Is Capitalism still the answer?

[North Yakistan]

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid ... 703AARZKGv
This is the type of argument you are using.
Read it.

It was not an adhoc, there is a difference between delegates and representatives. You refused to acknowledge that.

It dosnt matter if you cannot opt out of it it is a state.

[Ardoki]

So should I use council democracy or perhaps direct democracy instead?

It dosnt matter they are all forms of states.

By only your warped definition they are.

[North Yakistan]

False Australia IS state capitolist, the state intervenes in the market.

False without the state to prop up monopolies or taxes workers could buy product at true market value without added tax load.

No. That's not state capitalist. The state doesn't own the means of production (which is the definition of state capitalism).

No. They'd have to buy everything at whatever the corporations demand.

It won't be overcome. Scarcity means that there is a limited amount of anything. It is impossible to make something out of nothing.

Yes. However, with space exploration, travel, and resource exploitation, the amount of resources avaliable increases to the point of being effectively limitless.

What kind of corruption? Please explain.

Monopolies ( even a single giant monopoly), corporate personhood, corporations becoming government, corporations abusing human rights, etc. With enough money, they could do anything without negative consequences (including suppressing dissent and competition). Basically, McDonalds, in an ancap society, have the potential (and indeed, would have the opportunity) to become like Russia under Stalin. Please. Lets not make the name Ronald McDonald be spoken with the same level of contempt as Kim Jong Il.

And at that time the human population will dwarf the current one.

Not inherently. Not at all. Hell, we could do that shit today if humanity as a whole could manage to get our thumbs out of our asses.

Ding ding ding the magic question

Which is why I can't support communism. Socialism, yes, but not communism. I agree with a classless society, I just don't find myself being able to convince myself that moneylessness and statelessness are at all desireable.

Dosnt change the fact post scarcity is a childlike fantasy with no basis in reality

Except, that's not the case.

And yet where will the resources come from? We have finite quantitys of metals, foscil fuels, ect.

And it will be centuries before mining GOLD from asteroids is even possible, many more before its evonomicly feisable, and many more still before its so for Iron, Zinc, ect.

Lel. Such pessimism.

No. There is finite amounts of metals on earth.

You don't need infinite materials and energy for post scarcity. Just more than the current human population could possibly exhaust. Which isn't infinite.

Lots of people don't have the necisary understanding of economics to regulate such a complex system.

The invisible hand of the market is far better at resource alocation than people.

Lel, you actually believe that load of horseshit? That the ghost hand is some sort of nigh- omnipotent and omniscient deity that is somehow able to discern who deserves what, how much, and when? Its a more ridiculous proposition than Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design.

To sum it all up:

You totaly lack understanding of economics.

State intervention in the markets is not free market.

Money which is not accepted has 0 value so if everyone hates you good luck buying stuff.

Corporate personhood is a product of the state.

[Ardoki]

I shall leave now since you haven't countered any of my main points, instead you argued over several definitions. I understand that you love your ideology so much that you refuse to see reason or take part in debates. I admit I made one scientific mistake, however none of you countered any of my main arguments sufficiently, you instead ranted on how corruption doesn’t exist under capitalism and therefore communism is horrible. Plus none of you know what communism is or how it works.

You could have at least read the links I provided you (it explained many of the things you talked about), it would have eliminated many posts you and I had to make.

[Lithuanian Empire]

I shall leave now since you haven't countered any of my main points, instead you argued over several definitions. I understand that you love your ideology so much that you refuse to see reason or take part in debates. I admit I made one scientific mistake, however none of you countered any of my main arguments sufficiently, you instead ranted on how corruption doesn’t exist under capitalism and therefore communism is horrible. Plus none of you know what communism is or how it works.

You could have at least read the links I provided you (it explained many of the things you talked about), it would have eliminated many posts you and I had to make.

What links?
Also, you were ad hocing and usng utopic ideas all the time.

[North Yakistan]

It dosnt matter they are all forms of states.

By only your warped definition they are.

By definition a state is an entity which exercises a legitimate monopoly on the use of force, which the supreme soviet holds in this case.

[Ardoki]

I shall leave now since you haven't countered any of my main points, instead you argued over several definitions. I understand that you love your ideology so much that you refuse to see reason or take part in debates. I admit I made one scientific mistake, however none of you countered any of my main arguments sufficiently, you instead ranted on how corruption doesn’t exist under capitalism and therefore communism is horrible. Plus none of you know what communism is or how it works.

You could have at least read the links I provided you (it explained many of the things you talked about), it would have eliminated many posts you and I had to make.

What links?
Also, you were ad hocing and usng utopic ideas all the time.

I posted several several pages back. It was obvious you didn't read them since you all made stupid and ridiculous posts which you wouldn’t have had to make if you read the links.

[Ardoki]

By only your warped definition they are.

By definition a state is an entity which exercises a legitimate monopoly on the use of force, which the supreme soviet holds in this case.

Technically it is not the Supreme Soviet but the people who hold the legitimate monopoly on force.

[North Yakistan]

What links?
Also, you were ad hocing and usng utopic ideas all the time.

I posted several several pages back. It was obvious you didn't read them since you all made stupid and ridiculous posts which you wouldn’t have had to make if you read the links.

I read them they are just BS

[Ardoki]

I posted several several pages back. It was obvious you didn't read them since you all made stupid and ridiculous posts which you wouldn’t have had to make if you read the links.

I read them they are just BS

Is that all? No deconstructing of the pages, just an unverifiable claim?

[Grenartia]

I disagree, with the right technology we could create elements and other products in a lab.

... You have not even the most basic understanding of chemistry do you.

And that could never be economically feisable. The amount of energy needed to add 1 proton to one atom in a lab would be insane, not to mention the cost of the lab.

You have managed to come up with a statement even more detached from practical reality than post scarcity economics. I salute you.

You know, somebody in the early 19th century would've had the same load of bullshit to say about things like electricity.

I disagree, with the right technology we could create elements and other products in a lab.

The laws of physics say that you cannot create matter or energy, just swap the both.
You are just using ad hoc logic to stay here.

Making new elements does not violate the conservation of matter and energy. Anybody with a basic high school science education knows that.

What do you mean people don't care about other people? I don't know where you get that from but it is incredibly wrong and a very foolish statement.

The vast majority of human care about other people, and even those who don't would be willing to help other people if it helped themselves.

1. Smart phones and laptops don't go against the laws of physics.

2. In all of human history we have never once added a proton to an atom.

3. If we ever do it will cost 10s of millions in electricity in a billion dolar facility. For 1 Atom! Its not not ever will be feisable.

1. Neither does using the building blocks of atoms to assemble new elements.

2. Hate to break it to you, but we've been doing it since 1936: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_elements

3. They said the same about electricity. Also, you've just got to figure out how to make them in bulk.

Could you please tell me which law of physics that is?

Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

But it can be changed (or converted to energy (and theoretically converted from energy, though that's not yet been done)), which is all synthesis does.

[Ardoki]

... You have not even the most basic understanding of chemistry do you.

And that could never be economically feisable. The amount of energy needed to add 1 proton to one atom in a lab would be insane, not to mention the cost of the lab.

You have managed to come up with a statement even more detached from practical reality than post scarcity economics. I salute you.

You know, somebody in the early 19th century would've had the same load of bullshit to say about things like electricity.

The laws of physics say that you cannot create matter or energy, just swap the both.
You are just using ad hoc logic to stay here.

Making new elements does not violate the conservation of matter and energy. Anybody with a basic high school science education knows that.

1. Smart phones and laptops don't go against the laws of physics.

2. In all of human history we have never once added a proton to an atom.

3. If we ever do it will cost 10s of millions in electricity in a billion dolar facility. For 1 Atom! Its not not ever will be feisable.

1. Neither does using the building blocks of atoms to assemble new elements.

2. Hate to break it to you, but we've been doing it since 1936: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_elements

3. They said the same about electricity. Also, you've just got to figure out how to make them in bulk.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

But it can be changed (or converted to energy (and theoretically converted from energy, though that's not yet been done)), which is all synthesis does.

Thank you. It is really hard to debate with these people, they ignore most of the things you say.

[Grenartia]

No. That's not state capitalist. The state doesn't own the means of production (which is the definition of state capitalism).

No. They'd have to buy everything at whatever the corporations demand.



Yes. However, with space exploration, travel, and resource exploitation, the amount of resources avaliable increases to the point of being effectively limitless.



Monopolies ( even a single giant monopoly), corporate personhood, corporations becoming government, corporations abusing human rights, etc. With enough money, they could do anything without negative consequences (including suppressing dissent and competition). Basically, McDonalds, in an ancap society, have the potential (and indeed, would have the opportunity) to become like Russia under Stalin. Please. Lets not make the name Ronald McDonald be spoken with the same level of contempt as Kim Jong Il.



Not inherently. Not at all. Hell, we could do that shit today if humanity as a whole could manage to get our thumbs out of our asses.



Which is why I can't support communism. Socialism, yes, but not communism. I agree with a classless society, I just don't find myself being able to convince myself that moneylessness and statelessness are at all desireable.



Except, that's not the case.



Lel. Such pessimism.



You don't need infinite materials and energy for post scarcity. Just more than the current human population could possibly exhaust. Which isn't infinite.



Lel, you actually believe that load of horseshit? That the ghost hand is some sort of nigh- omnipotent and omniscient deity that is somehow able to discern who deserves what, how much, and when? Its a more ridiculous proposition than Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design.

To sum it all up:

You totaly lack understanding of economics.

State intervention in the markets is not free market.

Money which is not accepted has 0 value so if everyone hates you good luck buying stuff.

Corporate personhood is a product of the state.

I understand it better than you.

No. Corporate personhood is a product of corporate greed.

I don't even know where that money comment is coming from.

[North Yakistan]

To sum it all up:

You totaly lack understanding of economics.

State intervention in the markets is not free market.

Money which is not accepted has 0 value so if everyone hates you good luck buying stuff.

Corporate personhood is a product of the state.

I understand it better than you.

No. Corporate personhood is a product of corporate greed.

I don't even know where that money comment is coming from.

You obviously don't.

And if an individual engages in immoral activity to the point noone will accept his money he has no money. If a corporation cannot buy things because people refuse to associate with it it dies.

And no corporate personhood was created by the state to shield investors from potential losses.

[Grenartia]

You know, somebody in the early 19th century would've had the same load of bullshit to say about things like electricity.



Making new elements does not violate the conservation of matter and energy. Anybody with a basic high school science education knows that.



1. Neither does using the building blocks of atoms to assemble new elements.

2. Hate to break it to you, but we've been doing it since 1936: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_elements

3. They said the same about electricity. Also, you've just got to figure out how to make them in bulk.



But it can be changed (or converted to energy (and theoretically converted from energy, though that's not yet been done)), which is all synthesis does.

Thank you. It is really hard to debate with these people, they ignore most of the things you say.

Yeah. I know the feeling.

I understand it better than you.

No. Corporate personhood is a product of corporate greed.

I don't even know where that money comment is coming from.

1. You obviously don't.

2. And if an individual engages in immoral activity to the point noone will accept his money he has no money. If a corporation cannot buy things because people refuse to associate with it it dies.

3. And no corporate personhood was created by the state to shield investors from potential losses.

1. Of course, that's what you'd say if you were so ignorant you thought you were right.

2. Except, if a corporation has a total monopoly on everything (which there's nothing to prevent in an ancap dystopia), nobody will have any choice but to continue spending there.

3. No, and that excuse was just manufactured by corporations to scape goat the state.

[North Yakistan]

Thank you. It is really hard to debate with these people, they ignore most of the things you say.

Yeah. I know the feeling.

1. You obviously don't.

2. And if an individual engages in immoral activity to the point noone will accept his money he has no money. If a corporation cannot buy things because people refuse to associate with it it dies.

3. And no corporate personhood was created by the state to shield investors from potential losses.

1. Of course, that's what you'd say if you were so ignorant you thought you were right.

2. Except, if a corporation has a total monopoly on everything (which there's nothing to prevent in an ancap dystopia), nobody will have any choice but to continue spending there.

3. No, and that excuse was just manufactured by corporations to scape goat the state.

1. You used it first.

2. The vast majority of monopolies are created via the state and those that are not are remarkable seceptable to new competition. One corporation could never realistically aquire a monopoly in every industry or even every major one.

3. Source? Corporate personhood relies on recognition by a monopolized state justice system.

[Ordinary People]

I disagree, with the right technology we could create elements and other products in a lab.

... You have not even the most basic understanding of chemistry do you.

And that could never be economically feisable. The amount of energy needed to add 1 proton to one atom in a lab would be insane, not to mention the cost of the lab.

You have managed to come up with a statement even more detached from practical reality than post scarcity economics. I salute you.

... most of the elements above Uranium are created in labs because they occur very rarely in nature, and many of those that are created in labs are not found naturally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_ ... c_elements

[Ardoki]

... You have not even the most basic understanding of chemistry do you.

And that could never be economically feisable. The amount of energy needed to add 1 proton to one atom in a lab would be insane, not to mention the cost of the lab.

You have managed to come up with a statement even more detached from practical reality than post scarcity economics. I salute you.

... most of the elements above Uranium are created in labs because they occur very rarely in nature, and many of those that are created in labs are not found naturally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_ ... c_elements

Thank you.

[Grenartia]

Yeah. I know the feeling.



1. Of course, that's what you'd say if you were so ignorant you thought you were right.

2. Except, if a corporation has a total monopoly on everything (which there's nothing to prevent in an ancap dystopia), nobody will have any choice but to continue spending there.

3. No, and that excuse was just manufactured by corporations to scape goat the state.

1. You used it first.

2. The vast majority of monopolies are created via the state and 2B. those that are not are remarkable seceptable to new competition. 2C. One corporation could never realistically aquire a monopoly in every industry or even every major one.

3. Source? Corporate personhood relies on recognition by a monopolized state justice system.

1. No, you started it.

2A. And the state controls and heavily regulates them, and the state is controlled by its constituents

2B. Source? Also, hard to create new competition when there's nothing preventing them from literally destroying said competition.

2C. Not when there's a state, no. But without a state, there's nothing preventing it.

3. No. That's just an excuse crafted by the corporations.

[Conscentia]

"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.

People have counter-arguments: http://www.workers.org/2006/us/greedy-0223/

It's not a utopic idea, as co-operatives already exist and have been successful successful (The Co-operative Group for example has existed for 170 years, and today earns a revenue of over £10 billion). The problem is that in our cultures private ownership has become normalized, and people are largely ignorant of alternatives and how they could work.

[Lithuanian Empire]

You know, somebody in the early 19th century would've had the same load of bullshit to say about things like electricity.



Making new elements does not violate the conservation of matter and energy. Anybody with a basic high school science education knows that.



1. Neither does using the building blocks of atoms to assemble new elements.

2. Hate to break it to you, but we've been doing it since 1936: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_elements

3. They said the same about electricity. Also, you've just got to figure out how to make them in bulk.



But it can be changed (or converted to energy (and theoretically converted from energy, though that's not yet been done)), which is all synthesis does.

Thank you. It is really hard to debate with these people, they ignore most of the things you say.

Look who's talking.

[United Republic of Gamers]

There really is no better one since neither can absolutely be proven better than the other. It all depends on what the people want. Do they want a classless society controlled by the government? Do they want free enterprise? Do they want religion? It's all matter of opinion. What's my opinion? The people and the government should work together to benefit the nation as a whole. Capitalism is still the answer to me, for a free market should always be the center of the economy, supported by private business and government imports.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. -JFK

[Springedge]

I don't describe an ideal world, just one that is better than the current one, do expect it to be a utopia? No I do not, that doesn't change the fact that we can solve a lot of problems by getting rid of their cause, and that cause is a system that puts material gain and power for a few as more desirable outcome than the full filling the desires and well being of everybody else (by themselves). If you want to stop the power hungry, don't build a system that puts people in power over others through any means and you also shouldn't cling onto one that already does just that. The 'mixed-market' models are not the solution, in fact they're part of the problem, what we have now was created to facilitate the changes in technology and society, but purely with the intent of reinforcing the existing order. As it is, welfare (what you refer to as the 'socialist' element adopted) is a subsidy for the negative results of treating humans as rentable commodities for the labour market. Although it is low on my list of things that has to go, it is is as much a solution to the problem as much as morphine is the cure for cancer, it levitates pain nothing more. Other things that have been done is that productive work has been outsourced to second and the third world, business if further subsidized and protected from market forces. As it stands, the original concept of capitalism, that being lassaiz-faire market capitalism is a dead ideology either used by obscure internet dissidence, detached economists and rulers who appeal to a religious adherence to outdated principles when in fact most of our economic activity is already run through a set of central and decentralized plan models for production between corporate and state institutions. Markets are there to discipline the working and middle class, they function only for distributing outcomes of production and controlling people. While at the same time we are made to bear the burden of this systems mistakes. Profit is privatized, risk is socialized.

All issues can only be solved by getting rid the current system of control and power imposed upon us all. There is no way around it. In fact we are already dead set on destruction through environmental and societal collapse as both climate chance will take increasingly damaging forms and economically we'll be moving from economic crisis to economic crisis as it becomes increasingly more unsustainable. One way to do this is to spread awareness and knowledge as fostering critical thinking and real debate (not the non-sense presented in mainstream politics), the other way is to seek to empower other working people by uniting them rather than letting them be crushes and left helpless by the pretentious 'individualism' enforced upon the community by our neoliberal leaders. Uniting them through giving them alternative models, organisations that resist the institutions of power. This is already being done and done so for a century. Labour unions, the anti-war movement. They're manifestations of this. Because people need to realize, there is always an alternative, it may not be perfect, but there has always been an alternative because no societal structure lasts and we can organize any society as long as we want it. In whatever way we want it, we can make it equitable, with freedom to act, think and do as to your abilities and desires. We have the productive capacity to meet every ones real needs many times over with only a fraction of labour power expended, we can spend more time on things that truly interest us as individuals, rather than slaving our lives away in bureacratic structures to pay of our mortgages, taxes and the like. The only reason we as whole haven't done so is that it would undermine the existing order and the structures created by it, which always results in a response to reinforce that order.

If there truly is an alternative to everything, then why is there not one to completely replacing our current system? Surely, there is another way. I still think that's somewhat unnecessary.

But, what you say wouldn't be accomplished overnight. You need to inform the populous first, and that's something which is most likely considered impossible now. There already is a pretty negative perception of Socialism generally, which makes things all the more difficult. I think that people just have to eventually understand this system. If you actually try to make them accept Socialism, it wouldn't really be any different from how it is now. You're basically 'leading' them into accepting Socialism, be it with or without their consent (which, at this case, I'd wager it'd be mostly against their wishes, if that were to happen any time soon). It's simply impossible to make people control their own economic activity in a democratic matter, because they'd eventually seek guidance from a leader. Well, most people, anyway. Leaders create a instill a sense of unity and purpose in whoever's under them. I admit that sometimes, bosses/leaders may be corrupt, evil, etc; but I don't think that can be addressed by forcing another system of control/power on them. Socialism, in this case, eventually regresses back to how things are now. Going by whatever factual evidence we have today, Capitalism (more or less) has caused many countries around the world to prosper (Capitalism is still the basis of the economic models used in those countries, even though there are aspects of Socialism). A truly Socialistic country, however, has, as I've seen argued, never existed. So we can't really tell if it's any better. What we are discussing currently is all 'in theory'.

So, no, I don't believe Socialism offers a solution to most of the economic hardships we face today. Anyways, let's just agree to disagree. It's been a nice discussion.

[Tehraan]

No. By replacing it with structures based on voluntary association, horizontal organisation and democracy.

To bad socialists don't believe in voluntary association of capitolist individuals.

It's not the voluntary association that is the problem there. The problem is capitalism as economic model necessitates that land, resources and other means are to be in the hands of individuals or organization separate from a respective community that claims a monopoly in right to control for both the use and outcome of said matter, regardless of who actually does occupy and use it. It's the social relations that flow from that inherently tight with hierarchy and authority, which is increasingly more noticeable as technology progresses and output can match overal demand with less enterprises. That said, I'm personally fine with anyone using and managing any of the above provided they actually use it themselves (and not somebody else) and don't claim it as their seperate Island or attempt to derive any other entitlements from it.

[Esternial]

It's not. Nothing is "the" answer. You can't attain a perfect system.

All you can do is strive for perfection by adapting your policies to contemporary needs and situations. Even if you implement a perfect system today, within 10 years it may become less and less perfect.