America Beyond Capitalism

[P4man]

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

[1714006983]

1714006983

[1714006983]

1714006983

[TheMarketAnarchist]

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.

[P4man]

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.

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.

Chomsky is a socialist who either doesn't fully understand or who deliberately misrepresents capitalism.

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  

[The Script]

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?

[P4man]

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?

[qbg]

Perhaps when we speak of capitalism we are not meaning the same thing.

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.

[altuin]

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

[bb113]

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 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?

[P4man]

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

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?

[P4man]

What if someone does not want to share?

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.

[bb113]

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?

[Coinbuck @ BTCLot]

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

Welcome to North Korea. Have fun there.

[FreeMoney]

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

Welcome to North Korea. Have fun there.

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

I like 1.

[smickles]

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.

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.

[bb113]

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?

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.

[P4man]

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

[P4man]

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

[ThiagoCMC]

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

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

[snedie]

Who knows
Maybe someone will invent a new political system

[cbeast]

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.