Printable View
...what is the alternative?
Has there ever been a system in history that has been more effective at motivating the populace and delivering, in albeit unequal measure, success and technological advancement?
However, the flaws and problems of capitalism are undeniable to all but the most adrent capitalists.
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?
Well, I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but you are making the assumption that technological "advance" is an improvement. I'm not sure that things weren't better when there was a little more stuggle for basic survival.
I don't mean cave-man days, but when anyone who was capable of contributing did. In other words, nobody sat around watching soap operas getting fat.
Have you noticed how unhappy everyone is? I think that unhappiness is a sign of too high a standard of living. I can't say for certain, but I'll bet people used to be more satisfied when they had less and did more.
Capitalism cannot be improved, it is a doomed system, there is a limited amount of resources and capitalism seeks for expansion of materialistic resources.
There is an alternative, that is the society I'm going to found, based on the ideologies behind my programming language Squirrel. An idea that everything is information, an infinite resource.
Capitalism is the best of a bad bunch but I think there's something to be said for a socialist ideal of sharing goods.
The music/film industry has gone far too far towards capitalism and lost the essential ingredient; inspiration. Most of the music supported by the industry now is all about look and glamour rather than being good music. I think Napster inspired software such as Limewire, KaZaA, Audio Galaxy etc... will help, because it brings back the idea that the sound is the most important thing.
Good ol' Karl Marx :D
;)
Capitalism isn't really doomed. It is flawed, but the current 'brand' of capitalism being developed as time goes on certainly will evolve into something more robust than it already is.
Last year's 9/11 attack was devastating, yet the financial system withstood it remarkably well. The economy of the US, as well as the world, have rebounded stronger than anyone had expected in the first place.
But capitalism certainly is flawed, as Argentina has shown to us, that capitalism won't be taking over the world before it evolves into something more stronger.
2) The society is for the people, not the other way aroundQuote:
Originally posted by honeybee
You are making a fundamentally wrong assumption that capitalism is flawed. Or perhaps you are assuming it for the sake of the discussion, but nevertheless it is a wrong assumption.
Secondly, you have to improve the people, not the system. All systems are good on paper, and disastrous in practice. This is because it's the people who implement these systems.
1) Capitalism is flawed because of the second
When I read that comment by Honeybee I also strongly disagreed, but after reading his whole post, I see what he meant. He's saying the theory of capitalism is not flawed. What you are pointing out is the practice.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
But capitalism certainly is flawed, as Argentina has shown to us, that capitalism won't be taking over the world before it evolves into something more stronger.
I don't know what the actual theory of capitalism is, so I have no comment. Just a quote:
"In theory, the practice is the same as the theory. In pracice, it's not."
Quote:
Originally posted by Flustor
Capitalism is the best of a bad bunch but I think there's something to be said for a socialist ideal of sharing goods.
The music/film industry has gone far too far towards capitalism and lost the essential ingredient; inspiration. Most of the music supported by the industry now is all about look and glamour rather than being good music. I think Napster inspired software such as Limewire, KaZaA, Audio Galaxy etc... will help, because it brings back the idea that the sound is the most important thing.
Good ol' Karl Marx :D
;)
I couldn't agree more Lucy.... I have a belief that the concept of sharing is going to change the world and Capitalism as we know it... I for one don't think that is a bad thing.. but then I am a Socialist :D
Yaaayy!! :DQuote:
Originally posted by DragonFly
I couldn't agree more Lucy.... I have a belief that the concept of sharing is going to change the world and Capitalism as we know it... I for one don't think that is a bad thing.. but then I am a Socialist :D
Capitalism will fall because of fundamental nature of reality
If you're implying the idea of a free market, then people have firmly believed that a free market system would always selfcorrect in case of any problem. This was until the stock market crash of 1929. The problem was that no one 'knew' of what quick shifts, sudden changes could do to a market such as that. As a system shifts, and changes, that itself causes it to grow bigger and bigger, because it keeps reacting to itself.Quote:
Originally posted by DragonFly
I couldn't agree more Lucy.... I have a belief that the concept of sharing is going to change the world and Capitalism as we know it... I for one don't think that is a bad thing.. but then I am a Socialist :D
cafeenman
Perhaps you're right but it is pretty undeniable that capitalism has been most successful at delivering it.Quote:
Well, I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but you are making the assumption that technological "advance" is an improvement. I'm not sure that things weren't better when there was a little more stuggle for basic survival.
I think the problem is not technological advancement in itself, but in the wastefulness of capitalism (in terms of human life and social cost).
Kedaman
I did not say we should improve capitalism, but improve upon it by creating a new and better system.Quote:
Capitalism cannot be improved, it is a doomed system, there is a limited amount of resources and capitalism seeks for expansion of materialistic resources.
I agree that it is ultimately self-destructive and tends towards imbalance.
Sounds good...How is it actually going to work (and not end up an idealistic failure)? It may have the best intentions but, as history has shown, that's not enough.Quote:
There is an alternative, that is the society I'm going to found, based on the ideologies behind my programming language Squirrel. An idea that everything is information, an infinite resource.
Flustor
I agree with you that the music industry is a load of crock at the moment but let's not forget that most of the good music in the last century has come out of essentially capitalist countries (namely the USA and UK).Quote:
The music/film industry has gone far too far towards capitalism and lost the essential ingredient; inspiration.
Honeybee
You are entitled to your opinion of course but I see it time and time again. Capitalism leads to monopolies, high unemployment and imbalance in society. It is only by tightly holding the reigns that we keep it check.Quote:
You are making a fundamentally wrong assumption that capitalism is flawed. Or perhaps you are assuming it for the sake of the discussion, but nevertheless it is a wrong assumption.
That is what they said about communism. However, you cannot just ignore the nature of human beings just because you don't like it. The one thing capitalism has going for it is that it incorporates human nature in it's mechanism. However, I believe that it takes this too far.Quote:
Secondly, you have to improve the people, not the system. All systems are good on paper, and disastrous in practice. This is because it's the people who implement these systems.
You could elaborate more on that.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Capitalism will fall because of fundamental nature of reality
I disagree with you, I say that it will never fall. After the fall of communism ('fall', I should say), the majority of the world acknowledged how capitalism was the best way to go. You must remember that capitalism is the only system that fully allows and encourages the best points necessary for human life. It is the only system that safeguards the freedom of the independent mind and recognizes the sanctity of the individual. It's a 'people' system, you could say. It's because of this fact that this system can be nurtured and developed.
*wonders if he's on ignore*
To a certain degree, but when the music was very good in the UK the country was a very much more socialist place. It's been getting much more individualistic since the mid 70'sQuote:
I agree with you that the music industry is a load of crock at the moment but let's not forget that most of the good music in the last century has come out of essentially capitalist countries (namely the USA and UK).
Cafeenman
I disagree. I think that some people have unrealistic expectations about what capitalism will achieve. They believe in some sort of "magic" that will appear when you let the natural forces of the market place play themselves out. They believe that some sort of equilibrium will be achieved and that the best thing we can do is just accept this equillibrium rather than trying to resist it.Quote:
When I read that comment by Honeybee I also strongly disagreed, but after reading his whole post, I see what he meant. He's saying the theory of capitalism is not flawed. What you are pointing out is the practice.
However, it's not just unrealistic because ot poor implementation. It's unrealistic because of the very nature of the beast. A highly competative market place is supposed to be good for the consumer. It drives down prices and provides lots of choice. However, it is logical for comapnies in this competative market place to buy out rivals and merge in order to reduce the competition. Eventually, you end up with just a few key players and either a monopoly or a cartel.
What's the fundamental nature of reality?Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Capitalism will fall because of fundamental nature of reality
Hmm, I don't know. I'd prefer a hybrid between capitalism and socialism.
They're complementary I think. Socialism to provide a net for the disadvantaged and capitalism for those who strive for something better.
In short, inequality in the distribution of goods but equality on the human level. What you do with that 'starter's packet' is up to to you but you should start out at the same level.
And you should have a social net to capture you if you slip up and fall.
Simon
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.
History of evolution has shown this developement towards this transcient state.
That's not good.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I agree that it is ultimately self-destructive and tends towards imbalance.
Capitalism excels at distribution. That doesn't mean the music is better. It just means we're more likely to be exposed to it. It may be better in spite of that, but I'm just making a point.Quote:
I agree with you that the music industry is a load of crock at the moment but let's not forget that most of the good music in the last century has come out of essentially capitalist countries (namely the USA and UK).
Also, I wasn't necessarily agreeing with Honeybee. Like I said, I don't know what capitalism is really "supposed" to be. I was simply trying to clarify to Mendhak what Honeybee had said.
Simonm... good topic for discussion by the way. Nice choice.
Mendhak
invalid argumentQuote:
Originally posted by mendhak
You could elaborate more on that.
I disagree with you, I say that it will never fall. After the fall of communism ('fall', I should say), the majority of the world acknowledged how capitalism was the best way to go.
I disagree, Capitalism encourages the obtainment of capital, which is not satisfactory state for anyone, furthermore capital is materialistic and limited, so if someone gains capital, someone else looses.Quote:
You must remember that capitalism is the only system that fully allows and encourages the best points necessary for human life. It is the only system that safeguards the freedom of the independent mind and recognizes the sanctity of the individual. It's a 'people' system, you could say. It's because of this fact that this system can be nurtured and developed. [/B]
yeah, absolutely :)Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
Simonm... good topic for discussion by the way. Nice choice.
True, a monopoly would exist. Take the example of Microsoft. As private corporations, business has no power to force anyone. The entire case against Microsoft is based on equation between economic power and political power. There is a difference between these two powers, to be kept in mind.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
It drives down prices and provides lots of choice. However, it is logical for comapnies in this competative market place to buy out rivals and merge in order to reduce the competition. Eventually, you end up with just a few key players and either a monopoly or a cartel.
The only power MS has to get it's money is the value of its products. If it starts making an inferior product, or if it does crappy things with Win, it would lose the market, it's manufacturers, and consumers would seek a better OS. (Did someone say Linux? :rolleyes: )
Contrast that, the only power that government and MS's competitors have is a threat of action, and nothing else. It's a company that makes itself, once again, as I point out FOR THE PEOPLE. Which brings me back to say, the reason capitalism will stay.
Reality is fundamentally a perception of information.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
What's the fundamental nature of reality?
What a tongue twister keddie :D
Nice to see you still got it :)
1 Point for CafeenMan for obtaining agreement from another member. :)Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
yeah, absolutely :)
Uh... Kedaman.
Historical fact. Valid enough.Quote:
invalid argument
You're repeating the phrase "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer". That's not quite true. Capitalism is the one system that leaves everyone free to rise by his own efforts, no denying this fact. You must have read countless of the rags-to-riches stories of people, even immigrants who arrived in the US and worked their way up to the top.Quote:
I disagree, Capitalism encourages the obtainment of capital, which is not satisfactory state for anyone, furthermore capital is materialistic and limited, so if someone gains capital, someone else looses.
(I can't cite examples from outside the US, I don't know much :rolleyes: )
You are right, the fundamental of capitalism is profit. But it's this profit which allows a person to rise by his own efforts. It is completely unfair for a person to sit back and expect the system to make him rise, or for him to rise WITHOUT efforts.
The more important point is that profit increases with an increase in production and wealth. (Good for society)
What some people view capitalism as is a darker version. What you refer to is a competition to rack up the wealth, by unfair means. This is not capitalism, it's statism.
Microsoft is temporary in the overall scheme of things. They'll still be around, but there will be other power players. Probably in our lifetimes.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Take the example of Microsoft.
I had almost forgot how fun a real debate was :)
For those who understand the system and have a certain amount of luck and are capable in other ways. You're comments here are way too idealistic (school days).Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Capitalism is the one system that leaves everyone free to rise by his own efforts, no denying this fact.
There are a lot more immigrants who are living in poverty as well as Americans who aren't making it in this society. And it's not due to a lack of motivation. A lot of people who make it love to take credit for it, but they had other things going for them besides motivation. A lot of it is being in the right place at the right time and happening to know the right people. That's just fate and luck. The motivation was theirs, but that wouldn't have done it alone.
Which is really hard to explain to people. My reality is different than your reality. That means we can have entirely different views and both be right.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Reality is fundamentally a perception of information.
acknowledgement of majority doesn't make an argument.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Historical fact. Valid enough.
I did not say that, I said there is limited amount of resources that can be considered capital.Quote:
You're repeating the phrase "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer". That's not quite true.
Capitalism is unfair as it is, people doesn't start with equal capital with equal opportunities, and its practically impossible.Quote:
You are right, the fundamental of capitalism is profit. But it's this profit which allows a person to rise by his own efforts. It is completely unfair for a person to sit back and expect the system to make him rise, or for him to rise WITHOUT efforts.
This is not true, there is a limited amount of resources, and profits convergeQuote:
The more important point is that profit increases with an increase in production and wealth. (Good for society)
"If a million people say a dumb thing, it is still a dumb thing." or something like that. :)Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
acknowledgement of majority doesn't make an argument.
your reality is a my reality, explain to me how your reality is not a perception of information, and I will try to show you the fault in your reasoningQuote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
Which is really hard to explain to people. My reality is different than your reality. That means we can have entirely different views and both be right.
You said it yourself:Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
your reality is a my reality, explain to me how your reality is not a perception of information, and I will try to show you the fault in your reasoning
If my perception is different (which it is) then our realities are different.Quote:
Reality is fundamentally a perception of information.
"give me a brick and I will build you a house" ...
Good style of reasoning keddie :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
If you're implying the idea of a free market, then people have firmly believed that a free market system would always selfcorrect in case of any problem. This was until the stock market crash of 1929. The problem was that no one 'knew' of what quick shifts, sudden changes could do to a market such as that. As a system shifts, and changes, that itself causes it to grow bigger and bigger, because it keeps reacting to itself.
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.
Perhaps it is a natural backlash to the excessess of the whole Hyper Entertainment industry.. and perhaps that is not a bad thing.... it will allow the development of music and film where the artistic merit is the important thing not that the lead actor was paid $80 million dollars for 3 or 4 months work...
I believe it may also mean that if I was to produce a song ... for little or no expenditure... it would have almost as great a distribution possibility as if it had been commercially produced... but it would not generate me any income???
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
It's not really a matter of me stating idealistic comments as it is a matter of stripping away to the very core of it all.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
For those who understand the system and have a certain amount of luck and are capable in other ways. You're comments here are way too idealistic (school days).
Once again, it's the 'outer forces' coming into play here. One being the example of statism as already mentioned. In the process of increasing acquisitions, an unfortunate percentage of the general population get left out.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
There are a lot more immigrants who are living in poverty as well as Americans who aren't making it in this society. And it's not due to a lack of motivation. A lot of people who make it love to take credit for it, but they had other things going for them besides motivation. A lot of it is being in the right place at the right time and happening to know the right people. That's just fate and luck. The motivation was theirs, but that wouldn't have done it alone.
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.
In practice when the system goes into deflation, mass unemployment develops as spending drops and unsold goods pile up. The unemployment is then perpetuated by government policies that prevent a fall in wage rates (and not to mention unions as well) which would want employment to be reestablished in the face of a lower level of spending. Not quite possible. (One would call it a paradox as well)
Corruption and the way it's being practiced is the key fault. Still, it will never lead to capitalism's doom.
By the way, I'm not defending capitalism in it's entirety (although it appears such) I merely wanted to oppose the statement that "it's doomed".
You go girl, uh huh *wiggles hips*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.
Perhaps it is a natural backlash to the excessess of the whole Hyper Entertainment industry.. and perhaps that is not a bad thing.... it will allow the development of music and film where the artistic merit is the important thing not that the lead actor was paid $80 million dollars for 3 or 4 months work...
I believe it may also mean that if I was to produce a song ... for little or no expenditure... it would have almost as great a distribution possibility as if it had been commercially produced... but it would not generate me any income???
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
;)
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.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.
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
Capitalism a "people" system? I don't think so.Quote:
It's a 'people' system, you could say. It's because of this fact that this system can be nurtured and developed.
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
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?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.
Personally, I think a new concept needs to be developed that is completely different from what's gone before.
ok misunderstandment: classificationQuote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
You said it yourself:
If my perception is different (which it is) then our realities are different.
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.
This is being limited to just the intangible products. I doubt you'll find 'free' cars being sold at some convenience store anytime soon.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.
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...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
Now someone stand up for me and wiggle their hips please. :D
*does a wiggly girl power dance with Lucy* ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Flustor
You go girl, uh huh *wiggles hips*
;)
I'll give you an example of what I mean by "reality."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.
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.
Nows my chance!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
*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.
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.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.
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??"
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.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.
"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...
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:
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?
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:
Personally, I think a new concept needs to be developed that is completely different from what's gone before.
Lucy... that's your name, if memory serves. Your example is very limited. It's limited to P2P services. But what more?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.
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.
See my post immediately after yours. :)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.
Ok obviously my post was a bit abstract for you :)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. :)
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.
Lets move on Simon, I have the society for youQuote:
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.
Thankyou, thats the first time I've have one of those in under 20 mins :DQuote:
Originally posted by DragonFly
*picks Lucy up and buys her a "screaming orgasm" to help her recovery*
:D