Is it time to dispose of capitalism?

[Albrenia]

It's hard to get to fully automatic gay space communism from bdsm biker warlords, so I'm against it.

Fully automated gay space communism is never going to happen because space isn't economical.

That's a lie! Y-your lying!

[Stellar Colonies]

It's hard to get to fully automatic gay space communism from bdsm biker warlords, so I'm against it.

Fully automated gay space communism is never going to happen because space isn't economical.

yet

[The Lone Alliance]

We live in a global society. If we have mass population die offs the various systems that keep our societies afloat will collapse as there will be nobody to create, run, or maintain them. And when one goes down the others goes down with it.

The thing about Climate change is the die off isn't going to be a sudden giant meteor like death, it will be slow enough that society will be able to set up a triage system to mediate the losses.

The people who run those various systems that keeps society afloat? They will be the ones that will be most protected and the ones least likely to die because society will want to keep them alive as long as possible in order to keep those systems operating until the end. They will be the guys trying to keep the lights on on the titanic even while the ship is sinking, you really think that society wouldn't try to keep them alive on purpose?

No they will be the first for the food rations, the first for the water supplies, and the ones who will have armed guards up until the point the guards are so hungry that they're no longer obeying orders.

Also many systems of society are partly automated by this point, so even with a skeleton crew much of the world's infrastructure could still remain operational. And the places that stop operating can serve as a supply of spare parts for when things inevitably break down.

Also as the population drops the need for such infrastructure will decrease, we won't need all the stuff we have today because most of mankind will be too dead to use it.

It's a world built for 7 billion people, and by the time climate change hits it'll be a world for 8 billion people, when the population is 2 billion that's a lot of leftover stuff to use.

There is no reason to believe that 70% of humanity dying will instantly mean "TECHNOLOGY IS OVER!!!"

That same technology can be controlled by 30% of mankind just as effectively as 100% of mankind, especially if the people who know how the technology works are the people who are prioritized for keeping alive, which they will.

[Punished UMN]

The systems you are trying to preserve to keep everyone alive are the ones that are going to kill everyone.

Yah well you can’t get rid of the now with out killing people regardless. Collapse isn’t assured, so it’s best to try to keep people alive instead of just killing them off because you think your nostalgic system is better.

It's not feudalism's fault that enlightenment intellectuals thought that everything needed to be reducible to economic efficiency and so created a system that would breed billions of people into the world before destroying the ecosystems that keep them alive.

You’re not even fucking responding to things I actually said.

Okay, so what system do you propose that has all of the benefits of industrialism without any of the problems that industrialism is causing?

[Punished UMN]

Fully automated gay space communism is never going to happen because space isn't economical.

yet

It will never be economical because real economics is based on production and supply of use-value. Getting to space and getting resources back in economically significant quantities will cost so much in terms of resources that the resources you get back from it will be a net-loss.

[Kowani]

in the sense that capitalism leads inevitably to the latter (and really, based on previous systems collapse examples, the "biker" part is somewhat optimistic), i suppose

Well smart warlords would switch over to eco friendly horses eventually once the gas and batteries are gone.

The main alter I’ve to coalition that we saw was communalism, or whatever it was that the reds used, and that wasn’t any more environmentally conscious then capitalism, but it’s still preferably to any alternative that necessitates Earth’s population dropping.

yeah
soviets did the wrong kind of leftism (though they were heavily constrained by the circumstances and technology of the time)
we shall avoid that going forward

[Stellar Colonies]

Regarding capitalism, it'll be very difficult to root out from our world system.

Either it takes a while or it collapses with the rest of our civilization when/if that happens.

yet

It will never be economical because real economics is based on production and supply of use-value. Getting to space and getting resources back in economically significant quantities will cost so much in terms of resources that the resources you get back from it will be a net-loss.

Indeed it is, at least with current technology and the lack of space infrastructure.

If/when both are developed further...

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

Honest question to anarchists: How the fuck do you expect to spread your "ideology" of literally not having a central government, armed forces, currency, mailings, bureaucracy, etc that would be not only be useful for a sort of "global conquest" but also selling the idea to the average joe?
"Yo Bruz, let's start a revolution where there's no form of government, no currency, no proper mailing system, no armed forces to protect us and all that stuff the government deals with. Sounds cool right?"- Person 1

"What cunt? Why the fuck would I want that, all I want is a better wage, lower taxes and cheaper bills, fuck off with that dumb shit"- Person 2

That's how I would imagine a convo about recruiting people into Anarchism would be like, at least with a more authoritarian socialism type of government, you can at least argue "Hey, those cunts that spend their whole time in Wall street are nothing but a bunch of gamblers, except when they lose out, we all suffer. Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it? Also wouldn't it be great if our minimum wage was raised, corrupt politician were ejected from government, and social programs were given proper funding's to lift people out of poverty. I think it's cool."

And to get back to the whole "let's spread a revolution that has no centrally commanded army to the entire globe"... it sounds rather stupid, doesn't it? It's almost like you need some intermediate government that can crack down on reactionaries for the time being until enough of the globe has been conquered, a sort of Vanguard party to protect the revolution if you will, one that isn't afraid of pulling punches, and can properly function when enemies are surrounding your nation.

I dunno, this enternal debate on "ideologies" is pretty stupid really, all that really matters is policy and nothing else because that's the stuff that changes the globe, not dumbshit "theories" and "ideologies"

[Kowani]

I dunno, this enternal debate on "ideologies" is pretty stupid really, all that really matters is policy and nothing else because that's the stuff that changes the globe, not dumbshit "theories" and "ideologies"

i never ceased to be amazed by the absolute nonsense people can churn out
ideology is what determines the metric by which we measure policy in the first place, how we structure governments and policies, what rights people are owed
it's the lens through which the political world is viewed

[Sundiata]

The means of production should be owned, but owned by more families. The motto "three acres and a mule" comes to mind. Capitalism just needs to be tweaked but capital should exist.

Property is merely the art of the democracy. It means that every man should have something that he can shape in his own image, as he is shaped in the image of heaven. But because he is not God, but only a graven image of God, his self-expression must deal with limits; properly with limits that are strict and even small.

[UniversalCommons]

Space programs have already paid for themselves with satellites for communication and imaging. These are a huge economic boon. Eventually, it will also pay for itself with solar power satellites. It is the mundane things which people overlook. The giant Elon Musk Starlink network will make the internet truly everywhere. Also, a lot of technology came out of the space program including solar panels. There are large up front costs, but the long term benefits come from the things which we often overlook.

The first and most obvious space manufacturing is components to make, repair and upgrade satellites. Also to remove space junk and de-orbit satellites. Essentially an extension of satellite technology. This would include manufacturing of semiconductors in space.

The Air Force Just Built a Solar Power Satellite
https://smosa.com/us-airforce/

It may take time, but eventually this will become yesterdays technology and viable in twenty years. Like any industry, it is a matter of scale. With someone like a Jeff Bezos who is ideologically motivated and has a vision for space, they will pour billions of dollars into it to the point where parts of their program will start working within a decade.
I pour billions of dollars into space because we are destroying earth.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/why-jef ... ology.html

[New Bradenia Ghost]

I think it needs to be desposed soon, but I think it shouldn't be Socialism as a replacement, since both Capitalism and Socialism failed (like look at Venezuela and what happened), it should probably be Anarchism to replace it

This might help

[Grinning Dragon]

Ah, NO.
Capitalism is mobility, capitalism is innovation, capitalism is power, capitalism is individual empowerment, capitalism is love, capitalism is life.

[Joohan]

If the marxists could create a system that doesn’t result in the deaths of millions and authorities governments sure.

Did that, glad to have you on our side

If your benchmark society only exists because the higher authorities dont want to look bad for slaughtering them - then you need to keep looking. If a society cant defend itself effectivly, then it is a failed society

[Adamede]

We live in a global society. If we have mass population die offs the various systems that keep our societies afloat will collapse as there will be nobody to create, run, or maintain them. And when one goes down the others goes down with it.

The thing about Climate change is the die off isn't going to be a sudden giant meteor like death, it will be slow enough that society will be able to set up a triage system to mediate the losses.

The people who run those various systems that keeps society afloat? They will be the ones that will be most protected and the ones least likely to die because society will want to keep them alive as long as possible in order to keep those systems operating until the end. They will be the guys trying to keep the lights on on the titanic even while the ship is sinking, you really think that society wouldn't try to keep them alive on purpose?

No they will be the first for the food rations, the first for the water supplies, and the ones who will have armed guards up until the point the guards are so hungry that they're no longer obeying orders.

Also many systems of society are partly automated by this point, so even with a skeleton crew much of the world's infrastructure could still remain operational. And the places that stop operating can serve as a supply of spare parts for when things inevitably break down.

Also as the population drops the need for such infrastructure will decrease, we won't need all the stuff we have today because most of mankind will be too dead to use it.

It's a world built for 7 billion people, and by the time climate change hits it'll be a world for 8 billion people, when the population is 2 billion that's a lot of leftover stuff to use.

There is no reason to believe that 70% of humanity dying will instantly mean "TECHNOLOGY IS OVER!!!"

That same technology can be controlled by 30% of mankind just as effectively as 100% of mankind, especially if the people who know how the technology works are the people who are prioritized for keeping alive, which they will.

1: Have serious doubt that a significantly decreased population will be able to keep up all systems and preserve all knowledge, nor is an automated system invincible. They still need to be maintained. And even if they could it’s anywhere close to being ducking preferable.

2: Its not going to be just global warming in that case. 70% of the human population isn’t going to just ducking law down and die. When food, water, medicine, and other resources start to get scarce, that’s when the wars are going to really ramp up, and when it’s life or death the restrictions no longer mean anything. And combine that with plagues and famines causing riots and a destruction of order that would keep the needed experts alive.

That is what would kill civilization.

Yah well you can’t get rid of the now with out killing people regardless. Collapse isn’t assured, so it’s best to try to keep people alive instead of just killing them off because you think your nostalgic system is better.

You’re not even fucking responding to things I actually said.

Okay, so what system do you propose that has all of the benefits of industrialism without any of the problems that industrialism is causing?

I didn’t propose a system, I’m merely pointing out that our modern society is preferable to going back to the way things where before from a living standards point of view.

[Adamede]

Well smart warlords would switch over to eco friendly horses eventually once the gas and batteries are gone.

The main alter I’ve to coalition that we saw was communalism, or whatever it was that the reds used, and that wasn’t any more environmentally conscious then capitalism, but it’s still preferably to any alternative that necessitates Earth’s population dropping.

yeah
soviets did the wrong kind of leftism (though they were heavily constrained by the circumstances and technology of the time)
we shall avoid that going forward

Plenty of states from the time period that didn’t kill their own citizens or invade neighboring countries.

[Shahrukh]

Yes, capitalism has failed in almost every country.

Damn, I didn't know Sweden and Switzerland were failed countries, along with the rest of the world

Sweden? Being being a degenerate consumerist state, and implementing mass welfare with heavy regulation of markets shows the true form of where capitalism can survive. Keep coping, you oppress your workers, give private interests power in society, and oppress other peoples. Your grandkids will die as your regime collapses when the workers strike back.

[Adamede]

Damn, I didn't know Sweden and Switzerland were failed countries, along with the rest of the world

Sweden? Being being a degenerate consumerist state, and implementing mass welfare with heavy regulation of markets shows the true form of where capitalism can survive. Keep coping, you oppress your workers, give private interests power in society, and oppress other peoples. Your grandkids will die as your regime collapses when the workers strike back.

...

You a Nazbol?

[Marstella]

Its time to get rid of big business not capitalism. Tell me this what's so wrong with people being able to freely exchange goods and services with each other for a fair agreed upon price? I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The only reason people have a problem with capitalism is because big business ruins it. If we get rid of big business but allow for an otherwise free market Capitalism is great.

Freedom is a myth, it only exists on paper

Material conditions present coercive factors which prevent true freedom in class-based societies

Lmao, what's your definition of true freedom? I come from Venezuela, where there are no credible elections, where you would be dissappeared if you spoke out against the government or would have a death squad (either from the government itself or not, cause they finance gangs to take control of slums and therefore the people that live in them) sent to your house to straighten you out, where you have to live in fear that your business will be seized and where the only institutions that truly work are those used to oppress the population.

If you're gonna tell me that a country like the USA doesn't have true freedom, a country where people can vote, receive welfare, have their rights protected by working institutions, have freedom of speech, have financial freedom and aren't submitted to a dictatorship that steps over them every day, I'll tell you you need to spend a little more time outside.

[Lacral]

Capitalism causes an abundance of major problems for society. It survives because those in power can easily exploit its flaws. Unfair wages, corruption, detrimental poverty, the list goes on.

[Lacral]

Freedom is a myth, it only exists on paper

Material conditions present coercive factors which prevent true freedom in class-based societies

Lmao, what's your definition of true freedom? I come from Venezuela, where there are no credible elections, where you would be dissappeared if you spoke out against the government or would have a death squad (either from the government itself or not, cause they finance gangs to take control of slums and therefore the people that live in them) sent to your house to straighten you out, where you have to live in fear that your business will be seized and where the only institutions that truly work are those used to oppress the population.

If you're gonna tell me that a country like the USA doesn't have true freedom, a country where people can vote, receive welfare, have their rights protected by working institutions, have freedom of speech, have financial freedom and aren't submitted to a dictatorship that steps over them every day, I'll tell you you need to spend a little more time outside.

The USA is a prime example of a failed country.

[Adamede]

Lmao, what's your definition of true freedom? I come from Venezuela, where there are no credible elections, where you would be dissappeared if you spoke out against the government or would have a death squad (either from the government itself or not, cause they finance gangs to take control of slums and therefore the people that live in them) sent to your house to straighten you out, where you have to live in fear that your business will be seized and where the only institutions that truly work are those used to oppress the population.

If you're gonna tell me that a country like the USA doesn't have true freedom, a country where people can vote, receive welfare, have their rights protected by working institutions, have freedom of speech, have financial freedom and aren't submitted to a dictatorship that steps over them every day, I'll tell you you need to spend a little more time outside.

The USA is a prime example of a failed country.

Lol

[Samicana]

I'm personally a Libertarian Socialist who thinks that Democratic Socialism is the easiest and most plausible way to achieve Socialism within America. The biggest issue that we face now is mass misinformation propped up by decades of Cold War propaganda. People think that Socialism is inherently authoritarian, which is completely false. Socialism is merely an economic system in which the workers own the means of production; due to this authoritarian states can't be socialist because the means of production are owned by the state, and if the workers do not have a say in what the state does, they don't own the means of production.

If we can lift the veil of propaganda, people will realize that Capitalism simply doesn't serve them, and is a net negative. I'm not advocating for full scale violent revolution, but I think that we can upend the two party system (and other parts of American Electoralism) and let the people decide for themselves if they want to live in a Capitalist or Socialist country.

[Adamede]

I'm personally a Libertarian Socialist who thinks that Democratic Socialism is the easiest and most plausible way to achieve Socialism within America. The biggest issue that we face now is mass misinformation propped up by decades of Cold War propaganda. People think that Socialism is inherently authoritarian, which is completely false. Socialism is merely an economic system in which the workers own the means of production; due to this authoritarian states can't be socialist because the means of production are owned by the state, and if the workers do not have a say in what the state does, they don't own the means of production.

If we can lift the veil of propaganda, people will realize that Capitalism simply doesn't serve them, and is a net negative. I'm not advocating for full scale violent revolution, but I think that we can upend the two party system (and other parts of American Electoralism) and let the people decide for themselves if they want to live in a Capitalist or Socialist country.

Yah don’t hold your breath on anything more than social democracy like we see in Scandinavia.

Also you’re going to have to debate that definition of socialism with your fellow socialists.

[Punished UMN]

Honest question to anarchists: How the fuck do you expect to spread your "ideology" of literally not having a central government, armed forces, currency, mailings, bureaucracy, etc that would be not only be useful for a sort of "global conquest" but also selling the idea to the average joe?
"Yo Bruz, let's start a revolution where there's no form of government, no currency, no proper mailing system, no armed forces to protect us and all that stuff the government deals with. Sounds cool right?"- Person 1

"What cunt? Why the fuck would I want that, all I want is a better wage, lower taxes and cheaper bills, fuck off with that dumb shit"- Person 2

That's how I would imagine a convo about recruiting people into Anarchism would be like, at least with a more authoritarian socialism type of government, you can at least argue "Hey, those cunts that spend their whole time in Wall street are nothing but a bunch of gamblers, except when they lose out, we all suffer. Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it? Also wouldn't it be great if our minimum wage was raised, corrupt politician were ejected from government, and social programs were given proper funding's to lift people out of poverty. I think it's cool."

And to get back to the whole "let's spread a revolution that has no centrally commanded army to the entire globe"... it sounds rather stupid, doesn't it? It's almost like you need some intermediate government that can crack down on reactionaries for the time being until enough of the globe has been conquered, a sort of Vanguard party to protect the revolution if you will, one that isn't afraid of pulling punches, and can properly function when enemies are surrounding your nation.

I dunno, this enternal debate on "ideologies" is pretty stupid really, all that really matters is policy and nothing else because that's the stuff that changes the globe, not dumbshit "theories" and "ideologies"

Ideology is the basis of policy, if you don't have an ideology, you can't make a policy because you don't have a fundamental worldview of how society should function. At the most basic level, there are two alternative viewpoints: Anarchism, in which society has no central authority, and Statism, in which society (or in reality, those who are influential enough to impose their will on society uses violence on people it doesn't like, and that all social problems can only be solved with institutionalized violence. Yeah, it's pointless to recruit when you talk about it like that, largely because states have been around long enough that it's easier to imagine the end of humanity than it is to imagine a society without a central authority which has power to kill people. I don't believe any of this change is possible without apocatastasis, and I don't believe any form of government is going to solve any of humanity's problems or make society good, because ultimately any discussion of what form of government we have is just going to be a discussion of who the state should oppress and how, and doesn't solve that fundamental problem of oppression. The very existence of violence is the problem, so it strikes me as strange that statists adhere stringently to this idea that the way you solve violence is by having an institution which is capable of the maximum possible amount of violence that threatens to kill people if they are violent.