Anarchy- Any Anarchists Here? (1 Viewer)

[Huntn]

I’d like to pick you brain. I’ve gotten myself in a longish back and forth on Mastodon, from self described Anarchists who claim that under Capitalism all workers are coerced. Believe me I’m down/negative about Capitalism, but my impression is that anarchy equals tear it all down and let the people rise up from the ashes and decide, even if there will be power centers, hierarchies, local war lords, attempts to consolidate power, with zero assurance that anarchy will survive as a system. Besides, the human species, we‘ve grown to such large numbers, I think if we don’t get our collective act together regarding the environment, we are screwed. Thoughts?

 

[UriUT]

A system of supply and demand is not an agreement between man? (What, no women? )


You are the one who made the comparison, not me. And I am not implying anything about morality here.

Warlords aren't capitalists.

Com'on man. Why do you do this? The original discussion was anarchy and capitalism. I pointed out the similarities between the two. There isn't set rules to say a price is such other than between the individuals (the natural wants and needs of man as in the natural need to survive or do whatever they want in an anarchy). No regulating authorities regulate the prices. As there isn't any regulating authority that regulates in an anarchy. And as such, in an unregulated environment consolidation of power can happen as the dominating force can dictate that direction. Why go further than that comparison? Do you want me to say that that Ford is a murderous dictator because clearly I never said that.

Because in this line below, I used gravitate to imply consolidation of power, right? I guess I was unclear? Maybe when I slash /warlords when I should've associated that with anarchy? I don't know...but I believe my original premise is that there are similarities between capitalism and anarchy and not that they are one in the same.

"Of course, just as in anarchy, capitalism will gravitate to warlords/tycoons once the game is played and manipulated as many have pointed out here."

And to be clear, we're talking about pure capitalism....no regulations whatsoever.

Edit: I relent, right tycoons aren't warlords I probably shouldn't have slashed that there...would warlord-like be appropriate as they dominate a market and dictate it on their terms?

 

[SystemShock]

Com'on man. Why do you do this?

Why do I do what? Not agree with your statement?

The original discussion was anarchy and capitalism. I pointed out the similarities between the two.

What are the similarities?

Capitalism has a set of rules; it needs those rules to function. Anarchy doesn't.

There isn't set rules to say a price is such other than between the individuals (the natural wants and needs of man as in the natural need to survive or do whatever they want in an anarchy).

And yet, there is an agreement, a principle, which negates anarchy.

No regulating authorities regulate the prices. As there isn't any regulating authority that regulates in an anarchy. And as such, in an unregulated environment consolidation of power can happen as the dominating force can dictate that direction. Why go further than that comparison? Do you want me to say that that Ford is a murderous dictator because clearly I never said that.

Because in this line below, I used gravitate to imply consolidation of power, right? I guess I was unclear?

You were clear. Warlords do not gravitate towards consolidation of power, warlords want to be THE power. May as well included Socialism and monarchies in your comparison.

Maybe when I slash /warlords when I should've associated that with anarchy? I don't know...but I believe my original premise is that there are similarities between capitalism and anarchy and not that they are one in the same.

The issue is that you equated Capitalism with anarchy.

And to be clear, we're talking about pure capitalism....no regulations whatsoever.

Even if pure Capitalism would seek no government regulations whatsoever (which is not the case) , still, there would be a set of agreements in place, some sort of order, which would negate anarchy

 

[UriUT]

Why do I do what? Not agree with your statement?

What are the similarities?

Capitalism has a set of rules; it needs those rules to function. Anarchy doesn't.


And yet, there is an agreement, a principle, which negates anarchy.


You were clear. Warlords do not gravitate towards consolidation of power, warlords want to be THE power. May as well included Socialism and monarchies in your comparison.


The issue is that you equated Capitalism with anarchy.



Even if pure Capitalism would seek no government regulations whatsoever (which is not the case) , still, there would be a set of agreements in place, some sort of order, which would negate anarchy

What rules are we talking about in pure capitalism? Is it written somewhere? Implied? Who’s enforcing it? We trade great. Rules of mutual agreement. Sure. I want something that you have and you want something that I have. Glory.

Anarchy? What rules? I live next to you in the wild west. No laws right? But there's a mutual agreement that if you step on my land and do what I don't want you to do, we will fight. The other way applies. Mutual agreement right?

Here's the thing, I agree with Chuck if we apply anarchy as total disorder. It's theoretical. It cannot coexists as we cannot be neighbors without some common understanding. However, if anarchy is the lack of a ruling authority, then I think it can exist when a government collapses. And with that in mind, pure capitalism is that state.

I'm going to be lazy and just cut and paste what I wrote earlier comparing anarchy and capitalism as I'm in a sugar low.

I pointed out the similarities between the two. There isn't set rules to say a price is such other than between the individuals (the natural wants and needs of man as in the natural need to survive or do whatever they want in an anarchy). No regulating authorities regulate the prices. As there isn't any regulating authority that regulates in an anarchy.

You were clear. Warlords do not gravitate towards consolidation of power, warlords want to be THE power. May as well included Socialism and monarchies in your comparison.

You misunderstand my point here. Actually, I don't even know what you are saying here. Without a regulating power of an anarchy, we GET warlords. Consolidation of power is the warlords wanting that power. Similarly, we GET tycoons when they are too efficient or they unscrupulously corner the market. Since Theodore, we have actively regulated against monopolies. As does the EU. There are economic concepts for this.

The issue is that you equated Capitalism with anarchy.

Again, say what? The OP asked about his argument with anarchists about capitalism and anarchy. I said "In a way, capitalism is anarchy" for the reasons I gave above. That they have similar qualities. The point was that those anarchists were making points against their belief.

May as well included Socialism and monarchies in your comparison.

Seriously, OP wanted to talk about capitalism. Why would I bring socialism up? Is that a buzz word that sets you off? Btw, I am a believer in regulated capitalism.

 

[Huntn]

Indeed. Examples are littered throughout human history, predating capitalism.

Doesn't a system of supply and demand negate anarchy? There is inherent order in supplying a demand.



So, you are equating Henry Ford to Idi Amin.

Here are the points made by the anarchists I’m talking to on Mastodon:

• Capitalism is evil because its purpose is to accumulate (hoard) capitol for the purpose of exerting power.
• It enslaves/coerces workers.
• It sets up a structure that benefits those in positions of power, and basically enslaves the rest of us to their will.
• Anarchy is superior because it’s easier to achieve balance in groups of people and their desires.

I can’t completely disagree with this. Raw Capitolism is mostly a disaster for working class people, they are the pawns, for a while they might benefit, but eventually they will be tossed aside (as their jobs head to China). There is zero thought regarding patriotism, or the idea that we are a team. It only goes as far as “the team supports my corporation” and the bottom line is profits, period.

I see automation and AI as a huge challenge to Capitalism, which just might bring it to it’s knees when the majority can’t find meaningful work at a living wage, or are expected to work till they drop whike the relatively few wealthy live like kings,

The fallacy about Anarchy as I see it, is that 1) it’s peaceful and 2) it’s a stabile system, and 3) it can be chosen in an orderly, peaceful, manner. I view it as at best, a transitional condition, looking for a structure. The real issue is the only way I can see the 21st century Earth ending up with anarchy would be due to a cataclysmic event, and you’d need millions or billions to die. Then you’d see some anarchy.

I do fear this, but it is bleak. Somewhere in the world, Europe at least, will evolve into a socialist system propped up by automation. At the end of the day, there really isn't a big window for automation to exist without people working. Who is consuming, other automated systems? My big question has always been what do you do with the bottom 50% of the population for intellect, and ability to learn new skills? The military, despite the crayon eating, won't accept total dums dums.

For everyone who argues for doom, you can always point the facts. You live in the most peaceful, prosperous period the world has every experienced.

The trend lines have moved towards complexity, integration, and prosperity for a long time.

Capitalism wiil hit the rocks. You’ve described the (Star Trek) Socialist Utopia where menial tasks are handled by automation, manufacturing is automated with minimal human oversight, and human beings instead of focusing all of their activity on basic survival and supporting themselves in comfort, can spend much more time exploring their intellectual, philosophical, horizons, and enjoying themselves. That is if we don’t destroy ourselves first.

 

[Huntn]

What rules are we talking about in pure capitalism? Is it written somewhere? Implied? Who’s enforcing it? We trade great. Rules of mutual agreement. Sure. I want something that you have and you want something that I have. Glory.

Anarchy? What rules? I live next to you in the wild west. No laws right? But there's a mutual agreement that if you step on my land and do what I don't want you to do, we will fight. The other way applies. Mutual agreement right?

Here's the thing, I agree with Chuck if we apply anarchy as total disorder. It's theoretical. It cannot coexists as we cannot be neighbors without some common understanding. However, if anarchy is the lack of a ruling authority, then I think it can exist when a government collapses. And with that in mind, pure capitalism is that state.

I'm going to be lazy and just cut and paste what I wrote earlier comparing anarchy and capitalism as I'm in a sugar low.



You misunderstand my point here. Actually, I don't even know what you are saying here. Without a regulating power of an anarchy, we GET warlords. Consolidation of power is the warlords wanting that power. Similarly, we GET tycoons when they are too efficient or they unscrupulously corner the market. Since Theodore, we have actively regulated against monopolies. As does the EU. There are economic concepts for this.


Again, say what? The OP asked about his argument with anarchists about capitalism and anarchy. I said "In a way, capitalism is anarchy" for the reasons I gave above. That they have similar qualities. The point was that those anarchists were making points against their belief.

Seriously, OP wanted to talk about capitalism. Why would I bring socialism up? Is that a buzz word that sets you off? Btw, I am a believer in regulated capitalism.

I grew up in a comfortable Middle Class existence in the 50-60s believing that highly regulated Capitalism was the answer. But part of that calculation is a government focused on the overall well being of the vast majority of it’s citizens. Many socialistic standards must be included, free education, free medical care, and post retirement income guaranteed. This is ALL threatened in todays economy under Capitalism, the vacuums of capital. Not only that but we are cutting corporate taxes so there won’t be enough money to keep our infrastructure sound. But at least our corporations will be rich, until they are done undermining the donestic markets, and just don’t think about average sheep citizens, they’ll scrape by, until the revolution.

Ok, got that out of my sysytem. But seriously, you should not have to work supporting yourself till you drop. I am probably one of the few who picked a job that gave me a pension, before pensions were basically chopped out of the budget. “Oh“, they’ll say, “but you have a 401k”! Ha ha, the jokes on you, just more $$$ in the corporations pockets.

While I question the viability of anarchy as ever being peaceful and stable, I also question if regulated capitalism is a realistic healthy standard, if it is ever achievable. Capitalism, the acquisition of capitol at the expense of others is a serious threat, especially without wealth caps. Capitalists will always begrudge regulation and caps on their efforts to accrue wealth In the name of their bottom line.

 

[UriUT]

Here are the points made by the anarchists I’m talking to on Mastodon:

• Capitalism is evil because its purpose is to accumulate (hoard) capitol for the purpose of exerting power.
• It enslaves/coerces workers.
• It sets up a structure that benefits those in positions of power, and basically enslaves the rest of us to their will.
• Anarchy is superior because it’s easier to achieve balance in groups of people and their desires.

These points are just crazy. Anarchy isn't even a system. Capitalism is just an approach to economic organization. It's not a question of morality. Rather it's quite amoral. And for them to call themselves anarchist...folks who wants to unchain all the rules...one would think that they would want to move towards the laissez faire iteration of capitalism as opposed to anything else.

I grew up in a comfortable Middle Class existence in the 50-60s believing that highly regulated Capitalism was the answer. But part of that calculation is a government focused on the overall well being of the vast majority of it’s citizens. Many socialistic standards must be included, free education, free medical care, and post retirement income guaranteed. This is ALL threatened in todays economy under Capitalism, the vacuums of capital. Not only that but we are cutting corporate taxes so there won’t be enough money to keep our infrastructure sound. But at least our corporations will be rich, until they are done undermining the donestic markets, and just don’t think about average sheep citizens, they’ll scrape by, until the revolution.

Ok, got that out of my sysytem. But seriously, you should not have to work supporting yourself till you drop. I am probably one of the few who picked a job that gave me a pension, before pensions were basically chopped out of the budget. “Oh“, they’ll say, “but you have a 401k”! Ha ha, the jokes on you, just more $$$ in the corporations pockets.

While I question the viability of anarchy as ever being peaceful and stable, I also question if regulated capitalism is a realistic healthy standard, if it is ever achievable. Capitalism, the acquisition of capitol at the expense of others is a serious threat, especially without wealth caps. Capitalists will always begrudge regulation and caps on their efforts to accrue wealth In the name of their bottom line.

I think the inequities starts with taxation and the dwindling social net due to that. Reagan's tax cuts expanded the wealth gap and lead to what you describe today IMHO. I remember asking my econ prof long ago about trickle down. She said lowering taxes at the right time...I believe on an upward swing can expand the economy. But we have to be precise and it was difficult to predict when that would be. And if this trump tax cut haven't taught us anything, giving a tax break to an economy that's already saturated with investment will only lead to firms hoarding that wealth and not trickle down.

But I don't think it ends there. I misspoke when I stated that capitalism "will" lead to tycoons. Not necessarily. We see many sectors with healthy competition. Maybe eventually if the game is played long enough, the competition may break down with one firm dominating. That's the crux of a healthy capitalist society right? Competition leads to innovations and lower prices. With that, another aspect that may drive the inequities is that we may have mismanaged since the days of the 50s and 60s. Today, we have less competition because firms are more concentrated. How many banks do we have? How many companies run grocery markets? It's a difficult task to deal with when there are fewer companies that are dominant in a sector. What do we do with Amazon that owns 90% of the internet shopping market? They are efficient but crushes the competition. Same with Tesla. Whereas, we once would break up monopolies. We broke up AT&T. We sued Microsoft for their practices with Internet Explorer. Another aspect may have to do with unions. Unions had more power to negotiate wages before. Perhaps wages may be depressed with laws reducing a union's power despite the US per capita as one of the more productive countries.

One final thought as I don't want to go on and on. Back in the 50s and 60s, we had social programs like the GI bill that helps folks buy homes and get an education. Social programs are under assault. It is a key component in the redistribution of wealth along with taxation. I believe dragon has said how important those safety nets have been to the EU.

 

[Huntn]

These points are just crazy. Anarchy isn't even a system. Capitalism is just an approach to economic organization. It's not a question of morality. Rather it's quite amoral. And for them to call themselves anarchist...folks who wants to unchain all the rules...one would think that they would want to move towards the laissez faire iteration of capitalism as opposed to anything else.


I think the inequities starts with taxation and the dwindling social net due to that. Reagan's tax cuts expanded the wealth gap and lead to what you describe today IMHO. I remember asking my econ prof long ago about trickle down. She said lowering taxes at the right time...I believe on an upward swing can expand the economy. But we have to be precise and it was difficult to predict when that would be. And if this trump tax cut haven't taught us anything, giving a tax break to an economy that's already saturated with investment will only lead to firms hoarding that wealth and not trickle down.

But I don't think it ends there. I misspoke when I stated that capitalism "will" lead to tycoons. Not necessarily. We see many sectors with healthy competition. Maybe eventually if the game is played long enough, the competition may break down with one firm dominating. That's the crux of a healthy capitalist society right? Competition leads to innovations and lower prices. With that, another aspect that may drive the inequities is that we may have mismanaged since the days of the 50s and 60s. Today, we have less competition because firms are more concentrated. How many banks do we have? How many companies run grocery markets? It's a difficult task to deal with when there are fewer companies that are dominant in a sector. What do we do with Amazon that owns 90% of the internet shopping market? They are efficient but crushes the competition. Same with Tesla. Whereas, we once would break up monopolies. We broke up AT&T. We sued Microsoft for their practices with Internet Explorer. Another aspect may have to do with unions. Unions had more power to negotiate wages before. Perhaps wages may be depressed with laws reducing a union's power despite the US per capita as one of the more productive countries.

One final thought as I don't want to go on and on. Back in the 50s and 60s, we had social programs like the GI bill that helps folks buy homes and get an education. Social programs are under assault. It is a key component in the redistribution of wealth along with taxation. I believe dragon has said how important those safety nets have been to the EU.

The key is IMO:

• Highly regulated Capitalism.
• Wealth caps.
• Livable wages.
• Quality of life for workers.
• Social programs, social safety nets,
• A government in charge with the well-being of it’s citizens first and foremost.
• Equality, equal opportunity.

The question is and has always been are here things attainable and sustainable? Look at the USA for the last 50 years, the evidence is that Capitalism resists, fights vigorously against all of this. I do see the anger with Capitalism that self professed anarchist have,

 

[LA - L.A.]

The key is IMO:

• Highly regulated Capitalism.
• Wealth caps.
• Livable wages.
• Quality of life for workers.
• Social programs, social safety nets,
• A government in charge with the well-being of it’s citizens first and foremost.
• Equality, equal opportunity.

The question is and has always been are here things attainable and sustainable? Look at the USA for the last 50 years, the evidence is that Capitalism resists, fights vigorously against all of this. I do see the anger with Capitalism that self professed anarchist have,

Capitalism doesn't resist or fight against anyone or anything. Obsessively compulsively selfish people fight against any efforts to keep them from ruthlessly exploiting a capitalistic economic system.

It's a common mistake to think that theoretical political and economic systems shortcomings are more about the system than the people in the system. Every political and economic system suffers as much corruption as people in the system allow to happen. Most people make the mistake of thinking that everyone is participating in the system in the same good faith, honest and cooperative mindset they have. This mistake allows those who are acting in bad faith, dishonestly and dominantly to corrupt the system to their benefit at the expense of many others.

Anarchy is a complete lack of cooperation which would allow the exploiters to dominate people at a more extreme level.

 

[UriUT]

Capitalism doesn't resist or fight against anyone or anything. Obsessively compulsively selfish people fight against any efforts to keep them from ruthlessly exploiting a capitalistic economic system.

It's a common mistake to think that theoretical political and economic systems shortcomings are more about the system than the people in the system. Every political and economic system suffers as much corruption as people in the system allow to happen. Most people make the mistake of thinking that everyone is participating in the system in the same good faith, honest and cooperative mindset they have. This mistake allows those who are acting in bad faith, dishonestly and dominantly to corrupt the system to their benefit at the expense of many others.

Anarchy is a complete lack of cooperation which would allow the exploiters to dominate people at a more extreme level.

Well said. If we're all angels, we wouldn't need laws.

The key is IMO:

• Highly regulated Capitalism.
• Wealth caps.
• Livable wages.
• Quality of life for workers.
• Social programs, social safety nets,
• A government in charge with the well-being of it’s citizens first and foremost.
• Equality, equal opportunity.

The question is and has always been are here things attainable and sustainable? Look at the USA for the last 50 years, the evidence is that Capitalism resists, fights vigorously against all of this. I do see the anger with Capitalism that self professed anarchist have,

As La-LA, said, I don't think it's a failure of the capitalism, but rather a weak political will. The basic assumption in economics is that firms/individuals will maximize their revenue or whatever they're striving for. It's not a question of "evil" or some diabolical plan. We knew this. The robber barons maximized. And absent of labor or environmental laws, they enacted what we would consider to be morally repulsive today. Working in hazardous mines, 7 work days, child labor, polluted water supplies, etc. The list goes on and on. We enacted banking and trading laws in response to the 1929 crash. Heck, we sorta see this in China as they transition to a industrial capitalist society. You can read about their horrendous working environment and pollution. They don't quite have the mature protection laws that we have. Commerce laws, arbitrations laws, etc. Man, I had an AC electrician working on a property and he told me how some rookies ignore basic rules that are meant to protect them from electric shock. The best analogy I can give is the fight between Edison and Tesla over AC and DC currents. If Edison had won that debate, we'd have power plants at every neighborhood corner providing us with DC currents. But because Tesla convinced us that AC is more viable, though it can be hazardous, we now have factories miles from city centers. All we needed was safety laws and just plain awareness not to touch power lines.

The point again is that we can solve all you've listed and still have a functional capitalist society. It's the weak political will. How did we allow Scott Walker types to weaken teacher's unions and their leverage to increase their wages? Heck how did Wisconsin allow him to lie to them about that Foxconn deal. Subsequently, it's our fault.

And I want to roll back to JDonk's point. All the laws that I've listed above are mostly reactionary. This applies to technological/scientific advancements that will change our sensibilities. Seatbelt laws once cars became prominent for example. We adapt, and hopefully we will with AI and whatever comes along. One of the few times we are successful proactively, at least according to an NPR story I heard once is with the laws for drones. The policy makers congregated and devised laws for the drones before they were in heavy use. Near airports for example.

 

[Huntn]

Capitalism doesn't resist or fight against anyone or anything. Obsessively compulsively selfish people fight against any efforts to keep them from ruthlessly exploiting a capitalistic economic system.

It's a common mistake to think that theoretical political and economic systems shortcomings are more about the system than the people in the system. Every political and economic system suffers as much corruption as people in the system allow to happen. Most people make the mistake of thinking that everyone is participating in the system in the same good faith, honest and cooperative mindset they have. This mistake allows those who are acting in bad faith, dishonestly and dominantly to corrupt the system to their benefit at the expense of many others.

Anarchy is a complete lack of cooperation which would allow the exploiters to dominate people at a more extreme level.

Very true it’s people who endorse Capitolism that make it what it is, just like any human created economic system. So isn’t it fair to describe it in such terms?

Here is an example, when it comes to profits as the primary metric as a reason to existence, when the first corporation sent its manufacturing East, the competitive die was cast, millions of jobs exported, throwing workers under the bus, arguably undermining the domestic market they want to sell to. This is an argument, that by it’s nature, Capitalism is cannibalisitic, by nature, it will reduce the number of people in the wealth club so that the leadership can can live the “good life” at the expense of, well everyone if that is what it takes.
For a Nation, of hundreds of millions of people, heavily regulated Capitalusm is the only way, I can see it working. Socialism, even communism‘s stated goals is true quality from a material standpoint. Unfortunately Communism seems to be more susceptible to corruption than all the rest. And of note, the goal in just about any system becomes to preserve the system by those in charge or endorse that system.

It’s hard for me to picture anarchy as any kind of of organized system, better described as you said, a lack of cooperation and coordination. I just don’t see how it can be viewed as an ideal state.

 

[Huntn]

Well said. If we're all angels, we wouldn't need laws.


As La-LA, said, I don't think it's a failure of the capitalism, but rather a weak political will. The basic assumption in economics is that firms/individuals will maximize their revenue or whatever they're striving for. It's not a question of "evil" or some diabolical plan. We knew this. The robber barons maximized. And absent of labor or environmental laws, they enacted what we would consider to be morally repulsive today. Working in hazardous mines, 7 work days, child labor, polluted water supplies, etc. The list goes on and on. We enacted banking and trading laws in response to the 1929 crash. Heck, we sorta see this in China as they transition to a industrial capitalist society. You can read about their horrendous working environment and pollution. They don't quite have the mature protection laws that we have. Commerce laws, arbitrations laws, etc. Man, I had an AC electrician working on a property and he told me how some rookies ignore basic rules that are meant to protect them from electric shock. The best analogy I can give is the fight between Edison and Tesla over AC and DC currents. If Edison had won that debate, we'd have power plants at every neighborhood corner providing us with DC currents. But because Tesla convinced us that AC is more viable, though it can be hazardous, we now have factories miles from city centers. All we needed was safety laws and just plain awareness not to touch power lines.

The point again is that we can solve all you've listed and still have a functional capitalist society. It's the weak political will. How did we allow Scott Walker types to weaken teacher's unions and their leverage to increase their wages? Heck how did Wisconsin allow him to lie to them about that Foxconn deal. Subsequently, it's our fault.

And I want to roll back to JDonk's point. All the laws that I've listed above are mostly reactionary. This applies to technological/scientific advancements that will change our sensibilities. Seatbelt laws once cars became prominent for example. We adapt, and hopefully we will with AI and whatever comes along. One of the few times we are successful proactively, at least according to an NPR story I heard once is with the laws for drones. The policy makers congregated and devised laws for the drones before they were in heavy use. Near airports for example.

Maybe the worst about Capitalism is that power and wealth are addictive? So we can say Capitalism is bad because people are bad. What if say half the corporations resisted exporting jobs and we had a government composed of people who took measures to protect domestic jobs? They would be called protectionist as if that was bad. Being organized as a nation is supposed to mean something to average citizens.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Very true it’s people who endorse Capitolism that make it what it is, just like any human created economic system. So isn’t it fair to describe it in such terms?

Here is an example, when it comes to profits as the primary metric as a reason to existence, when the first corporation sent its manufacturing East, the competitive die was cast, millions of jobs exported, throwing workers under the bus, arguably undermining the domestic market they want to sell to.

Capitalism as a theory doesn't mandate that profits are put above all else. Profits shouldn't be put above all else. Profits being put above all else is the primary disease of how Americans engage in capitalism.

The cure for that disease is laws and effective regulations that keep people, who avoid personal accountability by hiding behind corporate shields, from putting profits above people. Just like we don't have to get rid of capitalism to fight theft, we don't have to get rid of capitalism to keep people from putting profits above people.

The problem is not capitalism. The problem is what we allow people to do within our capitalistic system. Compare how capitalism is practiced in America versus most of the countries in the European Union to see how we vote to allow our government to not protect us nearly as much as the people of Europe vote to make their governments protect them.

This is an argument, that by it’s nature, Capitalism is cannibalisitic, by nature, it will reduce the number of people in the wealth club so that the leadership can can live the “good life” at the expense of, well everyone if that is what it takes.
For a Nation, of hundreds of millions of people, heavily regulated Capitalusm is the only way, I can see it working.

Capitalism is not inherently cannibalistic. In fact, enlightened capitalism understands that cannibalism is counterproductive and unsustainable, so it should be avoided. The problem here in the US is that we don't have the regulations and we are all accountable for that. Corporate law dictates that corporate executives must make maximizing quarterly and annual dividends paid out to shareholders above everything else. It's no surprise that wealth and power hoarding shareholders wrote those laws and got the government to pass and enforce them, while we just sat back and let it happen.

Socialism, even communism‘s stated goals is true quality from a material standpoint. Unfortunately Communism seems to be more susceptible to corruption than all the rest. And of note, the goal in just about any system becomes to preserve the system by those in charge or endorse that system.

Socialism and communism are not more susceptible to corruption. Because the US has a corrupted capitalistic system, we are constantly focused exclusively on the corrupted examples of all other economic systems and constantly deflected away from seeing the extreme level of corruption within our own capitalistic system and the toll that it takes on all of us that aren't the wealth and power hoarders.

This constant focusing and re-focusing of our attention gives us a skewed misperception that capitalism is inherently better than all other economic systems. It is not inherently better or worse than other systems.

It’s hard for me to picture anarchy as any kind of of organized system, better described as you said, a lack of cooperation and coordination. I just don’t see how it can be viewed as an ideal state.

Me neither. It's naive and/or foolish to think that anarchy is how you solve societal problems and corruption. Anarchy creates chaos and chaos is historically the breeding ground for some of the worst societal problems and corruption we've ever seen as a species.

Anarchists have endorsed the philosophy of teenagers as a solution to their angst.

 

[Huntn]

Capitalism as a theory doesn't mandate that profits are put above all else. Profits shouldn't be put above all else. Profits being put above all else is the primary disease of how Americans engage in capitalism.

The cure for that disease is laws and effective regulations that keep people, who avoid personal accountability by hiding behind corporate shields, from putting profits above people. Just like we don't have to get rid of capitalism to fight theft, we don't have to get rid of capitalism to keep people from putting profits above people.

The problem is not capitalism. The problem is what we allow people to do within our capitalistic system. Compare how capitalism is practiced in America versus most of the countries in the European Union to see how we vote to allow our government to not protect us nearly as much as the people of Europe vote to make their governments protect them.


Capitalism is not inherently cannibalistic. In fact, enlightened capitalism understands that cannibalism is counterproductive and unsustainable, so it should be avoided. The problem here in the US is that we don't have the regulations and we are all accountable for that. Corporate law dictates that corporate executives must make maximizing quarterly and annual dividends paid out to shareholders above everything else. It's no surprise that wealth and power hoarding shareholders wrote those laws and got the government to pass and enforce them, while we just sat back and let it happen.


Socialism and communism are not more susceptible to corruption. Because the US has a corrupted capitalistic system, we are constantly focused exclusively on the corrupted examples of all other economic systems and constantly deflected away from seeing the extreme level of corruption within our own capitalistic system and the toll that it takes on all of us that aren't the wealth and power hoarders.

This constant focusing and re-focusing of our attention gives us a skewed misperception that capitalism is inherently better than all other economic systems. It is not inherently better or worse than other systems.


Me neither. It's naive and/or foolish to think that anarchy is how you solve societal problems and corruption. Anarchy creates chaos and chaos is historically the breeding ground for some of the worst societal problems and corruption we've ever seen as a species.

Anarchists have endorsed the philosophy of teenagers as a solution to their angst.

I described the nature of Capitolism and you disagreed, but this is where Capitalism has gone in the US as per the vast majority of corporations who are operating in a like manner. Absolutely it is the people running the corporations, and the government run by people we elected, and a the lack of an uproar from the sheep back home.

All of which supports my statement that as it exists in the USA, Capitalism acts in a way that can be described as inherent, because this has what been adopted, this is the state in which it exists, and maybe from 1930-1960 there was significant pushback, but the dirty tide rolls forward based on power and preference. This is the way Capitalism is. I’ll say the negative characteristics are inherent, until it’s not, when it is transformed, but I won’t hold my breath for this event.