Detroit's decline is a distinctively capitalist failure

Since the right is always holding up Detroit as an example of a failure of the left, I figured it was time you present another, more accurate point of view.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...roit-decline-distinctively-capitalist-failure

Richard Wolff
theguardian.com, Tuesday 23 July 2013 08.30 EDT

continue here

- - - Updated - - -

Here is the author of the above piece on video, discussing the same issue in more detail.

[video=youtube;clWu1FUK680]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clWu1FUK680[/video]

 

More sniping from the foreigners?

Britain is a socialist disaster and hardly the best to find advice on the capitalist economic system.

But capitalism never promised that every company will prosper.

The big automakers and the unions make mistakes that caused their downfall.

But cars never ceased to be built just because GM, Ford and Chrysler were no longer competitive.

The action just shifted to better managed companies as it should have.

 

The Party of the US and International Working Class ,is very active in the defence of Detroit ,putting fear back into the hearts of the Capitalist scum and there liquidators,

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/07/pers-o07.html

The traditions of the 1930's ,are not dead!

 

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sovietcollapse.htm

Short memory eh?

 

You would think people would remember the examples of the Soviet Union and post WWII Europe.

But I guess that mean the lib brainwashing in the public schools is succeeding.

 

The United Kingdom, as you know, is run by an extremist class-war government devoted to attacking working people. Your master own it, so stop talking reactionary drivel. You don't have to: McCarthy died long since.

 

Capitalist failure? Unions are a socialist idea, not a capitalist idea. This is obvious due to the fact that they exclusively line up with lefties politically. They are the primary reason Detroit collapsed! Coupled with the entitlement mentality that comes along with a union mentality, the decline in productivity that comes on when unions are present, and the fact that people were hired and promoted on the basis of things other than competence and performance.

 

From a user in comment section : capitalism never fails except when it does

 

Okay, so my master (whoever he is) owns Britain, so as a result, we should stop talking reactionary drivel - but then again, I don't have to and never did because a politician from the fifties is dead. So I guess because he died, that somehow led to my current unnamed master buying Britain. I guess the conclusion is that if MCCarthy were still alive, a better person would own Britain right now. I think. The logic in this post is lacking something - mostly logic.

Aren't posts using word salad WEIRD?

 

"Communism is an excellent idea.......until you run out of other peoples money to support it".
Our friend from the UK conveniently forgot to mention that the city has been run by corrupt LIB Black politicians for years. I don't have the number of former LIB Black Detroit politicians who have been or are presently serving time in jail but the Feds probably needed to end an extra wing to some prison to house them all.

 

Just as the auto industry atrophied in Detroit, the steel industry atrophied in Pittsburgh.

Somehow, Pittsburgh weathered the same storm much better than Detroit.

Capitalism is not perfect, just much,much better than socialism.

 

To sum it up :
Irrelevance
Ignorance
Race bashing
Speculation
Ridicule

This is the usual pattern when supporters of "never fails except when it fails" concept try to argue .

Personally i think that what happen is a combination of factors but i agree with the Dr that capitalism's main feature is failure .
Failure to socialize success , failure to be successful capitalists , failure to stand for the community . The last one is the most interesting , egoism can only be beneficial short term and those who made money took it and go leaving behind misery and deserted streets .
You say that politicians played a role, i accept that , but there can be no capitalism without government's support /tolerance .

 

I absolutely agree that capitalism failed in the USA automobile sector because it was never allowed to work.

I love reading articles of how manufacturing in the USA took off post WW2 and why can't we go back to those glory days. Maybe people need to remind themselves of the condition of developed countries after WW2 bombings and ground assaults. A true capitalist would not have sat on their complacency and allowed the Japanese to build a better quality product, priced lower, without making one ourselves. The issue was and continues to be the UAW.

A true capitalist would have busted the unions, paid wages in line with the needed lower sticker prices on vehicles and fired people who designed and built crap quality. We used to laugh at the broken down Volvos, Datsuns and Toyotas. We were happy to pay more money for real cars which would last upwards of 60k miles before they rusted out from underneath us.

But something strange occurred. More people tried those newer Toyotas and lo and behold, they cost $1k-$2k less (a lot of money in the 70's/80's) and lasted longer. The control knobs didn't break off after 2 years. The rubber seals didn't leak. The engine didn't burn oil after 50k miles and you could get in excess of 100k miles from them.

Fast forward to today and the mighty Honda and Toyota are under assault in the USA and it's not from GM or Chrysler. Nope, it's from Hyundai. Yes sir, those South Koreans who brought us the disposable $4995 car in the 80's learned their lesson, retooled, regrouped and came back in a big way.

So, back to the point, yes, capitalism did fail Detroit because they did not implement capitalism. They allowed the UAW to drive them under and no true capitalist would allow that to occur.

- - - Updated - - -

when actually implemented it's as darn close as you can get to perfect. The Detroit auto industry was UAW driven which is not capitalism

 

Hmmm undermined by unions which also play a part in the success of the competitors such as Volvo?

 

pffft....

Ford Agrees to Sell Volvo to a Fast-Rising Chinese Company

 

Wolff has many criticisms, but no answers, save for a make believe workers' utopia that he has no proven examples of success - not in the US or anywhere else. Where are these "worker co-operatives" that have given the world new technology, as he claims it should? Where are the "worker co-operatives" that have helped a company transition through changes in the labor force, competitive changes, economic influences beyond their control? He's saying that a bunch of dope smoking rivet drivers know best for the company? Ah, but of course he is not. In his system you need another cog in the wheel, actually two. You need union, oh, excuse me, worker co-operative representatives (lawyers) and you need politicians willing to create the laws conducive to your scheme.

 

No - not politics: good safe capitalist politics such as please your masters. You are not allowed anything else, as you know.

What is it with you? Instead of making up drivel, go back to what I said and tell me which English words you don't know.

You grasp the colonial relationship very clearly. Goodbye.

 

I'm not all that big on worker cooperatives either.

However the brand of unrelated capitalism that we have here is a failure.

In fact Capitalism would been dead here in the US if it hadn't been for the massive government bailout that it was given in late 2008 and 2009.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in straight up front cash plus the government had to assume responsibility for Trillions of dollars worth of insurance for mortgage backed securities that AIG underwrote, but then welched on.

Without this massive Big Government Socialist propping up of our "free market" which will have to be paid for by the working stiffs of this country, our Capitalistic system would have folded up like a cheap card table.

What we need is some kind of balance in this country between Capitalism and Socialism.

We don't have anything like that.

If you want a good example of what a good balance is, all you need to do is look at the Scandinavian countries.

They have it just about right IMO.

 

More propaganda. Just like the financial meltdown of 2008 the radical liberals want to blame someone else for something they caused. The push to get everyone who couldn't afford a home into one was the root cause of the 2008 crisis. The push was from democrats and Clinton oversaw the beginning of it. Detroit is run by radical liberals.They ran it into the ground. GM is the only real failure of the automotive companies. But globally even GM is still doing well while Detroit is a crap hole.

 

Ah yes, the last example that left-wingers can point to, after Britain, France, Germany, and all their other previous examples started choking.

http://www.economicnoise.com/2011/09/07/how-come-scandinavia-is-so-well-off/


Maybe our poor people should start chipping in if they want more socialist benefits? The Scandinavians do.

Oh, and having a mostly homogenous racial and cultural composition helps a lot. We don't have that.

 

That's right. I'm sure the 'makers' in the US would be more than happy to pay 50%+ in income tax like Scandinavian countries collect.
That's not a "balance" IMO.
The more the 'makers' give the Government the more the Government gives to the 'takers' thereby enslaving the 'takers' thereby making sure the 'takers' will always vote LIB. Good gig.

 

And where exactly DID I say this? I want to see where I mentioned these worker co-operatives so glowingly.

Projection.

Oh, I understand the words just fine on an individual basis, it's the way you assemble them into a post that has no touchstone with reality where what you've said ends up looking like a word salad.

Non sequitur.

 

The problem with Detroit is the black population, not liberalism. It's the thug mentality and desire to get everything without working for it and the belief that being uneducated and living like hood rats is a cool thing to do. Don't believe me ? Here's beautiful Seattle which is infinitely more liberal than Detroit but doesn't have a majority black-thug population.

 

More leftist crap. How many companies operate using socialist principles? Could you build a society from scratch using those same principles?

Detroit caved in on itself from the weight of its decay. Liberalism turned away capitalism by insisting they were the only reason for their once booming city. Now you could farm within the city limits.

 

This thread is a bunch of lies.

Obama and pals bailed out GM, and they dont give a damn about American workers.

Detroit is Americas Motor City, and Government Motors would rather build new plants in Mexico, even though the US government is its biggest stock holder....

GM to invest $691 million in Mexican operations

(Reuters) - General Motors Co (GM.N) outlined plans on Wednesday for investing $691 million to expand its Mexican operations, including the previously unannounced expansion of its Toluca engine plant.

The plans include a new factory in Silao in central Mexico to build 8-speed transmissions and an upgrade to an existing factory in San Luis Potosi that will make next-generation transmissions, GM Mexico President Ernesto Hernandez said.

With numerous free trade agreements, a cheap, well-educated labor force, and proximity to the lucrative U.S. auto market, combined with growing demand in South America, automakers have been lining up for two years to set up shop or expand in a country that some analysts believe could eventually overtake Brazil as Latin America's biggest economy.

"The automotive sector is today one of the pillars of the national economy, representing more than 20 percent of manufacturing GDP and continues to be, for many reasons, a fundamental industry in attracting investments to productive sectors of the economy," Hernandez said at a press conference in Mexico City with Mexico President Enrique Pena Nieto.