Does Capitalism Work?

[kelvin070]

The irony of it is communism is financing the world's largest capitalist's debts.:24:

 

[edgray]

The irony of it is communism is financing the world's largest capitalist's debts.:24:

... as are the majority of working men. Our tax is bailing out corporations. We'll see nothing in return.

 

[edgray]

I think I prefera meritocracy to a mediocracy.

you have a problem with the French?!!

 

[Accountable]

Hardly. I see socialism without morality as destructive as capitalism without morality. Having the state decide who gets what wealth (waits for knickers to untwist because I refuse to get tangled in semantics) encourages people to sit on their asses, since they'll get housed and fed regardless of input. There's no reason to maximize anything (production, profits, output, etc) because most of the extra will go to those who haven't done shit to deserve it. (yeh, I know, existence is enough to deserve it all).

Epiphany:

In the same way, amoral capitalism (which you all seem convinced is the only kind that exists) encourages the cutthroat competition ya'll wail about.

BUT, if morality is applied to either system, both can create happy, healthy, prosperous societies. I don't believe that either can produce a good society without applying morality. I don't believe that one is more moral than the other.

 

[Minor Axis]

There's no reason to maximize anything (production, profits, output, etc) because most of the extra will go to those who haven't done shit to deserve it. (yeh, I know, existence is enough to deserve it all).

You support my contention that large strides mostly happen when people realize large self reward which might be classified as "greed". Helping others, helping society is secondary. The question is under Socialism, are there still people out there who will put the extra effort for the common good?

The Virginia Colony started in the 1600s as a communal system with common grain storage. James Smith realized there were slackers and abandoned the system, spouting "If ye will not work, ye will not eat!" or something like that.

Regarding Capitalism, when unregulated and allowed to develop naturally, historically it is bad for the majority.

 

[edgray]

Hardly. I see socialism without morality as destructive as capitalism without morality. Having the state decide who gets what wealth (waits for knickers to untwist because I refuse to get tangled in semantics) encourages people to sit on their asses, since they'll get housed and fed regardless of input. There's no reason to maximize anything (production, profits, output, etc) because most of the extra will go to those who haven't done shit to deserve it. (yeh, I know, existence is enough to deserve it all).

It's interesting because the sitting on their asses you speak of is frowned upon massively by socialists, certainly by me. I don't agree with handouts at all, the social security system is supposed to be there to help people when they can't help themselves, but it's abused badly by lazy folks. Lazy folk have no place in society, socialist or otherwise. Personally I don't know why the govt doesn't put people on welfare to work for them...

Epiphany:

In the same way, amoral capitalism (which you all seem convinced is the only kind that exists) encourages the cutthroat competition ya'll wail about.

BUT, if morality is applied to either system, both can create happy, healthy, prosperous societies. I don't believe that either can produce a good society without applying morality. I don't believe that one is more moral than the other.

I like your epiphany. How can we guarantee morality though?

 

[Accountable]

You support my contention that large strides mostly happen when people realize large self reward which might be classified as "greed". Helping others, helping society is secondary. The question is under Socialism, are there still people out there who will put the extra effort for the common good?

The Virginia Colony started in the 1600s as a communal system with common grain storage. James Smith realized there were slackers and abandoned the system, spouting "If ye will not work, ye will not eat!" or something like that.

Regarding Capitalism, when unregulated and allowed to develop naturally, historically it is bad for the majority.

Eggggg zactilly

 

[Accountable]

It's interesting because the sitting on their asses you speak of is frowned upon massively by socialists, certainly by me. I don't agree with handouts at all, the social security system is supposed to be there to help people when they can't help themselves, but it's abused badly by lazy folks. Lazy folk have no place in society, socialist or otherwise. Personally I don't know why the govt doesn't put people on welfare to work for them...

You can frown until you get cramps in your chin, but unless you're willing to sort the wheat from the chaff (which would require some kind of law enforcement agency, which would require a government, which doesn't exist in your utopia) then your post is just so much pap.

I like your epiphany. How can we guarantee morality though?

We can't. Too bad, so sad. Gotta live with it. Tell ya what, I'll live with it capitalistically and you live with it socialistically and let's see which one of us truly respects the human freedom to determine how one shall live.

 

[edgray]

You can frown until you get cramps in your chin, but unless you're willing to sort the wheat from the chaff (which would require some kind of law enforcement agency, which would require a government, which doesn't exist in your utopia) then your post is just so much pap.

well in my utopia as you say, there wouldn't be a social security system that could be abused like the current one. No enforcement needed.

The current social security system is in place to try and counter the evil of capitalism and make things a little fairer. Unfortunately it's taken advantage of. But, I should point out, the ones doing the abusing aren't socialist. Socialists contribute. That's their core belief.

We can't. Too bad, so sad. Gotta live with it. Tell ya what, I'll live with it capitalistically and you live with it socialistically and let's see which one of us truly respects the human freedom to determine how one shall live.

"Too bad, so sad"?????

Hang on, are we back in the playground now?

Accountable, your past few posts have been very below par for you, everything ok?

But back to what you said - by all means, you see how great your system is that "truly respects human freedom to determine how one shall live" and I'll just go for a system that truly respects humans. Period.

 

[Accountable]

well in my utopia as you say, there wouldn't be a social security system that could be abused like the current one. No enforcement needed.

The current social security system is in place to try and counter the evil of capitalism and make things a little fairer. Unfortunately it's taken advantage of. But, I should point out, the ones doing the abusing aren't socialist. Socialists contribute. That's their core belief.

You're dreaming. Those who "aren't socialist" will still be residents and citizens. Will you allow them to fail? to starve? Of course not. You'll still have a social security system, only it will encompass so much that it will be called The Way Things Are.

"Too bad, so sad"?????

Hang on, are we back in the playground now?

Accountable, your past few posts have been very below par for you, everything ok?

I thought it was funny. :dunno

But back to what you said - by all means, you see how great your system is that "truly respects human freedom to determine how one shall live" and I'll just go for a system that truly respects humans. Period.

Not the systems, friendo. You & me. I think I have more respect in that way than do you, because I believe people have the right to try and fail as well as try and succeed. Great successes have been forged in the fires of failure. You would have those fires put out.

 

[edgray]

You're dreaming. Those who "aren't socialist" will still be residents and citizens. Will you allow them to fail? to starve? Of course not. You'll still have a social security system, only it will encompass so much that it will be called The Way Things Are.

I really don't understand where you're going with this, what society you're talking about and in what circumstance...

I thought it was funny. :dunno

Not the systems, friendo. You & me. I think I have more respect in that way than do you, because I believe people have the right to try and fail as well as try and succeed. Great successes have been forged in the fires of failure. You would have those fires put out.

I believe people have the right to try, fail, try, succeed, try, fail again. Nothing in my ideals denies people that right UNLESS they are trying to subjugate people. No fires being put out unless it's decided by the people and with good cause.

 

[Accountable]

Look Ed, reality, practicality and human nature have no place in your society, where

• The society is highly organized, yet no one is needed in the organization
• All are taken care of, yet no one will need to be taken care of because all will willingly and joyfully work for one another, without exception.
• EEEEEeeevil capitalism is vanquished finally and for all without ever having to convince anyone of changing their ways, because the two societies are so different as to have no transition possible -- it will just happen.
• There is no government, no law, no leadership, yet somehow an incomprehensibly complex list of rules will be known and obeyed ... some sort of instinctual etiquette.
• People will work with no reward toward an end with no goal for a collective who's membership and participation is completely voluntary.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm tired ... probably explaining the lack of my usual tact.


I'll try to stay out of it for awhile.

 

[edgray]

Look Ed, reality, practicality and human nature have no place in your society, where

Yes yes, there clearly is no historical precedence for anarchy at all... must be all in our heads...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism

And furthermore, what do you know of human nature that hasn't been indoctrinated into you by the powers that be? (ie, that greed is human nature)

[*]The society is highly organized, yet no one is needed in the organization

You don't believe people are capable of organising themselves? People do this all the time. I would've thought this would've sat nicely in line with your beliefs...

[*]All are taken care of, yet no one will need to be taken care of because all will willingly and joyfully work for one another, without exception.

Everyone who contributes, who is capable of contributing, will enjoy the benefits of society like everyone else. People who don't contribute, well, what happens to those parasites will be decided by the society they're in.

[*]EEEEEeeevil capitalism is vanquished finally and for all without ever having to convince anyone of changing their ways, because the two societies are so different as to have no transition possible -- it will just happen.

Well it happened in Spain that suddenly...

[*]There is no government, no law, no leadership, yet somehow an incomprehensibly complex list of rules will be known and obeyed ... some sort of instinctual etiquette.

There is no complex list of rules, just equality. That's the only thing that people would have to abide by.

[*]People will work with no reward toward an end with no goal for a collective who's membership and participation is completely voluntary.

No reward????? At what point do they get no reward?? And no goal??

I'm sure there's more, but I'm tired ... probably explaining the lack of my usual tact.

I'll try to stay out of it for awhile.

Drink some coffee, you'll be fine...

 

[Minor Axis]

Look Ed, reality, practicality and human nature have no place in your society, where

• The society is highly organized, yet no one is needed in the organization
• All are taken care of, yet no one will need to be taken care of because all will willingly and joyfully work for one another, without exception.
• EEEEEeeevil capitalism is vanquished finally and for all without ever having to convince anyone of changing their ways, because the two societies are so different as to have no transition possible -- it will just happen.
• There is no government, no law, no leadership, yet somehow an incomprehensibly complex list of rules will be known and obeyed ... some sort of instinctual etiquette.
• People will work with no reward toward an end with no goal for a collective who's membership and participation is completely voluntary.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm tired ... probably explaining the lack of my usual tact.


I'll try to stay out of it for awhile.

Overall, I like your thoughts in this post. :clap Some kind of a system other than the free-for-all Anarchy represents is needed in any kind of a substantial organized group of people. Representatives are needed because it makes organizational sense whether the discussion is about Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism. Anarchy is about anti-organization. I don't see it as a fit for any substantial orderly society.

 

[edgray]

Overall, I like your thoughts in this post. :clap Some kind of a system other than the free-for-all Anarchy represents is needed in any kind of a substantial organized group of people. Representatives are needed because it makes organizational sense whether the discussion is about Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism. Anarchy is about anti-organization. I don't see it as a fit for any substantial orderly society.

I really hate to keep repeating myself but the driving force behind anarchist thought is ORGANISATION, not our ineffective "from the top down" organisation, but complete organisation done by the citizen's themselves. Anarchy has nothing to do with anti-organisation, anarchy is anti-hierarchy - there's a big difference. Using the word "anarchy" to mean "chaos" is simply wrong, it's just what we've been indoctrinated with since we were kids.

Anarchy is such a broad term, perhaps one of the broadest in the political sphere as it contains so many factions, so many philosophies, that defining it in such simple terms does it a massive disservice. Please read at least some of the Anarchy section of wikipedia, it's huge, but it will give you a very good idea of what it's all about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

... and that is nothing to do with anti-organisation...

 

[Minor Axis]

I really hate to keep repeating myself but the driving force behind anarchist thought is ORGANISATION, not our ineffective "from the top down" organisation, but complete organisation done by the citizen's themselves. Anarchy has nothing to do with anti-organisation, anarchy is anti-hierarchy - there's a big difference. Using the word "anarchy" to mean "chaos" is simply wrong, it's just what we've been indoctrinated with since we were kids.

Anarchy is such a broad term, perhaps one of the broadest in the political sphere as it contains so many factions, so many philosophies, that defining it in such simple terms does it a massive disservice. Please read at least some of the Anarchy section of wikipedia, it's huge, but it will give you a very good idea of what it's all about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

... and that is nothing to do with anti-organisation...

Here is the first part of your link:

• "No rulership or enforced authority."[1]
• "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2]
• "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[3]
• "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[4]
• "Act[ing] without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this." [5]

Now when you are talking about a million people living in a city, what makes you assume it will be orderly? Let's say there is a gang terrorizing the neighbors and a neighborhood vigilante group pops up to deal with them, and then they decide they are the law of the neighborhood and citizens will pay them for protection. Citizens don't want to pay and are beaten until they comply. Then another group organizes to over throw the first group and they have a street war. So forth and so on. Basically it's might-makes-right and is contrary to one person-one vote. Now it can be argued that the real police in a democracy can't deal with gangs either, so you got me there.

But can you point out any large group of people who have picked anarchy as a means or system of government that has lasted a substantial number of years? As far as I know all instances of anarchy in human history involving large groups of people move to other more organized and representative forms of government.

In case you have forgotten I am not a proponent of unregulated Capitalism.

 

[edgray]

Here is the first part of your link:
Now when you are talking about a million people living in a city, what makes you assume it will be orderly? Let's say there is a gang terrorizing the neighbors and a neighborhood vigilante group pops up to deal with them, and then they decide they are the law of the neighborhood and citizens will pay them for protection. Citizens don't want to pay and are beaten until they comply. Then another group organizes to over throw the first group and they have a street war. So forth and so on. Basically it's might-makes-right and is contrary to one person-one vote. Now it can be argued that the real police in a democracy can't deal with gangs either, so you got me there.

Wow you really have a negative view on what people are like!

I would think, I would like to think, that in a society based on equality and freedom, there simply wouldn't be gangs terrorising communities. We have that now, and I see it as a by product for our complete lack of organisation. Suppose this gang did exist, how big would it be to actually terrorise an entire community. Nowadays it does take much, a gang of a few members, to make the lives of hundreds a complete misery. In an anarchist society, a society based on inclusion rather than exclusion, gangs such as that would most likely not exist - why terrorise something that you're a part of? Gangs happen because of our disconnected existence. If we viewed ourselves, and were raised to be active members of our communities, this wouldn't happen. As I said, these things are simply by products of the way we "organise" ourselves right now.

But can you point out any large group of people who have picked anarchy as a means or system of government that has lasted a substantial number of years? As far as I know all instances of anarchy in human history involving large groups of people move to other more organized and representative forms of government.

In case you have forgotten I am not a proponent of unregulated Capitalism.

The most recent examples are fairly short, not through their own failures but through the defeat by a larger force - the Spanish Revolution as a prime example. As for a substantial number of years, how about thousands?

Most contemporary anthropologists, as well as anarcho-primitivists agree that, for the longest period before recorded history, human society was organized on anarchist principles. According to Harold Barclay, long before anarchism emerged as a distinct perspective, human beings lived for thousands of years in societies without government.[7] It was only after the rise of hierarchical societies that anarchist ideas were formulated as a critical response to and rejection of coercive political institutions and hierarchical social relationships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism

 

[Zorak]

Capitalism as we know it works great.

I can't think of any alternitave.

Right now, the rewards are out there for those capable of achieving them, and the protection for those who can't. And all the while we're free to sit around and discuss the pro's and con's of ridiculous things like anarchism and socialism. Which have been fundamentally proven to not work anyway. (Ed, I read that history of anarchism wiki, and it's pretty fanciful. I got to the bit where some crackpot claimed the Native Americans lived in an anarchistic society, read on to the part about Anarchists in the first French Revolution; and just started to laugh.)

 

[Alien Allen]

Ed you gotta be the most delusional person I know

There is no order in Anarchy

You are living in a dream world

 

[edgray]

Capitalism as we know it works great.

Works great at what exactly? robbing the poor to give to the rich? dividing societies? making the massive percentage of the planet live in poverty? turn everyone into wage slaves? yup, works great at all that.

I can't think of any alternitave.

There's quite a few different options out there...

Right now, the rewards are out there for those capable of achieving them,

and for those who aren't? forced into a life of poverty and exploitation?

and the protection for those who can't.

Capitalism provides protection??!!!! in what way exactly??

And all the while we're free to sit around and discuss the pro's and con's of ridiculous things like anarchism and socialism. Which have been fundamentally proven to not work anyway.

I'd love to see this proof. You can look at the world today and see how capitalism, for the people, is a complete and utter failure.

(Ed, I read that history of anarchism wiki, and it's pretty fanciful. I got to the bit where some crackpot claimed the Native Americans lived in an anarchistic society, read on to the part about Anarchists in the first French Revolution; and just started to laugh.)

It's pretty fanciful when related to where we are now. But the human race has been there before and can be there again.