Quote:
Originally Posted by chumb
I don't know why you keep mentioning anarchism and socialism in the same breath, in anarchy there would be no government intervention therefore the economic system would be one of extreme capitalism... all of the means of production would be "owned" by individuals. In socialism, the government controls the means of production so as to help out the working class...
Personally I tend to shy away from both socialism and communism because I'm generally not in favor of giving more control to the government, I'd prefer that the people have it. Unfortunately, that just leads to the formation of corporations which begin to resemble government so the alternative isn't really much better. All economic systems seem to lead to someone getting screwed, that's just how it works. Someone has to lose a buck for you to make a buck.
|
I mention anarchim and socialism in the same breath because they are both radical anti-capitalit ideas. The argument that anarchism would result in extreme capitalims has no base. In an anarchistc society people would get theproducts they desire through cooperation and free assosiation. Town a has lots of turnips ton b has lot of hats, town a trades turnips for hats. Granted under anarchism one would be allowed to try to institute some sort of capitalist endevour, but no person would be obligated to participate. I could open a shoe factory and pay my employees and dictate their hours if the place i lived allowed it, but its up to the people to do what they want. There would also hypothetically be no need for capitalist enterprise because people would no longer feel the need to buy useless junk to feel good about themselves as a status symbol. A society of equals. This is why anarchy promises nothing, but gives everything. No government, no economy, no currency, no hieracrchy.
Your definition of socialism is completly backwards. In a socialist economy the PEOPLE own the means of production. GOvernment officials are directly eected with the possibility of instant recalls. The government officials would hypothetically be payed no more than the wrking individual thus insuring that they have similar intrests. The point of socialism isn't just to neifit the working class, but to create a classless society in which the state would "wither away". Socialism and communism are largely synonomous. Communism was coined by marx as his interpretation of socialist policies aplieing real world statistics to utopian socialist ideals. It sounds like your confusing socialism/communism with Stalinism, which is NOT communism/socialism. Thats just another lie your told in high school thats left over from the red scare. Socialism is not about giving more power to the government, its about giving all power to the people.
It sounds like you are trying to argue some sort of libertarian/objectivist platform that the government shouldnt have any control over the economy, and laissez faire capitalism is the best bet. This philosophy is pretty easy to rebut as capitalism has pven time and time again that when left unwatched it acts on its worst behavior, hence the formation of anti-trust laws, and the burgening socialist movements in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Contrary to your very Malthusian(1) philosophy that any economic system end in peple getting screwed we live in a world today where it is entirley possible that everyone could live together as equals, however as has been stated under capitalism there is no concept of equality. Thus yes as long as rampant capitalism remains there will be inequality, but if there is no buck to lose then ther is no buck to make.