Capitalism Sucks and you know it.

[Eduardo X]

I just really want to troll, though I do believe this.
So, as usual, anarchy and freedom is what I want. (cue crass drums, chant "want want want", then kick into "I've Got it all Right Here!")

[gbasden]

Nice to see Eduardo is finally in the house!

[Mr. Fed]

You should go to Hot Topic. I hear they have good anarchy shirts and accessories and stuff. And they're having a sale!

[Eduardo X]

You should go to Hot Topic. I hear they have good anarchy shirts and accessories and stuff. And they're having a sale!

Wait, is the THE Mr. Fed? Are you back? Are you no longer hungry, as you were fed?

And BOO FOR HOT TOPIC!

[Smoove_B]

Sometimes I log on as Mr. Fed.

Sometimes as Smoove_B.

Depends on how I'm feeling.

[$iljanus]

I just really want to troll, though I do believe this.
So, as usual, anarchy and freedom is what I want. (cue crass drums, chant "want want want", then kick into "I've Got it all Right Here!")

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So are you playing Rome: Total War on your capitalist home computer yet?

[The Mad Hatter]

Anarchy isn't freedom, it's the man with the machine gun taking what he wants until someone else with a machine gun comes and takes it away from him. Human nature is base and aggressive, it needs the fist to keep it in line.

[Grifman]

Anarchy isn't freedom, it's the man with the machine gun taking what he wants until someone else with a machine gun comes and takes it away from him. Human nature is base and aggressive, it needs the fist to keep it in line.

PWNED!

Grifman

[Mr. Sparkle]

Anarchy isn't freedom, it's the man with the machine gun taking what he wants until someone else with a machine gun comes and takes it away from him. Human nature is base and aggressive, it needs the fist to keep it in line.

PWNED!

Grifman

Why can't we change Human Nature?

Then we're all set right?

True Libertarians understand the Ultimate Obstacle to Freedom, and it's not Saddam Hussien. 8)

[bplotkin]

You're right Eduardo. Capitalism DOES suck. The only problem is that everything else sucks more.

[Grifman]

Anarchy isn't freedom, it's the man with the machine gun taking what he wants until someone else with a machine gun comes and takes it away from him. Human nature is base and aggressive, it needs the fist to keep it in line.

PWNED!

Grifman

Why can't we change Human Nature?

Then we're all set right?

Been there, done that, didn't work, thousands of years of history, etc.

Grifman

[Mr. Sparkle]

Anarchy isn't freedom, it's the man with the machine gun taking what he wants until someone else with a machine gun comes and takes it away from him. Human nature is base and aggressive, it needs the fist to keep it in line.

PWNED!

Grifman

Why can't we change Human Nature?

Then we're all set right?

Been there, done that, didn't work, thousands of years of history, etc.

Grifman

Done what exactly?

I'm reasonably familiar with the "history", but I'm not sure what we've done about Human Nature.

[Grifman]

Anarchy isn't freedom, it's the man with the machine gun taking what he wants until someone else with a machine gun comes and takes it away from him. Human nature is base and aggressive, it needs the fist to keep it in line.

PWNED!

Grifman

Why can't we change Human Nature?

Then we're all set right?

Been there, done that, didn't work, thousands of years of history, etc.

Grifman

Done what exactly?

I'm reasonably familiar with the "history", but I'm not sure what we've done about Human Nature.

Familiar with "history"? Let's see:

Wars
Murder
Child abuse
Greed
Theft
Oppression of the poor by the rich
Injustice
Etc.

I think the record speaks for itself.

Grifman

[dbt1949]

Anarchy.Pretty much the way I run my mountain.You SURE that's the kind of government you want?

[Mr. Sparkle]

Anarchy isn't freedom, it's the man with the machine gun taking what he wants until someone else with a machine gun comes and takes it away from him. Human nature is base and aggressive, it needs the fist to keep it in line.

PWNED!

Grifman

Why can't we change Human Nature?

Then we're all set right?

Been there, done that, didn't work, thousands of years of history, etc.

Grifman

Done what exactly?

I'm reasonably familiar with the "history", but I'm not sure what we've done about Human Nature.

Familiar with "history"? Let's see:

Wars
Murder
Child abuse
Greed
Theft
Oppression of the poor by the rich
Injustice
Etc.

I think the record speaks for itself.

Grifman

You're right.

The record is, in fact, clear. I don't argue.

However, my point was not whether we act like the worst kind of savages... I know we do. The point was related to the fact that if we acknowledge our "issue" as a species; what do we do?

Note: My Original post was somewhat "troll bait" as I'm promoting transhumanist beliefs, which exist outside of the political spectrum... so feel free to ignore as needed.

[gorky1]

Capitalism sucks when you're poor. When you're rich, it rocks! I guess.

One thing I don't understand is economic growth. For capitalism to work, the economy has to grow every year, doesn't it? Otherwise the poor can't get rich, which is what keeps them from rebelling. Can the economy grow indefinitely, or has capitalism a built-in "best before" date?

[Trent Steel]

Why only mention capitalism Eduardo? Why not be against every form of governmental organization who's single purpose is the control of the populace?

I know being anti-American is en vogue, but it is also a bit naïve.

[Trent Steel]

Anarchy isn't freedom, it's the man with the machine gun taking what he wants until someone else with a machine gun comes and takes it away from him. Human nature is base and aggressive, it needs the fist to keep it in line.

Nope. What you described sounds like a dictatorship. Anarchy is the absence of any authoritative body which would control the people.

[Koz]

I think his point is that that state wouldn't last too long, I tend to think I agree.

[jblank]

I just really want to troll, though I do believe this.
So, as usual, anarchy and freedom is what I want. (cue crass drums, chant "want want want", then kick into "I've Got it all Right Here!")

Anarchy is mob rule, not freedom. Its the ones with the might controlling the ones without strength. Capitalism, for all its problems, at least affords you the opportunity, to accumulate wealth and fortune. The alternatives, offer much less economic freedom, much less opportunity, and much more control out of your hands. There will always be corruption, even in Socialistic type economies, so regardless of whether you have Capitalism or not, humanities own corruption bleeds into it somehow, and injustice will follow. Give me Capitalism and a chance, over Communism any day.

[Kraken]

One thing I don't understand is economic growth. For capitalism to work, the economy has to grow every year, doesn't it? Otherwise the poor can't get rich, which is what keeps them from rebelling. Can the economy grow indefinitely, or has capitalism a built-in "best before" date?

I consider that an unanswered question. Some here believe that (1) capitalism requires continual growth, and (2) economic growth requires population growth. I don't accept either maxim as proven, but I've only ever seen or made weak arguments to the contrary. Since world population has always been growing and capitalism always expanding, it is sort of theoretical...and the same argument would extend beyond capitalism to economic growth in general, anyway.

BTW, the poor are never going to get rich under any economic or political system. Shhh. Don't tell them.

Philosophically, I prefer capitalism to socialism. I would rather be responsible for myself, with the implied hard work and risk of failure, than suckling safely from the government teat all my life. But I'm realistic enough to know that in a pure, unregulated capitalism economy I would quickly be pwned, because I am only weakly motivated by money. The people who spend their lives dreaming up ways to acquire it, and who have no scruples in their way, inevitably end up on top.

Bet you didn't expect boobies in this thread, did you?

[LordMortis]

Nope. What you described sounds like a dictatorship. Anarchy is the absence of any authoritative body which would control the people.

How do you describe Anarchy then? He's not talking about control, per se. He's talking about might of the moment defining justified recourse.

[Kadoth Nodens]

Bet you didn't expect boobies in this thread, did you?

I expected nothing but boobies in this thread! And I was right!

[LordMortis]

I consider that an unanswered question. Some here believe that (1) capitalism requires continual growth, and (2) economic growth requires population growth. I don't accept either maxim as proven, but I've only ever seen or made weak arguments to the contrary. Since world population has always been growing and capitalism always expanding, it is sort of theoretical...and the same argument would extend beyond capitalism to economic growth in general, anyway.

I concur....perhaps you should start a thread about it. I've been told capitalism, by necessisty is grow or die, and I totally don't understand why.

[The Mad Hatter]

Anarchy isn't freedom, it's the man with the machine gun taking what he wants until someone else with a machine gun comes and takes it away from him. Human nature is base and aggressive, it needs the fist to keep it in line.

Nope. What you described sounds like a dictatorship. Anarchy is the absence of any authoritative body which would control the people.

Anarchy is the absence of any necessity for an authoritative body. Strip away the state and humanity can function collectively without any oversight - that's the theory. The reality is that the reasons for government's development in the first place are still just as valid today as they were 10,000 years ago. We still need protection from the savagery of our fellow humans. Removing that only reduces us to the most primitive hierarchy, based on brute force.

[Trent Steel]

Anarchy is mob rule, not freedom.

Mob rule could certainly arise as a RESULT of anarchy. However, anarchy != mob rule.

[Trent Steel]

Anarchy is the absence of any necessity for an authoritative body. Strip away the state and humanity can function collectively without any oversight - that's the theory. The reality is that the reasons for government's development in the first place are still just as valid today as they were 10,000 years ago. We still need protection from the savagery of our fellow humans. Removing that only reduces us to the most primitive hierarchy, based on brute force.

Ahh... so without The System (TM) we have no need for any authoritative body and thus would (or should) adopt anarchy. I would agree that in order to prop-up and maintain all that we have going today, governments are a requirement. However, you know by now what I think about our "modern conveniences".

And as for the "brute force" issue, what percentage of the population today is being protected by governments from said "savagery"? How many governments are responsible for "savagery" themselves?

[jblank]

Anarchy is mob rule, not freedom.

Mob rule could certainly arise as a RESULT of anarchy. However, anarchy != mob rule.

Same thing. Anarchy is a complete breakdown in law, order, and control. Its anything goes, and because of that, the might of some will attempt to fill the vacuum left by "government", resulting in control by those with the ability and means to "rule".

[Trent Steel]

Same thing. Anarchy is a complete breakdown in law, order, and control. Its anything goes, and because of that, the might of some will attempt to fill the vacuum left by "government", resulting in control by those with the ability and means to "rule".

But there is a distinction. In what you describe, the might of some would only arise if there is something still left to exert power for. Anarchy with The System (TM) would turn into mob rule and chaos. Anarchy without The System (TM) would just be people doing what they want when they want. In essence, true freedom, which is what I believe Eduardo is talking abOOt.

[Eduardo X]

Exactly, Trent Steel and TMH.
What jblank is describing is chaos or a state of nature. Anarchy, as a society, means communities working as a cohesive unit for the survival and benefit of the entire community.
If somebody pulls out a machine gun, then the community would either be aided by other communities to ensure their autonomy or would fight for itself as a trained militia to defend itself.
Life wouldn't be perfect as this sort of issue could come up, but I think a well organized community (but not a centrally run community) could easily fight off such an attack.

[jblank]

Exactly, Trent Steel and TMH.
What jblank is describing is chaos or a state of nature. Anarchy, as a society, means communities working as a cohesive unit for the survival and benefit of the entire community.
If somebody pulls out a machine gun, then the community would either be aided by other communities to ensure their autonomy or would fight for itself as a trained militia to defend itself.
Life wouldn't be perfect as this sort of issue could come up, but I think a well organized community (but not a centrally run community) could easily fight off such an attack.

There is no way that would work, nor would be a better system than what we have. If government broke down, someone, or some clan/group, would attempt to fill that vacuum, and either war or violent chaos would ensue. Sorry but what you describe just doesnt sound appealing.

[Dirt]

anarchy~=freedom

[Trent Steel]

anarchy~=freedom

That is also correct.

[gellar]

Exactly, Trent Steel and TMH.
What jblank is describing is chaos or a state of nature. Anarchy, as a society, means communities working as a cohesive unit for the survival and benefit of the entire community.
If somebody pulls out a machine gun, then the community would either be aided by other communities to ensure their autonomy or would fight for itself as a trained militia to defend itself.
Life wouldn't be perfect as this sort of issue could come up, but I think a well organized community (but not a centrally run community) could easily fight off such an attack.

I fail to understand how or why anyone would progress in a society without reward.

Capitalism thrives because it's the only system that rewards individuals for accomplishments and innovation.

A Social economy will never survive in the world where there is Capitalism. Their innovators will just bail and follow the money.

gellar

[Eduardo X]

Exactly, Trent Steel and TMH.
What jblank is describing is chaos or a state of nature. Anarchy, as a society, means communities working as a cohesive unit for the survival and benefit of the entire community.
If somebody pulls out a machine gun, then the community would either be aided by other communities to ensure their autonomy or would fight for itself as a trained militia to defend itself.
Life wouldn't be perfect as this sort of issue could come up, but I think a well organized community (but not a centrally run community) could easily fight off such an attack.

There is no way that would work, nor would be a better system than what we have. If government broke down, someone, or some clan/group, would attempt to fill that vacuum, and either war or violent chaos would ensue. Sorry but what you describe just doesnt sound appealing.

It is something that DOES work.
The Zapatistas have run under this model for almost 11 years now in Chiapas, Mexico. They are victims of violence, but that doesn't force them into authoritarianism. They are autonomous in every sense of the word, seeking assistance from like minded communities around the world to ensure their survival.
It also worked in Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War (until the Stalinists murdered the anarchists and disbanded the fascist-killing militias).

Of all people to hear describe this sort of system as undesireable, I never expected a libertarian to do so. Besides the standing army and the capitalistic part of the no/small government thing, where do we differ, jblank?

[Ranulf]

Exactly, Trent Steel and TMH.
What jblank is describing is chaos or a state of nature. Anarchy, as a society, means communities working as a cohesive unit for the survival and benefit of the entire community.

Hmm, you're definition of anarchy and mine differ. To me, what you're describing is say, a tribal council not anarchy. You are still going to have implied societal laws, aka you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. You have to have that to "work as a cohesive unit".

[khomotso]

Their innovators will just bail and follow the money.

The open source movement is becoming a rather strong refutation of this. Linus Torvalds still doesn't have a great job, last I heard.

The basic issue is this: there are other human motivations besides wealth. Self-esteem, aesthetic satisfaction, a host of things emotional and ethical ... that's the slippery area where the capitalist reduction of all motivation to the strictly economic incentive starts to fray.

[gellar]

Their innovators will just bail and follow the money.

The open source movement is becoming a rather strong refutation of this. Linus Torvalds still doesn't have a great job, last I heard.

The basic issue is this: there are other human motivations besides wealth. Self-esteem, aesthetic satisfaction, a host of things emotional and ethical ... that's the slippery area where the capitalist reduction of all motivation to the strictly economic incentive starts to fray.

You're talking about a minority niche market.

The majority of innovation in the world is done via capitalism.

Look at Russia. One of the primary reasons that economy collapsed is that everyone who knew what they were doing got the hell out of there and went to a place where they could prosper.

It's a fundamental human instinct to want more. All things else being equal, I know I'd go for the money.

gellar

[khomotso]

You're talking about a minority niche market.

The majority of innovation in the world is done via capitalism.

That's really neither here nor there. It's a particular example that illustrates a more general point - people can be powerfully moved to modes of production that do not have a strictly economic incentive.

Money is huge, I never questioned that. It's just not the whole ballgame. Capitalism is right, up to a point, but it's at best only half right.

It's a fundamental human instinct to want more. All things else being equal, I know I'd go for the money.

But that's precisely it - is *more* always *more money*? My simple point is "No." Incentives are more complicated than that, and incentivized production is similarly more complicated.

I think we all have plenty of examples of this - does everyone always go for the biggest paycheck? No. They factor the money into a larger equation that includes work environment, job satisfaction, location, family, etc. Are not incentives in these other arenas also capable of contributing to innovation? Yes. I can admit that money is the biggest player and still maintain my point - money is not the last word. And to the extent that capitalism doesn't understand this (although I think there's a little room for debate on this particular point), capitalism is off-base.

[gellar]

I agree that by and large, capitalism is NOT a perfect system.

However, I don't fathom a way where any other economic system will work so long as there is one strong capitalistic society on the globe. That society will just win and attract the winners.

gellar