Forum Post: Ideal Capitalism - What would it look like?
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 4, 2011, 9:19 p.m. EST by Truthcipher
(62)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Prerequisites of ideal capitalism:
1) Perfect Competition 2) Perfect Information 3) Perfect Mobility 4) Firms Maximize Profit 5) Consumers Maximize Utility 6) No externalities in production 7) No externalities in consumption 8) Tastes are exogenous I would argue that ideally speaking, this would be the best economic system available.
Here are some (definitely not even close to all) reforms that would be needed to approach this ideal: Each number below corresponds to the number of the ideal listed above.
1) Strong anti-monopoly laws 2) Complete unfettered access to the internet by every human 3) No Nations, Citizenship or Local Regulation 4) This actually is what our current capitalism already does well (1 out of 8 yeah) 5) Everyone needs to be educated concerning how to manage money 6) Strong environmental laws with strict enforcement. If a companies production negatively affects any person they need to be responsible for it. 7) For scarce resources there would need to be limits sets to how much one can consume of something. 8) Severe limits on marketing. Things are bought for their use value, not prestige value. But to your original point.
What do you all think? Would ideal capitalism be a good thing, if so how else could we pass reforms to make it a reality?
All children would have equal opportunities for education, health services, nutrition, nurturing. You know, level playing field and all that...
Good.
So there would be certain things considered common goods and not commodities to be traded in an open market?
Also, there would need to be a strong system of rules that needed to be enforced to keep the came fair. Kind of like a referee in a sporting event.
One of my biggest issues with education in America today that Home Economics does not teach the economics of the home - it teaches cooking and sewing. The root of the term means home management and not just these things but especially managing of finances which the Romans left to the women of the house.
Home Economics needs to be detailed focused on how mortgages work, checking accounts work, investments, and inflation, how to manage money and bills...not how to bake a f'in cake.
I remember taking that class way back when. didn't lurn a damn thing about budgets, but I did lurn how not to burn toast.
Ideal Capitalism: Corporate control of the electoral process and legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.
In other words, you are looking at it.
I think you are right. That is the root of what is wrong with out current form of capitalism.
Capitalism is an economic system, it should not be a political system. The integrity of the political system needs to be protected foremost as that is the only mechanism that we the people have for representation.
It is our collective will that creates the umbrella under which capitalism is allowed to operate. We did it when we outlawed slavery, child labor and safety standards in production and consumption.
What is regulation in capitalism? Hmmmm I will tell you what it manly comprises of: A wealthy Group of people saying to another wealth group of people " If you watch my back I'll hide your money".
This is a complete system. Enjoy!
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/50500650/yourtopia-your%20official%20final%20beginning.pdf
Overturn the system so there is NO capitalism. society, as a whole is freer without capitalism. there's no point of "ideal" capitalism when we have anarchism aka libertarian socialism aka "the perfect society." we just need to get there..
utopia is what we should strive for, I agree, but, it is unattainable. That's the fallacy of Marx. Dialectics would suggest that every new stage simply creates new power relations, but yet he envisions utopia. It is inconsistent with his theory and his methods.
Society should constantly evolve and adapt as we evolve and adapt and laws are always destined to play catch up.
Though you may be right that capitalism is not the answer, arguing for anarchism is actually allowing capitalism to the extreme, it is the farthest "right" of the spectrum that you can get = No regulation (never mind deregulation).
In fact. most of the problems today are the result of deregulation and free trade as we approach relative anarchy on an international stage.
The role of government should be as referee = setting the rules and enforcing them. Today, government has erased the rules and decided to become a main player in the game.
what? anarchism is a left-wing principle and always has been. Anarchists are socialists. If i was a right-wing libertarian i would be saying "capitalism IS the answer" haha. you gotta understand (and a lot of people don't knowt his), is that Anarchy has always very much been left wing. why do you think the flag's colors are red and black? red for socialism and black meaning "no rulers." Anarchists are very much socialists and Anti-capitalist. they support no government, but in another economic system. see the difference?
I understand that your form of anarchism in todays historical context is 'left wing' for you.
What I am saying is that anarchism, at least theoretically, is a 'right wing' philosophy in that it argues for minimal/no government and a complete 'hands off' laizze fair way.
Adam Smith's the wealth of nations was written, theoretically, as an attempt to uncover the 'natural' law of society as to allow for organization without central government control or a strong state. Theoretically it is anarchist in nature.
Now, I think your concept of anarchy is interesting as it recognizes a need for social goods, which can only be realized through a central control structure (government).
So how does your version of anarchy differ from the modern day concept of socialism?
no, its simply incorrect to say its a right wing philosophy. if you said "it doesn't have a wing" i would have even gone to agree to a sense. Abandon the right/left wing dichotomy as being "small government"/"big government." Wing means economic system not size of government. anarchism, throughout history, has been butt buddies with the left wing
Simply Google the word and you will see the difference between the real root of the meaning and the colloquial definition which it has turned into.
Sorry, but you need to understand the definition and meaning of the word. Anarchism is the extreme right (No Government) and Communism is extreme left (All Government).
It seems to me that someone has successfully kept the true meaning of the word from those who follow it.
Now with that being said. If you look at dialectics as a theoretical framework it makes sense that those on the two extremes have more in common with each other then they think. Instead of seeing it as a linear line, look at it from the perspective of a circle and the two points meet each other :)
I think any extreme sacrifices something and so a combination of the two (Socialism) is by far the best route - IMO.
http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2 , this website looks to clear up what the real left and right wing are. as you can see, either side can be a big government. so left and right wing is merely economic, not size of government. and since anarchy opposed hierarchies/power of any form, they are socialistic and very anti capitalistic, aka left wing :)
colloquially speaking, yes, the word has been BUTCHERED beyond belief haha. And i know many an Anarchist that can't stand that. They'll tell you that's it's left wing too haha. but yeah, modern society refuses to consider Anarchism in terms of the social phenomenon that implies. Which is anti-rulers, not just anti-state. Which is why it's also anti-capitalist haha. but society will be society :/
I say we just get rid if corruption period... that means no humans which means no greed. Robots with no feelings or desires could live perfectly in a capitalist system. I say this all tongue in cheek. Human nature changes everything!
Yup, as individual humans we are all flawed but capable of so much when we work together as a collective.
Its interesting that you bring up human nature. Most sociologists would argue that human nature is relational, meaning it is determined by the structure of any given society.
That is a major criticism and drawback of capitalism. It assumes that humans act selfishly and in their own self interest. Therefore, under capitalism, humans act selfishly and in their self interest.
I know most people here are against capitalism, I just have not heard a solid idea to replace it. Notions of local sustainability are predicated, at least initially, on a capitalist model. Communism is not a new system but simply a reaction and negative inversion of capitalism.
If people do not like capitalism, then fine, but, what then is the system used?
"Most sociologists would argue that human nature is relational, meaning it is determined by the structure of any given society."
Or, is the structure of society determined by human nature? Chicken or egg, I guess. I got to thinking about this when I was in China back in the bad old days. When the authority figures with the little red books weren't looking, the ordinary Chinese were natural born capitalists. Was the societal structure producing or suppressing human nature?
I can only point to anthropological studies that have shown human nature to be directly related to the social structure of any given culture with extreme variation between cultures.
Look at the classic work by Margaret Mead "sex and temperament." She was able to illustrate that gender roles were not natural based on sex differences in anatomy. In fact, I would argue that if we had the technological advances that we have today we could have seen actual serious variation in estrogen and testosterone in those cultures who had gender roles that varied from ours.
We are social creatures that adept to our environment (both physical and social).
I could be wrong, but I think we need to decide what we feel is our true nature and then construct a structure that allows for that development.
"Look at the classic work by Margaret Mead "sex and temperament.""
I don't know what to think about that, especially in view of Derek Freeman's work. Who knows what is correct? Anyway, I only know what I have experienced in the world (and as Johnny Cash said, "I've been everywhere, man") and it seems to me that the profit motive is ingrained. Not in every single individual, but more like being right-handed: It isn't everyone, but it is most of them.
I agree that it is but because so it is the system of capitalism which assumes a selfish human nature. So it makes sense that that is your observation.
However, even if .00001% deviates then we can not call it human nature in any absolute natural sense.
Capitalism is the a religion that has failed.
I'll focus on the proposed solutions
1) "Strong anti-monopoly laws" is abit vague but collaboration between companies, customers and companies, companies and government, companies and regulators are inevitable. So the limit of collaboration must be defined.
2) "Complete unfettered access to the internet by every human" Intellectual property and patent rights would need to be addressed here as well as the filtering of websites, ISP service providers, universal standard protocols, 'security' factors, and proprietary software/equipment.
3) Language barriers alone make this an extremely difficult task. Nevermind the vendettas that must be addressed between different groups/parties/nations due to for profit wars and conflicts.
4) Firms maximize profit at the cost of productivity. This isn't too important if the business is not providing a need such as food, or energy. However, if they are, then the public suffers because the abundant supply is intentionally being suppressed. Also, all businesses within that industry will adopt a similar policy to ensure profitability and will fight any opposition supporting the public. (e.g. Tesla)
5) Before that, everyone needs to be educated on the fact that money is just a social contract to allow access to goods/services based on a form of debt. Many needed goods/services can be accessed and obtained without utilizing debt. Automation, Sustainability, and self-sufficiency provide different means of accomplishing this.
Unfortunately, solutions proposed for 6, 7, and 8 require enforced policies and monitoring in order to be followed in an ideal competitive system. This then falls on ethical judges, and enforcement to both refuse bribes from companies and to not manipulate the law in favor of business/money over the environment/public. (this is nearly impossible in a system that regards businesses as sacred 'people' and money as God)
Until people begin expanding their value set beyond greed centered financial values into virtues, principles, ethics (and begin to align their lifestyle according to these values) no system will be able to address the problems at the core of our society.
I think this a good analysis. I agree that there needs to be a fundamental shift in what "we" value as people in order for society to move forward.
Yes, there is much work to be done with any reforms/revolution that may be implemented.
No system will ever be utopian. I think the challenge is to find the "best" system and to work towards that ideal, while never being able to achieve it. Ideals are just that. They are good as a measuring stick of progress but we are all flawed humans and so no ideal would ever be actualized in reality.
In all truth, for the most part capitalism is best left unchaperoned until he F##$s up.
When he gets out line, we slap him on the wrist and learn from the lessons of history.
We keep the sacredness of the public domain separate from the petty, internecine striving of individual entrepreneurs and we prevent opportunistic meddling in the public sphere.
And we intervene if necessary to assure to the public is not raped in a moment of headiness.
Capitalism: the horny, young high school quarterback, who's a$$ you can't quite kick because he's your nephew...but who probably had it coming anyway.
Wait....nevermind. Wrong forum ;0)
LMFAO
American System of Economics -Debt Free Money -Investment in Production Capacity infrastructure , and Social Infrastructures.
Notable Figures Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, Henry Carey, Abraham Lincoln Friedrich List, William Mckinley
The government can and has absolutely been a successful player in the game. The question today is can it be so once again? I think the global economy has been designed to reduce the ability of nation-states to self-regulate and be protectionist. The game has changed.
I think this model could work once again, in fact, it may be the only thing 'big' to significantly implement the paradigm shift needed in this the final hour.
Do you think the ideals of protectionism could be applied globally??
please don't view protectionsim from a left or right point of view. I ask that you research this lost economic school of though clear of bias. Start off with this simple fact Free Market Capitalism ONLY works with protectionism. It will FAIL every time with Free trade. Everything the right talks about, Supply Creates its own demand, self regulation, employers raising wages with out unions wages going up indirectly because we the dollar produces more. That CANNOT work with in Free Trade Nation State.
"The currency of this country should be as national as its flag. It should be as unsullied as the national conscience and as sound as the government itself. And there is not a business man or working man, no matter to what political party he belongs, if he will honestly vote his convictions, who will not vote against the party that proposes to re-establish a system under which this country lost millions upon millions of dollars. We have had all the Confederate currency we want. We are for a United States currency in some form for all time in the future. We are not only opposed to Confederate currency, but we are opposed to British political economy. We not only fight for our industries and our labor, that they may be prosperous and well-paid, but we insist that when they have earned their money they shall be paid in a dollar worth full one hundred cents. When a workingman gives ten hours a day to his employer--ten full hours--he is entitled to be paid in a dollar worth full one hundred cents. Free trade shaves down his labor first, and then scales down his pay by rewarding him in a worthless and a depreciated currency." - President William Mckinley
think about...
http://books.google.com/books?id=UukpAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Henry+Carey&hl=en&ei=QwziTpXAFoiGiQKezOn4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Henry%20Carey&f=false
I agree with those words when they were written. Unfortunately they were not taken to heart and we are left where we are today. Like it or not this is a global economy from which there is no turning back.
I agree with your critique of free trade. There definitely needs to be strong regulations that creates the 'natural environment' from which free trade operates. Like a set of rules in a sporting event. Anything goes under the umbrella of regulations as defined. With those regulations designed to optimize fairness.
Where I think we disagree is that as long as the focus is on a specific territory (Country) then they are doomed for failure in todays global economy. That strong regulatory system that you long for can only be functional in a global economy as a global system of regulation.
read that book I provided the link for. the smaller the nation Physically the more atone to lower tariffs it should be.
teabaggers should love this program. The economic system was designed to NOT TAX the people directly but still raise enough funds to provide infrastructure and most public services
[Removed]
Possibly. Maybe not a definitive limit but a true progressive tax, unlike our current regressive tax system (just look at the taxes on booze and cigarettes - the poor man's luxuries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Determining limits and marketing is called communism, not capitalism
umm - not so. The invisible hand is determined by supply and demand. Supply and demand are most efficient when all consumers know all products available, there quality and price. If this information were free and readily available, then hypothetically, marketing would not be needed nor would it exist.
Freedom of information is a requirement for capitalism, marketing is a different thing.
There is a reason its called invisible, there houdini.
He's the ideal situation. One person in the middle of the woods. As long as there are two or more people involved, corruption will exist, which will destroy the system. There will always be someone stronger, smarter, and better equipped than you. The reverse is also true. You have something other people don't. If they want it, they'll figure out how to get it, or whine and complain(sound familiar??). Captialism needs both parties, the poor and the rich to succeed. If everyone is too poor to buy anything nobody makes anything-money or product, 'cause what's the use?? Then we starve and die. If everyone has everything, there's no use for innovation and we go stagnant and die. If you only by things for use and not prestige, then nobody makes money. Why would you not want the "hot" version of anything? I'm not saying buy a $56,000 watch because you can. I believe that's just dumb, but getting the top version of a model of a car, for example, wouldn't make you feel just a little good every once in a while?? If not, you need a personal reassessment. It's about pride. If you don't want to feel elite about something even if it's for a few minutes every day, you wouldn't want that?? Marketing is what moves all of this. If there were "limited marketing", massive, massive layoffs would occur worldwide. Concerning setting limits on how much can be consumed by any one person is no good. Every person requires different things. I eat 4 times a day maybe, 4 out of 5 days sometimes, and the other 2 I eat once. I get the allowance for that. The next week I diet. I buy veggies and all that crap. We all know dieting stuff isn't cheap if you're serious about it, so that old allowance gets eaten up faster, becaue the quality food is more expensive than the junk food, so now I can only eat 4 and a half days, period. Now I guess I'm gonna lose weight faster now, huh?? Not to mention my daughter. Get it?? Your fifth point, yes. 100% Second point, see above. Prerequisite 6 and 7. That would starve us technologically, economically, and most likely genetically. There would eventually be a war, externally, or internally and civilizations would crumble and be rebuilt through discovery and we would be the world we are now(I think it might have happened before). You capitalism sounds like communism.
There is no easy push-button solution.
Humans live best at 99 or less population to a village that is self sustaining.
When ever a village is short of food they tend to rob the neighbors and maim the men and steal the women and children. Much of Africa is this way as its a barren wasteland, but then much of tropical asia is quite pleasant as only a few meters of land are required to live well for a family or village.
If you look at the USA most of the land is not hospitable, and most land requires 1,000's of acres even for one cow to live, thus in order for people to live in the USA food is imported, rivers are dammed, and artificial homes are required, nothing is real and all is imported and nobody lives off the land like they do in the tropics.
The problem is that its VERY high energy consumption for masses to occupy the north-hemisphere at high latitudes, theft of oil from middle-east is the only reason the USA exists as we know it.
I have defined life, and out situation, in no case does village life ever allow 'capitalism', most native people are always by barter, if you have watermelon, I'll give you some rice, ...
Mercantile civilization created paper money and capitalism, and ALL mercantile civilizations in the last 4,000 years have failed, because their paper money becomes worthless. Read Sprenglers 2-volume classic "decline of the west", written in 1918, and everything today will be clear.
Capitalism is a symptom of greed and competition, it always has and always will ONLY enrich a minority who seek control and power.
The best way to live in todays EVIL WORLD is to simply go live in a tropical area ( think panama or cuba ... ) and live, trying to live in Nebraska or NYC is not natural and total waste of energy, and this DEMAND for energy is why we're being destroyed by the capitalist devil.
Capitalism and a confidence based economy are not synonymous. We were capitalist even when we were on the gold standard and that paper was a true representation of value. So Sprenglers analysis, though very pertinent to us today, does not debunk capitalism in anyway.
Your analysis suggests everyone leaving their homes to occupy tropical areas. I think you see the harm in that.
I thought this movement was about being committed to the process and in that process being constructive in our attempts to move forward.
You don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm not saying capitalism is the answer but I'm not going to let it's current perversion discredit it as a valid system either. In fact, historically speaking, even Marx agreed it was the most productive system known to man. Not only in material production but in its ability to unite the world through the socialization of labor.
The problem is that there is NO confidence in the USA kleptocracy, the US DOLLAR game only works cuz the USA holds a gun/nuke to world and forces it to trade oil in US DOLLARS,
Backing by gold can only be fractional, but that' s not really the problem the problem is the USA is already too far gone, with a real obligation of $200Trillion US dollars, the $16T is only the budget on the books, most of the real debt is IOU's kept off the books.
All nations on earth that have had paper money eventually destroy themselves.
Sprengler studied ALL mercantile civilizations in history and they all failed,
Yup, I agree. I think Sprengler is useful in understanding where America is headed because we do have a confidence backed (mercantile) economy.
YEP but now ALL CONFIDENCE is lost, for 50 years, one reason, and ONE REASON only the US DOLLAR has survived, that is because the US GOVERNMENT has had a NUKE-GUN to the worlds HEAD, accept US dollars if you trade OIL or die, its the ONLY real purpose of the CIA, and the only reason for the NSA to keep the dollar as the reserve currency,
But now its game-over for no other reason that the US-DOLLAR is toilet paper, for many reasons, but #1 is dilution,
IMHO why Sprengler is useful is understanding that NOBODY escapes the consequences of a mercantile economy, ... NOBODY
The USA is NOT special, just another failed state in world history,
It does not take thousands of acres for one cow. That number makes no sense. My sister has 100 cattle at her house(and they are tasty.) and she has 210. They are happy and will walk right up to you and eat from your hand. We grow more than we need and trade with other countries, why do you think when then vegetable scares were happening, the contaminated foods were from China, Mexico and USA(USA was number 1. Unless you think that number is made up by the CDC) And if you think going to Panama or Cuba is a good idea, please go right now and help natural selection. You would be shot or kidnapped within hours. And why do you not like Nebraska?? Living is natural wherever you do it. People still live within the radiation zone of Chernobyl. Is that natural?? Yes, but prolly not a good idea. Energy isn't whats driving this. You can build an electric car with solar panels. I've personally seen it work. The government will give you quite a bit of money to install solar panels on your house(both local and federal. Not to mention your local power company for adding power to the grid). Also, if you lived in a community of 99 or less(haha, I see what ya did there!!) you would be inbreeding within 56 years or less. Books written in 1918 have nothing to do with 2011. Unless you can quote me a chapter about Google in that book I don't believe it.
In Arizona or Eastern Oregon it take 1,000's of acres for one head of cattle, in Vermont in the spring sure probably an acre, but MOST of the american west is desert, if you honestly don't understand how many acres of western land it takes to sustain cattle then you really should be in this debate. Your sister is probably using an irrigation system, Solar is filthy dirty the batterys have a short life, where do you dispose them? I always find it crazy to argue with people who don't understand the science behind manufacturing filthy dirty photo-voltaic panels and batterys.
Your right, I should be in this debate, you are misinformed
Please there is NO water, I have had land in the west I know the biz, your not talking to a vegan, and your not talking to an asshole that don't know a fact from fed shit.
In most of the US WEST it takes 2,000 or more acres to sustain one head of cattle. I'm NOT talking about land that has irrigation, by definition most cattle land is free grazing and without water. Water must be brought in the by trucks and bin's filled for the cattle to drink, the reason for 2,000 acres per head is that it takes 2,000 acres to grow enough grass to feed one head.
If you were in a place that had unlimited water, you could I guess do the thing that UK does warehouse the cattle and keep them in a 2 meter box and then they get mad-cow disease from eating pellets made of dead cows and living in their own shit like modern pig or chicken farms.
Most 'real men' like free range beef, and out west it takes about 2,000 or more acres to sustain one head, everything you write is based on this that doesn't exist,
You talk a lot about veggies and about photo-voltaics which you know nothing about. Jump around, I only made one point, and that is out west it takes on average 2,000 or more acres to sustain one critter be that a horse or cow, that's why if you drive for 4 hours in Nevada, or Arizona, or Eastern WASH/ORYGUN, or Idaho, or Texas, ... or New Mexico, in general you'll see little to no critters out grazing cuz there is nothing out there to eat.
People like you are boring you think that cuz your right-wing you know it all and you think that all liberals are veggie fruit loops that will eat your shit, guess what I think your a pussy.
The best form of capitalism would be no capitalism.
Probably only ancient greece had it right, force everybody to be in poly-ticks, and limit the time to old age,
AmeriKKKan capitalism is really evil one only look at the insurance industry, and what they have done to medical, driving, anything for that pattern, then at last the created the CDS, the final death nail to the USA, all thanks to insurance,
Capitalism my ASS, USA is a kleptocracy, government ran by common criminal
I agree, is we look at how capitalism was put into practice it has been criminal over the past 200 years (specifically looking at the top portion of the economy).
My caution is this, we never had capitalism, it was an illusion that hid a fascist state and economy.
Just like we've never had democracy or even a true representative democracy for that matter. It was an illusion to hide a fascist state and economy.
But we are not willing to abandon the ideal of democracy simply because it has been perverted by the powers that be. Why then would we abandon the ideals of capitalism simply because it was perverted by the powers that be?
The majority of the US ruling class has long advocated we have 'too much democracy', .. go study this stuff.
The USA is a failed prison colony, then it became a failed slave plantation, and then it became a failed industrial prison, today the USA has excess population problem.
Time for war and slaughter.
If you want freedom, if you want peace on earth, get the fuck out of the USA, like so many have already done.
This is my country and I support the ideals upon which I was raised and feel it is my duty as an American to continue the struggle towards them.
Good you stay and fight the 'good war', survivors will run like hell and find a paradise to live in this life, but you go ahead and die for god&country(fascism&bush) and enjoy your after life.
There is no pure capitalism, there is no pure anarchism, purity only exists in theory.
That's why the greatest have said "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun"
There is no democracy. Never has been never will be.
ABSOLUTELY TRUE. But is not life nothing more then discovering those ideals which we as a collective decide are good and true. Then acting in a manner that is in line with those ideals. Never achieving but forever striving and setting the stage for progress for the next generation.
Today is our turn at history and the future.
I know, but leave it at that, its called 'bar talk' and we'll have a beer and get drunk and talk about utopia and crawl home and puke, but the next morning in the real world, its the PIG with the GUN that has the power.
But a good drunk and good philosophical session, sure that's what life is all about, ...
Here's a simple model.
In any society there is only a little bit of beautiful women, good booze, and good food. Most men never even get close to the good stuff.
The men who understand the 'real source of power' have the good-life and get the good stuff, everybody else sleeps in 3rd class and eats shit, and all societys are this way, its just that the US media has somehow convinced Joe-Hairlip that he's the man, but he's only a fool.
I would love to sit down and have that beer. Just remember that which you already point out. The 'good stuff' is socially constructed and so an illusion to be manipulated.
My 'good stuff' are my friends and family. That beer at the bar is worth more then any mansion or car.
anarchism is socialist, not capitalist... idk why people DONT know that
Not true. It is the absence of government = extreme capitalism = allow the 'natural' order to be the rule of law. Google it.
you're absolutely wrong. absence of government can be either economic style. if we lived in the USSR and said "hey take away the government," guess what? we have socialism WITH NO government. in america, if you take away the government, you get laissez-faire capitalism, so youre partly right, but not wholly right. YOU google it. don't give me the "it wont work without government" stuff either, because thats besides the point, we're talking theories here. anarchist catalonia was an anarcho-syndicalist federation that actually lived and prospered during the spanish civil war. it was communist and anarchist. GOOGLE it.
I think you make a good distinction here. The difference between an economic system and a political system. Making that separation allows me to now see where you are coming from.
My word of caution is to not mix the two words into similar meanings as it will take away the ability to continue theory on the topic. As stated in a previous post, theoretically they are opposite extremes, in reality, they are eternally linked side by side.
Please don't play idiot with me, I'll stamp you out like a roach.
We're talking about -ism's and such.
Emma Goldman the MOTHER of Anarchism said "Anarchism is communism in its purest form"
For you to write that anarchism is socialism shows that your an idiot. Go do your homework before you reply in the realm of giants. I'll not even bother to call you a troll just point out that your a fool.
but thats the same thing i was trying to convey honestly. i was just posting out that its anti capitalist. i think i replied to the wrong person, i didnt mean to reply to you haha. and communism is a TYPE OF SOCIALISM so idk why the anger was there -_- but yes, you are correct. i love goldman. I'm an anarchist too. Communism is the end result of socialism. i use them interchangeably. Fact is, Anarchism and socialism are friends, and both hate capitalism. I hate capitalism as well
i didnt mean "socialism" in the bad way... i'm an anarchist myself as well as a socialist.... AND a communist. because yes, you can be all 3. i was just saying that Anarchists hate capitalism haha
[Deleted]
I would like to offer a suggestion on how to correct capitalism :
Capitalism does allow products to develop where needed.. and resources to be harvested as needed .. but we still have a large number of people living in poverty worldwide .. so capitalism does not trump all concerns.
my suggestion is to place a percentage sales profit CAP on all products bought and sold. this will not affect the quality of the manufactures product negatively .. but it will provide a healthier standard of living for those at the bottom. ..and get us out of the debt we are in .. A CAP is the silver bullet we need right now .. it will work.
Exactly how would this cap work?
that is a lot of question to answer ..
it would be placed on all points between buy and sell .. thats the very basic of it ..
the results would bring prices down at the consumer level .. immediately .. causing a huge influx in sales .. which creates demand on the manufacturer ..who than hires more employees .. and creates money flow .. with all this additional money flow and consumption taxes are also generated .. bringing the government back up to its full operating capacity ..and possibly this time ..paying down the debt .. of course the investor will not profit as much as he once has .. but that was the whole problem that got us int othis economic crisis .. the profits stripped the economy of its basic need , money.
So how does it effect the bottom. Is there an incentive here for providing higher wages or is it simply through taxation and relying on our inefficient government?
how does it effect the bottom? I thought that would be obvious ?
the prices come down so the bottom dollar goes further .. creating a higher standard of living .. plus the job creation I mentioned .. it all helps the bottom .. with the tax and government programs revitalized.. This refloats the whole ship .. takes away the feart of drowning in debt .. closes the gap in wealth ..
I like that. I like anything that is an effort to restart local small business and local sustainability. That is why I started this post, to help come up with ideas to get us back to what we know works.
this would restart the world economy !