Is Capitalism still the answer?

[Divair2]

Which is about as feasible as Nazi Moon bases.

Rather than going "nuh-ugh" over and over why not explain why

There's nothing to explain. Ridiculous things like insanely high taxes wouldn't be voted for by a majority of reps.

[Strawman Capitalist]

You need decently high taxation in order to prevent the corruption of officials.
When an individual or small group of individuals are rich, have their personal living expenses entirely covered etc. And still have billions left over, it becomes trifling for a handful of individuals to completely corrupt a legislature or regulatory body.
Ideally, we need to bring taxes to a point where someone can be rich, very rich, live in mansions and have helicopters and all that kind of shit, and pay upkeep on it all, but cannot single handedly reduce the government or a part of it to cronies with masses of cash.

They worked HARD for their money! They DESERVE to buy politicians if they want!

[Lithuanian Empire]

I personally believe that an anarco-communist society would be the best way to go from here.

Until we use up all the products that capitalism made, meaning we will have to chance to a society that actually makes enough stuff for the current population.

[Springedge]

I don't look at what an economic system attempts to achieve, because if I did, then Socialism and Communism would seem pretty nice. However, we must all look at what such systems have caused and how the countries that followed those systems fared. Communism and socialism have failed. It does not matter if they intended to create a utopia for the typical man; what matters is that they failed to do so. You can blame whatever you want for their failure, but the point remains. You can also say that socialism/communism would only work when the system is used by the entire world, when in reality we cannot ignore the fact that it's rather impossible for all human beings to somehow agree on one system or ideology.


One can also argue that, if the entire world converted to Islam, Islam would then be the 'greatest thing to happen to humanity'. That's what I've heard from most of the people in the country I reluctantly live in. It's mostly similar to what socialists claim. I, however, would prefer factual evidence on how socialism can, in fact, make life better for the people as a whole. So far, I've found none.


Capitalism, however, has been largely successful so far. Standards of life in most capitalist countries have been consistently high. Unlike socialism, it does not blame its incompetence on factors and variables that simply cannot be removed from the equation. I believe in capitalism, because it has actually helped humanity. I realize that it may not be the 'perfect' system - it is made by man and usually such things simply cannot be perfect. However, it has been the best economic system we as a species have ever devised.

[Pilotto]

I don't look at what an economic system attempts to achieve, because if I did, then Socialism and Communism would seem pretty nice. However, we must all look at what such systems have caused and how the countries that followed those systems fared. Communism and socialism have failed. It does not matter if they intended to create a utopia for the typical man; what matters is that they failed to do so. You can blame whatever you want for their failure, but the point remains. You can also say that socialism/communism would only work when the system is used by the entire world, when in reality we cannot ignore the fact that it's rather impossible for all human beings to somehow agree on one system or ideology.


One can also argue that, if the entire world converted to Islam, Islam would then be the 'greatest thing to happen to humanity'. That's what I've heard from most of the people in the country I reluctantly live in. It's mostly similar to what socialists claim. I, however, would prefer factual evidence on how socialism can, in fact, make life better for the people as a whole. So far, I've found none.


Capitalism, however, has been largely successful so far. Standards of life in most capitalist countries have been consistently high. Unlike socialism, it does not blame its incompetence on factors and variables that simply cannot be removed from the equation. I believe in capitalism, because it has actually helped humanity. I realize that it may not be the 'perfect' system - it is made by man and usually such things simply cannot be perfect. However, it has been the best economic system we as a species have ever devised.

Very well said. Good job.

[Great Kleomentia]

I personally believe that an anarco-communist society would be the best way to go from here.

Until we use up all the products that capitalism made, meaning we will have to chance to a society that actually makes enough stuff for the current population.

The problem isnt the amount of stuff made, its where its spent. Right now we have more than enough money, food and other resources for everyone to have a normal life. But whenever someone has more than they need someone else has less than they need.

[Lithuanian Empire]

Until we use up all the products that capitalism made, meaning we will have to chance to a society that actually makes enough stuff for the current population.

The problem isnt the amount of stuff made, its where its spent. Right now we have more than enough money, food and other resources for everyone to have a normal life. But whenever someone has more than they need someone else has less than they need.

First, not really. It's not like our society makes as much as the population needs - it produces more.
Also, that is not the point. I meant that if we were an anarcho-communist society, we would eventually run out of stuff that past capitalism made.

[Great Kleomentia]

The problem isnt the amount of stuff made, its where its spent. Right now we have more than enough money, food and other resources for everyone to have a normal life. But whenever someone has more than they need someone else has less than they need.

First, not really. It's not like our society makes as much as the population needs - it produces more.
Also, that is not the point. I meant that if we were an anarcho-communist society, we would eventually run out of stuff that past capitalism made.

Capitalism makes stuff we dont need. In a anarcho-communist utopia we would have everything we need and live great lives.

[Comalander]

First, not really. It's not like our society makes as much as the population needs - it produces more.
Also, that is not the point. I meant that if we were an anarcho-communist society, we would eventually run out of stuff that past capitalism made.

Capitalism makes stuff we dont need. In a anarcho-communist utopia we would have everything we need and live great lives.

What? If something exists in a Capitalist society, it's because there was a demand for it. That's just economics.

Can you provide an example of what "Capitalism makes" that we don't need?

[Great Kleomentia]

Capitalism makes stuff we dont need. In a anarcho-communist utopia we would have everything we need and live great lives.

What? If something exists in a Capitalist society, it's because there was a demand for it. That's just economics.

Because there is a demand for it it doesn't make it a necessity. We don't need computers, we don't need weapons, we don't need pretty much most of technology. Sure it helps out a lot, but we can live without it, thus it isn't needed. Capitalism doesn't make thins because they are need, but because a profit can be made of it.

[Tehraan]

I don't look at what an economic system attempts to achieve, because if I did, then Socialism and Communism would seem pretty nice. However, we must all look at what such systems have caused and how the countries that followed those systems fared. Communism and socialism have failed. It does not matter if they intended to create a utopia for the typical man; what matters is that they failed to do so. You can blame whatever you want for their failure, but the point remains. You can also say that socialism/communism would only work when the system is used by the entire world, when in reality we cannot ignore the fact that it's rather impossible for all human beings to somehow agree on one system or ideology.


One can also argue that, if the entire world converted to Islam, Islam would then be the 'greatest thing to happen to humanity'. That's what I've heard from most of the people in the country I reluctantly live in. It's mostly similar to what socialists claim. I, however, would prefer factual evidence on how socialism can, in fact, make life better for the people as a whole. So far, I've found none.


Capitalism, however, has been largely successful so far. Standards of life in most capitalist countries have been consistently high. Unlike socialism, it does not blame its incompetence on factors and variables that simply cannot be removed from the equation. I believe in capitalism, because it has actually helped humanity. I realize that it may not be the 'perfect' system - it is made by man and usually such things simply cannot be perfect. However, it has been the best economic system we as a species have ever devised.

I think you don't understand socialism or communism beyond what is known as the soviet system. Because both actually refer too a large base of different groups, people and ideas that only share one particular idea that economic control should be controlled by working people. Most countries where capitalism was 'successful' were ahead of the economic ball game long before capitalism existed, and even they tend to consistently directly violate the principles that market fundamentalists espouse in order to stay there. I'd even argue that is about as successful as the Soviet central plan model was (which to be frank was really bad in end) and it largely suffers from the same problem which is eventual over centralization of economic decision making. This is inevitable and especially provides a negative prospect when you realize that we are stuck in an endless cycle of economic crisis that we constantly try to amend with government intervention and subsidization, in order to keep it from falling apparel. It runs upon continuously escalating exponential growth within to maintain profits rates, something that cannot last nor can be solved either removing or introducing state intervention.

The thing is when socialism based upon workers managing their own work place and economic activity is it generally works well. It is also true that this is generally oppressed and destroyed by power institutions whenever the chance exists or in cases when it is not, you generally don't here about it. The Mondragon Corporation, Argentinian worker owned factories to the Evergreen cooperatives shown that workers ownership and management itself works despite the limitations imposed upon them by the fact that they have to operate within the realm of mixed-economics and market capitalist structures of social interactions. We also know that public investment and institutions can in fact greatly improve the lives of people when done right. We cannot deny the effect that making healthcare available or providing greater technological use and infrastructure though public institutions has had major positive effects upon society regardless of that being the post-WWII corporatist USA, social democratic western-Europe or Stalinist Russia. All managed to achieve major economic growth, reduction of material poverty and generally increased live expectancy greater advances in technology (things like the internet, computer technology, modern medicine, and the like wouldn't have happened without publicly funded R&D), but that itself does not justify the socio-structure of these any societies. It is simply a matter of putting two and two together, that is at least what I believe should be done in order to grow beyond the limitations of our current economic system, no limitations on political or real economic freedom needed, which is what everybody tends to be scare about when they hear the word 'socialism'. But doing so non the less ends up undermining the existing status quo in finance, government and the like. Which is why any and all means have been on the table for power institutions when it comes to suppressing and undermining it.

[Sidh Ohn]

The OP would be an interesting question if we actually still had a real form of capitalism. As it is however, what we have is a system of corporatism which is a different animal all together but that we are constantly told is capitalism.

[Comalander]

What? If something exists in a Capitalist society, it's because there was a demand for it. That's just economics.

Because there is a demand for it it doesn't make it a necessity. We don't need computers, we don't need weapons, we don't need pretty much most of technology. Sure it helps out a lot, but we can live without it, thus it isn't needed.

We could also live on raw meat and insects. We can live in thatch shacks with dirt floors, but is that really the society you strive for? A society where there is no incentive for betterment and or technological advancement?

[Comalander]

The OP would be an interesting question if we actually still had a real form of capitalism. As it is however, what we have is a system of corporatism which is a different animal all together but that we are constantly told is capitalism.

This. Crony Capitalism is not Capitalism.

[Great Kleomentia]

Because there is a demand for it it doesn't make it a necessity. We don't need computers, we don't need weapons, we don't need pretty much most of technology. Sure it helps out a lot, but we can live without it, thus it isn't needed.

We could also live on raw meat and insects. We can live in thatch shacks with dirt floors, but is that really the society you strive for? A society where there is no incentive for betterment and or technological advancement?

What's the point of technological advancement that isn't necessary? The results of the technological advancements are large masses of poor people.

[Divusia]

It was never the answer. Capitalism doesn't, has never, and will never be able to answer to the duties humanity has to nature. In the long run our resources will only be pulled down by greed.

[Comalander]

We could also live on raw meat and insects. We can live in thatch shacks with dirt floors, but is that really the society you strive for? A society where there is no incentive for betterment and or technological advancement?

What's the point of technological advancement that isn't necessary? The results of the technological advancements are large masses of poor people.

No, the result of technological advancement is a world-economy, space travel, huge advances in medicine and food technology. The poor of today are much better off than the wealthy of 1,000 years ago (Thanks to technological advancement).

In an anarcho-Communist society, there would be Polio and a lack of sustainable crops, based on it's supposed abhorrent views on technological advancement.

[Tehraan]

What's the point of technological advancement that isn't necessary? The results of the technological advancements are large masses of poor people.

No, the result of technological advancement is a world-economy, space travel, huge advances in medicine and food technology. The poor of today are much better off than the wealthy of 1,000 years ago (Thanks to technological advancement).

In an anarcho-Communist society, there would be Polio and a lack of sustainable crops, based on it's supposed abhorrent views on technological advancement.

TBH actual anarcho-communism isn't anti technology. In fact a major supporter of it, which he would know if he knew some basics of Kropotkin's writing.

[Great Kleomentia]

What's the point of technological advancement that isn't necessary? The results of the technological advancements are large masses of poor people.

No, the result of technological advancement is a world-economy, space travel, huge advances in medicine and food technology. The poor of today are much better off than the wealthy of 1,000 years ago (Thanks to technological advancement).

In an anarcho-Communist society, there would be Polio and a lack of sustainable crops, based on it's supposed abhorrent views on technological advancement.

No, in a anarcho-communist society we would live like ancient nomadic tribes. We would spend some 2 hours a day gathering fruit and plants to eat and spend the rest of the day doing whatever the fuck we want. We would have mutual care and would help each other out when needed. Why is space travel and other technology needed? I am perfectly capable of spending the rest of my life living in a wooden cabin in the woods without electricity and technology and be as happy as a lamb.

[Divusia]

No, in a anarcho-communist society we would live like ancient nomadic tribes. We would spend some 2 hours a day gathering fruit and plants to eat and spend the rest of the day doing whatever the fuck we want. We would have mutual care and would help each other out when needed. Why is space travel and other technology needed? I am perfectly capable of spending the rest of my life living in a wooden cabin in the woods without electricity and technology and be as happy as a lamb.

Not sure if this was sarcasm or legit nihilist.

[Tehraan]

No, in a anarcho-communist society we would live like ancient nomadic tribes. We would spend some 2 hours a day gathering fruit and plants to eat and spend the rest of the day doing whatever the fuck we want. We would have mutual care and would help each other out when needed. Why is space travel and other technology needed? I am perfectly capable of spending the rest of my life living in a wooden cabin in the woods without electricity and technology and be as happy as a lamb.

Not sure if this was sarcasm or legit nihilist.

I think he's joking.

[Lithuanian Empire]

No, the result of technological advancement is a world-economy, space travel, huge advances in medicine and food technology. The poor of today are much better off than the wealthy of 1,000 years ago (Thanks to technological advancement).

In an anarcho-Communist society, there would be Polio and a lack of sustainable crops, based on it's supposed abhorrent views on technological advancement.

No, in a anarcho-communist society we would live like ancient nomadic tribes. We would spend some 2 hours a day gathering fruit and plants to eat and spend the rest of the day doing whatever the fuck we want. We would have mutual care and would help each other out when needed. Why is space travel and other technology needed? I am perfectly capable of spending the rest of my life living in a wooden cabin in the woods without electricity and technology and be as happy as a lamb.

In prehistoric ages people had a 20 year life expectancy, there were no cities or towns, or agriculture for that matter, always fought for their survival and a failed hunt resulted in death.
Also, considering you use a capitalist innovation to write down these words, yourargument is invalid.

[Great Kleomentia]

No, in a anarcho-communist society we would live like ancient nomadic tribes. We would spend some 2 hours a day gathering fruit and plants to eat and spend the rest of the day doing whatever the fuck we want. We would have mutual care and would help each other out when needed. Why is space travel and other technology needed? I am perfectly capable of spending the rest of my life living in a wooden cabin in the woods without electricity and technology and be as happy as a lamb.

In prehistoric ages people had a 20 year life expectancy, there were no cities or towns, or agriculture for that matter, always fought for their survival and a failed hunt resulted in death.
Also, considering you use a capitalist innovation to write down these words, yourargument is invalid.

You have no way whatsoever to accurately measure how old someone was thousands of years ago. Thus your argument is invalid. Cities and towns arent necessary. I am using a capitalist innovation because i can. You misunderstand, i did not say that i would not use technological advancement if i have the option to, i said that it is in no way a necessity.

[Nervium]

No, in a anarcho-communist society we would live like ancient nomadic tribes. We would spend some 2 hours a day gathering fruit and plants to eat and spend the rest of the day doing whatever the fuck we want. We would have mutual care and would help each other out when needed. Why is space travel and other technology needed? I am perfectly capable of spending the rest of my life living in a wooden cabin in the woods without electricity and technology and be as happy as a lamb.

Not sure if this was sarcasm or legit nihilist.

Why? Is it that impossible to concieve that people who don't have electricity or take part in consumerism can be happy?

[Tehraan]

No, in a anarcho-communist society we would live like ancient nomadic tribes. We would spend some 2 hours a day gathering fruit and plants to eat and spend the rest of the day doing whatever the fuck we want. We would have mutual care and would help each other out when needed. Why is space travel and other technology needed? I am perfectly capable of spending the rest of my life living in a wooden cabin in the woods without electricity and technology and be as happy as a lamb.

In prehistoric ages people had a 20 year life expectancy, there were no cities or towns, or agriculture for that matter, always fought for their survival and a failed hunt resulted in death.
Also, considering you use a capitalist innovation to write down these words, yourargument is invalid.

You know computers are a product of state funded research and development who ended up much later a commercialized product for personal use, right? That doesn't really sound like classic capitalism to me.