Choose a name,you think is a better system and tell at least one reason of choosing.
The Free Market ("Capitalism") because in Communism, I'll be in a gulag, dead, or exiled.
Communism is a totalitarian system of government, in which dissent is not allowed, and since I have a strange urge to think and say what I want, it wouldn't work for me.
Communism in it's theoretical form is not totalitarian. Nations calling themselves communist have been totalitarian. What do you know of Trotsky? Lenin had him assassinated for being a real communist.
It was Stalin but yes that's correct, indeed in the system Marx described there is no government at all so it can't be totalitarian.
I am sorry. It has been awhile since I have even thought of Trotsky. You are right. This is how misinformation is spread on the internet. Some fool talking off the top of his head.
May I ask how things are administered without a government? I have never read Marx. It was not encouraged. I only know Trotsky wanted to get the system in place and working well before attempting to spread it elsewhere. Am I wrong about that too?
Marx envisaged a revolution of people working together as a whole to help each other and improve society in a leaderless fashion, organization would be based on communes and collectives making decisions together. Many people don't understand that about Marx and incorrectly label systems like the USSR's as Marxist. Marx was actually more a syndicalist than what we now call a communist. I do recommend reading Marx I don't necessarily think his system would work but the guy certainly had interesting things to say, I do perhaps recommend an abridged version though because frankly he tended to ramble. I have always found that books that you are not supposed to read are the books one should read first
As for Trotsky and Stalin it was the other way round Stalin wanted to make Russia work while Trotsky was an internationalist who wanted to advance the revolution around the world, eventually Stalin got rid of Trotsky who fled to Mexico before being assassinated (by pick axe through the head) before he was killed however he established the fourth international organization which exists to this day.
Stalin was a very practical guy while Trotsky was an idealist, unfortunately Stalin turned out to be paranoid and oppressive though his economic success was remarkable.
The Trotsky/Lenin and Stalin mistake is easy to make as Trotsky was second in command under both of them do don't sweat it.
I'm with ya bro. I've always gotten in trouble questioning authority. Hasn't every communist society failed? Ok there are a couple hanging on, but would you want to live there people?
I’d prefer for everything I worked for throughout my life to be handed down to my kin, not back to the government to give to someone else they see fit. What’s the point in doing or striving towards anything if your own children can’t reap the benefits?
Is that real communism, though? In real communism there is nothing to complain about because all are working together for the common good of everyone. At least in theory.
Well, hey, here's another missionary of anti-government paranoia! Do you ever take some quiet time to think of ways in which your government might be your friend?
I don't really want to get into the "what is communism and has it failed" debate but I do want to address the inheritance comment, do you think it fair and correct that the children of wealthy parents will inherit that wealth and thus become wealthy too, should not everyone have to work for what they have? I believe so anyhow. If it were up to me, 10% of a persons wealth (with a maximum limit) could be given as they see fit when they pass away, the other 90% would become capital we can use to create jobs thus giving everyone the opportunity to work so that the too can earn a dignified life.
Communism or no communism, that is how it works in my world. Aren't we all family? The family of man. I do want my children to have it better than me. I like the idea of making it better collectively for your children too, but I don't know how to accomplish that. I mean where we cooperate and care for each other and no one has their hand in the till. It seems like greed and dishonesty are the real culprits.
"The family of man" exactly, if we could stop this "I got mine, screw the rest" attitude if we could work together we would all be a lot better off but instead we fight against each other.
I like to think that socialism is a system to allow us all to work together for the benefit of everyone without infringing on anyone's personal freedoms.
I don't trust government to do the job, that's all.
Probably because you're too used to being governed by corporate capitalism.
Try being governed by the people instead.
Because the price regulated free market is the one most analogous with actual economy where all other systems are directed, tweaked, engineered and artificial mechanisms meant to direct economy along lines of assumed improvement. Economies are natural things and when one imposes an external structure one distorts it.
All externally imposed mechanisms - wage and price controls, rationing, price floors or ceilings,etc...- always cause shortages or gluts. The language about economic activity is invariably driven by political considerations rather than describe what is actually happening. for example, "price gouging" - there is, in reality, no such thing - in a free economy and in the presence of alternative resources. In fact, allowing prices to rise in the instance of a severe shortage - like bottled water after a hurricane - actually serves to alleviate the shortage by efficiently rationing the existing supply and encouraging the rapid delivery of additional supply.
The centrally directed system cannot be as well informed, efficient, nimble or responsive in the allocation of resources as the millions of free participants in an economy where trillions of dollars and decisions move about, with out direction from experts, in a year.
You and me both brother - I promise I will shate my fish eye ball stew with you if we are both in the Gulag together.
I actually agree with Paradigm search though we disagree on proportion. Pure systems lead to zealotry and oppression, a good system is flexible, Personally I consider socialism to be the best system but I much prefer it when combined with aspects of capitalism (especially small venture and business) and a strong democratic system.
I am not a Communist or capitalist so I'll go ahead and give one reason why I think socialism is best, it concentrates capital to be able to create business, in a capitalist system the "money" mostly lies in the hands of certain individuals who for a variety of reasons don't invest it to create jobs (usually because it is gathering interest with zero risk) there is enough capital to create all the jobs we can fill if that capital is instead controlled by the public. In short socialism prevents unemployment and unemployment is probably the biggest social issue we face.
My dear sir, Is everyone paid the same? I am a waterman and I have little money and no insurance. I need to have some medical treatment soon, what should I do? What kind of work do you do? Are you well do do? I saw in another forum that you have invested in NZ banks. Will you help me? I will be glad to work it off.
Sawfish, in a socialist system not everyone is paid the same but there is a high minimum wage and crucially a maximum wage with say a variation of 20% between them, thus someone who does an unpleasant or hard job, (a sewer worker or a miner) can be paid more to make that job desirable.
Well I am very happy to say (because it really does hurt me to see people struggling to get by) that Obamacare/ACA will help with your medical bills, if your income is low then insurance will be free and if you need care shortly you can get an insurance plan and cannot be rejected because of pre-existent conditions.
I was a miner for a long time and was seriously injured on the job, I got a reasonable settlement from that and used that capital to start a small business it has done relatively well.
All the best and I hope you have a swift recovery.
You are very gracious. I was teasing you about your money, because I read another forum and remembered your distinct logo. I am not teasing about the condition. I have had too much sun on my arms and need to have my skin treated before it gets serious. Do you know how to go about getting the care? Is it free. My income is variable. I do fishing and odd jobs. Sometimes, I build boats and do excellent trim carpentry as long as it isn't complicated crown molding/ I went to Jr. college, but I needed to support my family and never finished.
Mining is very dangerous, but I would be glad to do it right now. Can you get around well? I hope you are well and I am sorry I tried to tease a fine gentleman.
Sorry no idea about the care but I think that Obamacare will help you out there.
Finding work seems to be tough all round nowadays which is partly why I am so often blabbering on about a system I believe would fix that problem in a real way.
I wouldn't recommend mining, in my home country it was the only work available and as an immigrant I just went into what I knew but it's not something I would suggest to others our "beloved" GOP has just blocked a measure to combat black lung disease for coal miners and many of them are going to die because of that.
Yeah I can get around fine I lost some use of one arm but i got good care so it doesn't bother me too much.
Hey I have never minded a bit of teasing, keeps one on his toes
Thank you for going to the trouble of putting up the prayer. I would like to see a more fair system. I don't hate rich people. They pay my bills. It just seems like too many people are sitting on the money, or using it for investments that I don't really understand, like annuities. It seems like a pyramid scam to me. Where does the money come from. Sooner or later, won't someone get hurt? Why should investors get so much of the pie?
I completely agree, hating the rich is cruel and unhelpful, most of them are not doing anything wrong just doing their best in a system they did not create (some are doing some pretty immoral things but hey) but fundamentally the problem is exactly as you say that money/capital is not being used to create jobs, if it was the unemployment problem would be solved.
I am going to post a pretty long quote, it's from one of my favorite books called "the ragged trousered philanthropists" written by a laborer over a hundred years ago in England if you have the patience read it and tell me what you think, I think it summarizes one of the big problems with our current system, he calls it the great money trick:
"All right,’ he replied. ‘I’ll show you how the Great Money Trick is worked.’
Owen opened his dinner basket and took from it two slices of bread but as these were not sufficient, he requested that anyone who had some bread left would give it to him. They gave him several pieces, which he placed in a heap on a clean piece of paper, and, having borrowed the pocket knives they used to cut and eat their dinners with from Easton, Harlow and Philpot, he addressed them as follows:
‘These pieces of bread represent the raw materials which exist naturally in and on the earth for the use of mankind; they were not made by any human being, but were created by the Great Spirit for the benefit and sustenance of all, the same as were the air and the light of the sun.’
... ‘Now,’ continued Owen, ‘I am a capitalist; or, rather, I represent the landlord and capitalist class. That is to say, all these raw materials belong to me. It does not matter for our present argument how I obtained possession of them, or whether I have any real right to them; the only thing that matters now is the admitted fact that all the raw materials which are necessary for the production of the necessaries of life are now the property of the Landlord and Capitalist class. I am that class: all these raw materials belong to me.’
... ‘Now you three represent the Working Class: you have nothing – and for my part, although I have all these raw materials, they are of no use to me – what I need is – the things that can be made out of these raw materials by Work: but as I am too lazy to work myself, I have invented the Money Trick to make you work for me. But first I must explain that I possess something else beside the raw materials. These three knives represent – all the machinery of production; the factories, tools, railways, and so forth, without which the necessaries of life cannot be produced in abundance. And these three coins’ – taking three halfpennies from his pocket – ‘represent my Money Capital.’
‘But before we go any further,’ said Owen, interrupting himself, ‘it is most important that you remember that I am not supposed to be merely “a” capitalist. I represent the whole Capitalist Class. You are not supposed to be just three workers – you represent the whole Working Class.’
... Owen proceeded to cut up one of the slices of bread into a number of little square blocks.
‘These represent the things which are produced by labour, aided by machinery, from the raw materials. We will suppose that three of these blocks represent – a week’s work. We will suppose that a week’s work is worth – one pound: and we will suppose that each of these ha’pennies is a sovereign. ...
‘Now this is the way the trick works -’
... Owen now addressed himself to the working classes as represented by Philpot, Harlow and Easton.
‘You say that you are all in need of employment, and as I am the kind-hearted capitalist class I am going to invest all my money in various industries, so as to give you Plenty of Work. I shall pay each of you one pound per week, and a week’s work is – you must each produce three of these square blocks. For doing this work you will each receive your wages; the money will be your own, to do as you like with, and the things you produce will of course be mine, to do as I like with. You will each take one of these machines and as soon as you have done a week’s work, you shall have your money.’
The Working Classes accordingly set to work, and the Capitalist class sat down and watched them. As soon as they had finished, they passed the nine little blocks to Owen, who placed them on a piece of paper by his side and paid the workers their wages.
‘These blocks represent the necessaries of life. You can’t live without some of these things, but as they belong to me, you will have to buy them from me: my price for these blocks is – one pound each.’
As the working classes were in need of the necessaries of life and as they could not eat, drink or wear the useless money, they were compelled to agree to the kind Capitalist’s terms. They each bought back and at once consumed one-third of the produce of their labour. The capitalist class also devoured two of the square blocks, and so the net result of the week’s work was that the kind capitalist had consumed two pounds worth of the things produced by the labour of the others, and reckoning the squares at their market value of one pound each, he had more than doubled his capital, for he still possessed the three pounds in money and in addition four pounds worth of goods. As for the working classes, Philpot, Harlow and Easton, having each consumed the pound’s worth of necessaries they had bought with their wages, they were again in precisely the same condition as when they started work – they had nothing.
This process was repeated several times: for each week’s work the producers were paid their wages. They kept on working and spending all their earnings. The kind-hearted capitalist consumed twice as much as any one of them and his pile of wealth continually increased. In a little while – reckoning the little squares at their market value of one pound each – he was worth about one hundred pounds, and the working classes were still in the same condition as when they began, and were still tearing into their work as if their lives depended upon it.
After a while the rest of the crowd began to laugh, and their merriment increased when the kind-hearted capitalist, just after having sold a pound’s worth of necessaries to each of his workers, suddenly took their tools – the Machinery of Production – the knives away from them, and informed them that as owing to Over Production all his store-houses were glutted with the necessaries of life, he had decided to close down the works.
‘Well, and what the bloody ‘ell are we to do now?’ demanded Philpot.
‘That’s not my business,’ replied the kind-hearted capitalist. ‘I’ve paid you your wages, and provided you with Plenty of Work for a long time past. I have no more work for you to do at present. Come round again in a few months’ time and I’ll see what I can do for you.’
‘But what about the necessaries of life?’ demanded Harlow. ‘We must have something to eat.’
‘Of course you must,’ replied the capitalist, affably; ‘and I shall be very pleased to sell you some.’
‘But we ain’t got no bloody money!’
‘Well, you can’t expect me to give you my goods for nothing! You didn’t work for me for nothing, you know. I paid you for your work and you should have saved something: you should have been thrifty like me. Look how I have got on by being thrifty!’
The unemployed looked blankly at each other, but the rest of the crowd only laughed; and then the three unemployed began to abuse the kind-hearted Capitalist, demanding that he should give them some of the necessaries of life that he had piled up in his warehouses, or to be allowed to work and produce some more for their own needs; and even threatened to take some of the things by force if he did not comply with their demands. But the kind-hearted Capitalist told them not to be insolent, and spoke to them about honesty, and said if they were not careful he would have their faces battered in for them by the police, or if necessary he would call out the military and have them shot down like dogs, the same as he had done before at Featherstone and Belfast"
I really enjoyed this story. It paints a mighty stark picture of the reality of capitalism unfettered, that is.
90% capitalism mixed with 10% socialism. While I am in multillion percent for the free enterprise system, I also believe that there should be some social programs in place so that in time of need and desperation, one does not fall through the cracks. While I believe in these social programs, these programs should be a way out, not a permanent lifestyle like some of our social programs are now!
What bothers me is some people seem to equate the abusable social security net with socialism, they could not be more different, in a socialist system everyone has the opportunity to work, for those who do not wish to work there is no unemployment benefits etc, there are no abusable "permanent lifestyle social programs" those that are sick, injured and retired are excellently cared for but those who do not wish to work cannot live off the labor of others.
Good points.You are very much in favor of socialism.
I agree with your that point; a good system is flexible,combined.
You gave nice logical reasons.
I'd love to duel with you, Josak, but, dagnabbit, you are far too sensible in your remarks for me to find a target! You got one here that I'll take a stab at though.
I don't think there is any healthy human being who does not want to work. I think we have far too much "boss" input into rating the pecuniary value of jobs and far too little "oversight" input into evaluating workers' aptitude for the jobs that come available.
In the capitalist system, workers are placed on a balance sheet as "labour" and unfortunately the entry is viewed by management as a cost. So there is gain for management to seek their "labour" at the lowest level of cost and no incentive for them to consider the welfare of their workers.
If we put more effort into matching people with their natural talents and far less effort into bullying people into performing jobs that are unpalatable by anyone's judgement, we would have far less job avoidance. All people feel a need to express themselves in some way that is of benefit to society. Not many people feel a need to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of some company's bottom line.
You know what? I completely agree. The reason I post this comment or something like it quite often is that many conservatives are quite adamant that people are just living off welfare because they are lazy. Generally I don't think this is the case at all I think people are not working because lo and behold there is no work! but it's easier to show them that we can eliminate that problem than it is to convince them that it doesn't exist. I completely agree that we need to improve the conditions of our workers in many many fields and I work with several workers rights groups and unions to try to achieve that.
There are many people who have neither the education, the support network, nor the physical health to utilize a social program as a gateway to independence. The resentments that arise in our society against long-term social program recipients are usually fueled by a "if I have to work then he shouldn't get a free ride" type of mentality.
More compassion and a sincere effort at helping displaced people to integrate back into the economic system would go a lot further than a focus on banishing them from any access to the public purse.
How about dropping the isms altogether and just doing stuff that works. Seriously. It should be about developing solutions to problems, then trying them. If something works, then it works, if it doesn't then it doesn't. If part of a solution works, keep that part, re-think the rest. Rinse and repeat. Don't care what ism the solution falls into. Too much ideology causes people to become entrenched. Then they start rejecting ideas on ideological grounds instead of whether they could work. Ironically this way of thinking can be made into another ism, pragmatism. I just call it being sensible.
Only capitalism promotes true freedom. Bankrupting America is a planned strategy.
Not sure reducing everything to such terms is the best idea, as people get very entrenched and become blinkered by their own pet "ism". But if I had to choose, I'd go for pragmatism over and above capitalism or socialism every time.
In other words I think group decision making, AKA politics, should transcend specific ideologies. Such affiliations may appeal to our genetically inherited tendency to create and be part of a social group, but they don't help modern, pluralistic societies make sensible decisions.
I don't care if something is capitalist, or socialist. If it works for the benefit of individuals and society then it's a good thing. In my opinion we should just do stuff that works, change stuff that doesn't. That's a massive over simplification of course, but you get the gist. Which end of the political spectrum something comes from is completely irrelevant.
100% of either system doesn't work. I'd go with 85% capitalism and 15% of whatever methodology that can fix the 15% of what's wrong with capitalism.
MrNasir, you are a very naughty boy. You know that this topic is bound the arouse passions of the heartiest kind. I tip my hat to you for starting the thread and leave you with my best hopes for not getting mauled!
Well Sir, your answer has not come yet:)
Waiting for that.
There you are, confirming my instincts that you are a naughty boy! Calling me out, eh?
Okay, I don't like capitalism because too few people control the finances in the nation's social structure. I don't like communism because too few people control the power in the nation's social structure. I don't like socialism (in its pure form) because it discourages ambitious people from fulfilling their potential. I don't like dictatorships because it is unlikely I will get to be the dictator! (Be patient; I'm working my way through the weeds here.)
I think we need a new form of government, one with human development as it core mission. Democratically elected officials oversee all economic activity to ensure that people are given the same respect as capital in the economy. Ingenuity, ambition, and potential of the individual are unrestricted until his actions interfere with the wellbeing of another individual or the public. Education of all of society, provided by the public, so that everyone has an equal starting point.
I think we need to abandon the idea of looking backward and picking what seems best out of a handful of failed ideas. I think we need to look forward, utilizing the brightest minds in our global society, and develop a new paradigm that gives all of humanity equal opportunity.
And now I will beginning eating my hat.
Thanks a lot Sir! Very informative & precious knowledge you had and you were going without giving that.That's the reason I called you back. I knew that you have something precious,now here it is. You have many plans.
So, when you intend to stand for elections?My vote is for you ;-)
There is no way I would move forward with a run for elected office without you as my campaign manager. Do you have any practical knowledge that would resonate with my free-form ideology?
I am a dreamer. I plant the seeds, comfortable in the knowledge that I'm so old I won't be around when time comes for the harvest!
Ha! I just want you to know, buster, that flattery like that will get you everywhere! If you keep it up I'll be over on your site buying one of those Nikon cameras before you know what hit you.
I'm doing my best to keep your thread going until the heavy hitters get here.
I've not told you to do that.
It's up to you, what you do...right or wrong things.
You mean,"I can get you a deal!" . . . don't you?
I think there might be a language barrier here. I was joking... I'm sorry if I caused you any concern. I am definitely your friend.
Absolutely right - we need a new way of governing. Government should be in its intended role between the robber barons and people grazers and the people themselves. Capitalism clearly is not working in the modern world and cannot be sustainable unless one small global group has everything and we all become powerless - which is the current plan it would appear. Communism has changed its face to a different kind of capitalism but appears to have bought into the global elite view. Socialism only exists as a counter to capitalism and so would evaporate if capitalism did. Something new is required, something that could sweep the world as an excellent form of government for individual countries that cannot be bought by the obscenely wealthy, manipulated by their media, or controlled by any one small group of people for any significant time. Some shade of what democracy was supposed to be maybe.
What we need is a brand new platform from which to build a new society, Right now society's thought patterns are on a Darwinian trajectory, every man for himself, may the best man win. While this type of thinking may have worked when humanity was still emerging from its physical roots, we have now progressed to the point where thoughts of personal physical (or even psychological) survival needs to be replaced by a vision for the betterment of humanity as a whole. One country dropping bombs on another will not achieve that end.
And the internet and other instant communications is the way to do it - in my opinion. For the first time in history everyone can speak and all at the same time, it is time that everyone started using it to speak instead of squabble, and the media held to account by a million eye witnesses for every lie.
I quite agree. The tools for change are already in the hands of individuals.
It boils down to the desire to change and agreement on the direction. I am one who feels like we should go more towards the Native American way of life and leave a soft footprint on the earth.
I am with you 100% on the desire for change. I'm not sure I would want to go all the way back to the aboriginal way of life though. I enjoy the creature comforts technology has brought us. I much prefer taking a piece of fish out of the freezer and warming in the microwave than coaxing it out of the river and cooking it on an open fire!
I know what you mean, though. Dumping toxic chemicals into our rivers and spewing poisonous particles into the air we breathe has to stop at some point. If we put our minds to it, and found a way to get the fossil fuel industry off our backs, we could quickly find an energy source that would power all our devices without choking the life out of the earth. There are groups working in that direction right now; alternative energy sources are being tested everywhere.
Of course there is the 'not talked about' alternative of just stopping the huge overproduction that only benefits a tiny proportion of the population.
Small governments that just govern rather than create wars and unwanted means of control.
Shorter working weeks so that people can be people whatever they earn, and more people have jobs.
I'm signing out now, Sawfish. I hope to see you soon.
It is too bad we can't just all get along. There are many people who do not use the internet. I just was in another forum and It seemed like you were squabbling.
Very true. A simple change like thinking of ways to help your neighbour instead of thinking of ways to beat him out of something would go a long ways toward a better world.
Unfortunately this is doubtless the best way for individuals and so a huge priority to get into the system a few thousand years ago, but when we know too much we have to consider our whole position in life, maybe that of our children who will follow us - and we know giving help is usually returned by taking more from us, on a global scale.
People need first to be in a stable environment without huge divisions, then anyone can do anything for anyone else without the pretty much certain outcome of it biting us in the @ss. This is why morals are no use to base a modern society, it must be ethics - logic is an independant arbiter without bias.
We do squabble - how else can one argue with fools ? By the way welcome to HP, I am the very very rude participant
I have a problem with permitting stone age views to go unchallenged, politeness just allows the sippery lies to profilerate - so you might want to turn a blind eye when I get going
Do you mean what would we call the perfect system?
I will run for office on this platform and I would call the system of government Loveism. We all love our neighbor as we love ourselves. If anyone is in need, we share. If we are attacked, we offer no armed resitance. We would rather suffer death than harm a soul. Eventually the attacks will stop when the enemy is ashamed and overwhelmed by our hospitality
Now if thoughts like this could get enough air to breathe we could easily move forward in the direction of a more sane world. Everything starts with a thought.
Carl Marx is the founder of capitalism. This capitalism is established in Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and more one.
Are you sure about that? Don't you mean communism? The USA and Europe are capitalist. So is China and Russia, now, but that isn't what Marx had in mind.This site is kind of strange. Anyone can just say anything. It seems as if the world is going mad.
He was just trying to be cute, taking a shot at Josak I believe. There's a lot of fun here in the forums if you don't take some people too seriously.
sawfish, anyone is not saying anything.I think Shadheen02 has mistakenly said about karl Marx. If he says anything wrong about the topic, we should not make fun of anyone and tell the right thing.
I am guessing this is sarcasm (I am remarkably bad at identifying sarcasm online) having said that people who read Marx will quickly realize that what he wrote about and what is instituted in places like the USSR are very different things.
Amen to what? This format is very confusing. Is there a trick to it? I feel naked with zeros by my name. It seems like I am a nobody. I am not used to this. I don't know if I like it here.
Yeah, he's right, gm. What church are you in?
I did't mean it like that. Amen means "So it is". So what Is? I am getting lost. It was not a pleasure meeting you. The one who asked the question is okay, though. I think he deserves respect.
Whoa, Sawfish! I'm on your side. I understand how easy it is to get confused with these forum capers so I was asking gm to explain himself. I am pleased to meet you so I hope you change your mind.
I just did. I appreciate that you took the time to greet me. I think I am begining to understand that you are familiar with each other and like to bust each others chops. It is like walking into a party and everyone else is already drunk.
Ha, ha! I got a good laugh out of that one. I see that you are able to put a metaphor to good use as well. I think most of us here punch back and forth at each other is the spirit of fun. I always regret when I upset someone for real but I never intend any harm. You'll soon find out who the good guys are... that's most of us, actually. It's good to have you here.
Thanks all of you.I respect your point of views but please stay only on topic and this forum is not for fun or personal talks.Facebook,Twitter,Yahoo,etc are still available for fun.You can go there.
If you like this topic,want to answer,you're most welcome but if not,then I'm not saying:"make my forum thread longer,I'd be happy."
Please don't do such kind of things and jokes/mocking(not here please).If you talk with honor I appreciate it very much.
Is that meant for me?
Let's say it is. The less government the better. The Cops do a fair job. They are public servants. They don't get them all, though, and I have a contingency plan for that. Where I am from, we are fiercely independent. We stand our ground (opinion to the contrary notwithstanding).
So you'd rather have private cops run by some corporation?
No sir, our cops work for the city, the county and the state. The county is the Sheriff's dept. and they are as fine of a law enforcement agency as ever there was. They make mistakes sometimes, but for the most part they are very reasonable. Once my engine blew a gadget and I ran a stop sign. That is a $150 ticket. After the deputy assessed the situation, he pushed my car the 2 blocks to my house with his ruiser and gave me a ride to the parts store.
It's all good. No worries.
But the city, the state and the county are all government!
They serve me and they stay out of my business, literally.
I see you are from England. We don't see eye to eye about government. We settled that a long time ago.
Yes, they are government by the people rather than government by corporate capitalists.
See when government is done properly it is effective, it's only when it is done by people motivated by self interest that it fails.
We have the same problems with government over here, too much slf interest, too many bankers involved in government.
I can't argue with that. If I had to start a revolution, I would want a man like you on my side.
I think we should try a boycott first. If all of us refused to buy anything at all and took our cash out of the banks, it wouldn't last a month. "We have nothing to fear, except fear itself."
We fear a collapse of the economic system. The system is lopsided. There would be few losers in the long run.
What other kind of people are there? What other kind of interests are there? The individual is the self, is the person. To eliminate self interest is to eliminate the self. To eliminate the self is to eliminate the person. If the self, the individual and the person are not paramount that why is everyone a person, and individual and a self. If the individual is unimpoertant can you name someone who isn't one?
Rubbish, the world is full of people who are not motivated by self interest.
You confuse individualism with self interest but they are not the same. Mother Theresa, for example, was an individual but she was dedicated to the betterment of others with no self interest.
She took no personal action? She had no self? Absurd., the welfare of others being greater than serving one's own welfare is not divorced from self interest. One does not stop being a self, a person, an individual. Self interest has been conflated with selfishness, greed, narsicissim, ego-mania, etc.... The worker divorced from his own interest is useless to his employer. A lack of concern for how his personal well being is inextricably tied to the quality and quantity of his individual product makes him less likely to keep a job. The employer divorced from his own personal interests endangers the profitablity of his own company and therefore his own income.
The customer divorced from his own interests will be a poor manager of his own money and ignore costs. The shop owner who is not concerned with his own interests need not run a clean, efficient and congenial shop but he endangers his own well being by doing so. Self interest is the means where by one does well for himself and good for others. It is when one can ignore those interests that mischief starts.
Rather than mess around trying to justify self interest let's first look at the actual and accepted meaning of self interest, which is according to the dictionary, "Selfish or excessive regard for one's personal advantage or interest."
As an Indian we have little choice to express good and bad.If capitalism is good then there are monopolies,unfair practices, misuse of media( media is a powerful tool in democracy) so again it is difficult to judge , then communism Indians would never agree for this system because this does equal distribution of wealth but dictatorship or authoritarian regimes and their tortures, excesses.
We need best governing system to ensure welfare of the mass and less restrictions to enhance creativity and productivity.We should open enough to admire anything good which may uplift mass and help socio-economic development.
Human mind is a complex substance and always engaged in both Construction and destruction.
I am humble to express anything further.
by Audrevea6 years ago
Genuine question & one I haven't had time to read up on to find out. Sounds good in theory - why did it fail? Could it ever work?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar3 years ago
One of my friends on forums thinks that Capitalism is dying, almost dead. But what about Communism? Isn't Communism already dead?I would like to clear that I am neither a Capitalist, nor a Communist and even not a...
by Josak3 years ago
About a hundred years ago there was not a single nation on earth that could not e called capitalist, today there is not a single major nation that could be called capitalist and certainly no first world ones, the US may...
by Peeples4 years ago
Aside from the impact on people who fail in life and wouldn't have a government to help them out, are their any negatives to a society that offers no social programs (in my thoughts this would be except disability)?
by Sophia Angelique5 years ago
sm.Socialism are services provided by the state, e.g. medicare, social security, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, etc. Socialism can also include things like subsidized transport, subsidized electricity,...
by yellowstone87504 years ago
As A political historian I have debated this a lot in the classroom. I think there are four: 1. socio-democrcy 2. socialism 3. communism 4. Moaism/Stalinism. I am curious what, if any, differences you see. I am working...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.