• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Capitalism

It's a skewed economic system because capitalism promotes the gathering and accumulation of resources at specific points when you only have a finite amount, therefore always skewing the balance. Capitalism is only a good idea when the needs of people are finite, and you have a small population to support with a huge amount of resources. This however is not the case with recent explosions of population. This means that some sort of sharing system is in order because you have to ensure a justifiable spread of resources for everyone (everyone has a right to live and to basic resources according to the convention of Geneva and Human Rights act, bla di bla.)

I suppose it should be proportional to how much effort you put in how much resources you are liable to get, but it should always be capped so that there is a fair distribution of wealth.
 
how exactly is capitalism deteorating before us
Click to expand...
more to the point, how the fuck do you deteorate something.

okay, celestial blade. let's look at three major communist nations from the past (or rather, nations that claimed to adhere to communism - of course, no nation has ever truly followed Marx's doctrine properly). firstly, russia. it was practically falling apart by the time that it became capitalist. secondly, china. it is now one of the world's largest economies despite being "communist". thirdly, north korea. yes, it is insular and not capitalist - it is also a shithole with no real human freedoms to speak of.

in fact, that's the thing that unites "communist" countries - a total and utter disregard for human liberty. celestial blade, haven't you ever stopped for a minute and considered what life would be like in the USSR or East Germany or Poland? it would be shit. you have no freedom of speech, limited freedom of movement, a harsh criminal justice system. i won't argue that communism directly causes breaches of human rights, since i don't know enough on the matter to make the case (although i'd be willing to bet that there is a strong link between the two) - however, history shows that living under stalin, mao or kim il-jong wasn't actually the barrel of laughs that you make it out to be.

i wouldn't be surprised if you're nothing more than a troll, but your seeming dedication to these forums suggests that you're merely a very stupid, ignorant and thick-headed person.


and now, for topic-relevant material. capitalism does indeed require limitations and controls, as the current economic crisis demonstrates. however, as much as i disagree with the driving forces of capitalism - greed and self-interest - i concede that there doesn't really seem to be a workable alternative.
 
Socialism is preferable, I believe. Communism and capitalism are basically polar opposites, and you want a balance between those two. You want a semi-democratic system.
 
Socialism is preferable, I believe. Communism and capitalism are basically polar opposites, and you want a balance between those two. You want a semi-democratic system.
Click to expand...
Well, yes. You need elements of socialism, such as a national health service and so on, but you also need elements of capitalism in order to keep things going. Basically, what much of Europe does at the moment is probably the right way of doing things, or as near to right as has been achieved so far.
 
Okay, so I might not be the expert on capitalism, but I think that believing the individual is more important than the community (which I think is what capitalism is about) doesn't really seem fair to the less fortunate.

I'm not saying that anyone should make a total socialistic government, just incorporate some socialistic aspects (like universal health care, for God's sake. My Republican friend is a narrow minded ass and won't listen to me about how it could work..)
 
Capitalism, in my opinion, is on the wane right now.

As the economic situation worsens, people will go more and more left and more and more socialist but once we're on top again, we'll reset because human beings are naturally greedy.
 
goldenquagsire said:
Well, yes. You need elements of socialism, such as a national health service and so on, but you also need elements of capitalism in order to keep things going. Basically, what much of Europe does at the moment is probably the right way of doing things, or as near to right as has been achieved so far.
Click to expand...

That is why I suggested proportionality. A capped proportionality, so people don't earn obscene amounts of money and shift the balance, but so hard work is in effect rewarded while still adhering to Human Rights conventions.
 
Pretty much agreeing with the majority -- a capitalist system can only be successful if combined with elements of socialism. While Adam Smith's description of a "pure" capitalist society sounds elegant, one has to keep in mind that he was writing this in a time before the Industrial Revolution had really taken off and before we had huge corporations that could potentially control the market themselves. For today's society, capitalism needs rules and regulations.
 
I have a few problems with capitalism, particularly that it's the driving force behind excess consumerism and globalization, which I don't like for a huge number of reasons, but mostly because it creates cultural imperialism on a massive scale; mercilessly erasing local tradition and culture (I'm looking at you, Starbucks).
Yes, global interdependance can be a good thing, especially for places like the UK that import pretty much everything, but it also leads to things like the credit crunch, as well as reinforcing the chasm between the Rich and Poor.

Also (and more significantly) capitalism's private ownership of the forces of production (factories and so on) means that there will always (under capitalism) be a huge divide between those with capital and those without, and this inequality will only continue to grow. Captialism is solely for production for profit's sake, not for the needs of society - particularly the poorest, most vulnerable in society.

For example, the world’s 100 biggest companies control 70% of global trade and any one of them sells more than any of the poorest 120 countries on the world export market. Which is a truly terrifying thought.

Capitalism as it stands now is a terribly flawed economic system that desperately needs major changes (probably in the form of the introduction of major elements of democratic socialism); the massive inequalities between the rich and poor (both on a national and global scale) are horrendous and, unless something's changed - and particularly considering the current state of the global market - will only get worse.
 
From a moral point of view, yes. However, from a practical point of view, it is obscene to have millions of children dying every day of starvation and disease when there are also people who own billions of dollars worth of wealth, many of whom manage avoid paying as much tax as possible through all kinds of ridiculous loopholes.
 
The parasite expects the doctor to heal them for free, the farmer to feed them out of charity. How little they differ from the pervert, who prowls the streets, looking for a victim he can ravish for his grotesque amusement...
 
Dannichu said:
but mostly because it creates cultural imperialism on a massive scale; mercilessly erasing local tradition and culture (I'm looking at you, Starbucks).
Click to expand...
I'm confused by your example of Starbucks. Would you mind explaining?
 
As in, in 2006, six Starbucks outlets opened every single day. If that's not a prime example of consumerism gone mad, I don't know what is.

Starbucks is a phenomenally massive chain, and because of this, it can charge less for its products than independently, often family-owned coffee and teashops, thus attracting more customers than them, and ultimately pushing them out of business.
The Taiwanese government has significant worries that, should Starbucks become as populous in their country as is the case elsewhere (Canterbury, where I live, has three), the traditional tea houses will all have to shut down, especially considering how sucessful Starbucks has been at marketing coffee at traditionally non-coffee-drinking nations such as Japan.

Furthermore, you can go into any Starbucks in the world and choose from exactly the same menu, regardless of unique local specialties; the cultural context is utterly ignored in favour of a familiarity than can be reproduced anywhere.

Ritzer's essay "The Starbuckization of Society" is a very interesting read, and goes into far more detail than I have here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom