Capitalism: What do you think?

It depends what you mean by the word "capitalism". I am a anarcho-capitalist so if you mean free markets, whereby all exchange of property is voluntary then yes I am very pro capitalist. However if you mean the current system whereby the state enforces ill gotten property claims that benefit the few at the expense of the many then I am certainly not a capitalist.

I find too many 'anti-capitalists' fail to understand the views on property that most free-market leaning people have, they assume that we support all private property simply by virtue of the fact that it is private property. Personally however I feel that the vast majority of "private property" is not the result of voluntary market exchange but of violent conquest, thus to compare the current situation to a genuine free-market is not a valid comparison.

Also I am not completely against communal property either, I feel that whatever property is the result of peaceful voluntary agreements is legitimate, be it private, communal, or some combination thereof. People who make blanket statements like "private property is oppression" or "communal property is inefficient" have too simplistic views of what property is and why it is significant to human society.

 

We need to kill the current governments, and then we should create a decentralized Direct Democracy, and everyone will be free of capitalistic oppression.

 

Whats so great about democracy?

 

Would you prefer a dictatorship?

 

No, and there are more then two forms of social organization.

 

Hm Monarchy? Well, what's so great about whatever else is out there?

 

I am an anarchist, I beleive social organization preceedes the state.

 

Then why have government? Let the people pursue their own interests, no government

 

Exactly, but why would an anarchist society nessisarily be democratic? I'm not saying there won't be anything democratic in an anarchist society, just that a society does not nessisarily have to be democratic inorder to be free. In fact if certain people oppose democratic ideals then forcing them to become apart of some 'democratic commune' or whatever the exact structure of the society in question is would by necessity be another government and a restriction of freedom.

 

To tell you the truth, I take the anarchy route: No government, no economy, no leaders. I was just referring to the advised form of government on that anti-capitalist video I listed. I believe in free will, people naturally have the ability to be kind, people have the natural ability to hunt, people have the natural ability to gather, people have interests, and those interests can BENEFIT humanity, why do we need a government at all? The people can do it's will with bad seeds, and without corporate chains, I think that people [even bad apples] will find peace doing their own thing. Just be yourself, talk to people, don't talk to people, do nothing, do something .. your choice, why do we need a hierarchy?

Let humans be human, say NO to hierarchy! Do you think that scientists will suddenly lose interest in their field of study once there is no hierarchy? No, they will be free to bring it to new heights, and THAT'S what SOCIALISM is all about!

 

I disagree with you on two things.

1. I beleive that an economy is in fact nessisary, and money is one of the greatest human inventions.

2. Hierarchy can be natural, good, and condusive to freedom. The family is quite hierachical, yet I cannot imagine life without family. The point isn't whether or not there is hierarchy, but whether the hierarchy that exists is for the purpose of expliotation or mutual benifit of its members.

 

If you believe in an economy, then what kind of anarchist are you? Anarco-Capitalist or? Yes, I do believe in NATURAL hierarchy, but not this type that we have to slave through everyday.

 

Yes I am an 'anarcho-capitalist'. I define the economy as the process by which people use scarce resources to acheive their ends, which means we must by nessisity have an economy. The question isn't whether or not we should have an economy, but how should the economy operate given that we need one?

 

Why do we need one? I doubt people would hoard.

 

An economy is the result of the scarcity problem, our means (resources) are always less then our ends (desires).

 

hm. So what's wrong with anarcho-communism then?

 

Declaring that only one form of property (in this case communal) is the only legitimate form of property to the exclusion of all others is inherently totalitarian. Private property arises naturally and non-violently all the time, how can one claim to be an anarchist yet say that only one form of property should be imposed by force upon everyone regardless of the wishes of the people involved? Many libertarians make the same mistake (except with private property).

 

You know what would happen if we lived in a natural hierarchy?

You would be my bitch.

 

Depends entirely on how you go about defining "natural hierarchy". (the ambiguity of the term is precisely the reason I did not comment on it myself.

 

I think the ideal system is not a capitalist or communist state (in fact, to me the very concept of a "state" is repulsive). The most efficient system to my mind is profitless enterprise. All profit generated by a company is immediately reinvested into increasing the quality and quantity of its products (minus employee wages of course). The company is owned by its employees, there is no stock market whereby absent owners can get richer for doing bugger-all (or stockbrokers for perpetuating the myth of a "free market" that exists in our society). Interesting page I stumbles across: http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/antic/ - I especially like the addendum for implementing anti-capitalism on a personal and community scale. To me, that's what the essence of communes was about - everyone owns the means of production, there's no State (as in communism) to extract money from the people. Everyone works at a useful skill, and if you need something you can't make, you barter.