Blue Hawk

Who is McCarthy? Your dad?

__________________
Eliminate the right, eliminate the wrong, eliminate the weak, eliminate the strong.

Xurtio

It's only in a polarizing light that capitalism and socialism are viewed as mutually exclusive. I'm all for a hybrid.

Exactly what problems are trying to solve with capitalism?

__________________
H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉

Blank.

And that hybrid is?

Tristan_Geoff

__________________
YW Fam: All MB Music Projects Under One Roof

Emo/Pop Punk Journal

Techno Journal

The Batlord

__________________

Isbjørn

Capitalism is private ownership over the means of production. The working majority have to earn their living by selling their labor to a handful of capitalists, who extract profits. Socialism, on the other hand, is collective ownership of the means of production. This requires workers to take control over their workplaces, and establish a state that is democratically biased towards the workers, just as states in capitalist countries are biased towards the capitalist class.

To socialists who belong to the Marxist tradition, the question of capitalism vs socialism isn't a question of "bigger" or "smaller" government, or simply more or less economic equality - Norway is just as capitalist as the USA, even though we have more extensive public welfare programs. The question of capitalism vs socialism is all about which class is dominant. Who owns and controls the means of production? Who controls the state apparatus? If you look at it this way, capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive.

__________________

Goofle

And capitalism is a much more sensible and logical way of getting sh*t done.

__________________

innerspaceboy

I'll be the first to admit that I am entirely a novice to political philosophy, but I have a fantastic interest in the subject and am exploring it as best I can with the resources available.

I understand the numerous inherent failures of capitalism as outlined by Marx, though I do not align myself entirely with his vision for its successor.

My ideals and values are primarily united with those of social anarchism (also dubbed libertarian socialism though I understand the community's distancing itself from the "l" word since the advent of conservative neo-liberarianism.)

I support socially-conscious individual liberty, a rich commons, and oppose intellectual and private property. I support Kopimism, reject groupthink and collective conformity, and recognize the benefits of collectivism and unionized workers.

However I also recognize the utopian fallacies of this philosophy. Its impracticality lies with the fact that man is fundamentally an animal driven by selfishness and fear. This prevents large-scale collaborative efforts from being realized, sacrificing the well-being of one's fellow man in the name of his pursuit of capital.

And, as Marx himself described, middle-class owners of property will characteristically opt for a conservative preservation of the status quo, (ironically in opposition of their own interests). Like the conservative poor, they will have no part in the revolution toward collective/syndicalism, as they've been effectively conditioned for Bernay's engineering of consent to serve the establishment.

And as a dear friend of mine so succinctly uttered - "anarchism doesn't work because it's hard to trade CDs for Band-Aids at three in the morning." After five hundred years of man's role in merchant-capital-based societies, the majority of the population, ignorant of or simply disinterested by the revolution, will cling fast to that system, once again due to man's inherent selfishness and fear.

Still, I'm eager to explore the writings of Chomsky, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and other key figures of the anarchist school of thought. I just fear that it is too utopian a construct to be actualized in our time.

__________________
The Innerspace Connection | Essential Recordings | Top Archives | Hot 100 Albums | Top 550 Artists

William_the_Bloody

Wow I thought this argument was settled after the fall of the Soviet Union. If you ask the people of china what system they would prefer (Capitalism, or Maoism) I'm pretty sure the answer is obvious.

Isbjørn

No, the answer is not obvious. Mao is well-respected in China, even though the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward are critizised, as they should be. Under Mao's regime, life expectancy went from about 35 years in 1949 to 66 years in 1976. Illiteracy went from around 80% to less than 7%. Now, under capitalism, China is among the worst countries in the world when it comes to income equality, with 36% of the population living on less than two dollars a day. The country has experienced a booming economic growth after the liberal market reforms, but only after decades of attempting to build up a self-sufficient economy.

I'm not a big fan of Mao myself, but I found this video from TeleSUR interesting.

__________________