Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   Let's talk about capitalism (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/87460-lets-talk-about-capitalism.html)

Isbjørn 09-29-2016 05:23 AM

Let's talk about capitalism
 
During the last few years, more and more voices have begun to criticize capitalism's adverse effects. In Greece, Syriza has appeared as a voice against the austerity imposed by the neoliberal European Union. Podemos has played a similar role in Spain. In Paris, “Nuit debout” protesters have occupied public squares, in a way similar to the Occupy Protesters in New York. We have all heard what the problems are, now the point is to propose solutions. How do we fix corruption? How do we create a democracy for working people? How do we fight economic inequality? Should capitalism be abolished? How should that be done?

Frownland 09-29-2016 07:27 AM

I say we abolish it and keep the type of government that has never had any problems.

Blank. 09-29-2016 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1751050)
I say we abolish it and keep the type of government that has never had any problems.

Love this idea.

Shameless plug.

Frownland 09-29-2016 08:07 AM

Oh is that why it sounds like ****?

Blank. 09-29-2016 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1751061)
Oh is that why it sounds like ****?

No. That's just the toilet getting flushed.

Goofle 09-29-2016 08:59 AM

It's the best economic system we have created up to this point, and I'd be in favour of less regulation and taxes. But I don't know enough to say if that would work.

Corporatism is the real issue.

Blank. 09-29-2016 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle (Post 1751072)
It's the best economic system we have created up to this point, and I'd be in favour of less regulation and taxes. But I don't know enough to say if that would work.

Corporatism is the real issue.

I (being serious) agree with everything you said. I am yet to see a system come along that doesn't work as well as capitalism.

ChelseaDagger 09-29-2016 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle (Post 1751072)
It's the best economic system we have created up to this point, and I'd be in favour of less regulation and taxes. But I don't know enough to say if that would work.

Corporatism is the real issue.

:clap:

Isbjørn 09-29-2016 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle (Post 1751072)
It's the best economic system we have created up to this point, and I'd be in favour of less regulation and taxes. But I don't know enough to say if that would work.

Corporatism is the real issue.

How would it be possible to abolish corporatism but maintain private ownership? The age of monopolies has existed for a hundred years, and there's no reason to assume that the free market capitalism of the 1800s will redevelop, or that it would even be desirable.

Blank. 09-29-2016 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isbjørn (Post 1751443)
How would it be possible to abolish corporatism but maintain private ownership? The age of monopolies has existed for a hundred years, and there's no reason to assume that the free market capitalism of the 1800s will redevelop, or that it would even be desirable.

Yes. But monopolies have been written out fairly well. The ones that still exist unfortunately only exist through most likely illegal means of buying out the people who are suppose to stop them.

Chula Vista 09-29-2016 02:51 PM

Capitalism with reasonable regulations to insure that the greedy can't run amok with it.

Frownland 09-29-2016 02:54 PM

ENsure ffs

Chula Vista 09-29-2016 02:57 PM

STop stalking me.

Frownland 09-29-2016 02:58 PM

I'll ztop when I want to ztop.

Goofle 09-30-2016 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isbjørn (Post 1751443)
How would it be possible to abolish corporatism but maintain private ownership? The age of monopolies has existed for a hundred years, and there's no reason to assume that the free market capitalism of the 1800s will redevelop, or that it would even be desirable.

Socialism f*cking sucks dude. I would rather a few people getting rich by unfair means than everyone queuing in line for bread, p*ss poor and pretending it's been a successful revolution.

Frownland 09-30-2016 01:50 AM

Socialism>false dichotomies

The Batlord 09-30-2016 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle (Post 1751072)
It's the best economic system we have created up to this point, and I'd be in favour of less regulation and taxes. But I don't know enough to say if that would work.

Corporatism is the real issue.

And the best way to end corporatism is by deregulating corporations.

Janszoon 09-30-2016 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1751845)
And the best way to end corporatism is by deregulating corporations.

:laughing:

Isbjørn 09-30-2016 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle (Post 1751835)
Socialism f*cking sucks dude. I would rather a few people getting rich by unfair means than everyone queuing in line for bread, p*ss poor and pretending it's been a successful revolution.

People are queuing in line for bread in capitalist countries today, dude. Where would you rather live - revolutionary Cuba, or today's India?
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1751845)
And the best way to end corporatism is by deregulating corporations.

^

Terrapin_Station 09-30-2016 04:53 AM

I'd put a socialist system in place instead.

My idiosyncratic socialist system would still have economic inequality and be competitive, but it would ensure that everyone has food, shelter, health care, education, transportation, etc.

I have no inherent love for democracy. I couldn't care less about governmental structure in that sense. What I care about is the laws we have and the economic structure in place. I'd be fine with a monarchy or dictatorship (or an oligarchy or whatever) as long as I agree with the laws and economic structure instantiated. Democracies are no more inherently likely to have laws and economic structures that I prefer.

Terrapin_Station 09-30-2016 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isbjørn (Post 1751858)
People are queuing in line for bread in capitalist countries today, dude. Where would you rather live - revolutionary Cuba, or today's India?

^

Honestly, my first thought is: do I think that Indian or Cuban women are hotter on the whole? And then my second thought is, "Even if I thought that Cuban women were hotter, there are so many more women in India."

Goofle 09-30-2016 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1751845)
And the best way to end corporatism is by deregulating corporations.

lol

Unfortunately that sh*t smell lingers.

Isbjørn 09-30-2016 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station (Post 1751859)
I'd put a socialist system in place instead.

My idiosyncratic socialist system would still have economic inequality and be competitive, but it would ensure that everyone has food, shelter, health care, education, transportation, etc.

I have no inherent love for democracy. I couldn't care less about governmental structure in that sense. What I care about is the laws we have and the economic structure in place. I'd be fine with a monarchy or dictatorship (or an oligarchy or whatever) as long as I agree with the laws and economic structure instantiated. Democracies are no more inherently likely to have laws and economic structures that I prefer.

That sounds like social democracy with a hint of fascism tbh

Terrapin_Station 09-30-2016 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isbjørn (Post 1751873)
That sounds like social democracy with a hint of fascism tbh

Well, the thing is that I've yet to run into a single person who has the same ideas as mine in detail . . . and I've yet to run into a single person who has said, "Yeah, that sounds like a good idea" after I explain what I'd do in some detail. So no matter what we call it, it's not going to match anyone else's ideas. ;-)

The Batlord 09-30-2016 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isbjørn (Post 1751858)
People are queuing in line for bread in capitalist countries today, dude. Where would you rather live - revolutionary Cuba, or today's India?

^

India by a mile. I like not worrying about getting taken away by the secret police in the middle of the night.

Goofle 09-30-2016 08:17 AM

But you could wear a really cool Che t-shirt with all your comrades in Cuba.

The Batlord 09-30-2016 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle (Post 1751896)
But you could wear a really cool Che t-shirt with all your comrades in Cuba.

I already want to give those trendy twats a swirlie, so I'm good.

Blue Hawk 09-30-2016 08:51 AM

Get out, Communist ***gots.

Isbjørn 09-30-2016 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Hawk (Post 1751906)
Get out, Communist ***gots.

Get out, McCarthyist homophobe.

The Batlord 09-30-2016 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isbjørn (Post 1752049)
Get out, McCarthyist homophobe.

Learn things that aren't in pamphlets, silly teenage faux-revolutionary.

Blue Hawk 09-30-2016 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isbjørn (Post 1752049)
Get out, McCarthyist homophobe.

Who is McCarthy? Your dad?

Xurtio 09-30-2016 08:38 PM

It's only in a polarizing light that capitalism and socialism are viewed as mutually exclusive. I'm all for a hybrid.

Exactly what problems are trying to solve with capitalism?

Blank. 09-30-2016 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xurtio (Post 1752264)
It's only in a polarizing light that capitalism and socialism are viewed as mutually exclusive. I'm all for a hybrid.

Exactly what problems are trying to solve with capitalism?

And that hybrid is?

Tristan_Geoff 09-30-2016 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1blankmind (Post 1752289)
And that hybrid is?

https://img.discogs.com/K7t3s5fXvapZ...52997.jpeg.jpg

The Batlord 09-30-2016 09:49 PM

https://65.media.tumblr.com/bb9abe71...uqrl3m_540.jpg

Isbjørn 10-01-2016 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xurtio (Post 1752264)
It's only in a polarizing light that capitalism and socialism are viewed as mutually exclusive. I'm all for a hybrid.

Capitalism is private ownership over the means of production. The working majority have to earn their living by selling their labor to a handful of capitalists, who extract profits. Socialism, on the other hand, is collective ownership of the means of production. This requires workers to take control over their workplaces, and establish a state that is democratically biased towards the workers, just as states in capitalist countries are biased towards the capitalist class.

To socialists who belong to the Marxist tradition, the question of capitalism vs socialism isn't a question of "bigger" or "smaller" government, or simply more or less economic equality - Norway is just as capitalist as the USA, even though we have more extensive public welfare programs. The question of capitalism vs socialism is all about which class is dominant. Who owns and controls the means of production? Who controls the state apparatus? If you look at it this way, capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive.

Goofle 10-01-2016 08:18 AM

And capitalism is a much more sensible and logical way of getting sh*t done.

innerspaceboy 10-01-2016 08:52 AM

I'll be the first to admit that I am entirely a novice to political philosophy, but I have a fantastic interest in the subject and am exploring it as best I can with the resources available.

I understand the numerous inherent failures of capitalism as outlined by Marx, though I do not align myself entirely with his vision for its successor.

My ideals and values are primarily united with those of social anarchism (also dubbed libertarian socialism though I understand the community's distancing itself from the "l" word since the advent of conservative neo-liberarianism.)

I support socially-conscious individual liberty, a rich commons, and oppose intellectual and private property. I support Kopimism, reject groupthink and collective conformity, and recognize the benefits of collectivism and unionized workers.

However I also recognize the utopian fallacies of this philosophy. Its impracticality lies with the fact that man is fundamentally an animal driven by selfishness and fear. This prevents large-scale collaborative efforts from being realized, sacrificing the well-being of one's fellow man in the name of his pursuit of capital.

And, as Marx himself described, middle-class owners of property will characteristically opt for a conservative preservation of the status quo, (ironically in opposition of their own interests). Like the conservative poor, they will have no part in the revolution toward collective/syndicalism, as they've been effectively conditioned for Bernay's engineering of consent to serve the establishment.

And as a dear friend of mine so succinctly uttered - "anarchism doesn't work because it's hard to trade CDs for Band-Aids at three in the morning." After five hundred years of man's role in merchant-capital-based societies, the majority of the population, ignorant of or simply disinterested by the revolution, will cling fast to that system, once again due to man's inherent selfishness and fear.

Still, I'm eager to explore the writings of Chomsky, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and other key figures of the anarchist school of thought. I just fear that it is too utopian a construct to be actualized in our time.

William_the_Bloody 10-02-2016 01:03 AM

Wow I thought this argument was settled after the fall of the Soviet Union. If you ask the people of china what system they would prefer (Capitalism, or Maoism) I'm pretty sure the answer is obvious.

Isbjørn 10-02-2016 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by William_the_Bloody (Post 1752737)
Wow I thought this argument was settled after the fall of the Soviet Union. If you ask the people of china what system they would prefer (Capitalism, or Maoism) I'm pretty sure the answer is obvious.

No, the answer is not obvious. Mao is well-respected in China, even though the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward are critizised, as they should be. Under Mao's regime, life expectancy went from about 35 years in 1949 to 66 years in 1976. Illiteracy went from around 80% to less than 7%. Now, under capitalism, China is among the worst countries in the world when it comes to income equality, with 36% of the population living on less than two dollars a day. The country has experienced a booming economic growth after the liberal market reforms, but only after decades of attempting to build up a self-sufficient economy.

I'm not a big fan of Mao myself, but I found this video from TeleSUR interesting.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:51 PM.


© 2003-2022 Advameg, Inc.