• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

My crazed thoughts on Capitalism vs. Socialism


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 bacopa

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 14 November 2003 - 02:56 PM


There was a point made I think by Sophianic not sure, about the lack of a need to compete if jobs were shared between people as in a socialist way of thinking. But I was thinking that the two aren't necassarily mutually exclusive. I firmly believe that Capitalism and Socialism can work together. Why not have a system where the manual labor is done by robots while the better jobs or at least more fun jobs are obviously run by the people? Furthermore everyone could at least be given more than enough to survive on for any previously menial jobs like being a waiter or clerk. That's the socialist part where at least everyone makes a strong minimum salary that is sufficient to live and be happy on. Now the Capitalist part of the idea is that those who want the higher end job should be able to make more money. There could be a system of seniority, which we have now anyways, of being able to continue to make more money the longer one works in a given field like say a lawyer. There would be a realistic salary cap so no one is making over say $250,000, that sounds good to me. And only professions that were really life saving like being a doctor could make even that much. Celebrities and athletes wouldn't be alowed to be as filthy rich as they are now. What's wrong with that idea? Maybe the President of the United States and other top prestige jobs could go beyond the 250 mark.

#2 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 14 November 2003 - 05:11 PM

There would be a realistic salary cap so no one is making over say $250,000, that sounds good to me


Government imposed caps on just about anything is a bad idea.

The reason why is that artificial regulation tends to kill human drive and motivation to compete. Competition is the key ingredient for technological advancement and the impetuous for accelerated improvement in overall quality of life... better housing.. better health care... all pushed by individuals with incentive to make a profit. I fear that if you cap this profit.. you likewise cap advancements... irregardless of how high or low such cap may seem on the outset.

Study Russia for a good example of how government caps can be bad over the long haul.

#3 Sophianic

  • Guest Immortality
  • 197 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 November 2003 - 11:28 PM

dfowler: There was a point made I think by Sophianic not sure, about the lack of a need to compete if jobs were shared between people as in a socialist way of thinking.

Just for the record, I never made this point. For a provocative discussion of capitialism as "the only moral social system," I refer you to chapter 11 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,079 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 15 November 2003 - 12:57 AM

I have generally felt that socialism can work on the small scale...such as in a family unit or a small community...but once it hits the big time (national or global level) it most often results in the demolition of basic freedoms.

Edited by Mind, 15 November 2003 - 11:32 AM.


#5 bacopa

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 17 November 2003 - 04:14 PM

But competition could happen naturally amongst peers as it happens often in colleges. The competition being one's pride and ability to overcome obstacles and better one's self. Money is valued because we practically brainwash people to see it as a necessity which it obviously is because we are in a Capitalist system. So as Mangala? the original poster of this argument said If we valued other ways of living/being than we might be able to get past our incessant need for material wealth.

I personally am not afraid of competition and don't have any real problems with Capitalism on a personal level but I think that it does hurt alot of people who would otherwise could aquire skills on an apprentice level but the Capitalist system forces them to compete in other ways that they might not be good at such as having to be a good business man...but I do like alot of aspects of our system namely the freedoms so I'm not die hard socialist by any stretch, Sophianic I'll check out the chapter and sorry for mis paraphrasing you

#6 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 17 November 2003 - 04:49 PM

For the most part, peers in college are striving for good grades so they can eventually become successful in the work place.

However, your right... if we didn't have money.. there'd be other ways humans would use to keep score.. but I fear these other ways would not be near as fair as the current system.

Again, I suggest looking to Russia for why most artificial limits are bad.

#7 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 17 November 2003 - 04:58 PM

Mind:
I have generally felt that socialism can work on the small scale...such as in a family unit or a small community...but once it hits the big time (national or global level) it most often results in the demolition of basic freedoms.


Actually Mind this is exactly why capitalism fails to protect against monopoly on the largest scale of global markets. Free markets are not sufficiently possible in a multilateral transnational economy, which is why Libertarian doctrine falls back on anarchy as a prerequisite for there must be either One government or No government for there to be any chance of Adam Smith's economic models to be applied honestly. So will it be Empire for a One World State or a barter economy for survivors of the failed struggle?

This is why Libertarianism while often appealing to those that rightly desire more personal freedom often results in either chaotic or fascist policy that on the largest scales uniformly fails to deliver its promise of freedom in anything more than a Frontier economy; as an anything goes, to the victor goes the spoils model.

Resources are about much more than mere "wealth as a measure" and the values are subject to being "revalued" where there are commodities that are clearly a matter of the "commons," from the atmosphere to the Earth's Core, from natural habitat on land and in the sea to the definition of territorial limits for ethno-national boundary.

This is also why I say we are past due developing a new Evolutionary Economy that incorporates Democratic Capitalism and Environmental Economics into the analysis. The models of the ancients got us here but none look like reality anymore and all bear a part of the truth while no single one holds a satisfactory answer. Industrial Capitalism is not exemplary of Free Market economics and this is the reality, in fact it is becoming far closer to Feudal Capitalism as practiced today.

Democratic Socialism is also not the heinous model defined by Communism and in a complex social world people do have a right to combine their resources and become organized governmentally and it is against this that a policy of divide and conquer is being waged by Monopoly Capitalist inheritors of the Age of Industrial Capitalism that are daily becoming more than oligarchs as they effectively consolidate wealth world wide.

#8 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 17 November 2003 - 07:08 PM

V4B says:
Socialists are capitalists; they just want to be the ones that control the capital.


From the mouths of babe's and demonic imps an occasional word of truth is spoken. How better to deceive than to cloak a lie in truth or weave a cloth by half its strength?

Gods love even you little one there is nothing to fear but fear itself.

On the point of economics I concur, concise and to the point.

Well spoken actually and I fear what next ploy you have in mind for twisting this thread to parody but alas dear Puck it is in the nature of the beast to play at dangling treats to try men's souls.

#9 JonesGuy

  • Guest
  • 1,183 posts
  • 8

Posted 17 November 2003 - 08:17 PM

Well, I think everyone would agree that an economic system needs a 'fair start'. Even for capitalism, everyone needs the opportunity to advance, or it doesn't work.

What a 'fair start' is, is hotly debated. Is the fact that you're born mean you've been 'given' enough of an advantage? Or should education be supplied by the community?

There comes a point where a person becomes ready to strive out and make their own destiny. If you force them to strive out too early, they'd never make it. I wasn't ready to start my ph.d. until well after I graduated. I will do great things in my field, but I wouldn't have contributed anything if I'd been forced into it early.

The question (I think) is, what's needed to give everyone a fair shake at the success tree?

#10 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,079 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 17 November 2003 - 09:46 PM

QJones: What a 'fair start' is, is hotly debated.


Equal opportunity is a fair start. The "unfairness" begins when people start to rationalize equal outcomes as a superior goal to equal opportunity.

#11 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 17 November 2003 - 09:50 PM

Consider this a cross reference link to what I have been trying to develop as a deeper and broader discussion on Evolutionary Economics

Warning all here and now that I am making that discussion a CIRA thread and I will play havoc with those that overplay their puckish pranks.

When walking in the shoes of fishermen it becomes quickly evident the oldest most experienced fish are often the most difficult to entice to take the bait, though larger for the catch they are often foul with accumulated poison but are prized for offeringthe best sport..

#12 yose

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Caracas, Venezuela

Posted 23 November 2003 - 01:24 AM

Best regards to you all from Venezuela. It has been some time...

I wonder what all this discussion is about. There are no doubts that Capitalist societies are more successful that Socialist societies. Just read the news:-)

#13 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 23 November 2003 - 04:36 AM

Hello Yose.. ;)

It is always nice to see your Avatar..

Socialism is a an idea ahead of it's time.. people have to learn to share first..

perhaps there will never be a time for socialism..

#14 David

  • Guest
  • 618 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 24 November 2003 - 04:55 AM

I live in a country that combines the two quite well, although we have to change governments on the odd occasion when the "Righties" or the "Lefties" go too far in their attempts to bring their dogma into reality.

We have a reasonable quality freely available health and education system. Sure, there is a lot on its demise in our local news on a regular basis, as the "Lefties" scream about how the "Righties" who are now in power are trying to destroy it. All in all, if you get sick in Australia, you have a reasonably chance of not dying because you are poor. In addition, you can get an education, if you really, really want to. Sure, there are flaws. Both sides of the political divide have their pet solutions.

But all in all it works. Here I am, at 39 (for a few more days!) recreating myself doing a double degree. For that I thank the socialists in my country. And when I finish my degree, I will do everything in my power to start my own business, and make as much money as I can whilst leading a full life in the process, and for that I thank the capitalists.

Stick Defence into the equation, and you have what a good government should be concentrating on, defence, education and health, and leave us alone on everything else, thank you very much!

Russia fell apart through trade embargoes and the arms race, buy the way. (You'll notice I said BUY the way). No closed system will survive on its own. About the only thing your policies promoted in this area was their arms trade, and we're reaping the rewards of that right now, arn't we?

Dave

#15 darktr00per

  • Guest
  • 52 posts
  • -1

Posted 14 December 2003 - 07:59 AM

I agree that it works on a small scale. But, I would like to see more on a small scale. I think that we should have more community programs. Example-voulenteer work or rotating work, a certian number of people from the community are picked to help out for a project(such as helping an elderly with a new roof or painting of a house) I think that such programs would bring a community closer together. It seems that these days everyone is very individualistic. We need to help eachother out more, and instead of voulenteer it should be mandatory-the community gives to you and you should give back to it. It would bring about a appretiation for community, and the more we love it the more we will be eager to defend and less likely to defy it. I also think we should have more celebrations, such as block parties or community parades. Maybe even an armed community crime watch, or parades of military strength and country pride. I would like to see more military parades all around the USA as well as an american falg in every home or business. We need to celebrate at the social whole rather than partying because you got a raise at work. Also, maybe more country pride and docturine taught at schools. If we educate and train kids at a young age to conform to society we would have less problems. Too many people thinking about themselves. Too many cheifs not enough indians.

#16 imminstmorals

  • Guest
  • 68 posts
  • 0

Posted 14 December 2003 - 09:47 AM

captalist in driven of money wouldn't work, in driven science yes

here is best idealistic solution! We must conquer environment, famine
bring science to ultimate powerr

here's da plan!~~

government/scientists issue some food coupon points and reward points to fellow workers.
and government/scientistss owns manufacturing units since they are self assembly, replication in nature and trade products with award points!

Reward points determine which type of products to purchase!~~ Since scientists make more more better products.................

food coupon points that can only buys food, books, training experience, certificate, software tutoring and farmer, they collect all the coupon and return some to scientists for products/equipments!~~, farmer, education facility is owned by government

You are not allowed to trade reward points with food coupon point because they are both bank transaction! if you urgently need more food go to farm and work!~~~

Healthcare unit is government, and it is free or cost little award point

To balance this system with current captalist society!~

We can issue rich people/shareholders with lots of food coupon, so they are given time for transition for re - learning, training, tutoring, and they should really re-work up! For private manufacturing units, they can either close down or the owner can transfer its ownership to scientists, and scientist will send owner to schooling, after he's graduated, he can return as manager position for a while.
This doesn't mean manager gets paid the most !~~

=D, this sounds work for me!~~~~, the more educated someone is, the more awardpoints they should receive but less food coupon point
, easier and less educated job is issued more food coupon point, less award points!

#17 imminstmorals

  • Guest
  • 68 posts
  • 0

Posted 14 December 2003 - 09:51 AM

You must think about other nations, if US makes money, then the rest of world is consumers and they aren't happy about it because famine, health problem!~~~


darktr00per: think about rest of planet, not just US alone!~~

#18 imminstmorals

  • Guest
  • 68 posts
  • 0

Posted 14 December 2003 - 12:17 PM

maybe corporate leet and scientists can stand in the same line =D
invester, technicial marketer/creationist

lol, what about the rest of planet??

#19 Utnapishtim

  • Guest
  • 219 posts
  • 1

Posted 14 December 2003 - 04:32 PM

It seems that these days everyone is very individualistic. We need to help eachother out more, and instead of voulenteer it should be mandatory-the community gives to you and you should give back to it. It would bring about a appretiation for community, and the more we love it the more we will be eager to defend and less likely to defy it.....

I would like to see more military parades all around the USA as well as an american falg in every home or business. We need to celebrate at the social whole rather than partying because you got a raise at work.

Also, maybe more country pride and docturine taught at schools. If we educate and train kids at a young age to conform to society we would have less problems.


I don't think the stars and stripes would be an appropriate symbol for such a top-down collectivist state driven endeavor..

Clearly a new flag will be required, less white and blue and more red!

What shall this newly reformed country be called?
The Peoples Republic of America?
The U.S.S.A?
Plato's American Republic?

Seriously read some economics. I recommend learning about Adam Smith and John Stuart Mills. I also recommend reading up on the tremendous economic and human costs of grand socialist experiments during the twentieth century.

Edited by Utnapishtim, 14 December 2003 - 04:52 PM.


#20 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 14 December 2003 - 04:58 PM

We need to help eachother out more, and instead of voulenteer it should be mandatory-the community gives to you and you should give back to it. It would bring about a appretiation for community, and the more we love it the more we will be eager to defend and less likely to defy it. I also think we should have more celebrations, such as block parties or community parades. Maybe even an armed community crime watch, or parades of military strength and country pride. I would like to see more military parades all around the USA as well as an american falg in every home or business. We need to celebrate at the social whole rather than partying because you got a raise at work. Also, maybe more country pride and docturine taught at schools. If we educate and train kids at a young age to conform to society we would have less problems. Too many people thinking about themselves. Too many cheifs not enough indians.


The very idea of "mandatory volunteering" is an oxymoron as corrupt and contradictory in principle as obligatory generosity.

Usually both can be seen as the justification of a criminal act or externally imposed martyrdom as in human sacrifice. Darktrooper you are a contemplating a problem that is "miles wide" but you are only looking an inch deep.

The model of the society you describe has been repeatedly tried (and it failed too) and its relationship to socialism is well known in history as National Socialism, more commonly called Nazism and is even more destructive than the systems Utnapishtim laments.

#21 bacopa

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 14 December 2003 - 11:43 PM

hey Lazarus I just see capitalism as being a very destructive force as it makes people mean quite frankly trying to push to climb their way to the top...of course this isn't always the case but in genral it would seem that people are constantly struggling to do mind crambing and energy consuming work only to have very little energy, and creativity for that matter by the end of the day. I think it's great to work hard and push one'self to the limit I just don't see how the types of jobs that people do are "that" worth such a tiring effort on behalf of the individuals.

#22 Jace Tropic

  • Guest
  • 285 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 December 2003 - 12:27 AM

This essay might be somewhat relevant with your concerns, Devon, revealing some of the challenges and possibilities of social-impact organizations.


Link: http://knowledge.wha...wArticle&id=897
Date: 12-03-03
Author: Unknown
Source: Knowledge@Wharton
Title: New Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: Free Eye Exams and Wheelchair Drivers


New Definitions of Social Entrepreneurship: Free Eye Exams and Wheelchair Drivers

Social organizations increasingly look to business for ways to make the world a better place, but it has not been easy for the growing social entrepreneurship movement to bridge the divide between doing good and doing well, according to J. Gregory Dees, an authority on this type of enterprise.

In a lecture at Wharton last month, Dees, adjunct professor of social entrepreneurship and nonprofit management at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, said social entrepreneurship is often viewed as business with a social purpose that earns income for the non-profit sector. He pointed to the Nature Conservancy tie he was wearing as an example.

But Dees said he leans toward another definition of social entrepreneurship, one that emphasizes innovation and impact, not income, in dealing with social problems. At times, according to Dees, these two ways of thinking intersect, when people with business-like methods come together with innovative solutions to social problems.

Social entrepreneurship, Dees adds, is rooted in the definition of entrepreneurship itself, which has evolved over time. Initially, entrepreneurs were viewed as people who were able to shift resources from areas of low productivity to areas of higher productivity. Today that would be called “creating value.” Building on that definition, entrepreneurship was later seen as the ability to create new opportunities – new products or better quality ones, new methods of production or markets for existing goods, new sources of supply or organizational and industry structures, said Dees. Entrepreneurs find inspiration in, for example, shifting demographics, updated technologies or new social attitudes. “The entrepreneur always searches for change, responds to it, and exploits it,” Dee states.

Finally, entrepreneurs do not limit themselves to the resources available but focus first on the opportunity and then worry about its implementation. That contrasts with an administrative mindset, which revolves around a fixed budget. An administrator, according to Dees, develops the business only to the extent possible within the constraints of the budget. An entrepreneur focuses chiefly on developing the business, then worries about getting the money necessary to finance the enterprise. “The entrepreneur begins with the opportunity and asks, ‘What resources do we need? How do we get them?’ That’s a different mindset,” said Dees.

Drivers in Wheelchairs
As an example of the entrepreneurial mindset, Dees pointed to research in which school children were shown a slide of a person in a wheelchair and asked, “Can this person drive a car?” The answer was a straight “no.” When another group of children was shown the same slide and asked, “How can this person drive a car”’ there was some hesitancy, but eventually hands went up with suggestions, said Dees. “It was a whole different conversation. It’s that kind of thinking that characterizes the opportunity-oriented mindset of an entrepreneur.”

The primary difference between social entrepreneurship and business entrepreneurship is that the goal of a social entrepreneur is to improve society, not generate economic value for investors or customers. Dees said that while it is hard enough for business entrepreneurs to create economic value, at least they have a clear motive – profit – so it is easier for them to structure an enterprise than it is for social entrepreneurs. “The nice thing about a business is that you have got great feedback loops. If markets are working right, you will only stay in business if you are creating value. Social impact is hard to measure in timely and reliable ways.”

He pointed to the example of a smoking prevention program that intervened with third graders. It was not until more than a dozen years later the program discovered there was no difference in smoking rates between the children who had been in the program and a control group. As a result, social entrepreneurs need to pay close attention to the impact of their work and look for their own indicators. “Accountability is important because you can’t count on markets to do this for you,” Dees said.

Social entrepreneurs are struggling to find ways to build accountability into their organizations, he noted, adding that the common practice of measuring funding against administrative expense or fundraising costs is not always reliable. Sometimes a program should spend more on overhead if it wants to reach a meaningful scale.

Cultural Shift
The current interest in combining business methods with social impact stems from concerns that charity or government aid can be demeaning and merely addresses symptoms, not underlying social problems, said Dees. “People are looking for sustainable, systematic approaches.”

Social impact organizations’ embrace of business ideas in the past decade represents a cultural shift, he suggested. “There was a time when business was largely the enemy. People were happy to take money from business but there was still a strong resistance to that sector.”

To create a successful venture, social entrepreneurs must begin with a strong social-impact theory that is credible, and combine that with a business model that is efficient, durable and scaleable. “We see a lot of clever innovative programs that have just a small impact.” The ability to scale up a program often is tied to changes in government regulation, Dees pointed out, noting that the hospice movement did not gain widespread recognition until Medicare began to pay for hospice services.

A wide spectrum of business models can be applied to social ventures ranging from purely philanthropic to purely commercial. Characteristics of a philanthropic venture might be that beneficiaries pay nothing for goods or services. Capital is a gift, volunteers provide labor and supplies are an in-kind donation. At the other end of the spectrum, beneficiaries are charged market prices for products or services that generate market-rate returns to those providing capital.

There are also mixed models. For example, rather than paying market interest rates for capital, a social venture may pay below-market rates subsidized by government or another source. Beneficiaries might pay a below-market price.

Free Eye Exams
As an example, Dees told the story of Help the World See, which in 1987 was providing free eye exams and glasses in Latin America using volunteer doctors who came for short trips and brought with them used glasses. In 1992 the organization had moved to a more business-based model because it wanted the program to build long-term local capacity to provide eye care. The new program financed clinics where people received free exams but paid a modest fee for glasses. Local residents were trained to do the exams and make glasses.

Both approaches had trade-offs, said Dees. The philanthropic trips served the neediest villagers, but the commercial clinics were beyond the financial reach of about 20% of the population. Local optometrists complained they were losing business to a subsidized program and charged the clinics with violating health regulations. Eventually the organization split in two, providing both missions and commercial clinics.

Often a mixed model comes through a partnership between a philanthropic organization and a commercial enterprise, but that can be tricky. Dees gave the example of a partnership between environmental groups and an oil company hoping to drill in a Costa Rican park in return for environmental safeguards and protections for native people. When other environmental groups learned of the deal they attacked it as a sell-out. Eventually the partnership dissolved. “It was not politically sustainable,” said Dees. “Partnerships between non-profit and for-profits is a huge, complicated topic. Some of them work very well and some don’t work very well at all.”

‘MissionDrift’
The potential benefits of moving toward a more business-oriented model include the possibility of having a sustainable impact that shifts resources to where they are needed more, according to Dees. It can leverage resources with earned income, and improve the overall financial situation of a social-impact organization.

On the downside, it can create “mission drift” and drive down donations from people who see less reliance on philanthropy as a signal their money is needed more elsewhere. Shifting to a business approach can also reduce the social sector’s ability to generate social capital and build networks.

The social entrepreneurship movement is, in part, a reaction to disappointment with government programs, but Dees said it is not clear whether private ventures do a better job than governments. “People have found that government programs rigid and bureaucratic. The feeling is that a private non-profit or for-profit may stimulate additional innovation … The jury is still out. We know the downside of public bureaucracy. What we don’t know is whether private parties can pick this up. More data is needed.”

According to Dees, government remains an important financier for social projects and has more built-in accountability – through, for example, Congress or the IRS – than private programs.

Dees had some advice for business people considering a move into social entrepreneurship. They need to understand the limits of a market approach to social problems, and learn enough about their chosen field to be credible in advancing the underlying social impact theory.

MBAs who hope to work in the social sector should brace for resistance and skepticism if the organization they join is not ready to truly embrace business principles, he added. “I can’t tell you the number of MBAs who have gone off with high hopes who then call me and say, ‘This is a disaster. They don’t know what to do with an MBA.’ The fact that you care about the mission and they like you is not enough.”

#23 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 15 December 2003 - 12:40 AM

Capitalism is just the market place and the concept of a free market is predicated on fair exchange and the maximization of return on investment. Capital is not the issue and market laws are predicated on the general species demand for resources.

What is happening is that there are two polarities at work that both vie for control of the middle, the social demand of the collective commons and the individual demand upon the system, not an inherent problem by itself.

In evolution the idea of capital evolved as a means of creating abstract definition for resources so as to facilitate exchange beyond the limitations of barter by objectifying value. Again not a problem and a definite advance over simply applying rules of force to the redistribution mechanics of resources as defined by the principle of wealth. The situation becomes clouded by the application of paradigms of evolutionary biological behavior.

Monopolistic capitalism is derived of the same basic traditional monarchic or oligarchic capitalism and these are feudal capitalistic models that reflect the biological psychology of parasitism. The very principle that was almost never applied to moderate the inherent extremes of monarchic capitalism, "noblesse oblige" were virtually never effective and regardless of promise and democratic capitalism, when it is driven exclusively by self interest it is easily suborned by greed into monopolistic capitalism. Free markets as desired are not to be found anywhere on earth and the quest for their creation is a bit misleading in a global economy.

Socialist models also have their limitations as they institutionalize inefficiency and this undermines a culture's ability to advance ahead of environmental stress. Nazism (Nationalist Socialism) and Communism (State Socialism) both have fallen far short of promise and are clear examples of collective parasitism of individual productivity.

Social Capitalism and Democratic Capitalism are theoretical models that are being evolved in our time to attempt a more rational symbiotic model but these symbiotic models of behavior are not as easily understood by most people as they are predicated on win/win scenarios not win/loss.

The survival of the fittest model for behavior derived of general evolution that makes most people believe in "Social Darwinism" is in part the fault. People are trained by instinct and experience to maximize the exploitation of others and their resources in part because of our vulnerability as individuals and our mortality as a species.

Evolutionary economics differs by transcending individual generations and individuals and begins the assessment of resources by a mechanism that works over longer periods of time and doesn't mandate death as a means of transference of wealth.

One problem with Social Capitalism is that it defaults to defining humans and their labor as a supply/demand commodity and this converts the equation of value to a different measure that makes each individual worth less as supply (population) increases and as each individual's life is worth less the resources required to sustain it become ever more costly through this social market competition.

Life becomes a sellers market and death a buyers club. Not a very different situation from what we see happening in the world now.

#24 darktr00per

  • Guest
  • 52 posts
  • -1

Posted 15 December 2003 - 11:40 AM

LOL - Thanks for pointing that out Lazarus- But I think U know what I ment(mandatory volunteering). You have to start somewhere, Why not start on a small level. If it works, then step it up to a grander scale. You cant just change things on a huge scale over night. You need to slowly introduce new ideas for easier acceptance as well as to see if it works properly.

#25 darktr00per

  • Guest
  • 52 posts
  • -1

Posted 15 December 2003 - 11:48 AM

imminstmorals---about your comment on the world. I think instead of helping all these other countries and funding them we should worry about problems in our homeland. Only when we perfect our own system we sould try to police the world. The only reason we help other nation is that we gain something. And if we are so damn worried about other countries why dont we just annex them.

#26 darktr00per

  • Guest
  • 52 posts
  • -1

Posted 15 December 2003 - 11:57 AM

Sorry for making so many posts im a bit hasty. Another ramble, A key problem with capitalism is that they exploit the poor just as much as communism--for example the judicial system, its a huge money making business with the privitazing of prisons. People and corporations should have checks put on them, a company shouldnt be able to profit on prisoners and one person shouldnt be able to mass so much wealth like rappers and atheletes. one person doesnt need MILLIONS OF DOLLARS! look at jay-z--he wants to buy a basketball team now! Its freakin sick!!!!

#27 Utnapishtim

  • Guest
  • 219 posts
  • 1

Posted 15 December 2003 - 02:13 PM

How has Jay-Z expolited the poor. They chose to buy his CDs and his apparel. in the process he made himself and many people in the record industry a lot of money. Do you understand WHY rappers and athletes earn the kind of money that they do. Its a function of the profits generated by the industry in which they work in. If you resent Jay-Zs fortune don't buy his records. Personally I don't buy them because I think his rapping is overrated, but to each his own.

think your dislike of extreme wealth stems from zero sum thinking. This is a very common socialistic fallacy. Remember wealth can be created not just redistributed. A dollar in someone elses pocket does NOT automatically mean a dollar out of the pocket of an ethiopian farmer somewhere

#28 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 15 December 2003 - 03:01 PM

  one person shouldnt be able to mass so much wealth like rappers and atheletes. one person doesnt need MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!


What is the dollar amount that you would put on one persons wealth?

#29 darktr00per

  • Guest
  • 52 posts
  • -1

Posted 16 December 2003 - 08:41 AM

-thefirst immortal- I would first look at the state of the economy and the cost of living. From that I would asses a cap to how much wealth someone can obtain. However I think that if a person who has been saving money since a young age should be exempt. And if they do obtain a lot of wealth it should not be liquid, he or she should be obligated to invest or assets. By the way, why should jay-z be allowed to own a team? Its sad everything has a price. The whole idea of money sucks. People should research and invent not for money but for the good of the human race. I think I want to move to a remote location, build my own house, raise a family, hunt or farm my own food and in turn I would have a greater respect for life and alot happier. I think I would be more fullfiled than someone who spends their life working for others and chasing the dollar.

#30 Jace Tropic

  • Guest
  • 285 posts
  • 0

Posted 16 December 2003 - 09:21 AM

darktr00per: I think I want to move to a remote location, build my own house, raise a family, hunt or farm my own food and in turn I would have a greater respect for life and alot happier. I think I would be more fullfiled than someone who spends their life working for others and chasing the dollar.


Darktrooper, I'd say that's a noble goal. If you haven't already looked into it, I'd highly recommend seeing what you can do with what you can find here and here.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users