The powerful don't need to be charitable if there is no monetary system. That's the intermediary period, known as socialism, which I do not advocate. Democracy is a form of collectivism, are you against that to? Collectivism + Libertarian Communism + anarchism does not equal authoritarianism because there are no authoritative, coercive institutions.
In your analogy, the environment or the woods would be the monetary system; yes, let's get rid of it.
Well, I was asking you to argue that the attempt of implementing your ideas would work out. And not lead to authoritarianism. You say there are no authoritative, coercive institutions in your plan. What abolishes them? Are the powerful behind those institutions going to give up their power?
I think I am asking you to explain to me how your ideas can actually happen. Because I am convinced that they can't. That's why I made the jumping out of windows and flying analogy; you are assuming at some point that something is going to happen that just isn't going to happen.
You are advocating chopping down all forests, to end the potential for wildfires?
As for the title of the thread, I agree now that capitalism is immoral. But it is the leas immoral alternative.
The problem with the baby with the bathwater cliche is that you aren't actually getting rid of the bathwater, or if you are you are leaving the soap scum. Removing any monetary system does not specifically address inequality (although the removal of our central banking monetary system would) as economic inequality long pre-existed currency. Meanwhile, you are severely limiting the ability of individuals to trade their wares in anyway that can support the division of labor.
I honestly cannot understand the purpose of removing monetary exchange.
I'm not really assuming or foreseeing anything. Maybe it will happen, maybe it wont happen.
Our current socio-political system was much harder to implement than the one I'm proposing.
I'm just saying that if you get rid of the environment (monetary system) that causes the fire (criminality, corruption, malice, and greed), you get rid of the fire. I would not suggest this for an actual forest . . .
I don't believe that it's the least corruptive syste we can have. It may be the lesser evil if your relating it to other monetary economic systems, but it's not the best that we can have; it's just the best that we've done thus far, the same way feudalism was the best that we had done before capitalism.
Have you ever heard of Noam Chomsky?
Sorry, you lost me. What is "it" here? Are you saying that you are not even sure that your theories have the desired outcome?
How are you going to implement what you are proposing?
And another question. Without a monetary system. If for example a scientists who counts geological probes for a living wants some bread, how is he going to get that? Not in some post-scarcity star trek future, but if we were to implement your system tomorrow.
What you can overview in the forests analogy is the same for economics. It's just harder to understand there so you overlook all the implications.
Getting rid of the environment is not really an alternative because you also get rid of all the good effects it has.
The emphasis is on can have. If we can't have it, what does a hypothetical theory matter?
You should show that it can happen (explain how).
And on the "we haven't don it so far" argument; yes it has. It has just never worked. Lenin tried it. Many others did. It degenerates into authoritarianism. It ended how I'm telling you that it will end every time.
Why are you willing to try something that has failed at every attempt in history?
You are saying to do that let's abolish something that has a successful track record of creating freedom and equality for the greatest number of people in the history of man-kind.
He's a linguist, right?
Hue, does he not express our feelings so well?he must be another dangerous left wing agitator like us.Thanks for the link.xris
You stated that I am assuming that at some point something will happen that isn't going to happen. I responded by saying that I'm not assuming or foreseeing anything, meaning that I'm not sure or positive that these developments will happen as predicted. You're the one who's implying that they know the future with such a statement.
2. the proletariat votes themselves into office instead of the elite, 3. the new representatives abolish both the monetary system and the state, 4. restructure our social-economic infrastructure from the ground up, and implement a new political system with direct democracy. This is how I prefer for it to be done, but I honestly think that there will be some class warfare involved.
I already said that I'm proposing an automated economic system. The scientist will get his bread simply by making an order for some bread. I'm sorry, but such a radical change in our socio-economic and political infrastructure is not going to be implemented overnight.
I understand the implications of your analogy when comparing the oxygen providing forests with the exchange of money in an economic system. The problem is that you think that the money is the oxygen of our economy and I don't. I believe that the people and our technology is the oxygen of our economy.
Well I agree that it takes some risk taking to get major things done, but so did the revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, including the American revolution, perhaps the riskiest one of them all. I agree that capitalism has provided the most prosperity and equality for the greatest number of people in history, but so did feudalism. Understand what I'm saying, feudalism was at one time the most prosperous socio-economic system in history, but capitalism proved that it wasn't the best we could have. I honestly think that some people of the pre-capitalist era, like Jefferson, did not like the implications of laissez-faire capitalism.
Lenin's problem was the same problem that all of these so-called marxist, statist communists have. For one thing, I believe that the statist communists or socialists have tried to force history. What I mean by that is that the conditions that are needed for the fulfillment of the prediction that Marx made about emerging technologies and the fall of capitalism were not in place at the time of the socialist revolutions. We only started getting closer to those conditions in the mid to late 20th century. I personally don't believe state communism is really communism at all. State communism is against the idea that Marx had, and it would more properly be called socialism, which is the supposed intermediary period when the state still exists. I think that the signs of this can be seen all over the world. Liberalism is basically soft socialism, as it has many socialist tenets but without the authoritarian tone. The fact that most of the industrialized nations are moving closer to liberalism is a sign of the political shift due to economic and social developments. I believe that as problems of technological unemployment increase, so will the authoritative or revolutionary tone of political speech change. The proletariat will become more dominant by democratic means. As the global economy becomes more integrated, these developments seem to be almost simultaneous across the industrialized world. My point is that I believe Lenin failed because he was forcing history and abandoned the real tenets of Marx's idea of communism.
He's a linguist and a philosopher. In philosophy, he is mostly known for his political views, which are controversial because they are not status-quo.
I apologize in advance for the following statements.
lol. What a commie.
Hippie self-haters. They feel guilty for being in the rich part of the world. And because they are too decadent to punish themselves, and helping those that are less lucky is hard work, they punish the system that brings them the prosperity.
I have little respect for anti-American self-destruction.
Anyway, thanks for the debate; it was productive until this point.
Then you are just for abolishing economics entirely. Until there is only voluntary human labor needed for matching all our needs, we can't do what you want. (Abolish the moentary system without an alternative for production.)
Once we can match all our needs with only volunteer work, abolishing the monetary system is really only secondary, unnecessary and might happen on it's own. (As there is simply no need for money.)
Okay, I'm sorry. I was putting it a little extreme. I just watched a few seconds of the video.
Forgive me, but I think that you are losing the debate and hence want a way out.
You can't really explain why your theories would work out.
Let's reset. If you respond to this, it'll be fine.
I wasn't appealing to your ego. I'm telling you that you are wrong and now you should respond to that accusation or adjust your views accordingly. If you deny to respond because you see your views threatened, be my guest.
I edited my statement, so please read it again. Trust me, Nero. You were trying to bait me with that "I'm winning, you're losing" shot, even if you don't consciously realize it. You may have also said that to make yourself look less petty after that nationalistic tirade you went on. It's a psychological thing.
Yeah, I might have.
So... you are telling me that if we vote in a bunch of post-scarcity communists who try to get through your anarcho-communist ideas, the rich (and I'm not talking millionaires, but the 2% that own half of the worlds wealth) and powerful will not just grab total power in that power-vacuum? Will they just stand by and see their advantage disappear and everybody become equal to them? Not only equal, the ones on top through their inheritance will just let every talented and hard-working person be "higher up" than them?
There will probably be class warfare between the bourgeois and the proletariat that will end rather quickly, and with the proletariat winning decisively. Then again, maybe there wont be, I don't know. The course of history will decide whether it happens at a more transitional and peaceful pace or a more radical and violent pace.
Okay lets say we're done. You are wrong but entitled to your belief.
I won't ignore you, and I appreciated your posts, such as those on ethics.
I quote a post that I find applying to you:
You are the creation of the very people, the wealthy elites, which you think you are opposing. You are helping them to achieve their goal. You are not a weed; you are the sweet flower they've been pruning for decades, the ideal man who will lead the way down the road to serfdom.
What is so ironic is that American education is in fact producing, and is designed to produce, people like you. I am exactly what they do not want.
You fail to realise Nero we know by your response you never ever look at the links, you act out of reaction never respond.I realised your views are ingrained after years of indoctrination and the status quo will remain your refuge.Could you watch the video and make a reasoned response.
