Can capitalism work? Yes it can, provided it doesn't fall into the trap of all the other 'ism's'of taking the short view and allowing the idiocies of avarice and power lead to the word 'stupid' preceding it. And for that not to ultimately happen it must adopt moral and socially responsibilities within the frameworks and markets of the business.

Will it happen? I like to think it would, but have to restrict my hope to the could. And even then, apply it to a level only a shade more likely than pigs learning to fly.

"The present aim of capitalism is quite simply to socialise the costs while being allowed to privatise the profits.

In a nutshell, its capitalism without moral or social responsibility."

But do you think capitalism ever had any moral or social responsibility? I don't – and there is no evidence to suggest that it ever did.

I recommend the following:

http://www.thecorporation.com
['The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Power']

… in which it is shown how the corporation cannot but exist to maximise profit ("shareholder value") at the expense of any other concern, be it social, moral or environmental.

There is an interesting legal example in the early history of the motor industry: Dodge vs. Ford Motor Company.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford owed a duty to the shareholders of the Ford Motor Company to operate his business to profit his shareholders, rather than the community as a whole or employees.

Similarly, manufacturers have in the past omitted basic safety features from cars on the grounds that the cost of introducing them would have exceeded the estimated cost of compensating the victims of any 'accident'.

The corporation is an externalising machine which will always seek to shift costs, for example pollution, onto any agency other than itself – as it represents a cost that is best avoided in the interests of profit.

Privatisation of profits and socialisation of 'losses' (in this case environmental degradation).

The only moderating influences are consumer behaviour, consumer / political pressure and regulation – which is inevitably described as 'onerous', as 'red tape' or (laughably) a "distortion of the free market".

Capitalism *is* psychopathic in operation!

In a nutshell, its capitalism without moral or social responsibility.

In another post I called the players psychopaths. I used that pejorative term factually, not as a knee jerk reaction but in the considered view of neuroscience and its application to the criminal traits of serial killers and their like.

The majority of psychopaths know the Law, are often astute in its application and are aware of the moral values deemed as normal benchmarks by society.

Where their flaw becomes apparent is their indifference to the values placed by both the law and normal society on such dispirit issues such as the minor offence of littering or the gravest offence of killing. They treat both with the same casual, if any, remorse.

The same attitude has been adopted by all the players in this game, including these who are supposedly in the business of representing us and looking after our interests. Both, however, hide behind the façades of institutions; institutions which by design and practice have removed conscience from their covenants because applying it would increase costs at the expense of profits. They don't see such an attitude as corrupt they just see it as the normal game of business – the world of dog eat dog and eat what you kill.

This explains their hubris and lack of remorse and appreciation of being saved from the stupidity of their own making and their utter lack of conscience to the extent they not only deem they had a right to be saved they want to exploit the recovery by tilting the ballpark and reducing the rules all in their favour.

They even have the audacity to threaten if they don't get what they want they'll take the huff and their ball and find a better pitch. Which would be laughable if we had a competent government with a backbone who said – Go, but before you do, its our ball, our pitch our rules and our clothes your wearing. So strip off and piss off as far as that big van that's waiting for you by the touchline.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a government (apart from possibly Iceland) any where in the world that has this biological necessity that, supposedly, seperates man from mollusc.

However, whatever the cost, – and I suspect to the normal citizen if done fairly and in a forensic manner, they would be less than the approach presently adopted – their failures and the surreal fantasy of their values have been exposed, and we have had an education in the worthless alchemy of their beliefs and the vacuous lexicon of their inner temples.

So, in the immortal words (except for Bush): Fool us once; shame on you – Fool us twice; shame on us.

But this is exactly what they are presently doing, with the connivance of governments.

I agree with you about the way the elite express their ideas about globalisation. But I found a really interesting paper that showed that the idea it is lifting millions out of poverty in developing nations, is in itself wrong. In fact this research claimed that globalisation had actually harmed millions in Africa and India and made them much poorer.

So it is not as simple as saying that for one American falling out of the middle class a couple of Asians rise into it. It might be more accurate to say that for every couple of Asians that rise into the middle class – one American or European leaves it and fair few Indians or Africans fall into really desparate poverty – food insecurity basically.

It was something to do with how globalisation has meant that traditional farming practices have been swept aside – and agricultural land taken for development – and so millions are now reliant on buying food they can't afford – or trying to grow food on poor soil. I will try and find it because it was really interesting stuff.

The interesting thing about globalization, as you note, is that our titans of industry do actually believe that globalization is a "rising tide lifts all boats" kind of thing. But they way they express it, as in The Rise of the New Global Elite, is so utterly devoid of humanity it makes me want to give 'em the Mussolini treatment.

What they actually say is they're fine with trading one American who falls out of the middle class for a couple of Asians who rise into their middle class.

Of course, implicit in this expression is the fact that the two middle classes are not on the same level, and in this transaction there's a corporation extracting a fee for facilitating this involuntary trade, sucking ever more wealth upwards.

I am aware of that much yes. I did economic and political european history so – years and years ago though it was – I remember that often conveniently 'forgotten' fact. In fact when politicians hark back to the ''good old days'' of the industrial revolution I always think – 'but that wealth was built on Empire and slavery'.

I'm a Sheffield lass and our historic involvement with slavery was minimal compared to say Liverpool etc. But Cannon Hall – which I used to live near in Cawthorne, Barnsley – was lived in by the Spencer family who were said to 'dabble' in the trade. And rumour has it that laid the foundations for their wealth.

Basically our hands in the West are very bloody and very dirty.

The whole thing is really complex though. I am against globalisation it has to be said, because I don't believe it brings benefits to most ordinary people – wherever they may live – despite what those in favour proclaim. I don't think it is as simple as saying we have to get poorer in the West now because others are getting their fair share. It seems to me that in most countrys a small elite is getting ever richer while the rest get poorer. I don't see most people in other nations getting their 'fair share'.

Being a bit of an old lefty I am a firm believer in Internationalism, which I think is rather a different beast.

If you were you'd know that much of the scaffolding upon which modern-day capitalism was constructed consists of fortunes accumulated, not on the backs of workers, but of slaves.

The UK didn't become an imperial power based on its good looks. Slavery built that empire, but since "that was a long time ago" it's not considered legitimate to even bring up this fact in polite circles. It's like steady state theory — they want us to think it was, you know, always like this. As if the way things are now is just the natural order.

There's also the fact that the western industrialized countries heavily protected their budding industries with import tariffs, yet today insist that developing countries do no such thing.

But that's for another day.

Absolutely agree one hundred percent. Hits the nail on the head.

One thing we have to remember Myopia – is when we talk about government that our government/s have always been part of the capitalist system. If it is corrupt it is partly because it is a cog in the wheel of a corrupt system.

I believe capitalism by its very nature is corrupt because it relies upon – ultimately – capitalists using other peoples labour and creaming off most of the profit for themselves. This is justified with a lot of talk about the 'risk' capitalists take. And maybe at some time they did? I am not aware enough of history of corporations and corporate law to know whether or not they did.

Now however most capitalists are pretty protected. Only the very small fry are not. For example in my city some big retaraunts have gone bust. They just re-opened using a slightly new name and new 'directors' – the previous managers basically – just having their strings pulled by the same owners who in reality are allegedly still the unofficial owners. So they are still in business yet all the really small producers they bought food off etc – and they owed money to – are now out of pocket.

Some of these were cooperatives and small agro businesses and they may go genuinely bankrupt now. That is totally and utterly corrupt. And anyone who has their eyes open sees it every single day operating in our wonderful 'free market' system.

Whilst I do agree with others on here that we don't have free markets right now – 'free markets' being a cuddly name for vicious neo-liberal crony capitalism – I am not convinced that if we had free markets all would be well. I do not believe free markets are moral, rational or self correcting.

If aid like food stamps (or just plain food,) for people who cannot actually afford to feed themselves & their children, is cut to the bone, these hungry people will do things they might not otherwise do to express their anger.

With world food prices at an all-time high, I cannot but believe that events in Egypt are causally related to this fact. If people don't have food they will do something about it. They may end up dead, as many already have in Egypt, but those hoarding the food can't kill 'em all.

myopia — I think we're going to have to disagree on the health care reform. Forcing people to purchase health care is not much of a solution, especially considering the loopholes which undoubtedly litter the legislation. And of course the law does little toward reducing the actual costs of health care, nor does it strip insurance companies of their anti-trust exemption, which allows them to operate monopolies in different regions of the country. I would very much like to believe that this reform will help people, but I'm afraid I cannot.

The 'Shock Doctrine' as described by Naomi Klein refers to the manipulation of crises by capitalists (or free marketeers, if you like) in order to secure privatisation of public assets, and this is backed up by numerous case studies.

However, I think the 'Shock Doctrine' illustrates a wider point about the nature of power and its use (or rather, abuse). Note that 'big government' – the state, whatever you want to call it – used the terrorist attacks on the US and UK to make its own power grab. It is unlikely that without such a convenient excuse, the public would have acquiesced (at least in aggregate) to such measures as detention without trial.

Unfortunately, whilst the interests of 'capital' and 'state' have not always been so perfectly aligned (so at least there were competing interests, with the people somewhere in the middle), we now exist in an era of crony capitalism where the state has been compromised.

In this scenario every 'crisis' is an opportunity for the ruling elite to exert more control over a bewildered populace *and* to extort more money from the public purse – which is precisely what 'Golem' writes about.

(I think. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.)