It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
In order to keep capitalistic markets fair "regulation" has to be significant because quite frankly there appears to be little morality/ethics in the capitalistic system. Thus such morality and ethics will have to be legislated in order for the capitalistic system to actually be fair and beneficial to society.
The biggest problem with such a system is that profits control the direction we take as a society. As such, endeavors that are not profitable but would be very beneficial to society are never undertaken. We all know there are better ways but the capitalistic structure does not allow us to pursue those avenues.
I am a believer of socialism for basic needs and capitalism for everything else. This would give people the ability to eschew the for profit system entirely if they were so oriented, but yet would also let the capitalist exploit to their hearts desire.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by Unrealised
True Communism, i.e- working for the community, shall never be attained by the ugly, greed-driven people our planet is made up of now.
Until the day comes that people wake up and realize that we're a global community, the dollar shall rule you.
Communism for the win.
True communism is unatainable because people are not insects. Some will not want to work, if they can get just as much as a worker. Some will try to work on the side to get more value to themselves personally. If you wanted to get fresh vegetables in the Soviet Union, you didn't go to the collective, you went to the black market. People would just do enough to get by on the collective and then would go home and work backyard gardens and sell the vegetables on the black market because they could get a direct benefit from their labor.
Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
So, beyond limiting the ability of corporations and special interests to influence legislation would a shift to utilitarianism require government intervention?
Bentham is indifferent. Taxes are neither inherently good nor inherently evil...they are just a tool. Kind of like the NRA's argument that "guns don't kill people...PEOPLE kill people". It's all about how, when, and IF, taxes are imposed and WHAT'S ACTUALLY DONE with the revenue that's gained. He's big on "don't fix it if it isn't broken" so one would imagine that during the 1950's he might have left something welfare up to private charities since there was a STRONG AND ROBUST MIDDLE CLASS. He would probably have been VERY MUCH AGAINST the INITIAL implementation of LBJ's "Great Society"...but probably NOT things like useful infrastructure improvements in the Appalachia. However, in TODAY'S economy I think Bentham would be sharpening the guillotine blade up for Romney and Boehner.
On wealth distribution, it sounds similar to socialism...would this be ideally done through graduated taxes or a general shift in the values of the society.
You bet. Bentham was ALL ABOUT the merchant and tradesman classes in Europe and (like most Europeans in the 18th century) was BEYOND envious of the degree of freedom enjoyed in the New World. Bentham viewed ruling monarch's as largely detestable...but mostly because they came from a privileged class who could not relate to actual human beings and had a propensity to kill a lot of peasants in ridiculous wars of conquest or religious causes. However, he VERY MUCH agreed that a government of ANY KIND was RESPONSIBLE for the happiness of it's people and that the people were ENTITLED to their basic needs being met. In other words...the idea that it's illegal for a starving person to shoot the "kings deer" is 100% BS to Bentham. There is obviously open land and there is obviously food which goes to waste...there is no reason anyone should be without a hut/cottage, clothing, a full belly, etc. Bentham would have considered cold indifference to these sorts of things as damn near an act of war.
Would it be possible to practice this type of economics without publicly owned industries?
Bentham doesn't address this question EXPRESSLY...but one gets the sense that he would admire Warren Buffet's will. Buffet is leaving each of his kids $1,000,000 and each of his grandkids a large trust fund for their college expenses. The other $50 Billion goes to charity. His reasoning being that #1 he has ALSO helped his kids out all along the way with their houses, cars, education, weddings, etc. and #2 that if you REALLY LOVE your family you won't hand the world to them so they can become drug addicts on their trust funds....or worse...a rich prick politician who thinks he actually DESERVES the wealth he fell into...you know, Mitt Romney. Hand-ups are good...hand-outs are really, really, bad.
As far as eliminating aristocratic inheritance, I suppose there could be a near 100% inheritance tax.
I think I generally understand the philosophy behind this, not sure about the practice. If you'd elaborate a bit I'd appreciate it. Meanwhile, I'll run a google search and read up a bit.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by NavyDoc
Indeed... Communes were a short lived thing..and still are, as they are being practiced in some places now. (Errr.....times are repeating themselves in many ways, huh?) I debated whether to even post anything because you and I agree on most things and here, it wasn't disagreement either. Just a different way of looking at it, really.
As you or I talk to folks in a debate or discussion and note the past examples of political systems for what worked and what didn't....some little determined 'fellow' is running around behind people like us, carrying their little red book and noting that 'See... It DID work and those old people lie! See! It worked here ..here..and here! Old people are foolish and young people are wise!' ...and yes...wording is deliberate as history truly is repeating itself in a different place, time and language.
it's almost as if those who supported this in a past time....decided they liked it so much then, they'd spend a few decades making it happen here, eh?
edit on 10-12-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: rephrased a line
Originally posted by openminded2011
I have also felt that a good analogy is this: Capitalism can be likened to a force, like fire. Fire can warm your house, cook your food smelt metals, and many useful things. Fire can also kill you. Its the difference between a controlled and an uncontrolled force. Capitalism is the same way. Properly controlled, it can benefit many and create a very good standard of living for many. Uncontrolled, it tends to be under the control of fewer and fewer hands until it creates the disaster we see now. Communism is a bad system for EXACTLY the same reason, too much control in too few hands. A properly regulated democracy that employs a regulated capitalist system (what we used to have) will create a good standard of living and create a first world society. Unregulated capitalism will create a plutocracy which will lead to fascism and a high standard of living for a ruling class and abject poverty for everyone else.
Robert Owen (1771-1858)
Robert Owen was a man ahead of his time. During his lifetime, he endeavoured to improve the health, education, well-being and rights of the working class. This driving ambition to create a better society for all took him around the world, from a small mill village in Lanarkshire in Scotland to New Harmony, Indiana in America with varied success. Although, he encountered much criticism and opposition in his lifetime, he influenced reformers who came after him and many of his views are as relevant and resonate today in their modernity and progressive nature.
Mutualists, like other classical anarchists, originally considered themselves libertarian socialists. That is, they believed in the labor theory of value, and they believed that the laborer was entitled to the full product of his labor.
Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this.....
Originally posted by felonius
There is a difference in corporate capitalism (which we have) and free market capitalism (what we had at one time)