Capitalism has failed, let's consider other options

a reply to: purplemer

Im just putting a point of view based on what I am seeing.

But yes I am sort of aware of wider issues- I dont know enough to pimp political theory.
I did read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man ( and was disgusted )

a reply to: Borisbanger

Boris if your a woman will you marry me we can go be activists and retire in the mountains in a log cabin whudyasay?

I think the answer is a fundelmental reshaping of society and something must be done soon

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: purplemer

Try going somewhere in any economy without a means of sustaining yourself.

You're gonna have a bad day.

Are you. I have been in economies without a means of susitaning myself and I have been made welcome and looked after.

It depends on what type of economy you are talking about..

purp.

a reply to: ketsuko

If by slavery you mean the need to work to sustain yourself in society, sure I guess. In this system, there are no corporations competing, no need to cut down on labor to meet costs or push people to work harder than they are capable, no need to have people that need to be able to do everything at the work place. There are lots of simple jobs people can do. As for people truly disabled that's something difficult to work out, I'm not saying this is perfect.

No would be working without compensation, where does this concept that anyone needs to ever work without compensation come from? Where is the requirement for this? Making clothes, building shelter, growing food, ect are all vital parts of society. The people doing these things definitely have a job with perks. No one is getting anything for nothing.

I suppose in a world were 80% of the world's wealth or whatever number is being quoted these days is being funneled into the 1% I can see people falling under the delusion that there's not enough resources to make sure everyone that works has their needs met and receive compensation on top of it.

If by not having slavery you mean having the choice to not have to work, then, yeah that would exist, but in this system that would be you telling society to # off not society kicking you to the curb, you starve because you chose not to contribute anything. There'd be a job for anyone than can do anything at all. Even if it's put a tag on sweaters all day. You might not have the highest standard of living but your needs would be met. There wouldn't be job hunting. As long as you're willing to work, something will be found to do that will allow you to contribute somehow.

Remember by working you can earn the ability to not work, you have to do the bare minimum to live week to week. In this system, lots of people will have more free time not less if they choose to work and work hard.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Well Hun I can be a woman for you as long as you dont leave with out paying the motel bill.

a reply to: ketsuko

You take a job. The worth of the job is based on the value of the labor and the better you are at it and the harder you work, the more you get paid based on your value as a laborer doing that job.

Ah! But that's what grandpa used to say. And that's that what mom and dad taught. 40 years ago. This ideology was something we all expected to make a life of ease as long as we followed the formula. Stay in school, go to university and get a degree, get a good paying job and start a nest egg. But you find all those 12-16 hour shifts go unnoticed as a company employee and the union guy gets paid the same as you for working less. There's no longer a 'company-employee' relationship and there's no loyalty to be expected from a corporation. Bottom line is, employees no longer get paid more for working harder. It's the complexity of the job. Sure, there's "overtime" which by law does enforce the rule of more work = more pay as a reward but that's it. People are paid for their brains. Evil geniuses get paid the most

Capitalism has "failed" because Marx made the "definition".

a reply to: Puppylove

Capitalism itself isn't the problem,it is the greed and corruption that follow it that is. Originally we had laws in place to keep out most types of greed and corruption,but as our politicians were bought and paid by big business,they lifted those same laws that kept things in check. Result,unbridled greed and corruption.

So if you really want to get down to it,this is not a economic issue but a political one. So how do you fix it? If you put a ban on changing laws,then the next prohibition law can't be changed back when the government finds out it doesn't work. Therefore you have to be able to change laws. The constitution was meant to be a 'living' document. It was meant to be changed and challenged over the years as our society and government changed and got older. So the issue is,there are certain laws that may need to be changed,and others that should never be.

Then you come to the issue of our corrupt government officials,yeah good luck with that one. It would take a major over haul of how we elect them to fix that issue. Most of our congressmen and senators don't just fall into government service,these people start when they are teenagers and everything they do,is with an eye for future government jobs. Bill Clinton is typical of this. They work hard in their early years to get 'their name out there' and put together a campaign with backers to get elected. It costs money to run for those seats. The higher the position,the bigger the names need to be. But companies like Monsanto,or people like George Soros are not going to back you out of the goodness of their hearts,THEY WANT SOMETHING IN RETURN. And that is where the corruption starts.

Those people running for office must have an agenda that the big names want,whether they tell the voters that is their plan or not. They will tell you anything to get you to vote for them,lying becomes second nature in this field.Now remember,they have worked hard to get where they are in the beginning,they are not willing to give it up so easily now. So they now after being voted in,spend half of their time getting their next election ready with 'donors' lined up to support them (money being thrown at them),so that they can get elected over and over.After 12 years in office,they can finally start building up their 'war chest'. This is money they will have on the side to live on after its all said and done,this is besides their pensions and social security(last I checked,they don't even pay into SS yet are able to draw it). Then there is their health insurance and all the 'other' perks they get.All so half the time,they aren't even there to vote on the issues. The public got left on a back burner somewhere and got burnt to a crisp while this was going on. Still wonder why they don't represent you?

So now how do you stop this? That is a large question. It will take the total over haul of our campaigning system to stop it.
1.All 50 states would have to pass an amendment to limit them to only 2 terms.They will not do this themselves because of above listed reasons.
2.We need to pass a law that holds government accountable for the truth! If the government lies,people will go to jail for deception of the public interests.
3.While cutting out something from the tax budget,the money needs to be allocated for elections. Yes they get a free ride to run for an office,but then they are beholden to the people only, for this.
4.They are not allowed to take ANY funds or gifts from anyone else before, during, or after their run. Not from other countries,nor business,nor people. No one should be giving them anything that might make them feel they 'owed' that person or whatever,they only owe the American people.
5.They are to have the SAME benefits as the American people,no more,no less.If they are going to get SS,then they must pay into it like the rest of us.No more war chests,only their pension and SS.
6.The laws should be grouped as those that CAN NOT BE CHANGED,and those that can or may be. Laws such as those against monopolies could never be changed by anyone,it should be put to the people to vote on which laws would be untouchable.

I am sure the rest of you can come up with a few more as well,but this is a basic template of what we need if things are to really change. You would see new faces and new ideas come into play more.You would see less corruption,and things being stacked for business. You would see a lot of changes start to happen,but only if people wake up and start changing things.Those in the status quo have no intention of changing the perks they have gotten,it is up to us only.

a reply to: Puppylove

This is a rough draft ideology, tell me what you all think?

I think you wrote the manifesto for the most dystopian future I've ever read in my life.

Just add an addendum to your post about elevating some ethnic group to master race status, and we can rebuild both the Third Reich and USSR all at the same time.

Let's review your major premises:

1. Forced labor.
2. Arbitrary income capping.
3. Arbitrary resource capping.
4. State control over reproduction.

Sounds like a blast, Stalin.

Your manifesto makes the assumption that the only worth a human being has is derived directly from what, and how much, they produce.

Are you really advocating for the imprisonment of people that don't want to work? What if I want to live out in the wilderness by myself, disconnected from the rest of society?

a reply to: Dimithae

1.All 50 states would have to pass an amendment to limit them to only 2 terms.They will not do this themselves because of above listed reasons.

Whoops my bad - Just realized a term is years - not school months



This leads to 'short term-ism' -things will only being done for immediate effect with no regard for the future.

a reply to: Puppylove

You pile up enough time and production at a job, eventually you don't need to work, you've paid your debt to society

Excuse me, but what debt?? Are you insinuating that by merely existing, a human being owes a debt to society?

Yeah, no.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

You pretend like going out into the wilderness is legal now. You can do it, but if you're found you pay penalties. Also I have no problem with you going out into the world and making a living for yourself.

Already said, you choose not to contribute, that's fine, don't expect society to contribute to you either. You go out into the woods and live off the wildlife, you're no longer contributing nor taking from society. I'm more free to you doing that in my system than the current one. You want to not work, but instead pimp yourself out on the goodwill of others, all good there too, just don't expect the state or anyone to give you something for nothing.

As for arbitrary this and that, it's not any more arbitrary than anything else. The system would have to be built from the ground up and MINIMUMS and maximum income capping would need to be decided and figured out by whatever we come up with for a government. Also while there is an income cap, there isn't a time earned cap. The harder you work and more you put into it the more time you've earned to sit on your ass and get all the same benefits, at which point if you really want more you can use that time to educate yourself with the offered education programs or offer your services to others in exchange for them giving you goods they've earned.

As for state control over reproduction. The only control there is that since the state is taking care of your child's wellbeing, you pay some of the cost. The state is not taking your child from you, nor giving you a hard cap. This is to incentivize not having too many kids, rather than the current system where the poor have too many kids in order to get benefits and use what's supposed to go to the kids for personal gain.

There's no more forced labor than our current economy has, only guaranteed jobs.

Nothing you've said is remotely true except for their being a cap and minimum standard for people willing to contribute which yes would need to be ironed out.

a reply to: Borisbanger

I got the motel bill sweetheart but I gotta ask what are you if you get stuck with the bill?

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

If you want society to contribute to your well being you're indebted to contribute to it's well being, no more no less.

If you don't want to contribute, don't expect it to contribute either. If you contribute enough, you build up enough contributions that society owes you. Until society has paid it's debt that is. It's give and take, this for that.

I've already covered I have no problem with people choosing to go off the grid and neither take nor give from society.

Addendum: "If, however, you're going to stay on the grid and take from society, tell me why society should help you when you give nothing back?

Where did the idea that you are expected to do your part to contribute to the well being of society which is supposed to work for the benefit of all amounts to the same thing as slavery come from?

Is the society I described some slave master asking you to spit shine his shoes, whipping you when you don't, telling you what job you have to do, giving you zero choice on the matter, and no say in how hard or long you work? Is what I described forcing you to work till your hands are stripped bare and never letting you earn anything for yourself? Is the society I described not allowing you to not only earn a living but improve your lot in life? Is the society I describe giving you no ability to make decisions for yourself? Are there hounds ready to chase you if you try to leave at a moments notice? Does this society I describe not give you freedom to have a life? To have time to yourself and still be taken care of?

You can all say whatever, but nothing I've described in this amounts to slavery. Only a system of give and take where everyone does their part for the mutual benefit of all, and those that contribute the most and work harder get better taken care of and more time for themselves.

a reply to: TechniXcality

A bitch from HELL

a reply to: Borisbanger

angry women are so cute though... getting off topic irregardless. I'm actually on my way to the salvation army right now. I've recently started helping people and it makes me feel great.

Though it also saddens me to see how stuck people truly are and that the programs need seriouse help if we are trying to prevent and treat homeless rather than exasberate it.

a reply to: Puppylove

What people have in this life should be based upon their worth in society and the part they play in it

Society has nothing to do with private transactions.

If I hire someone to help me tend a garden that I grow on my property, the agreement between myself and my employ is a private contract. There are only two parties to the contract--myself and my employee.

If I make the offer to reimburse my employee with items grown from the garden, and my employee agrees to that term of the contract--society has not been harmed, whether I give my employee 30,000 apples a year, or 400,000 apples a year. The apples were mine to give.

The money sitting in my bank account is solely owned by myself and no one else. If I owned a school and paid the janitor $400,000.00/year, my decision to do so has no affect on society. The money was mine to give in exchange for a service.

You seem to fail to grasp the subjectivity of value. If I pay McDonald's $1.00 for a Mcdouble, I am acknowledging that I find more value in the cheeseburger that I am receiving than the dollar I am giving up.

I like McDonald's food, and the money I trade is less in value to me than the food I receive. If that were not true, I wouldn't buy the food.

I would never spend thousands of dollars on a single Pokémon trading card, to me the money lost is of greater value than the resource acquired. To some people, though, the Pokémon trading card is worth more to them than the money they spend for it.

There is no objective measure of value or worth. Value is absolutely subjective and is defined solely by the individual. Trying to measure the value that a person adds to society is a fool's errand and reminds me of the old saying "hell was paved with good intentions," because your manifesto would build hell for millions of people.

No one is qualified to objectively measure a human being's worth based on what they "contribute to society." All human beings have worth merely by existing, there would be no society without humans there to organize themselves.

not based on how much they can con out of and take from others. It should be based on worth, not cons and corruption.

caveat emptor

You have an assumption that you are making here:

All rich people became rich by conning and stealing from others. That assumption is, of course, completely false.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

We have fundamentally different opinions on what worth and value means. We'll just end up talking around each other and misrepresenting each other til the end of time. I don't wish to do that, so let's agree to disagree.

We also disagree on the immorality of funneling the majority of wealth into a infinitesimally small percentage of the population.

If one cannot see the basic truth of that immorality, discussion is basically dead there, as no amount of reasoning can be applied as it's clear they completely lack compassion for the majority of the world's population. So no argument where the majority of people have any worth is going to have any effect.

So I'm going to agree to disagree with you, before I end up losing it, because arguing for the wealth gap being anything but psychopathic is just really hard to stomach.

a reply to: Puppylove

If you want society to contribute to your well being you're indebted to contribute to it's well being, no more no less.

How does society contribute to my well being?

If you don't want to contribute, don't expect it to contribute either. If you contribute enough, you build up enough contributions that society owes you. Until society has paid it's debt that is. It's give and take, this for that.

I don't work for society, I work for Nationwide Insurance under a private contract.

Your collectivism would kill everyone.

How do you decide, objectively, the value someone adds to society?

What if I just write poetry?

What if I create a show like South Park?

What if I just play music?

What if I'm a politician or police officer?

Everyone will interpret the value of each career that I just listed above differently because value is subjective.

What if I find more value in music, poetry, and satire than I do in government and government officials because I'm an arnarchist?

What if you find more value in government officials?

Which one of us is actually "correct?"

I've already covered I have no problem with people choosing to go off the grid and neither take nor give from society.

What if enough of us went off-grid and built our own society? And when our numbers were strong, started a war with the dystopia you want to build?

Because, I'll be honest, that's exactly what I would do.

So, you have a dilemma. Anyone allowed to leave could be a potential threat to your society.

Addendum: "If, however, you're going to stay on the grid and take from society, tell me why society should help you when you give nothing back?

How do we "take" from society?

I bought a car a little while back, I paid for it, I didn't just take it. Can you explain how the car originally belonged to society? I mean, I bought it from a dealership, so it wasn't actually societies car, it was the dealership's car.

Just wondering how you feel people are taking from "society?"

Where did the idea that you are expected to do your part to contribute to the well being of society which is supposed to work for the benefit of all amounts to the same thing as slavery?

1. Human value is not determined by what we "contribute to society." There is more value to human beings than just what we do.

2. A person cannot take from society. Society is a made up concept like God or My Little Pony. You are subtly equating the lawful purchase of a resource to theft. We do not just "take" things, we exchange things. People who just take things are arrested and put in prison, it's called theft. But, if I steal a cake, I didn't steal the cake from "society," I stole it from the individual that it belonged to.

3. Your premise is slavery because the definiton of slavery is involuntary servitude. You are going to force people to work to payoff a make-believe "debt to society" (sounds like an atheist notion of original sin--we're all born with it). To force people to work you are going to have to build a fascist government with a complete Gestapo, that's slavery.

a reply to: Puppylove

We have fundamentally different opinions on what worth and value means. We'll just end up talking around each other and misrepresenting each other til the end of time. I don't wish to do that, so let's agree to disagree.

Oh, I see. So you don't think that value is subjective?

Well, then, if value is objective you should have no problem convincing me to spend tens of thousands of dollars on My Little Pony collectibles.

I'm sorry, but it is a fact that value is subjective.

We also disagree on the immorality of funneling the majority of wealth into a infinitesimally small percentage of the population.

When did I say anything about wealth gaps? I was arguing against your dystopian society, and arguing against your premises does not logically conclude that I am for our current paradigm.

If one cannot see the basic truth of that immorality, discussion is basically dead there, as no amount of reasoning can be applied as it's clear they completely lack compassion for the majority of the world's population. So no argument where the majority of people have any worth is going to have any effect.

Your view posits that people only have worth equal to what they produce. That means that you think the majority of human beings are expendable garbage.

I mean, the guy who invented vaccines produced more worth for society than the useless-eater, greeter fella at Walmart, right?

So I'm going to agree to disagree with you, before I end up losing it, because arguing for the wealth gap being anything but psychopathic is just really hard to stomach.

Don't be narcissistic, just because I am arguing against your dystopian manifesto does not mean I am arguing for the wealth gap in today's society. These things are not mutually inclusive, your answer is not the only option we have, and is probably the worst option we have.