News Moneyless Sharing: A Solution to the Problems of Capitalism?

[denverdoc]

Please keep in mind that socialism and working conditions are not in any way related to each other. America in the 1930s had working conditions just as bad as what you expect from a place like China or USSR, even though USA and USSR have opposing economic models. Working conditions are governed by supply and demand in the labour market (shortage of workers leads to better conditions), government regulations (OSHA in the US), and unions (mafia).

Countries like Canada and the US have pretty good working conditions because we were smart enough to get some government regulations and form unions wherever they were needed. These tactics do not work in socialist countries because:
-The government has a monopoly on the job market, which means the rules of supply and demand strongly favour the supply side (government). People will either deal with the bad conditions or not have a job.
-Unions are not effective against most kinds of government jobs because the government has no profit motive. Calling a strike against a private company is a big deal because it means all profits stop for that period. Calling a strike against the government isn't a big deal because the government doesn't care if it makes money. You want to strike? Go ahead. The government won't run out of money any time soon, but your family might die if you stop working for 6 months.

Im not sure I agree. First of all no one had defines the brand of socialism being discussed which makes a big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

I tend to favor a more social democratic model, vs state ownership of everything, where policy can guide an economy in a more socially just manner than unfettered free market forces. But it doesn't matter, when teachers, or garbage collectors, or transit union members go on strike, the govt takes notice. Maybe notin Oaxaca Mexico, but in NYC they sure do. Also recall that the labor movement in the states that led to much better working conditions and more than a few fatalities in various skirmishes, was inspired by socialistic movements in Europe.

 

[X-43D]

For true communism to work, first we need to have a cashless society. Everyone is part of the same whole. We all know that the love of money is the root of all evil.

The legal concept of private property is also debatable. In true communism some things will be private property (like clothes or watches) and other essential things will be collective property like food and farmland. Since no one labored to produce water, food and farmland, i think water, food and land should be collective property.

Capitalists did a good job in introducing a system of scarcity instead of a system of abundance. The truth is some things are really scarce like gasoline but other things are not like water, food or farmland. This means there is enough food to feed all the world's hungry. The problem is social injustice in the distribution of the Earth's resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

For true communism to work, first we need to have a cashless society. Everyone is part of the same whole. We all know that the love of money is the root of all evil.

The legal concept of private property is also debatable. In true communism some things will be private property (like clothes or watches) and other essential things will be collective property like food and farmland. Since no one labored to produce water, food and farmland, i think water, food and land should be collective property.

Capitalists did a good job in introducing a system of scarcity instead of a system of abundance. The truth is some things are really scarce like gasoline but other things are not like water, food or farmland. This means there is enough food to feed all the world's hungry. The problem is social injustice in the distribution of the Earth's resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

I'd be careful about using the c word around here, it's akin to sticking your hand in the Queens undies

I think capitalism is fine as a system but it seems there's just too much greed these days and not so much social responsibility. Communism tried and failed to redress the balance, not because it wasn't a good system but because humanity isn't ready for it.

We're too greedy, too acquisitive and too competitive to work for the greater good, it's often what do I get, what can I do to make my life better, it's their fault they're poor, maybe if they weren't so lazy, why should I feel guilty for the poor, they should get a job, etc, etc, which makes you laugh.

Next time you say this think about scraping by with enough money to buy food and clothes and send your kids to school, relying on handouts. Or think about your education. Think about whether it was tough to make ends meet or to be able to afford to buy books, or to have to work two part time jobs to put yourself through college; if it was good on you, but for those who had an easy ride, think about other people and how difficult it can be to drag yourself up out of poverty, and the next time someone calls and asks you to give to the red cross or whatever, give em a few bucks, it means nothing to you, but it helps.

No in fact what am I saying if people actually gave a damn about others in general we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Capitalism without responsibility is as bad as communism if not worse, at least with communism the idea was sound if not the means to achieve it, with capitalism the idea is dubious but the means to achieve it is simple, cater to the lowest common denominator.

A sense of social justice should be inherent in a system, if it isn't then it's no system I want any part of. I'm a liberal sort of person. neither left nor right, sort of border line communist to an American and I feel the healthiest balance a country can have is between social welfare and economics, if you can fine tune both then your population is happy, your business is happy and the rest is easier. That's the rub though. How do you do this?

 

[denverdoc]

Well said, SD. Its all about giving a damn for our collective welfare, and that means everyone and everything on this planet. Capitalism might be fine if there were not corporations to shield individual choices that are two often based on the need to grow profit in the short term at the expense of all else. Socialism, even communism might work, if you could prevent the corruption that tends to follow power, whether political or economic, and keep things decentralized so that there was the flexibility to respond rapidly to changing market forces.

I don't know that I could ever relegate completely the idea of individual ownership, I love my CD's, books, my computer, etc. But the Earth belongs to us all, and when it comes to minerals, oil, the resources you speak of and which we all take for granted belong to us all, as well as the responsibility for their proper use.

 

[X-43D]

Money is also power. For true communism to work, some things will need to be collectivized like water resources, farmland to labor on and transportation.

http://www.utterpants.co.uk/notpants/madmoney.html
http://anthologyoi.com/blogish/beyond-the-socialist-dream-a-money-less-society-part-i.html

 

[denverdoc]

They had a collective farm in Los Angeles--and this is what became of it:
http://www.narconews.com/Issue41/article1892.html

 

[X-43D]

Poverty and chronic unemployment are also related. Those who can't find a job find it much harder to survive in the wage system. Marx called these poor and jobless people the Lumpenproletariat because they are at the bottom of the working class, hence the underclass.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/u.htm
www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/dp/DP118.pdf[/URL]
[url]www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/unemployment_and_poverty_may05.pdf[/url]

 

[X-43D]

People are poor not because there isn't enough food. We produce more than we can consume. People are poor because they don't have money to pay for food. And if people don't have money to pay, businesses are not going to sell their products. And today everything costs money, even water. So in essence, human institutitons and procedures determine who will live and who will starve or who will be rich and who will be poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment

 

[Gokul43201]

We all know that the love of money is the root of all evil.

Do we? Does that make Bill Gates and Warren Buffet zillions of times more evil than say, Ted Kaczynski?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Do we? Does that make Bill Gates and Warren Buffet zillions of times more evil than say, Ted Kaczynski?

Note the inclusion of the word love, it is not money itself that makes it the route of all evil, this is often misquoted as "money is the route of all evil", which is not what it says. It is an admonishment of greed.

The love of Money is the route of all evil.

or more correctly:-

'for the love of money is a route to all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.'

Timothy 6:10

 

[denverdoc]

Do we? Does that make Bill Gates and Warren Buffet zillions of times more evil than say, Ted Kaczynski?

Are you kidding? The suffering Gates has visited upon billions will warrant a final place for him that even Dante couldn't conceive, even if he gives away all his $$

 

[Gokul43201]

I think the disdain for self (which is taught by most mainstream religions) and disrespect for the rights of others are more frequented routes that lead to evil.

Are you kidding? The suffering Gates has visited upon billions will warrant a final place for him that even Dante couldn't conceive, even if he gives away all his $$

I had that coming, didn't I?

But think of the number of people that took to praying each time they booted up their computer. Surely, that must count for some brownie points from above.

 

[denverdoc]

I think the disdain for self (which is taught by most mainstream religions) and disrespect for the rights of others are more frequented routes that lead to evil...

Thats an interesting notion--self-disdain. Could you elaborate?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I think the disdain for self (which is taught by most mainstream religions) and disrespect for the rights of others are more frequented routes that lead to evil.

None of these have any place in main stream religion, Jesus does not say anything about being a self righteous asshat, at least not in my copy.

I.e Love the sinner not the sin, judge not lest ye be judged, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are the meek.

There is no disdain for self as far as I can tell, disdain for selfishness maybe, a disdain of frivolous or immoral self gratification - whatever that may be - but I'm not sure what your getting at?

I had that coming, didn't I?

But think of the number of people that took to praying each time they booted up their computer. Surely, that must count for some brownie points from above.

Satan/Bill Gates and a team of talented jokers wrote the code for windows, so if it drove people to God it was not the intent. Swap files? Are you having a laugh: DLL's now that's just funny

Many people also sold there souls to get Windows to work properly

 

[X-43D]

I'd be careful about using the c word around here, it's akin to sticking your hand in the Queens undies

I think capitalism is fine as a system but it seems there's just too much greed these days and not so much social responsibility. Communism tried and failed to redress the balance, not because it wasn't a good system but because humanity isn't ready for it.

We're too greedy, too acquisitive and too competitive to work for the greater good, it's often what do I get, what can I do to make my life better, it's their fault they're poor, maybe if they weren't so lazy, why should I feel guilty for the poor, they should get a job, etc, etc, which makes you laugh.

Next time you say this think about scraping by with enough money to buy food and clothes and send your kids to school, relying on handouts. Or think about your education. Think about whether it was tough to make ends meet or to be able to afford to buy books, or to have to work two part time jobs to put yourself through college; if it was good on you, but for those who had an easy ride, think about other people and how difficult it can be to drag yourself up out of poverty, and the next time someone calls and asks you to give to the red cross or whatever, give em a few bucks, it means nothing to you, but it helps.

No in fact what am I saying if people actually gave a damn about others in general we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Capitalism without responsibility is as bad as communism if not worse, at least with communism the idea was sound if not the means to achieve it, with capitalism the idea is dubious but the means to achieve it is simple, cater to the lowest common denominator.

A sense of social justice should be inherent in a system, if it isn't then it's no system I want any part of. I'm a liberal sort of person. neither left nor right, sort of border line communist to an American and I feel the healthiest balance a country can have is between social welfare and economics, if you can fine tune both then your population is happy, your business is happy and the rest is easier. That's the rub though. How do you do this?

Communism failed because it tried to prohibit man's natural greed and ambition, which is almost impossible. The communists wanted to abolish Capitalism, the State and the money system. However the people who own the means of production are not going to give them up for free. Therefore, Communism is never going to happen anywhere else on Earth except where it already exists OR where the means of production are NOT already owned by people.

http://www.scientificcage.com/doc/free_speech_20020108.html
http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/faq.htm

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

just a world about communism: It can be a good system when its edited a little, take China for example they are a communist country with some liberty in their production market, they are on the right track. another succesfull social country is Sweden,they have a socialist economy but they are doing great. i think whether its communism or democracy a balance had to be found to make them succesfull, the balance in democracy was easier and was established succesfully in many countries. As for poverty i think itself inflicted by ppl of a country. Poor countries are countries that don't have collective thinking or acting. like american or europeans will act as a group, all american work for their country as well as for themselves. the poor countries u see a thinking method of the ppl that hurts their own well being, they think that its ok to hurt the government as long as they get rich, not knowing that by doing that they will hurt themselves eventually. another reason for poverty in 3rd world countries are wars, those guys don';t have money to buy food, but find plenty of money to kill other ppl. I live in a 3rd world country,Lebanon, we are relatively a rich country compared to other 3rd world countries, but years of wars, and now years of thieving governments and idiots who stand next to the thieves in government just because they are getting a small piece of the cake thos ppl create poverty in my country, and soon this poverty will create a civil uprising, cause u can't push ppl above their limits,and again in a civil uprising u get more poverty and depression...but if in Lebanon we have the collective thinking of americans/europeans/jap/chinesse, we would be a very rich country by now. imagine 15years of war, and 40billiong dollars debts, and ppl are still investing here! imagine how strong the economy should be to handle such pressures

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Many reasons for poverty are also to do with past indiscretion and Western exploitation as well, let's not forget the responsibility we have. Not that it's all our fault, but we certainly haven't made poor countries any more stable with our constant acquisitive and greedy natures in history, some of our actions are still going on now, some echoes from the past can still be felt today also.

 

[denverdoc]

just a world about communism: It can be a good system when its edited a little, take China for example they are a communist country with some liberty in their production market, they are on the right track. another succesfull social country is Sweden,they have a socialist economy but they are doing great. i think whether its communism or democracy a balance had to be found to make them succesfull, the balance in democracy was easier and was established succesfully in many countries. As for poverty i think itself inflicted by ppl of a country. Poor countries are countries that don't have collective thinking or acting. like american or europeans will act as a group, all american work for their country as well as for themselves. the poor countries u see a thinking method of the ppl that hurts their own well being, they think that its ok to hurt the government as long as they get rich, not knowing that by doing that they will hurt themselves eventually. another reason for poverty in 3rd world countries are wars, those guys don';t have money to buy food, but find plenty of money to kill other ppl. I live in a 3rd world country,Lebanon, we are relatively a rich country compared to other 3rd world countries, but years of wars, and now years of thieving governments and idiots who stand next to the thieves in government just because they are getting a small piece of the cake thos ppl create poverty in my country, and soon this poverty will create a civil uprising, cause u can't push ppl above their limits,and again in a civil uprising u get more poverty and depression...but if in Lebanon we have the collective thinking of americans/europeans/jap/chinesse, we would be a very rich country by now. imagine 15years of war, and 40billiong dollars debts, and ppl are still investing here! imagine how strong the economy should be to handle such pressures

Perhaps buts that's a gift horse whose mouth I'd carefully inspect; not mentioned by SD, but perhaps implied is the role of the world bank/IMF who more often than not insist on privatization and usurious interest rates for capital relief. THis has been a bad deal for the most part.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

but perhaps implied is the role of the world bank/IMF who more often than not insist on privatization and usurious interest rates for capital relief. THis has been a bad deal for the most part.

Sorry may you elaborate more on this idea?

 

[Art]

I wonder where capitalism will eventually lead to? Revolutions in the past have been driven by economic injustices where the many with little resented the few with it all.

As countries first democratise through revolution all the balls are thrown back into the lottery machine and so people are happy for a while whilst they wait to see if they will draw one of the lucky numbers to become one of the new elite. But what happens in the long term when economic inequality reaches the same level that triggered the original unrest?

The USA as a bastion of capitalism makes an interesting case in point. The Gini coefficient is the most common measure of income inequality. This coefficient varies from zero – perfect equality – to one – just one household having all the income. Data for 28 OECD countries over the period 1990 to 2000 showed that the U.S. had the second highest coefficient, at 0.37. Only Mexico, at 0.49, was higher; which explains why Mexico's citizens, as an alternative to revolting, are fleeing to the U.S. but as the US coefficient continues inexorably to rise as it has been doing for the past 40 years what will her citizens do?

Ah but people say "America is the land of opportunity" i.e. the greatest upward economic mobility and this will keep the great unwashed happy as they still think their number will come up but although there are well publicised individual success stories one data point does not a trend make and so unfortunately 'the land of opportunity' is another myth as the facts tell a different story.

Researchers have investigated the degree of correlation between fathers' and sons' incomes at different points in time. Intergenerational income coefficients quantify the economic advantage conferred by parents to their children. The higher the coefficient, the more likely are children born to poor parents remaining poor later in life. One study found the highest degree of economic mobility was in Germany (0.12), followed by Canada (0.18) and the United Kingdom (0.27). In contrast, intergenerational economic mobility was lowest by a large margin in the United States (0.45).

To put this information in context what appear to be small differences in intergenerational income coefficients actually imply substantial differences in economic mobility.

Take for example the case of a family with earnings that are half of the national average i.e. 29% of the American population. Other factors held constant if a country has a correlation coefficient for parent-child earnings of 0.20, we would expect that descendants of the poor family would reach the average national earnings in less than two generations or about 25 to 50 years. In countries with a coefficient of 0.45, a typical level in the estimates for the United States however, descendants of the poor family would not, on average, close the income gap with the average family for more than three generations, or about 75 to 100 years.

Experts believe that a coefficient of 0.5 likely precipitates social unrest.

And so I wonder how much longer the current capitalist system in the US and elsewhere will survive as history suggests it is an unstable system in it's present form in the long term.

source of data

Delusional Democracy: Fixing the Republic
Without Overthrowing the Government
by Joel Hirschhorn

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

well everything you said mayb truly lead to civil unrest, but i think there is a smart way to decrease the possibility of that happening by sharing fortune. i mean that rich ppl get higher taxes than poorer ppl, and the poor ppl are not excluded from health-and basic food needs,and free education for children. And i think all those three are present in the US, so the possibility of unrest is low. As for countries without the redistribution of wealth were the rich are treated like vassal lords, like in Lebanon, civil unrest is very likely to happen especially if the government continues with its thieving corrputionist acts which are denying the poor the access to even the most obvious civil service.

 

[X-43D]

I agree. We need a system in which money will cease being government. I mean today there is great social divide between those who have money and those who have not. Most of the wealth is in the hands of a few billionaires and millionaires while millions of others have nothing (no money).

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

But don't u think that the USA has found a kind of balance that is unlikely to lead to civil unrest? cause frankly i think the american or swedish method should be used all around the world. Even though they are different methods, 1 is democratic, the swedish is a socialist government, but i think both deal with the effect of wealth distribution in effective methods.

 

[Art]

But don't u think that the USA has found a kind of balance that is unlikely to lead to civil unrest? cause frankly i think the american or swedish method should be used all around the world. Even though they are different methods, 1 is democratic, the swedish is a socialist government, but i think both deal with the effect of wealth distribution in effective methods.

If you read my post above you will see your supposition is patently untrue.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

i read it..but what i said was that even the difference is telling in the riches distribution in the USA, but as long as people are getting fair shares of food, healthcare, and education, i don't think uprisings may occur. But a grinchy few may go to looting and theft or civil disobedience, but i don't think the US is going to civil unrest on a large scale even though the differences in riches are major.

 

[denverdoc]

i read it..but what i said was that even the difference is telling in the riches distribution in the USA, but as long as people are getting fair shares of food, healthcare, and education, i don't think uprisings may occur. But a grinchy few may go to looting and theft or civil disobedience, but i don't think the US is going to civil unrest on a large scale even though the differences in riches are major.

I wonder. Events over the past 6 years have led me to consider ex-patriation and have me on record (police video) publicly protesting the war. I think if it came down to it, I would support a revolt. Its not that I believe in or condone violence. Its only that I see no other realistic options for reform. The wealth is too concentrated, politicians too beholden, the average man too uninformed, and the watchdog of free press, more of a lap dog. The brilliant balance of powers/checks and balances has been trampled to death; and our elections a process only a banana dictator could embrace.

Having said that, americans are for the most part too fat and stuporous with their daily dose of mind numbing TV and facination with distraction to do much. Plus the neocons managed to sneak into law a provision that allows the president to use military force in the event of widespread civil unrest. It is a sorry and sad thing to see this country slide into such a state of decay, and to those who disagree, I cherish your optimism and wish i could call upon the reserves I once had. Once in a while we have a great powder skiing day that allows for some refuge. I build some big rockets that actually perform as expected on occasion. Books and thoughtful discourse sustain me, as well as the notion that I can help a few kids here and there understand physics, a subject that frankly still eludes me, but which is so transcendantally and utterly beautiful, I think if (wo)man can create this, s/he can do anything.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

wow, well put. well suppose reform occured, what do u think you can do better? no matter who the american president is he never calls the shot, but the ppl behind the scenes. The american ppl you described as fat are the ones who elect presidents because of their beauty and not because of their personality. I think a reform in the US should not start by the government or by the rich, but by promoting education to the lazy,fat, and american voters. You got to show them that despite they have some basic advantages in this kind of government, they can get more.the problem is, would they want to get more? :)

 

[denverdoc]

For staters, really "king for a day": Ok I'll bite. Decimate the milatary expenditues by 1/2 every year for 3. The R&D for education is 1 percent of the health budget expenditures. I would funnel 25 percent of that into understanding what makes education work, because it aint here. The other 75 percent of that into a crash diet re energy consumption. I haven't kept up with fusion research, but I'd be putting more $$ into that vs new weapons. Old ones work scarily well. Health care a no brainer--socialize, or quasi-socialize. 20 cents on the buck are still wasted "administratively" Get drug ads off TV. And generics available in the land of the free.

Internet is huge: keep that decenralized as possible by opposing any mergers or tariff proposals. Same with TV/print/radio--expand the prometheus project for FM radio. In fact mandate that internet access be provided to all citizens. Heck many have no phones.

Make a job requirment of elected officials to have "office hours". Curtail lobbying. S/he should be at an auditorium or similar venue two days straight each month.

Cap personal incomes at 5 million/yr. I use to believe Ayn Rand was right, but see nothing in the past 30 years to support the belief. She sought desperately to come up with an economic equivalent of the TOE. Falls flat on its face, because it assumes people (she) are similarly motivated. Not so, and as the stats show, concentration of wealth has been at a great cost. Good luck for a gold watch from MS.

The second day, I might create GOD, just to keep folks in line with my plans

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

interesting facts..

 

[denverdoc]

Hey you want facts? Consult Art above who did a really good job laying out a few. I offer corrections to a good system way out of whack.

Any well meaning hack mechanic can do this to a good ICE--tweaks here and there, til she can barely run, all well intentioned or especially motivated. We need to balance and blueprint this baby of ours.