forth in front of your face that doesn't mean I have more than one dollar, it just means that dollar is moving quickly, it's still just one dollar.

Not to say I disapprove, I'm actually considering pursuing that career path, especially now that nuclear went and TMI'd itself again. Then again, a degree in nuclear radiological cleanup techniques could be useful in the future. Maybe start a company that grows radionuclide leaching plants... Plenty of time to decide though.

[Cutlass]

Allow me to jump in and torque everybody off.

The problem, IMHO, is that we are trying to discuss economic systems effectively isolated from everything else. However, economic systems do not exist in isolation, they exist as an important part of a larger cultural whole and are integrated with it.

Therefore I am going to argue that capitalism can be just as obnoxious if not more so than communism if it is not moderated by Judeo-Christian ethical and moral values. While capitalism unchecked by anything else will attempt to drive wages to the lowest value that the market will bear, the requirement to pay workers a living wage is a *moral* requirement that is stated repeatedly throughout the Bible (though the exact wording differs from place to place). Many of the problems that we see with the modern corporate management style is that it is focused solely on maximizing short term profits at the expense of all other and especially long term considerations (some of which can not be modeled easily or at all).

Thus IMHO in order to get the best possible performance out of a capitalistic system it has to be moderated (though not necessarily by the government) such that it will at least attempt to take moral and long term considerations into account.

[Lea]

Yes, but those government purchases are ultimately for the use of the people in some fashion.

It does not mean that consumers will not pay for the goods.

The tanks and jet fighters and what not are used to protect the people (or in some cases exported to build better relationships with allied nations, which also is beneficial to the people of the home country by securing the good will of other can guarantee access to needed raw materials.

Money had spent on redistribution between markets, not for customers. Several spending for redistribution can destroy each other.

Banking is magic, it creates things that don't exist,

You can call it as you wish. But it's working. Not always working well but humankind can no longer live without it.

It also doesn't mean the system isn't closed, if I take a dollar bill and move it quickly back and forth in front of your face that doesn't mean I have more than one dollar, it just means that dollar is moving quickly, it's still just one dollar.

Only if you see money only as storage of value, treasure. But nobody sits on the chests of gold coins for a long time. You have so much money how much you can attract.

Therefore I am going to argue that capitalism can be just as obnoxious if not more so than communism if it is not moderated by Judeo-Christian ethical and moral values. While capitalism unchecked by anything else will attempt to drive wages to the lowest value that the market will bear, the requirement to pay workers a living wage is a *moral* requirement that is stated repeatedly throughout the Bible (though the exact wording differs from place to place)

You are preaching to the choir. The states need satisfied citizens and do not want the class struggle within, so they pressed on business by laws and taxes for a common people. Without Bible or 'Judeo-Christian ethical and moral values' now.

it will at least attempt to take moral and long term considerations into account.

Do you want this from elected politicians? You must be joking!

[Lightbringer]

Yes. Screw them. We're either a community united under a common flag, or we're not. If we are then we owe it to ourselves to provide ourselves with the best possible quality of life, even if that means 'the foreign' go hungry. If they don't want to go hungry then they can join our community (provided we want them to). If we are to be our brothers keepers, then let us start with our own neighbors first. If the people of those foreign nations want to modernize then they can band together and do it themselves. If anything it's a greater insult to assume that the only way they can achieve greatness is through us.

So what you are advocating is a total, 100% world ban on international commerce? I mean really... How are we "taking care of our own first" if we import some foodstuff that is grown elsewhere? Those dollars could be paid to mentally retarded people to turn wrenches for middle class wages. Wouldn't want to put any strain on them and ask them to learn how weld or maybe input data on a computer.

Don't have a power plant Zimbabwe'? Well you better start inventing MF-er because we don't want to insult you by suggesting that you need our help to modernize. Hey all you rice farmers on some dirt poor island nation in the South Pacific? Why don't you just "band together" and pull modern technology out of you bunghole if you want to modernize? Sirveri's ban on international investment states that no foreign nation is allowed to invest in your country. You wanted money for a hospital for your kids? You would allow a company to build a factory and sell your rice for the money to build it? As Dave says... SCREW YOU.

Hey! We can take this even further! Hey St. Paul, we don't need your stinking foreign crap here in Minneapolis! We'll make our own! By God you ain't gonna get a single freaking one of our dollars! We need them all to keep overpaying our illiterates and drooling morons! They can't figure out how to do anything else but one single job!

Hell... why should any human interact with another? I mean I ain't my brother's keeper. Why should I subsidize that scumbag over there across the street!?!? I ain't gonna buy nothing from his garage sale, I need every dollar to pay my paint sniffing son to mow the yard since he can't figure out how to do anything else.

Now, if you look at it another way. If we really "owe it to ourselves to provide ourselves with the best possible quality of life, even if that means 'the foreign' go hungry" then we should use our own labor to build and man our own weapons and slaughter every non American on the planet. Kill them all and take their resources. Otherwise we are not "providing ourselves the best possible quality of life". If someone else aside from us has even one atom of something we could use, then we fail in your prime directive.

As for your statistics on Wal Mart... you do realize that California is completely and totally screwed up... Right? Much more successful people than Wal Mart employees are using food stamps and other welfare programs. Maybe if the California government was not taxing successful business and people right out of the state, and welcoming millions of illegal immigrants onto it's welfare rolls then prices would be a little more realistic and less onerous.

I find your economic Xenophobia to be rather backwards and, if acted upon, self defeating. You can't retreat into the 19th century, and dropping out of the global economy will hurt us as a whole more than it helps some small group of idiots (meaning people who can't figure out how to do another job, the Ones that Sirveri thinks we should become totally isolationist to keep paying) who refuse to adapt to changing conditions in the world.

-Light

[sirveri]

Wall o' text = YES

Thus IMHO in order to get the best possible performance out of a capitalistic system it has to be moderated (though not necessarily by the government) such that it will at least attempt to take moral and long term considerations into account.

This entire post is something that I've also been thinking of, at least along the same lines as. The collapse of Christianity and the spread of Ayn Rand doctrine (screw you I've got mine) in economics. In pervious eras the elderly who were unable to work were at least able to go to the poor house or some other charitable organisation, those social support structures are now basically gone. My argument would be that the only logical choice for capitalist moderation is the government, since the previous moderator was that of religion, and the threat of excommunication from the church no longer holds sway on most capitalists. Social isolation and other peer pressure techniques are likewise ineffective because the ultra rich have managed to insulate themselves. A side tangent is if the upper crust of the capitalists are actually part of our society, which is part of what the OP article was attempting to address.

The greatest fault in utilizing the government for these tasks is that if the government is representative in nature it will likewise be corruptible by the very groups it needs to regulate. Likewise with the rise of mass media, and the internet, these same capitalist groups have an ability to project themselves into the national discourse above and beyond the common man who might be harmed by their actions. The rise of the internet further damages things, by allowing people to gain access to the social interaction they require simply for being human, but also allowing them to be anonymous and not held responsible for their works. This enables them to eschew normal human physical contact and place themselves into a self sustaining feedback loop.

This self sustaining loop is a very bad thing because it enables people to group themselves with like minds, where all dissension from the group think is punished. If the group think is premised on a faulty idea, that 1 + 1 = 3, the entire group then interacts with physical reality incorrectly, and if allowed to spread can seriously derail a real society. Capitalists can further take advantage of this by inserting their own faulty dialog into already corrupted systems, which then is parroted into the real society. Furthermore these groups seem to like to proselytize, and thus inflict their logic errors onto others who might not sufficiently think about subject at hand and simply accept the data presented.

It also promotes division inside the real boundaries. Language was traditionally used to accomplish this, by focusing the descriptor on something other than what was important. This is not a new idea, and was discussed at length by Orwell in 1984. There is a big difference in American society between a person who needs a job and a _____ who needs a job. Simply placing white, black, homosexual, woman, man, American, racist, etc, into that slot will significantly change the thrust of the statement, especially to the employer. What the internet accomplishes is to further promote these divides and to destroy the already established divisions of nations.

I still need to develop this theory further though. Have to figure out how to approach nationalism. Since nations are very real establish boundaries, is nationalism not acceptable, and in fact should be encouraged? Hard to say, more to think about, maybe next time.

Yes, but those government purchases are ultimately for the use of the people in some fashion.

It does not mean that consumers will not pay for the goods.

That's what I said, the government is a over arching group that represents the consumers of the nation, and pays for the goods, using their money, for them, for their benefit.

The tanks and jet fighters and what not are used to protect the people (or in some cases exported to build better relationships with allied nations, which also is beneficial to the people of the home country by securing the good will of other can guarantee access to needed raw materials.

Money had spent on redistribution between markets, not for customers. Several spending for redistribution can destroy each other.

Possibly, however they believed it was to the benefit of the people that the government represents.

Which begs the question if the US government actually represents the American people in general, or if it is more specific than that...

Banking is magic, it creates things that don't exist,

You can call it as you wish. But it's working. Not always working well but humankind can no longer live without it.

That's pretty much false. Human kind was around before there were banks and modern monetary policy. That things were more difficult back then doesn't mean that our continued existence as a species depends on banks.

It also doesn't mean the system isn't closed, if I take a dollar bill and move it quickly back and forth in front of your face that doesn't mean I have more than one dollar, it just means that dollar is moving quickly, it's still just one dollar.

Only if you see money only as storage of value, treasure. But nobody sits on the chests of gold coins for a long time. You have so much money how much you can attract.

Tell that to the top 0.01% of Americans. Ultimately, all money represents is stored potential energy. I perform labor for money, which means that labor is money, labor is the expenditure of energy. Therefore money is representative of expenditure of energy. I can take this energy expenditure and use it to buy other energy expenditures or raw materials (this makes money stored potential energy until used, or an energy storage medium). All it is useful for is a fair assignment of labor. Which is based on gold, but that's another long discussion.

This nicely aligns with Marx's C-C, C-M-C, M^1-C-M theory. Trade commodity for commodity. Trade commodity for money for desired commodity. Or the capitalist system, trade existing money for commodity to sell for more money. The economy function better with money acting as a lubricant, but the money itself has no value other than as a labor(energy) carrier. The capitalist perverts the system by placing more worth on the money than it deserves, and they do so at the expense of the labor.

Either way, I don't feel like really going to deep into the bowls of financial theory, so I'll stop here before talking about inflation and other economic issues.

So what you are advocating is a total, 100% world ban on international commerce?

No.

What I'm advocating for is a foreign economic policy that is a net benefit to the workers and people of OUR country. Stopping one of our businesses from going to a foreign company and constructing something there has no benefit for our country (while allowing it has benefit). Likewise importing bananas since we can't grow them here is also acceptable.

What is NOT acceptable is bending over backwards to allow American companies to screw over American workers. You don't want to pay a living wage to American computer workers and want to get a bunch of new H1B visas to pull cheap Indian labor to replace the Americans, tough **** you don't get to. Want to shutter a textile mill and ship those jobs overseas, sure thing, just give the existing workers better higher paying jobs and you can. Since that's not actually an attainable solution, we'll just put a tariff on import from whatever country you relocate to to make those goods the same price to produce (which when you add shipping costs makes them cost even more).

The fact that American business interests literally own all media outlets, and compose the majority of the government is a big part of the problem, and the reason we're even having this discussion.

Now, if you look at it another way. If we really "owe it to ourselves to provide ourselves with the best possible quality of life, even if that means 'the foreign' go hungry" then we should use our own labor to build and man our own weapons and slaughter every non American on the planet. Kill them all and take their resources. Otherwise we are not "providing ourselves the best possible quality of life". If someone else aside from us has even one atom of something we could use, then we fail in your prime directive.

From a conservative point of view you're correct...

[Edit by moderator, post truncated for breach of rules.]