There is an Alternative to Capitalism

[elect locution]

@Kryptonite

I enjoyed your post!

I'm guessing you'd like to see genuine 'free market' capitalism rather than state capitalism?

I agree with your diagnosis of the problem. But i don't see a happy outcome emerging from 'free market' capitalism either. I think we'd be trading one form of tyranny for another

i think the only way to protect ourselves from the corruption and oppression that always comes from centralised power is to de-centralise power back down to the people so that people manage their own communities and control the means of production (held in common ownership)

This also would require that the individual is free from coercion
@elect locution

I really enjoyed your post as well and agree with your idea of the evolution of corporate power (perhaps devolution or whatever the opposite of evolution is would be a more appropriate word!)

The only place we seem to deviate is whether or not there is a coherent agenda

What are your thoughts on groups like: the bilderburg club, the club of rome, the council on foreign relations (and its sister organisation in the UK: Chatham House), G20, world economic forum (Davos) which all act as forums for the corporate elite through which they coordinate policy?

Of all those organizations, I have only heard of the G20. Could you direct me to some reading about the other organizations? Perhaps the situation is more sinister than I thought it to be.

 

[ENT8]

Personally, I LOVE capitalism. I enjoy the "sport" of it, and win or lose (and i've had more than my share of serious, life crippling losses due to a venture or two failing...either near launch, or after a few years...but nevertheless..) I've made it my hobby and my passion to understand many, many facets of it, and I genuinely enjoy thinking up a concept, or seeing an opportunity, and then engaging in whatever needs to be done in order to bring that concept into reality, or form a team and make use of the opportunity.

If it all went away tomorrow (which it won't) I would be upset, but the funny thing is, many of hte same skills i've worked to develop in order to be able to build businesses successfully, and invest successfully, raise capital, etc... are in many ways the same skills needed to form "teams" around any concept or problem or opportunity, and be a force for change within that "sphere"

money just shuffles around IMO... the leadership, managment, critical thinking, problem solving, dedication to change, tactical and strategic planning...etc.... that's the "value", with or without any form of currency or capitalism. If the world blew up tomorrow and I was one of a few survivors...i'd just put those skills to work in order to rebuild society. Money or no money, it would still be the same game to me, and I'm sure i'd find a way to marshal resources, organize people, and effect change.

-E

 

[ENT8]

I don't believe in an "agenda" per se. I see what is happening as the inevitable result of a matured human construct--the corporation--and corporations are just doing their job; doing what they do best.

Corporations are more powerful than governments are now. Their power will only beget them more power. For the time being, there are still several dozen truly competitive corporations in the global game of power–WalMart, the oil giants, ING financial, Koch Industries, etc. However, just as millions have consolidated into hundreds and hundreds into dozens, the dozens will consolidate into a handful. This handful will be powerful in a way humanity has never seen.

Empires have a rise, a golden age, and a decline. Just like empires, corporations have a life course–one that we are not familiar with because we have never seen their end. Thus far, what we have seen is:

Genesis: A corporation is created by a group of investors who pool their assets to share the risk of a novel and potentially profitable venture.
Self-sufficiency: A corporation lays claim to a resource or develops a product that becomes an “essential” in the corporation’s market (see: lumber, oil, bananas, radios, televisions, and iPads). In providing or developing a product that the people will always buy (an essential), a corporation matures beyond risk-sharing. It becomes self-sufficient.
Monopoly: A corporation’s existence is threatened by competing corporations. It is in the corporation’s best interest to eradicate all its competitors. Any arguments appealing to abstract virtues (like free market competition) are null before the corporation’s need ensure its survival.
Symbiosis: Governments hold the power to disrupt corporate accumulation of power. However, government is an entity of its own with its own needs and ambitions. It partners with the corporations to the advantage of the governing parties (i.e. Democrats and Republicans). This symbiosis improves the security, power, and wealth of both government and corporations. This symbiosis is a gradual process. It begins with small deals facilitated by lobbyists and ends with overt partnership–such as that seen in today’s corporate-political-media complex. See: Revolving door, iron triangle, and captured agencies.
Power Accumulation: As the symbiosis matures, power increases. The developing symbiote realizes its potential. It exercises its power to further ensure its power, to expand its power, and to benefit its members. The Citizens United decision is an overt example of the symbiote’s use of power. The corporations make a bid for power, the government grants the bid, and the media plays the deal down. However, the vast majority of the symbiote’s uses of power are much more insidious than these. An example of “insidious” power use is the military-industrial complex.
Conquest: The symbiote does not yet have absolute power over the people. The people are still somewhat conscious and cry out against corporate governance. They make petty appeals to “freedom” and “democracy.” Fortunately, they are too many and of too many minds. They are easily divided.
The most interesting part is that there is no person or group in control of the symbiote’s rise. Today’s corporate power complexes are the result of centuries of growth, development, and mergers–driven steadily by business economics, population dynamics, and human nature. ~again, my blog

Solid post man. Essentially, capitalistic cycles are just that: cycles. However, there were a few points I either don't get, or disagree with. I will point out 1 in particular, and then I'm just gonna move onto a more conceptual, alternative view of looking at this whole thing here.

you say empires rise, gold age, decline, etc... and corps have a life course - your not thinking big enough (or far back enough)... money is a SOCIAL ENGINE. before it, religion tended to be the social engine (think early pre-christian faiths), and before that...well, probably hunger was the driving social engine.

think of money in terms of "value". Value is always shifting, moving from opportunity to opportunity, situation to situation. some people spend a good deal of energy trying to create a "net" of sorts to capture that "value". This could be a business, a government, a new invention, cutting coupons to use at the grocery store...whatever.

The probelm is, value is always shifting, towards whoever or whatever has created the best "net" at that present moment in time. Corporate entities trace their origins back to trading ships of old... they were created as a way to segregate and protect assets from an increasingly litigious western world (hundereds of years ago I'm talking). Again, simply another type of "net" from which the goal of the net is to "trap value"... in this case, protect assets from being claimed as liabilities by dead sailors families, etc.

but, the corporate entity is just taht...a net. there was still "money" before the corporate entity... and some conquored lands and then taxed them and that was their personal "net" to capture value... others opened blacksmith shops, others still sought employment with the king, or with a wealthy merchant, and many choose a farm as their primary "net" to capture value. But, they could have choosen to become king, with the net that a king has access to. Of course, that would require a great deal of dedication, purpose, vision, some luck no doubt, probably a lot of "talent" (whatever that is), social and diplomatic "brilliance", political saavy, a refined level of sophistication....etc.

But, it could be done. And for every empire that has ever risen... it WAS done. by someone, or some group.

value is not created, nor destroyed (just go with it for now)... OPPORTUNITY can be created... but value, no. opportunity in fact arises or is created in an attempt to capture more value as it invisibly moves around the world, always vulnerable to whoever or whatever builds a good net in which to trap it.

It's really just one big, ever churning, ever sifting, pot of "value". It just so happens that some people become rather adept at creating nets to capture it... while others don't.

there are lots of reasons why some are good at building nets, and others are not. Some fair, others not. But hey, life isn't fair. I was lucky enough to be born upper middle class in the united states. i was unlucky enough to be born into a physically and emotionally violent household. I was unlucky enough to get cancer. I was lucky enough to have access to technology that allows me to follow money as it moves around the world, in real time, and literally build a net several times a day to "catch it" as it ebbs and flows. I was lucky enough to have supportive grandparents, I was unlucky enough to experience personal bankruptcy and temporary "poverty"...etc. who cares!

You see? there is value moving around out there. not everyone is going to make the decision (or be able to for that matter) to create a very big, very robust "value catching net". But, i would argue that nearly anyone reading THIS post could create such a net. So what if that person wasn't born into a family that has great means already... most "success stories" arn't. It's not fair, but then again, neither was cancer. Complain about it when you have no ability to act to redress the wrongs you see in the world.

Besides, if someone really wants to...I see people crossing borders, with nothing more than their name, to other geographies that offer easier pickings at catching value. And some of them build good nets, and catch their own value.

Others, sit around and point at those nets, and claim all sorts of reasons why they shouldn't exist, or they arn't fair, or whatever.

every day, we all wake up with an opportunity to choose to do something that will create change, either in a small way, or in a big way.

not all choices will be productive. but the more one makes, the "wiser" one gets at discerning the likely productivity of the choices they make.

It's all just a cycle, and if it's not money, or capitalism, it'll still be something. Because value is a real thing that exists in the world. And until human nature itself wakes up to find buddhist enlightenment, and a total lack of all desire, then someone, somewhere, will be building a net to catch that value, regardless of whether we live in a capitalistic, socialistic, communist, anarchist, or other socio-economic-political system.

I see nothing wrong with this. I just choose to take a proactive role in my future and my "world" by building value catching nets, in order to amass the resources and develop the skilsl I may need to influence my environment as I see fit.

it's really just that simple. And frankly, it's far more effective in actually having an IMPACT on my own personal "world" than trying to figure out who is behind what financial plot to "consolidate power". I'll tell you who REALLY is behind it all. I am. every day. In as many ways as I choose to be. And guess what? I get to help friends and family members in a more tangible way than I otherwise would be able to if I didn't build my value catching nets. So maybe it won't save the world, or change anything other than my tiny little corner of existance. But it'll help out my brother in law, and my best friend. And that, is a wonderful, and empowering, place to be in.

I guess I just wasn't born with the part of my brain that tells other folks it's "bigger than you" or it's "futile to engage" or that "you just don't have what you would need to overcome this problem you see"

Maybe that was the luckiest stroke of all then eh? At any rate, I get to live a great deal more on MY terms, as I see fit. For me...that makes it all worth it.

-E

 

[Apone]

People have been arguing against capitalism for as long as capitalism has been around. Ever heard of: Marx, Bookchin, Kropotkin, Bakunin?

Things are reaching a fever pitch now because we are in an unprecedented global crisis

So now is a pretty good time to discuss alternatives because more and more people are being radicalised by the harsh environment that capitalism is creating.

Unprecedented? Really?

And of course people have always been critical of capitalism-- people have always been critical of everything, but it has spread to the mainstream only very recently... and you just listed 3 19th century thinkers as evidence that this whole 'down with capitalism' thing isn't just some new fad. On the other hand, it has been 'cool' to be 'political' about things since the 1960s... the 70s killed it, the 80s buried it, and then it came back in the 90s.

If people show that they will buy doom and gloom, then that is what other people will feed you... but there is still no reason to assume the worst about anything, and even though disaster seems to be looming, it still hasn't happened. A bunch of stockbrokers took advantage of a series of extremely stupid political decisions, and people are angry about it... but economic cycles are natural. If people were smart, instead of panicking in a downturn they would try to be objective/smart about it, and try to capitalize for themselves.

On the other hand, this is the first time we've had a major downturn alongside ubiquitous Internet and an information explosion. People are definitely asking more questions about things, and more info is leaking out, and so people are getting more upset than they used to. But the situation is mostly the same as it was in the last recession, and the one before that as well. But this time it was a housing bubble instead of a dotcom bubble.

 

[elect locution]

Solid post man. Essentially, capitalistic cycles are just that: cycles. However, there were a few points I either don't get, or disagree with. I will point out 1 in particular, and then I'm just gonna move onto a more conceptual, alternative view of looking at this whole thing here.

you say empires rise, gold age, decline, etc... and corps have a life course - your not thinking big enough (or far back enough)... money is a SOCIAL ENGINE. before it, religion tended to be the social engine (think early pre-christian faiths), and before that...well, probably hunger was the driving social engine.

think of money in terms of "value". Value is always shifting, moving from opportunity to opportunity, situation to situation. some people spend a good deal of energy trying to create a "net" of sorts to capture that "value". This could be a business, a government, a new invention, cutting coupons to use at the grocery store...whatever.

The probelm is, value is always shifting, towards whoever or whatever has created the best "net" at that present moment in time. Corporate entities trace their origins back to trading ships of old... they were created as a way to segregate and protect assets from an increasingly litigious western world (hundereds of years ago I'm talking). Again, simply another type of "net" from which the goal of the net is to "trap value"... in this case, protect assets from being claimed as liabilities by dead sailors families, etc.

but, the corporate entity is just taht...a net. there was still "money" before the corporate entity... and some conquored lands and then taxed them and that was their personal "net" to capture value... others opened blacksmith shops, others still sought employment with the king, or with a wealthy merchant, and many choose a farm as their primary "net" to capture value. But, they could have choosen to become king, with the net that a king has access to. Of course, that would require a great deal of dedication, purpose, vision, some luck no doubt, probably a lot of "talent" (whatever that is), social and diplomatic "brilliance", political saavy, a refined level of sophistication....etc.

But, it could be done. And for every empire that has ever risen... it WAS done. by someone, or some group.

value is not created, nor destroyed (just go with it for now)... OPPORTUNITY can be created... but value, no. opportunity in fact arises or is created in an attempt to capture more value as it invisibly moves around the world, always vulnerable to whoever or whatever builds a good net in which to trap it.

It's really just one big, ever churning, ever sifting, pot of "value". It just so happens that some people become rather adept at creating nets to capture it... while others don't.

there are lots of reasons why some are good at building nets, and others are not. Some fair, others not. But hey, life isn't fair. I was lucky enough to be born upper middle class in the united states. i was unlucky enough to be born into a physically and emotionally violent household. I was unlucky enough to get cancer. I was lucky enough to have access to technology that allows me to follow money as it moves around the world, in real time, and literally build a net several times a day to "catch it" as it ebbs and flows. I was lucky enough to have supportive grandparents, I was unlucky enough to experience personal bankruptcy and temporary "poverty"...etc. who cares!

You see? there is value moving around out there. not everyone is going to make the decision (or be able to for that matter) to create a very big, very robust "value catching net". But, i would argue that nearly anyone reading THIS post could create such a net. So what if that person wasn't born into a family that has great means already... most "success stories" arn't. It's not fair, but then again, neither was cancer. Complain about it when you have no ability to act to redress the wrongs you see in the world.

Besides, if someone really wants to...I see people crossing borders, with nothing more than their name, to other geographies that offer easier pickings at catching value. And some of them build good nets, and catch their own value.

Others, sit around and point at those nets, and claim all sorts of reasons why they shouldn't exist, or they arn't fair, or whatever.

every day, we all wake up with an opportunity to choose to do something that will create change, either in a small way, or in a big way.

not all choices will be productive. but the more one makes, the "wiser" one gets at discerning the likely productivity of the choices they make.

It's all just a cycle, and if it's not money, or capitalism, it'll still be something. Because value is a real thing that exists in the world. And until human nature itself wakes up to find buddhist enlightenment, and a total lack of all desire, then someone, somewhere, will be building a net to catch that value, regardless of whether we live in a capitalistic, socialistic, communist, anarchist, or other socio-economic-political system.

I see nothing wrong with this. I just choose to take a proactive role in my future and my "world" by building value catching nets, in order to amass the resources and develop the skilsl I may need to influence my environment as I see fit.

it's really just that simple. And frankly, it's far more effective in actually having an IMPACT on my own personal "world" than trying to figure out who is behind what financial plot to "consolidate power". I'll tell you who REALLY is behind it all. I am. every day. In as many ways as I choose to be. And guess what? I get to help friends and family members in a more tangible way than I otherwise would be able to if I didn't build my value catching nets. So maybe it won't save the world, or change anything other than my tiny little corner of existance. But it'll help out my brother in law, and my best friend. And that, is a wonderful, and empowering, place to be in.

I guess I just wasn't born with the part of my brain that tells other folks it's "bigger than you" or it's "futile to engage" or that "you just don't have what you would need to overcome this problem you see"

Maybe that was the luckiest stroke of all then eh? At any rate, I get to live a great deal more on MY terms, as I see fit. For me...that makes it all worth it.

-E

I have read what you wrote in its entirety and I understand perfectly, but I disagree with you on two synergistic fronts:

1) The notion that the mere existence of a shifting pool of wealth in this world as vindication of selfishness.

2) Your assumption that our quarrels with entrepreneurship, debt, and "bankruptcy," are comparable at all to the courage it takes to jump a border and escape tyranny. How dare you compare our petty first world struggles with the horrors of starvation, genocide, and complete lack of education?! We are nothing without our nutrition (and its maximization of our early childhood neurological development), we are nothing without a society with some degree of social mobility, we are nothing without our education (let alone higher education).

I am not unlike you. I work extremely hard, I am in a superb profession with top tier income, and I do not sit around "pointing at others' nets" as you so self-righteously say. The difference between you and I is that I have fewer misconceptions about just how lucky we are--just how great our throw in ovarian roulette was.

Your values are thought-out, unlike many peoples' and I appreciate that. I don't deny that you work hard--I certainly know the value of hard work. However, I have a violent distaste for the things that you imply--that the poor must be lazy (content with pointing and complaining about others' nets), that you are righteous (simply because of the existence of catchable wealth in this world), and that your ability to help friends and family makes you generous (everyone wants that; that's self-preservation, helping your own tribe--not generosity).

 

[ENT8]

I have read what you wrote in its entirety and I understand perfectly, but I disagree with you on two synergistic fronts:

1) The notion that the mere existence of a shifting pool of wealth in this world as vindication of selfishness.

2) Your assumption that our quarrels with entrepreneurship, debt, and "bankruptcy," are comparable at all to the courage it takes to jump a border and escape tyranny. How dare you compare our petty first world struggles with the horrors of starvation, genocide, and complete lack of education?! We are nothing without our nutrition (and its maximization of our early childhood neurological development), we are nothing without a society with some degree of social mobility, we are nothing without our education (let alone higher education).

No, I was not addressing this towards anyone who is in such a situation. If you live in liberia, or serra leone, or tibet, or afghanestan.... etc... people living under such conditions like many do in the aforementioned countries are not relevent to my previous post. The issues at hand there are completely different, and not one that can be changed or "fixed" by any single individual, no matter how talented or hard working they are.

I was addressing my statement specifically to the people posting in this thread, who are going on and on about the "evils" of capitalism, and the various conspiracies behind those evils... yet many of whom live within such a system, in a developed nation (at least that's likely the case for most visitors to this forum), and who COULD actually do something more productive towards bringing the type of world that they want into being. Even if it was to elect to "live off the grid" so to speak. It just seems trite to me to see people voicing such deep seeded concerns while sitting behind a computer screen in a building with electricity and enough time to ponder such things from the comfort of their desks... And i'm willing to bet that most of the people who fit this profile i've just mentioned probably live in a country with some form of capitalistic structure, which in fact made possible the desk they sit at, the electricty on the computer that they are complaining about the inequity of the world.
Now, if someone is using a "shared" computer in a village in south america or somewhere in africa, and they happen to visit this forum and post up, THEY ARE NOT WHO I AM TALKING ABOUT. They are exempt from my criticism because they DON'T have the access to the resources and skills and people and technology that would likley be necessary to effect change.

Your values are thought-out, unlike many peoples' and I appreciate that. I don't deny that you work hard--I certainly know the value of hard work. However, I have a violent distaste for the things that you imply--that the poor must be lazy (content with pointing and complaining about others' nets)

No again... I am not some entitled sheltered child who subscribes to some antiquated notion of social darwinism or the notion that all who deserve receive, and all who don't deserve, don't receive. Again, I'm talking about people who are posting specificaly in this thread about all the ills of the world, many of whom I assume are much better at pointing out the problems than they are about doing anything to improve those situations.

The "immigrent story" that I mentioned was to contrast that some people who literally have nothing can find a way to improve their condition in the world.... so waht they heck is the excuse of some of the people posting here for not being more actively involved in being part of the solution?!? Again, if you happen to BE someone who is currently working on a regular basis to improve things, or you happen to be standing in line without shoes at a shared computer just to be able to respond to this post... I'm not directing my comments at you.

It was NOT to say: "there...that guy who can't speak the native tounge who looks unlike the rest of us who has only those clothes on... HE gets what he deserves, and should he work hard, he will be very highly rewarded!!"

that you are righteous (simply because of the existence of catchable wealth in this world), and that your ability to help friends and family makes you generous (everyone wants that; that's self-preservation, helping your own tribe--not generosity).

Well, this isn't exactly wrong... but it's not what I was going for... first of all, it's value, not wealth. there is a significant difference. value can be something else entirely. No idea if you are familiar with the book "three cups of tea" about a humanitarian rock climber (Greg Mortenson I believe his name is) who is currently working in afghanestan to bring schools to some of the mountain villagers in the remote, very harsh regions of that country... he has created a "value catching net"...even though the guy for most of his crusade has lived out of his car... or not even that. But, he has carved out a niche of influence in this world, by forming relationships with native afghan tribal people based on honesty, and devotion to his mission to build them schools. He commands respect, and has a great deal of influence in that niche... and will likely wind up winning the nobel peace prize at some point in time for his contributions.

Ghandi had a "value catching net". So did mother teresa. Money or wealth is the most obvious, accessable form of "value" that a net can be built to catch..but it is neither the only one, nor the MOST important or even most effective. It happens to be the one that I've personally choosen to build a net for... but, one chould choose something different as well.

I should have clarified this better. This is why I choose the word value, and not money, or wealth.

And as for generous...no, that wasn't my point in making that statement! It was that one can have more power and influence AND can use such "power and influence" to improve the lives of loved ones.

Generosity, heaven's no! Power, yes... but also an example of power used for the benefit of others... not for the abuse or exploitation of others.

lol... funny, it seems you and I really think of a very different wavelength, because either i didn't make any sense, or you totally missed every point! Since I'm sure neither is totally correct, i'm just gonna chalk it up to different wavelengths of thought.

Anyway, I hope this clears up a few things. Again, if I could summarize the point and the audience... it was that rather than post up whats wrong with the world from your comfy computer terminal at your computer desk (or whatever)... go out an create a way to add value to your own situation, and then direct these newlybegotten resources at the problems you are currently complaining about.

If it's money you lack, build a net to catch it, however you do.

If it's political influence... again, build a "net" to start developing a presence within political circles, and then garner their support by sharing with them your vision and winning them over to your side.

and so on.

Hmm... ya, ok, I should have been much more clear about this. I just didn't imagine anyone would read my post and think I was directing this at anyone other than the people posting up on this thread!

Anyway, if i've neglected to address something, or you still feel i'm a self rightous ignorant prick... point it out, and i'll address it.

-E

 

[Lerxst]

I should have clarified this better. This is why I choose the word value, and not money, or wealth.

And as for generous...no, that wasn't my point in making that statement! It was that one can have more power and influence AND can use such "power and influence" to improve the lives of loved ones.

Generosity, heaven's no! Power, yes... but also an example of power used for the benefit of others... not for the abuse or exploitation of others.

lol... funny, it seems you and I really think of a very different wavelength, because either i didn't make any sense, or you totally missed every point! Since I'm sure neither is totally correct, i'm just gonna chalk it up to different wavelengths of thought.

Anyway, I hope this clears up a few things. Again, if I could summarize the point and the audience... it was that rather than post up whats wrong with the world from your comfy computer terminal at your computer desk (or whatever)... go out an create a way to add value to your own situation, and then direct these newlybegotten resources at the problems you are currently complaining about.

If it's money you lack, build a net to catch it, however you do.

If it's political influence... again, build a "net" to start developing a presence within political circles, and then garner their support by sharing with them your vision and winning them over to your side.

and so on.

Hmm... ya, ok, I should have been much more clear about this. I just didn't imagine anyone would read my post and think I was directing this at anyone other than the people posting up on this thread!

Anyway, if i've neglected to address something, or you still feel i'm a self rightous ignorant prick... point it out, and i'll address it.

-E

Last I checked, political influence, moral values, etc, had no measurable wealth. This entire post IS about Capitalism, after all and even a quick search on it brings you to this definition: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

You can back-peddle all you like and talk about moral values and so on as an afterthought, but the argument against your statement still stands. Capitalism deals with 1's and 0's; your definition of "value" was crystal clear, in the context of a system that knows no other "language" so to speak. Whether it was intentional, or subconscious, we all see where you're coming from.

 

[ENT8]

Last I checked, political influence, moral values, etc, had no measurable wealth. This entire post IS about Capitalism, after all and even a quick search on it brings you to this definition: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

You can back-peddle all you like and talk about moral values and so on as an afterthought, but the argument against your statement still stands. Capitalism deals with 1's and 0's; your definition of "value" was crystal clear, in the context of a system that knows no other "language" so to speak. Whether it was intentional, or subconscious, we all see where you're coming from.

Ahh.... ok, you win. my bad. Well, my work day tends to have a decent amount of "down time"... but it required my complete attention after I made the post.... and I totally confused it with a DIFFERENT post I made on a thread with somewhat similar themes...

It just goes to show that I shouldn't try to remember what I typed and attempt a very clear rebuttle when I myself am confusing the topic. Or at least, I should read the quote and not assume I remember exactly what I wrote.

The post I was confusing it with was post #13 on THIS thread: (I combined some themes from this post somehow in my head, and didn't realize I actually didn't mention those themes at all in the post made in this thread)

http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22162

And ya, wow... i'm not a bullshitter, but if i was, I would be a LOT better than what I just wrote regarding value and capitalism!

HOWEVER.... this is not to say my entire response was confused or wrong. The things I got correct, and stand by 100% are:

1. I was directing my post to the readers of this thread. not to anyone outside of that.

2. I have no illusions about the struggles of the truely poor of the world. I also know for a fact that money actually won't solve many of the problems in places like somolia, haiti, afghanistan, liberia... etc. I know this, because I worked for a non profit (CalPIRG) many years ago, and one of the questions that I had to tackle for a conference was how a non-profit could best create lasting change in some of the "developing" countries in the world.

In fact, in these places, they usually lack the cultural and political infrastructures that are needed to be able to make use of money. In areas like these... trying to show people who live in such regions how to start a business, or invest, or whatever, is actually counter productive. It generally results in immediate divisions between villages, families, clans, tribes, etc... because it creates an imbalance to their "cultural-political heirachy". Village elders lose their roles, jealousy and envy tend to become a new normal, and also tend to splinter the formerly powerful social bonds of these communities.

They simply lack the cultural understanding or social and political constructs and infrastructure taht is necessary to enable "wealth" or "money" to work to improve their lives, rather than divide them from one another.

For these types, it is much more valuable to teach skills, or provide ways to improve access to basic survival resources. For example, teaching villagers in a developing nation how they can keep illness away by boiling water before they drink it... and then providing them the pots to boil it in.

Or, better yet, teaching them the basics of water filtration, particularly if they have access to things like charcol, etc...so they can construct and maintain some sort of water filtration system.

Or, showing them how their access to a particular resource (say, some sort of medicinal herb) can be traded with village XYZ that is a 10 mile walk away... because village XYZ will give them fertilized chicken eggs that they can incubate and raise as their own chickens in time... and then providing the basics for a solar based incubator, and explaining how it works, etc.

I could go on and on here, and i've not even started to cover possibly the most important piece to the humanitarian puzzle... which is most often finding a way to win the hearts and minds of the suffering, while simultaniously breaking down their deeply entrenched preconceived notions that so often keep them in a sort of state of "victimization"

Haiti is a perfect example of this. They have identical resources and geographical constraints as the dominican republic, but yet, they are largely a suffering population...where as the Dom Rep is like a whole other world... a FUNCTIONAL other world.

that's why after the earthquake, their people were absolutely devistated..but the citizens of the Dom Rep who occupy the SAME ISLAND didn't even experience 1/20th of the problems that the hatians experienced. Why was it so easy for the D rep to recover, and so difficult for haiti? well, many many reasons, but all would be able to be solved if one could change the "cultural self esteem" of haiti... by changing the way the haitians see themselves, their country, and their culture. They need a way to develop a cultural theme of empowerment, rather than the current cultural mentality of victimization.

Anyway, I bring these points up to convey my understanding and appreciation of the complexity of many of the worlds citizens, and to let you know I fully recognize that money won't solve their problems for the most part, and I never meant to infer directly or indirectly that it would. In fact, it often makes them worse... and furthermore, I was NOT directing my post towards folks like this!

It's just for those who like to point out problems on internet forums but who don't actually educate themselves as to how they could, in REAL LIFE, effect positive change RIGHT NOW. And for most who read this thread.. I assume they are in a developed nation of some sort... there are many ways in which one can use capitalistic constructs to actually solve some of the problems that they blame capitalism for creating!

It's really easy, and also almost completely useless, to point out flaws in a a philosophical ideal that one has very little reasonable chance to "fix" or "end" or whatever.

It's much harder to take the problems out of the abstract and the philosophical, and actually do something about them in the here and now. Futhermore, I dare say that one doesn't need to end or dissasemble the capitalistic constructs of the world in order to bring a better standard of living to the haitian people, or to help educate the "backwater" tribes in afghanistan, or even help the homeless in their own cities to get better shelter, clean clothing, more nutrition, improved access to mental health assistance, etc.

That's the great thing about capitalism. One can work within the system to enact change as they see fit. And it doesn't require one to be a heartless sociopath or a power monger. PETA pays for ads on billboards to demonstrate their opposition to animal cruelty. Green Peace has an army of accountants and lawyers who work in their organization. And both organizations do need money to futher their goals.

And yet, both are effective at doing so while working within the system and not "exploiting" others. Of course, you can always "leave" the system to a large extent, and still "save the world" Greg Mortenson has built dozens of schools in rural and desolate afghanestan... his first he built without so much as a second pair of shoes, or even a car to sleep in (he sold the car to pay for a plane ticket to the middle east)

He probably will win the noble prize at some point for his work. I believe he's been nominated. And now, he does have a non-profit entity that he operates from...but for YEARS... he didn't. he didn't have anything other than his clothes, a desire to help the people that helped him when he needed it most, and a single check from one wealthy sponsor who donated the money necessary to buy the wood and concreate, etc. necessary to build his first school with. He largely did this all "outside" of the capitalistic system. He had to in fact... "capitalism" doesn't really actually reach up to sustanence farms and nomadic villages high up in the himalayan mountain range, on the border of tibet, afghanistan, and pakistan. One would find a fat wallet pretty useless in that region of the world.

So, with all these options available to anyone who wants to actually make a positive difference...I see no reason to waste time saying how screwed up it all is, when one could instead be helping those in need, right now, via any number of ways...some within the constructs of capitalism, and some that fall largely outside of it.

Of course, one can also start a business or learn how to make good investments... they can then do this, and get more money for themselves...and then can fund or support any group in need that they choose to.

Or, we can sit around and have an abstract conversation about a socio-political ideology, and blame it for the worlds suffering that we could be working right now to end, but we would rather just say how screwed up it all is...and then we can go update our facebook status from "introspective" to "disillusioned"

I know you get my point. Simply put: rather than complain about the shortcomings and problems with capitalism... why not use it to empower you to help put an end to those problems you see. Or, DON'T use it, and just put an end to those problems anyway. It's possible. it's not easy... but, interestingly enough.... a boatload of money wouldn't necessarily make it that much easier. Just ask the U.S. government how helpful their billions of dollars were in helping to support and improve the lives of afghan citizens.

Money only solves money problems. Unfortunately, most problems are not money problems. Most are people problems that include money as a component in the problem... but don't let that fool you. It's likley not a money problem. It's likely a people problem. Something like if I were to get in a car accident and hurt someone... it would be easy for me to blame the car, or the road conditions, or the lighting, etc... and, i may be 100% correct in that they were absoultly a component of the situation.
But, really, had I been paying attention, i wouldn't have hit them. Sure, maybe getting a car that has more responsive breaks would prevent this from happening in the future. But, that still doesn't make this a breaking or automotive problem. it's still really a paying attention problem. And until I address this for what it is... no new or alternative car (or new or alternative social-political-economic ideology) will actually solve the problem. maybe treat the symptoms at best... but it's doomed to happen again unless I treat it for what it really is, a paying attention problem.

-E

P.S. as always, point out what you disagree with, and I'll address to the best of my ability. And I'll even do it without making statements or assertations of intentions that in fact are not in any way connected to my argument

 

[ENT8]

I like co-ops.

Although I don't think that co-ops actually address the fundamental issue that Capitalism, at least most capitalism, brings about. Co-ops are giving people more power in a company and that's great; but the real issue of capitalism and what causes the system to be so flawed is when Capitalism isn't regulated. There is no such thing as a "free" market...free markets explode on themselves, which we witnessed during 2008. The concept of the invisible hand has been proven false. The only way that I can see co-ops solving anything is if they chose to make smaller companies and less products in order to prevent monopolization, which I don't think they would. The solution to solve the capitalism problem is government intervention, a mixed economy, socialistic capitalism.

Ok, I like this post. I agree with the co-op idea being a viable and potentially powerful alternative to the "traditional" corporate social structure...but I feel the same...it's really just a different way of organizing a company that exists to make a profit within a capitalistic system.

Where I disagree with you is... well, I think that's GREAT! But we're really not talking about capitalism. we are talking about corporate cultures, and alternative models of interoffice power distribution.

definition of capitalism: Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit.

by that definition, this company is completely capitalistic... no?

-E

P.S. the author of that article really took some poetic license with the use of the word and concept of "capitalism".
EDIT: wow... just noticed the authors credentials... I'm shocked that he would so liberally use the word capitalism and apply it to a very obviously capitalist entity, just one that has a different structure of heiarchy and distribution of power within the entity. My family runs a business in which every adult member has equal say on every major decision, and if they want, they can have a say on every single decision, major or minor. we have no full time employees, only contractors as labor, so every employee is an owner, and visa versa, and i think it's a fantastic way to maintain a fair and impartial distribution of power and contribution within the company. But ya...it's totally a capitalistic entity.

 

[ENT8]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-03-06-denmark-usat_N.htm

"They have a big welfare state, which provides free public health care, education, child care and job training on top of generous unemployment benefits."

"the Danes enjoy steady economic growth, the lowest jobless rate on the continent, a budget surplus and shrinking government debt. And they work 37 hours a week."

"Denmark defies much conventional wisdom that you cannot have jobs, growth and sound government finances while imposing high taxes and running a big welfare state. It's done it through what the Danes call "flexicurity," a hybrid of free labor markets, unfettered business and adjusting welfare to give incentives for people to work so they can pay taxes to finance the benefits they get."

Same is done in Sweden and Norway. We have economic growth, the most happy populations in the world, and a wealthier average family than America. We too have huge boners for capitalism, but we just limit it in certain areas of society, like education and health care. That way most people get a very good education, the social heritage of poor decisions are broken, and no one dies in the streets because they don't have insurance. I'd say it's a win-win Johnny Keynes was a wise man.

This is good. However, it is more difficult to implement in larger population countries. Maybe even impossible.

a society can actually operate as a "pure democracy" where each citizen can cast one vote on any law that is proposed, and these votes can be counted, and if approved, the law can go into effect. In this case, each person does indeed have equal say, and equal opportunity, to have their opinion count in all legislative decisions.

And it TOTALLY can work in a small town with a population of a few hundered.

Try to implement such a political structure in the entire united states...and it would just completely fall apart.

I remember a class discussion many years ago about how such an approach would likley falter or produce a diminished result if it were tried in the U.S.... and it had somethign to do with the geography/distance between communities, the vast cultural and social differences that dictate a vast difference between the needs of one group and the needs of another, as well as the overall "individualistic, autonomous" culture of the U.S... in that we tend to be more egocentric, and tehrefore ignorant of the real needs of the various other members of our society.

it works in culturally close knit, geographically constrained, homogenous cultures... it doens't work nearly as well in fractured, sprawling, highly individulaistic and highly populated nations.

 

[elect locution]

No, I was not addressing this towards anyone who is in such a situation. If you live in liberia, or serra leone, or tibet, or afghanestan.... etc... people living under such conditions like many do in the aforementioned countries are not relevent to my previous post. The issues at hand there are completely different, and not one that can be changed or "fixed" by any single individual, no matter how talented or hard working they are.

I was addressing my statement specifically to the people posting in this thread, who are going on and on about the "evils" of capitalism, and the various conspiracies behind those evils... yet many of whom live within such a system, in a developed nation (at least that's likely the case for most visitors to this forum), and who COULD actually do something more productive towards bringing the type of world that they want into being. Even if it was to elect to "live off the grid" so to speak. It just seems trite to me to see people voicing such deep seeded concerns while sitting behind a computer screen in a building with electricity and enough time to ponder such things from the comfort of their desks... And i'm willing to bet that most of the people who fit this profile i've just mentioned probably live in a country with some form of capitalistic structure, which in fact made possible the desk they sit at, the electricty on the computer that they are complaining about the inequity of the world.
Now, if someone is using a "shared" computer in a village in south america or somewhere in africa, and they happen to visit this forum and post up, THEY ARE NOT WHO I AM TALKING ABOUT. They are exempt from my criticism because they DON'T have the access to the resources and skills and people and technology that would likley be necessary to effect change.



No again... I am not some entitled sheltered child who subscribes to some antiquated notion of social darwinism or the notion that all who deserve receive, and all who don't deserve, don't receive. Again, I'm talking about people who are posting specificaly in this thread about all the ills of the world, many of whom I assume are much better at pointing out the problems than they are about doing anything to improve those situations.

The "immigrent story" that I mentioned was to contrast that some people who literally have nothing can find a way to improve their condition in the world.... so waht they heck is the excuse of some of the people posting here for not being more actively involved in being part of the solution?!? Again, if you happen to BE someone who is currently working on a regular basis to improve things, or you happen to be standing in line without shoes at a shared computer just to be able to respond to this post... I'm not directing my comments at you.

It was NOT to say: "there...that guy who can't speak the native tounge who looks unlike the rest of us who has only those clothes on... HE gets what he deserves, and should he work hard, he will be very highly rewarded!!"




Well, this isn't exactly wrong... but it's not what I was going for... first of all, it's value, not wealth. there is a significant difference. value can be something else entirely. No idea if you are familiar with the book "three cups of tea" about a humanitarian rock climber (Greg Mortenson I believe his name is) who is currently working in afghanestan to bring schools to some of the mountain villagers in the remote, very harsh regions of that country... he has created a "value catching net"...even though the guy for most of his crusade has lived out of his car... or not even that. But, he has carved out a niche of influence in this world, by forming relationships with native afghan tribal people based on honesty, and devotion to his mission to build them schools. He commands respect, and has a great deal of influence in that niche... and will likely wind up winning the nobel peace prize at some point in time for his contributions.

Ghandi had a "value catching net". So did mother teresa. Money or wealth is the most obvious, accessable form of "value" that a net can be built to catch..but it is neither the only one, nor the MOST important or even most effective. It happens to be the one that I've personally choosen to build a net for... but, one chould choose something different as well.

I should have clarified this better. This is why I choose the word value, and not money, or wealth.

And as for generous...no, that wasn't my point in making that statement! It was that one can have more power and influence AND can use such "power and influence" to improve the lives of loved ones.

Generosity, heaven's no! Power, yes... but also an example of power used for the benefit of others... not for the abuse or exploitation of others.

lol... funny, it seems you and I really think of a very different wavelength, because either i didn't make any sense, or you totally missed every point! Since I'm sure neither is totally correct, i'm just gonna chalk it up to different wavelengths of thought.

Anyway, I hope this clears up a few things. Again, if I could summarize the point and the audience... it was that rather than post up whats wrong with the world from your comfy computer terminal at your computer desk (or whatever)... go out an create a way to add value to your own situation, and then direct these newlybegotten resources at the problems you are currently complaining about.

If it's money you lack, build a net to catch it, however you do.

If it's political influence... again, build a "net" to start developing a presence within political circles, and then garner their support by sharing with them your vision and winning them over to your side.

and so on.

Hmm... ya, ok, I should have been much more clear about this. I just didn't imagine anyone would read my post and think I was directing this at anyone other than the people posting up on this thread!

Anyway, if i've neglected to address something, or you still feel i'm a self rightous ignorant prick... point it out, and i'll address it.

-E

The matter is not of different wavelengths. It's just that the form of communication we are using is conducive to misunderstanding--I assumed that you held certain assumptions, et cetera, et cetera, there is no venue for immediate clarification, hence misunderstanding. You certainly seem more mindful of our fortunes than I had initially supposed--most people are not so mindful so... Cheers!

On the other topic, dreamers and intellectuals do have an unfortunate tendency to sit brooding in the ivory tower. To this, I quote another passage form my blog: My mission in life is no longer to despair at the existence of Evil. My days will no longer be occupied with sitting around waiting for the eradication of Evil—indeed, such a thing will never happen. Henceforth, my mission in life will be to do Good, as much Good as is feasible—so that I might contribute to a tipping of the scale, if only so slightly, in favor of a better tomorrow.

 

[j654dgj7]

This is good. However, it is more difficult to implement in larger population countries. Maybe even impossible.

Why? I don't see how flexicurity shouldn't work in America - in fact, I suspect it would make you all stronger.

a society can actually operate as a "pure democracy" where each citizen can cast one vote on any law that is proposed, and these votes can be counted, and if approved, the law can go into effect. In this case, each person does indeed have equal say, and equal opportunity, to have their opinion count in all legislative decisions.

And it TOTALLY can work in a small town with a population of a few hundered.

Try to implement such a political structure in the entire united states...and it would just completely fall apart.

We don't do that in Denmark - we have a representative demoncracy system like in the US. It's just a different economic model. Don't get me wrong - there's flaws to it! I just referenced the flexicurity model as a way of telling people that there is a middle way. Saying that you have to have extreme liberty or extreme nationalism is missing the point in my opinion. Whenever you let "ism's" win, the middle class are usually the first to pay.

In Scandinavia, and most other European countries, there are a large and diverse number of political parties. I think that has a lot to do with the success of the model too. You usually don't get a "supreme leader" president, but a coalition government, like in the UK between the conservatives and the liberals. In Denmark the current government is made up of three parties and a supporting party - the social democrats, the socialist peoples party and the social-liberals, with electoral support from a left-wing party. Before that, we had a centre-right government. Usually this way makes politics very centralistic, and very beneficial for the middle class and the lower middle class.

it works in culturally close knit, geographically constrained, homogenous cultures... it doens't work nearly as well in fractured, sprawling, highly individulaistic and highly populated nations.

I agree that being culturally close knit helps speed things up, and it has brought with it a standard of service and trust in the government. But besides that, I disagree. We are a highly individualistic society, and very few agree on anything politically. Personally I don't see how the scandinavian model wouldn't work in the US. I think you would knock it out of the park .

 

[muir]

Unprecedented? Really?

Yes

We have not been in this particular situation before because 'globalisation' is a new thing, although there have been elites trying to centralise their power before

And of course people have always been critical of capitalism-- people have always been critical of everything,

People have legitimate reasons to be critical of capitalism. I always think of the working conditions of many workers in the industrial revolution (for example children working down the mines) as an example of what corporations will do if they are not regulated

but it has spread to the mainstream only very recently...

No that's not true

People have been debating about what the best way to organise society is for as long as there has been society eg Plato's 'republic' and Aristotle's 'Politics', the peasants revolt, Cathars, diggers & levellers, French, American and Russian Revolutions down to the current occupy movement & tea party movement and Arab Spring....to name a few

and you just listed 3 19th century thinkers as evidence that this whole 'down with capitalism' thing isn't just some new fad. On the other hand, it has been 'cool' to be 'political' about things since the 1960s... the 70s killed it, the 80s buried it, and then it came back in the 90s.

I named some 19th century thinkers because it illustrated how big the rising swell of dissatisfaction was amongst the working class at that time leading to the creation of the Communist League in 1847 and the International Workingman's Association (first International) in 1864 leading to the rising up of 300,000 Parisian working class people who took over Paris entirely and ran it seeking to turn France into a federation of communes.

Work places became worker self-managed and a network of directly democratic neighbourhood assemblies was created. The 'Paris Commune' thrived until it was violently shut down by the government (who had fled paris) who killed over 30,000 people in restoring the rich/poor hierarchy

Unfortunately the communist movement was badly damaged by the world war between imperial powers that only benefitted the bankers who loaned money to the warring governments and the industrialists who supplied the munitions, weapons and supplies of war.....a capitalists war

If people show that they will buy doom and gloom, then that is what other people will feed you... but there is still no reason to assume the worst about anything, and even though disaster seems to be looming, it still hasn't happened. A bunch of stockbrokers took advantage of a series of extremely stupid political decisions, and people are angry about it... but economic cycles are natural.

No cycles don't just happen, they are created by the central banks expanding and contracting the money supply

There is every reason to be concerned because we are in a deflationary spiral and it appears that the people who have orchestrated this situation have an agenda behind their actions

If people were smart, instead of panicking in a downturn they would try to be objective/smart about it, and try to capitalize for themselves.

People are 'smart' which is why there is increasing protest, revolutions and industrial strike action. Many people are becoming aware of what the corporatocracy is trying to do despite the vast sums of money the corporatocracy has invested in the media and education in order to hide the truth from people

On the other hand, this is the first time we've had a major downturn alongside ubiquitous Internet and an information explosion. People are definitely asking more questions about things, and more info is leaking out, and so people are getting more upset than they used to. But the situation is mostly the same as it was in the last recession, and the one before that as well. But this time it was a housing bubble instead of a dotcom bubble.

No the situation is not the same as the last recession, this will become more clear to you as time goes on

 

[muir]

Personally, I LOVE capitalism. I enjoy the "sport" of it, and win or lose (and i've had more than my share of serious, life crippling losses due to a venture or two failing...either near launch, or after a few years...but nevertheless..) I've made it my hobby and my passion to understand many, many facets of it, and I genuinely enjoy thinking up a concept, or seeing an opportunity, and then engaging in whatever needs to be done in order to bring that concept into reality, or form a team and make use of the opportunity.

If it all went away tomorrow (which it won't) I would be upset, but the funny thing is, many of hte same skills i've worked to develop in order to be able to build businesses successfully, and invest successfully, raise capital, etc... are in many ways the same skills needed to form "teams" around any concept or problem or opportunity, and be a force for change within that "sphere"

money just shuffles around IMO... the leadership, managment, critical thinking, problem solving, dedication to change, tactical and strategic planning...etc.... that's the "value", with or without any form of currency or capitalism. If the world blew up tomorrow and I was one of a few survivors...i'd just put those skills to work in order to rebuild society. Money or no money, it would still be the same game to me, and I'm sure i'd find a way to marshal resources, organize people, and effect change.

-E

Capitalism is so restrictive though!

If you enjoy being creative, working in teams and marshalling resources then surely you'd be better off in a libertarian socialist system where you would be less constrained and less dominated by monopolies and coercive hierarchies and more able to self manage your life?

 

[muir]

Ok, I like this post. I agree with the co-op idea being a viable and potentially powerful alternative to the "traditional" corporate social structure...but I feel the same...it's really just a different way of organizing a company that exists to make a profit within a capitalistic system.

Where I disagree with you is... well, I think that's GREAT! But we're really not talking about capitalism. we are talking about corporate cultures, and alternative models of interoffice power distribution.

definition of capitalism: Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit.

by that definition, this company is completely capitalistic... no?

-E

P.S. the author of that article really took some poetic license with the use of the word and concept of "capitalism".
EDIT: wow... just noticed the authors credentials... I'm shocked that he would so liberally use the word capitalism and apply it to a very obviously capitalist entity, just one that has a different structure of heiarchy and distribution of power within the entity. My family runs a business in which every adult member has equal say on every major decision, and if they want, they can have a say on every single decision, major or minor. we have no full time employees, only contractors as labor, so every employee is an owner, and visa versa, and i think it's a fantastic way to maintain a fair and impartial distribution of power and contribution within the company. But ya...it's totally a capitalistic entity.

No cooperatives are not capitalist structures. Sure they are currently stuck in a capitalist system but you yourself just explained what capitalism is essentially: 'an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit'

But cooperatives are about common ownership and they are not always profit driven. The definition of a cooperative as given by the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) is: 'a cooperative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise'

That's why they're called 'cooperatives'....because its about cooperating which is why it developed (by Owen, Fourier and the Rochdale Pioneers) in response to the harshness that came out of capitalism which is essentially about greed and competition

The first cooperatives were set up to ensure workers and their children got educations, cheap food and reasonable work conditions...they weren't set up to maximise profit

Cooperatives also cooperate with each other in networks and therefore offer a viable alternative to the market economy

The number of people around the world whose livelihoods rely to a significant extent on cooperative ventures is 3 billion....which is half the worlds population

 

[Apone]

People have legitimate reasons to be critical of capitalism. I always think of the working conditions of many workers in the industrial revolution (for example children working down the mines) as an example of what corporations will do if they are not regulated

Don't you think people have legitimate reasons to be critical of every other ism as well?

It seems like a lot of the 'down with capitalism' people assume that socialism is inherently 'good' and immune to abuse and corruption, whereas capitalism is inherently 'bad' and a product of abuse and corruption. Do you believe that once we get rid of capitalism that human beings everywhere will suddenly enter a state of utopia?

All 'new' movements begin in a state of idealism and tremendous hope, but when the reality sets in some time later the old patterns inevitably return and a whole new set of problems emerges. Russia is a perfect example of that. You can say it wasn't true socialism/communism, which I would have to agree with, but then you really do have to ask yourself why it wasn't true communism, and then ask yourself if you really think that 'true' communism (or whatever it is that you're advocating, because I have no idea) would actually last, or being able to produce a better or worse result than what we have now in the long term. Marx himself actually said that all systems inevitably become oppressive... and it seems to me that communism does so in a matter of moments. I think it took... what... a whole 6 months for Russia to become one of the most oppressive countries in history, and also inspire other revolutionaries to remake their own nations along the same line, again leading to all sorts of backwards regimes where even the most basic human rights, the things that you are currently taking for granted, were basically ignored.

Do you think that after the revolution, suddenly there will just be unanimity? Billions of people all over the world will just spontaneously reach complete agreement on the best way to proceed with the course of human history?

In order to effectively organize a complex society, some people must make the decisions, and some people are in a better position to make those decisions that others. And inevitably, this leads to a degree of corruption, exploitation and oppression. It's not a condition that's unique to capitalism, but it's easy to say that it is because capitalism is the only system that you actually know.

The only thing that's going to prevent your oncoming fascist apocalypse is if Jesus returns to Earth as a televangelist/irresistibly charismatic Internet prophet, aliens appear from the sky, or the media evolves into an irresistible mind control device with a single agenda.

I can understand wanting increased regulation, or health care, or education, and more separation between the government and the corporations, etc... but all of these Socialist narratives being thrown around remind me of when I was a lot younger, a lot more naive and totally clueless about what people are really like.

 

[This]

I like capitalism, it gives me the opportunity to create abundance for myself in a way that socialism never possibly could.

 

[Saru Inc]

I like how everyone just ignored my post, I guess I can then safely declare them racists, government loving pigs. You'd think they'd at least try to defend themselves, but no, its easier just to ignore the kid challenging your beliefs.

 

[bamf]

I like how everyone just ignored my post, I guess I can then safely declare them racists, government loving pigs. You'd think they'd at least try to defend themselves, but no, its easier just to ignore the kid challenging your beliefs.

Sometimes it's easier to ignore such vitrol and anger, thinly veiled as sarcasm, than it is to try and carry on a conversation with someone who is bound to ignore everything you say.

 

[Lerxst]

I like capitalism, it gives me the opportunity to create abundance for myself in a way that socialism never possibly could.

In the same way gambling addicts like placing bets; you may spend your whole life poor or flush away a fortune overnight but hey, you always have a chance to win more (insert flashy, neon casino signs here)!