Is Capitalism the answer ?
Do we need more capitalism ?
Is it time to look beyond capitalism ?
What is our duty ?
Do we need more capitalism ?
Is it time to look beyond capitalism ?
What is our duty ?
231 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 123 previous comments
- I'm short on time, so my reply will only pertain to the first part of your comment.
Socialism is a class dynamic and the relation of the social classes to the means of production. The overwhelming economic powers in our societies, all semantics aside, are built on markets, privatization, a hierarchical labour structure, wages, and a centralized state. Whatever you choose to call that, it's not what the vast, VAST majority of socialists refer to when they use the word. While communists do believe on using the state to aid in seizing control of the economy for the working class (a point about which there is still much internal debate) this does not suit us.
My branch opposes markets as a method of distribution for being inefficient and biased against the poor, we endorse holding productive goods (land, factories, etc) in commons and subject to horizontally-organized collaboration where people eschew the production-for-the-sake-of-production model and produce commodities based directly on need so that work is kept to a minimum and people can be defined by their actual desires and what voluntary labour they contribute. We cast doubt on the stability and equitable functionality of a monetary system like the one you see the bankers using to control the state, and speaking of the state, I personally take the side of the argument that the necessary functions of the state can be decentralized and run more-or-less locally for many people. The biggest problem with this is that the transition from our current economic system into something like that requires a rather powerful popular movement and a total overthrow of the corporate-state.
Regardless, our current economic system fits my criteria for capitalism and it's certainly not anything close to free if you look just below the poverty line.Nov 12, 2013
- Well, first for you to go ahead with your utopia of voluntary work, you have to be free of state laws that prevents the free market to work. In capitalism, the work is voluntary. No one is forced to work in a sweatshop, it's their choice, because the alternatives are worst. You believe that there is market failures, and yes there is, but slavery was also a market failure, you couldn't imagine a world where everyone were free and still manage to have a quality life of plenty, but we strive and we now are better off without slavery. In a free market you can create your idea, if you want only voluntary work without money you can make a company, and if you are successful you can influence all market to your idea. But if it does not work, only you pay the consequences. The market is based on experimentation, centralized power is based on opinion. I want the people to be free to think and to experiment. And of course the market is authoritarian, but doesn't use force. But if you don't like the products you are free to create an alternative business.
Socialists are afraid of freedom and progress, they are religious about force, that that is the answer to all market failure, it's like using God to explain everything, and they couldn't imagine a secular society without everyone become savage animals. But actually non-religious persons are more civilized than religious. If you think that you need laws or God to have social norms, in a free society you could write personal notes to conduct yourself, but don't impose your limited ideas into others. Don't make good people pay for the bad people. People don't guide themselves with law books, they use common sense. And if they use force, they should be accounted for, and if they are not conventional, if they believe in a different way, the market will test that.
Socialists can't learn from history, they are so afraid of freedom that they have to deny history. The sad thing in this, is that history may have to be remembered with the USA. Go study what happened in Rome, when the republic became a dictatorship. They were a welfare state, that is people depended on state, and every elected governor was held like a hero that was going to make the life better, but it always got worst, more control less freedom, until people applauded the rise of the dictatorship. I predict the same think for the US.
The distinction have to be made from democracy to republic. The US is NOT a democracy, it's a republic. That is a grave mistake. The majority rule is a dictatorship, it's tyranny, so the state have to be a republic, not a democracy. You can't create more laws, the state has to be limited, and let the market do it's thing. You can't manipulate the state to everyone desires. The market is the true democracy, where you vote with your feet and money on what you want for society. It's about individual choice. And if you feel that the market is limited, go work on that, and help society by providing different alternatives, and by helping others you are helping yourself.
Force is not the way! Reason is, so don't be lazy and use it.Nov 13, 2013
In your system, how do you handle the problem of monopolies and concentration of wealth.Nov 13, 2013
Also would be curious to understand how you deal with the use of force without a state.Nov 13, 2013
- Look at what we've done since we left the trees. Our creativity may be unlimited. But we tend to change when change is a matter of life or death. So to be here and convince you of every steps we should take to end the state, it's a little bit useless. But we can theorize all we want, because there may be infinite ways to deal with these things. But if you say force is the answer, there is no more argument, no more reason, no more creativity. It's just like saying God is the answer. Look at what we accomplished when we started to accept that we don't have all the answers. It's the same with force. God was an excuse for force, now the excuse is the poor and the greater good. I believe that when we create a free society, the explosion of accomplishments is going to be unimaginable by now (like the USA was in the beginning).
But we can theorize. I believe we should privatize everything. I think there is no doubt about the cost effective, quality and diversity of products made by private companies destroying by far the same government products.
Beginning with school. That horrible schools that traumatize kids. What everyone says is because it's free, it's good. But of course nothing is free, and that argument should end there. If government didn't use taxes to finance the public school, all private schools would lower their price, and the same story with student loans. School, like everything, is a business, and when schools don't have access to cheats (taxes) that guaranties them, they are forced to change, or they would go broke, because no one would want to go there. And I think that logic can be applied to every battle between private vs government.
Now to have a society without government force. David Friedman has a great theory to abolish police. In the US, a great number of cops are now from private companies, because they have far more quality and are more affordable. In a free society you could have security agencies, that you contract to protect you. Instead of contact the police, you contact the companies by their quality service. For these agencies to have success, it's useful if the crimes are reduced, because it costs money. When you are robbed, your agency would investigate, and if the robber is from another agency, to minimize the costs, the two agencies would reach a deal, and go to the court.
The private court system could work by the same logic, but I don't know much of courts to theorize about it.
So if the robber is guilty, he have to return the stolen things and pay a fine. And if it doesn't hold him from rob again, he would be sent to a place, like prison where force is legal. We cannot imagine that contrast, between a free society where force is banned, and a society where force in legal. But if our kids were born at that time, it should be very scary to them. It should be like to be release in the middle of a jungle.
One last thing that is said to be more difficult to privatize is the army. I think it's difficult because it's the line between a free society and a coerced society. First, a free society should be more productive than any other, and all nations would benefit from them. Second all people from other coerced nations, would want to run to that free society, like it was with the Berlin wall. That society could become so powerful that if you assemble an army to invade it, you would face a major disband. Third, the people in the free society, are more deeply strong that any other nation, and the aggressiveness to defend their freedom, should be overwhelming to any attacker army. Fourth, the language of a free society, is business. And like the US learned, it's the best way of conquering the world.
The essential thing is the motivation, so compare the motivation of the government workers with the private workers, is obvious which is the better. Stop trying to imagine a society without profit. Everything has a cost, and if that cost isn't well payed, we have a dysfunctional society like the soviets. Profit is law in the free market society, and everyone has a say on that. But that is only my view.Nov 13, 2013
- ::Logical correction:: So you'd rather like giving a government to profit-seeking, greedy companies? The people would have even less power on their lives. In a majority rule system (tyranny) people can only vote the least repulsive people to force you on what they think it's good for you, but if all of this would be in the hands of private companies, everything would turn into democracy. Privatizing everything would create greater flexibility between classes when the poor could become the rich in society.
Everyone would be benefiting from all this. If you give people the chance to act on ambition, they will sure as hell be successful. Soviet Union or any other "communistic" society did truly adapted the main point of Marx's socialism, MAJORITY RULE. If the government is becoming more powerful, the society, socialistic and not capitalistic, is bound to fail. There has never been a country that would have truly been able to implement the capitalist system properly the way it was originally intended for (based on freedom and natural private property). You are saying that the capitalist system is the worst, and we must have control on freedom (that's funny). A monopoly on force (government) always means that someone is going to abuse it to diminish the freedom of others. And freedom always leads to others having less control. Control is the opposite of freedom, and we should pick the best:
Education, health care and banks should be in the peoples hands (private). Noting should be from the government. The government should be limited as possible, and the system should be as free as possible. - Everyone should have the same possibility to succeed in life. - (The only phrase I didn't touched!)
If you think that the difference in income is "control" and something you must preserve, you truly are cancer and a social pollute who deserves to suffocate on a bag of cold porridge. (Yes! A second phrase I agree!)
Notes: You clearly are very confused about everything about society. But I too was on your place, until I really open my eyes I start to see all the logic behind the curtain. I hope you someday be able to see it too. If you do not, I'm sorry for you, and ultimately, if the majority doesn't see it, I think we are pretty doomed, and bound to repeat history all over again. We seem not be to able to learn with history, and that is truly sad. But life goes on. Enjoy yours the way you want.Nov 15, 2013