Does Capitalism Work?

[edgray]

This is the problem here I find. Why can't people see that capitalism and socialism can work quite well together. Capitalism works because if people work hard they naturally feel they should reap the rewards. There is no motivation to do so if you're not going to be better off. However we need socialism as well so that the disadvantaged and poorer dont get squashed and stepped all over by the ambitious on their way to the top.
Even the Conservatives (here at least) support the NHS and benifit system. You dont have to be a greedy, self centered, fuck everyone else as long as I'm alright, prick to support capitalism.

Well because throwing a couple of socialist band-aids on a destructive capitalist economy leads to where we are now, a little better for some, still very bad for the far majority.

 

[Peter Parka]

Well because throwing a couple of socialist band-aids on a destructive capitalist economy leads to where we are now, a little better for some, still very bad for the far majority.

Well it's quite a lot more than a couple of band -aids. The social security and NHS are huge things.

 

[edgray]

Well it's quite a lot more than a couple of band -aids. The social security and NHS are huge things.

true. and with those regards the UK could be described as a social democracy mixed economy rather than a free-market capitalist economy.

I would still consider them band-aids tho as they haven't narrowed the rich/poor gap.

 

[Minor Axis]

The fact that the majority of the capitalist world lives in abject poverty clearly won't sway you.

It sways me but towards regulation of capitalism, not anarchy.

 

[edgray]

It sways me but towards regulation of capitalism, not anarchy.

We have regulation now, and still masses of poverty?

 

[Minor Axis]

We have regulation now, and still masses of poverty?

You mean the non-existant regulation that all most brought on the 2nd great depression? Since the first great depression, the protections that were put into place have slowly been dismantled by business interests.

 

[edgray]

You mean the non-existant regulation that all most brought on the 2nd great depression? Since the first great depression, the protections that were put into place have slowly been dismantled by business interests.

True, the regulation has lessened, I just can't see how regulation can make capitalism a fairer system...

 

[Minor Axis]

True, the regulation has lessened, I just can't see how regulation can make capitalism a fairer system...

Laws that protect labor, otherwise known as the worker bees, tipping the balance back towards center. Look at Europe where it could be eroding today, but tradionally labor laws were strong. In fact labor laws may have gone overboard if and when the economy suffers because of it. So it definitely is a balancing act.

It is absolutely true that part of what make humans work hard and civilizations excel is the promise of self reward. Capitalism offers that reward but as I said unregulated Capitalism works too much in favor of the mogul and tramples all over the working class.

Anarchy is a free for all. Most people do not choose anarchy.

 

[edgray]

Laws that protect labor, otherwise known as the worker bees, tipping the balance back towards center. Look at Europe where it could be eroding today, but tradionally labor laws were strong. In fact labor laws may have gone overboard if and when the economy suffers because of it. So it definitely is a balancing act.

Europe has had strong labour laws, which are disappearing around our ears... I would never say they went overboard though, far from it, there's so much headway left to make...

It is absolutely true that part of what make humans work hard and civilizations excel is the promise of self reward.

Most humans work to feed themselves and their families. Many work for nothing these days - chances are you have some open source software on your computer: A shining example of what humans can achieve with no material motivation whatsoever. Also, non-hierarchical structures or self-organising groups... hmm.. hang on, that sounds a little like anarchy... no way!!!

Capitalism offers that reward but as I said unregulated Capitalism works too much in favor of the mogul and tramples all over the working class.

The reward you speak of has existed in every single economic and political model that has been tried. Rewards are not something anarchy would take away. Work with no reward would be slavery. One step down from wage-slavery.

Anarchy is a free for all. Most people do not choose anarchy.

Ok, for one last time - anarchy is about a highly organised society, certainly not any kind of free-for-all. Capitalism is the free-for-all: survival of the fittest. Anarchy is about unity, shared responsibility, nothing to do with free-for-all whatsoever.

More and more people are learning about anarchy these days, I meet fellow libertarian socialists with increasing regularity. Thanks to the anti-globalisation movement, which is spearheaded by many different anarchist factions, anarchist beliefs are on the rise.

 

[Peter Parka]

I think the ultimate problem with the anarchy you preach is that is completely misjudges human nature, in the same way that Communism does. Both great ideas if the world if only made up of caring people who dont care about money. Unfortunately, it's not and these systems both leave themself open to arseholes to exploit. Capitalism does too when its not kept in check by Socialism and it pretty much is.

 

[Minor Axis]

Ok, for one last time - anarchy is about a highly organised society, certainly not any kind of free-for-all. Capitalism is the free-for-all: survival of the fittest. Anarchy is about unity, shared responsibility, nothing to do with free-for-all whatsoever.

Nothing I've read about anarchy indicates "highly organized", nothing. It would only be as organized as the locals who organized themselves to promote order or disorder. Nothing guarantees this is a superior system. "Might makes right" sticks in my brain. Maybe I'm just to prejudiced against the term.

Ok, I'll be honest with you. When I think of Anarchy, what stands out in my mind is the street thug robbing a convenience store in V for Vendetta yelling "Anarchy in the U.K.!!" as he shoots a hole in the ceiling and then runs out the door. Of course the thug probably did not know anything about anarchy either and misapplied the term to the situation.

If you could show me a single example of a prominent civilization choosing anarchy and sticking with it, I might be swayed. But the best you've produced is some pre-historic example which is hardly documented. I sense the circular motion in our discourse. Let's call it a draw and I wish you well.

 

[Zorak]

If I lived in an Anarchial System of government... I'd round up a posse and go around taking whatever I damn well pleased.

 

[edgray]

If I lived in an Anarchial System of government... I'd round up a posse and go around taking whatever I damn well pleased.

Would you really?

That wouldn't make sense at all, not in a system of shared ownership... you'd technically be stealing from yourself... not particularly smart...

So hang on, you're telling me that the only reason you don't round up a posse and go looting right now is because of the authority in our society?

that's pretty darn shocking Zorak. Shocking.

 

[Accountable]

True, the regulation has lessened, I just can't see how regulation can make capitalism a fairer system...

That's because you change the definition of words to fit your own ... ends? doctrine? ... thoughts, I guess. Capitalism is the fairest of fair, where two people bring whatever it is they wish to offer to exchange for whatever the other guy has that they want. If they agree the two things are of equal value the deal is struck, if not, they each go their own way. Open trade regulated by market forces. The danger, the eeeevil, is not in capitalism, but in human greed and the desire to get the better end of the deal. Regulation is not to curb capitalism, but to curb attempts to control the market (which is NOT capitalism but despotism).

You see, it's not capitalism that is keeping so many people in poverty around the world, but that local despots have taken control of the systems and stopped natural market forces from enriching everyone. How could that happen, you ask? Well, arguably it is because there is no rule of law there that the despots have to follow. The area is without rules, without authority ... it's anarchy.

 

[edgray]

Nothing I've read about anarchy indicates "highly organized", nothing. It would only be as organized as the locals who organized themselves to promote order or disorder. Nothing guarantees this is a superior system. "Might makes right" sticks in my brain. Maybe I'm just to prejudiced against the term.

Ok, I'll be honest with you. When I think of Anarchy, what stands out in my mind is the street thug robbing a convenience store in V for Vendetta yelling "Anarchy in the U.K.!!" as he shoots a hole in the ceiling and then runs out the door. Of course the thug probably did not know anything about anarchy either and misapplied the term to the situation.

If you could show me a single example of a prominent civilization choosing anarchy and sticking with it, I might be swayed. But the best you've produced is some pre-historic example which is hardly documented. I sense the circular motion in our discourse. Let's call it a draw and I wish you well.

Oganisation comes from necessity - do you honestly think anyone in the world, aside from the capitalists and their survival of the fittest, wants to live in chaos? Of course not. Humans have organised themselves in one form or another since the dawn of time. We're social creatures by nature, and thrive on teamwork. We learn from a young age in the bosom of our families how to interact and work with other people. There's no need for us to be told what to do from above.

There are no prominent civilisations choosing anarchy - how could they when they're enslaved by their capitalist leaders? Most people have little idea about anarchy other than the Sex Pistols and their stupid rantings.

There are billions of examples of people organising themselves without hierarchy or leadership. Open Source software for example, squatter movements, anti-globalisation, worker's movements, unions. The Israeli Kibbutz is a great example. Large-scale organisation of an anarchist society is best exemplified by what happened in Spain in 1936:

In 1936, against the background of the fight against fascism, there was a profound libertarian socialist revolution throughout Spain.

Much of Spain's economy was put under direct worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy Socialist influence. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers. George Orwell describes a scene in Aragon during this time period, in his book, Homage to Catalonia: [ISBN 978-0156421171, Harvest Books, Fort Washington]

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life– snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.– had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

The communes were run according to the basic principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," without any Marxist dogma attached. In some places, money was entirely eliminated. Despite the critics clamoring for maximum efficiency, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely egalitarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy. It is generally held that the CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes.

In addition to the economic revolution, there was a spirit of cultural revolution. For instance, women were allowed to have abortions, and the idea of free love became popular. In many ways, this spirit of cultural liberation was similar to that of the "New Left" movements of the 1960s.

It's a shame they eventually were defeated by the fascists...

A fully large-scale anarchist society is a long way off, but the more people that understand the potential of a hierarchy-free society, and the benefits of an economy based on "we" rather than "me", brings us a step closer towards freedom.

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

 

[Peter Parka]

Your idea sounds strangely like Animal Farm by George Orwell. How did that end up? Oh yeah,

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"

Dont get me wrong, your utopian society sounds a dream except that it's also a wet dream to greedy arseholes who could easily exploit it. Your ideal fails to take account of the amount of greed in society.

 

[edgray]

That's because you change the definition of words to fit your own ... ends? doctrine? ... thoughts, I guess. Capitalism is the fairest of fair, where two people bring whatever it is they wish to offer to exchange for whatever the other guy has that they want. If they agree the two things are of equal value the deal is struck, if not, they each go their own way. Open trade regulated by market forces. The danger, the eeeevil, is not in capitalism, but in human greed and the desire to get the better end of the deal. Regulation is not to curb capitalism, but to curb attempts to control the market (which is NOT capitalism but despotism).

You see, it's not capitalism that is keeping so many people in poverty around the world, but that local despots have taken control of the systems and stopped natural market forces from enriching everyone. How could that happen, you ask? Well, arguably it is because there is no rule of law there that the despots have to follow. The area is without rules, without authority ... it's anarchy.

When you describe it like that, it does sound like a fair system. However, painting a picture of a relationship between 2 people isn't at all realistic and it seldom plays out that way. How can a system be fair if it puts all of the money and power in the hands of private tyranny?

I'm afraid I don't share your faith in "natural" market forces...

 

[edgray]

Your idea sounds strangely like Animal Farm by George Orwell. How did that end up? Oh yeah,

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"

Dont get me wrong, your utopian society sounds a dream except that it's also a wet dream to greedy arseholes who could easily exploit it. Your ideal fails to take account of the amount of greed in society.

well what you're talking about is of course the Soviet Union. They had a lot of problems with their abuse of communism... but there is a BIG difference: they had a govt, a hierarchy. That's what anarchy is specifically against.

As libertarian socialists, we believe that greed is not an intrinsic human feature, but rather something that's learned. Capitalism promotes greed. With that out of the way, and everything shared out much more equally, the belief is that greed would be seriously lessened. This is a leap of faith of course, but given that the average person isn't especially greedy, there are many indicators to point that this is indeed the case.

 

[Peter Parka]

well what you're talking about is of course the Soviet Union. They had a lot of problems with their abuse of communism... but there is a BIG difference: they had a govt, a hierarchy. That's what anarchy is specifically against.

As libertarian socialists, we believe that greed is not an intrinsic human feature, but rather something that's learned. Capitalism promotes greed. With that out of the way, and everything shared out much more equally, the belief is that greed would be seriously lessened. This is a leap of faith of course, but given that the average person isn't especially greedy, there are many indicators to point that this is indeed the case.

But who would stop someone gradually taking charge which happens in all political systems? I know animal farm was a piss take of communism but they started out like the equal society you're preaching. Its a simple fact which has been proved over thousands of years, a society cannot and will not opperate without some kind of hierachy and I challenge you to show me system in history where it has and has worked.

 

[edgray]

But who would stop someone gradually taking charge which happens in all political systems? I know animal farm was a piss take of communism but they started out like the equal society you're preaching. Its a simple fact which has been proved over thousands of years, a society cannot and will not opperate without some kind of hierachy and I challenge you to show me system in history where it has and has worked.

Well the only thing to stop concentrations of power would be the people. In the USSR, they started with a govt. In anarchy, with the govt abolished, there is zero concentration of power - the power in society is placed equally on the shoulders of all. This might very produce a different outcome.

Imagine if we were all 100% responsible for not only ourselves, but our communities, our worklife, and our society as a whole? Might this not bring out totally different human traits than we've seen in modern times?

As for proof, I posted a link to a list of historical precedents for anarchist societies, obviously with Spain 1936-38 being the prime example. Plus, look at how much in the world is organised without hierarchy - if you think about it, there's quite a lot.