Bitcoin Forum

As much as I resent our current political and economic system, I dont see  "Somalia-style" libertarianism as a viable alternative, let alone neo-communist state socialism, so Im intigued about learning about alternatives. Ive always been a fan of Noam Chomsky, I think this guy is thinking in the same direction:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7745

Why do we need to move "beyond Capitalism"? What's wrong with Capitalism? The problem is crony capitalism and government intervention in the free market. Capitalism is fine. It isn't the problem. Chomsky is a socialist who either doesn't fully understand or who deliberately misrepresents capitalism.

The problem is that wealth gets you power. And power gets you wealth. The system is incompatible with democracy. We are headed towards corporate feudalism.


If he is a socialist, then its in the original meaning of the word, which one would better call libertarian socialist or anarchist, since the word "socialism" has lost all meaning, after being applied to various totalitarian state regimes that are anything but socialist and almost opposite of what people like Chomsky stand for.

As for Chomsky not understanding capitalism.. yeah right. Maybe he should read a book or something  ::)

Chomsky is a highly intelligent individual, there's no doubt about that, and I have great respect for him.  But I don't understand the fear of capitalism and the desire to "get past it".  Perhaps when we speak of capitalism we are not meaning the same thing.  I guess what I would want to know is in Chomksy's or your socialist anarchy would you use force against me to take away my property?

Hu?

This. It is a collusion between the state and business along with perverse circumstances that is the issue anarcho-socialists have with what they call 'Capitalism'. See Roderick Long's discussion on this topic.

Personally, I support something along the lines of a monarch, where exactly one person is in control, to avoid arguing with themselves, but elected for a short period. No congress, no representatives, no nothing, and the in-charge can run the government however they want. It will make it more efficient and better suited for a changing wolrd

This is also what I don't get. It seems to me there is no avoiding a central authority with socialism. What if someone does not want to share?

Really? And you think you could elect someone uncorruptable enough that there is no need for checks and balances, and that this despote would actually rule in favor of the people and not himself and his inner circle? And that he wouldnt change the laws so he could be re-"elected" again, over and over? Care to give a historical example, preferably that worked better, than say, Putin?

Then they dont. Most libertatian socialists advocate voluntary associations, rather than forcing people in to it. Which kinda makes sense, as by its very nature the movement is opposed to authority and statehood.

So there's a libertarian socialist community living pretty much independently somewhere. The offspring of one of the founders discovers a well (or oil, or whatever natural resource), while digging a new foundation for his/her house. That person is an ass and decides they deserve a larger share of the community pot in return for the water. Or if they are more clever, they could obfuscate how much water is really down there and how difficult it is to attain, thereby artificially limiting the supply and getting more of other resources in return for relatively little work.

How would such a community deal with this situation?

Welcome to North Korea. Have fun there.

1 person over 6B? 300M? 900k? 6?

I like 1.

so this got me thinking,
(I'm assuming you like the idea of democracy)
how does democracy not lead to something like corporate feudalism or an oligarchy or some such bad thing?
I think democracy tends to do that because in bad times it is basically mob rule since a majority of people can often be whipped up into a bad agreement out of fear (for simplicity's  sake an agreement that 'that guy should make the decisions now').
the fear can be manufactured by the people who want to become the oligarchs. and they might be able to manufacture the bad times too.

I'm sorry if this is not worthy of a response. But I am asking an honest question here. Just link me if it is so dumb.

Didnt mean to imply it was unworthy of anything, its just that Im hardly an anarchist scholar. Still, as I understand, in an anarchist (or if you prefer,  libertarian socalist) society, a distinction is made between property and possession. You wouldnt own the oil under the ground. Something which is not that revolutionary as its already true in many state capitalist societies.  Even in the US, afaik, oil thats found offshore doesnt belong to any individual. Its the state that assumes and then sells mineral rights to that oil.

You might be interested in reading this:
http://www.constitution.org/elec/secI5.html

I dont see how wealth or corporate power enters the picture here. I guess I dont see what your point is?

I am against the capitalism.

Me and a lots of friends, are about to build a experimental city, without any kind of money.

An off-the-grid-city, no electricity bills to anybody... Free food, free bricks, free internet, free water, free vestment, free cars, free robots, no competition but instead, cooperation.

No food bill.
No water bill.
No banks.
No politicans.
No Bitcoins.
Entirely based on open source tools/machinery/hardware/software/medications/food-production-supply/etc...

At first, we will use Bitcoins as a tool make the transition from a capitalistic society to a society with a economy based on resources.

We must end the FED and all world's banks.
We must change the government forever.
So, a new society will born...
The land for the city is almost at our hands.

Best!
Thiago

Who knows
Maybe someone will invent a new political system

Capitalists are people who make money with money, not work. Capitalism is espoused by people who believe this is a good thing. I suppose I might too if I was born a gazillionaire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

"There is no consensus on the precise definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category."

If OP would clarify which particular flavour of capitalism he thinks America is moving beyond, the thread might be more logical.

Indeed. There is no evidence to suggest it.

Bollocks.


Somalia. Most of Congo. Most of Nigeria,... no state to distort or disrupt the free market there.

Well I don´t think so.
It can be used so to say as a compensation for work, but rarely is.
Whilst talking about work, the term energy springs to mind.
Now thinking of money being a kind of energy, which I consider a good idea. It is quite obvious that fiat money violates the rules of thermodynamics.
You can consider this a feature, but I don´t.

Having a free market in the sense anybody might freely sell what he/she/it has to everybody. Is fine with me.
But truely our world is very different.
For some it´s even legal to sell things or loan money they don´t have, which I have learned to call betrayal.
This kind of capitalism combined with fiat money is a dangerous mixture.

The current economical system failed in spreading wealth, it rather opend the scissor between the poor and the rich.
Provided my perception is correct, it is time to change something. So getting beyond capitalism seems a good plan to me.

I would like to see a picture of a capitalist in Somalia and perhaps a peek at his/her portfolio. What investment advice does a Somalian Capitalist have to share with us proletariat?

So by "pure money" do you mean money as an IOU for work done but not paid for?

Lawyers, Guns, and Money are the Rock, Paper, Scissors of the real world.

Because money doesnt represent work, it represents wealth.


Not really. Yes, these are examples of failed states, where governments dont run anything in most parts of the country, and havent for decades or even centuries. No taxes are collected, no services are provided by the government outside the major cities. That leaves it to the free market to supply just about anything, from basic security to healthcare and education. The result is not quite your paradise, and believe me, its not because those Africans are not entrepreneurial.


Whats the difference? Failed states provide good evidence of what happens when you remove governments almost completely, I assume thats your idea of a "pure free market"? It doesnt work. It cant work.

Or you could lend, steal or beg. Or print it. Or whatever, it has almost nothing to do with work, other than one of its many uses is to compensate for work. But its also used to to compensate crime, that doesnt mean money somehow represents crime, or does it?


Of course they have a government in name. But they are so ineffective outside the capital cities there might as well be none.
What you get is others filling the void. There is always a demand for power, absent a functional government its being taken by warlords, tribes, religious fractions, and quite importantly, foreign multinational oil and mining corporations that actually govern key area's in Congo and Nigeria. Free market capitalism at work. Go on a trip and see how well it works for them.

There is no reason to assume it would work any differently in any other region in the world. FWIW, Somalia, long before it was called that, was actually a vibrant and prosperous region once.


Thats such a ridiculous blanket nonsense statement. You think the average Nigerian, Somali or Congolese hasnt learned to take responsibility for providing for his/her family by now? They have had to do so for generations. Much good it has done to their economy.


Wait.. are you saying governments provide freedom?

You are arguing like an 8 year old. Feel free to bump this thread in 10 years.

without http://www.vestaslibrary.moonfruit.com/communities/1/004/008/300/121/images/4537675128.jpg

with http://www.hermes-press.com/CapitalismIsDemocracy.gif

Money is certainly special.

Bitcoins, being a hash and unique commodity, can be accepted as a balance of trade, as can money or any other good depending on what the trader wants, and are protected as long as the hashing network remains uncompromised. It might be tempting to consider money a commodity due to it's acceptance and demand, but strictly speaking, it's not.

Either can represent different things to different people. For some they are food, for some they are luxuries, and for others they are penis lengths. Bitcoins are like money in that they are inherently in-consumable, but they are unlike money in that they cannot be easily duplicated. If you believe money to be a commodity, then I believe you might misunderstand money. I believe a more accurate way to consider money, is as your priority of access to the market of commodities. Anyone with the power to create money (banks, credit companies, govts) can put themselves in front of the line for resources, at whim.

Believing money to be a commodity, is what the issuers need the masses to believe, for them (the banks/govt/creditors) to get the most benefit out of it themselves.