NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think of capitalism? Should it be abolished, restricted, or allowed to go without any sort of interference?
I'm amazed there aren't more debates over this in General. Poll in a minute.

Regulated capitalism is the only system proven to work.

Capitalism is at present the best economic system as long as the following are maintained:

1. Equal opportunity for all to compete in the free market, with success and failiure due only to business management skills.

2. Regulation of monopolies and other organizations that place others at an unfair disadvantage.

1. Equal opportunity for all to compete in the free market, with success and failiure due only to business management skills.

can't happen, not under capitalism anyway. imho.

capitalism and its spawned evil sibling consumerism is, granted, an upward spiral for business and the economy, but a downward spiral for people, happiness, equality, and the environment.

can't happen, not under capitalism anyway. imho.

capitalism and its spawned evil sibling consumerism is, granted, an upward spiral for business and the economy, but a downward spiral for people, happiness, equality, and the environment.

Consumerism leads to the establishment of massive corporations that can muscle the smaller ones out of business regardless of quality, and so unless one could defeat consumerism, equal opportunity is impossible.

Regulated capitalism is the only system proven to work.Amen. Amen, amen and amen.

That's just how it is. You need free enterprize, simply because property and freedom are basic human rights, and you need a State to uphold the law, because there can't be those human rights without the rule of law.

Consumerism leads to people getting what they want. It comes from people wanting things that corporations can provide. Don't like it? Stop buying things.

In reality, regulated capitalism seems to be the way to go, but to be honest I hate capitalism *and* socialism. This is because I don't like the corporations in capitalism or the government in socialism.

I choose the regulated option...but I just wanted to say that nobody is NEVER going to get screwed over....double negative for ya.

Capitalism is just the most resent step of social evolution. It, like Socialism, is an evolutionary offshoot that came from the death of Feudalism; the two have been competing ever since though the two tend to combine every now and then. Capitalism is in the lead and Fascist was a throwback to Feudalism. It will eventually whither away, not because of Socialism, but because of its own characteristics. It will eventually die and give way to a new system (or perhaps a pair of systems.) There is no way to "kill it" and I personally object to any attempt to try, it will die on its own schedule and no sooner.

Consumerism leads to people getting what they want. It comes from people wanting things that corporations can provide. Don't like it? Stop buying things.
That only works when you actually have a pot to piss in. If not, you don't get what you want cuz you ain't got the cash to get what you want. Piss-potless people don't 'stop buying things' in an attempt to influence what is produced :D

Capitalism is just the most resent step of social evolution. It, like Socialism, is an evolutionary offshoot that came from the death of Feudalism; the two have been competing ever since though the two tend to combine every now and then. Capitalism is in the lead and Fascist was a throwback to Feudalism. It will eventually whither away, not because of Socialism, but because of its own characteristics. It will eventually die and give way to a new system (or perhaps a pair of systems.) There is no way to "kill it" and I personally object to any attempt to try, it will die on its own schedule and no sooner.

I would think socialism would collapse before capitalism because of the massive bureaucracy a large system would require; generally, the government falls much faster than an economic system.

That only works when you actually have a pot to piss in. If not, you don't get what you want cuz you ain't got the cash to get what you want. Piss-potless people don't 'stop buying things' in an attempt to influence what is produced :D


I never said everyone gets everything they want, I'm not a socialist promising undeliverables.

And money can be made if people want things beyond their current budget. But really I prefer being happy with what I have, rather than leaping at the newest product.

Pure capitalism or pure socialism is ideal, unfortunatly neither are possible.

It depends on what you mean by "capitalism", but I take it that you are referring to a state where private ownership is allowed, and people are free to start a business initiative.

I guess I will have to join the vast majority of voters in saying that it can work with some restrictions in place to ensure nobody gets screwed over, because that is effectively correct. :)

It depends on what you mean by "capitalism", but I take it that you are referring to a state where private ownership is allowed, and people are free to start a business initiative.

I guess I will have to join the vast majority of voters in saying that it can work with some restrictions in place to ensure nobody gets screwed over, because that is effectively correct. :)
real socialist of you :rolleyes:

Consumerism leads to people getting what they want. It comes from people wanting things that corporations can provide. Don't like it? Stop buying things.


I fully agree

Democratic Socialist. We are a reform movement that wants to make changes to the system to improve the lives of workers and ordinary people in tangible ways. In other words: Knootoss cares.

Calling for the "destruction" of capitalism may look like a popular statement, but you say it without even actually defining what capitalism is, how you want to go about "destroying" it and what should replace it. Generaly this is something that the Fundamentalist Socialistic factions tend to split upon, bickering and theorising over a dream world.

If you are speaking of "immediate destruction" then I take it that it will involve killing a lot of people to destroy a system that is supported by a large majority of the population, then installing some sort of 'temporary government', no doubt. Because that would be only way to go about it. The ‘immediate destruction of capitalism' which you stand for is bloody, undemocratic and unrealistic.

Instead of dreaming about an unlikely revolution, I stand for a progressive agenda: improving education and healthcare, equality and civil rights, a decent social net for all citizens, a decent and fair economy, a foreign policy that respects peace and international development.

Dream, DHomme, about the Utopian revolution, because dreams are important! But do not stop us from building a better world in the meantime, step by step.

Feel free to check out our recruitment thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426277) if you wish to learn more.

I would think socialism would collapse before capitalism because of the massive bureaucracy a large system would require; generally, the government falls much faster than an economic system.

Socialism won't collapse first per say, instead It will live on for some time as a type of parasite on the Capitalist system. Notice that very few countries make Socialism work well and the few that actually look stable give limitless pride to the Socialist idealist. Think Sweden; every time someone says Socialist doesn't work people smugly invoke Sweden. That's great, one country came out ahead. In contrast Capitalism thrives in most places it is established. One just gets off the ground faster and generally has more potential for a long life. This of course means it has evolutionary superiority.

Democratic Socialist. We are a reform movement that wants to make changes to the system to improve the lives of workers and ordinary people in tangible ways. In other words: Knootoss cares.

Right, democratic socialism aka liberal capitalism ultimately will better nobody in the long run as the right-wingers will constantly fight against any improvements that we try to make. You also fail to look at capitalism as a true socialist should- as something that neesd replacing. At least reformists are trying to bringe about an end to capitalism, you seem to think that by chucking the working and middle classes a few crumbs you can alleviate your responsibility to end the system of exploitation.


Calling for the "destruction" of capitalism may look like a popular statement, but you say it without even actually defining what capitalism is, how you want to go about "destroying" it and what should replace it. Generaly this is something that the Fundamentalist Socialistic factions tend to split upon, bickering and theorising over a dream world.

Capitalism is the system where people are entitled to own the means of production and thus gain money off the labour of others. It is also a system in which the bosses are willing to play upon human beings' basic animal fears of people who are different from us to divide our opinion and make us fight amongst ourselves instead of focusing on the real enemy.
Actually most socialist groups seem to split over the issue of how to take the world to the utopian society we all strive for.


If you are speaking of "immediate destruction" then I take it that it will involve killing a lot of people to destroy a system that is supported by a large majority of the population, then installing some sort of 'temporary government', no doubt. Because that would be only way to go about it. The ‘immediate destruction of capitalism' which you stand for is bloody, undemocratic and unrealistic.

I didn't actually imply revolution in the question but, yes. A revolution will most likely happen with a few pinpoint strategic attacks with popular support. Any resulting war would be from nationalist/capitalist forces attempting to regain control of the situation.
Unrealistic? Is it realistic to assume that all your well meaning government programs won't be corrupted by the bastards who run the country and the industries?


Instead of dreaming about an unlikely revolution, I stand for a progressive agenda: improving education and healthcare, equality and civil rights, a decent social net for all citizens, a decent and fair economy, a foreign policy that respects peace and international development.

Dream, DHomme, about the Utopian revolution, because dreams are important! But do not stop us from building a better world in the meantime, step by step.

We stand for a progressive agenda, but that cannot bring social equality by itself. While we aim to gain some transitional demands, we recognise that as long as capitalism still exists there will be inequality, bigotry and mass corruption in the world.


Feel free to check out our recruitment thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426277) if you wish to learn more.
Or if you're sick of the inaction of liberals you can check out our fucking kick ass thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422701)

well yes and no, its all very well saying yay capitalism but only to a point but unless you specify what that point it means nothing

I'm an anarcho-communist, so yes, I am for the abolition of capitalism.

Dialetic materialism clearly demonstrates that historic forces will lead to the ultimate destruction of capitalism owing to the unresolved conflicts inherent in its structure. This is an undisputed fact Comrades.

Doesn't mean you are going to get communism or market socialism though tovarisch. It seems as if we are going to end up with a corporate oligarchy/state.

(Stupid voting public).

Consumerism leads to people getting what they want. It comes from people wanting things that corporations can provide. Don't like it? Stop buying things.

I disagree, you are not looking at the matter in enough detail.
There is consumerism, like a PYO Fruit farm selling strawberries, and then there is corperate consumerism.
The PYO Strawberries are desireable because of pleasurable past experience of eating the food. Then there is the corperate consumerism, which uses clever advertising and essentially lies and mind games to get you to buy something you wouldn't normally buy.

McDonalds (one of many fast food chains that do this) is a prime example of this. On adverts, they show his perfectly formed, lush looking food, being eaten by people who's day is immediatly brightened by this wonderful food. You walk into a McDonalds, and you see pictures of food that looks too good to be real (hint).

Well, to cut a long post short, most of the products people buy are not things people would usually buy, and in my opinion, the best things sell themselves.

Capitalism is just the most resent step of social evolution.
Not really. Idealy, Capitalism is as natural to humans as communism is to ants. Capitalism has always been around in some form since civilization, and as such is the oldest socio-economic system.

Dialetic materialism clearly demonstrates that historic forces will lead to the ultimate destruction of capitalism owing to the unresolved conflicts inherent in its structure. This is an undisputed fact Comrades.

Doesn't mean you are going to get communism of market socialism though tovarisch. It seems as if we are going to end up with a corporate oligarchy/state.

(Stupid voting public).

Then we'll all live in a magical happy land of abundance as we gloss over the inherent conflicts in communism and stand hours in food lines while our Comrades tell us we are happy people.

2. Regulation of monopolies and other organizations that place others at an unfair disadvantage.


No need for government.
If the consumer is being unfairly taken advantage of then they wont buy.
If the monopoly provides the product at a fair price then there is no need for competition.

No need for government.
If the consumer is being unfairly taken advantage of then they wont buy.
If the monopoly provides the product at a fair price then there is no need for competition.

I should clarify: I mean a true monopoly, not just a company with large market share like Microsoft.

The monopoly will crush its competiton and so the consumer would have no choice other than to not buy it, and with certain commodities this should be regulated. The prices will also rise because of a lack of competiton, and quality will drop. Look at the US postal service to see a true monopoly in action.

I'm not sure if your the authoritarion type of communist (where government owns the property) or the more classical type of communist (where there is no government and property is held in common) so I'll try to address both.

Right, democratic socialism aka liberal capitalism ultimately will better nobody in the long run as the right-wingers will constantly fight against any improvements that we try to make. You also fail to look at capitalism as a true socialist should- as something that neesd replacing. At least reformists are trying to bringe about an end to capitalism, you seem to think that by chucking the working and middle classes a few crumbs you can alleviate your responsibility to end the system of exploitation.
Why does capitalism need replacing, it has brought unheard of material wealth to developed nations? As it will do to the LDCs as they begin to embrace capitalism. While communist governments have brought unheard of levels of death and poverty to their citizens. I'll take my freedom thank you and communists can take their tyranny and bring it somewhere wlse.

Capitalism is the system where people are entitled to own the means of production and thus gain money off the labour of others. It is also a system in which the bosses are willing to play upon human beings' basic animal fears of people who are different from us to divide our opinion and make us fight amongst ourselves instead of focusing on the real enemy.
Actually most socialist groups seem to split over the issue of how to take the world to the utopian society we all strive for.
Capitalism it the system where those with good ideas for new products and services hire individuals to labor for them and pay wages in exchange. They then make a profit off their good idea while the rest of the society benefits from the new product.

Communism is the system where the collective takes the person's ideas gives him nothing in return and forces people to work for starvation rations producing these goods. Either that or it's the system where everybody is expected to share and work hard out of their own goodness for the common good, as that has worked so many times in the past.

I didn't actually imply revolution in the question but, yes. A revolution will most likely happen with a few pinpoint strategic attacks with popular support. Any resulting war would be from nationalist/capitalist forces attempting to regain control of the situation.
Unrealistic? Is it realistic to assume that all your well meaning government programs won't be corrupted by the bastards who run the country and the industries?
So you start a revolution then it's those who value freedom's fault that a war occurs? Makes sense to me. It is unrealistic to assume that government will run anything properly. It is also unrealistic to assume that people will work hard for society with no incentive for themselves to do so.

We stand for a progressive agenda, but that cannot bring social equality by itself. While we aim to gain some transitional demands, we recognise that as long as capitalism still exists there will be inequality, bigotry and mass corruption in the world.
A progression right back to tribal days and subsistence living. There is inequality in capitalism and that is why it works. By gaining wealth from providing for society you then have an enlightened self-interest to provide for society. The more society values what you provide for them the more wealthy you become. Humans are born unequal, some are smarter, some faster, some better looking, some stronger, and such and on. The only way to achieve equality is through eugenics (and we all know how well that works) or by limiting those who are superior through physical means, a la Harrison Bergeron (A good story by Vonnegut). I'd rather have inequality than either of those.

As long as humanity exists there will be corruption and bigotry. It is a part of mans nature. The destruction of capitalism in Amish societies, or Hutterite colonies, or the USSR, or the PRC, etc. did not in any way remove corruption or bigotry, in fact it usually made it worse.

Or if you're sick of the inaction of liberals you can check out our fucking kick ass thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422701)
At least the liberals are somewhat realistic, even if their intentions are misplaced.

I'm a communist, so I naturally don't like it. But, if communism excepts a few capitalist ideas and capitalism becomes alot more communist, we'll all be alot happier.
:) Have a nice day!

There is no such thing as free market capitalism, not in practice at the national level, anyway. It would be impossible to achieve.

What so-called "free market" countries actually tend to be are countries dominated by authoritarian state-corporate partnerships, with varying levels of popular influence, but not enough to be reliably called democratic.

Rather like the allegedly "Communist" states in many ways, actually.

That system should indeed be eliminated, to be replaced by some form of decentralized democratic socialism.

I seem to remember in Ayn Rands' ''Atlas Shrugged'', what pure Capitalism caused . It wasn't pretty. All the people who didn't contribute perished. Come to think of it, that sounds like a good idea, in heartless way.

Well, if it isn't the janitor making a lot of noise. How ya doin' :p

I guess you know where I stand on this one. Right there alongside Santa Barbara.

Sure, go regulate the market, tell me what I can and can not buy, and in the process take some of my earnings away to pay the guy who decides what I can not buy. That sounds like a fair deal to me.

You tell me I can't buy it, if I want it it will be available, just I will have no guarantees that I am getting what I am paying for, and your government has no revenue deriving from the transaction either. What a clever way of doing things.

Now as to doing away with capitalism, or consumerism, this means doing away with desires and wants. Otherwise there will always be trades going on.
Now I don't know about you lot, but I prefer to be a human rather than a programed vegetable.

I'm a communist, so I naturally don't like it. But, if communism excepts a few capitalist ideas and capitalism becomes alot more communist, we'll all be alot happier.

So...let me get you straight. You want capitalists to turn to a command economy, and communists to suddenly embrace a more free market attitude. I may see the second case a bit more realistic considering China is slowly moving from their economically crippling communist regime towards a more open market. Then again, they aren't true communists anyway. Then again, there can never be a true successful communist nation...

There has been a lot of dialogue on this issue, so let me put a question out there.

To those who object to capitalism:

What, specifically, are your misgivings about capitalism and how does your system of government better fix the "problems"?

I'll try and respond to as many posts as I can. Please, no blatant flaming or personal attacks. I'd like to maintain a certain level of civility.

There is no such thing as free market capitalism, not in practice at the national level, anyway. It would be impossible to achieve.

There is such a thing as free market capitalism. It is a policy of mostly uninhibited (with exceptions to anti-monopoly, pool, trust etc. regulation) capitalism, in which tariffs are abolished and equality in the marketplace is achieved. It can happen, but politicians from both the left and right make it hard to happen. Even some conservatives object to free market capitalism by endorsing policies such as "corporate welfare" and the like.

What so-called "free market" countries actually tend to be are countries ted by authoritarian state-corporate partnerships, with varying levels of popular influence, but not enough to be reliably called democratic.

There are actually few true free market countries, so I fail to see where you get this "authoritarian state-corporate partnership" example from. Besides, you have the concept of free market capitalism all wrong. A true free market advocate would be against government intervention of any sort. The MUCs (multi-national corps) are held in check by the marketing forces of competition (which is significantly increased due to the globality of free market capitalism) and essentially are forced to listen to the consumer. So really, little government intervention is needed. Furthermore, any government intervention in capitalism usually only makes the system worse with inflation.

That system should indeed be eliminated, to be replaced by some form of decentralized democratic socialism.

Decentralized democratic socialism? That is simply not possible. Socialism requires a large centralized government. So I don't get how you can have decentralized socialism.

How about this. Try decentralized, free market, capitalist, democratic system. ;)

I picked other.

Capitalism is not the end, but it is the only valid political system, as it is the only one that actually values the rights of a person to their own labor and body.

However, capitalism does not alone fix the problems of society. The free market is the way to begin to solve some of the inequality problems of society. Capitalism is the most useful tool in establishing a free market, but it does not always work without government support. For example, the roots of a free market, and a limitation to economic coersion must be fought in third world countries, so that in efficient capitalist market can be formed.

However, in a developed market, the most important thing government can do is just take a step back and let it go.

Capitalism is not the end. It is the only valid political system, as it is the only one that actually values the rights of a person to their own labor and body.

True. I would argue that it is the most effective system at achieving a better standard of living on a worldwide field. No system can be perfect.

For example, the roots of a free market, and a limitation to economic coersion must be fought in third world countries, so that in efficient capitalist market can be formed

What's interesting about free market capitalism is that, by itself, it overthrows corrupt, authoritarian third world regimes. Case in point: In India, as you probably know, there exists (although it is slowly dwindling) a caste system that puts the lower classes (the "untouchables") in perpetual economic servitude. They cannot pay their debts, so they are forced into further servitude as a loan to pay of this debt. They cannot escape. However, over the last few years, capitalism has allowed these people an outlet of ideas and an ability to escape the cycle of poverty, and use their abilites to craft their own future. The Internet has also helped this process along. In fact in India, 2/3 of all Internet users are female, and a large portion of these users run their own businesses. So capitalism does overthrow corruption, and those countries that are controlled by the few, find themselves cut off.

What's interesting about free market capitalism is that, by itself, it overthrows corrupt, authoritarian third world regimes. Case in point: In India, as you probably know, there exists (although it is slowly dwindling) a caste system that puts the lower classes (the "untouchables") in perpetual economic servitude. They cannot pay their debts, so they are forced into further servitude as a loan to pay of this debt. They cannot escape. However, over the last few years, capitalism has allowed these people an outlet of ideas and an ability to escape the cycle of poverty, and use their abilites to craft their own future. The Internet has also helped this process along. In fact in India, 2/3 of all Internet users are female, and a large portion of these users run their own businesses. So capitalism does overthrow corruption, and those countries that are controlled by the few, find themselves cut off.

I agree with your sentiments completely here. Capitalism is anti-authoritarian, no matter what the resident communists will say.

However, I was considering economies without any developed markets or distribution methods. Middle Eastern and African countries have very large economic power divisions, and attempts at free market capitalism will lead to those groups in power to consolidate their power. The government must provide avenues for wealth to flow to the working class in these situations. This does not mean government imposed wealth/labor redistribution, but assisted education, small business assistance, and the like. New entrants into the economic markets must be fostered, and that thkes some intervention.

To DHomme:
Right, first of all - democratic socialism and liberal capitalism are not the same. I’m sure you throw everything less radically communist then you on one big scrapheap, but its not very useful for analysis.

Let me be clear: I oppose exploitation. What I want for poor people is certainly not crumbs, but a decent standard of life and a fair share. The left can join in this reform, and make a difference. I am saddened by your apparent unwillingness to even consider supporting measures that would make the life of the people who need it so much better because of your narrow ideological ideas. That sort of pessimism does not solve problems. It does not build bridges.

But you go on and dream about grabbing “key points” and declaring yourself Presidenté and solving all the words problems in a single term. Go ahead and blame the police force for defending democracy and the elected governments you are trying to overthrow while you are at it. You will fail. In a globalised network society no single point is important enough to grab for more then symbolic reasons. And as for popular support… the vast majority of the people in this thread disagrees with you, and the number is likely to be higher in real life. Face it: there is no support for a bloody revolution as you imagine it. There is support for an agenda of progressive reform and decentralized democratic socialism.

Remember: it was social-democrats and liberals that brought the developed world social welfare systems that meant that workers were no longer treated like animals. It was reformist socialists and social democrats and the left-liberals you hate so much that garnered the forces for universal voting rights. Let’s not forget about people like Martin Luther King or Ghandi who advocated social change through non-violent means. It does not always go as fast as people want to, but with democratic support People Power can make a real difference!

These people have accomplished things to visibly alleviate the lives of the poor and the repressed. You have those people to thank for the fact that you are (presumably) reasonably well-off and able to sit here behind your computer and complain that all of society is wrong.
The fringe anarcho-communists, Stalinists, post-maoists and what not – often sociology students with middle class parents themselves – may have very nice ideas about how things should be ideally but their ideas have never been validated in practice. In fact, these grand thoughts have produced the worst things in humanity: the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, fundamentalist regimes, etc.

(Stupid voting public).
The masses have spoken?

However, I was considering economies without any developed markets or distribution methods. Middle Eastern and African countries have very large economic power divisions, and attempts at free market capitalism will lead to those groups in power to consolidate their power. The government must provide avenues for wealth to flow to the working class in these situations. This does not mean government imposed wealth/labor redistribution, but assisted education, small business assistance, and the like. New entrants into the economic markets must be fostered, and that thkes some intervention.

What exactly do you mean by "small buisness assistance"?

I agree to a certain extent with what you are saying. Perhaps, I just don't understand how government assistance will further help these Third-Word countries, if in fact, they are as corrupt (as we've already established). I mean, realistically, why would Joe Dictator all of a sudden want to change his mind and start caring for his people economically. IMHO, the only way to overthrow these regimes is to take money out of their pocket. The best way to do this is to let internatinal free market policies take place. People from Third Word countries in compromising economic positions will have greater avenues and chances to earn money and survive without succumbing to the whims of an authoritarian regime. The whole point is that capitalism by itself gets people out of the system of poverty and away from the corruption. The wealthy elite in the countries you mentioned will suddenly find their money dwindling and they will be subsequently FORCED to care for their people or meet a financial ruin.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any truly not developed economies in the world. What I mean by that is twofold.

1. Every country has some sort of economy.
2. Many poorer nations have an economy that is kept feeble by corruption, war, etc.

Capitalism by itself can remedy many of the problems facing the Third Word, without excessive government intervention.

Communism is just as much a form of greed just like capitalism. Think about what it entails, and you'll see what I mean.

I have what I have because I earned it. Try and take it away from me. I dare you.

I should clarify: I mean a true monopoly, not just a company with large market share like Microsoft.

The monopoly will crush its competiton and so the consumer would have no choice other than to not buy it, and with certain commodities this should be regulated. The prices will also rise because of a lack of competiton, and quality will drop. Look at the US postal service to see a true monopoly in action.


Ahh.
But even certain commodities are monopolized. Electric companies. Natural gas companies. Both of which provide necessary commodities at reasonable prices without intervention.

If prices rise and quality drops then wouldnt the consumer stop buying? After all, nothing is so precious that we must buy it and nothing is so unique that there isn't a substitute readily available.

Regulated capitalism is the only system proven to work.

I was wondering what the difference between socialism and regulated capitalism is.

There is such a thing as free market capitalism. It is a policy of mostly uninhibited (with exceptions to anti-monopoly, pool, trust etc. regulation) capitalism, in which tariffs are abolished and equality in the marketplace is achieved. It can happen, but politicians from both the left and right make it hard to happen. Even some conservatives object to free market capitalism by endorsing policies such as "corporate welfare" and the like.

Traditional libertarian economic doctrine - what you seem to be advocating - calls for eliminating (or at least greatly reducing) government intervention in the economy.

However, that way you get rid of only one authoritarian structure - the government. Big business remains. And even if you say that big business alone does not interfere with a free market economy - and I'd disagree with you on that, it is essentially a command economy under oligarchal control - big business would get the government to do it favors. The result is that the whole system collapses.

There are actually few true free market countries, so I fail to see where you get this "authoritarian state-corporate partnership" example from. Besides, you have the concept of free market capitalism all wrong. A true free market advocate would be against government intervention of any sort. The MUCs (multi-national corps) are held in check by the marketing forces of competition (which is significantly increased due to the globality of free market capitalism) and essentially are forced to listen to the consumer. So really, little government intervention is needed. Furthermore, any government intervention in capitalism usually only makes the system worse with inflation.

I am thinking particularly of the United States, China works pretty well too.

But most of today's countries fit the model, more or less.

I am aware that pure free market capitalism does not involve government intervention, that is why I said it didn't exist.

Decentralized democratic socialism? That is simply not possible. Socialism requires a large centralized government. So I don't get how you can have decentralized socialism.

How about this. Try decentralized, free market, capitalist, democratic system. ;)

No, actually it does not.

Only socialism involving central planning does, and central planning on anything greater than a local level is a rather foolish idea, with a million holes for incompetence and corruption.

My preference would be for worker and consumer control of productive institutions on a local level, instead of private dominance - which is inherently undemocratic, with all of the associative problems. I don't care much about how such a system would be run, as long as it adheres to democratic principle.

I wouldn't have a problem with decentralized, democratic free market capitalism - the problem is it's totally unfeasible in today's world, unless you want to reverse the Industrial Revolution.

True. I would argue that it is the most effective system at achieving a better standard of living on a worldwide field. No system can be perfect.



What's interesting about free market capitalism is that, by itself, it overthrows corrupt, authoritarian third world regimes. Case in point: In India, as you probably know, there exists (although it is slowly dwindling) a caste system that puts the lower classes (the "untouchables") in perpetual economic servitude. They cannot pay their debts, so they are forced into further servitude as a loan to pay of this debt. They cannot escape. However, over the last few years, capitalism has allowed these people an outlet of ideas and an ability to escape the cycle of poverty, and use their abilites to craft their own future. The Internet has also helped this process along. In fact in India, 2/3 of all Internet users are female, and a large portion of these users run their own businesses. So capitalism does overthrow corruption, and those countries that are controlled by the few, find themselves cut off.

Are the improvements in India a result of capitalism or democracy?

If you answer "capitalism" to the previous question, do you think the East Indian Trading Company was a capitalist venture?

If you answer "no" to the second question, how would you classify it?

To DHomme:
Right, first of all - democratic socialism and liberal capitalism are not the same. I’m sure you throw everything less radically communist then you on one big scrapheap, but its not very useful for analysis.

Let me be clear: I oppose exploitation. What I want for poor people is certainly not crumbs, but a decent standard of life and a fair share. The left can join in this reform, and make a difference. I am saddened by your apparent unwillingness to even consider supporting measures that would make the life of the people who need it so much better because of your narrow ideological ideas. That sort of pessimism does not solve problems. It does not build bridges.

But you go on and dream about grabbing “key points” and declaring yourself Presidenté and solving all the words problems in a single term. Go ahead and blame the police force for defending democracy and the elected governments you are trying to overthrow while you are at it. You will fail. In a globalised network society no single point is important enough to grab for more then symbolic reasons. And as for popular support… the vast majority of the people in this thread disagrees with you, and the number is likely to be higher in real life. Face it: there is no support for a bloody revolution as you imagine it. There is support for an agenda of progressive reform and decentralized democratic socialism.

Remember: it was social-democrats and liberals that brought the developed world social welfare systems that meant that workers were no longer treated like animals. It was reformist socialists and social democrats and the left-liberals you hate so much that garnered the forces for universal voting rights. Let’s not forget about people like Martin Luther King or Ghandi who advocated social change through non-violent means. It does not always go as fast as people want to, but with democratic support People Power can make a real difference!

These people have accomplished things to visibly alleviate the lives of the poor and the repressed. You have those people to thank for the fact that you are (presumably) reasonably well-off and able to sit here behind your computer and complain that all of society is wrong.
The fringe anarcho-communists, Stalinists, post-maoists and what not – often sociology students with middle class parents themselves – may have very nice ideas about how things should be ideally but their ideas have never been validated in practice. In fact, these grand thoughts have produced the worst things in humanity: the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, fundamentalist regimes, etc.


The masses have spoken?


Uh-huh, and they vote corporate state.

Communism is the future!

However, that way you get rid of only one authoritarian structure - the government. Big business remains. And even if you say that big business alone does not interfere with a free market economy - and I'd disagree with you on that, it is essentially a command economy under oligarchal control - big business would get the government to do it favors. The result is that the whole system collapses.

First of all, I think it is important to emphasize that with a free market system, it still does need certain goverment regulations in several key areas, that I will briefly outline:

1. Regulations to ensure competition: These include, anti-trust, anti-pooling, anti-monopolization laws, etc.

2. Ethical practices: These include minimum age and wage laws, certain environmental and workplace safety protocal, etc.

Being a free market capitalist does not mean that I endorse the cutthroat economics that you allude to during the Industrial Revolution.

Now, with that said, I believe that if instituted properly, capitalism is essentially self-regulatory. I'm sure you're familiar with the economics outlined by Adam Smith, but again, I'll summarize. Big buisness would not get out of control, nor become essentially a dictatorship. First, competition between companies will keep prices low for consumers. In addition, corporations will be forced to concede to the needs of the PEOPLE and not the other way around, because corporations, inherently, require public buying to keep them afloat. Your cataclysmic scenario about the corporate oligarchy overthrowing society could not possibly happen as long as free market values are emphasized (mainly the lack of government handouts that you describe in your example). If an deviation from free market capitalism and its self regulatory nature could be disasterous, I can agree with you that much. That's why the government must keep itself out of the economy as much as possible. Let the "invisible hand" of market forces keep corporations in check. Ultimately, the consumer will be in charge.

I am aware that pure free market capitalism does not involve government intervention, that is why I said it didn't exist.

Ok, I see your point. You are correct in stating that a true free market capitalist system does not exist. I objected to your statement saying that such a system could NEVER exist. All I want to do is distinguish the improper implementation of free market values in current capitalist countries, from true "libertarian" capitalism, that's all.

My preference would be for worker and consumer control of productive institutions on a local level, instead of private dominance - which is inherently undemocratic, with all of the associative problems. I don't care much about how such a system would be run, as long as it adheres to democratic principle.

I, too, want the worker/consumer to dictate the production. As I said before, if capitalism is properly instituted, that would essentially happend. For example, if enough people didn't want a certain product, say shampoo, they wouldn't buy it and the company would be forced to cease production, and make something either different or better suited to the tastes of the consumer. This is but one example of how the consumer/worker has power over corporations.

Can I suggest that there is no one form of government, economic system or political ideology that is good for every scenario?

It is best to keep plastic in your ideas. As goes the populace, socialism probably would work better for health-care and certain other issues that involve providing necessary human rights to all people.

Free-market capitalism is great for certain businesses, industries and even, on occassion the environment and impoverished.

Aristocracy is a good idea for public works, let the people who know the trade run it.

Et cetera.

Being dogmatic about religion is a mistake. Problem solvers realize they are digging themselves into a hole and stop to think. Ideologues realize they are digging themselves into a hole and ask for a bigger shovel.

The world is too complicated to hope for one, simple, catch-all answer. Every issue should be addressed with logic, reason, and creativity to decide what provides the greatest benefit.

Is that so crazy?

Are the improvements in India a result of capitalism or democracy?

Capitalism, since democracy wasn't an option at the time.

If you answer "capitalism" to the previous question, do you think the East Indian Trading Company was a capitalist venture?

It was an incorrect implementation of capitalist enterprise. Meaning, that the East Indian Trading Company were granted a MONOPOLY privilege on all trade with the East Indies. This is NOT a correct use of free market capitalism because monopolies act against the market force of competition which keeps the system in check. Monopolization must be combated at all costs. This is a free market capitalist perspective.

Monopolization is like having one branch of government get too powerful. Without the checks and balances, a democracy would become dictatorial.

So, your example, in effect, is irrelevant if you are trying to attack the principles of free market capitalism, in that it cites a situation which contradicts what free market capitalism is all about.

What exactly do you mean by "small buisness assistance"?

I agree to a certain extent with what you are saying. Perhaps, I just don't understand how government assistance will further help these Third-Word countries, if in fact, they are as corrupt (as we've already established). I mean, realistically, why would Joe Dictator all of a sudden want to change his mind and start caring for his people economically. IMHO, the only way to overthrow these regimes is to take money out of their pocket. The best way to do this is to let internatinal free market policies take place. People from Third Word countries in compromising economic positions will have greater avenues and chances to earn money and survive without succumbing to the whims of an authoritarian regime. The whole point is that capitalism by itself gets people out of the system of poverty and away from the corruption. The wealthy elite in the countries you mentioned will suddenly find their money dwindling and they will be subsequently FORCED to care for their people or meet a financial ruin.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any truly not developed economies in the world. What I mean by that is twofold.

1. Every country has some sort of economy.
2. Many poorer nations have an economy that is kept feeble by corruption, war, etc.

Capitalism by itself can remedy many of the problems facing the Third Word, without excessive government intervention.

Are you familiar with the history of the United Fruit Company?

i think socialism works bette as long as you don't spend all your money in a nuclear arms race like the Soviet Union

Not really. Idealy, Capitalism is as natural to humans as communism is to ants. Capitalism has always been around in some form since civilization, and as such is the oldest socio-economic system.

Bullshit. Before there was capitalism, there was mercantilism, feudalism, and slavery. Before them, there was a kind of gift economy in many cultures. Capitalism is a relatively modern concept.

Are you familiar with the history of the United Fruit Company?

Yes, it was a case of the government giving handouts to big buisness (essentially). Again, irrelevent.

If you sincerely want to refute free market capitalist views, then use proper examples. Like your previous example, a true free market capitalist would adamantly disagree with what occurred because it disrupts competition.

i think socialism works bette as long as you don't spend all your money in a nuclear arms race like the Soviet Union

Explain how Socialism works better.

Meh. Capitalism is fine, I just think that it is at best a compromise of ethics for greed. After all man only needs a few basic essentials, food, water, women, and the ability to improve himself, everything else that we strive for is a waste unless it is required to help improve the basics. However, capitalism is capable of using greed to counter greed and if monitored can be an alright influence. The real problem with the socialisms is the fact that people are greedy morons but otherwise the ideas and ideals represented are better.

Capitalism, since democracy wasn't an option at the time.

It was an incorrect implementation of capitalist enterprise. Meaning, that the East Indian Trading Company were granted a MONOPOLY privilege on all trade with the East Indies. This is NOT a correct use of free market capitalism because monopolies act against the market force of competition which keeps the system in check. Monopolization must be combated at all costs. This is a free market capitalist perspective.

Monopolization is like having one branch of government get too powerful. Without the checks and balances, a democracy would become dictatorial.

So, your example, in effect, is irrelevant if you are trying to attack the principles of free market capitalism, in that it cites a situation which contradicts what free market capitalism is all about.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your definition of capitalism but there were also Dutch, French and Portuguese companies operating in the East Indies when the EITC was at it's peak. What allowed the EITC to flourish was that it used military might to back up capitalist interests.

With regards to "correct use of free market capitalism" I was under the impression that in a l'aissez faire system whatever will be will be. Isn't exerting controls on a free market a socialist policy?

And with regards to India's caste system. It continues to exist today.

First of all, I think it is important to emphasize that with a free market system, it still does need certain goverment regulations in several key areas, that I will briefly outline:

1. Regulations to ensure competition: These include, anti-trust, anti-pooling, anti-monopolization laws, etc.

2. Ethical practices: These include minimum age and wage laws, certain environmental and workplace safety protocal, etc.

Being a free market capitalist does not mean that I endorse the cutthroat economics that you allude to during the Industrial Revolution.

But the basic problem still remains - the authoritarian structure of corporations, and the problems this causes on a large scale.

Those wise regulations limit the extent of this problem, but they hardly eliminate it.

Now, with that said, I believe that if instituted properly, capitalism is essentially self-regulatory.

But the only way to institute it properly is to limit authoritarian power. If you don't have some sort of a level playing field, free market capitalism starts heading towards glorified industrial feudalism.

When the government starts regulating the economy, inevitably it becomes corrupt, and quite often its corruption benefits those at the top - the rich. The result is you no longer have a level playing field.

When you hold to private enterprise fundamentalism, you end up with powerful corporate structures that can do essentially whatever they want. Competition fades. The environment is destroyed. Workers get paid next to nothing. Decisions seriously affecting the lives of millions of people are made by a small minority.

People aren't geniuses, and those controlling large corporations don't play fair.

Your cataclysmic scenario about the corporate oligarchy overthrowing society could not possibly happen as long as free market values are emphasized

No cataclysmic scenario involved. I'm not talking about what's possible, I'm talking about what is.

A corporation is essentially an oligarchal command economy. Perhaps the easiest way to understand this is looking at what would happen if a corporation monopolized everything and hired everyone.

Ok, I see your point. You are correct in stating that a true free market capitalist system does not exist. I objected to your statement saying that such a system could NEVER exist. All I want to do is distinguish the improper implementation of free market values in current capitalist countries, from true "libertarian" capitalism, that's all.

Well, it can't ever exist, for the reasons I pointed out in my first reply to you.

But to find a bit of common ground, would you agree that the current way economies are run is rather unfair to the average person, and therefore needs to be reformed?

I, too, want the worker/consumer to dictate the production. As I said before, if capitalism is properly instituted, that would essentially happend. For example, if enough people didn't want a certain product, say shampoo, they wouldn't buy it and the company would be forced to cease production, and make something either different or better suited to the tastes of the consumer. This is but one example of how the consumer/worker has power over corporations.

Competition isn't effective enough. Neither is supply and demand.

There are some things people absolutely NEED, and the fact is that when people don't recieve them - and some people aren't in most allegedly "capitalist" countries - something is going wrong, especially when the person is working multiple jobs for negligible pay.

Supply and demand simply doesn't work in that circumstance. I can't decide that this month I'm going to starve because the grocery prices are too high.

And competition doesn't help, either, not if the supply is limited.

What allowed the EITC to flourish was that it used military might to back up capitalist interests.

You don't think the fact that it had a monopoly on the ENTIRE EAST INDIA TRADE had anything to do with it?

With regards to "correct use of free market capitalism" I was under the impression that in a l'aissez faire system whatever will be will be. Isn't exerting controls on a free market a socialist policy?

Not exactly correct. Free market capitalism is not complete l'aissez faire. If you consider ANY limitations on the economy Socialism, then I suppose we are all Socialists. If, however, you consider the more practical controls of a few regulations to ensure competition (something Adam Smith himself wouldn't argue with), then regulation can actually enhance market freedom. Certain regulations prevent corruption. Simple as that.

And with regards to India's caste system. It continues to exist today.

Yes, yes it does. If you read my post pertaining to the caste system you will see that I stated the system is slowly dwindling. An institution that central to a country for such a long period of time will not disappear overnight. Although, huge strides have been made. Hell, in the U.S. the rights of women and blacks took decades to establish.

Yes, it was a case of the government giving handouts to big buisness (essentially). Again, irrelevent.

It is an excellent example of what I am talking about when I say "authoritarian state-corporate partnership," for what it's worth.

And an excellent example also of one good reason why the current form of corporate globalization cannot work.

... the only way to overthrow these regimes is to take money out of their pocket. The best way to do this is to let internatinal free market policies take place. People from Third Word countries in compromising economic positions will have greater avenues and chances to earn money and survive without succumbing to the whims of an authoritarian regime. The whole point is that capitalism by itself gets people out of the system of poverty and away from the corruption.


The United Fruit Company began as a small capitalist venture (producing and selling bananas) but because it is easier to bribe a dictator than it is a democracy they ended up controlling all forms of communication and transportation in several Latin American countries.

I say proper communism is the future, no money, a democratically elected government, and planetary/inter-planetary aid organisations making sure everyone has the food/supplies they deserve, and need.

You don't think the fact that it had a monopoly on the ENTIRE EAST INDIA TRADE had anything to do with it?



Not exactly correct. Free market capitalism is not complete l'aissez faire. If you consider ANY limitations on the economy Socialism, then I suppose we are all Socialists. If, however, you consider the more practical controls of a few regulations to ensure competition (something Adam Smith himself wouldn't argue with), then regulation can actually enhance market freedom. Certain regulations prevent corruption. Simple as that.



Yes, yes it does. If you read my post pertaining to the caste system you will see that I stated the system is slowly dwindling. An institution that central to a country for such a long period of time will not disappear overnight. Although, huge strides have been made. Hell, in the U.S. the rights of women and blacks took decades to establish.

If the caste system is slowly dwindling then that means it still exists. Which means democracy cannot be dismissed as a reason for this change.

The United Fruit Company began as a small capitalist venture (producing and selling bananas) but because it is easier to bribe a dictator than it is a democracy they ended up controlling all forms of communication and transportation in several Latin American countries.

US imperial power played a crucial role, too.

Meh. Capitalism is fine, I just think that it is at best a compromise of ethics for greed. After all man only needs a few basic essentials, food, water, women, and the ability to improve himself, everything else that we strive for is a waste unless it is required to help improve the basics. However, capitalism is capable of using greed to counter greed and if monitored can be an alright influence. The real problem with the socialisms is the fact that people are greedy morons but otherwise the ideas and ideals represented are better.

I thought socialism was an attempt to curtail the fact that people are "greedy morons" by implementing government control over trade. In which case the issue becomes how do you prevent the government from becoming corrupt. Apparently Democratic Socialists believe with "Democracy".

Bullshit. Before there was capitalism, there was mercantilism, feudalism, and slavery. Before them, there was a kind of gift economy in many cultures. Capitalism is a relatively modern concept.
So you're saying that people weren't selling things for very long? I thought that they were doing that since prehistoric times.

US imperial power played a crucial role, too.

At what stage? (provide dates please.)

So you're saying that people weren't selling things for very long? I thought that they were doing that since prehistoric times.

Don't people sell things under communist, socialist, monarchies, empires, etc?

I say that communism is the choice of an enlightened society that has realized that materialistic pleasures are often pointless and a waste of resources. Man only needs 4 things as I previously mentioned: food, water, women and the ability to improve oneself. But until we can decrease greed to a reasonable amount. After all if a few select men are capable of great morality than every child has the ability to grow up to be an ethical individual barring of course mental disease.

At what stage? (provide dates please.)

For just one example, the 1954 overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.

I say that communism is the choice of an enlightened society that has realized that materialistic pleasures are often pointless and a waste of resources. Man only needs 4 things as I previously mentioned: food, water, women and the ability to improve oneself. But until we can decrease greed to a reasonable amount. After all if a few select men are capable of great morality than every child has the ability to grow up to be an ethical individual barring of course mental disease.

I see what you're saying here, we're all gonna be fat!! COOL!! That IS the way forward, I always said it was...fat people will rule the earth yet you thin mother ****'s. Haha. :fluffle:

I don't mean to offend you, Soheran, by responding to your lengthy post with a simple answer, but I think we can understand each other better if I emphasize this one point that you brought up.

And an excellent example also of one good reason why the current form of corporate globalization cannot work.

This may surprise you, but I too, agree that the CURRENT form of corporate globalization cannot work. I have spent a great deal of time in my previous posts attempting to differentiate between the current economic practices and true free market practices--(again, pro-competition, and therefore anti- monopoly, trust, pooling, govt-corp corruption, etc.)

I simply propose a solution that IMHO, will always work, because it does not neglect natural human tendencies, rather it harnesses them for the greater good.

For just one example, the 1954 overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.

Excellent example. One in which John Dulles (Director of the CIA) was a major stock holder in the United Fruit Company. Which demonstrates how a corporation unchecked will often interfere in government if government doesn't interfere first. The question is, who is more likely to act in the best interest of the majority of human beings (living things if your Buddhist) on the planet, corporations or government?

...SNIP...

I simply propose a solution that IMHO, will always work, because it does not neglect natural human tendencies, rather it harnesses them for the greater good.

Is that "Honest" opinion, or "Humble" opinion, because my mum always says, "never trust someone if they have to back up their argument with a "humble" opinion."

I thought socialism was an attempt to curtail the fact that people are "greedy morons" by implementing government control over trade.

Riiight. Let's just put some "greedy morons" in power in a centralized government, and that will fix our problems. ;)

If the caste system is slowly dwindling then that means it still exists. Which means democracy cannot be dismissed as a reason for this change.

The caste system is slowly dwindling because of the monetary options available to those who suffer as a direct result of increased capitalization of India. It's a direct correlation.

I don't mean to offend you, Soheran, by responding to your lengthy post with a simple answer, but I think we can understand each other better if I emphasize this one point that you brought up.

This may surprise you, but I too, agree that the CURRENT form of corporate globalization cannot work. I have spent a great deal of time in my previous posts attempting to differentiate between the current economic practices and true free market practices--(again, pro-competition, and therefore anti- monopoly, trust, pooling, govt-corp corruption, etc.)

I simply propose a solution that IMHO, will always work, because it does not neglect natural human tendencies, rather it harnesses them for the greater good.

Actually it does not surprise me, I expected that response from you. My post was not arguing with what you were saying, it was just making a general point I thought was relevant to this discussion and to a few others on this thread. I think I understand your position quite well, and it seems to be a reasonable one. I just don't think it could sustain itself for very long in reality.

I say that communism is the choice of an enlightened society that has realized that materialistic pleasures are often pointless and a waste of resources. Man only needs 4 things as I previously mentioned: food, water, women and the ability to improve oneself. But until we can decrease greed to a reasonable amount. After all if a few select men are capable of great morality than every child has the ability to grow up to be an ethical individual barring of course mental disease.

How can communism eliminate greed---something so inherently human? If anything, it capitalizes on greed. Just look at any country "attempting" (because as we know true communism has yet to be achieved...wonder why?) to be communist. It either leads to a dictatorship or an oligarchy.

Sure man only needs a few things. But since when has man said "ya, know. I think I'm perfectly content with exactly what I have". Very few. No, man has an innate desire to have more and more.

What if those few select men you refer to become corrupt?

Not many failsafes after that.....

How can communism eliminate greed---something so inherently human? If anything, it capitalizes on greed. Just look at any country "attempting" (because as we know true communism has yet to be achieved...wonder why?) to be communist. It either leads to a dictatorship or an oligarchy.

Sure man only needs a few things. But since when has man said "ya, know. I think I'm perfectly content with exactly what I have". Very few. No, man has an innate desire to have more and more.

What if those few select men you refer to become corrupt?

Not many failsafes after that.....

Ya, know. I think I'm perfectly content with exactly what I have, though a job'd be grand at the moment, so I can carry on having what I've got.

I just don't think it could sustain itself for very long in reality.

Fair enough. I appreciate your honesty. Again, we can only agree to a point. However, I wonder what form of economic policy could last us a long time in your opinion? And why, of course ;) .

Excellent example. One in which John Dulles (Director of the CIA) was a major stock holder in the United Fruit Company. Which demonstrates how a corporation unchecked will often interfere in government if government doesn't interfere first. The question is, who is more likely to act in the best interest of the majority of human beings (living things if your Buddhist) on the planet, corporations or government?

The chicken or the egg? Which corrupts the other first? A pointless question I think, because either way you end up with a whole lot of injustice and inequality. Either way the system must be reformed.

And if one is corruptible, does that not make the other corruptible as well? If A can be corrupted by B, isn't that an incentive for B to cheat, when otherwise B might behave ethically?

As to the answer to the question at the end of your post, who can say?

The answer is getting rid of as many authoritarian structures - including both governments and corporations - as possible.

Fair enough. I appreciate your honesty. Again, we can only agree to a point. However, I wonder what form of economic policy could last us a long time in your opinion? And why, of course ;) .

Decentralized democratic socialism, of course.:) Put politics, the economy, everything but essential personal rights in the hands of the majority. Try to localize things, but don't do it to the point where operating on a national or global level is unfeasible, and don't do it to the point where those in a resource-rich area have vast advantages over those who are not.

Why? Because in my opinion it creates a society as democratic as can be, and when you have radical democracy, corruption is just another word for pursuit of the common good.

The only thing I could see as more democratic would be anarchism, but people are probably too apathetic for that to work effectively, and the use of violent coercion would be too easy.

Ya, know. I think I'm perfectly content with exactly what I have, though a job'd be grand at the moment, so I can carry on having what I've got.

That's good. Because if you need something more...well, TOO BAD. You can't under communism.

And about that job you'd love to have. How would you like it if you, a brillant brain surgeon, gets paid the same amount of money as a toilet cleaner? Sounds fair eh?

The issue with Communism is that it doesn't differentiate between equality and equity.

Decentralized democratic socialism, of course. Put politics, the economy, everything but essential personal rights in the hands of the majority. Try to localize things, but don't do it to the point where operating on a national or global level is unfeasible, and don't do it to the point where those in a resource-rich area have vast advantages over those who are not.

What if the majority votes for my free market capitalist viewpoint? :p

Seriously though. When you say "majority" do you mean majority opinion or the populace as a whole?

After that's clarified I can ask a couple of questions.

I was going to add this to my last post, but considering the fast pace of this thread I don't want to confuse anybody:

I'm not always too fond of the term "democratic socialism." It has its own connotations in today's political world, as a welfare statist ideology somewhat to the left of social democracy, and I'm not sure if I'm too fond of all the implications. If you're going to more or less keep the system we have now, then traditional "democratic socialism" is probably the best way to go, but I don't think we should limit ourselves that way.

I am using the term in a literal sense, that is, socialism that is democratic - a somewhat redundant concept, but one that distinguishes it from the undemocratic statist institutions - and their apologists - that have defamed and distorted the term.

What if the majority votes for my free market capitalist viewpoint? :p

Then I suppose they would have a right to it.

I don't support imposing this system by force, in fact it would be next to impossible for the reason you point out.

Seriously though. When you say "majority" do you mean majority opinion or the populace as a whole?

After that's clarified I can ask a couple of questions.

Well, theoretically the decisions would be made by those most affected by them.

I am willing to admit that I am not completely sure on how best to implement that. I am supportive of localizing authority as much as possible - it makes it easier to deal with and less bloated, and therefore more democratic - but I am also a globalist, because there are certain things that simply CAN'T be done effectively locally, or even nationally. Distribution of resources is one thing. Dealing effectively with pollution is another.

There would NOT be one great and powerful socialist global government. That's totally unfeasible, and frankly undemocratic as well. Local communities shouldn't be forced to go with the global majority - UNLESS it is a crucial issue of human rights.

So, basically, some sort of federal system, ideally with the governments closest to the community having the most influence on the lives of people.

Soheran:

I don't want to detract from the intention of this thread too much, so I'll stick with the economic implications of your ideal government socio-economic stance, rather than bring up government systems. Since you were quick to point out (rightly so) that no government currently exhibits the true free market principles I have illustrated, is there such a government that currently utlitizes yours?

I certainly cannot think of any.

Soheran:

I don't want to detract from the intention of this thread too much, so I'll stick with the economic implications of your ideal government socio-economic stance, rather than bring up government systems. Since you were quick to point out (rightly so) that no government currently exhibits the true free market principles I have illustrated, is there such a government that currently utlitizes yours?

I certainly cannot think of any.

No, there is not.

Not even close, I would say.

Though I am a fan of the governments of Scandinavia.

Though I am a fan of the governments of Scandinavia.

...which employ the heavily centralized, Socialist governments you so carefully have tried to separate yourself from. They are the epitome of the wefare-statist nations.

I am curious as to why you like them so much.

...which employ the heavily centralized, Socialist governments you so carefully have tried to separate yourself from. They are the epitome of the wefare-statist nations.

I am curious as to why you like them so much.

Because they have low unemployment, low inequality, low crime rates, libertarian stances on personal matters, and high living standards.

You are right that they do not exactly fit me ideologically, though. They have managed to evade a lot of the domestic problems that other countries face, which gives them something of an unfair advantage.

But in a world where the favored model is what it is, they are part of the better side of things.

Riiight. Let's just put some "greedy morons" in power in a centralized government, and that will fix our problems. ;)



The caste system is slowly dwindling because of the monetary options available to those who suffer as a direct result of increased capitalization of India. It's a direct correlation.

I thought socialism was an attempt to curtail the fact that people are "greedy morons" by implementing government control over trade. In which case the issue becomes how do you prevent the government from becoming corrupt. Apparently Democratic Socialists believe with "Democracy".

I'm repeating myself because you seemed to neglect the entire argument. Centralized does not mean non-democratic.

The caste system in India is a result of culture more than economics. So it was democracy and the teachings of a communist by the name of Mohandas Gandhi that is causing this change.

The chicken or the egg? Which corrupts the other first? A pointless question I think, because either way you end up with a whole lot of injustice and inequality. Either way the system must be reformed.

And if one is corruptible, does that not make the other corruptible as well? If A can be corrupted by B, isn't that an incentive for B to cheat, when otherwise B might behave ethically?

As to the answer to the question at the end of your post, who can say?

The answer is getting rid of as many authoritarian structures - including both governments and corporations - as possible.

The egg was first.

With regards to your more pertinent question, the incentive to cheat is discouraged by democracy.

Sure man only needs a few things. But since when has man said "ya, know. I think I'm perfectly content with exactly what I have". Very few. No, man has an innate desire to have more and more.


oh really? explain the existence of gathering and hunting cultures. or any other nomadic or semi-nomadic type of society. your 'innate desire' is a purely a product of culture.

Even if capitalism was the "worst" option judging by some arbitrary standard, I would still support it. It is the only system that respects the sovereignty of the individual, and the only truly fair and just system in that regard. The ends do not justify the means, rather the means (individual freedom) justify the ends. (If you believe the ends justify the means you can "justify" what Hitler and many others have done)

Along this same line, the notion of a "greater good" is not something any government should be concerned with. The only legitimate purpose of government is protecting and respecting individual freedom and property and enforcing the rule of law.

The egg was first.

Yes, I know.

With regards to your more pertinent question, the incentive to cheat is discouraged by democracy.

Do you think the current corruption in today's alleged "democracies" is due entirely/mostly to corporations?

There's a degree of truth to that statement, but I think massive, bloated bureaucracies - which is what you'd end up with - are very difficult to hold accountable, and as such members of them will cheat and will be corrupt even with democracies.

(If you believe the ends justify the means you can "justify" what Hitler and many others have done)

How so?

Yes, I know.



Do you think the current corruption in today's alleged "democracies" is due entirely/mostly to corporations?

There's a degree of truth to that statement, but I think massive, bloated bureaucracies - which is what you'd end up with - are very difficult to hold accountable, and as such members of them will cheat and will be corrupt even with democracies.

This is the point I'm trying to make. The democracies of the Americas are alleged. The reason is that the electoral proccess is being decided by the amount of money candidates can raise and, as you mentioned, the lack of local representation. It is easy for the general population to become apathetic towards politics when they feel they have no say in the outcome.

A government that is able to interfere in the economy and in peoples' lives generally creates incentives for people to abuse that power. If a corporation, or anyone else, can get the govt to cripple their competitors with taxes or regulations or can get the govt to subsidise them then it is bound to do so. If they didn't they'd lose out to those who did, the chairman would be fired and they'd hire another chairman with less scruples. The corruption is inevitable because of the incentive structure of interventionist govt.

It's no use blaming "capitalism". The corruption doesn't stem from private property but from the fact that the govt can override private property through taxes and regulations. The only solution is a complete seperation of economy and state - the free market.

If you have a powerful govt then rich and powerful people will seek to control it for their own benefit. How could it possibly be otherwise?

A government that is able to interfere in the economy and in peoples' lives generally creates incentives for people to abuse that power. If a corporation, or anyone else, can get the govt to cripple their competitors with taxes or regulations or can get the govt to subsidise them then it is bound to do so. If they didn't they'd lose out to those who did, the chairman would be fired and they'd hire another chairman with less scruples. The corruption is inevitable because of the incentive structure of interventionist govt.

Right, but can't a corporation be just as corruptible as a government? Moving these capacities from government to coorporation doesn' t reduce the potential for corruption and abuse of power. In fact, if we agree that corruption helps a buisness maximize profit in some cases, we would EXPECT to see corruption in the 'free market': which in fact we actually DO see.

Corporations are just as capable of unethical actions as governments. It is true by moving jurisdiction from government to private entities you are decreasing the ability of government to abuse power: but it also increases the ability of coorporations to abuse these powers. Moreover, at least in a representative democracy we have the ability to 'vote the bums out', which is not something we can necessarily do to corporations (especially in instances of monopoly, cartel, etc). I also believe it is true that by alienate the people from government, which is certainly true of privatization, you increase their political apathy, which means it would be extremely hard to organize any resistance to corporate action.
The only solution is a complete seperation of economy and state - the free market.

Really all you're doing is taking politics out of the hands of people and into the hands of big buisness. Fantastic, now (public) policy is decided by shareholders and boardmemebers, who are incorruptible? Right guys? Right...?

If you have a powerful govt then rich and powerful people will seek to control it for their own benefit. How could it possibly be otherwise?

The same is true of corporate governance. We have seen that corporations are no more incorruptible than governments, and may in fact be MORE corruptible than representative democracies.