It's Capitalism, Not Globalism

Another habitué of this site (the honorable and esteemed doombug) currently has a thread going in which he’s promoting the idea that “It basically comes down to a choice between globalism and nationalism. Do we have a country or do we not have a country?” The following is my reply.

Some on the nationalistic and dualistic-minded right would frame our choice today as globalism vs. nationalism. But I beg to differ, to assert that actually the fundamental historical and existential choice that confronts us is the age-old choice between liberation and domination.

Well, it shouldn’t really be news to anyone, but yes, despite the fiction that we’re fortunate to be a part of a community of democratic nations in which we enjoy the blessings of liberty and the rule of law, we the common people of the First World are indeed existing under the domination of an unofficial oligarchy. The dominant class in our age is of course the capitalist class, aka the bosses and the big shots of big business and finance, aka the ruling rich, aka the 1% of humanity who monopolize most of the economic and political power, and who institute the dictatorship of the workplace, and the dictatorship of the plutotariat; who reduce the rest of us to wage slaves and subvert the dream of democracy; who degrade us into pieces of equipment that they use to further enrich themselves, and who generate a form of government that serves and protects their special interests at our expense; and who ever since the era of colonialism have been engaged in establishing the dominion of capital over the other peoples of the earth.

Ironically, however, capitalists of course aren’t truly and beautifully free either, they’re actually the utter b*tches of capital, dictated to by its dynamics, slavishly subject to its inherent directives. Capital’s prime directive of course being Thou shall insatiably accumulate capital. Accumulate or perish is the iron law of the capitalist’s game, and in abject obedience to it, in the greedy pursuit of capital capitalists have taken over our lives; have seen to it that our lives, individually and collectively, are engulfed by the destructive energetics and ethos of capital. They, the top-level minions of capital, have made us the low men and women on the totem pole of modern life, as workers and as citizens. And as such we must labor long hours for insufficient wages and benefits; take a lot of you know what from employers; allow corporations to pollute our environment; vote for politicians who’ve been co-opted by the capitalist’s money power; and fight and die in wars waged not for the defense of our mock democracy, but rather to secure the overseas interests and hegemony of elites, in the process provoking the righteous hostility of Third-World peoples and generating the modern scourge known as “terrorism”.

Such is the grievous reality of the domination of our lives by capital and capitalist elites. Unfortunately some folks fixate on globalism rather than capitalism, mainly because they’ve been programmed to not perceive the inherent and manifest evil of capitalism, to foolishly give capitalism a free pass, as it were; and because they suffer from a nationalistic, tribal, and threat-oriented psychology that’s viscerally ill at ease with the whole idea of the economic and cultural integration of the societies of the earth. But of course it’s not globalism per se, not the greater unification of humankind, that constitutes a genuine threat to our freedom and well-being; rather it’s specifically globalism in the form of the capitalist world system, its growth and the consolidation of the domination exercised by its corporate and financial elites that is decidedly not in our best interest. That is, to paraphrase a popular expression, it’s capitalism, not globalism, stupid.

The working masses of the First World need to smarten up an realize this posthaste, realize that their true foe is capital, its wielders, and their expanding tyranny, not our fellow victims in the Third World, not immigrants, not Muslims. The various problems which seem to stem from these groups are merely symptoms, results of and reactions to capital and capitalists having their way. Yes, it would certainly behoove us all to begin to critically examine the deeper causal factor producing our economic pain, and underlying the threats to our security posed by street crime and international terrorism. And to come to the revolutionary conclusion that the historical choice presented to us today is not the Hobson’s choice between the nationalist-isolationist option of remaining an undemocratic and sociopolitically self-destructing capitalist society that seeks to end immigration and withdraw from the global economy or the neoliberal alternative of remaining an undemocratic and sociopolitically self-destructing capitalist society that stays the present globalist course. The nationalist-isolationist option of course leaves the power of capital in play, and the capitalist status quo and elite in place. And, well, we can’t very well end globalization as we know it with capital running the show and driving history anyway. This obviously means that the nationalist-isolationist solution is therefore not a workable solution, not a viable choice at all. And that we certainly shouldn’t allow it to be portrayed as our ticket to a more democratic and idyllic future.

Rather, we all quite urgently need to wake up to the revolutionary truth that the continued rule of capital is both morally and pragmatically unacceptable, and that the fate-of-humanity-determining, life-and-death-for-our-civilization decision that we have to make is simply a selection between the vision of an authentically democratic form of society in which human beings are truly and fully liberated from all forms of domination, including that exercised via the money power of economic elites; and our current capitalist-plutocratic status quo, under which the interests of the many and the planet are subordinated to the heartless kinetics of capital and the special interests of its corporate avatars.

When we clear-sightedly recognize that this is the actual choice at hand it’s quite the no-brainer, but insidiously obstructing such a perceptive consciousness of our real circumstance are of course mentalities and ideologies such as nationalism and xenophobia, which make for scapegoating and a superficial analysis that fails to get at the deep and incurable rottenness of the capitalist system. We the working-class victims of capitalism must, rather, begin to reject and transcend these primitive cognitive styles that actually work to take the heat off of and to perpetuate the capitalist power structure, and at last begin to opt for a more genuinely just, free, and humane global civilization, one no longer under the sway of an inhuman power that goes by the innocent name of “capital”, and in which the kingpins of capital no longer diminish the rest of us to mere subjects and pawns. Well, it’s no bit of hyperbole at this point to say that our very survival as a civilization and a species is at stake, so let’s hope that enough of us begin quite soon to better read our options, and to strongly express our preference for liberation and life, and unequivocally veto the domination and death option offered by capitalists and nationalists.

 

And, btw, dear deplorables, The Donald certainly isn't going to make any contribution to liberating us from the capitalist status quo, quite simply because he's a capitalist, after all.

 

Also, not only is Mr. Trump too much of a capitalist, he's too much of a flaming narcissist to genuinely feel the pain of the workingperson. That is, an empathy deficit is of course part and parcel of being a narcissist, and certainly not a trait that you want someone possessing the powers of the presidency to suffer from.

 

So to summarize, you don't like capitalism because capitalism is a bad thing. Did I get all of the main points?

 

Your reply involves gross oversimplification, and smacks of an appeal to ridicule.

 

We haven't seen capitalism in this country for a long time.
The OP is a total FAIL

 

Ah, the ole actually-existing capitalism isn't a perfect specimen of a "free market" economy, therefore it can't be used to indict capitalism. Well, alas, actually-existing capitalism is the harsh reality produced by a system featuring the private control of economic wealth and the means of production. Yes, when private individuals and firms in the grip of the demonic drive for accumulation are running the economico-political show, well, of course the result is going to be an economic system characterized by: a good deal of imperfect competition (to use the technical euphemism); by negative externalities galore; by various market inefficiencies; by crises precipitated by the bad behavior of capitalists (such as the recent global financial crisis caused by the greed of Wall Street bankers); by the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and realization crises; by a seriously disenfranchised and immiserated working class, an undemocratic and uncompassionate status quo – which of course involves the subversion of our supposedly representative government by capitalist elites and its use to rig the game in their favor, to such an extent that "free market" doesn't even come close to qualifying as an apt adjective for our economy. Yes, what capitalism not merely inexorably, but from the get-go devolves into is something that doesn't at all resemble the idealized image of a free market, so if the idealized image is what you have in mind we've actually never seen, and never will see capitalism in this or any other country. Actually-existing capitalism is all that capitalism will ever amount to, and it's a pretty dreadful form of life.

Well then, all of this being the case, your attempt to dismiss the inherently beset-with-contradictions – such as allegedly being an aspect of a free society but actually being a system of domination – nature of the capitalist system, is, yes, a "total fail".

 

Sloppy typo correction. The first sentence of the above post should read:

Ah, the ole actually-existing capitalism isn't a perfect specimen of a "free market" economy, therefore it can't be used to indict capitalism defense.

 

Oh I get it. You think that the goverment which has created and enforced vast privilege for select entities, and from which the politicians retain their power and amass their little fortunes, is going start sharing with you.
Put your boner away, your wet dream is over.

 

Capitalism is not compatible with Nationalism.

Nationalism is about supporting your people, while Capitalism is about supporting your profits at the expense of your people.

Globalism, and Capitalism go hand, and hand, as Capitalism seeks to expand profits at all costs, to expand spheres of influence across the globe.

 

1. We do not live in an oligarchy. No country with a universal voting franchise and no intimidation at the polls can -ever- be an "oligarchy" by f-ing definition. Sick of pseudointellectual, ignorant leftists misusing a useful word.

2. There is no "capitalist class." "Capitalism," the term, is itself a nullity, chosen by collectivists as a foil for their various hideous failures in governance, unwisely acquiesced to by reasoned people, a slanted epithet for a system of voluntary commerce and strong property rights. Anyone in the country can start a private sector business nearly instantly in most states and at trivial expense, making the notion of a "class" of such people puerile. The phrase "capitalist class" is analogous to using "gardening class" to denote people who cultivate plants.

Couldn't read further. Verbose is forgivable, dumb is forgivable, both together are not.

 

Oh, I see, a two-party system in which both parties are thoroughly co-opted by the money power of competing economic elites and voters are limited to choosing between the candidates that they put forward qualifies, in your book, as an authentic democracy! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! (Actually, technically, such a system is called a plutocratic polyarchy)

"There is no 'capitalist class'"! We're you consciously trying to make the most empirically-refutable and absurd statement possible? Well, this one is indeed right up there with "There was no real moon landing". Well, to refrain from dignifying this nonsense with a lengthy reply, I'll merely point out that rather than disproving its existence the fact that some "self-made" tycoons (as if anyone becomes a superrich capitalist without seriously exploiting the labor of workingpeople) manage to break into the capitalist ruling class actually does quite the opposite.

On a personal note, I'm sorry that you're not more of a reader. Oh well.

 

Well, of course the mockery of a representative government, i.e. the bourgeois democracy, that exists in, that is the political superstructure of our capitalist society would have to be thoroughly replaced by something quite revolutionary, i.e. by authentic democracy.

 

Class consciousness will certainly do a much better job of bringing into existence a form of economy that universalizes economic well-being among workingpeople than nationalism.

 

capitalism wont necessarily lead to globalism unless it is supported by a gov't open to free trade. If so, that is a good thing as countries form business partnerships, probability of war goes down. We get richer and safer through capitalism.

there is no logical argument against it. Yet, entertaining arguments against it can prove be interesting.

 

No logical argument against it?? LOL!! How about that it has inherent, inescapable contradictions that result in it morphing into monopoly and decay? "What inherent, inescapable contradictions?" you ask. Thanks for asking. How about that it is pitched to us as being the one system with the exceptional and glorious virtue of competition which ensures the best product at the lowest price? Meanwhile every new company, as soon as it is formed, sets out to eliminate competition and to dominate the market? If competition is so important and "characteristic" of capitalism, why do businesses try to end it? And product? How about pricing a $12 life-saving EpiPen at $500 "because we can"? How about quality? Refrigerators, when I was a kid, lasted for 30 or 40 years and were discarded because they were out of style as designs became more modern. Today with 6 corporations producing all your choices in refrigerators, they have nothing but problems. All examples of the failure of capitalism to deliver.

Richer and safer? Really? Capitalism now is in the predicament of being able to produce more than it can sell. Unsold inventories remain and the public can't consume it all. Do the prices come down? Nope. They keep going up faster than the CPI and the stock market has hit new highs, but on the basis of fluff and not earnings. Government has pumped billions into Wall Street so CEOs can exercise their options and get rich on taxpayer dollars but there is no real value behind it. Greed is what pushed the market up to new highs. And now it's about to crash because there's nothing to hold it up. Meanwhile workers' incomes have remained stagnant as CEO paychecks have hit new highs. And corporations have gotten their captive government to cut taxes to the lowest levels while convincing the right in particular that corporate taxes are the highest in the world, which they are not.
http://www.epi.org/publication/corporate-profits-are-way-up-corporate-taxes-are-way-down/

Richer? The public has now been largely stripped of their pensions, their education, their homes in some cases, their American Dream, their healthcare, and savings accounts which at one time could be counted on to pay 2 or 3 points over the inflation rate, now for years have paid 2 or 3 points below the inflation rate and are now going toward a negative interest rate we are told.

Safer? Shall I say "Flint, Michigan"? Shall I say "fracking poisoning groundwater"?

It's the old ostrich/sand problem with a good dose of propaganda to help out.

One thing we can be sure of is that no one will address this post point-for-point.

 

Free markets do not exist. There is only State-Capitalism, i.e. Socialism for the rich. This was made clear by Clinton's first Treasury Secretary in September 1993: "I'm tired of a level playing field. We should tilt the playing field for US business."

That is the Nanny State by Big Business.

 

Oops! "State capitalism" is a term used by Marx, Engels, and Lenin and it was to mean a form of economy in which the state machine is the owner of the productive assets and who hired and regulated manager for the businesses. This was in effect in the USSR and in China. There is no definable, logical condition that could be called "socialism for the rich" as it is an oxymoron.

To understand a problem well enough to address it effectively, we must describe it precisely and accurately. To do that we must use language rigorously. Throwing around "sound-good" terms only confuses the issues.

 

"At the expense", lololololol. For 70 years, this has been continually disproven.

 

Now I'm really laughing.
You won't be the first to voluntarily give up any hope of freedom or future prosperity to the controlling moneyed interests, thinking your gonna get a say and chickens in your pot.

 

Wrong as usual. The US form of government is constitutional republic with democratic voting by definition, not an "oligarchy" or a "plutocratic polyarchy." "Oligarchy" is a word with a very specific meaning, perhaps you should learn it.

More tripe. There is no "capitalist class" in the US any more than there is a "hat wearing class" or an "apple eating class." There are socioeconomic classes, and it is acceptable to discuss such with lots of caveats, that such classes are far more fluid than static for example.

 

So when socialism becomes a dirty word socialists tack on the word "democratic" to disguise it. Claiming globalism is capitalism is nothing but turd polishing. FYI, globalism is commonly used to describe what is going on except for those with tinfoil hats.

 

The intent of business is to make money for owners of equity, not to end competition. Corrupt actors in government sell competition-limiting regulation and favoritism to corrupt business actors, and have for millennia, but that is not something capitalism does. Very few businesses want to operate in markets with no competition because that means they bear the sole burden of creating demand. Maybe you should have spent some time learning about business or finance before forming such definitive and erroneous opinions.

The healthcare industry is highly mixed in the US due to hyperregulation, this instance of gouging is more due to government than the underlying market, which if far from a free or capitalist market.

What a crock. Basic refrigerators are easy to refurbish, and a small business in my town used to do just that. For decades you could buy a nice, basic refurbished refrigerator that would last the rest of your life for $150. That business wasn't exactly a goldmine, and just winded down when the owner retired, because PEOPLE OF ALL SOCIOECONOMIC STRATA ARE SO FREAKING RICH IN THE US THAT THEY DISCARD THINGS INSTEAD OF REPAIRING THEM. Capitalism did indeed do that... the making everyone stinking rich part, whereby common people have miracles that kings just 100 years ago could not dream of possessing. Refrigerators last just fine today to boot.

What bizarro world do you live in? The above simply isn't true. For example, in the 60s, a television was a bulky piece of furniture with a 19-21" screen that cost a couple of months pay. Today a flat, light, giant-screened television costs about two weeks, not two months, of lower middle class pay. Could list dozens of other examples, but won't. What you will find is that in less brutally regulated, less mixed industries, prices have gone down drastically over the years. In the big mixed industries though, banking and finance, healthcare, insurance, utilities, prices do not decrease as much. Why not? More central regulation and its costs.

Was typing out a response to the above drivel, but why should I? Always interesting to see uninformed talking points repeated in a reason-free series as if that somehow makes the false true. Not so interesting is watching people who very obviously possess -0- business or financial experience or understanding expounding and holding forth vehemently held opinions that originate in pure emotion and not facts.

Again, no facts, just spew. The above is -not- correct, not a single piece of it.

Fact: the average lifespan is about ten years higher now than in my youth. Capitalism -did that-.

It's the -next- one I won't address because it will almost surely be unresponsive.

 

Right, unresponsive. Like yours in which you spin without shame and when you can't, you make up fantasies. I don't need to detail anything because you only gave empty opinion that everyone knows isn't true. But I would expect it from you.

Businesses DO try to minimize and end competition. Denying that is like denying that you breathe.

The EpiPen IS an example of greed and was done in spite of government who is looking at how to regulate such greed.

One example of a refrigeration repairman many years ago is not a valid commentary on what I said. And you try to drive it home by slandering your neighbors.

Can you get an interest rate higher than the inflation rate in a savings account? I didn't think so.

Uninformed talking points? Where are the increasing profits in the last 5 years? https://ycharts.com/indicators/corporate_profits_usgdp

Spew? Not correct? Which rock do you live under? Pensions - https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n3/v69n3p1.html
Haven't you heard about high education loans stopping people from going to college? Haven't you heard about foreclosures? You're in denial.

Lifespan is about ten years higher? LOL! The subject was safety. But you want to talk health? Ok. We have an increasing rate of diabetes, alzheimers, celiac disease, autism, and autoimmune diseases in general. But the subject was safety, and Flint put a large population at risk as does fracking where the water table is now laced with toxic fracking chemicals. How stupid is it to inject millions of gallons of highly toxic chemicals into the ground? Bet you won't mention an opinion on that.

But why do I bother when a person just wants to object and argue.

 

well you can thank your friendly central bank. An entity created by government, with the monopoly of currency creation, enforced by legal tender laws, that creates moral hazards and giant credit bubbles that transfers your wealth to the rich.
If you call that "capitalism" you have a screw loose. In fact, Marx called that the FIFTH PLANK OF THE COMMUNIST MANEFESTO