Capitalism has failed, let's consider other options

Of note, I don't think what I'm saying is a perfect system, I'm not supergenius or expert. I'm trying though. What we have isn't working, and the mechanisms by which it is meant to work is based upon promoting the worst aspects of humanity.

The system of capitalism is powered by greed and selfishness, these are the qualities it promotes in others. A system with that as it's foundations can only ever result in corruption.

I just want to see people thinking on new different ideas, not just sticking with capitalism.

Anyone has different new ideas from mine, please share, let's open discussion to things other than capitalism.

a reply to: Puppylove

So if I have something or can do something that you need and you have something or can do something that I need and we work out and acceptable exchange of goods or services, that's evil?

Because that's capitalism.

a reply to: ketsuko

why this fad doesn't become a popular thing with communes springing up all over.

It was not a necessity for most people. It can still happen mind

a reply to: Puppylove

I've thought and argued these same things. However class maneuverability is paramount in a high functioning society. Charity is not an innate desire insentive is.

a reply to: ketsuko

Because that's capitalism.

No thats barter

Capitalism is ''fukyou I say what you are worth'

a reply to: TechniXcality

My system has class maneuverability it just doesn't allow for class above or below it's worth in society.

a reply to: Borisbanger

Thing is though that if the commune movement had actually brought people real satisfying results, it would have grown and you would have seen far more of them springing up.

A successful idea is always copied. I don't see this one taking off.

You are absolutely right that no one is prevented from it, so if it works and no one is prevented, why aren't more people doing it? You would think they'd be all over.

The only conclusion I can reach is that no one likes that lifestyle, meaning it is not optimal and does not work better than what we have.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: TechniXcality

My system has class maneuverability it just doesn't allow for class above or below it's worth in society.

Oh, we're getting to the meat of things now. Who defines "worth"?

originally posted by: Borisbanger
a reply to: ketsuko

Because that's capitalism.

No thats barter

Capitalism is ''fukyou I say what you are worth'

No, it's always contractual. If you feel you are being effed, then you don't sign off. Barter is the simplest form of capitalism.

a reply to: ketsuko

That's barter, not capitalism, and there's absolutely nothing in the system preventing you from bartering with others. If you say have a job with greater perks, and as such can afford to trade perk points (made up system) to get a playstation 4 but don't really want or need it, you can easily barter it with some with a job with less perks in exchange for them I don't know, cleaning your garage if you wish.

a reply to: Puppylove

What is the determining worth of any given class and how is that defined? This is nearly impossible to define objectively because value and happy ness are very personal subjective quality's; even ignoring nessesity.

I apologize for the spelling errors am on a cell phone

a reply to: Puppylove

Barter is capitalism. What I have is my capital - my goods and services that I exchange freely.

a reply to: Puppylove

Excessive individual hording of wealth is a crime against humanity, in my opinion no less a crime than murder and rape themselves.

Again, I can agree with you to a point, but at the same time you can not force your moral and ethical principles on others because of how you see it as being wrong.

To claim that none deserve excessive wealth may be in fact true to some degree. But regardless of my personal opinion on what may or may not be moral or (reasonable) in juxtaposition to how others live their lives in observance to their own abundance has little merit.
Unfortunately the same goes for you in this case. You bring an idea to the table that on one hand is good and well meaning obviously, but at the cost of forcing people into a system of moral or ethical principles that may not be their own; even if they are hoarders of wealth. Hoarders of wealth does not necessarily imply greed and should probably not be used in a mutually exclusive way.

a reply to: ketsuko

land close to towns is expensive so going where its cheap-out in the sticks- means pioneer work and rather hard. Not many people can take to agricultural subsistence living that were not born into it and used to hardship – Trust me I know

Then the established conservative communities dont like the proximity of people with no visible means of support on the door step and bumming work with little idea how to fund themselves

originally posted by: Borisbanger
a reply to: ketsuko

Because that's capitalism.

No thats barter

Capitalism is ''fukyou I say what you are worth'

I thought that was sado masochism? Am I missing something

a reply to: ketsuko

No, it's always contractual. If you feel you are being effed, then you don't sign off. Barter is the simplest form of capitalism.

OK - why are homes so expensive

a reply to: TechniXcality

Its the red claw of brute capital

Its what has skewed democracies so people never ask 'hey why are we being shafted by the rich and entitled'

originally posted by: Borisbanger
a reply to: ketsuko

land close to towns is expensive so going where its cheap-out in the sticks- means pioneer work and rather hard. Not many people can take to agricultural subsistence living that were not born into it and used to hardship – Trust me I know

Then the established conservative communities dont like the proximity of people with no visible means of support on the door step and bumming work with little idea how to fund themselves

So first you say nothing stops them. Then you blame startup cost and the locals for them not doing it? Oh and you blame laziness of the people involved.

1.) If the people in a commune are lazy, then it only proves what many of us who don't like the idea of communism say about it - it's a great system for freeloaders in that they can ride off the coattails of those who are productive and work hard and thus carry the lazy who do only the minimal to get by. What did they think they were signing up for?

2.) The locals are going to stop you. They can't. Most rural communities I know do fine with people who pull their weight in the community. See point one.

3.) There are plenty of foreign countries where I'm sure the land is cheaper especially if you use American cash converted to foreign dollars. Of course, the learning curve is going to be steeper and they likely won't have the private property protections.

originally posted by: snowen20

Whoa scary! What does 'doing their part' mean?

I have to add that he quoted:"even the least of us, as long as they are doing their part deserves food, shelter and medical care."


I should be left rotting in the gutter by your standards because I am not 'doing my part at all'. I can't, because I have M.E. So if you saw me the one time every 3 month that I go out, you'd think why is this woman not working? She is walking in high heel shoes, she is in a pub and she looks healthy. She's laughing and the designated driver home.

Yet you don't know that this 'one time' every now and then is so rare that I NEED to enjoy myself as not to go mad. You also don't see the next 4 days that I can't move or do anything because of going out. I used to be a professional [paharma labs] and now I am nothing. Why not punish me by taking any of my money and shelter away?

That's just me. Then there are mentally ill, that you couldn't distinguish from 'normal' people if you just saw them, yet they won't be able to hold down a job if they tried.


In the UK we have your 'brilliant' system, whereby disabled people are getting checked every year if we are scroungers or really ill. The amount of injustice, humiliation and mistakes that are made are worse than just giving money to a few [0.7%] scroungers and leave the really ill people alone. Millions of £ alone are being thrown for nothing because of the need for so many appeals that are won by the majority!

Furthermore for your brilliant idea that everyone has to be useful, I'd like to point out that there are not enough jobs to give one to every able person. That's a fact. Even if all jobs would be filled, there would still be hundreds of thousands without a job, even if they wanted one.


As they are not 'doing their part' [read: 'suffer enough' in OPs opinion'], they should all have their shelter taken away.

You know who had similar ideas? Why did your forefathers fight against them, you could be living your dream?

You may wonder why I wrote so much to just a shot sentence, the answer is that with a couple of badly chosen words, you could condemn a lot of people to hardship that they do not deserve in a civilised society. And with that in mind, I am worried about people with your ideals that are in positions of authority.

edit on 1-3-2015 by Hecate666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-3-2015 by Hecate666 because: My posts only seem to be published with bits missing. Had that problem twice now.

originally posted by: Borisbanger
a reply to: ketsuko

No, it's always contractual. If you feel you are being effed, then you don't sign off. Barter is the simplest form of capitalism.

OK - why are homes so expensive

For the same reason that many other things are.

Do you think a home should be free? A lot of people spent a lot of time and effort building that home. You are paying for their labor, the materials, the land the home sits on. And if you are paying for the home after someone else bought it, you are paying them for their investment in the home.

Should you expect people to build the home for free?