Does Capitalism Work?

Users who are viewing this thread

whatareyousayin

New Member
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Hi

interesting discussion going on here, the reason why capitalism has failed, and is still failing is because the basis of the ideology is totally incorrect and it does not agree with mans nature, hence it is not directed in a way which will ensure that the ideology will exist for a long period of time, it is founded on the incorrect concepts, hence it is a capitalist ideology and nothing more than that
 
  • 113
    Replies
  • 3K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

porterjack

Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Messages
10,935
Reaction score
305
Tokenz
0.10z
Hi

interesting discussion going on here, the reason why capitalism has failed, and is still failing is because the basis of the ideology is totally incorrect and it does not agree with mans nature, hence it is not directed in a way which will ensure that the ideology will exist for a long period of time, it is founded on the incorrect concepts, hence it is a capitalist ideology and nothing more than that
what exactly is mans nature?
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Hi

interesting discussion going on here, the reason why capitalism has failed, and is still failing is because the basis of the ideology is totally incorrect and it does not agree with mans nature, hence it is not directed in a way which will ensure that the ideology will exist for a long period of time, it is founded on the incorrect concepts, hence it is a capitalist ideology and nothing more than that

I'm sorry. The words are all English but I can't understand what you're trying to say.
 

edgray

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z

I'm sorry. The words are all English but I can't understand what you're trying to say.

apparently he's solved the riddle of man's very nature, something that biologists and psychologists have been spending over a hundred years to try and solve... clever chap...
 

Hans

Active Member
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
If it was given a decent chance :)
I hope that isn't a serious post.

Im assuming socialist/communist in this sense is interchangable given the differences on a comparative political stance is not very large.

China, Laos, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, USSR, Czech Republic, Poland, Mozambique, and a number of other nations have all used/are using socialism. With the exception of China (which isnt really socialist in terms of how it actually functions) most of these nations which are still a marxist variant of socialism are doing extremely poorly on the HDI and most of the failed state indexs.
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
I hope that isn't a serious post.

Im assuming socialist/communist in this sense is interchangable given the differences on a comparative political stance is not very large.

China, Laos, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, USSR, Czech Republic, Poland, Mozambique, and a number of other nations have all used/are using socialism. With the exception of China (which isnt really socialist in terms of how it actually functions) most of these nations which are still a marxist variant of socialism are doing extremely poorly on the HDI and most of the failed state indexs.

Think you're getting your socialism mixed up with your communism, don't worry, it's a common mistake Americans make.;)
 

edgray

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I hope that isn't a serious post.

Im assuming socialist/communist in this sense is interchangable given the differences on a comparative political stance is not very large.

China, Laos, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, USSR, Czech Republic, Poland, Mozambique, and a number of other nations have all used/are using socialism. With the exception of China (which isnt really socialist in terms of how it actually functions) most of these nations which are still a marxist variant of socialism are doing extremely poorly on the HDI and most of the failed state indexs.

yup, this is a serious post.

As I mentioned before, there are some shining examples of socialistic economies functioning very well, the Scandanavian countries are a good example as they top the HDI index.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Ed, you have been promoting Anarchy. I'm a video gamer and although I don't play it, a good virtual example of anarchy is Eve Online with lots of drama- no police, no government, no enforceable rules, bank heists, infiltrating corporations to wholesale pilfer them, basically anything goes. I don't see people picking this as a system of government. :)
 

edgray

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Ed, you have been promoting Anarchy. I'm a video gamer and although I don't play it, a good virtual example of anarchy is Eve Online with lots of drama- no police, no government, no enforceable rules, bank heists, infiltrating corporations to wholesale pilfer them, basically anything goes. I don't see people picking this as a system of government. :)

yes, I am an anarchist, though I prefer the proper term libertarian socialist. Anarchy is a big area of philosophy that encompasses many different areas, including ones that function with capitalistic economic models.

your example doesn't match any of the anarchist societies that have existed so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

no one in their right mind would want that kind of chaos. The word "anarchy" is so misused. It means without leadership or hierarchy, not chaos. We're brainwashed from an early age that we need leaders, rules, police, hierarchy etc. But really, we don't.

As I've stated many times before, the world as we live in now is chaos. An anarchist society will be a highly organised one: but organised by the citizens and workers themselves with 100% involvement for every citizen. Why would they want to pillage from themselves?
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
yes, I am an anarchist, though I prefer the proper term libertarian socialist. Anarchy is a big area of philosophy that encompasses many different areas, including ones that function with capitalistic economic models.

As I've stated many times before, the world as we live in now is chaos. An anarchist society will be a highly organised one: but organised by the citizens and workers themselves with 100% involvement for every citizen. Why would they want to pillage from themselves?

Libertarian Socialist sounds much more plausible than Anarchist. Stop referring to yourself as an Anarchist then I'd probably stop debating this issue. BTW, Socialists have central governments and authority. :)

Based on the definition of Anarchist- Highly organized in what way? Are there rules, if so, how are rules established and enforced? Most systems would have an enforcement branch, a branch put in place by the local government. Gathering up a posse to deal with individual acts of lawlessness, might work for a small town, but not for a large metropolitan city.

Average citizens don't want a system that requires 100% involvement, that is why they vote in representatives to do it for them. My example of having 1million people meet in a field or football stadium, would simply not work as a means of governing.

Do you really think the world would be less chaotic if we were all anarchists? I see no evidence for that. The chaos we are currently experiencing is based on people, their beliefs and what they want. That would still be the same.

You don't pillage from yourself silly, you go pillage the tribe over the hill. :cool

Anarchy:
  • "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]
  • "Acting 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]
 

edgray

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Libertarian Socialist sounds much more plausible than Anarchist. Stop referring to yourself as an Anarchist then I'd probably stop debating this issue. BTW, Socialists have central governments and authority. :)

As I said, I much prefer the term Libertarian Socialist, it was other chaps on the forum that brought the anarchist moniker into it. I find the term a little vulgar because of it's abuse by stupid angry punks.

Based on the definition of Anarchist- Highly organized in what way? Are there rules, if so, how are rules established and enforced? Most systems would have an enforcement branch, a branch put in place by the local government. Gathering up a posse to deal with individual acts of lawlessness, might work for a small town, but not for a large metropolitan city.

Human societies have always been organised - it's how we progressed from being cavemen to where we are now. It's considered that man kind lived in a form of anarchy for millenia, so organised in the way humans want to be organised, in whatever way makes sense for that situation, and not dictated to them.

Of course there are rules, but not the kind we currently have enforced by police etc. Humans are social creatures, we learn from a very early age how to interact with people, what's right and wrong etc. It's essential for our survival. The rules and laws we have now are almost all to do with protecting the wealthy. There would be no wealthy, and in a society of 100% equality, which is what LS strives for, there would be little need for these rules. People would be born and raised understanding their place within society. Something that just isn't done at the moment.

Average citizens don't want a system that requires 100% involvement, that is why they vote in representatives to do it for them. My example of having 1million people meet in a field or football stadium, would simply not work as a means of governing.

When I say 100% involvement, it could be part of the working life, so it's not like people would be losing their free time. We credit politicians with actually doing stuff, when we all know they don't. People would be involved with the area of their work and so forth. Decentralising as much as possible so there is no need for 1 million people gathering in a field.

It could be worked in all manner of ways, with some kind of partial representation. But it would have to be far more direct that it is now.

Do you really think the world would be less chaotic if we were all anarchists? I see no evidence for that. The chaos we are currently experiencing is based on people, their beliefs and what they want. That would still be the same.

Certainly I think if we had a system that was based on a balance of equality and freedom, the chaos would be removed. The chaos we experience now is simply because of our lack of involvement and the inequality we suffer at the hands of the capitalist system.

The definitions you give highlight the different meanings of the word. Anarchy, as used in common vernacular, has nothing to do with political beliefs. 1, 3 & 4 relate to the political philosophy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

edgray

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
The Spanish Revolution is still one of the best examples, gives you an idea of how it could work:

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.
 

edgray

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
by the way, I really don't believe we can flip a switch and become an anarchist society over night. I would envisage many steps that could take a generation or two to get to the final destination of a truly egalitarian and free society.
 
78,875Threads
2,185,390Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top