[Rancid]

I guess it depends on how you define reject. In a sense, I too reject it.

I just think it's foolish to believe that our current global capitalist system is the absolute pinnacle of possible economic systems humans could ever develop. In the face of more and more job automation and artificial intelligence. It's very clear to me that something fundamental is going to have to change about how we manage the global economy. My guess is, it will have to change to something radically different, and probably something that is a bit more communist in many respects. For example, I'm a firm believer in UBI. There is no other way we will be able to keep peace in the long term without it.

So, you could say I reject capitalism even though I actively participate in it currently.

[Rich]

Marx wrote a three volume book called Capital. You’re probably thinking of Adam Smith, who first described capitalism; and being first predated the word. The fact that I have to explain this to you should sufficiently demonstrate to everyone your expertise in the topic. You can now be safely ignored.

Wrong again!

Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels sprechen zunächst von „kapitalistischer Produktionsweise“, später im ersten Bande von Das Kapital (1867) von „Kapitalist“. Das Wort „Kapitalismus“ wird dagegen nur einmal in dem 1885 von Friedrich Engels herausgegebenen zweiten Band von Das Kapital genannt.[9

In case you've forgotten 1885 is two years after Marx died. Others used the term Capitalism /Kapitalismus before Engels, but not Karl Marx and not Adam Smith.

[Truth To Power]

James Connolly was from the Soviet Union?

You offered a quote from the evil Nikolai Lenin and a Soviet "social realist" poster. Remember?

And the same argument as always applies; that the first experiment in bourgeois government ended in a Cromwellian dictatorship;

"Bourgeois" government? Is that some sort of code for democracy? Who was able to vote in that democracy, hmmmmm?

American slavery;

Slavery antedated the Revolution by over 100 years.

and Jacobin terror.

Who could vote? Are you saying that government by landowner is the only alternative to government by union boss?

To expect perfection is to predict failure.

No one expects perfection. But an improvement on bourgeois capitalism would be kind of a minimum to expect. Socialism hasn't even delivered that; hasn't even come close.

We are more realistic in our view of history.

Are you? The uniform failure of your system in practice, even when it has every advantage, as in Venezuela, shows your view of history is anything but realistic.

[Truth To Power]

It's very clear to me that something fundamental is going to have to change about how we manage the global economy.

Capitalism is heading over a cliff, and socialism is already at the bottom.

My guess is, it will have to change to something radically different, and probably something that is a bit more communist in many respects.

Which respects?

For example, I'm a firm believer in UBI. There is no other way we will be able to keep peace in the long term without it.

Unless it is funded by location subsidy repayment (LSR), UBI is just another way to force the productive to shovel more of their money into landowners' pockets. What is needed is not UBI, but restoration of people's rights to liberty, especially the liberty to produce their own sustenance without paying rich, greedy, privileged, evil parasites full market value just for permission to do so.

[Nonsense]

'Capitalism' is an ideology, in that sense, it's no different than, 'Socialism' or 'Communism'.

What is factually true, is that nowhere on earth has any true ideology been practised in reality.

This is because ideologies are theoretical constructs devised by the control freaks amongst us under the hybrid umbrella of 'businessmen' - 'politicians'.

Whenever the two meet corruption follows, that's why so-called, 'democracy' is a SHAM, because it's corrupted by these two groups, along with 'religion' & the 'elite'.

The market place left alone can function under it's own impetus of, wherever a seller be, a buyer is sure to meet the former.

The corruption takes place through the political system, set up to sustain the power pyramid through the taxation system that milks the fruit of human endeavours demonstrated in the market place & redistributes it to the elite.

These 'elite' are those who think that 'democracy' is the tool that serves their unending sense of entitlement, by having their political 'friends' redistribute the taxes back to themselves or their businesses through the budget.

We know that tax cuts ALWAYS benefit the rich, or better-off than those who earn less, that's a mathematical FACT, one that is easily corrected by any 'socialist' political party with the 'will' to do so.

In England, the Bank of England(thanks to Gordon BROWN) is busily undermining our currency, in the process, making the less well-off pay the price of the ensuing inflation that lower or negative(real terms)interest rates are causing.

It is a BIG LIE, that it's 'BREXIT' that's causing the inflation currently exceeding any growth, NO, the inflation is caused by the state of the economy that the TORIES have created by 'AUSTERITY', a euphemism for attacking the less well-off through the tool of 'WELFARE REFORM'.
Call that an act of war against the majority of the population.

The question is, why are the majority so dumb as to not figure that out, as displayed by voting the Tories in again?

So, YES, 'capitalism' cannot succeed any more that any other means of distribution in the human market place, because 'profit' is taxed & 'benefits' are not paid for, except by debasing the currency by public borrowing, now running at £1.7 TRILLION in the U.K, £1.2 TRILLION increase since the TORIES came to power.

NOT only that, the cost of that borrowing is EXCEEDED by the REPAYMENTS of that BORROWING, currently standing at £1.2 BILLION per week.
This means that, from that BORROWING, the TORIES spend £1.2 BILLION a week from that BORROWED money NOT stimulating the economy, BUT REPAYING THE INTEREST ON THE INCREASING LOANS OUTSTANDING & GETTING LARGER EACH WEEK.

THIS FROM A GOVERNMENT THAT SAID THAT WE SHOULD NOT LEAVE THE VERY 'LEGACY' WHICH THEY ARE CREATING, TO OUR CHILDREN & GRAND-CHILDREN.

So much of our so-called GDP, is actually the £1.7 TRILLION of BORROWED debt, NOT 'REAL' growth at all.

That's not all, whilst that borrowed money has been spent, much on state benefits due to uncontrolled migration sanctioned by the EU, the TORIES have actually CUT the incomes of those subjected to the Welfare Reforms, thus the BORROWED money ends up in the pockets of the 'middle-class', those favoured by the policies of the Tories, through the Housing Benefit system(£27 BILLON a year)& another £ 40 BILLION per annum mostly to the landlords of 'buy-to-let' properties, in the form of Additional Pension Contribution Reliefs.

Just think of it, the TORIES have CUT over £40 BILLION a year through 'Welfare Reform', the euphemism for welfare cuts & have given that back to their supporters as pension relief, the £27 BILLION a year, being paid to them by the tenants on HB as mortgage interest on the property being bought largely with TAXPAYERS money.

The above is what happens when the CORRUPTION OF 'CAPITALISM' IS ALLOWED TO VENT ITSELF IN THE CORRIDORS OF 'DEMOCRATIC' POWER.

The result is a CORRUPTED,DIVIDED, UNEQUAL & ANGRY society.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Socialism is bullshit

giving free stuff to people who dont deserve it is not right.

[Rich]

And the same argument as always applies; that the first experiment in bourgeois government ended in a Cromwellian dictatorship;

The majority of the big merchants, the majority of the big capitalists of the time sided with the King in the Civil war. Besides, I don't think anyone describes England as Feudal in the 1640s.

[Truth To Power]

giving free stuff to people who dont deserve it is not right.

You mean like landowners, banksters, and IP monopolists...?

[Zionist Nationalist]

You mean like landowners, banksters, and IP monopolists...?

more like poor idiots who have 6 children and complaining that they cant feed their family and demanding massive welfare

[Rancid]

Which respects?

- The biggest issue is how to deal with mass unemployment due to further automation. Hence, my belief that a UBI will become necessary in the future.
- Capitalism encourages the exploitation of foreign people by more prosperous nations. Especially those living in poverty or under oppressive regimes. Capitalism offers no solution to this problem, and may in fact make it worse. For example, we love to do business with the Saudis because we only have to deal with the Royal family and its inner circle. Thus, the Royal familys tight control on that country is good for say US and EU business interests (few people to pay off). We like to do "development" deals in Africa with dictators and warlords, because well, again, it's easier to deal with them than a robust democracy with an educated populace. It encourages countries like the US to futher meddle in the affairs of foreign nations to basically keep them poor. It's not because we want them to be poor, but keeping them poor makes doing business easier. All in all, this is shitty situation for a lot of people on the planet.

[Truth To Power]

more like poor idiots who have 6 children and complaining that they cant feed their family and demanding massive welfare

The unemployed poor get ~5% of GDP for contributing nothing. The landowners, banksters, IP monopolists and other privilege holders get ~50% of GDP for contributing nothing -- in fact, usually, for making NEGATIVE contributions. So who is the real problem, here?

[Truth To Power]

- The biggest issue is how to deal with mass unemployment due to further automation. Hence, my belief that a UBI will become necessary in the future.

UBI will just be taken by landowners in higher rents, as will the additional production enabled by automation/artificial intelligence. Hasn't that been the principal result of automation and government transfers to the poor and unemployed so far? Who has the money that taxpayers have given to the unemployed poor: the unemployed poor, or their landlords?

- Capitalism encourages the exploitation of foreign people by more prosperous nations.

It ENABLES it.

Especially those living in poverty or under oppressive regimes. Capitalism offers no solution to this problem, and may in fact make it worse. For example, we love to do business with the Saudis because we only have to deal with the Royal family and its inner circle. Thus, the Royal familys tight control on that country is good for say US and EU business interests (few people to pay off). We like to do "development" deals in Africa with dictators and warlords, because well, again, it's easier to deal with them than a robust democracy with an educated populace. It encourages countries like the US to futher meddle in the affairs of foreign nations to basically keep them poor. It's not because we want them to be poor, but keeping them poor makes doing business easier.

Right. See "Superimperialism" by Michael Hudson, or the more layman-friendly "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," by John Perkins.

[Rancid]

UBI will just be taken by landowners in higher rents, as will the additional production enabled by automation/artificial intelligence. Hasn't that been the principal result of automation and government transfers to the poor and unemployed so far? Who has the money that taxpayers have given to the unemployed poor: the unemployed poor, or their landlords?

This is why I'm saying something more fundamental probably needs to change. I'm not claiming I know what that change will be, but it's clear as day to me that shit will change, just as it always has.

[AFAIK]

How many times must your "brighter future" end in tyranny, poverty, misery, stagnation, enslavement, torture and death before you will become willing to consider the possibility that it is not actually a brighter future at all?

Was Soviet Russia a brighter place to live than Tsarist Russia? Or would you prefer to be born into feudal Russia rather than communist Russia? Why so?

more like poor idiots who have 6 children and complaining that they cant feed their family and demanding massive welfare

A drop in the ocean compared to the bailouts and subsidies granted to incompetent and criminal businesses like Wall St, Ford and Chrysler.

[Heisenberg]

Soviet Russia was indeed a better place to live than Tsarist Russia, but the November Revolution was actually against Kerensky's Provisional Government, rather than the Tsarists, since the Tsar had already abdicated in February 1917. A more interesting question might be: how would the Russian Republic have developed if the October Revolution hadn't happened?

[The Immortal Goon]

Wrong again!

In case you've forgotten 1885 is two years after Marx died. Others used the term Capitalism /Kapitalismus before Engels, but not Karl Marx and not Adam Smith.

Hey Rich, did I write that Marx "wrote" or "published" Capital?

Sound out the words and use a dictionary for practice, or ask if you need help.

Thank you as always for adding such a thoughtful response to a forum. It really shows how hard that you're trying to participate when you have to drop everything and try to argue that a book not written in English didn't use an English word. With a little practice, you'll be able to actually participate in the content of an argument too! You just got to figure out these tricky language things

You offered a quote from the evil Nikolai Lenin and a Soviet "social realist" poster. Remember?

I overestimated the rightwing again and assumed you were addressing the content of the discussion instead of a cosmetic piece that hurt your feelings. I won't overestimate your ability again!

"Bourgeois" government? Is that some sort of code for democracy? Who was able to vote in that democracy, hmmmmm?

Here you go, buddy! Let me know if you need any more help with basic political and historical terms!

Slavery antedated the Revolution by over 100 years

Oh, slavery was an institution for longer than that. Perhaps you can think of different ways in which American slavery was different from that of, say, Egypt. If you do that, maybe you can think of why those differences may exist. Let me know if you keep having trouble!

Who could vote? Are you saying that government by landowner is the only alternative to government by union boss?

Robespierre was not a landowner. Perhaps this will help.

You, like Rich, seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding the words used on this forum. It's okay to look them up!

Before I made this post, for instance, I had to look for advice on the internet and found something helpful. You probably will too!

[Vanasalus]

In the OP, I did not detect what sort of "capitalism" that majority of millennials are rejecting.

I anticipate that what millennials are rejecting is the notion of "free market is the solution of all our problems".

They are damn right doing so.

Free market has no place in the sectors of education, healthcare, and social security.

In addition, strong regulatory involvement of the state is a must in the sectors of basic utilities, housing, insurance as well as banking.

Forcing free market conditions in these sectors create a medium of substantial transfer of wealth from people to privileged few.

Millennials reaction to this pillaging scheme is just normal.

I expect the same reaction from any sane person with average intelligence or above.

[Truth To Power]

Was Soviet Russia a brighter place to live than Tsarist Russia? Or would you prefer to be born into feudal Russia rather than communist Russia? Why so?

I've read The Gulag Archipelago, so feudal Russia was definitely preferable. While both were oppressive tyrannies, the Soviet regime's paranoia and ubiquitous surveillance and secretiveness made it far worse than feudal Russia. The Tsars never systematically starved tens of millions of people to death, put millions into death camps, or made life so unpleasant for the masses that they had to forcibly stop ordinary people from leaving.

[Truth To Power]

I overestimated the rightwing again

No, you decided to name-call instead of offering substantive facts or arguments.

and assumed you were addressing the content of the discussion

Always difficult to identify where your posts are concerned, as so much of their "content" is devoted to sneers, condescension, and other forms of evasion.

instead of a cosmetic piece that hurt your feelings.

So you decided you have to make $#!+ up about my feelings again.

I won't overestimate your ability again!

Do you really imagine such snotty, supercilious condescension to your moral and intellectual betters adds something to the discussion?

Despicable.

Here you go, buddy! Let me know if you need any more help with basic political and historical terms!

<yawn> I know what bourgeois means. I was asking what YOU meant.

Oh, slavery was an institution for longer than that.

So now you have decided to change the subject again. Slavery was an institution long before anything that could be called "bourgeois" government existed. Yet for some reason you attributed American slavery to bourgeois government. Funny idea of cause and effect, that.

Perhaps you can think of different ways in which American slavery was different from that of, say, Egypt. If you do that, maybe you can think of why those differences may exist. Let me know if you keep having trouble!

<yawn> Maybe you can explain how bourgeois government was responsible for Egyptian as well as American slavery. Do your best. Spelling counts!

Robespierre was not a landowner. Perhaps this will help.

And that is another attempt to change the subject. Or are you saying the French revolutionary government was bourgeois, too?

You, like Rich, seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding the words used on this forum. It's okay to look them up!

The only trouble is in keeping up with your attempts to backpedal, evade, and change the subject.

Before I made this post, for instance, I had to look for advice on the internet and found something helpful. You probably will too!

Disgraceful.

[The Immortal Goon]

Do you really imagine such snotty, supercilious condescension to your moral and intellectual betters adds something to the discussion?

Despicable.

You seem to be having a lot of problems with words. If it makes you feel better to think of yourself as superior, then that's fine. But let's get those reading skills up!

I know what bourgeois means. I was asking what YOU meant.

I meant bourgeois. It's okay to admit it when you don't know something, nobody knows everything!

So now you have decided to change the subject again. Slavery was an institution long before anything that could be called "bourgeois" government existed. Yet for some reason you attributed American slavery to bourgeois government. Funny idea of cause and effect, that.

Are you having difficulty following the conversation? It can be tricky. I'll break things down for you:

And the same argument as always applies; that the first experiment in bourgeois government ended in a Cromwellian dictatorship; American slavery; and Jacobin terror. To expect perfection is to predict failure. We are more realistic in our view of history.

You seemed to miss that the context was bourgeois government. That's okay as you didn't know what bourgeois meant. Now that you do, you can see the context for the statement. So we can admit that it was a little silly when you came back with:

Slavery antedated the Revolution by over 100 years.

But that's okay, that's how we learn

I then asked you to contextualize it further:

Oh, slavery was an institution for longer than that. Perhaps you can think of different ways in which American slavery was different from that of, say, Egypt. If you do that, maybe you can think of why those differences may exist. Let me know if you keep having trouble!

So now that you know what bourgeois means, and you know it has a particular type of slavery, let's see if you can guess how bourgeois notions of slavery may have been different than those in Ancient Egypt.

This might help. Talking to people at your level about slavery is notoriously tricky, but since you did such a good job of looking up the meaning of bourgeois, I think it's a discussion you're ready to have.

If you can list three things that are different about American slavery compared to Egyptian slavery, we can go over your work and keep talking. You're on the right track!

Maybe you can explain how bourgeois government was responsible for Egyptian as well as American slavery.

Let's go over the reading again. I've contrasted the two. Do you think that means I was saying the two are the same? Let's again think of differences between the two. Think of it like a game!

And that is another attempt to change the subject. Or are you saying the French revolutionary government was bourgeois, too?

Now Truth to Power, did you not say that you knew what bourgeois meant? Perhaps you should look it up again. But since you seem to be really struggling with definitions, let me show you a primer that I think is easy enough:

Following the mass insurrection of the sans-culottes that effectively dissolved the monarchy and brought the armed bourgeoisie to power, European monarchies feared the French example would destabilize their power in their own countries. Austria took the side of the deposed regime, as did Prussia. Revolutionary France responded with declarations of war in 1792.

Meanwhile, the sans-culottes — having recently learned the power of armed mobilization — continued to make demands on the revolutionary government, threatening not only the old figures of the ancien regime but also the ascendant bourgeoisie.

In response to this crisis, the Committee of Public Safety was formed as a bulwark against the aggression of the wealthy, both French and foreign. The Committee was convened under the leadership of the most militant section of the revolutionary bourgeoisie — the Jacobins.

Some of these words are really long, so don't be afraid to try looking them up!

The only trouble is in keeping up with your attempts to backpedal, evade, and change the subject.

I'm looking forward to talking to you about these topics, and I haven't given up. If you can do a little bit of reading and take your time in the definitions, you might be in a place where you can participate with the rest of us!

Disgraceful.

Don't be so hard on yourself! We all have to start somewhere, and you're doing a very good job. Just keep looking up new words so that you can use them in a sentence and try to think of how Ancient Egypt might not be the United States. Let me know when you're done

---

Literacy issues aside, none of this changes the fact that it seems that the youth is moving away from capitalism