So, Capitalism. What's up with that?
 

What are your views on capitalism and a possible alternative?

Go.

In theory, Communism works.


Seeing as it doesn't in practice, Capitalism is the next best option.

Look at America's economy. 'Nuff said.
Capitalism needs to be very balanced to work, so since we've spent the last eight years immersed in Dubya's personal little holy war, we've been left financially undone.

Capitalism could be better if we adopted a little selective socialism. Those who are opposed to this idea refuse to put their own on the table and don't usually know what it actually means; they see the word "socialism", think it means the same thing as communism, and get defensive.

I don't know if there's necessarily a better alternative out there other than just actually sorting out capitalism. A few presidents have made it work pretty damn well, we just need to get our shit together. Of course, I'm being succinct, the problem runs a little deeper than that.

Pretty much that, yeah.

until we can make helios from deus ex that is

socialism could be good if Canada wasn't also american

Socialism, I agree, if a perfect commuinty could adopt it then it would work, capitalism, we have seen the repurcutions I believe.

Must...resist...ranting...urge...

go on WoF go for it

Obviously the political climate needed varies from country to country. Personally i think that Britain could do with a little less of a "middle of the road view".

Yes, having both the main parties hold Middle-Right policies is not conductive to a good political, social or economic atmosphere.

I long to see a party for the disenfranchised minorities rise up and become the new left, like Labour did a hundred years ago.

Labour are from most people's point of view the socialists of the political elite. And recent events have made it abundantly clear that they are rather inable. It's time for Britains political pendulem to once again swing from left to right.

That would have been a lot cooler if there was video of you pounding your fist on a podium while you said it. And a German accent.

I'm strongly considering this.

well Shaman is the resident British Nationalist.

I'm all for a political Right, social evolutions needs two opposing points of view to progress.

I'm going to do it later. Don't bother.

left all the way!

Your persona confuses me. It's almost as if all people aren't complete stereotypes that I can easily put into box A, B, or C, and instantly understand every facet of their being. This annoys me.

Have you not read the little shout out to 1984 on his blog home? The only conclusion I can reliably draw from his behaviour is that he doesn't know what he's talking about somewhere along the line.

WoF is the mean one in this conversation! Look everybody! He's being a dick!

And I haven't even started to tell you all how you're being ideologically repressed and economically exploited yet!

I can't imagine when you would fine the time, what with contemplating the adorability of teenagers taking up so much of your time.

OANST is the mean one in this conversation! Look everybody! He's being a dick!

Oh my yes, i see the resemblance.

Things are back on track now, yes.

And I feel the need to reiterate to everyone that this kid is seriously, seriously not adorable. A more accurate assessment would be 'obnoxious cunt'.

Wow, that was so very unnecessary it saddens me.

Capitalism is built upon the core foundation of exploitation of the workers, you only need to ask yourself 'How do owners and captains of industry get profit from their initial investment?'

I'm going to use Engel's example here, I've used it many times before. Some people get it straight away, some people fight tooth and claw to object to it and some people just can't wrap their heads round it.

A factory owner has one machine in his factory, with one worker (Accept that this is a mass simplification and don't challenge the logistics of this).

The price of the raw materials is 20 marks for a days work, this gives him 28 marks worth of finished goods, out of this 28 marks he takes home three marks of profit. Where do these three marks come from?

The price of maintanence on his machine is 2 marks, and the wage of the worker is 3 marks. This means that paying all expenses, the total cost to turn the raw materials into a profit is 25 marks, leaving the owner with three marks of profit.

The owner could not have gotten these three marks through the market, the strength of an economy revolves around the transition of value, not how much value is inside the system. The amount of value inside the system cannot change. It is stable. Economy works in a cyclic process with 100% of value going round in a circle from invester to consumer to invester. The extra three marks of added value that the factory owner takes as profit does not magically appear in the system. It appears inside the factory itself. So where does it come from?

Work is a form of value, it is sold by the workers (In Karl Marx's day, the working force would almost literally sell their labour value to factory owners on a day by day basis. This is obviously not a conceivable objection to Capitalism now as labour value is bought and sold on long term bases.) and bought by owners of industry who lend the worker tools with which to make token value with. Workers do not own the raw materials of their work, these belong to the capitalists (Capital=Money, 'Men of money'. Workers do not own the process of their work, this is bought and paid for in token value (Read what it says on any note or coin next time you have a chance) and belongs to the capitalists. Workers do not even own the product of their work, because that of course belongs to the capitalists.

The answer to the riddle 'Where do the extra three marks come from' by the way if you were wondering is 'The worker's labour value'. The three marks (Or whatever equivalent you need mention) is skimmed off the top of the money the worker should receive from his work. That is what is meant when we talk of Capitalism as 'Exploitation of the Working Class' because it is. And if you're fine with being exploited because life is good, then there are millions of people in Asia, Africa, South America, Eastern Europe and even some regions of North America that are still woefully explotied and are for all intents and purposes the new 19th century Working Class. Working and dying under far worse conditions than Karl Marx (Who by the way, lived in abject poverty all his life, saw several of his children die of malnutrition and disease right before his eyes and never earnt a single penny off any of his writings) ever saw in his life.

These comments are well and truly my own. I have never visited a Socialist forum, subscribed to a Socialist newsletter or had any contact with any Socialist friends in my entire life. These are merely the fruits of my own research into Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism and Smithian economics. Obviously many aspects of Marxism are just not pertinent or acceptable or are just plain wrong. I have not included those, Karl Marx was not a God, he made some mistakes, some bad arguments and could not forsee the rise of a consumer culture.

I don't disagree with any of that (especially the unnecessary comment). I see Socialism as being possibly the only means to a human made utopia. I also don't think it will ever be achieved in a manner that works. So, I have to stick with Capitalism. But we need a shit ton more regulations.

This.

All that remaines in where we need them.

For the last fifty years or so (Since the Cold War started, go figure) more emphasis has been put on the ideologically repressing aspect of Capitalism. It's been theorized by many continental philosophers (Funnily enough, most of them Jewish) that Capitalisim has infiltrated our culture so much that we are now mostly revolutionarily impotent and so unable to detach ourselves from the international buzz of consumer driven progress that we cannot comprehend a world without Capitalism. The train of thought, much expressed about Socialism, that damns human nature for being greedy and self-centered could be seen as our inability to think outside the box, further tightening the hold that banal Huxleyan consumerism has on us.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do get very annoyed when people do that. It's pretty much my most hated logical fallacy.

Also, Capitalism works in spirals and you can't have booms without depressions.

I get quite annoyed when people proclaim their dislike of a policy by stating that it's socialist. Yes well, so are public schools, police and fire departments, and social security. Shall we abandon all these things because you've been told that they are evil?

I don't think we need any alternatives to capitalism as an ideology of world economy. Planned economy, which is a real alternative to classic capitalism, isn't that effective, at least in practice. As for communism - it can't be an alternative as it is just an utopia and something that would never exist in reality.

I think world needs to fight monopolies in any of their forms as monopolies slow down progress for the sake of their own profits. Also I think that oil lobbies are very harmful for development and integration of new energy technologies. In fact any manufacturing lobby is hostile towards innovations in it's area of science.

In fact I can't comment much on this subject as I'm studying to be a mathematician but not an economist.

Yes, it's since when has it come to be synonymous with Fascism?

I want some serious campaign contribution reform. Corporations are not people. They should not be able to buy my government.

Well, probably the biggest misconception and the aspect most retroactive to progress about the Cold War is it was advertised (And to some extent still is) as a 'War of Ideology'. This created the 'Us and them' mentally which is still very present in America, as well as some parts of Europe.

That's dumb, the Cold War was never a 'War of Ideology'. It was between an evil tyrant hiding behind an ideology that him, his colleagues and his predecessor had long since warped and perverted and the rest of the world, who were rightly terrified at his efficiency and ambition.

So yeah, one of the biggest ideological obstacles in place to people accepting Socialism as an alternative to Capitalism is the inherent associations to Stalinism, Khrushchevism and to some degree Leninism.

I'd just like to take a moment to recommend this book to anyone interested. Rius is a very funny and interesting cartoonist and writer.

EDIT:Actually it's dumb interpretations of Animal Farm and 1984 that have also played a huge part in that. Most people who have never read either of these books will tell you that both of them are considered objections to Communist thought. Which is bullshit.

Seriosly, why people do not stick to definitions?

Socialism is a form of economical organization.
Fascism have nothing to do with economy.
Socialism may be associated with atrocities for some but it's only due to people operating definitions improperly. So if we speak of economy we should use definitions right by the book.

I personally don't like main ideas of socialism, such as lack of private property. I think it discourages people from working hard. Also socialism is associated with plan economy which in practice tends to ineffective use of materials and distribution of goods.

I think he meant 'Why has the economical system of Socialism become associated with the totalitarian and repressive social system of Fascism?' Which to a large extent it has.

Because we are speaking of public opinion. We are not discussing this in a clinical sterilized way.

And spell seriously right if you want to make an attack on someone.

Work as hard as you want, unless you're good enough playing the system to exploit and manipulate it you will never be in a position to own any sort of private property that hasn't got a relative value of zilch.

See: "Every financial system anywhere ever".

I can't really see a problem with somone playing the game and reaping the rewards because they've got good at it.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...-on-Si-001.jpg
Oh?