Is Capitalism still the answer?

[Nervium]

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 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.

It's also a bullshit argument to just say "lol but you consume", it's intellectually lazy,
of course people consume, it's more pragmatic to not consuming.

[Lithuanian Empire]

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.

Actually, there are ways of knowing how, by dating the half-life of various proteins we can date when they were stopped being made. And scientists use that method.
Also, if I were to choose - modern day society or prehistoric society, I'd definitely pick the modern day/capitalist.

[Tehraan]

You know computers 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.

It's also a bullshit argument to just say "lol but you consume", it's intellectually lazy,
of course people consume, it's more pragmatic to not consuming.

We don't really have an acceptable alternative choice atm. The alternative to living in the current society would be to live as a hermit a cave or in the jungle. It also defeats the whole point of trying to change the existing society as opposed to accepting it as it is.

[Great Kleomentia]

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?

Well to be fair modern society demonizes anyone who refuses to take part in its "advancements", both cultural and technological.

[Great Kleomentia]

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.

Actually, there are ways of knowing how, by dating the half-life of various proteins we can date when they were stopped being made. And scientists use that method.
Also, if I were to choose - modern day society or prehistoric society, I'd definitely pick the modern day/capitalist.

And it has been noted more times that the method isnt exactly accurate.
That's your choice, and i respect your right to have one. I was simply expressing mine, as much as you were yours.

[Lithuanian Empire]

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

Well to be fair modern society demonizes anyone who refuses to take part in its "advancements", both cultural and technological.

Not really.
We don't mind if you decide to be backwards.

[Grenartia]

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.

Socialism and communism haven't failed, because there has been no true socialist (or communist) state (then again, there can't really be such a thing as a communist state, as communism is stateless). The Soviet Onion was not socialist, and not communist. It was more akin to fascism than anything else.

Social democracy (aka, the system found in the Nordic countries), however, is the closest thing to actual socialism, and in many metrics, social democracies are doing better than even the United States.

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?

Extreme economic inequality.

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.

But it takes hold much easier under capitalism than socialism.

Being surprised when crapitalism causes problems is like building a house on the beach and being surprised when a hurricane washes it away.

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'm calling strawman/Poe.

[Solaray]

Yes. But not laissez faire. That's a terrible answer. I like my regulations and safety nets thank you very much.

[Jordsindia]

Capitalism with some socialism played into it, the better system.

[Duvniask]

Capitalism with some socialism played into it, the better system.

How and more importantly, why?

[Great Kleomentia]

Well to be fair modern society demonizes anyone who refuses to take part in its "advancements", both cultural and technological.

Not really.
We don't mind if you decide to be backwards.

I fail to see how any of this makes me backwards.

[Springedge]

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.

I see where you're coming from; but my point still stands. Socialism is more effective when the entire world is being governed according to socialistic economic laws, isn't it? Socialism in one country does not seem to be all that effective - it seems to lead to things I'm not really willing to delve into. Anyways, my point was that, it's impossible to get the entire world to have the same set of opinions and values. Everyone 'thinks', everyone 'believes' and everyone lives according to those beliefs. Those beliefs are not the same for every person on this planet. Socialism itself is noble; I said this at the beginning of my post to make sure I wasn't really against socialism. Again, I agree that, without socialism or some socialistic policies, most countries wouldn't be as great as they are today. I was never debating that.

I was simply debating that, since Socialism and Communism are apparently 'inherently internationalist', they probably would never succeed. Take a look at this very forum; pay attention to the diversity of opinions. Some loathe most of Socialism, some think Capitalism is broken, etc; but they all have one thing in common: They're all mostly unique. My views on most subjects are certainly not the same as some other person's. My point was that you could NEVER get all these people to agree on something as debated as Socialism. Especially when, as most claim, "There was never a truly socialist or communist country." It is one thing to talk about it theoretically, and a completely different thing to witness what it causes in practice. As such, we (people who are skeptical) have nothing to work with on Socialism. Just exactly what evidence is there that Socialism is any better than the currently pursued economic policies in some countries? Also, because of the diversity of, well, human beings, the only way Socialism can be effective is by forcing it on people, as it is/was done with some countries. That leads to more hate and contempt towards Socialism, which would most likely culminate in either revolutions or 'reforms', which usually lead to things that are not really that similar to Socialism at all. So, it's not really an option to force it on people.

Again, I repeat, I am not against Socialism. It, as you've adequately said, works well when it is pursued right; but I feel that the system is too exploitable. Most people may not really want to 'do it right' if it weakens their power/influence politically. And by 'people', I mean governments, institutions, etc. So, I'd much rather it be accepted by the general folk instead of being forced on people.

Sorry for the confusion I may have caused. And sorry for taking so long to reply to you. My internet connection is pretty unstable, unfortunately.
(Also, I may be wrong on some matters. Please tell me if I am.)

[Tehraan]

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.

I see where you're coming from; but my point still stands. Socialism is more effective when the entire world is being governed according to socialistic economic laws, isn't it? Socialism in one country does not seem to be all that effective - it seems to lead to things I'm not really willing to delve into. Anyways, my point was that, it's impossible to get the entire world to have the same set of opinions and values. Everyone 'thinks', everyone 'believes' and everyone lives according to those beliefs. Those beliefs are not the same for every person on this planet. Socialism itself is noble; I said this at the beginning of my post to make sure I wasn't really against socialism. Again, I agree that, without socialism or some socialistic policies, most countries wouldn't be as great as they are today. I was never debating that.

I was simply debating that, since Socialism and Communism are apparently 'inherently internationalist', they probably would never succeed. Take a look at this very forum; pay attention to the diversity of opinions. Some loathe most of Socialism, some think Capitalism is broken, etc; but they all have one thing in common: They're all mostly unique. My views on most subjects are certainly not the same as some other person's. My point was that you could NEVER get all these people to agree on something as debated as Socialism. Especially when, as most claim, "There was never a truly socialist or communist country." It is one thing to talk about it theoretically, and a completely different thing to witness what it causes in practice. As such, we (people who are skeptical) have nothing to work with on Socialism. Just exactly what evidence is there that Socialism is any better than the currently pursued economic policies in some countries? Also, because of the diversity of, well, human beings, the only way Socialism can be effective is by forcing it on people, as it is/was done with some countries. That leads to more hate and contempt towards Socialism, which would most likely culminate in either revolutions or 'reforms', which usually lead to things that are not really that similar to Socialism at all. So, it's not really an option to force it on people.

Again, I repeat, I am not against Socialism. It, as you've adequately said, works well when it is pursued right; but I feel that the system is too exploitable. Most people may not really want to 'do it right' if it weakens their power/influence politically. And by 'people', I mean governments, institutions, etc. So, I'd much rather it be accepted by the general folk instead of being forced on people.

Sorry for the confusion I may have caused. And sorry for taking so long to reply to you. My internet connection is pretty unstable, unfortunately.
(Also, I may be wrong on some matters. Please tell me if I am.)

I don't understand why you think that it always wil. It's not about thinking or acting the same, it's about democratic control and management over commonly owned economic property, living without bosses, a society without class or hierarchal social relations. It's about giving working people around the world the means to control their own economic activity in a meaningfull way as opposed to renting themselves to a boss who maintain the legal entitlement to a monopoly on a given property by right of having the wealth to do so. Workplace democracy, mutual aid and interconnected structures of economic interaction, that doesn't have to be forced upon working people, they'll do it and have done so themselves when given that option, just the same way people have created their own social structures to survive & struggle together against the elements for centuries. But they're now adays often undermined or obstructed by institutions power that demand obedience and conformity to the status quo.

The only cases it has been forced upon people is during the Marxist-Leninist regimes, who simply replaced the owners of capital with the white-collar worker run bureacratic government apperatus. The same way right now the capitalist social-relations are forced upon people around the world, driving them from their lands after local government sold it to corporations and other subsidaries, cutting down forests, forcing poor farmers to compete with industrialized and subsidized western argicultural giants and people being relagated to low pay long hour jobs in the new sweatshop factories as the only means to take care of themselves. I don't call that socialism, the same way lulbertarians claim the latter isn't capitalism, it's devoid of anything that socialism originally meant and why right now socialism is as non-word that is thrown around the same way a fascism is.

We have seen people & communities take control over their own lives and their own resources, many times and always it always worked towards the best interest of everybody, but often ended up destroyed by existing order of power, regardless of colours they carried. The Bolsheviks in Russia destroyed the worker control over the factories, took the land from the peasants who worked it and forced all of them to operate under a stratified, hierarchal and centralized state planning & control structure. In spain the anarchist worker communes and councils were attacked Stalinist communists and nationalist factions alike. In Greece the British reinstalled a right-wing regime after, removing the self-managed structures set up by the anti-facists partisans, the same thing happened during the liberation of Italy, defecting facist bureacrats were put back in place to undermine the society left-wing partigianos were building, as before the cooperatives and communes were attacked by facist militants in the 20s. In the 90s the Mexican government and right-wing militias tried to destroy the Zapatista movement that was taking land and giving back to the native peasants and faciliting an alternative socio-economic, who as we speak have constructed and are constructing a egalitarian and free society.

In the end all social structures fall appart when they can no longer sustain themselves under the technological circumstances and this is what's happening to what's left of capitalism. Welfare, minimum wages, regulations, central banks, those are all there to keep the existing order running, without it the entire economic system would probably have collapsed somewhere in the early 20th century, but those measures themselves do not solve the inherent structural faults of market capitalism, for decades all wealth that was produced has flown towards the top, which has only been excellerated during the crash. Concentrating power both politically and economically, with the inherent issue that it destabilizes and stagnates the economy and detaches the political system from the general population. It has become more profitable to receive tax cuts, to invest useless speculatory derivatives, driving down wages or cutting costs through reduced quality or materials and buying up competitors. Around the world the entire political system has essentially been bought up with concentrated wealth and this is increasingly apperant to people. There is absolute nothing that more or less government can do to really solve this.

The thing is if you give people and communities the ability to run themselves in their own way, you don't need to force anything upon them and you don't destroy diversity in lifestyle, mind and being. And this is what many have been promoting and persuing despite opposition, just same way all liberty and freedoms who do enjoy today have been gained in the past with effort and sacrifices. Else we would still have lived under feudalism and monarchy or whatever social construct came before that. It's worth fighting for until the system bends on breaks from the push the popular will.

[ShadowDragons]

Capitalism is the best system, but we need a safety net to pull everyone up and common sense regulations. Free-market classical liberalism is my favorite, but any type of capitalism is superior to other economic systems.

[Springedge]

I don't understand why you think that it always wil. It's not about thinking or acting the same, it's about democratic control and management over commonly owned economic property, living without bosses, a society without class or hierarchal social relations. It's about giving working people around the world the means to control their own economic activity in a meaningfull way as opposed to renting themselves to a boss who maintain the legal entitlement to a monopoly on a given property by right of having the wealth to do so. Workplace democracy, mutual aid and interconnected structures of economic interaction, that doesn't have to be forced upon working people, they'll do it and have done so themselves when given that option, just the same way people have created their own social structures to survive & struggle together against the elements for centuries. But they're now adays often undermined or obstructed by institutions power that demand obedience and conformity to the status quo.

The only cases it has been forced upon people is during the Marxist-Leninist regimes, who simply replaced the owners of capital with the white-collar worker run bureacratic government apperatus. The same way right now the capitalist social-relations are forced upon people around the world, driving them from their lands after local government sold it to corporations and other subsidaries, cutting down forests, forcing poor farmers to compete with industrialized and subsidized western argicultural giants and people being relagated to low pay long hour jobs in the new sweatshop factories as the only means to take care of themselves. I don't call that socialism, the same way lulbertarians claim the latter isn't capitalism, it's devoid of anything that socialism originally meant and why right now socialism is as non-word that is thrown around the same way a fascism is.

We have seen people & communities take control over their own lives and their own resources, many times and always it always worked towards the best interest of everybody, but often ended up destroyed by existing order of power, regardless of colours they carried. The Bolsheviks in Russia destroyed the worker control over the factories, took the land from the peasants who worked it and forced all of them to operate under a stratified, hierarchal and centralized state planning & control structure. In spain the anarchist worker communes and councils were attacked Stalinist communists and nationalist factions alike. In Greece the British reinstalled a right-wing regime after, removing the self-managed structures set up by the anti-facists partisans, the same thing happened during the liberation of Italy, defecting facist bureacrats were put back in place to undermine the society left-wing partigianos were building, as before the cooperatives and communes were attacked by facist militants in the 20s. In the 90s the Mexican government and right-wing militias tried to destroy the Zapatista movement that was taking land and giving back to the native peasants and faciliting an alternative socio-economic, who as we speak have constructed and are constructing a egalitarian and free society.

In the end all social structures fall appart when they can no longer sustain themselves under the technological circumstances and this is what's happening to what's left of capitalism. Welfare, minimum wages, regulations, central banks, those are all there to keep the existing order running, without it the entire economic system would probably have collapsed somewhere in the early 20th century, but those measures themselves do not solve the inherent structural faults of market capitalism, for decades all wealth that was produced has flown towards the top, which has only been excellerated during the crash. Concentrating power both politically and economically, with the inherent issue that it destabilizes and stagnates the economy and detaches the political system from the general population. It has become more profitable to receive tax cuts, to invest useless speculatory derivatives, driving down wages or cutting costs through reduced quality or materials and buying up competitors. Around the world the entire political system has essentially been bought up with concentrated wealth and this is increasingly apperant to people. There is absolute nothing that more or less government can do to really solve this.

The thing is if you give people and communities the ability to run themselves in their own way, you don't need to force anything upon them and you don't destroy diversity in lifestyle, mind and being. And this is what many have been promoting and persuing despite opposition, just same way all liberty and freedoms who do enjoy today have been gained in the past with effort and sacrifices. Else we would still have lived under feudalism and monarchy or whatever social construct came before that. It's worth fighting for until the system bends on breaks from the push the popular will.

I live in a society in which people can't really take care of themselves. They need a boss, a person with the power to tell or sometimes force them to do what they wouldn't do otherwise. I'm not saying that they don't want to do it, I'm saying that they simply don't know how to do it. Let's face it, most of the people of a lot of the nations around the world have not really reached a level of self-awareness and do not really have an adequate understanding of any of this. Besides, the problem that some people still don't 'want' such an economic system must be addressed. I'll be honest, in the country I live, nobody knows what Capitalism IS. Nobody knows their own country is essentially a Capitalist one. For decades, the people of this oppressed nation have had a 'leader' or a 'boss' to dictate conformity to them; it's been so long that they haven't even thought of how their lives could be if they controlled their own economic activity/production.

What you describe is what I'd like to call an ideal world, with ideal people and, well, people who genuinely care for the wellbeing of other people. I don't really think we are like that. When we formed communities/societies to tackle humanity's greatest obstacles together, we did it because we had a common purpose; we did it to survive. Now, things are different. It's not about survival as much, as we'd all survive under either of the economic models we are analyzing. The 'common purpose' has been eliminated. Some people still retain this sense of purpose, and, well, they form communities as you've already said it. BUT, even amongst those who do, there is no single opinion which they all share. You and I would both probably want some changes done to the current economic models; but your solutions to such issues are most likely different from mine. Now, this isn't about either of us. This is about the people of the world at large. That is my main issue with what I see as Socialism being forced; some people simply do not agree.

Also, I believe that as Socialism is achieved (at least as much as it was in some of the countries you've listed), more corrupt people would eventually gain power. Socialism in itself, as I've heard someone else say, is not sustainable. People with power are only going to want more power. That's something we have to blame our human nature for. That's just my personal opinion, anyway. I've got nothing to back this up, aside from the former governments of a few countries, which Socialists claim weren't really Socialist! Socialism seems to be so easily exploitable by those power-hungry people who simply do not care for the people at all. They just want more power.

Capitalism is not always forced on people. I actually look at Capitalism as I do with different species. It also has evolutionary design. We designed it over such a long time, and even today, it continues to evolve. Capitalism as it exists today, is not how it was a hundred years ago. The system has matured, has been much more complex and intricate over time. I believe that, eventually, Capitalism does have the potential to solve most of the economic hardships that we face today. And by Capitalism, I don't mean how it was when it first emerged as an economic model. Yes, Socialism is important. That's why many Capitalistic countries have taken some of the aspects of Socialism and, well, they follow policies that are pretty much in between the models. Everything's been like this. The system that exists in many countries today is not just one of those. I believe we should utilize both models for economic fruitfulness. Both have their own advantages, and disadvantages. What I'm saying is, we don't necessarily have to destroy the current system to be able to solve our prominent issues.

Unnecessary sacrifice is just that - unnecessary. I think there has to be an alternative to trying to completely replace the current system. We could start with educating the masses, maybe. Many people despise Socialism because of the name! Informed citizenship is the very basis of democracy, isn't it? And if we truly want to achieve Socialism in a democratic matter (i.e. people choosing the system themselves, without it being forced on them), they need to be given the right to choose, and the right to know about their options. That way, nobody would steal all the power. It wouldn't even be too centralized if people knew what Socialism was. People wouldn't allow that. However, that has yet to happen, and I, as well as many others, cannot be too sure of what it would eventually lead to.

[The Scientific States]

Capitalism is the best system, but we need a safety net to pull everyone up and common sense regulations. Free-market classical liberalism is my favorite, but any type of capitalism is superior to other economic systems.

Doesn't classical liberalism usually oppose a safety net?

[Distruzio]

Do you believe the capitalist system is inherently broken? How would you fix it, or what would you replace it with?

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

Nonsense. Capitalism provides the opportunity to bitch about idealist nonsense. Communism does quite the opposite.

[Rovinionland]

Do you believe the capitalist system is inherently broken? How would you fix it, or what would you replace it with?

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

i believe the best way is to continue the free market system, only not only put tons of restrictions, but also set it up so that the richer you are, the higher your income tax. also, once you reach a certain amount of wealth, you get a bunch of new taxes.posting.php?mode=quote&f=20&p=19823552#

[Lithuanian Empire]

Not really.
We don't mind if you decide to be backwards.

I fail to see how any of this makes me backwards.

I mean, you are the one bitching how we don't need any of those new technological inventions and shit, how people demonize anyone who refuses to go to the next level.
Listen, if you don't like our society, don't be a part of our society.

[Conscentia]

Still the answer? It was never the answer.

[Lithuanian Empire]

Still the answer? It was never the answer.

What was the answer?

[Conscentia]

Capitalism is the best system, but we need a safety net to pull everyone up and common sense regulations. Free-market classical liberalism is my favorite, but any type of capitalism is superior to other economic systems.

Clearly you lie. In the sentence immediately preceding that statement you advocate regulations. "Free market" refers to an an unregulated market economy, as opposed to an ordinary market economy or a mixed economy.

[Distruzio]

Capitalism is the best system, but we need a safety net to pull everyone up and common sense regulations. Free-market classical liberalism is my favorite, but any type of capitalism is superior to other economic systems.

Clearly you lie. In the sentence immediately preceding that statement you advocate regulations. "Free market" refers to an an unregulated market economy, as opposed to an ordinary market economy or a mixed economy.

Confusion isn't, necessarily, a lie, brother.

[Conscentia]

Still the answer? It was never the answer.

What was the answer?

Well there's two possible answers:
1. Mad science - divide the world into test groups and test economic models on societies like guinea pigs. (Most would find this answer unethical.)
or
A. Democracy - Let all businesses be co-ops. Co-ops are a nice option most people would be comfortable with, I imagine.

[Rovinionland]

Do you believe the capitalist system is inherently broken? How would you fix it, or what would you replace it with?

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

i believe the best way is to continue the free market system, only not only put tons of restrictions, but also set it up so that the richer you are, the higher your income tax. also, once you reach a certain amount of wealth, you get a bunch of new taxes.posting.php?mode=quote&f=20&p=19823552#

AND WELFARE! yes! Foodstamps, free healthcare, safety nets, all that stuff. plus we need to become mainly agricultural, like in the old days.

AND ABOVE ALL BAN CHEMICALS IN OUR FOOD!