It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why Capitalism Is Doomed: The Contradictions at Its Core

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by defcon5

why did more people try to get out of communist eastern europe than the reverse............
edit on 20-3-2012 by blueorder because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 05:21 PM
reply to post by blueorder

Because of the police state factors, more so then the financial system.
Again though, you can have a police state system under any form of government or financial system. If you got on the wrong side of their government back then, you and your family had your rights stripped away, and you could be “disappeared”. Well we are starting the same type of stuff right here in our country after 911 with the patriot act, quantanimo bay, etc...

See, again, just like me, you were exposed to the idea that communism=police state, which is not true. Communism=a financial system, police state=any government that is trying to enforce unpopular policies on the masses through force.

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 05:23 PM

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by blueorder

Because of the police state factors, more so then the financial system.
Again though, you can have a police state system under any form of government or financial system. If you got on the wrong side of their government back then, you and your family had your rights stripped away, and you could be “disappeared”. Well we are starting the same type of stuff right here in our country after 911 with the patriot act, quantanimo bay, etc...

See, again, just like me, you were exposed to the idea that communism=police state, which is not true. Communism=a financial system, police state=any government that is trying to enforce unpopular policies on the masses through force.

No, I am not one who thinks "communism=police state"- though I have to accept that this is generally where attempts at introducing communism end, regardless of whether this is "true communism" or not, as I don't think we can have "true" anything in an imperfect world

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 05:30 PM
reply to post by blueorder

True communism can only exist in a religious commune, as the minute greed or envy enter the picture, someone wants more then the guy next door. This type of system only seems to work in religious communities because they serve a higher purpose, and are not driven by worldliness.

When asking about why so many tried to escape from the USSR, you have to also remember how the USSR was formed. They took property from a lot of the old Russian money, they pressed folks into service, they enforced their system with police state tactics if you crossed them, or they suspected that you might cross them. If the system had come into existence in a peaceful manner, you would most likely not have seen as much fighting against it, and thereby not the need for them to act like a police state to begin with.

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 05:34 PM

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by blueorder

True communism can only exist in a religious commune, as the minute greed or envy enter the picture, someone wants more then the guy next door. This type of system only seems to work in religious communities because they serve a higher purpose, and are not driven by worldliness.

Exactly, Communism tends to lead to police states and oppression- "TRUE COMMUNISM" if you want to phrase it like that in religious communes, maybe, on a very small and localised scale, but even those would be susceptible to greed and envy

When asking about why so many tried to escape from the USSR, you have to also remember how the USSR was formed. They took property from a lot of the old Russian money, they pressed folks into service, they enforced their system with police state tactics if you crossed them, or they suspected that you might cross them. If the system had come into existence in a peaceful manner, you would most likely not have seen as much fighting against it, and thereby not the need for them to act like a police state to begin with.

Wasn't actually thinking about the USSR, more the European states bordering the west

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 05:46 PM

Originally posted by blueorder
Wasn't actually thinking about the USSR, more the European states bordering the west

If you're referring to Germany after WWII, you have to also remember that there was A LOT of hatred between the Germans and the Russians. The two places you didn't want to be in WWII were the Pacific fighting the Japanese, or the Russian Front. The Russians who were taken prisoners of war by the Germans were treated almost as badly as the Jews. We are talking about some really bad blood there.

Then of course we had Patton causing a #-storm with them almost the second the war ended. We could possibly blame the entire cold war on Patton. You know that it was the Russians holding their front, and tying up more then half the German Army that allowed us to win the war, not so much anything the other allies did.

Again though none of this has anything to do with communism or socialism. We just vilified it along with the USSR and lumped it all together into one mess that we (incorrectly) labeled “Communism”.
Had to keep it simple for the home audience after all.

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 07:54 PM

Originally posted by petrus4
She also opened with a use of the term, "comrades." I know John Titor might have been discovered to be a hoax as a time traveller, but I think we've possibly got a real one here; from the 1950s. Senator McCarthy would be foaming at the mouth and going into convulsions as we speak.

I don't know what it is with the young people this day...first my very own GF and now the OP with this leftist stuff, must be something in the water, Mandrake. Flouride, perhaps. Fortunately I drink only rainwater and grain alcohol. No commie plot to poison my sacred bodily fluids is going to go down without a struggle, if I have any say-so.

Be that as it may, one of the things that makes Marxism pernicious is the fact that its critique of capitalism contains a lot of stinging truth. Communism is flawed for all sorts of reasons, but Marx was no fool and there are some good points to be gleaned here and there. I have no doubt that capitalism as we know it will have to change. I'll try to make sure over my dead body it doesn't morph into the socialist hellworld-paradise these girls and their friends seem so lately enchanted with.

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 07:57 PM

Originally posted by MysticPearl

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
That's quite an impressive piece of propaganda you put together.

So what you'd rather have is a labor force who is employed at menial jobs that are not rewarding whatsoever and don't pay anything. A workforce who lives in tenement buildings and can barely make ends meet, who buy all their groceries at the state food market, where there are perpetual shortages...

Oh wait, I forgot that you brainwashed Omaba socialists believe that "American" socialism won't be the same as Chinese or Soviet socialism - it will be all rainbows and gummy bears and we'll all sit around singing kumbaya in the backyards of our 4500 square foot mansionettes because O mighty benevolent ruler Obama will redistribute the wealth to everyone and all those bad things in those other socialist countries won't happen because this is America, dammit.

Dream on, sister. You've been tricked.

Just watch Zeitgeist the Addendum. says it all. Capitalism is slavery. Things could have worked out better for longer if the central banks never came into the picture....

Oh joy. Another brainwashed Obamatard.

Why are there so many intellectually deficient people here? Has the indoctrination been that effective? Is there no one who can think for themselves anymore?

How about you use your brain rather than relying on movies and TV to tell you what is factual and what is fantasy.

By the way, love the name. What are you... eleven?

edit on 20-3-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

Can't make your point without personal insults? Classy.

Also, comparing socialism to maximum security prison shows your ignorance on the realities of prison life. Socialistic policies do not equate to the fear of being stabbed or gang raped every time you walk out of your cell that I'm aware of.

Prison is an excellent example with respect to class separation. Now, if you are going to try to spin my point with stupid examples like getting shanked or gang-raped, you can expect to get insulted.

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Leftist
There have been many replies and a lot of interest in this thread, so I'd like to thank everybody, even those who flat-out disagree with me. That's to be expected. As I was saying to somebody just a bit earlier, if I can reach even a few of you, or make some of you re-consider things only for a little bit, that is great, fine with me. Many of your responses are very amusing. Keep on discussing and debating! The truth always emerges from the dialectic.

I agree that the posts here have been, in general, high in entertainment value. But I have no real interest in discussing/debating this subject with people responding to your thread(and I mean no offense to any of them by this). I would like to discuss/debate this subject with you.
But perhaps I misunderstood your intentions. Was your post meant to spark a discussion/debate between others, rather than encourage discussion/debate with yourself?

If so, then I was mistaken, and will go somewhere else.

You know, a lot of people say we should give Capitalism one more chance, but I say its killed hundreds of millions already, from the world wars, holocaust, enlslavement and improvrishment of the third world, wars from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq...not to mention other factors like the soul-crushing impact on the people of the developed world in terms of culture and lifestyle, and now the impoverishment of middle-classes everywhere. I think capitalism has been tried enough already, its been given plenty of time to prove itself and it never fails to result in crushing misery for the vast majority. No more, stop the madness.

Ahh! So many questions arise from this paragraph! Such sweeping inferences!
But no matter. I will wait for a reply to see if you wish to engage in debate.

In the meantime, as a gesture of goodwill, I would like to highlight one part of your OP with which I was in complete agreement:

If you have any more points along this line, please expound upon them.

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 08:10 PM
reply to post by defcon5

I have no doubt the propaganda machines on this side were in full swing...and I would not even presume to try and argue that they were lacking in effect.

Your position does surprise me a bit given the quote in your signature though, haha. Have you read Mr. Heinlein's account of his travels in the U.S.S.R.?
Or perhaps that was more propaganda...I suppose it could have been...anything's possible.

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 08:13 PM

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
You are such a naive dipsh!t. Do you think you'd like to live in a maximum security prison? Think about what life would be like inside one. That's what socialism has been like in every country that has ever tried it. You get equality, that's for sure - everyone is equally impoverished, everyone lives in the same 8x10 cell, eats the same food, watches the same show on the TV. There is exploitation, too - it resides with the warden and guards. They are the only ones living well inside a prison.

Anti communism propaganda really got you, government officials would be proud to read your post.
The misconceptions you have with communism is making you blind.

This planet, our brains and technology are far than enough to make everyone get what they need to live and prosper. Since we do not take none of our material wealth after death, I don't see prosperity and individuality linked to making more money than other people.

Yes, you can be better than other people with other perks than money, be more advanced, have more knowledge, have higher spirituality. There isn't just one game in life.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
You people are nothing but a loudmouth minority and you are about to get shouted down.

Rather be a loudmouth than being fearful and close minded. Too bad for you there will be more and more sensible humans in the future that don't want to "shout down" other people for having a point of view.

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 08:47 PM
reply to post by Tsurugi

No, I cannot say that I ever read his accounts of that. Like most of you, I was brought up with this McCarthyism vision of the USSR, which made it quite an eye opener to talk with someone who actually had lived both there and here. You may ask why she was over here considering her feelings on the topic, and according to what I was told it was for medical reasons she was allowed to leave.

My point again is though, that communism is not necessarily the bad guy that it has been made out to be in our minds throughout the cold war. The police state policies that underpinned the USSR, is not the same as communism, and police states can exist in other forms of government.

As a matter of fact, if you ever watch "Star trek the Next Generation", I would have to say that their financial system is actually based on true communism. A system were everyone gets what they need, and there is little bickering over who got what, so people focus on their careers and position rather then their worldly wealth. Tell me this does not match Star trek:

Communism is a movement to create a classless, moneyless, stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

The Economics of Star Trek

Another point, which I am sure will upset many US Christians, is that the lifestyle that Christ and his disciples lead was also a communist. Living off a “common” purse.

Now, I am not going to say its better or not better, both systems have their flaws, and I am pretty sure that true communism can never exist outside of a religious order as I stated above (or until there are replicators and holodecks :lol
. However, its also not the nightmare that we were sold throughout the cold war either.

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 09:39 PM


The next thing I’d like to do is to switch gears slightly and look at the concept of alienation. Pictures to the contrary, alienation is not about wispy post-adolescent hipster girls draping themselves over things limply like hothouse flowers, sighing, and feeling sorry for themselves. It’s much more important than that, and it effects everyone. Including you.

The analysis I provided in the first two posts of this thread tells us why, in a purely economic sense, capitalism’s run is doomed. But capitalism is doomed for other reasons…not the least of which is its negative effect on the human spirit, mind, psychology, and way of being in the world.

Marx and other writers influenced by him use the word “alienation” (entfremdung in German) to mean more than one thing, which makes analysis difficult. The most detailed Marxist primary source on alienation is the Economic and Political Manuscripts of 1844.

Essentially, for our purposes, we can understand Marxist alienation as having a fractured, broken, or improper relationship to something. Capitalism fractures and perverts the relationships between people and things, between people and other people, and people and their inner selves. Understanding this process is another key to understanding the destructive, harmful nature of capitalism and its coming downfall.

Alienation is most relevant to our discussion in the forms it takes that are related to human productive activity. Marxism posits productive activity as something innate and joyful for people: People naturally produce, and do not naturally need to be whipped, coerced, or lashed to produce things. The joy of making, building, and achieving is in all of us. You can see it in the smiles on children’s faces as they run their lemonade stands, or in efforts such as the piece you are now reading, which I am producing free of charge of my own free choice, in a state of pleasure reflecting the satisfaction of my natural creative drive and instinct to share with my fellow brothers and sisters.

What has happened, though, is that our relationships with our productive activity have become perverted because we are disconnected from the products of our labor. What we produce, we may not even see or touch: A web marketer can sell products over the net that she has never used to customers she has never met. The products belong to the capitalist that hired her, not to her, or to the factory workers that made them. This is not a bad thing per se, but it creates a sense of separation from the natural process of making something with your own hands and taking joy in the process after creating, seeing, and putting into use an original, hand-created object. We are alienated from the products of our work.

Capitalism also alienates workers from each other, because it creates an unnatural “superstructure” or set of human relationships that take us away from the natural, more pleasant ways we would otherwise relate to each other. As an example, capitalism quashes the cooperative instinct and instills a constant sense of competition, taking us away from our natural sense of comradeship with our fellow workers.

(Continued below)

edit on 20-3-2012 by Leftist because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 09:47 PM
(more on alienation, continued from above)

Marx (taking a hint from the philosopher Immanuel Kant) wrote of the fetishization of the commodity, a psychological process that forms part of the mechanization of alienation. Characteristics that should be understood as flowing from human relations are distorted as the underlying relationships become distorted, and instead of being understood correctly, they are projected through a kind of “spurious mysticism” on the consumer products we are taught to crave. A sweater may be presented in advertising as a source of warm, fuzzy feelings, so somebody lonely buys it…projecting her feelings onto the warm, fuzzy sweater rather than attempting the harder, less certain work of healing fractured relationships for real warm and fuzzy feelings with somebody she loves. By projecting onto material objects what should be understood as sourced in human relationships, the consumer is manipulated, exploited, and led further into the maze of alienation.

The process is exacerbated in further in a way that Marx understood though another Kantian concept, the categorical imperative. Without going into it too deeply, Marx saw how people are led by Capitalism to see other humans as means to an end rather than ends in themselves: A false and alienating way of seeing that ultimately hurts both the thinker and the person being thought about. In this way, too, Capitalism keeps us alienated from each other, and from our own deep human nature

Human production is not just an unconscious process, like bees making honey. When a human exercises her productive powers, she is exercising her control and autonomy by choosing what to produce and how to produce it. Capitalism removes this power from the worker and places it solely in the hands of the corporate masters.

Because of alienation, work is drudgery for most, rather than the fulfilling experience it should be. People take pleasure only in the base urges they share with beasts: Sex, intoxication, mindless body exercise. What is most essentially human about is stripped away. We spend most of our time working, but most of us can’t wait to get out of work. Clearly something is wrong.

Communism is ultimately about healing this alienation by providing new and more meaningful ways to conceive of work, human relations, and other aspects of life.

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 09:48 PM
reply to post by Leftist

I think this is only true if the replacement of human workers is faster than the rise of human potential. If human potential rises at an equal level then everyone will find jobs and the economy doesn't fail.

So: If humans don't keep up with the rate of automation evolution then you might be right.

The idea is that if I replace 5 of my workers with machines then those 5 workers will find a equal or better job, and thus, reach their potential. New jobs are created and humans advance their knowledge.

But if those 5 displaced workers do not reach their potential and fail and this is indicative of all displaced workers and the rate of loss is increasing then there is the possibility that since so few people will have jobs then there won't be anybody to buy the products that're being produced by automation.

It all depends on humans reaching their potential.

You also need to keep in mind that most of the money in the economy is in the upper income brackets. I'm not sure how this changes things, but another poor man isn't going to change things much...

And remember that the poorer a person is the less picky they're about their boss and their job. Lots of poorer people will work without health insurance, for example. A professional wouldn't do that.

At the end of the day, we're all asking: "How can we make society better for as many people as possible?" But think about how gargantuan of an effort this is. Seven billion different answers!

Just a few moments ago I was thinking about people in nursing homes that have to crap and pee into bags and be washed by attendants that work there. How can all that be improved? That's so sad too. For humans, life is about control. There's comfort in controlling your own life. A healthy body is nice to have.

We trade value in an economy. Value is usually reality, but it can also be something abstract. Our emotions are abstract. We can desire for intangible things that can have a range of values attached to them, depending on who you ask. But the bedrock of value is reality because we cannot produce intangible things without tangible things. Tangible things like food and water and shelter and children and healthcare and education and security (police, etc) and on and on. I think we need intangibles, but not too much.

Life is one big quest to survive and explore. We need to help each other to enjoy this quest. If there's one thing I don't like about our high tech society, it's the private nature of it. While I am a very introverted person, I can feel it. Sometimes I am threatened by people and bored. But other times I feel too isolated. I think that it's important for all of us to seek out each other not just on the internet, but in reality. Sometimes the webs on the interweb make things fuzzy and forgettable. The internet isn't quite reality.

I'm definitely not a luddite. I love technology. I think we'll live part-time on computers in the future. Some people might live on them full-time in some circumstnaces. But TV's and phones and computers are not the same as reality. Seeing it, breathing it, feeling it, and so on, is not something that technology can duplicate yet. I don't mean to say that'll never happen. Never say never. But we're not there yet.
edit on 20-3-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:19 PM
Hey everyone, long time, first time. I think this thread had some great points and I really learned a lot. Let me throw out some information so that you may understand my position better. First, I am an anarcho-socialist who despises centralized power at all costs. I think that any time a system is unbalanced, where one entity has complete influence over the other through force, it is going to fail and oppress as it fights to maintain relevancy. I believe in a system of many small nodes making up one big network, kind of like how the internet is structured. Using that idea, I would have an economy with the same theories as Capitalism, concerning market theory like how prices are set and how supply and demand control the markets, but with Socialistic businesses.

Democratic workplaces, socialism, where all employees are direct owners of the company. The sharing of ownership could be accomplished many ways and is not what I will discuss. The basic idea is that workers determine the fate of the company by democratically deciding wages, investments, operations, etc. Operating on consensus, the workers would feel a sense of importance, that they mattered, and feel as though the fate of the company rests on their shoulders. So, no details of how the businesses will be operated, only the structure of worker owned companies deciding all aspects of the business in democratic ways, majority rule, bur consensus preferred, and they share the profits and the losses. This is spreading the power of ownership to all the employees and not just one single entity. All different ideas will be introduced to the owners and can contribute to great innovation, efficiency, and even a sense of worth. What I basically am saying is that the markets we have now would all operate based on the Capitalist theories of markets, but with socialist-styled work places.

I would also outlaw corporations. Wal-marts and Goldman Sachs should not exist, as they concentrate too much wealth into too few hands. I see wealth/money = to power. Wealth is directly equal to the power an entity has. We are all human and when one entity has accumulated enough power they can control entire markets and hurt the workers and even society as a whole. So since corporations are outlawed, many new small businesses will pop-up in local economies. All run and owned by the workers themselves. So the my system is similar to our current system, but with shared ownership and responsibility of businesses and with the elimination of corporations due to the unaccountability and the excess aggregation of wealth.

Now, in order to create these new businesses and fill the gap that outlawing corporations has created in the markets, we would need new capital. First, ending the central bank, well the private central bank called the Federal Reserve, we can restore all monetary powers to the government itself. I would like to introduce the idea of interest free loans used to build our local economies as debt-free capital. It would be a service and benefit to the people. The government does not need to make money off of loans; It's function is to create capital to create markets that rely on Capitalist, I would say Austrian school like Paul subscribes to, principles. No central planning by the government; Only the use of debt free/interest free loans to the people. Since this money is created by the government, all the money spent will just reallocate to the rest of the markets as entrepreneurs build new businesses and markets. They will spend the money to other businesses and contribute to the operation and growth of the economy. This would also have the effect of limiting or even abolishing private banking institutions. You can still have investment banks and normal everyday checking account type banks, but they would be limited in power due to the interest free loans available from the government. We would have to work out how to deal out loaned money.

On the governmental/ legislative side, I actually am anarchist, but really like some Libertarian ideas. I feel that certain markets do need regulation. As we have food and water supplies to think about, businesses must adhere to well-thought out regulations on pollution, and chemicals and hormones introduced into the food supply. We don't need regulation to strangle the small businesses, but rather to keep the market fair and to keep the environment clean with human health our main goal to protect. Financial market regulations would be strict and intelligent, like Glass-Steagal and I am sure there are others that were repealed. The power of the financial industry must be practically crippled. I think the government should serve as the main source of debt-free capital.

Ultimately, the people would create the entire economy, with their democratic input, and would create many local thriving economies instead of giant clusters of extreme wealth and large swaths of people under poverty. Ran ou

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:33 PM
apply the time theory of value to how long it takes ben shalom bernanke to type into a computer terminal 1 trillion dollars...ok, mister geithner? here it comes, you owe us the interest.

doesnt work with wrt money and banking.

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:34 PM
reply to post by defcon5

I think it is irresponsible to compare actual world history to a science fiction show, as much as I never missed an episode (I even knew one of the writers). Many of the communism aficionados on here subscribe to the science-fiction version of communism/socialism that is being sold to them. Communism has never worked in any form that it has been attempted. Even the most successful communist country cannot compare to a capitalist country and its standard of living. This is why I am so unapologetically insistent to these people on ATS who think that socialism is the solution. IT IS NOT.

Having said that, what we have in the U.S. can't really be called capitalism anymore, as if it ever really was. It is a kleptocracy controlled by the bankers and traders. Who among us have a portfolio worth millions? I certainly don't. We don't control anything.

What I and others like me want is to see this nation restore capitalism the way it was supposed to be, while making the best effort to keep the system honest and transparent so that greed and corruption won't take hold like it has now. That task is left to people much smarter than me (and I am no idiot). My opinion is that we do need to start from the ground up to a certain degree. We have so many laws on top of laws in this country, it might be easier to burn the place to the ground and start again from the slab. Hopefully in a nonviolent manner.

edit on 20-3-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:44 PM
Sorry, ran out of letters. The government would be as small as possible with no personal income tax or tax on business profits, where sales tax and property taxes taking up most of the government's bill. I do not believe in centralized power that rules by force. Since the businesses are owned by the actual workers and not the capitalist that exploits the worker by paying them less than the wealth they create, people will have much, much more wealth and in greater numbers. The Socialistic workplace would spread wealth to as many people as possible, while not being completely equal in distribution, but most certainly more efficiently than under our current system. It has nothing to do with being fair, but rather organizing the system based on principles of many smaller nodes constituting a larger system, rather than our current structure of few large and all powerful nodes with many very small nodes. Nodes = wealth/power. Now, since I am anarchist I would encourage those who feel a social need to try and fill the gaps of society. I believe in ONLY volunteer organizations and abhor forced centralized power, which is why I don't like communism. I truly believe a fair market will sort itself out according to the market's needs, but under my socialistic business model, the people, not the owning class, will reap the benefits of profit and feel a responsibility to society. Let me explain how society's needs can be met without a centralized power structure ruling by force and using only democratic markets in a typical capitalist, Ron Paul type, market theory.

Now since capital is much easier to come by and also issued interest and debt free, we know that the average person will be an actual participant in the economy and be able to accumulate great relative income where by the average man now has much greater power in society than they do now. (Don't forget zero corporations exist.) Say we need a water filtration plant to give a town or part of a city clean water. A bunch of men can get together, or even one man who must agree to giving up complete control in favor of a democratic workplace once started, and petition the government for capital. Since this is one of society's needs, the group who has the best business model will get the necessary capital. Now, let's say the business takes off and they create a filtration plant and the business is great. Since the workers all determine the fate of the business, they will have a feeling of importance and a feeling of providing the town with one of it's social needs. I'm having a brain drain bare with me. lol I am trying to say, that since regular people now have access to capital it will be possible for "private" companies to fill in society's needs. There won't be a single owner of the business rather people from the town itself will all be working towards getting that water cleaned and pumped to homes. People would be building their own communities, while getting a nice paycheck and having a feeling of worth an accomplishment.

The government can stay out of policing, as I would expect crime to plummet when there are local jobs available to everyone as the capital is not hoarded by a special owning and financial class. I would also expect any organizations for welfare or healthcare, if insurance is still needed which it probably wouldn't, would be organizations that voluntarily get together and perhaps raise donations for programs to help the poor, which there shouldn't be nearly as many of. I think the only laws for society should be broken down to simply, if you infringe on another man's property or person, you will be held accountable by a local jury. The judicial system would also be a democratic organization, where the local people decide sentencing. Government would NOT be spying on us and I would abolish the CIA, NSA, and all other monolithic corporate model operations. The key fundamental to remember is that the corporate model will be outlawed and only democratic systems must prevail, like non-hierarchical or anarchist structures. The people must decide everything. It will make us all have to be active in our local communities and economies.

I hope you can get the gist of what I am trying to explain here. Let's call it Fisherism. lol I think there are great ideas from many different ideologies. What I would like to sum up are the main points of my philosophy.
Main ideas:
1. Make sure all systems are balanced. Smaller nodes, but many nodes instead of Very few huge nodes, and many small nodes. Think of the structure of the internet.
2. No corporations as they adhere to the corporate structure or a pyramid hierarchy. Too much power in too few hands.
3. Government controls issuing of money and lends capital interest free and debt free.
4. Markets behave as they do in the current system.
5. Regulations on business that limit excess power, pollution, and preservation of nature and food and water.
Just some ideas of mine!

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:48 PM
While I suport capitalism in its benevolent form, there is one thing that bugs me about it - tell me if you agree/disagree.

I think that a free market creates a huge amount of waste in the form of unnecessary manufacturing. There are too many variations of the same product that are manufactured to satisfy every little personal preference that shoppers have.

I suppose one could argue that the amount of manufacturing equals the amount of consumption, but products are made to be disposable, to have a planned obsolescence. Obviously this mentality generates bigger profits for merchants, but there really needs to be some responsibility expected of these people at some point in our future. This really bugs me as I am a supporter of environmentalism in this regard. Way too much material ends up in landfills even after recycling efforts.

I would much rather pay more money for something that is going to last a lot longer. For example, I have a rather impressive collection of All-Clad cookware. I am never going to have to replace them. Ever. My kids will use them long after I am worm chow.

So as I see it, this is one flaw of capitalism as it tries to satisfy consumers and maximize margins. People want new shiny stuff that is the latest style, and they will gladly throw away perfectly good products for newer, shinier versions. I understand that there is no way around this when it comes to some things like electronics, but with other things like clothes, it is wasteful.

Who among manufacturers will adopt a responsible attitude, though? If one does, it will only be seen as an opportunity to exploit them by their competition.

/end rant

See, libbies? Not all of us want to pollute and exploit.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in