Is Capitalism still the answer?

[Ardoki]

Seems to me that either socialism or capitalism can work perfectly if you have one person or a group of like minded people. Otherwise, I choose capitalism as with our modern society it holds up the best from my perspective. The desire to put as many goods out to as large of a group possible and the need for a strong wealthy middle class ( and few poor people) creates a haelthy market society. Capitalist societes are really bad when everyone's poor and monopolies run the place. Without those problems it will work way better. To each their own though.

Caital, Volume I Read it.

[Lithuanian Empire]

Unlike in politics, in economy the best solution is not the one that people like, it's the one which has the most private control and concurency. A community cannot control a factory, there needs to be a leader who can take the consequences and lead the factory.

"A society cannot control a nation, there needs to be a leader who can take the consequences and lead the nation"

Autocracy is not the best solution. Democracy is. In a democratic business, each employee has a higher stake in the success of the business.

The problem with these utopic ideas is this:
Humans are selfish, greedy pieces of shit. They want as much as they can for themselves.
In a private economy, that's okay, but in a democratic economy, every employee would seek as much gain to themselves, neglecting others. Corruption, stealing and shady work would be almost instantaneous.
Greed is what keeps communism from winning. We are greedy no matter which system we are in.

[Ardoki]

The bourgeois make their profits from exploiting the proletariat, therefore the confiscation of their assets is merely the confiscation of the proceeds of exploitation, it is not theft.

No I understand what you think, I have read Marx, I'm asking explain how a owner-employee trade of labor in exchange for wages is exploitive.

Voluntary trade is by definition mutually beneficial.

Have you ever heard of sweatshops?
The capitalist wishes to make as much profits as possible, therefore he pays his employees only the minimum they need to survive (not the true value of the work) and forces them to work long hours with little safety standards and job security.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

"A society cannot control a nation, there needs to be a leader who can take the consequences and lead the nation"

Autocracy is not the best solution. Democracy is. In a democratic business, each employee has a higher stake in the success of the business.

The problem with these utopic ideas is this:
Humans are selfish, greedy pieces of shit. They want as much as they can for themselves.
In a private economy, that's okay, but in a democratic economy, every employee would seek as much gain to themselves, neglecting others. Corruption, stealing and shady work would be almost instantaneous.
Greed is what keeps communism from winning. We are greedy no matter which system we are in.

Can you prove that greed is inherent to human beings and not, for instance, the state, or money?

[Grykten]

Seems to me that either socialism or capitalism can work perfectly if you have one person or a group of like minded people. Otherwise, I choose capitalism as with our modern society it holds up the best from my perspective. The desire to put as many goods out to as large of a group possible and the need for a strong wealthy middle class ( and few poor people) creates a haelthy market society. Capitalist societes are really bad when everyone's poor and monopolies run the place. Without those problems it will work way better. To each their own though.

Caital, Volume I Read it.

Yes I know. Marx the pro-dictator. Believe it or not but even capitalism shuns exploitation. You can't sell tvs to a nation with nothing but poverty. Capitalism generally lifts people out of poverty to add them to the middle class. It works better for everyone that way.

[Ardoki]

"A society cannot control a nation, there needs to be a leader who can take the consequences and lead the nation"

Autocracy is not the best solution. Democracy is. In a democratic business, each employee has a higher stake in the success of the business.

The problem with these utopic ideas is this:
Humans are selfish, greedy pieces of shit. They want as much as they can for themselves.
In a private economy, that's okay, but in a democratic economy, every employee would seek as much gain to themselves, neglecting others. Corruption, stealing and shady work would be almost instantaneous.
Greed is what keeps communism from winning. We are greedy no matter which system we are in.

Humans are not inherently greedy. The only reasons humans act greedily is because they live in a system that rewards greed (capitalism).
In a system where greed will get you nowhere (socialism or communism) greed will not exist because greed is not necessary and is a waste of time and energy as well as making people dislike you a lot.

[Ardoki]

Caital, Volume I Read it.

Yes I know. Marx the pro-dictator. Believe it or not but even capitalism shuns exploitation. You can't sell tvs to a nation with nothing but poverty. Capitalism generally lifts people out of poverty to add them to the middle class. It works better for everyone that way.

Why on earth would you think of Marx as a dictator, he never once promoted dictatorships or authoritarianism. He in fact hated authoritarianism and dictatorships and his whole philosophy is centered around a stateless and truly democratic society where exploitation is nonexistent.

[Grykten]

Yet other socialist philospohers of the time criticized his authoritarian leanings for no reason then?

[Grenartia]

Of course it would fail. Running everything that requires more than about a dozen people off of direct democracy would cause it to fail. However, that does not justify workplace dictatorship. Representative workplace democracy is the only way to go.



Except, charity ain't that effective, and never was (which is the entire reason we established welfare in the first place, because charity just wasn't fucking doing the job). And jobs would be preferable, but some people can't be employed. To say nothing of the fact that people need some way to survive between jobs.



An involuntarily funded safety net is morally unnacceptable, but involuntarily-caused starvation and exposure (which are what happens by default without welfare) is? Those are some fucked up priorities.

Representative worker democracy (soviet style or otherwise) can work, but what system is used is up to those who paid for and continue to support and maintain the means of production (ie. the owners). If that's the workers than fine, but if not or if that's higher level management then demand a stock option and become an owner.


1. I have survived in between jobs. I lived in my jeep for a month. It was hard and I was totaly broke but I was able to do odd jobs and find ways to get food, and entirely without charity. 2. But also consider that prior to LBJs establishment of the modern welfare state poverty was falling by an average of 1% a year, and now after 50 years of the safety net is once again at massive levels.


I believe in Negetive rights, while you seem to be expounding positive rights. 3. You believe in rights "to things" (ie. the right to food) while I believe in rights "to be free of things" (like the theft of your property). 4. Even living below the poverty linei still go get mcchickens for homeless guys, but 5. they have no right to those mcchickens. I worked hard to aquire currency which I use to buy those mcchickens, and I voluntarily give them to panhandlers.

98% of the worlds surface is uninhabited. Even removing ocean and desert and mountain regions 6. there are vast swathes of land where an individual can create a living for themself. 7. You can survive in the North Woods up in Canada, people have for 20,000 years.

1. Lucky you. Not everybody has your luck. Which is all that enabled you to actually get those opportunities.

2. And?

3. Both are equally important, and in certain cases, are intertwined. What use is the right to life without the right to the basic necessities necessary to sustain it?

4. Good for you. That makes you a decent person.

5. Not the specific right to McChickens, but they do have a right to food, water, and shelter, among the other basic necessities. A right that is being denied recognition.

6. Many significant portions of which are owned by somebody else, and thus the use of which would be squatting/trespassing.

7. Shouldn't have to, even disregarding the fact that not everybody can actually afford (or are even physically able, assuming your response to not being able to afford is to just hike through the wilderness) to get to Canada.

So, what I'm getting from you is that you think that those lazy poor people should suck it up because you lived in your car for a month and that was hard and that you don't seem to understand just how exactly it is that governments function with regard to laws and rights and whatnot. You also seem adept at using words you can almost spell in a way that I'm sure seems impressive until you have an intermediate understanding of the English language.

1. I'm dislexic and using an iPod so proof reading for my spelling is a bit difficult.

2. I'm saying that one mans position no matter how bad dosnt entitle him to steal from someone who has in no way harmed him.

3. I understand exactly how governments work, and it disgusts me.

Nobody's advocating theft.

A cooperative does not inherently mean direct democracy, it simply means a more democratic power system will appear.

I mean FaSinPat is a cooperative ceramic factory and it's doing fine. Albeit, the workers were already heavily organized beforehand via unions and such. If someone just walked over to a factory and, without setting up a means of organization beforehand, made it into a cooperative, it just might end up like the scenario you described.

Is such a co-op feisable? Yes and I would certainly have no problem with one, I just think you should be able to form a non-co-op if you want. If co-ops are so superior to private industry idk why Marxists are so afraid of letting the latter exist when the free market would kill the less effective and efficient system.

I'm not a marxist per se, but the issue is that socialist systems cannot get off the ground without some sort of intervention or protection from capitalist systems, because they're more established, and much like a bunch of older, taller, undesirable plants in a garden, they deprive and starve the newer, less well established, desirable plants.

The bourgeois make their profits from exploiting the proletariat, therefore the confiscation of their assets is merely the confiscation of the proceeds of exploitation, it is not theft.

No I understand what you think, I have read Marx, I'm asking explain how a owner-employee trade of labor in exchange for wages is exploitive.

Voluntary trade is by definition mutually beneficial.

Except, its hardly as voluntary or mutually beneficial as you'd think.

"A society cannot control a nation, there needs to be a leader who can take the consequences and lead the nation"

Autocracy is not the best solution. Democracy is. In a democratic business, each employee has a higher stake in the success of the business.

The problem with these utopic ideas is this:
Humans are selfish, greedy pieces of shit. They want as much as they can for themselves.
In a private economy, that's okay, but in a democratic economy, every employee would seek as much gain to themselves, neglecting others. Corruption, stealing and shady work would be almost instantaneous.
Greed is what keeps communism from winning. We are greedy no matter which system we are in.

Greed, like violence and other forms of barbarism left over from our uncivilized past living in trees, needs to be curbed. Capitalism does nothing to discourage greed, and in fact, actively encourages it and claims its a good thing, much like fascism claims that violence is a good thing.

[North Yakistan]

No I understand what you think, I have read Marx, I'm asking explain how a owner-employee trade of labor in exchange for wages is exploitive.

Voluntary trade is by definition mutually beneficial.

Have you ever heard of sweatshops?
The capitalist wishes to make as much profits as possible, therefore he pays his employees only the minimum they need to survive (not the true value of the work) and forces them to work long hours with little safety standards and job security.

Sweatshops exist only because of an overabundance of available cheap labor. The value of any object or service is relative, based on a myriad of factors including supply and demand. The value of a finished product is not equivalent to that of the labor needed to create it because there are the cost of creating and maintaining the means of production, the acquisition of natural resources to create the product, and transportation.

Sweatshops exist because of an overabundance of available labor which makes strikes less effective.

[Grykten]

Sweatshops also exist because the countries they are in do nothing to stop them and even encourage them. for example, maquiladoras, or some chinese factories.

[Ardoki]

Yet other socialist philospohers of the time criticized his authoritarian leanings for no reason then?

He was slightly authoritarian before the Paris Commune. After the Paris Commune however he changed his views and called for the immediate abolishment of the state by the workers (rather than his previous view of the workers taking over the state and using it themselves before the achievement of communism, which is not authoritarian by today’s standards, if it is then Switzerland is a dictatorship also since it has a state. The reason he was seen as authoritarian by anarchists is because he supported the use of the state earlier.).

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/

[Ardoki]

Have you ever heard of sweatshops?
The capitalist wishes to make as much profits as possible, therefore he pays his employees only the minimum they need to survive (not the true value of the work) and forces them to work long hours with little safety standards and job security.

Sweatshops exist only because of an overabundance of available cheap labor. The value of any object or service is relative, based on a myriad of factors including supply and demand. The value of a finished product is not equivalent to that of the labor needed to create it because there are the cost of creating and maintaining the means of production, the acquisition of natural resources to create the product, and transportation.

Sweatshops exist because of an overabundance of available labor which makes strikes less effective.

And that is somehow not a problem with/of capitalism?

[Ardoki]

Sweatshops also exist because the countries they are in do nothing to stop them and even encourage them. for example, maquiladoras, or some chinese factories.

And that has nothing to do with capitalism?

[North Yakistan]

Yes I know. Marx the pro-dictator. Believe it or not but even capitalism shuns exploitation. You can't sell tvs to a nation with nothing but poverty. Capitalism generally lifts people out of poverty to add them to the middle class. It works better for everyone that way.

Why on earth would you think of Marx as a dictator, he never once promoted dictatorships or authoritarianism. He in fact hated authoritarianism and dictatorships and his whole philosophy is centered around a stateless and truly democratic society where exploitation is nonexistent.

Carl Marx was a parasitic member of the bourgeoise if there ever was one. In his life he applied for exactly one job (a railroad clerk) and lived firstly off of his own family, then his wifes, then Ingles. He had a house servant whom he never paid a penny, impregnated, and then refused to support in any way.

The man is held up as a quasi-demigod among communists and he was never once a member of the proletariat

[Ardoki]

Why on earth would you think of Marx as a dictator, he never once promoted dictatorships or authoritarianism. He in fact hated authoritarianism and dictatorships and his whole philosophy is centered around a stateless and truly democratic society where exploitation is nonexistent.

Carl Marx was a parasitic member of the bourgeoise if there ever was one. In his life he applied for exactly one job (a railroad clerk) and lived firstly off of his own family, then his wifes, then Ingles. He had a house servant whom he never paid a penny, impregnated, and then refused to support in any way.

The man is held up as a quasi-demigod among communists and he was never once a member of the proletariat

Who is Carl Marx and who is Ingles?

[Grykten]

The whole violent revolution thing , the rule of the proletariat ( let's replace tyranny by minority with tyranny by majority), he wasn't exatly soft with his ideas.

[Lithuanian Empire]

The problem with these utopic ideas is this:
Humans are selfish, greedy pieces of shit. They want as much as they can for themselves.
In a private economy, that's okay, but in a democratic economy, every employee would seek as much gain to themselves, neglecting others. Corruption, stealing and shady work would be almost instantaneous.
Greed is what keeps communism from winning. We are greedy no matter which system we are in.

Can you prove that greed is inherent to human beings and not, for instance, the state, or money?

Did greed exist in ancient societies? Or Middle Ages? When there was no money or capitalism?
Yes.
And even if it isn't inherent, now it is so deep in our minds it's impossible to remove it.
Greed and selfishness exists in our society, it existed in socialist societies, it existed in feudal societies, it existed in ancient societies, maybe, nust maybe not in orimitive tribes, but after 5000 years, it's a part of our society.
Just look at the children today.

[North Yakistan]

Sweatshops exist only because of an overabundance of available cheap labor. The value of any object or service is relative, based on a myriad of factors including supply and demand. The value of a finished product is not equivalent to that of the labor needed to create it because there are the cost of creating and maintaining the means of production, the acquisition of natural resources to create the product, and transportation.

Sweatshops exist because of an overabundance of available labor which makes strikes less effective.

And that is somehow not a problem with/of capitalism?

Its not, it's a problem of population growth brought on by industrialization which as we have seen in the west eventually falls off.

I certainly don't like sweatshops but working in a sweatshop its obviously better than starving otherwise these folks would choose to starve. Is it good? No, but you don't have a right to someone else's stuff.

[Ardoki]

Why on earth would you think of Marx as a dictator, he never once promoted dictatorships or authoritarianism. He in fact hated authoritarianism and dictatorships and his whole philosophy is centered around a stateless and truly democratic society where exploitation is nonexistent.

Carl Marx was a parasitic member of the bourgeoise if there ever was one. In his life he applied for exactly one job (a railroad clerk) and lived firstly off of his own family, then his wifes, then Ingles. He had a house servant whom he never paid a penny, impregnated, and then refused to support in any way.

The man is held up as a quasi-demigod among communists and he was never once a member of the proletariat

There is no proof that Marx was the father of Freddy Demuth, it is only speculation.

Just because Marx was not a member of the proletariat does not discredit his views, many other members of the bourgeois were/are communists.

[Lithuanian Empire]

No I understand what you think, I have read Marx, I'm asking explain how a owner-employee trade of labor in exchange for wages is exploitive.

Voluntary trade is by definition mutually beneficial.

Have you ever heard of sweatshops?
The capitalist wishes to make as much profits as possible, therefore he pays his employees only the minimum they need to survive (not the true value of the work) and forces them to work long hours with little safety standards and job security.

What, you think in communist societies it doesn't exist?
It does.
You still need to give off all your work results and gain a wage, just that you give them to the state, not a private person.

[Grykten]

Sweatshops also exist because the countries they are in do nothing to stop them and even encourage them. for example, maquiladoras, or some chinese factories.

And that has nothing to do with capitalism?

No, the same thing happens under any system at that point in development. The explotation always exists because a few people are being corrupt. Capitalism is being stalled here because no one is encouraging the growth of a wealthier middle class. This is bad capitalism which is not the most common and definitely not the default.

[Ardoki]

Have you ever heard of sweatshops?
The capitalist wishes to make as much profits as possible, therefore he pays his employees only the minimum they need to survive (not the true value of the work) and forces them to work long hours with little safety standards and job security.

What, you think in communist societies it doesn't exist?
It does.
You still need to give off all your work results and gain a wage, just that you give them to the state, not a private person.

Communism is stateless as well as moneyless. You obviously have no idea what communism is, next time you talk about actually know what it is.

[North Yakistan]

Carl Marx was a parasitic member of the bourgeoise if there ever was one. In his life he applied for exactly one job (a railroad clerk) and lived firstly off of his own family, then his wifes, then Ingles. He had a house servant whom he never paid a penny, impregnated, and then refused to support in any way.

The man is held up as a quasi-demigod among communists and he was never once a member of the proletariat

Who is Carl Marx and who is Ingles?

My apologies for misspelling your demigods, Karl and Engles.

It's late and I have dislexia. And that's besides the point, because you knew of whom I spoke

[Ardoki]

And that has nothing to do with capitalism?

No, the same thing happens under any system at that point in development. The explotation always exists because a few people are being corrupt. Capitalism is being stalled here because no one is encouraging the growth of a wealthier middle class. This is bad capitalism which is not the most common and definitely not the default.

It is what capitalism inevitably turns into.