Passion strikes the hearts of the knowing and the misled. Being passionate means you keep bumbling ahead on one path without stopping and taking in your surroundings. He'll understand one day, or he'll stay stuck. I'll nudge him a little but he's doing his own thing and at least he's trying.
Before a utopia can occur human fallibility must be conquered first. And in order to conquer it, we must know why it occurs. Choice and knowledge is essential in understanding this. But i'm going to let you conclude that answer on your own. Beside's think morally about the difference between wanting and needing. Morality is not about perspective. Only an honest man can tell you, that what is helpful and healing is right. What is harmful and destructive is wrong. Judge materialism according to this morality. And you got utopian anarchy. Freedom by absolute morality, meaning each man is free to do as much as needed then wanted as long as it doesn't impede morally on anyone elses freedom. Collective against immorality, meaning united against disrespect of any one persons freedom. Progress in materialism is nonessential. Progress in mind is very essential before materialism.. btw, journey, areskenux here, how you doing? Sent from my HUAWEI-M931 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Capitalism wouldn't be so bad without crooks and good priorities..good luck w/that, right? Human nature needs to change before that's going to happen...but also... Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff. ~Frank Zappa
Lots of things are subjective. Often people claiming to be very very rational and materialistic do not realize what subjectivity really is. A belief in science or in the statistics of a goverment are very strong beliefs people hold, for example. They are not necessarily true. I don't believe in god. I used to be a more reductionist, materialist atheist, but I kept thinking, and now I realized some other things. Science, even being more efficient than other things in many areas, is a method, it has flaws, it produces some false results, it must be challenged and faced critically, both methodically and politically. To hold such views is, in fact, what a skeptic in a philosophical sense would do.
Not gonna lie I didn't read all the replies this thread so sorry if I'm repeating what someone else has already said. Capitalism is the most efficient system we know of that can be implemented on such a massive scale, like in the United States. Like every economic theory, capitalism has it's strengths and weaknesses. The one reason why I feel capitalism will always be better than an economy run entirely by the state, is motivation. It's hard to motivate people to work to their full potential in a socialist society because there doesn't seem like a lot of incentive to go above and beyond. Another major benefit that capitalism has is competition. Since individuals are allowed to create businesses and products freely, for the most part, it drives competition, better products, and cheaper prices. The fact that people have the freedom to get involved in a business leads to more competition because people will try to make a better or cheaper product than the ones that are already out there. This in turn drives the original company to either put out a higher quality product or lower their prices which ends up being good for the consumer. The point is that in a capitalist society there is a lot more competition and motivation to work hard. That being said there are several serious weaknesses when it comes to capitalism. The first is an economic idea called externalities. Now, externalities are essentially these costs that result from making a product that aren't included when considering pricing. For example, say a factory is right on a river and producing a shit ton of pollution which is killing a lot of the local fish population, and making it harder for fisherman to do their job. This is an externality because the factory doesn't take into account this loss of revenue for the fishers when they price their products. So essentially if you're looking at a supply and demand curve, where supply=marginal cost and demand=marginal benefit. Where these two meet is what is called the most efficient quantity for the corporation. Unfortunately, when you have an externality like in the case of the factory, you would shift the societal marginal cost to the left meaning that the most efficient quantity for society would be less than the most efficient quantity for the corporation because they're not taking the cost of pollution into account when they determine how much to sell. This shows that private corporations, which all corporations are in a our capitalist society, are not perfectly efficient Another qualm I have with capitalism is for basically perfectly inelastic goods. These are goods where the price has basically no major effect on the demand. Basically it means people will buy it regardless of what price it is. Some examples are medicine, healthcare, cigarettes, food, water, and electricity. These are all things, with the exception of the cigarette, that a modern day person basically needs to survive and flourish. The problem I take with pure capitalism is that all these necessities become commodities sold by private corporations. The problem with giving inelastic goods to unregulated private corporations is that you give them too much power. With a product like cinnamon toast crunch, General Mills doesn't have the ability to gouge people because there's lots of competition and people would stop buying their cereal if they did. Things like water, electricity, and healthcare are all things that can be very easily be price gouged because people will pay ludicrous amounts of money since they need these things to live. This is why pretty much all of these industries are heavily regulated. I would not want to live in a pure capitalist society, because things like education, healthcare, utilities, roads, and even fire fighters would all be run by corporations with no regulations to stop unfair treatment of consumers. My point is that you need regulation in industries that supply necessities like these ones otherwise the company has too much power over the consumer. Overall if I had to choose a pure capitalist society verse another pure economic theory then I would say pure capitalism wins. If I had my own choice then I would like to live in a mostly capitalist society with certain government programs/regulations on necessities like healthcare, water, and food to ensure the consumer is treated fairly.
Inb4 "didn't read capitalism is evil your wrong" Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Collectivism = Fascism/Communism/Socialism Capitalism? Corporations = Minor Collectivism Collectivism + Capitalism?
anarchy Anarchist/capitalism is the idea that everyone has the right to seek wealth as long as its not at the expense of someone else. Collectivism plays a role in that the anarchist society bans.together to keep corperations and monopolies and cartels from centralizing wealth and creating a serfdom. I've started seeing how Carl.Marx thought, or at least I think. To me communism is anarchocapitalism. The idea that the working class is free to keep the fruits of THEIR labor. Perhaps I misunderstand Marx, but I do believe the super elites do not earn or deserve what they have and its up to the working class to hold them accountable Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Scarcity will always exist in a finite system. Even an infinite universe would not change this, as access to resources is made finite by phsyical limitations. No economic system can ever overcome this reality. These are two completely different systems. Also, in communism, the working class is not free to keep the fruits of their labor. I would also argue that anarcho-capitalism does not rely upon the establishment of a 'class' construct as heavily as communism does (it is not a central focus or theme of anarcho-capitalism). This is demonstrably false, in fact, so much so that it pains me to read this. Humanity has been living on a starvation diet for the majority of its existence. Now that we are surrounded by abundance in the remnants of a free-market people suddenly get the idea that everything will somehow just come to us without the expenditure of labor, transportation, pollution, human life, finite resources, and finite time. This is fantasy thinking. Any kind of production requires energy and labor - literally any kind of production. Even machines producing goods for us require energy, maintenence, and the labor that was required to make them in the first place.
Capitalism is a good idea if it has it's limits. Unfortunetly, "the sky is the limit" here in the USA. People like Sam Walton thought "hmmm....capitalism eh? Perhaps I should take advantage of this". The rest is history. I used to work in the manufactering industry here in the U.S. Now almost everything is made in China. Sorry for my shitting spelling.
I dunno, guess I'd rather live under a system where there are too many people getting wealthy as opposed to a system where everything is under some form of bureaucratic control and everyone is equally reduced to near beggar status. Go ask the Chinese people their opinion of Capitalism vs highly regulated economies. lol
the thing is, as far as i can see, seeking wealth is by definition ALWAYS at the expense of someone else. If I have it, somebody else doesn't. ~~~~ Anyways. I think the whole competition aspect of Capitalism is probably a necessity. I just wish our society would stop mass producing shit like fast food and pop music and cell phones and waterparks and all the other bullshit. Because we are ruining our planet for luxury while others don't have access to necessity.
Any 'class' and it's not communism. Communism can be defined as a classless society. That's why any of these countries that do and have existed which have this elite class living lavishly and a bunch of poor people, but call themselves communist, are laughable. And the fact that this is what people have it in their head's communism is. If there is ANY class, it's not communist. Pure and simple. Communism is absolute equality. Well, at least you're open to considering that another ideology may not be exactly what you thought it was. So that is good. Admittedly, communism is not about keeping the fruits of your labor. It is about removing that concept entirely, and everyone contributing what they are able/willing for the benefit of everyone, which whatever the sum result of human effort is, we all have an equal share in. If we want better than whatever that total equal share in human production is, we have to increase collective production. But there is no elite who have a greater share than everyone else. In fact, there is not even an elite at all. Communism, in its true sense, is absolutely classes. There is no elite, no powerful. Everyone is equal in every way, which for me implies the freedom aspect of anarchy. Beyond this, everyone has an equal share in what exists. Without this, it's not communism. So again, all these nations which have an elite and call themselves communist, are not communist, so we shouldn't confuse those countries and governments with communism itself.
I guess it depends on perspective. Obviously, if I have more than you, you could technically argue it was at your expense. Maybe I should put it differently. Everyone should be allowed to "earn" as much as they are willing and able. If you are fine working a low income job and just chilling, that's fine. But if you want to work hard and get more, that's is acceptable. Skills factor into the above as well. Regardless of how much you want it, we aren't really all created equal. Someone people can just do things better than others. If they can do it better why shouldn't they get more reward? If coarse the above philosophy only works if resources are infinite. Since resources are not infinite, there is competition. By definition, the winner of a competition is rewarded at the losers expense. In a capitalist system, it is essentially survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism if you will. This sounds horrible but its not. Allow me to shed some light. While the "system" should be run in the most natural way, the same rule doesn't apply to humans. Humans are able to chose to give to the less fortunate. In a capitalist system you have charity. In a socialist system you have theft and redistribution. Or if you prefer another perpsective. In a socialist system, no one owns anything. Or everyone owns everything. Obviously you can find flaws in all these perspectives. Next you have the issue of greedy elites. A lot of people look at the world banking cartel, and the corperations that sprung up around them, as a result of capitalism. This is not the case. Thomas Jefferson warned that if we allow a central bank to exist, banks and corperations will take over. So in a sense, "socialism" is the true reason we have wealth inequality. In a capitalist society, society itself needs to hold. Criminals responsible for crimes. Banking monopolies are not the result of "free markets", they are the result of a criminal conspiracy . Its a complicated form of theft but its still theft. Aside from the philosophy, capitalism has been shown in real life, to create a wealthy middle class, and bring the lower class up out of poverty. You may have noticed an increasing wealth gap in America lately. I could go on, but ill point out the flaws of socialism for now. In theory, society prospers together. Society as a whole gains wealth through cooperation. And everyone in society benefits. This philosophy sounds amazing; but it has some problems. One problem is distribution and planning. Who gets to decide how.much toilet paper to make? This cliche example in the Soviet union is clear as day. Lots of people claim the Soviet union wasn't truely socialist. But that's irrelevent to the toilet paper issue. The reason there was a toilet paper shortage is because toilet paper production and distribution were left up to central human planning. And humans are fallible. In a capitalist system this doesn't happen. If there is a demand for toilet paper, there will be a supply of toilet paper. The laws of supply and demand are natural laws, and as such work really well. Another problem you face in a socialist community is population. If you are to distribute resources, population plays a role, and if population gets too large, you can't provide for everyone. The options are population control, or poverty. In a capitalist system people are allowed to compete and fail. This sounds harsh but its not. Its a good alternative to forced population control. I'm sure most people would rather get a fighting chance at life, then not having been allowed to be born in the first place. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Id say capitalism based on a standard like gold works. Inflatable, fake, paper money based on faith does not work, nor does credit for most people or governements. Capitalism isnt pure, even our politiicans being buyable is in itself a form of capitalism. The psychological problems that arrise from a society who fills the the pyschological void that advertisement places into people encouraged by impulse buying, based on credit, based on an inflateable dollar, based and standardized on nothing is the real problem that is painted over the simplistic idea that is capitalism. Ie, the politics corrupts it all, because in capitalism, there are many, many middlemen and each wants a cut of the pie so that there's nothing left when it gets to its intended target.
Value is not intrinsic to gold. That's why economies moved away from the gold standard. It's just a mineral. 1000 years from now gold could become absolutely worthless. It has societal value in the exact same way a fiat currency does. Statistically, a gold standard is incredibly unstable, as the value of money is linked only to a single good.