Capitalism doesn't and IS NOT working, it's destructive and creatives poor social incentives

originally posted by: freakwars
a reply to: Xtrozero

the Soviets practiced something called "State Capitalism", not communism

the definition of communism excludes a state.

I thought Marx said "Stateless Communism" was the beginning of civilization.

Can you clarify with actual Marx works?

originally posted by: freakwars
a reply to: Semicollegiate

"like they always do"

that's because it's true

For the 4rth time, without response.

Socialists would just do socialism if it was viable. Its a free country. Get some workers, make a factory and show the world how superior you are.

Socialism never happens without coercion. or a sweet take over. No socialist factories have been established in 200 years of collectivism.

Socialism is not a real economic system, it is theft.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

you keep repeating this
yet youve shown time and again you dont even understand what the terms mean

ive even gone so far as to show examples of companies that are owned by their employees (you said you liked this idea) and then you went on to contradict the very meaning of the words by saying this was not socialism but capitalism

i have to assume by this point you are being disingenuous (i can understand why hes not responding)

originally posted by: freakwars
a reply to: Xtrozero

because that life is only possible under capitalism because so many others are impoverished. We are clothed by their nakedness and nourished by their hunger.

No matter what the system there will be 6 billion plus suffering or just surviving. So maybe we need to point out all those countries that are not based on capitalism that make up the vast majority of that 6 billion+.

originally posted by: sirhumperdink


the angriest people are going to be the ones that are most complacent right now

I agree the ones that worked all their life's to see it end are the ones you are calling complacent right now, ya what does a young person with only an IPhone got to loose?

Everyone with nothing to loose wants change ..lol

agreed.

you may add socialism, communism, nationalism, pacifism and a whole list of ism's to the list of imbalanced social orders.

money is the tool...
separation is the root...of human enslavement to inequality.

23432 Contributionism we may

Contributionism
Ubuntu

One & ALL

originally posted by: sirhumperdink
a reply to: Semicollegiate

you keep repeating this
yet youve shown time and again you dont even understand what the terms mean

ive even gone so far as to show examples of companies that are owned by their employees (you said you liked this idea) and then you went on to contradict the very meaning of the words by saying this was not socialism but capitalism

i have to assume by this point you are being disingenuous (i can understand why hes not responding)

A corporation or business owned by its workers is capitalism. How did they come to own it? They traded labor or products of labor for a share of the capital - its capitalism.

All capital is simply savings, or in the case of the modern world it is borrowed from future labor - which is NOT capitalism.

Capitalism is simply putting savings to use, and restraining force and deception from the economy through law - thats all. The modern western economies do not have capital, they utilize debt - force and deception are instruments of the state which are deployed against small business and labor - ie capitalism does not exist to any great extent anywhere in the modern world. If you are looking for a word to describe the western economic model - it is fascism.

Not really on topic, but I just can't help myself after reading nearly this entire thread and many threads here on ATS.

I see all around me, people arguing about what they are supposedly entitled to, what they feel is fair trade for their labor, what they supposedly need.

Arguing about things that won't really matter until they actually have to deal with trying to get what they need to survive when they can no longer get those things, or are distracted from the arguing by something big and exciting like 9-11 or a war or more personal disasters, or a TV program at 8:30 pm....

Until people begin to think of things in terms of "end user" instead of end times or other pseudo-religious skewed horse#, instead of this governing method or that one, instead of thinking of only themselves without realizing how utterly disconnected from reality and each other they actually are....

....Evolution regarding anything occurs in fits and starts, it arises when entities and/ or organisms are forced to adapt out of necessity or pass into history, not write hollow laws to allow more exploitation by the few of the many, to destroy what we have left to work with for profit...

Societal evolution seems to be stuck in a rut the same as the human animal is, any entity or species or SOCIETY that cannot adapt will pass into the great nothingness.

The only way to fix anything is to allow it to de-evolve, to be allowed to return to what it once was when it worked, to realize there is no progress to be made beyond a certain point.

There is no such thing as "sustainable development" in a finite place with finite resources, this is all we have to work with and we have arrived at the point where there just isn't any more for too many because the few are hoarding the things the many need to survive.

Take what we need and leave the rest for someone else as occurs all around us in nature, go back to the way it was before we showed up and #ed everything up or finish it off and maybe start over or maybe just be "gone".

Everyone needs certain things to survive and there is no arguing that, while the argument rages on with nothing offered to remedy what ails us but opinions.


Or become slaves in a sense where you actually consciously comprehend that you are already and have been for centuries.

Here is my political model;

Divide the population into Houses of 250-750 human beings of co-incident geography, this number allows them to know each other, have meetings and so ensures some level of transparency and accountability.

Each House can organize its own internal laws so long as they are not in conflict with THE law; "Whosoever infringes the property of another human being without their consent commits an unlawful act."

To facilitate its own needs a House might elect a Marshal (military), Sheriff (police), Chief (fire/rescue), Mayor (administration), and Justice or Justicar (court administration) - or they might not, depending on their own systems.

All property is divided into private property and common property. Private property consists of what is contingent upon the human being (body, mind, speech, labor and products of labor etc), and common property is everything else, which can be called 'Land'.

Common property is jointly delivered into the hands of Sovereigns, who are responsible for creating, maintaining and enforcing common law. The sovereign is granted an income based on an equal portion of the rent it generates. Anyone who is able to satisfy the requirements of a sovereign may be a sovereign - they must be willing and able (armed and trained as police, soldiers, emergency response i.e;fire/rescue and jurors) to fight to defend all property, common and private - and to hold lawful courts and enforce the lawful orders of those courts. They would need to serve in those functions as determined by agreement of sovereigns of their House - perhaps they serve a few days a month as police, soldier and fire/rescue - or perhaps they yield one year every 5 to 10 years - or some other arrangement.

Common property includes all mineral wealth, all natural timber, fish, wild game, sunshine, water, air and wind, radio frequencies, and real estate - all of which would attract rental costs for use, and its use would be determined by democratic law determined by the sovereigns. Generally the economic method is easiest and most efficient way to use property - so laws would be written to determine for example the amount of pollution, its type and concentration that the land could withstand - then rights to make this pollution would rented out in a free market - for example you could buy the right to pollute 1 tonne of SO2, it would have an annual rental cost paid to the sovereigns. The total SO2 that could be produced, its maximum concentration etc would be determined democratically by the sovereigns - no doubt they would bring in scientific talent to determine it.

Children would be raised to sovereign by a court, or other method determined by their House - it may simply occur automatically at a certain age (so long as they had no criminal record, mental or physical impairment).

If a sovereign refuses the duties, or fails to action them or infringes the law - they may, by court order, be stripped of sovereignty. This would require serious dereliction or infringement.

A sovereign would be able to delegate his vote on any matter to another, but only one vote per proposed law. this system would require a centralized and highly encrypted computer system - which would have to be open source and transparent. I believe we have technologies available. This would mean politicians ( probably todays activists - who could be given voters proxy also) would still exist, but they would be of no fixed number - and a sovereign could revoke their proxy at any time.

Those things required for basic human existence would be rent free, probably including a specified parcel of land (such as 1/4 acre) to live on. You could own more, but only the 1/4 acre would be rent free and only if you lived on it. So air, sunshine, some fishing and hunting game, roads and paths etc would all be rent free for use.

Sovereigns would likely also be expected to demonstrate a great degree of independence - food, water, energy, weapons and other savings might be required - in addition to a residence and perhaps a cellar or basement to survive a disaster. That would have to be determined democratically - but it would have to be watched to ensure that it did not become economically exclusive - i.e nobility. This might be an area in which citizens would have to be given a vote in order to constrain it.

Sovereign courts would do justice by jury, with the jury deciding compensation paid directly to victims and their families - courts costs added - and punitive damages on top, some of which could be paid to victims and some of which could be retained as rent. The legal system would be determined democratically - but I assume a common law type system by jury with a predetermined legal system (subject to democratic review at all times).

IF someone committed a crime but could not pay, then their House would be responsible - they may be able to get insurance, but for premeditated and violent or egregious crimes they would probably decide not to. If a House refuses to pay, or cannot pay for a crime - then the victims in concert with the jury may decide his fate. This may include labor to repay the debt, or even a death penalty. There will be few legal protections for a criminal who has been disowned by his sovereign House - his only chance is the mercy of his victims - and his ability to repay. Servitude may be accepted in lieu of a death sentence by the victims and families (the repayment amount would be a fixed value - the tenure of servitude ending with repayment) - the criminal always has the option of death if they prefer.

I think with such a system the population of sovereigns would be around 50% or more of a group, the rest of which would mainly comprise dependents. Women could easily be sovereigns, but I imagine a percentage would opt out, especially if caring for children - sovereigns would be required to engage in high risk duties, policing, military, fire and rescue and so on - so duties as a mother might seem to over balance the requirements of civic duty of as sovereign.

This adds to my last post regarding this kind of political organization - but of course it is far from a complete summary. I hope that it evokes some thought.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Yes, good post. I often think that if we as a species, and we are not that far off, got to the point where we automated all production, capitalism would fail. Nobody would have money to buy it, even though it was essentially produced without human labor. We are moving toward this reality, with expanding populations and decreasing jobs. Capitalism cannot survive as it once did, otherwise nobody will have the means to support themselves or provide for their life.

I believe we are at a crucial changing point in our world history that will and must change. The Capitalists that want control of the worlds wealth will spend everything they have to maintain dominance in this world, but the system is currently defunct and needs an overhaul. I prefer a social structure which socializes all things important for the preservation of the species (food, water, housing, health/safety, energy, education) and at the same time let free all the other areas to for profit pursuits without restriction. Socializing these things does not necessarily mean government control of all those areas, rather it means a group co-op of sorts within a structure of operations designed to preserve the existence and function of the group co-op. In other words, the group would exist for a specific purpose and could not be dismantled by any individual member of the group, its goal to continue on providing the service for the community it serves. This system is what America started off as, before Capitalists took over the public utility system and turned it into a Not-For-Profit enterprise that currently makes an incredible profit annually for its executives and shareholders.

a reply to: Amagnon

I think your social model would work better within the confines of a co-op group, who provides for each other. Like a housing association might set its own rules, when you buy a house, this is essentially what you are referring to. To apply your model to society as a whole would fragment society, providing for disputes amongst neighbors and unclear laws when travelling around and interacting with members of another group. So you need a common law applicable to all groups, and some way to enforce it. However, your ideas could be applied to small groups which self organize for some purpose, for their collective survival.

Capitalism works fine, just fine.

It's people that don't work.

So, as you develop the new perfect system please take into account human nature.

a reply to: bbracken677

Human nature also includes the concept of GREED.

With advancements in technology, greed is no longer necessary to base our entire civilization's worth of how many additional zero's are in our bank accounts. Food, energy, life, human rights etc, can all be abundant if we just talk and address the elephant in the room.

Quantitative Easing, ie, unabashed money printing, proved that earning wealth the "hard way", no longer applies. The Oligarchy, Plutocracy, Elite, or whatever else you want to call it, has the rules set permanently in their favor. They are loaning money to each other, using ZIRP, to loan even more money to each other. Now, if that wasn't enough, Europe's own version of our system is doing bail-ins (direct theft), and now doing negative interest rates (direct theft).

When you see meme's, like: "Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Rest", it is not very far from the truth.

We are being screwed. America has been in in a form of austerity since at least the inception of the Federal Reserve. Recognize how, and why.

Why do you need to borrow money, when Government has the right to issue it's own, without borrowing? How did that happen?

But be careful, fact's here are apparently propaganda. If you point out how the anarchy, ie lawlessness within the shadow government accomplishes goals to keep the elite (not you) in power, you are labeled an Anti-American.

I am curious to see if someone tries to use Alinsky's rules to twist greed, as really not greed. The indoctrination is that strong.

Lets recap:

War is Peace - Check
Freedom is Slavery - Check
Ignorance is Strength - Check

I recall reading that somewhere. I believe the author's name was Orwell.

www.washingtonsblog.com...

"Capitalism", or at least this communist version of it, has failed. But that is not solely to blame. Our private for profit banking system is one of the primary causes.

onequestion you are absolutely right.

But there is indeed a better way.

Here, please watch this, it goes into this topic in great detail and offers excellent solutions: www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: awake1234
agreed.

you may add socialism, communism, nationalism, pacifism and a whole list of ism's to the list of imbalanced social orders.

money is the tool...
separation is the root...of human enslavement to inequality.

23432 Contributionism we may

Contributionism
Ubuntu

“Let each citizen contribute their natural talents or acquired skills to the greater benefit of all in the community.”

There are two scenarios below that I would like to know how would they fit in your perfect world?

I may want a big house, nice cars, big boat, tour the world at my whim but I'm willing to work hard to get there to meet my goals.

I also may want to do nothing and let society take care of me...

The quote above from your link is not made for the human race I'm sorry to say. Once you inject human nature into it your utopia system will fail. One day if we have a Star Trek utopia with the technology to get anything we want from pure energy will this vision even remotely be feasible. At that point we can finally devote our lives to whatever path we want to go without the need to get anything in return to live by.

BTW we also may need to cut the population down well under 1 billion too....

originally posted by: Not Authorized

With advancements in technology, greed is no longer necessary to base our entire civilization's worth of how many additional zero's are in our bank accounts. Food, energy, life, human rights etc, can all be abundant if we just talk and address the elephant in the room.

When we look at Cold War Russia, there wasn't a lot of money being used. Was there enough vodka of the finest quality to go to everyone who may have wanted it? Was there enough fine cuts of beef for everyone? What if everyone wants the chicken breast...someone will need to eat the wings...

What we will end up with is a society that takes the whole cow that blends it all into pink slime and that is all that is offered to everyone to eat so that everyone gets the same. Or chicken nuggets...the rest is not needed so it stops being produced, or does it?

This is where capitalism sneaks back in with the black market, because EVERYONE wants something... It will be alive and well without money, remember capitalism has been around a lot longer than money.

Very few people need/want endless zeros in their bank account, the vast majority would love to have just enough zeros to get what ever they desire, does your moneyless system offer that for everyone?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Not Authorized

With advancements in technology, greed is no longer necessary to base our entire civilization's worth of how many additional zero's are in our bank accounts. Food, energy, life, human rights etc, can all be abundant if we just talk and address the elephant in the room.

When we look at Cold War Russia, there wasn't a lot of money being used. Was there enough vodka of the finest quality to go to everyone who may have wanted it? Is there enough fine cuts of beef for everyone? What if everyone wants the chicken breast...someone will need to eat the wings...

What we end up with is a society that takes the whole cow and blends it all into pink slime and that is all that is offered to everyone so that everyone gets the same. Or chicken nuggets...the rest is not needed so it stops being produced, or does it?

This is where capitalism sneaks back in with the black market, because EVERYONE wants something... It will be alive and well without money, remember capitalism has been around a lot longer than money.

Where he also fails is that he thinks that "greed" is only about money. Way before money, people wanted things they didn't have. Without money in this Star Trek socialist utopia, you will still have "greed." People will want the tastiest food, the best looking sexual partner, the best view from the hotel, the house on the beach, a faster car, more friends, more influence, more fame/recognition, better clothes, more holodeck time, a bigger stateroom on the Enterprise, etc. People will still have wants and desires and they will work out ways to fulfill them. They may get what they want, not by money, but by barter, negotiation, peddling favors, nepotism, trading service for service, or any myriad ways of using the system. The Communist Ideal is a failure from the start because humans are not insects.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Where he also fails is that he thinks that "greed" is only about money. Way before money, people wanted things they didn't have. Without money in this Star Trek socialist utopia, you will still have "greed." People will want the tastiest food, the best looking sexual partner, the best view from the hotel, the house on the beach, a faster car, more friends, more influence, more fame/recognition, better clothes, more holodeck time, a bigger stateroom on the Enterprise, etc. People will still have wants and desires and they will work out ways to fulfill them. They may get what they want, not by money, but by barter, negotiation, peddling favors, nepotism, trading service for service, or any myriad ways of using the system. The Communist Ideal is a failure from the start because humans are not insects.

I'm going to invent a Star Trek quote just for this thread...

Everyone wants to sit in the Captain's chair, but only a few get to.....hmmmm

a reply to: Amagnon

Nice posts, but I think watching one season of brothers or any of the other reality shows based on a closed group that needs to work together shows how your system would work...

None of you ever add in human nature into the plan. Why do "generic_isms" seem to fail, human nature. Why does religions written with the purest intension seem to have bad parts to it, human nature. Why is the world so F up, human nature.

And so somehow your vision is going to leave our nasty human nature at the door...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Where he also fails is that he thinks that "greed" is only about money. Way before money, people wanted things they didn't have. Without money in this Star Trek socialist utopia, you will still have "greed." People will want the tastiest food, the best looking sexual partner, the best view from the hotel, the house on the beach, a faster car, more friends, more influence, more fame/recognition, better clothes, more holodeck time, a bigger stateroom on the Enterprise, etc. People will still have wants and desires and they will work out ways to fulfill them. They may get what they want, not by money, but by barter, negotiation, peddling favors, nepotism, trading service for service, or any myriad ways of using the system. The Communist Ideal is a failure from the start because humans are not insects.

I'm going to invent a Star Trek quote just for this thread...

Everyone wants to sit in the Captain's chair, but only a few get to.....hmmmm

And that's not fair because everybody is supposed to be equal and in a classless society.