Very good critical analysis of the current economic crisis we're in

You're saying that revolutionary change is not the price worth paying for revolutionary change.

Damnit. I wish there was an edit function. I meant:

"You're saying that violence is not the price worth paying for revolutionary change..."

What happened in Russia is that they got rid of a Tsarist system. If they didn't have that revolution, they'd be stuck in an 18th century social order.

Well, that's a different argument. You're saying that revolutionary change is not the price worth paying for revolutionary change.

That's a different argument from whether or not violent revolutionary change is effective, which clearly, in some examples, it is.

You may not think that its a price worth paying, and that's fair enough. I can respect pacifism, but many people throughout history have disagreed and have brought about revolutionary change sometimes with the aid of violence.

ttosca - I have one quibble with what you say. Humanity has already tried the civil unrest route to a different economic and social model - and that didn't go too well.

What on earth are you talking about? The French, American and Russian revolutionary wars all brought in a new social order.

Cogito-

If we've had 400 years (although I maintain it is far longer and you are merely splitting hairs about terminology) to come up with a 'new means of engaging in economic activity' and have not done so - including the catastrophic, failed, large-scale experiments of communism and national socialism - I would say there is little chance of it happening in future.

lol. Do you think Capitalism is 'the end of history'? That humanity won't progress from a Capitalist system to something more rational, ever?

400 years in the history of humanity isn't very long, and other systems, including slavery, lasted thousands of years.

I think we're approaching a situation where humanity will simply have to find a better system, as it can't go on with 'growth' for the sake of growth, can't go on polluting, causing climate change, concentrating more and more wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands, whilst failing to provide basic needs for the majority of humanity.

Civil unrest is here, and likely to grow exponentially in the coming decades. You'll see. There are many people who are not satisfied with the current system.

Cogito-

I'll try to be brief. Capitalism is roughly 400 years and came about after the industrial revolution in europe.

Selling goods for profit is not sufficient for an economic system to be 'Capitalist'. You are referring to mercantilism. You could argue that mercantilism was proto-Capitalist in that it has a profit motive, but it was certainly a very different from modern Capitalism as we know it.

You've gone one worse, though, because you've even claimed that bartering is Capitalism, so you even left out buying and selling for profit. Bartering is not Capitalism.

I think your problem is that you're confusing Capitalism with trade. Trade has existed since man had any surplus material - basically since agriculture.

Capitalism is something quite different. Here is a brief outline of the differences:

public.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/CAPITAL.HTM

In any case, my point was that Capitalism is not a 'natural' system like the weather. It is an economic system of human creation, just as slavery, surfdom, and mercantilism were.

When humans have no more use for Capitalism, they were invent new means of engaging in economic activity - this is happening already, and has happened throughout history. Eventually, a new dominant mode of economic activity will take the place of Capitalism.

Given the amount of pollution, climate change, food and water scarcity, tonnes of junk we produce and the periodic crisis that we're experiencing under Capitalism with greater frequency and intensity, I'd say that change will come about within the next few decades.

Not really, cogito, but answering such a question usually involves a long post, since it is necessary to challenge many of the assumptions behind the question itself - for example... your idea that abolishing Capitalism was 'impossible' - as if it were some kind of 'natural' phenomenon, when it reality it has only existed for 400 or so years and came in to being after the industrial revolution in the UK and Germany.

I'll answer your question in more length when I have more time. I am currently writing a paper.

newguy

I'm not stuck at all. What caused the financial mess certainly wasn't Labour alone. It was a global problem which the banks must take some of the blame, as should many governments of the time who turned a blind eye whilst the good times rolled.

The banks and those implementing the neo-liberal agenda of mass-privitisation and deregulation are most to blame.

BUT we are where we are now. The fact is that we do have a massive deficit. The fact is that there is no magic wand solution other than to tighten our belts and at the same time pray economic growth can help us lessen the pain.

There doesn't have to be a 'magic wand' solution, but there are many solutions aside from drastic cuts, which have been suggested on this thread and others.

In fact, the 'cuts' (or, 'tighten our belts') solution not only isn't a solution, it's positively making things worse, and more and more reports are coming out (as predicted) that the massive cuts are grinding the economy to a halt.

Ttosca, while you are still happy to throw stones at the coalition and try to continue to blame everyone but Labour.

I don't give a crap about Labour. The point I'm trying to make is that this isn't a a party issue, but the fault of neo-liberal ideology.

The fact is that who/how/when the problem occurred is all academic now.

No, it's not academic now. As I said earlier, correctly determining the cause of the crisis is necessary in order to:

a) Ensure that it won't happen again

b) Make sure those who caused it pay for it

If you believe, falsely, that massive public spending is the 'cause' of the deficit crisis, then your solution will be to cut public spending. Well, it isn't and wasn't the cause. The cause was the bankers gambling and then losing with public money, and then being further bailed out with public money, and then causing a recession.

The only realistic solution though is the same. Massive cuts. The only difference between Labour & the coalition is about 5%. Not really a lot.

Massive cuts are not only not a solution, but they are positively harming the economy. Do I have to copy and paste myriad recent articles showing that this plan isn't working?

I don't give a shit what Labour says. If Labour supports the cuts, then I don't support Labour either.

claig-

'You base this opinion on what - you hatred of New Labour?'

I voted for them in 1997. I don't hate New Labour; I laugh at them.

That's great, claig, but you avoided the question.

What do you base this opinion on? What makes you so sure that the Tories would have better regulated the city, when they have traditionally been the party of 'free-market' Capitalism and deregulation?