.

Dear Squeers,

.

I don't think you should give up - at least, not yet.

I understand your frustration. I sympathise with you and share your concerns.

All your criticisms seem to me to be perfectly justified. You are obviously referring to "bad" capitalism.

However, things are not quite so simple. There is also "good", or "virtuous" capitalism whose existence should not be denied. Who would argue, today, that we were better off under the feudal and tribal systems which it took capitalism over 600 years to eradicate and replace?

As Martin Wolf, pointed out : in years 1000–1820 world economy grew sixfold, 50% per person. After capitalism spread in years 1820–1998 world economy grew 50-fold, i.e., 9-fold per person. In most capitalist economic regions the economy grew 19-fold per person and in Japan, which was poor in 1820, to 31-fold. In the rest of the world growth was only 5-fold per person.

World Bank statistics indicate that the global poverty rate, which stood at 25 percent in 2005, is decreasing, lifting around 70 million people – the population of Turkey or Thailand – out of destitution annually.

It is evident that despite the eminently equitable qualities of Karl Marx's proposed alternative economic model, it simply does not work. For it to work, mankind would need to change radically and adapt to the model. That can only be achieved by force.

I, personally cannot see that happening, even in the most catastrophic scenarios for the future of capitalism.

In fact, we seem to be headed in the opposite direction. The worst is probably yet to come in the form of State capitalism as practiced by China and some of the oil rich countries.

So, what do we do? Get rid of capitalism? How? Fire a salvo of bazooka at it? What do we replace it with?

A realistic option could be to favour and encourage "good" capitalism and severely discourage, control, restrict and penalise "bad" capitalism, which is the cause of all our problems.

Laser surgery would certainly cause much less collateral damage than a bazooka.

.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

I can understand your passion for Claude Monet.

Not only was he a great painter but, as I am sure you know, he was a personal friend of Georges Clemenceau, the French Prime minister who led France to victory during World War I and set up the Treaty of Versailles.

Clemenceau spent what little spare time he had in the company of Monet and rushed to his good friend's death bed where the painter died in his arms.

I have visited Giverny on several occasions over the years, often accompanying visiting friends, relations and overseas visitors. The best time to visit it, of course, is in the Spring when all the flowers are in bloom. Though best to arrive early in the morning before opening - before the bus loads of Japanese tourists arrive.

As a matter of interest, I happen to have, hanging on the wall of my toilet in my Paris apartment, a large reproduction of Henri Matisse's painting "Open window" which he painted in Collioure on the Côte d'Azur (French Riviera) in 1905.

It is quite relaxing to just sit and contemplate it, which, as you can imagine, is what I do regularly.

However, for reasons I don't quite understand myself, my favourite painter is Maurice Utrillo whose mother, Suzanne Valadon, was also a painter. Nobody knows for sure who his father was. Suzanne thought it might have been either Renoir or Degas, but she finally found another painter by the name of Miguel Utrillo who accepted that she name the boy after him.

Utrillo painted the streets of Montmartre. He was born on the rue du Poteau, just around the corner from where I live. He was a heavy drinker of absinthe, a pretty rugged green alcohol, which has since been outlawed. He died at the ripe old age of 70 and was buried in the Montmartre cemetery. He was known as the man of Montmartre.

I'm afraid I have not read Irving Stone's "Depths of Glory" but it sounds interesting and shall keep an eye out for it.

.

Banjo Paterson,
there is no "good" or "virtuous" capitalism in a closed system or an ethical order respectively (are these points too economical? If so you may flesh them out by rereading my posts above). Capitalism is not merely trade and barter. It is devoted to generating wealth via the systemic cultivation of capital.
"Who would argue, today, that we were better off under the feudal and tribal systems"?
No one, least of all Marx, who had mixed admiration for capitalism and the bourgeois revolution--which was just as shocking to the old world as communism seems to moderns (read the link to Matthew Arnold above). But it amounts merely to a higher, more diverse order of inequality and tyranny. Howevermuch that charge is denied, the more damning one is it's unsustainable.
So spare me the stats; exponential growth doesn't equate to quality, contentment and balance, any more than the frenzy of a mouse plague does.
Marx didn't propose alternative economic models, he inferred that just as feaudalism broke-down into the bourgeoisie, so would it ultimately atomise into communism. Egalitarianism was for Marx human society's abiding tendency, via a kind of "punctuated equilibrium".
I've already expressed my pessimism above that we can change hegemonically, or that anything could take capitalism's place overnight without devastation. Devastation seems inevitable--indeed vital to humanity in the long run.
Idealism will not quash capitalism unless it is embraced en masse, and that won't happen until the system fails. There's nothing like starvation to focus the mind, which under capitalism is blissfully diverted. This is a failure of democracy; its failure to act decisively. Humanity's future would be more secure under a wise and benevolent monarch (unfortunately a rare and changeable beast). I've said before, we should be using computer technology; put in all the data--economic, ethical and environmental--and follow the recommended course of action. I've no doubt the first item would be to dismantle political economy.

Banjo Paterson,

It's interesting that you mention your reproduction of "Open Window". Last year I went with my daughter and son up to the WA Art Gallery for an exhibiton of paintings from MoMA in New York. There were quite a few by Matisse - and the one which caught my eye was "Interior with a Violin Case", which as you probably know, is also a view out of an open window with interior in the foreground. This painting, for me, was the highlight of the exhibition.

We were able to get up fairly close and personal to the paintings, and I enjoyed particularly Matisses' colourful flourishes so lightly and freely daubed.

Picasso and Warhol paintings were also on view amongst many other "moderns". Regarding Warhol's Campbell Soup Tins: I had heard that it was executed employing some kind of printing technique, and I was able to stand right up close - and I could see the faint pencil lines around the words on the tins, so it seemed to me that they were painted....but the Matisse paintings stood out for me because of the colour, style and composition.

Yes, I've seen some of Utrillo's work.....and do you know Degas' "The Absinthe Drinker"?

.

Dear Squeers,

.

"Capitalism is not merely trade and barter."
.
Agreed. "Good" capitalism finances the three sectors of the economy:
- agriculture, fishing, and extraction of raw materials (primary),
- manufacturing (secondary),
- services (tertiary).
.

" It (capitalism) is devoted to generating wealth via the systemic cultivation of capital."
.
True - however, this is where the cleavage occurs between "good" and "bad" capitalism. Both generate wealth but the first has a positive effect on the economy and the second has a negative effect:

- the first, through long term productive investments (in partnership with the economic actors, accompanying them in their endeavours),

- the second through short term speculative investments (with no involvement in any economic activity).

It is the role and responsibility of the government to collect and redistribute excess wealth. In Australia the "marginal" tax rate (tax rate applied to highest bracket of income) is 45%. In France it is 75% (socialist government).

.

"exponential growth doesn't equate to quality, contentment and balance, any more than the frenzy of a mouse plague does."
.
I prefer to reserve my judgment on that. I wonder what those 70 million people who are lifted out of destitution each year have to say about it.

.

"Idealism will not quash capitalism unless it is embraced en masse ..."

I am not sure it is a good idea for idealism to get the upper hand in any human activity. I feel more comfortable assigning the moralistic "super-ego" the sole task of counter-balancing the impulsive "id" and letting the "ego" take the decisions.

Idealism in its raw state tends to be a little too close to intolerance for my liking.

As a final remark, please allow me to say that I have no axe to grind on the subject under discussion. I have an open mind and am receptive to any facts, arguments or opinions which may improve my vision.

Many thanks for your input, Squeers. I appreciate it.

.

Banjo Paterson,
I can't agree that there is a good capitalism, the logic is the same and primary industries existed before capitalism. We are only indebted to capitalism for overproduction and unsustainable population growth, those you designate "lifted out of poverty", are the byproduct--as if the 7 billion, or the 70 million a year were there all along waiting to be rescued!
I wonder what the 70 million a year will say when they're left high and dry?
If idealism doesn't get the upper hand, over ideology, then capitalism will lead us to a far worse fate than those who would undermine it.

But many thanks to you too, especially for bearing my sometimes brusque responses so gracefully.
In my own defence I can only submit that serious debates are best waged without affectation, and I'm so used to running into brick walls here I tend to use a sledge hammer--to no avail I fear.

Am looking at your you tube link, Nick, and thanks for all the extra material you've provided. I think we're mainly on-song.