If capitalism is so badly flawed...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak

Unemployment and depression can't be blamed on capitalism. they are more of a matter of how it's being practiced. Nowhere in the world does the capitalist economic system exist in its logically consistent form. As pointed out by others, it's a difference between practice and theory.

---

I agree that depression can't be blamed on capitalism because it's a physical illness, although generally regarded to be a mental illness. Either way, it doesn't really have bearing.

However, in my original post what was implied, but not actually said, was that in a more primitive society (sharing) that people in the society were more likely to live at the same standard of living. Capitalism does not provide that. It provides opportunity for those who know the "game" and are mentally capable. The not-so-capable get left far behind.

My argument isn't against capitalism. It's against your notion that all can excel under it. I think that is fundamentally untrue.

mendhak

Quote:

---

It's a 'people' system, you could say. It's because of this fact that this system can be nurtured and developed.

---

Capitalism a "people" system? I don't think so.

Capitalism puts the ecomomy before people in the hope that if the economy prospers, the benefits will be shared by the people. And it's true, to some extent. The problem is that the benefits are distributed in a very imbalanced way.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

This society doesn't cost anything, its the equilibrium of an evolution, that might never end and is a transcient state, but our current society will transform into.

---

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you think we'll just arrive at this state and that an idea doesn't first have to born and strived towards?

Personally, I think a new concept needs to be developed that is completely different from what's gone before.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cafeenman


You said it yourself:


If my perception is different (which it is) then our realities are different.

---

ok misunderstandment: classification

I gave you a class definition of Reality, I expected a class when you compared "a Reality" with your Reality.

Obviously you interpreted it as a instance of reality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DragonFly

That is not my implication at all.... to be honest I have no idea what this new world will look like... but we have a situation now where the minute a commercially produced intangible.. like music or film is produced it is available free at several sources... Logic tells me that this will have an effect on the current system of Capitalism.... which is firmly based on the supply and demand principles.... if there is a method of fullfilling a large part of the demand where no income is being generated this has to have an effect.

---

This is being limited to just the intangible products. I doubt you'll find 'free' cars being sold at some convenience store anytime soon.

In response to the above para, if you'll notice how several entities have risen up against this (let's name some names: RIAA and other state governments) , you'll also know that these freely-distributing companies (let's name some names: napster, audiogalaxy, GnuTella and what not) may have to go into submission. Napster has been shutdown. As for the other companies, pretty soon, they realize they do need a source of revenue. You may have noticed several websites 'going paid'. (A website does come under intangible products: a service) They too revert to the old system.

Quote:

---

As I said.. I have no idea what effect this will produce ... but I believe that it will have an enormous effect on the world economy

---

We can only wait and watch then...

Now someone stand up for me and wiggle their hips please. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Flustor


You go girl, uh huh *wiggles hips*

;)

---

*does a wiggly girl power dance with Lucy* ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman

ok misunderstandment: classification

I gave you a class definition of Reality, I expected a class when you compared "a Reality" with your Reality.

Obviously you interpreted it as a instance of reality.

---

I'll give you an example of what I mean by "reality."

We're both at the beach and along comes a beautiful, dark-skinned, brunette (female). 105 lbs, about 5'3", a nice curvy figure, exotic eyes and high cheekbones.

What? You say she looks anorexic and unhealthy?

My reality is that she's beautiful.

Your's is that she looks sickly.

We're both right in our individual realities but we're not both right in each of our realities. In your's, I'm wrong and you're right.

That's what I meant.

it applies to produce in the supermarket as well. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak


This is being limited to just the intangible products. I doubt you'll find 'free' cars being sold at some convenience store anytime soon.

In response to the above para, if you'll notice how several entities have risen up against this (let's name some names: RIAA and other state governments) , you'll also know that these freely-distributing companies (let's name some names: napster, audiogalaxy, GnuTella and what not) may have to go into submission. Napster has been shutdown. As for the other companies, pretty soon, they realize they do need a source of revenue. You may have noticed several websites 'going paid'. (A website does come under intangible products: a service) They too revert to the old system.


We can only wait and watch then...

Now someone stand up for me and wiggle their hips please. :D

---

OK... you make the assumption that the US government can control everything... What is to stop me or someone with the ability from setting up a peer to peer distribution system outside of the US.. ???



And as for the hip wiggle.... happy to oblige :D feeling very wiggly and sexy at the mo :D

Mendhak has a point though, DF. Somehow there has to be a means of support. If the service I provide is a file-sharing network, who provides me the services needed to take care of my basic survival needs?

It can work, but it has to extend beyond just one thing. So I think you're both right, but talking at different levels.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DragonFly




OK... you make the assumption that the US government can control everything... What is to stop me or someone with the ability from setting up a peer to peer distribution system outside of the US.. ???



And as for the hip wiggle.... happy to oblige :D feeling very wiggly and sexy at the mo :D

---

Nows my chance!
*Lucy starts dancing enticingly, falls over a chair*
Ouch!

Some of the peer to peer software doesn't have any central server so it's the individual users who're accountable. I can't see the music industry sueing 20 Million people :eek:

You're right about the car analogy, but we're only talking about the music industry and increasingly the film industry. This technology is enough to make them worry a tad.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm

Capitalism a "people" system? I don't think so.

Capitalism puts the ecomomy before people in the hope that if the economy prospers, the benefits will be shared by the people. And it's true, to some extent. The problem is that the benefits are distributed in a very imbalanced way.

---

Once again, I'm reiterating a point I made earlier. Instead of stating that paragraph again, I'll say that what you're viewing is a 'crony' capitalism.

You talk about imbalance: Economic value is objective. It is not produced merely by labor, but ALSO by mental efforts of the people and businessmen in charge, who are guiding the whole process. It is the people in charge who decide this. If you look for a pure balance, what would you say if I ask "Are you implying communism??"

Quote:

---

Cafeenman said this:
However, in my original post what was implied, but not actually said, was that in a more primitive society (sharing) that people in the society were more likely to live at the same standard of living. Capitalism does not provide that. It provides opportunity for those who know the "game" and are mentally capable. The not-so-capable get left far behind.

My argument isn't against capitalism. It's against your notion that all can excel under it. I think that is fundamentally untrue.

---

In the primitive society, conditions were very much similar to the way they are now. I'm of course talking about the gap and not the resources and amenities one can enjoy today.

"The not so capable get left far behind"

I must point out that under capitalism, those who are incapable of supporting themselves are a tiny and ever-shrinking minority.
Generally, what is done is that the definition of helplessness is expanded to include people with disabilities, chronic fatigue, chicken pox, allergies and depression. (exaggeration, but you get what I'm saying)

But the reality under capitalism is that fewer and fewer conditions are disabling. In the primitive society you mentioned, where most people lived by heavy physical labor, an injury could leave a person truly incapable of earning. Today, a quadriplegic can make a living simply from the power of his mind to solve problems—and the power of computers (produced by capitalism) to help him communicate his thoughts. Do you deny this as well?

Capitalism also serves to support, albeit a small extent, the incapable.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cafeenman
Mendhak has a point though, DF. Somehow there has to be a means of support. If the service I provide is a file-sharing network, who provides me the services needed to take care of my basic survival needs?

It can work, but it has to extend beyond just one thing. So I think you're both right, but talking at different levels.

---

I agree... who provides the actual energy that powers the network?? And the physical hardware for the enterprise.. and yes.. how do people survive and thrive in this situation????

These are questions that facinate me.. I have no answers at this stage...

but I think that the big point is the backlash against excess!!! It is the obcenity of the excesses of these industries that lead people to have the opinion that ripping them off by sharing their products is acceptable... Most of us would think twice about taking something from someone or company we thought would be devastated by it's loss...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you think we'll just arrive at this state and that an idea doesn't first have to born and strived towards?

---

This idea is being applied and has been applied ever since evolution began. The formulation of my idea is what makes it possible to strive for it.

Quote:

---

Personally, I think a new concept needs to be developed that is completely different from what's gone before.

---

Capitalism is a step in the evolution, but its going to fall either dramatically or being abandoned as my evolution catalyst motivates the world.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Flustor


Nows my chance!
*Lucy starts dancing enticingly, falls over a chair*
Ouch!

Some of the peer to peer software doesn't have any central server so it's the individual users who're accountable. I can't see the music industry sueing 20 Million people :eek:

You're right about the car analogy, but we're only talking about the music industry and increasingly the film industry. This technology is enough to make them worry a tad.

---

Lucy... that's your name, if memory serves. Your example is very limited. It's limited to P2P services. But what more?

I'm sure you've come across the sites that do offer free services but rely upon "Pay-Pal" or other forms of revenue? Often, I've seen sites that depend upon other sites paying for their bandwidth. Don't forget that bandwidth too, is a resource that these companies need to pay for.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Flustor


Nows my chance!
*Lucy starts dancing enticingly, falls over a chair*
Ouch!

---

*picks Lucy up and buys her a "screaming orgasm" to help her recovery*


:D

Let's not this turn into an argument about the nature of reality (by gum, we've had enough of those) or an attack/defence of the system of capitalism.

Stop defending capitalism and let's look at what sort of system could replace it. All this argument over attacking and defending capitalism is holding back to quest to improve society. Let's move on.

There are a couple very big problems to overcome in a sharing society. Actually, more than a couple.

First, the "haves" are going to fully resist it. They may take part, but the "sharing" won't be truly sharing. It will be them attempting to keep what they have by profiting by providing less for more.

Also, the sheer number of people in the world will make it extremely complicated. I don't see any realistic way of implementing it at this point. I think it would be a giant cluster ****, to be honest.

I think after we mostly wipe ourselves out in a nuclear war, it will be more a necessity than a choice, but it will be worth continuing to develop with the expectation that it's the way things will be rather than a temporary situation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm

Stop defending capitalism and let's look at what sort of system could replace it. All this argument over attacking and defending capitalism is holding back to quest to improve society. Let's move on.

---

See my post immediately after yours. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cafeenman

I'll give you an example of what I mean by "reality."

We're both at the beach and along comes a beautiful, dark-skinned, brunette (female). 105 lbs, about 5'3", a nice curvy figure, exotic eyes and high cheekbones.

What? You say she looks anorexic and unhealthy?

My reality is that she's beautiful.

Your's is that she looks sickly.

We're both right in our individual realities but we're not both right in each of our realities. In your's, I'm wrong and you're right.

That's what I meant.

it applies to produce in the supermarket as well. :)

---

Ok obviously my post was a bit abstract for you :)
You don't have to explain, I know what you're looking after;)
My point is that to make a use of a word reality in the comparation between two realities you need a definition of reality which classifies something as a reality, if two realities are different from each other, they're still realities. But if two definitions of reality are different, a comparation cannot be done at all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Let's not this turn into an argument about the nature of reality (by gum, we've had enough of those) or an attack/defence of the system of capitalism.

Stop defending capitalism and let's look at what sort of system could replace it. All this argument over attacking and defending capitalism is holding back to quest to improve society. Let's move on.

---

Lets move on Simon, I have the society for you

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DragonFly



*picks Lucy up and buys her a "screaming orgasm" to help her recovery*


:D

---

Thankyou, thats the first time I've have one of those in under 20 mins :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman

Capitalism is a step in the evolution, but its going to fall either dramatically or being abandoned as my evolution catalyst motivates the world.

---

I agree with everything before the comma. :p

Quote:

---

Simon M says:
Stop defending capitalism and let's look at what sort of system could replace it. All this argument over attacking and defending capitalism is holding back to quest to improve society. Let's move on.

---

Are you talking to the debaters to formulate an alternative to capitalism, or are you talking to 'humanity'?

Due to the sheer frequency of posting, a lot of the posts are getting ignored, ppl. Just thought you oughta know.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak
I agree with everything before the comma. :p

---

yep, some posts are getting ignored, have you read my last one to you?

Honeybee, here's a reality check - I think we're in agreement here and it will apply to any type of society.

Somehow there has to be some administration. If we can remove this requirement and the society can continue to maintain itself, then there is no problem. But I don't think that is possible.

So in the communist society, for example, the administrators have a certain amount of power. As long as the society prospers, then all is well.

But when there is less to go around, human nature will cause the people with the additional power to provide for themselves and their loved ones before others.

However, there are those who have the actual skills to grow the crops which can give them even greater power depending on the circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Flustor


Thankyou, thats the first time I've have one of those in under 20 mins :D

---

Don't worry I got myself one too;)



:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak

I must point out that under capitalism, those who are incapable of supporting themselves are a tiny and ever-shrinking minority.

---

Dude, you need to leave your house more often. Do you have any idea the number of people in the US who live at or below the poverty level? I'm talking about citizens. The number may or may not be getting smaller, I don't know. But I do know the number itself is not small. And it is much larger than those on the other end of the bell curve.

Quote:

---

yep, some posts are getting ignored, have you read my last one to you?

---

Answered.

HoneyB

Quote:

---

Honeybee says:

To mankind, there is only a limited amount of resources available. Using these limited resources we must satisfy our ever-growing needs.

---

Mankind also creates resources for himself. It is through the needs that the resources arise. We might be talking about different resources here.

Quote:

---

Cafeen Man sez:
But when there is less to go around, human nature will cause the people with the additional power to provide for themselves and their loved ones before others

---

This is exactly the reason any ideology will get corrupted. People in general will simply view the corruption as a flaw in the system itself and blame it, theregy explaining the general dissatisfaction with capitalism in this case. The very same example as above does apply to capitalism as well and it HAS corrupted the ideology in practical senses.

mendhak: the one starting with "acknowledgement of majority doesn't make an argument." at last page

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak
This is exactly the reason any ideology will get corrupted. People in general will simply view the corruption as a flaw in the system itself and blame it, theregy explaining the general dissatisfaction with capitalism in this case. The very same example as above does apply to capitalism as well and it HAS corrupted the ideology in practical senses.

---

That was my point which I stole from Honeybee. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak

This is exactly the reason any ideology will get corrupted. People in general will simply view the corruption as a flaw in the system itself and blame it, theregy explaining the general dissatisfaction with capitalism in this case. The very same example as above does apply to capitalism as well and it HAS corrupted the ideology in practical senses.

---

Including virtually all the religious ideologies

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp



Including virtually all the religious ideologies

---

take out the word "virtually" and you get 100% agreement from me.

Honeybee - there are other choices. In many of the other choices, a person has to contribute to survive. Capitalism isn't unique in that respect. Read my original post again.

the 'virtually' is included because there might be religions out there that I don't know about :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
the 'virtually' is included because there might be religions out there that I don't know about :)

---

I don't think that matters. The word religion equates to "flawed beliefs" as far as I'm concerned. But my views are jaded by the religions I'm aware of as well, so I know there's at least a possibilty that I'm wrong.

OK... back to capitalism vs. napster.

Honeybee

I notice that those who insist on defending capitalism do so by comparing it to it's failed contemporaries (such as communism) and predecessors (such as fuedalism). This is understandable but it's a moot point really.

I have already acknowledged that capitalism is the best of the bunch that we currently have. The point is, we need to find a system that works better. A system that leverages the good points from capitalism and leaves the bad points behind.

Human endeavour needs to be rewarded and not smothered. However, greed should not be. Capitalism works by convincing us we need things we really don't. This is how it drives human progress. However, it leads to feelings of disatisfaction and self-inadequacy.

Capitalism is driven by inequality and is highly unstable.

We need a system that tends towards stability and yet at the same time drives human endeavour and progress. I don't know how it's going to work but I know we need it.

Quote:

---

CafeenMan says
That was my point.

---

so we're finally agreeing on something???

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman
acknowledgement of majority doesn't make an argument.

---

How so? Any general populace does have the brains enough to make decisions based upon what they observe. In this case, the other system I was referring to was observed to be useless in the face of the changing economy, and capitalism was accepted as the best. Does that not make it an argument enough? What type of 'argument' do you want for this?

Quote:

---

I did not say that, I said there is limited amount of resources that can be considered capital.

---

I was referring to "if someone gains capital, someone else looses." This does imply the very same as the increasing divide between the rich and poor. If it does not, please tell me how.

Quote:

---

Capitalism is unfair as it is, people doesn't start with equal capital with equal opportunities, and its practically impossible.

---

If you'll read the other posts in this thread (by me) you'll see it's NOT impossible. It's very much a reality in fact. By saying "practially impossible," the only thing I see here is a lack of motivation on your part. (Hey, no offense, ok? read the other posts, I've explained how it's possible)

Quote:

---

This is not true, there is a limited amount of resources, and profits converge

---

I see we disagree on the concept of resources here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
So, what sort of system could do a better job than capitalism and actually work? Other systems have tried and failed. Can it be improved?

---

If you were the one making the decisions, what would you start with and what would be the most fundamental thing you would change about it to improve it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak
How so? Any general populace does have the brains enough to make decisions based upon what they observe. In this case, the other system I was referring to was observed to be useless in the face of the changing economy, and capitalism was accepted as the best. Does that not make it an argument enough? What type of 'argument' do you want for this?

---

No. People are stupid, greedy and go with the flow regardless of whether or not it is a good path to take.

How about a social democracy like the ones we have in Holland and such ?

Cafeenman

Quote:

---

If you were the one making the decisions, what would you start with and what would be the most fundamental thing you would change about it to improve it?

---

This is a very good question and I think it is one t hat we should all attempt to answer. Name one thing that people would change if we had the power to do so...