There is an Alternative to Capitalism
- Thread starter Lerxst
- Start date
That's because there aren't any!
The worst violence has been the recent industrialised violence
What article...you posted a graph?
Also who wrote the article? You do know that some people have an interest in trying to convince you that mankind is innately violent don't you? This whole debate of how best to organise society always comes down to human nature and the elites want you to believe that you and me are innately evil and need to be controlled by them
So tell me....do you feel innately evil?
On what evidence? try and deny this one: you are more likely to be killed in an industrialised war now or in a nuclear holocaust than people were in the past
Based on what evidence? Have they analysed every dead body from the past? If they are basing it on accounts of how many people were killed in battle then it is fatally flawed because as EVERY historian knows the victorious side in battle always massively inflated the number of people they claimed they had defeated in battle so that their victory sounded more glorious. Ask a historian about that
The global population has exploded since the capitalist industrial revolution and the exploitation of fossil fuels. If we do not find another source of power then the population will decline again
The only thing stopping mass slaughter in the west is the fear of nuclear war.....its not because our capitalist leaders are more humane. They have killed over a million people in Iraq alone in recent years. Now they just export the death to elsewhere
There was violence because of imbalances....inequality. If we manage the resources of the planet more fairly there will be less violence....that's not absurd....that's common sense
You don't have to listen to anyone....it's non coercive. It is capitalism that makes you follow orders
The insentive under anarchist communism is to be a part of a community. To have autonomy in your work and life, to have greater personal freedoms and to have more spare time to do what you want to do
Not true. Tension occurs when there are haves and have nots. Most revolutions have echoed to the chant of 'bread, bread, bread!'
You wouldn't be competeing for a job like you would under a capitalist system. If you wanted to do a job in the community then people would let you help in that area. There wouldn't be a 'harvard school grad' because everyone would get the best education and there wouldn't be any 'drop outs' because people could engage with education as much or as little as they wanted and if they wanted to sit in on class again they could. There wouldn't be any of the usual restrictions....i'm not sure you are really understanding what i'm talking about here....your still thinking in terms of a competitive capitalist world and trying to read this through that filter
Yeah POWERFUL groups!
No one is gonna forget that one....or be allowed to
That was the whole point about it. It was designed to bring further conflict
9/11 was the product of a capitalist world where tensions have been created through the exploitation of middle eastern oil
Whose gonna rise up when there's nothing to rise up against lol
I never said it was. I said it could be used as a means to coordinate effort over large areas...for example the sharing of resources
You haven't really refuted any of my points here
I haven't missed the point....i understand exactly what is going on here
We don't have a lot of 'free time' in capitalism, we are all required to work all the time.
Although recently there has been massed unemployment; but this is in order to get people dependant on the corporations and government for example for food stamps/food aid so that when the elites transition us to a centrally controlled state run economy that they control we will barely notice because we will all be so deopendant on them anyway by that point
I posted a link to an article.
The book is called 'The Better Angels Of Our Nature' and it was written by a professor of evolutionary psychology currently working at Harvard University. His name is Steven Pinker. And yes, they have discovered/excavated cemeteries and discovered how these people died-- that's where the information came from.
Given his love of evolutionary psychology it's extremely unlikely that he would have a negative view of human nature and I highly highly doubt that he personally believes that human nature is anything but fluid. I don't even think that most people actually believe in a permanent, concrete human 'identity'… and if they do, then there are still plenty of Buddhists who would disagree.
I do think that some people probably do genuinely think that way, however… and those people are free to express their opinions, just like you and I are. If they weren't free to express those opinions, would you be happier?? You don't have to listen if you don't agree, and neither does anyone else. And I definitely don't think it's just a matter of anyone who doesn't see things a certain way is either a slave to or perpetrator of some hideous plan to enslave the human race… the world isn't so black and white.
If you focus only on a small amount of violent revolutions and perhaps some petty crime then yes, inequality and desperation can produce violence-- but in most cases extreme violence is perpetrated by more powerful, expansionist nations upon weaker ones-- Iraq and Kuwait, Germany and Poland, Japan and Korea, etc. etc. etc.
The problem isn't capitalism, it's imperialism. Capitalism when it's done right can actively build ties between nations, resulting in strengthened relations and mutual good will. I honestly don't know why some people feel like we need to go to war… especially when trade can be much more profitable, and also doesn't involve the destruction of the very resources we could have been trading and using as a way to build bridges instead of burn them.
The book is called 'The Better Angels Of Our Nature' and it was written by a professor of evolutionary psychology currently working at Harvard University. His name is Steven Pinker. And yes, they have discovered/excavated cemeteries and discovered how these people died-- that's where the information came from.
Given his love of evolutionary psychology it's extremely unlikely that he would have a negative view of human nature and I highly highly doubt that he personally believes that human nature is anything but fluid. I don't even think that most people actually believe in a permanent, concrete human 'identity'… and if they do, then there are still plenty of Buddhists who would disagree.
I do think that some people probably do genuinely think that way, however… and those people are free to express their opinions, just like you and I are. If they weren't free to express those opinions, would you be happier?? You don't have to listen if you don't agree, and neither does anyone else. And I definitely don't think it's just a matter of anyone who doesn't see things a certain way is either a slave to or perpetrator of some hideous plan to enslave the human race… the world isn't so black and white.
If you focus only on a small amount of violent revolutions and perhaps some petty crime then yes, inequality and desperation can produce violence-- but in most cases extreme violence is perpetrated by more powerful, expansionist nations upon weaker ones-- Iraq and Kuwait, Germany and Poland, Japan and Korea, etc. etc. etc.
The problem isn't capitalism, it's imperialism. Capitalism when it's done right can actively build ties between nations, resulting in strengthened relations and mutual good will. I honestly don't know why some people feel like we need to go to war… especially when trade can be much more profitable, and also doesn't involve the destruction of the very resources we could have been trading and using as a way to build bridges instead of burn them.
Last edited:
Steven Pinker has not excavated all the graves from history
Also it pays to look at who is funding the research of someone who is given positions in elite educational institutions and here's why:
First of all don't take anything i'm saying personally here.....i'm not arguing with you for the sake of arguing i'm just gonna urge a certain caution when it comes to interpreting the work coming from a particular section of society
Also i don't want to say that i'm against the idea that humanity might be evolving in terms of wanting to see less violence....in fact i hope that's the case!
However there are many factors at play here. The capitalist system HAS caused wars which have killed millions. It HAS birthed nuclear weapons that may yet destroy our species and it HAS birthed biological weapons that may yet cause an extinction event....this is all undeniable
You could argue that certain things have improved over the centuries. for example Pinker talks about lynchings being less likely now.
I would counter argue this by saying that if we had been living under an anarchist-communist system we would have sorted out all these problems CENTURIES ago
problems such as lynchings occured because of rascism which in turn was a result of the trade of slaves under CAPITALISM which is a profit motivated system where profits are put before people. Capitalism didn't fight the slave problem people of conscience fought the slave problem; the capitalist class made a lot of money out of slavery. You can visit cities here in the UK that were built on the profits from the slave and sugar trade
There are many factors however to how certain aspects of life might have improved for example improvements in technology. He also cites literacy as a factor that might have helped lesson violence but literacy might be much higher under an anarchist communist system with less restrictions standing between people around the world and a good education
Getting back to what i was saying about being cautious about research its always worth noting that there are other 'experts' who have written books to counter Pinkers arguments and that these 'experts' all represent certain sides in a wider debate
The debate being one of nature and nurture
'experts' always have financial backers who have a lot invested in the nature/nurutre debate and if you say the right things you also get nice jobs in places like Harvard. the financial backers are not looking to create the best society for everyone, they are looking to create the best society for themselves
How about you....do you think the current system is serving everyone around the world well....or just you?
The 'trade' between the US and China has been largely cheap low grade white furniture....your microwave ovens, toasters, TVs etc
This 'trade' has made China very strong but has put the US in debt and it has been allowed by US politicians who see cheap goods as a drug to feed to the public in order to keep them comfortable and docile. No one wants to make the hard decisions and be the ones to change the system. This is all instead of just admiting they are wrong and creating a more fair society.....they are trying to hold onto their power and privilege at any cost it seems
Also the elites know the current system is unsustainable but they are trying to figure out a way to create a new system where they will still be in charge. don't expect them to give you any say in that
There is also an argument that the current system of interdependance on trade is really a giant scam
The rich countries and the global investors behind their central banks and the world bank and IMF tell small countries that they must 'remove barriers to trade' whilst they themselves engage in protectionism against the poor countries by applying massive tariffs to the imports from those small countries
Usually before this those rich countries have already dictated to the poor countries that they must specialise in certain crops for example coffee which then makes those poor countries heavily dependant on the market value of the crop which the global investors are able to manipulate.
The rich countries also dump their subsidised products onto poor countries which then prices out any local producers by depressing prices
Also the downward pressures exerted by the big corporations on commodity markets and the fluctuations in commodity prices mean that people in poor countries get pathetic wages resulting in starvation which prevents them ever being able to work their way out of poverty.....in fact it drives them into debt....which is another form of imprisionment imposed by the rich countries
Its all a scam and it is killing people around the world and causing untold misery
Also the rate of consumption is unsustainable under capitalism as argued by exponents of the 'degrowth' movement
Yes, there are different sides to every debate but since there's no concrete evidence that either side is inherently 'correct', I chose the side that rings true to me personally. Pinker isn't talking about nature versus nurture so much as how our nature evolves, a concept which covers elements of both... we're not helpless to change anything, we're simply adapting to our social environment and recognizing and internalizing the benefits of a more civilized society.
The question isn't really 'does capitalism have problems?'-- of course it does. I would agree that intrinsic motivation trumps extrinsic and that learning is primarily social, and I've seen Trading Places with Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy multiple times... but it would take several generations before people could effectively function in an anarcho-communist environment, and there would always be dissenters (likely former capitalists or similar-minded people) who, without a centralized state, would be extremely difficult to control. You're not going to crush dissent by simply 'declaring' everyone free from their capitalist bonds-- there are plenty of people who interpret freedom differently.
It would take massive amounts of propaganda and military intervention to secure such a society, and to rip the properties and possessions from the hands of the former capitalists-- I'm assuming that the mansions and yachts and flashy cars and private jets will be demolished as symbols of our former oppression, correct?
The question here is 'is capitalism SO broken that radical change is vitally urgent?'-- to which my answer would have to be no. You can forecast our doom all that you want and you still won't be saying anything new.
There are extremely large and complex questions involved and I don't think there is a definitive answer. The global village is still new, and so is our awareness of global problems. There are plenty of privately-owned enterprises that are welcomed both by governments and citizens alike, and also improve the quality of life for people in the third world-- there's all of this first world talk of 'sweat shops' where people compare the ridiculously high standard of living that they have enjoyed for generations to the standard of living that workers in a third world are experiencing for the very first time... a better comparison is the standard of living that they were experiencing before the foreign capitalist enterprise arrived, and after-- I would be willing to bet that in most cases, it has improved. I do think that the larger, more profitable corporations should be more obligated to contribute more to the economies of these countries, but there are also a lot of much smaller businesses that use foreign labor because it keeps them competitive... it's not necessarily exploitation if you're paying someone $5/day to do something that the local businesses would only pay 50 cents/day for, and then beat you if you tried to take a break.
I do think that as conditions improve then those workers will receive more attention and more rights, and eventually price themselves out of the market, barring interference.
Overall I think that the best way to overcome these gaps isn't some radical, destabilizing revolution that will almost definitely necessitate a state clampdown and probably a dictatorship... it's a gradual shift that will probably see many ups and downs along the way. It's a far more cynical statement about human nature to say that power absolutely corrupts everyone who has it than to say that we're gradually easing our way into a better society. There's a problem now, but just because it hasn't been solved almost immediately doesn't mean that it will never be solved, or that there is no solution...
I don't think that history unfolds as a linear progression-- there's a back and forth involved and sometimes one idea prevails and sometimes another does... it doesn't mean that overall things are getting better or worse-- they're just evolving at their own pace. And obviously if you're comparing reality to an ideal (and to top it off your sense of reality revolves around a lot of disputable claims and an impending disaster which may or may not occur), then the ideal is always going to seem preferable... and then it actually happens, and it doesn't go the way you thought it would, and other ideals pop up and suddenly your system is oppressive... cliched as it is, it genuinely is a case of the grass is always greener.
The question isn't really 'does capitalism have problems?'-- of course it does. I would agree that intrinsic motivation trumps extrinsic and that learning is primarily social, and I've seen Trading Places with Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy multiple times... but it would take several generations before people could effectively function in an anarcho-communist environment, and there would always be dissenters (likely former capitalists or similar-minded people) who, without a centralized state, would be extremely difficult to control. You're not going to crush dissent by simply 'declaring' everyone free from their capitalist bonds-- there are plenty of people who interpret freedom differently.
It would take massive amounts of propaganda and military intervention to secure such a society, and to rip the properties and possessions from the hands of the former capitalists-- I'm assuming that the mansions and yachts and flashy cars and private jets will be demolished as symbols of our former oppression, correct?
The question here is 'is capitalism SO broken that radical change is vitally urgent?'-- to which my answer would have to be no. You can forecast our doom all that you want and you still won't be saying anything new.
There are extremely large and complex questions involved and I don't think there is a definitive answer. The global village is still new, and so is our awareness of global problems. There are plenty of privately-owned enterprises that are welcomed both by governments and citizens alike, and also improve the quality of life for people in the third world-- there's all of this first world talk of 'sweat shops' where people compare the ridiculously high standard of living that they have enjoyed for generations to the standard of living that workers in a third world are experiencing for the very first time... a better comparison is the standard of living that they were experiencing before the foreign capitalist enterprise arrived, and after-- I would be willing to bet that in most cases, it has improved. I do think that the larger, more profitable corporations should be more obligated to contribute more to the economies of these countries, but there are also a lot of much smaller businesses that use foreign labor because it keeps them competitive... it's not necessarily exploitation if you're paying someone $5/day to do something that the local businesses would only pay 50 cents/day for, and then beat you if you tried to take a break.
I do think that as conditions improve then those workers will receive more attention and more rights, and eventually price themselves out of the market, barring interference.
Overall I think that the best way to overcome these gaps isn't some radical, destabilizing revolution that will almost definitely necessitate a state clampdown and probably a dictatorship... it's a gradual shift that will probably see many ups and downs along the way. It's a far more cynical statement about human nature to say that power absolutely corrupts everyone who has it than to say that we're gradually easing our way into a better society. There's a problem now, but just because it hasn't been solved almost immediately doesn't mean that it will never be solved, or that there is no solution...
I don't think that history unfolds as a linear progression-- there's a back and forth involved and sometimes one idea prevails and sometimes another does... it doesn't mean that overall things are getting better or worse-- they're just evolving at their own pace. And obviously if you're comparing reality to an ideal (and to top it off your sense of reality revolves around a lot of disputable claims and an impending disaster which may or may not occur), then the ideal is always going to seem preferable... and then it actually happens, and it doesn't go the way you thought it would, and other ideals pop up and suddenly your system is oppressive... cliched as it is, it genuinely is a case of the grass is always greener.
Last edited:
Not when you look at the amount of oil we actually use... we'd be lucky to get a few months worth out of Canada.
Until people realize that we actually need water and would, ya know... die, without it... Canada's perfectly safe. Ironically, it's our stupidity that keeps them safe from our greed...
Socialism is capitalism as overseen by the state. Communism is state capitalism pure and simple. Capitalism is the most individualistic system, and is fun and all about liberty. It's the best. Why would anybody need an alternative to such a perfect system?
I don't think that is what this is about at all. I think that is the line they are selling to you
There is a wider agenda here and people like Pinker are all playing a part in that
There have been very powerful banking houses throughout history and the families behind these banking houses control the central banks in Europe. When the europeans took over the Americas the banking families moved into the Americas and made money through big industry, oil and banking. They own the federal reserve bank which is not 'federal' at all.
These banking families have a vision for a world government. To do this they will have to merge the currencies of the countries under their control. lets call this group of countries the 'neoliberal club'. You can see the neoliberal club acting in tandem in various world events. For example they make up NATO.
These global investors who control the federal reserve and other central banks are also able to act in concert against groups outside of the neoliberal club. For example they will often team up to topple leaders in the middle east so that they can control the oil in that region. The head of the federal reserve ben bernanke has recently threatened countries outside the neoliberal club that he is going to print money and continue printing money unless they appreciate their currencies; he wants to boost inflation in the US as a way of tackling the massive US debt. This is effectively a currency war. The threat is that if the countries don't appreciate their currencies he will print more dollars and because the dollar is the world reserve currency this will export inflation around the world which will see rising food prices and social unrest
This means that in the US and UK we are going to see inflation moving towards hyper-inflation. Just like in Iran at the moment where the price of bread is skyrocketing causing protests and riots in the streets.
I think the end game is to create a world government which the global investors will control. This will be a centrally controlled economy where every aspects of our lives are tightly controlled.
Arguments about private ownership will be nulll and void because the state will own everything. By the 'state' i really mean the oligarchy who currently run things behind the scenes
So i think all your arguments about 'capitalism' being a good system are missing the mark. Even if there was a move towards free market capitalism you would still have those powerful families who would continue schemeing to bend capitalism to their ends
The only way to protect against that is to do away with money altogether......lol. This is not as crazy as it might initially seem. Money is really just an illusion that they use to empower themselves and keep everyone else as their economic slaves. If you take away money then you take away their power OVERNIGHT. of course a system that is not dependant on money is going to need a radical shift in consciousness where people begin to work together as a community rather than in the typical dog eat dog capitalist mindset; such a change wouldn't happen overnight but could occur with increased awareness of the full implications of the current system and of the viability of alternatives
A gradual transition would be less bumpy but it would be important to miss out the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' stage and go direct to an anarchist communist state to avoid any of the power hungry elements you are talking about coopting the movement
Why smash up things that could be useful?
Property except small personal items would be owned in common by everyone. The community could enjoy the yachts = much more happy people
Private jets might be viewed as a waste of fossil fuels; perhaps a more sustainable and less suicidal approach to resource management could be adopted in order to ensure future generations weren't cast back into the stoneage when the oil runs dry; capitalism isn't interested in sustainability it is interested in consumption because it is a profit orientated system. Externalities are not a factor under capitalism only PROFIT
There is an argument that radical banking reform (for example the re-instatement of the Glass-Steagall Act) and tax cuts might get the economy out of depression. My issue with this reformist approach to capitalism is that it doesn't solve the fundamental problems.
It doesn't solve the problem of an elite who are mainly hidden from public view controlling policy behind a thin facade of 'democracy'. It doesn't solve the tensions between competing capitalist countries, it doesn't tackle the rampant and unsustainable consumption and it doesn't deal with the massive inequalities between the rich and the porr aroudn the world and the growing poverty (the current global economic crisis will push more and more people into poverty)
This is why i think that capitalism has run its course. The elites also believe this but they want to replace it with a centrally controlled state run economy which is guess you could call 'state socialism' but seeing as the workers will not be controlling the means of production it isn't socialism at all its fascism (a merging of government and corporate power)
The answer in my view is to not hand all the power to the elite but rather go in the other direction and realise that it is giving away power to the elites that has got us in all these messes in the first place and that what we really need to do is get power back to the people
Does power corrupt or does power attract the corrupt?
I don't think you can say that countries that were self sufficient are better off now then they were before the imperialist powers moved in. Thats simply not true. There has been cultural genocide and theft of natural resources on a massive scale, leading to fragmentatiuon of community and to impoverishment
Sweat shops and the movment of jobs abroad has created unemployment in the west which then has to be paid for by the welfare system; the burden of which is put on the middle classes as the super rich are given tax breaks.
The people in the sweat shops have no rights and are given incredibly low wages. this is because capitalism operates by the employer giving the employeee just enough money that they don't quit (but can never improve their life) and the employee works just hard enough that they are not fired....hardly an efficient system or one that is going to improve peoples health and happiness
The majority world countries whose people are being exploited by the corporations are themselves exploited by the governments who support the corporations (because the global investors who own the corporations control those governments...they're the same entity). Journalist John Pilger has made documentary films about this for example 'War by Other Means':
http://johnpilger.com/videos/war-by-other-means
Last edited:
This ought to brighten everyone's day.
http://www.ibtimes.com/apple-pays-just-2-tax-overseas-profits-859184
http://www.ibtimes.com/apple-pays-just-2-tax-overseas-profits-859184
I think that's a perfect example of capitalism at work
The corporations want to maximise profits because capitalism is a profit orientated system so they bribe the politicians to turn the other way when they don't pay their taxes
I know for a fact, through first-hand family member, behind the scenes knowledge that "third world" countries are attractive to prospective Western businesses just for that very reason. Low tax rates and if you want something done, not done or changed, bribe your local government official. Most of those country's are a Libertarian's paradise where money will buy anything you could ever need or want, you just need to be the ones with the money. Capitalism at its finest... until pirates start boarding cruise ships demanding some of that money....
I actually don't have so much of a problem when the smaller businesses do it… it's hard to start up any kind of business and the stakes of doing so back home are really high, because competition from the huge players is brutal. A lot of those people wouldn't be able to afford to have their own business otherwise and would be stuck making money for someone who really doesn't need it-- and if they're decent people, when their business grows they can invest some of the profits in the community, or raise their worker's salaries. There's a higher chance of this happening with an independent businessowner because they will end up having first-hand contact with their employees and are more likely to have a relationship. You just don't see enough independent businesses back home anymore so if they can get what they need in the third world then I don't really have a problem with that. It's something that I've considered doing as well… I think it's a great opportunity to have your own thing while also potentially helping some people who really do need it.
What I can't stand is when the HUGE businesses (Apple especially) exploit working conditions in other countries, make disgusting amounts of money, and then don't even think twice about not raising worker salaries or failing to provide the kind of benefits that they could easily afford to give. This hurts everyone because it means that manufacturing jobs are leaving the West (where they would need to pay more and provide better working conditions) purely because of greed.
It's not the system that's broken, it's the laws that are supposed to govern the system.
It could be.. But I would rather take a shitty version of Capitalism then Tea-Partinism though
If I could have a choice...My issue with this, is that it requires a different type of people within society to actually implement it. I completely like the idea of every worker within the company owning an equal share, and all having a say in each of the decisions, a true democracy where everyone has their own stake in the business. But there are flaws, as say one person said they would invest their dividend into the business to help further it, and someone else didn't want to invest their dividend because they thought the idea was flawed; the company then carries out the idea and it is a success, the guy that didn't invest his dividend would still benefit from the increased profits as well as having his initial money that he didn't invest, this would then cause disputes.
So say that they all agree to invest so much of the profit into the business to get over this hump.
But say that this business doesn't earn quite as much profit as another company, all of the employees leave the business and then it falls apart (well maybe there would be a few that would take the majority of the profit left and they would end up better off) but say that the company then fails because it can't function becuase everyone wanted a slice of the more expensive cake. But ok you say that there would be more people to take their place.
But think about economies of scale, a business is going downhill, someone sells their shares of their business to someone else that is in a richer industry, in return for their continued employment, and they would benefit more from the selling of the business, and then say that this rich guy comes in and helps the business profit and it earns more than what he is paying the guy simply because he sold his share.
This system needs to have continued employment linked in with getting the profit from the business i.e. you need to actively work for the business to get profit from it. The reinvestment level needs to be decided by all of the members, and if one of them doesn't agree with the limit, then they have veto rights. No person can have more than 2 jobs, as otherwise this could lead to people circumventing the system. Any new member of a business needs to comply with the businesses current agreements, and does not have decision-making capabilities until six months of working within the organisation, and what about part-time workers!!
God there are so many things that would need to be worked out but this could really work given a lot of work done on the idea....
So say that they all agree to invest so much of the profit into the business to get over this hump.
But say that this business doesn't earn quite as much profit as another company, all of the employees leave the business and then it falls apart (well maybe there would be a few that would take the majority of the profit left and they would end up better off) but say that the company then fails because it can't function becuase everyone wanted a slice of the more expensive cake. But ok you say that there would be more people to take their place.
But think about economies of scale, a business is going downhill, someone sells their shares of their business to someone else that is in a richer industry, in return for their continued employment, and they would benefit more from the selling of the business, and then say that this rich guy comes in and helps the business profit and it earns more than what he is paying the guy simply because he sold his share.
This system needs to have continued employment linked in with getting the profit from the business i.e. you need to actively work for the business to get profit from it. The reinvestment level needs to be decided by all of the members, and if one of them doesn't agree with the limit, then they have veto rights. No person can have more than 2 jobs, as otherwise this could lead to people circumventing the system. Any new member of a business needs to comply with the businesses current agreements, and does not have decision-making capabilities until six months of working within the organisation, and what about part-time workers!!
God there are so many things that would need to be worked out but this could really work given a lot of work done on the idea....
It's been a while since I read through the article so I might have my companies confused, but this one (or the other I read about) implemented a self-governing system where employees and managers are evaluated by their fellow employees. Seems that one "bad apple" who doesn't go along with the bunch will quickly get removed from the picture.
If you're going to call every system with a market "capitalism", then there has never been anything but capitalism. What makes capitalism so shitty is how it doesn't care about the people, it prioritizes wealth to unfair degrees. Under socialism, the economy's growth from 1990-2012 would have resulted in massive gains for the middle class - but it didn't, because we're not under socialism.
GDP in 1990 was at $5 trillion annually and has risen to $16 trillion; where is the middle class benefit? I'll tell you where: in the pockets of the wealthy! Their standards of living and their share of wealth went up dramatically over the past 22 years, while ours have only to decline.
Certainly if capitalism were a "perfect system", there would be less poverty and less joblessness. Poverty in the USSR, population 250 million, was about 1.7% solid for the last 4 years of its existence... and that was at $2 to $1.7 trillion GDP. Imagine what we could do here with how much we make.
Capitalism may be a more "fun" system if you consider your daily struggle for existence tampered with logos and commercials in every direction more "fun"... but I don't. Why mask our own suffering? We parade the suffering of others on television, but we ignore our own. And for what? More money to the ruling classes, the robber barons, the oligarchs, the nomenklatura of a new age!
FYI: communism, as it is written, has never been done. Countries like the USSR and China were never communist countries, they were building socialism. Of course they both went terribly off track (the USSR to its own dissolution and future capitalism and China to market socialism, which should be the real definition of state capitalism), but the point stands all the same... COMMUNISM has never been accomplished.
CROWD FUNDING
Crowd funding or crowdfunding (alternately crowd financing, equity crowdfunding, or hyper funding) describes the collective effort of individuals who network and pool their resources, usually via the Internet, to support efforts initiated by other people or organizations.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]. Crowd funding is used in support of a wide variety of activities, including disaster relief, citizen journalism, support of artists by fans, political campaigns, startup company funding,[SUP][3][/SUP] movie[SUP][4][/SUP] or free software development, inventions development and scientific research.[SUP][5][/SUP]
Crowd funding can also refer to the funding of a company by selling small amounts of equity to many investors. This form of crowd funding has recently received attention from policymakers in the United States with direct mention in the JOBS Act; legislation that allows for a wider pool of small investors with fewer restrictions.[SUP][2][/SUP]
The JOBS Act was signed into law by President Obama on April 5, 2012. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has been given approximately 270 days to set forth specific rules and guidelines that enact this legislation, while also ensuring the protection of investors.[SUP][6][/SUP] Some rules have already been proposed by the SEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_funding)
Crowd funding or crowdfunding (alternately crowd financing, equity crowdfunding, or hyper funding) describes the collective effort of individuals who network and pool their resources, usually via the Internet, to support efforts initiated by other people or organizations.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]. Crowd funding is used in support of a wide variety of activities, including disaster relief, citizen journalism, support of artists by fans, political campaigns, startup company funding,[SUP][3][/SUP] movie[SUP][4][/SUP] or free software development, inventions development and scientific research.[SUP][5][/SUP]
Crowd funding can also refer to the funding of a company by selling small amounts of equity to many investors. This form of crowd funding has recently received attention from policymakers in the United States with direct mention in the JOBS Act; legislation that allows for a wider pool of small investors with fewer restrictions.[SUP][2][/SUP]
The JOBS Act was signed into law by President Obama on April 5, 2012. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has been given approximately 270 days to set forth specific rules and guidelines that enact this legislation, while also ensuring the protection of investors.[SUP][6][/SUP] Some rules have already been proposed by the SEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_funding)