There is an Alternative to Capitalism
- Thread starter Lerxst
- Start date
I see your cut and paste works. Thanks for that.
I said to a few people that i would post some ideas regarding alternatives
I will be posting some more ideas
Obviously these aren't all gonna be relevant or even acheivable to many but you never know they might provide some inspiration. There's a lot of debate and discussion at the moment about politics because of the elections and all the crazy stuff happening around the world at the moment and its easy to feel like we can't do much about it, but there is the odd thing here and there that we can do and when enough people do things they make a difference
Many people feel dispondant that they can't influence things on a large scale but anyone can be a part of a movement and movements do make a difference. 'Movements' aren't the work of individuals they are the work of large numbers of people working together
I will be posting some more ideas
Obviously these aren't all gonna be relevant or even acheivable to many but you never know they might provide some inspiration. There's a lot of debate and discussion at the moment about politics because of the elections and all the crazy stuff happening around the world at the moment and its easy to feel like we can't do much about it, but there is the odd thing here and there that we can do and when enough people do things they make a difference
Many people feel dispondant that they can't influence things on a large scale but anyone can be a part of a movement and movements do make a difference. 'Movements' aren't the work of individuals they are the work of large numbers of people working together
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]:
You seem to be obsessed with decentralization and anarchy.
I'm assuming then that you must love guns and war.
Maybe one day there will be a nuclear holocaust and cities will fall to ruin and we'll all enter paradise in the form of isolated pockets of primitive civilization in the woods. Maybe we'll even get to the point where we can't make guns and have to use sticks and stones.
But until that day, I'm fine with capitalism-- we've just got to control it better.
You seem to be obsessed with decentralization and anarchy.
I'm assuming then that you must love guns and war.
Maybe one day there will be a nuclear holocaust and cities will fall to ruin and we'll all enter paradise in the form of isolated pockets of primitive civilization in the woods. Maybe we'll even get to the point where we can't make guns and have to use sticks and stones.
But until that day, I'm fine with capitalism-- we've just got to control it better.
Its capitalism that has brought us endless war and its the capitalist system that enables a huge trade in guns and weapons to flourish
War has always been around.
Weapons have always been around.
I thought that we had already had this conversation?
If anything, wars have been getting smaller and less destructive, with fewer deaths in relation to the overall population, which is increasing.
If you decentralize authority, then you are going to destabilize everything, and make everything worse… I'm talking about criminal warlords rising to power and taking over their own 'turf'… how would you prevent conflicts/territorial disputes between independent states?
And yes, it can get much much worse.
That's why i said: 'it is capitalism that has brought us endless war'
War has come as a result of inequalities and inequalities are a fundamental aspect of capitalism so war is built into capitalism
Add to that the fact that bankers have for centuries lent money to different kings and nations and intrigued in order to encourage them to fight each other in order to make vast profits and you can see why there has been so much conflict in Europe for the last millenia. The venetian banking houses have been particularly active in this regard along with the 'black nobility' many of whose ancestors are still sitting on thrones across Europe
A huge industry based around supplying armaments and other war requirements has grown up in the US and Europe as a result of the two world wars and the people behind these war profiteering corporations have grown so powerful that they now fund/lobby politicians and shape national policy. War has become profitable for the capitalist elite but costs the working people in blood and taxes
I'm happy to go one more round of the carousel
This is utterly absurd. the last century saw millions upon millions killed by war and this century has been very bloody so far with a new world war looming on the horizon due to the web of allegiances between different countries that may be activated by the potential flashpoints of syria and Iran who Israel keeps threatening with violence including nuclear strikes
There has been an uneasy balance kept between the US and Russia since 1950 due to 'MAD' (mutually assured destruction) as both countries have the capacity to annihilate the other so neither has overtly provoked the other. however both countries have been involved in proxy wars with each other and various other covert cold war operations. An example of which would be the arming of the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 70's-80's by the USA in order to help them fight the USSR. Now the USA is having to fight the same people it armed and trained! Not to mention the issue of missing stinger missiles that they sold to Afghanis to shoot down russian hind gunships which have not all been accounted for. No doubt those missiles have been sold to the highest bidders who have then reverse engineered those missile to be able to mass produce their own
The world has not been at peace during this time. It has seen constant low level conflict and has seen the entire planet living under the shadow of nuclear war
There are already criminal warlords running our countries! Who do you think are behind 'private defence contractors' such as 'blackwater'? Its the same people who are running the fed and the military industrial complex
If we decentralised power we could work towards ending 'states' so that we are not clubbed together in little small minded groups waving our childish flags around and spinning demonising lies about people in other parts of the world
It IS going to get worse (under the current capitalist system which is morphing into fascism); the fiat currency is collapsing
Last edited:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180.html
How is getting rid of capitalism or decentralizing government going to get rid of competition and war? Furthermore, how is getting rid of central authority going to prevent your independent mini-states from developing/acquiring nuclear weapons and using them against each other? How are you going to prevent your decentralized states from turning into new, smaller recentralized states that eventually enter into competition with other smaller re-centralized over resources and start the killing all over until finally one is dominant over all of the states?
You can't go backwards on this!
How are we going to be able to work towards anything if there's no authority?
In Canada we have minority governments and majority governments-- and it's generally accepted that a minority government will always be much weaker and less effective than a majority… and so it tends to be a period where very few bills are passed and very few actions are taken… and it's also common for the government to collapse during this time and for there to be an election. It's possible for opposition parties to form coalitions, but again, this is less about co-operation as it is about power.
My point is that for the most part people can't agree and they can't work together… especially when power is less centralized. If there's no authority, then there is no agreement. Think about all of the arguments you've gotten into with me or with other people, and then imagine that all of a sudden instead of them being just about the ideas, they're suddenly extremely important decisions that are going to affect the lives of thousands of people. If you try to do something that I think is going to hurt me and the ones I care about, then I'm going to do everything I can to try to stop you-- and you're going to do the same. And so we're only going to end up in destructive conflict and nothing is going to get done. This is exactly the kind of world that you think is preferable to the one that we have now. People are not just suddenly going to agree on absolutely everything… it's not just a matter of not being informed/being brainwashed by the elites-- there are valid reasons supporting each and every possible course of action, which is why things like 'true' and 'right' courses of action will always be choices enacted due to subjective opinions… and which may or may not produce favorable outcomes which may or may not have occurred despite the actions.
We need a central authority to prevent us from killing each other… the problem is that a central authority needs to have another power that can keep it in check, etc… but no one is immune to corruption.
The only real path to world peace is letting the computers control us.
Your graph shows a tiny slice of history but it does show how utterly destructive the recent wars of the industrial age have been
Here's a link to a wikipedia page showing wars by death toll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
It shows that like i've said wars have been pretty consistently bad for the last millenia. The worst of the large scale ones have been the most recent ones (WW1 & WWII)
Getting rid of capitalism will lesson the likelyhood of violence because capitalism is the primary driver of violence. The capitalist class profit from war. They have been bankrolling both sides in wars for hundreds of years. It is also in their interests to compete with other elites
Decentralising government helps because it gets rid of the capitalist class and lessens inequality which is what causes tensions.
The average person on the street doesn't want to go to war, they are sent to war by the capitalist class. if the average person on the street had some say over the running of their communities then they are not going to vote for war
I haven't said anything about 'ancient' greek style 'mini-states'.
There will however have to be a change in how communities of different sizes manage their affairs. The Paris Commune shows how an entire city can be managed by the workers. I myself work in a small scale voluntary association of workers but the principles we apply to our small scale operation could easily be used by larger operations and already are to different degrees in certain places
The internet is a global telephone network. It allows instant communication over large areas. It is a perfect instrument for communities to maintain a network through which communities can maintain contact, good relations and share resources....it can even act as a language interpreter
Some libertarians argue for a small government that exists only to uphold certain rights and some argue for no government at all.
Concerning how you would stop new tyrannies from emerging (which i definately see as a danger with anarcho-capitalism), the nature of consensus democracy is such that any attempt by a person or cabal to usurp power is going to be prevented by the community. Due to the internet the 'community' needn't end at the outskirts of your settlement....it could be part of a regional and eventually a global community
Can't go back on what...anarcho-communism? No neither would i want to
Work towards what? Everything is decided by consensus democracy via voluntary associations and workers councils
People's assemblies have been operating successfully in recent protest movements across the world; here's a link to the people's assemblies network: http://www.peoplesassemblies.org/
Think of all the corruption and scandals that keep coming out in the news. these are able to happen because there is not enough transparency and accountability. This would not be an issue when the community is openly involved in the decision making process
Yes the capitalist parliamentary system you inherited from the british who were (and still are) run by central bankers is shit and only represents the interests of the rich, which is why they are the only people getting wealthier at the moment while everyone else is getting poorer
Here's an objective reality for you
Your current economic system is about to collapse. The top 1% of the top 1% have taken all the wealth and are hoping to create a centralised state run economy that they will control. No one except the top 1% of the top 1% is going to agree with that
If people are able to thrash out ideas in a public forum and then make a decision as a community, the needs of that community will be far better met than if you leave all the decisions to an elite from a propertied class, because what will happen if you leave all the decisions upto an elite from a propertied class is that THEY WILL LEGISLATE IN THEIR FAVOUR TO ENRICH THEMSELVES AND TO ENSLAVE THE WORKERS
The idea behind anarcho-communism is to end coercion so that we are not made to do things we don't want to do. Under capitalism we all have to do things we don't want to do all the time
Whenever people discuss theoretically the idea of creating a society it basically boils down to how to balance the personal freedoms of the individual against their responsibilites to their community
I belive that anarcho-communism allows the greatest amount of personal freedom while not impinging on the freedoms, health and happiness of the community
Capitalism on the other hand places many constraints on the individual unless you are super rich in which case you are above the law
Last edited:
I have enjoyed reading some of the threads in this post and would hope there is some type of alternative to pure Capitalism whose basic philosophy is, "the strong survive and the weak fall by the wayside". From what I understand, which is little as far as economics goes, Capitalism is based on the idea written in "The Wealth of Nations" that individual greed is good and will spur an economy forward (and greed is the underlying motivating factor of Capitalism to spur it onward).
Although I understand the concept, I think it is flawed because unbridled greed leads to oppression, corruption and fighting to eliminate those who would stand in the way of fulfilling your greed (which is never fulfilled - lust/greed is only temporarily satisfied but never, ever fulfilled).
I do not have the answer to this perennial problem but every system has failed (whether communism, marxism, Capitalism or other "isms") due to certain things that humans seem to always gravitate towards. These things are:
1. Humans desire and want things and this desire tends to be, fundamentally, self-centered.
2. Humans want to satisfy their desires
3. If a person has to inconvenience others to satisfy their own desires, they, most of the time, will justify their desire and why the other people should have to be inconvenienced for their sake.
4. People have egos that cause us to put ourselves before others (most of the time, with some exceptions at times).
5. When people get power, they, inevitably, abuse it ("power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely") (again, there are always exception but the general course of history bears this truth out)
6. Everyone believes that their perception, outlook and worldview is the best and most correct perception (because, if they did not, they would change it to acquire a true or clearer perception)
7. Some people just do not care about others, period.
So how do you curtail or deal with these?
The problem, ultimately, does not seem to be the "systems" but the people that rise to power within the "systems".
Although I have never been to a commune, I am certain that the ones in charge have abused their power and privilege at one time or another (look at Jim Jones).
How do you come up with a system where people can make a living and be content?
I do not have the answer because the problem lies, fundamentally, deep within each human being. Systems, by and large, are neutral entities but it is people and corruption that makes them bad (or become bad)... and this can happen at any level. Whenever people become involved in a system and ascend to a position to benefit themselves and their family, they tend to take advantage of it as much as they are legally allowed even if this hurts others - how do you curb this natural tendency?
Although I understand the concept, I think it is flawed because unbridled greed leads to oppression, corruption and fighting to eliminate those who would stand in the way of fulfilling your greed (which is never fulfilled - lust/greed is only temporarily satisfied but never, ever fulfilled).
I do not have the answer to this perennial problem but every system has failed (whether communism, marxism, Capitalism or other "isms") due to certain things that humans seem to always gravitate towards. These things are:
1. Humans desire and want things and this desire tends to be, fundamentally, self-centered.
2. Humans want to satisfy their desires
3. If a person has to inconvenience others to satisfy their own desires, they, most of the time, will justify their desire and why the other people should have to be inconvenienced for their sake.
4. People have egos that cause us to put ourselves before others (most of the time, with some exceptions at times).
5. When people get power, they, inevitably, abuse it ("power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely") (again, there are always exception but the general course of history bears this truth out)
6. Everyone believes that their perception, outlook and worldview is the best and most correct perception (because, if they did not, they would change it to acquire a true or clearer perception)
7. Some people just do not care about others, period.
So how do you curtail or deal with these?
The problem, ultimately, does not seem to be the "systems" but the people that rise to power within the "systems".
Although I have never been to a commune, I am certain that the ones in charge have abused their power and privilege at one time or another (look at Jim Jones).
How do you come up with a system where people can make a living and be content?
I do not have the answer because the problem lies, fundamentally, deep within each human being. Systems, by and large, are neutral entities but it is people and corruption that makes them bad (or become bad)... and this can happen at any level. Whenever people become involved in a system and ascend to a position to benefit themselves and their family, they tend to take advantage of it as much as they are legally allowed even if this hurts others - how do you curb this natural tendency?
Last edited:
I couldn't find a graph that shows the decline in violence over the past millennia, but if you had read the article, it also explains that the death toll per 100,000 people has been decreasing, that someone is far far less likely to be murdered by another person now than they were in the past, and that this is a trend that has continued over thousands of years. The global population has exploded in the past centuries, and so there are going to be more deaths, more crimes, more murders etc... the point is that the amount of murders does not reflect how violent we are as a culture or suggest that most people are becoming more violent. I do think that we're more likely to express outrage and shock over acts of violence than people in the past, however.. which again points to the fact that people are coming to find violence less acceptable and more distasteful, and are themselves less likely to practice it.
This is the most absurd idea on the entire thread. People were violent long before capitalism. The Native American tribes, who did not have capitalism, fought. Cavemen fought. History is full of war. There is no reason to believe that things will stop if you 'liberate' everyone-- if anything, when people/individuals are free to make up their own rules, it means that there's a much greater chance of violence.
Why should I listen to someone who does not have any power over me?
Why should I listen to someone who does not understand what I do?
Inequality does not always cause tensions... in many situations, it defines a person's responsibilities and organizes society-- and also prevents conflict.
Equality does not always cause tension, but can... especially in the case of the high school dropout suddenly being on equal footing to the Harvard business school grad.
And inequality does not always mean exploitation... corruption isn't a natural byproduct of power, it's a learned behavior that is the effect of a certain corrupt behavior becoming socially acceptable among a certain group.
Remember 9/11? Right after it happened, everyone wanted a war. People want to see other people die. They want to see other people pay for what they have done.
How will you prevent these from forming? In the event of major disagreements, how will you prevent secret or even not-so-secret alliances between workers? Or what if the majority decision favors one community over another? What if there's a small minority who agrees and considers it unjust? Without a central law, how are you going to prevent uprisings, private armies, etc?
And the internet is not a substitute for real community.
'Easily'-- hmmmmmm...
How are they going to democratically decide on the best course of action in order to do so? Are you going to hold millions and millions of referendums at every waking hour? How are they going to decide who is going to fight? I thought that nobody wanted to fight?
You really couldn't have missed the point more completely.
This is not true at all-- we do have to work but we also have free time to do what we please. And what if what we want to do doesn't match the needs of the community? Are we all just going to want to do the things that other people don't want to do?
Last edited:
Here's a graph for you-- it's not a good one, however.
Here's the article:
http://www.psychohistory.com/originsofwar/03_psychology_neurobiology.html
It shows that child abuse has also been declining.
The fact that so many people are so sensitive and compassionate towards victims of any kind of abuse is a testament to that decline.
Another:
Interestingly enough, the highest violent death toll here was from a Native American site, before Columbus. And yet you still think that capitalism is the world's greatest evil and that decentralized power is a good thing.
Another:
This one shows the number of war deaths in non-state societies when compared to state societies.
Last edited:
They're not supposed to back up capitalism's 'legitimacy', they're supposed to show muir that capitalism is not making us more violent, which is the point we're currently arguing.
And you should really leave 'educated' out of this-- it's insulting and furthermore it doesn't suggest ignorance to say that I personally feel that anarchy couldn't produce a stable form of government in the long term.
Last edited:
"You have, I want..." that always equals violence. Capitalism not only acknowledges this, but embraces it. There would be violence without capitalism, but it wouldn't be rewarded and supported by "the system" like it is with capitalism.
Haha, so does sex.
yet that works out for a lot of people too! Seriously.One of the best things about capitalism (not that it is always good by any means) is that people are less likely to enter into wars with their trading partners.
Haha, so does sex.
One of the best things about capitalism (not that it is always good by any means) is that people are less likely to enter into wars with their trading partners.
"People" may be unwilling ....but Corporations/Governments - oth - do it all the time with each other. If there's profit in it - who cares about a few dead thousands...
Have you ever played the game Risk? I often went to war with my best friend as we secretly cooperated with each other to dominate the world. We beat the guys all the time because of this.
If capitalism causes war, then why doesn't the US fight Canada?
Seriously, there's enough oil in Canada to last the US for years… why let the Canadians sell it to China when they're so ripe for the taking? The military is a joke, and 300 million Americans vs. 40 million Canadians seems like pretty good odds.
I think I've probably giving people the impression that I'm defending capitalism, which I suppose I sort of am-- but I don't think it's a perfect system or that it's the answer to everyone's problems-- my point is that I don't think it's the terrible universally oppressive force that some people make it out to be and I think there are actually some extremely big advantages that shouldn't be taken for granted, especially when the alternatives could easily lead to things becoming much much worse.
I also think it's important to consider that perhaps our current woes aren't so much the fault of capitalism but of other influences.
I do think that sometimes the question isn't one of greed and exploitation, and more a question of the population having reached a point where a large amount of people are actually redundant… we simply don't need that many people to run a society, and it's impossible to find places for everyone.
There is now an overabundance of unskilled workers as well as a shortage of workers who are skilled in the highly specialized fields where demand is highest. It used to be that a basic chemistry degree could probably put you in a position where you were capable of innovation, however yesterday's innovation is today's common knowledge, and so an innovator today would have to have a lot more knowledge, and probably a greater degree of specialization. Without pursuing a relevant specialization, people with basic physics degrees have now become unskilled laborers.
And how many unskilled laborers (factory employees, etc) does it take to provide enough goods for millions? It's pretty basic math-- you can have a relatively minute work force and if you are efficient they can provide enough goods for the entire world.
How many people do you need to feed a billion people? Even if you were distributing everything equally, there would probably still be people out of work.
If society were producing driven, innovative achievers then the question of place probably wouldn't be as difficult-- our rate of progress would probably triple and we might even have already been able to solve the problems that we are facing… but even the most advanced societies are churning out mostly unskilled workers… and a lot of that is due to the demand for specialization and the increasing complexity of our world… it's actually one of the reasons that societies fail-- because their complexity outpaces their ability to adapt.
So how are we ever going to be able to sustain our progress if we can't produce enough skilled workers?
Unless we find a new world to colonize, I would guess that collapse/dark age is probably inevitable, and a return to a more pastoral lifestyle (replete with all kinds of violence and barbarism, a sharp decline in education, medicine, technology and knowledge in general… as well as a huge drop in the population) will be the result… but I don't think it's something that should be glamorized or touted as the perfect solution to all of our woes… but it will probably be good for the planet and I do think it is easier for smaller societies to share and have a more egalitarian balance of power.
I don't really know if this is going to happen or if this is how it is, it's mostly just a theory.
Seriously, there's enough oil in Canada to last the US for years… why let the Canadians sell it to China when they're so ripe for the taking? The military is a joke, and 300 million Americans vs. 40 million Canadians seems like pretty good odds.
I think I've probably giving people the impression that I'm defending capitalism, which I suppose I sort of am-- but I don't think it's a perfect system or that it's the answer to everyone's problems-- my point is that I don't think it's the terrible universally oppressive force that some people make it out to be and I think there are actually some extremely big advantages that shouldn't be taken for granted, especially when the alternatives could easily lead to things becoming much much worse.
I also think it's important to consider that perhaps our current woes aren't so much the fault of capitalism but of other influences.
I do think that sometimes the question isn't one of greed and exploitation, and more a question of the population having reached a point where a large amount of people are actually redundant… we simply don't need that many people to run a society, and it's impossible to find places for everyone.
There is now an overabundance of unskilled workers as well as a shortage of workers who are skilled in the highly specialized fields where demand is highest. It used to be that a basic chemistry degree could probably put you in a position where you were capable of innovation, however yesterday's innovation is today's common knowledge, and so an innovator today would have to have a lot more knowledge, and probably a greater degree of specialization. Without pursuing a relevant specialization, people with basic physics degrees have now become unskilled laborers.
And how many unskilled laborers (factory employees, etc) does it take to provide enough goods for millions? It's pretty basic math-- you can have a relatively minute work force and if you are efficient they can provide enough goods for the entire world.
How many people do you need to feed a billion people? Even if you were distributing everything equally, there would probably still be people out of work.
If society were producing driven, innovative achievers then the question of place probably wouldn't be as difficult-- our rate of progress would probably triple and we might even have already been able to solve the problems that we are facing… but even the most advanced societies are churning out mostly unskilled workers… and a lot of that is due to the demand for specialization and the increasing complexity of our world… it's actually one of the reasons that societies fail-- because their complexity outpaces their ability to adapt.
So how are we ever going to be able to sustain our progress if we can't produce enough skilled workers?
Unless we find a new world to colonize, I would guess that collapse/dark age is probably inevitable, and a return to a more pastoral lifestyle (replete with all kinds of violence and barbarism, a sharp decline in education, medicine, technology and knowledge in general… as well as a huge drop in the population) will be the result… but I don't think it's something that should be glamorized or touted as the perfect solution to all of our woes… but it will probably be good for the planet and I do think it is easier for smaller societies to share and have a more egalitarian balance of power.
I don't really know if this is going to happen or if this is how it is, it's mostly just a theory.
Last edited: