Capitalism is depressing

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by RushKing (1776 posts) -
[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] Power is always centralized if you scale down far enough. And how would that make things more efficient? How would you go about implementing something like that?

By not ordering people around. Here is a great example of Anarcho-Syndicalism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3HPX0D2mU

That's too vague. You're still getting ordered around, and direct democracy is hilariously inefficient. What is to stop workers from voting for measures that increase costs of production to the point where it is no longer profitable to run the business? Who retains the power to fire people? Who mediates disputes?

Profit wouldn't be an issue in an anarchist society. Money would become useless.
#52 Posted by Abbeten (2898 posts) -
[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="RushKing"] By not ordering people around. Here is a great example of Anarcho-Syndicalism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3HPX0D2mU

That's too vague. You're still getting ordered around, and direct democracy is hilariously inefficient. What is to stop workers from voting for measures that increase costs of production to the point where it is no longer profitable to run the business? Who retains the power to fire people? Who mediates disputes?

Profit wouldn't be an issue in an anarchist society. Money would become useless.

And what exactly makes you think that's even the slightest bit likely?
#53 Posted by RushKing (1776 posts) -
[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] That's too vague. You're still getting ordered around, and direct democracy is hilariously inefficient. What is to stop workers from voting for measures that increase costs of production to the point where it is no longer profitable to run the business? Who retains the power to fire people? Who mediates disputes?

Profit wouldn't be an issue in an anarchist society. Money would become useless.

And what exactly makes you think that's even the slightest bit likely?

Goods would be distributed with vouchers.
#54 Posted by Chaos_HL21 (5287 posts) -

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="RushKing"] Profit wouldn't be an issue in an anarchist society. Money would become useless.RushKing
And what exactly makes you think that's even the slightest bit likely?

Goods would be distributed with vouchers.

So money is not useless because the vouchers would be money

#55 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
Did someone just read a Marx book?
#56 Posted by Abbeten (2898 posts) -
[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="RushKing"] Profit wouldn't be an issue in an anarchist society. Money would become useless.

And what exactly makes you think that's even the slightest bit likely?

Goods would be distributed with vouchers.

So vouchers become money. And why would people suddenly not want to maximize profit?
#57 Posted by eggdog1234 (831 posts) -
Depends on the flavor of anarchism. Proudhon put forth an anarchistic system that uses money but does not include profit. Prices are determined by the labor involved and are standardized. This would erase profit (labor theory of value) as Adam Smith defined it. Keep in my mind that I just gave a grossly simplistic version of the idea.
#58 Posted by dissonantblack (34002 posts) -

Would you rather live in a communist country?

#59 Posted by RushKing (1776 posts) -

Would you rather live in a communist country?

dissonantblack
State communism, hell no. Anarcho-communism or pure communism, not bad at all.
#60 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

And communism is a failed attempt that has either imploded on itself or reverted back to capitalism, that's apparent to anyone that has studied Russian or Chinese history.

#61 Posted by Storm_Marine (10900 posts) -

Move to North Korea then. I can't think of any socialist/communist-esque regimes left besides the good old DPRK....they've all either collapsed or reformed to capitalism.

#62 Posted by POKE777GM (53 posts) -

And communism is a failed attempt that has either imploded on itself or reverted back to capitalism, that's apparent to anyone that has studied Russian or Chinese history.

Vesica_Prime
Capitalism and Communism both fail because of the incompetent people and greed to gain power. We're right now in the mixed economy, that's getting more and more inclined towards capitalism.
#63 Posted by Storm_Marine (10900 posts) -

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] And what exactly makes you think that's even the slightest bit likely?Abbeten
Goods would be distributed with vouchers.

So vouchers become money. And why would people suddenly not want to maximize profit?

RushKing doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about. Don't bother.

#64 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

And communism is a failed attempt that has either imploded on itself or reverted back to capitalism, that's apparent to anyone that has studied Russian or Chinese history.

POKE777GM

Capitalism and Communism both fail because of the incompetent people and greed to gain power. We're right now in the mixed economy, that's getting more and more inclined towards capitalism.

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of things being socialized like my roads, libraries, medicine and tertiary education. I just dislike middle classed college kids who pick up the Communist Manifesto or the works of Lenin and become communist because they think it is nothing but sunshine, lollipops, rainbows or "peace, land, bread!"

#65 Posted by RushKing (1776 posts) -

And communism is a failed attempt that has either imploded on itself or reverted back to capitalism, that's apparent to anyone that has studied Russian or Chinese history.

Vesica_Prime
Russia and china were under the authoritarian branch of communism.
#66 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

And communism is a failed attempt that has either imploded on itself or reverted back to capitalism, that's apparent to anyone that has studied Russian or Chinese history.

RushKing

Russian and china were under the authoritarian branch of communism.

And give me any large-scale communist revolution that wasn't led by a party that established itself among the people as dictators of the proletariat. Marx and Engels also stated that a dictatorship of the proletariat was necessary before the progression into a communistic state.

Don't give me the hypothetical or what-ifs.

#67 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

And communism is a failed attempt that has either imploded on itself or reverted back to capitalism, that's apparent to anyone that has studied Russian or Chinese history.

Vesica_Prime
Castro has been doing well with his life so far.
#68 Posted by Mafiree (3704 posts) -
It is all about trade-offs. We wouldn't have many of the luxuries (and some necessities) we have today without it.
#69 Posted by RushKing (1776 posts) -

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

And communism is a failed attempt that has either imploded on itself or reverted back to capitalism, that's apparent to anyone that has studied Russian or Chinese history.

Vesica_Prime

Russian and china were under the authoritarian branch of communism.

And give me any large-scale communist revolution that wasn't led by a party that established itself among the people as dictators of the proletariat.

Don't give me the hypothetical or what-ifs.

And I have never said anarcho-communism has happened on a large scale. But that doesn't debunk the idea.
#70 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

And I have never said anarcho-communism has happened on a large scale. But that doesn't debunk the idea.RushKing

And with anarchism and with no law people will become little more than animals having interconflict over food, resources and everything else. You assume too much about the good of human beings, reminds me of me when I was this naive. Think I'm making crap up? Look at Somalia, see how well anarchy is working there.

#71 Posted by RushKing (1776 posts) -

[QUOTE="RushKing"]And I have never said anarcho-communism has happened on a large scale. But that doesn't debunk the idea.Vesica_Prime

And with anarchism and with no law people will become little more than animals having interconflict over food, resources and everything else. You assume too much about the good of human beings, reminds me of me when I was this naive. Think I'm making crap up? Look at Somalia, see how well anarchy is working there.

Anarchism isn't lawless. In anarchism laws can be passed through workers' councils.
#72 Posted by Storm_Marine (10900 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]And I have never said anarcho-communism has happened on a large scale. But that doesn't debunk the idea.RushKing

And with anarchism and with no law people will become little more than animals having interconflict over food, resources and everything else. You assume too much about the good of human beings, reminds me of me when I was this naive. Think I'm making crap up? Look at Somalia, see how well anarchy is working there.

Anarchism isn't lawless. In anarchism laws can be passed through workers' councils.

Aka mobs.

#73 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

Anarchism isn't lawless. In anarchism laws can be passed through workers' councils.RushKing

And you don't think they'll use their powers to become a ruling class and become "more equal" than others? And you know who the workers' councils backed up in 1917? Lenin and his cronies.

You're so naive.

#75 Posted by Mafiree (3704 posts) -
[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]And I have never said anarcho-communism has happened on a large scale. But that doesn't debunk the idea.RushKing

And with anarchism and with no law people will become little more than animals having interconflict over food, resources and everything else. You assume too much about the good of human beings, reminds me of me when I was this naive. Think I'm making crap up? Look at Somalia, see how well anarchy is working there.

Anarchism isn't lawless. In anarchism laws can be passed through workers' councils.

All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than other.......
#76 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
As an anarchist, this thread is depressing, and the philosophy is not being defended well by RushKing. Anyone who claims that "people with guns would just take over" or that "there would be no law and people would fight over food" is laughably ignorant about the philosophy, but this thread won't make anyone educate themselves on it,
#77 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Anarchism isn't lawless. In anarchism laws can be passed through workers' councils.Vesica_Prime

And you don't think they'll use their powers to become a ruling class and become "more equal" than others? And you know who the workers' councils backed up in 1917? Lenin and his cronies.

You're so naive.

Anarcho-syndicalism is not Lenninism or any form of Marxism.
#78 Posted by RushKing (1776 posts) -

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Anarchism isn't lawless. In anarchism laws can be passed through workers' councils.Vesica_Prime

And you don't think they'll use their powers to become a ruling class and become "more equal" than others?

You're so naive.

Powers would be flat, because everyone would be a part of their local council. Direct democracy.
#79 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Anarchism isn't lawless. In anarchism laws can be passed through workers' councils.Rhazakna

And you don't think they'll use their powers to become a ruling class and become "more equal" than others? And you know who the workers' councils backed up in 1917? Lenin and his cronies.

You're so naive.

Anarcho-syndicalism is not Lenninism or any form of Marxism.

You know what a Soviet is right and the history of the Soviets?

#80 Posted by Storm_Marine (10900 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Anarchism isn't lawless. In anarchism laws can be passed through workers' councils.RushKing

And you don't think they'll use their powers to become a ruling class and become "more equal" than others?

You're so naive.

Powers would be flat, because everyone would be a part of their local council. Direct democracy.

Aka mob rule.

#81 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

As an anarchist, this thread is depressing, and the philosophy is not being defended well by RushKing. Anyone who claims that "people with guns would just take over" or that "there would be no law and people would fight over food" is laughably ignorant about the philosophy, but this thread won't make anyone educate themselves on it,Rhazakna

Communism intended to make a classless utopia and was about "peace, land, bread." The end results of Communism was far from that. Intentions =/= Results, same thing applies to any society that goes through anarchy.

#82 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

And you don't think they'll use their powers to become a ruling class and become "more equal" than others? And you know who the workers' councils backed up in 1917? Lenin and his cronies.

You're so naive.

Vesica_Prime

Anarcho-syndicalism is not Lenninism or any form of Marxism.

You know what a Soviet is right and the history of the Soviets?

Yeah, I do. Probably more than you if you're using that to criticize any school of anarchism.
#83 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

Yeah, I do. Probably more than you if you're using that to criticize any school of anarchism.Rhazakna

I'm not criticizing anarchy through that, I'm criticising his thought patterns of using workers' councils in the belief that it will lead to anarcho-communism whilst they aided Lenin in 1917.

#84 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]As an anarchist, this thread is depressing, and the philosophy is not being defended well by RushKing. Anyone who claims that "people with guns would just take over" or that "there would be no law and people would fight over food" is laughably ignorant about the philosophy, but this thread won't make anyone educate themselves on it,Vesica_Prime

Communism intended to make a classless utopia and was about "peace, land, bread." The end results of Communism was far from that. Intentions =/= Results, same thing applies to any society that goes through anarchy.

The Soviet Union was not a "society that went through anarchy", it was a society based on massive state control of property. Using an ultra-statist society like the USSr to criticize libertarian-communism is absurd, and if you can't see that you're likely ignorant of both philosophies.
#85 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Yeah, I do. Probably more than you if you're using that to criticize any school of anarchism.Vesica_Prime

I'm not criticizing anarchy through that, I'm criticising his thought patterns of using workers' councils in the belief that it will lead to anarcho-communism whilst they aided Lenin in 1917.

The Communist worker's councils that aided Lennin hold little resemblance to syndicalist conception of worker's councils.
#86 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]As an anarchist, this thread is depressing, and the philosophy is not being defended well by RushKing. Anyone who claims that "people with guns would just take over" or that "there would be no law and people would fight over food" is laughably ignorant about the philosophy, but this thread won't make anyone educate themselves on it,Rhazakna

Communism intended to make a classless utopia and was about "peace, land, bread." The end results of Communism was far from that. Intentions =/= Results, same thing applies to any society that goes through anarchy.

The Soviet Union was not a "society that went through anarchy", it was a society based on massive state control of property. Using an ultra-statist society like the USSr to criticize libertarian-communism is absurd, and if you can't see that you're likely ignorant of both philosophies.

Missing the point. So I'll spell it out for you, intentions =/= results.

#87 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

Communism intended to make a classless utopia and was about "peace, land, bread." The end results of Communism was far from that. Intentions =/= Results, same thing applies to any society that goes through anarchy.

Vesica_Prime

The Soviet Union was not a "society that went through anarchy", it was a society based on massive state control of property. Using an ultra-statist society like the USSr to criticize libertarian-communism is absurd, and if you can't see that you're likely ignorant of both philosophies.

Missing the point. So I'll spell it out for you, intentions =/= results.

This is an obvious, vacuous assertion that doesn't help your position against anarchism. The fact that good intentions lead to bad results in the USSR is not a reason to therefore dismiss anarchism, especially considering the vast differences in philosophy. By that logic, any ideology could just be dismissed because intentions don't correlate to outcomes. There has never been a truly anarchic society, but there are numerous examples throughout history that point to the possibility of it working. It's fine to criticize it, but know what you're talking about at least.

#88 Posted by famicommander (8524 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

Communism intended to make a classless utopia and was about "peace, land, bread." The end results of Communism was far from that. Intentions =/= Results, same thing applies to any society that goes through anarchy.

Vesica_Prime

The Soviet Union was not a "society that went through anarchy", it was a society based on massive state control of property. Using an ultra-statist society like the USSr to criticize libertarian-communism is absurd, and if you can't see that you're likely ignorant of both philosophies.

Missing the point. So I'll spell it out for you, intentions =/= results.

Have you actually read the Communist Manifesto, or anything else by Marx or Engels? Because massive oppression of dissent and continuous violent revolution are a constant theme. People like to act like it was Lenin or Stalin who corrupted Marx but in reality they were both carrying out Marx's blueprints. The atrocities of Stalin and Lenin, where not directly called for by Marx, were at the very least the logical consequences of authoritarianism combined with a command economy. I understand that Marx's "end state" of Communism was never attained but it isn't as if nobody tried his prescriptions for bringing it about.
#89 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

This is an obvious, vacuous fact that doesn't help your position against anarchism. The fact that good intentions lead to bad results in the USSR is not a reason to therefore dismiss anarchism, especially considering the vast differences in philosophy. By that logic, any ideology could just be dismissed because intentions don't correlate to outcomes. There has never been a truly anarchic society, but there are numerous examples throughout history that point to the possibility of it working. It's fine to criticize it, but know what you're talking about at least.

Rhazakna

Anarchy describes a decentralized state where smaller bodies rule and establish economy etc., yeah I already know that. I recognize it is unfair to comment on anarchism whilst there has never been a true anarchist state and I apologize for that but I'll stick by my view of pragmatism on communism.

#90 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

This is an obvious, vacuous fact that doesn't help your position against anarchism. The fact that good intentions lead to bad results in the USSR is not a reason to therefore dismiss anarchism, especially considering the vast differences in philosophy. By that logic, any ideology could just be dismissed because intentions don't correlate to outcomes. There has never been a truly anarchic society, but there are numerous examples throughout history that point to the possibility of it working. It's fine to criticize it, but know what you're talking about at least.

Vesica_Prime

Anarchy describes a decentralized state where smaller bodies rule and establish economy etc., yeah I already know that. I recognize it is unfair to comment on anarchism whilst there has never been a true anarchist state and I apologize for that but I'll stick by my view of pragmatism on communism.

There is no such thing as an "anarchist state", as anti-statism is a necessary, but insufficient condition of anarchism. Though anarchism is by its nature decentralized, decentralized statism is not anarchism. City states are not anarchic. Any geographical monopoly on power is a state, regardless of how small it is, and is therefore not anarchism.
#91 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

This is an obvious, vacuous fact that doesn't help your position against anarchism. The fact that good intentions lead to bad results in the USSR is not a reason to therefore dismiss anarchism, especially considering the vast differences in philosophy. By that logic, any ideology could just be dismissed because intentions don't correlate to outcomes. There has never been a truly anarchic society, but there are numerous examples throughout history that point to the possibility of it working. It's fine to criticize it, but know what you're talking about at least.

Rhazakna

Anarchy describes a decentralized state where smaller bodies rule and establish economy etc., yeah I already know that. I recognize it is unfair to comment on anarchism whilst there has never been a true anarchist state and I apologize for that but I'll stick by my view of pragmatism on communism.

There is no such thing as an "anarchist state", as anti-statism is a necessary, but insufficient condition of anarchism. Though anarchism is by its nature decentralized, decentralized statism is not anarchism. City states are not anarchic. Any geographical monopoly on power is a state, regardless of how small it is, and is therefore not anarchism.

Poor choice of words, I meant a society or body. Too used to associating politics with states.

#92 Posted by iHarlequin (1789 posts) -

I don't know how people can support a system in which people pay for education, food, healthcare and pretty much every other basic human need and there's the possibility of not having money.

#93 Posted by Storm_Marine (10900 posts) -

I don't know how people can support a system in which people pay for education, food, healthcare and pretty much every other basic human need and there's the possibility of not having money.

iHarlequin

Allah forbid we aren't paid for existing.

#94 Posted by iHarlequin (1789 posts) -

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

I don't know how people can support a system in which people pay for education, food, healthcare and pretty much every other basic human need and there's the possibility of not having money.

Storm_Marine

Allah forbid we aren't paid for existing.

There are more people than there are jobs. I don't need god to give me money, but I'd appreciate it if the State could at least guarantee that I have some means of making a living.

#95 Posted by eggdog1234 (831 posts) -
Rhazakna is doing work in here. As far as historic examples of anarchism, there plenty. The only modern large scale emergence of anarchism that I know of would be the syndicates in Spain leading up to Franco's regime. I think a lot of people often fail to see the impact the two world wars had on anarchism. Prior to the wars there was an international anarchist movement that was fairly successful and housed some of the most brilliant thinkers at the time. The wars changed everything drastically. We have now gone through vigorous industrialization and horrendous population overshoot. Anarchism should always have a place at the table especially right now. We are so screwed right now its unbelievable which is why no one believes it.
#96 Posted by famicommander (8524 posts) -

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

I don't know how people can support a system in which people pay for education, food, healthcare and pretty much every other basic human need and there's the possibility of not having money.

iHarlequin

Allah forbid we aren't paid for existing.

There are more people than there are jobs. I don't need god to give me money, but I'd appreciate it if the State could at least guarantee that I have some means of making a living.

The only way the state can guarantee anything to you is by first taking it from someone else through violence or coercion. "Jobs" are not some homogenous blob of resources that can be handed out at will based on the state's conception of need. Jobs are highly specific and as such require specific and sometimes unique skillsets. You cannot make a man capable of doing a job just by mandating that he be hired. The level of entitilement and pure economic ignorance on display in this thread is downright scary.
#97 Posted by Bigboss232 (4997 posts) -

We lost true capitalism a long time ago now we have corperate bailouts and money printing. The fed is now buying toxic debt effectively moveing it to us instead of the banks yea. The fed killed the free market and capitalism.

#98 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

You end up taking orders from your parents and from whoever you work for no matter what economic system you live under lmao. GamerForca

Unless it's fascism. You can report that their parents are rebels and they'd be whisked away in a heartbeat.

Capitalism isn't depressing. You'll take orders from anyone in any economic system as well as the government. That's how it's been since the dawn of time.

#99 Posted by iHarlequin (1789 posts) -

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Allah forbid we aren't paid for existing.

famicommander

There are more people than there are jobs. I don't need god to give me money, but I'd appreciate it if the State could at least guarantee that I have some means of making a living.

The only way the state can guarantee anything to you is by first taking it from someone else through violence or coercion. "Jobs" are not some homogenous blob of resources that can be handed out at will based on the state's conception of need. Jobs are highly specific and as such require specific and sometimes unique skillsets. You cannot make a man capable of doing a job just by mandating that he be hired. The level of entitilement and pure economic ignorance on display in this thread is downright scary.

Entitlement? Economic ignorance? I argued that health and education were quintessential to humanity. And you can, yes, make a man capable of doing a job: by ensuring that education is something available to the entire population, not just the wealthy. Also, if the state is indeed socialist, it would have a centralized control over the industry and employment, and would be able to adapt what it offers to the needs of the population (and not the other way around, which many people think natural...) - it wouldn't be TAKING jobs from anyone, it would be creating and diverting resources as needed by the population.

The issue with capitalism that so many fail to see is that work is done in the name of money, not progress or evolution. Sometimes, it happens to coincide: private investments into healthcare, education, science that lead to a progress of mankind as a whole. More often than not, however, it creates jobs with the sole function of generating more money (not actual resources or improvements).

The reason the U.S.'s capitalism is so envied (and rarely well-copied) is because of the massive middle-class the country has. It can, then, rely on the fact that the majority of its population will be able to, by themselves, pay for dwelling, healthcare, food, education, etc. It considers the population that isn't part of the middle class as collateral damage - that alone should be reason for criticism. The true issue is when 3rd world countries and countries that have an even worse wealth-distribution than the United States try to copy the model, and end up committing an even larger percentage of their population as 'collateral damage' (easily observed in upcoming nations like the BRICS).

Don't be so quick to call others ignorant, specially when the only thing you back your claims with is conjecture. Conjecture contributes in nothing to the veracity of your statement.

#100 Posted by Reed_Bowie (568 posts) -
You should watch this video, it pretty much tells it how it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aZvQShTYL0