![]() |
Let's talk about capitalism
During the last few years, more and more voices have begun to criticize capitalism's adverse effects. In Greece, Syriza has appeared as a voice against the austerity imposed by the neoliberal European Union. Podemos has played a similar role in Spain. In Paris, “Nuit debout” protesters have occupied public squares, in a way similar to the Occupy Protesters in New York. We have all heard what the problems are, now the point is to propose solutions. How do we fix corruption? How do we create a democracy for working people? How do we fight economic inequality? Should capitalism be abolished? How should that be done?
|
I say we abolish it and keep the type of government that has never had any problems.
|
Quote:
Shameless plug. |
Oh is that why it sounds like ****?
|
Quote:
|
It's the best economic system we have created up to this point, and I'd be in favour of less regulation and taxes. But I don't know enough to say if that would work.
Corporatism is the real issue. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Capitalism with reasonable regulations to insure that the greedy can't run amok with it.
|
ENsure ffs
|
STop stalking me.
|
I'll ztop when I want to ztop.
|
Quote:
|
Socialism>false dichotomies
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
I'd put a socialist system in place instead.
My idiosyncratic socialist system would still have economic inequality and be competitive, but it would ensure that everyone has food, shelter, health care, education, transportation, etc. I have no inherent love for democracy. I couldn't care less about governmental structure in that sense. What I care about is the laws we have and the economic structure in place. I'd be fine with a monarchy or dictatorship (or an oligarchy or whatever) as long as I agree with the laws and economic structure instantiated. Democracies are no more inherently likely to have laws and economic structures that I prefer. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Unfortunately that sh*t smell lingers. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
But you could wear a really cool Che t-shirt with all your comrades in Cuba.
|
Quote:
|
Get out, Communist ***gots.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
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. |
And capitalism is a much more sensible and logical way of getting sh*t done.
|
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
I'm not a big fan of Mao myself, but I found this video from TeleSUR interesting. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:41 PM. |
© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.