News Stability of Anarchy: Let's Continue Here, Smurf

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB1.html

Yes they quite obvioulsy seem to be believers in Jerkus.

 

[oldunion]

Why is reformism useless? The US has become far better than it once was through the evolution of society within the bounds of a government rather than through revolution.
If you try a revolution there will be many against you. Things will not settle down for quite some time. Then the country will have to go once again through the growing pains every new country does all over again and catch up to where we have gotten already. The country may not survive the second time around. Another nation may very well come in while your's is weak and attempt to take it over or reform it to their own liking.
Anarchism is not the end to war. It is only another manner by which to let a society run. The whole world would have to agree to your views for there to be no more war. Then you would have to hope that no more people or generations of people come about that disagree with you.

it concerns me that you think this country has come a long way. Racism was only just officially eliminated from law, but in practice its still very much alive. There were recently a few hangings in LA and GA. Homosexuality is not accepted and there are movements to outlaw marriage. Christian fundamentalism is threatening the first amendment to have intelligent design taught in schools. The bottom line is that it isn't even about how many progressions youve made, you are fundamentally limited by the bounds capitalism. Racism, classism, glamour, greed, hatred, discrimination... these are all very much products of capitalism, because regimentation is essential to its function.

If anarchism finally took hold in the usa, and the fighting stopped, and people accepted it here...i would not care what the rest of the world did, because it would not concern me. But you are right, I am sure other still imperialist nations would try to take advantage of a seemingly helpless nation, but seemingly is the keyword here. If that happened, and i was content with my anarchist society, i would take up arms against the agressor, that's how a nation should be. You live, you work, you make progress in society, and then when a threat comes along you collectively band together and evaluate the correct means of action.

Imperialism supports conflict between nations, and when resources become scarce it becomes essential for the nations to go to war. When you stop producing goods for capital gain, and start producing them for collective ownership, you eliminate the need for economic war. I just read that pentium chips cost 40 dollars to make, and some of them are sold for more than 645 dollars...

The only war in an anarchist society, could be the war of defense from invasion. It fundamentally does not make sense for an anarchist land to invade another country, it by definition would be illogical and pointless. Anarchism would be the end all of forms of government, there would be no wasted time in development, that would be it for the rest of mankind. Real issues could FINALLY be addressed, like proper education, science, exploration of the solar system, cures of diseases, alternate energy sources, peace

 

[loseyourname]

Racism, classism, glamour, greed, hatred, discrimination... these are all very much products of capitalism, because regimentation is essential to its function.

How can you say this when all of these things pre-existed capitalism? An economy doesn't need discrimination and hatred to thrive. An ideal market is a perfect meritocracy, and anything short of that hurts a capitalist system.

 

[vanesch]

Most of it reads like BS. Anarchsts want to get at the root of the problem apparentlt rather than put a band-aid on it. But they point their fingers at the institution instead of the people. People are jerks, get over it.

Even more, the amount of jerkiness in people is highly different from individual to individual, and the social environment who will make one person "nicer" will also make another one "jerkier" and vice versa.

People have been jerks far longer than any hierarchal government has been around to make them that way. As a matter of fact these hierarchal governments occurred naturally based on natural human inclinations.
Unless ofcourse you believe Jerkus the mighty god of fascism came down from the sky and tricked the gentle inhabitants of Earth into becoming the slaves of his deciples the Jerks.

I agree fully with this. If people were all "naturally good" then just ANY society would naturally evolve into something warm and cozy. Capitalism would, too. Rich people would be inclined to work for the greater good of all (note that SOME do this !) and use their capital in the same way a good communist state leader would. Shareholders of large companies would want to see only modest returns on their investments, and would require from the CEO of the company that he does a lot of good stuff for the common good, not expecting high individual gains (note that SOME do!). There is no *a priori* reason why capitalism should bring about exploitation of the worker, greed and useless consumption. After all, the people in power - who also have access to the best intellectual trainings and everything they want - would realize that by working for the greater good of society they would do the best thing they can ; if that is the natural behaviour for people, then those in power would be those most free to pursue this, so capitalism would almost naturally evolve in a kind of private communism. If people weren't looking for status and privileges then if there would be ONE category of people that would NOT be brainwashed, evilized by publicity, ..., that can take all the time to pursue intellectual activities, it would be the rich and powerful, and they would instore their natural, nice world view.

Guess what ? This doesn't happen very often. So it must be that most of the rich and powerful (who are, let us not forget, also often those who have been educated in the most ideal ways) do not behave so nicely after all. Then there's no reason to expect that the average person will. Some will. Others won't.

 

[Smurf]

What do you disagree with?

 

[loseyourname]

From an essay about Frank Herbert:

That is, he observed that people seem to have an inbuilt hunger for a powerful, charismatic leader to whom we can surrender our responsibility for making difficult decisions. Hebert observed that even the best leaders are humans, those humans have flaws, and elevating any man to a position of god-like power tends to magnify those human flaws to dangerous proportions. Worse, even if the original leader resists the temptation to abuse power, the bureaucracy which springs up around him will outlive him, and over time a bureaucracy becomes more and more incented to prioritize its own needs over the needs of people.

Bold emphasis is mine.

I think this is one of the reasons that the American system of limited government, chock full of checks and balances, has been as successful as it has been, and why centrally planned economies just don't work.* It is inevitable that if you vest too much power in the hands of anyone person or idealogical group that the power structure built up will attract people who have no interest in the common good and simply want power. The advantage with a democracy predicated on the separation of powers is that it contains the amount of damage such a person can do. When you have a central planning committee with absolute power over an economy, you don't get that. When you have one idealogical group in power, which is absolutely necessary to a pure socialist system, you end up with nothing to check their power.

And don't give me this nonsense about humans being completely blank slates with no innate power drive. The reason we have wars and violence is not capitalism. Someone, I forget who, once calculated the number of years in recorded history during which there is no record of any war taking place, and he came up with 23 years. Chimpanzees even practice primitive ethnic cleansing techniques! This behavior is not in any way unnatural. Violence is found everywhere in nature. We desire what our neighbor has not because capitalism has taught us to, but because it was evolutionarily advantageous for our distant ancestors to desire what their neighbor's had. We're designed to cooperate in small family units and nothing more. Heck, we even see this in the most corrupt of capitalists with cronyism. Even they are willing to share the wealth amongst those of their "in-group."

I'm telling you people, we can use this in-group/out-group mentality that is hardwired into us by acculturating children into thinking of the global community as their "in-group." It's not a panacaea solution and it won't end war and greed (nothing short of another several million years of evolution is likely to do that), but it'll work a heck of a lot better than these naive economic solutions. Social equality is not the goal of an economic system; creating wealth is.

There is legitimate discussion to be had on this topic, but we aren't going to get anywhere by predicating our arguments on the premise that humans are these innocent, perfectly moldable creatures and that capitalism is the root of all the world's evil. I won't deny that capitalism did serve to enable a good deal of evil in the form of colonialism, needed to create new markets and to attain resources. But let us not forget another pretty darn key enabler to that occurence - absolute governments with no accountability to anybody. Capitalism needs to be restrained, not by the central planning of socialist committees and the abolition of private property, but by the establishment of limited government that is accountable both to its own people and to a global community, a government that cannot become powerful enough to go around conquering and plundering to sate its need for new resources and markets.

[Note: None of this in any way applies to the arguments of an anarchist, who, as I said earlier, is, generally speaking, a staunch capitalist. (Don't you just love the English language and the way it allows you to put a sentence within a sentence within a sentence?) I've pretty much given up at this point in trying to bring this thread back to anarchy.]

*Just so I don't sound completely America-centric, I'll note that another reason the American system has worked historically as well as it has is that we've always had enough resources in our own country (granted, we had to plunder that from the original inhabitants here) and so we've never had to go through a colonial period. Being largely Native American myself, I don't want to give the impression that I'm advocating American manifest destiny over European imperialism. I'm only advocating limited government.

 

[vanesch]

I think this is one of the reasons that the American system of limited government, chock full of checks and balances, has been as successful as it has been, and why centrally planned economies just don't work.* It is inevitable that if you vest too much power in the hands of anyone person or idealogical group that the power structure built up will attract people who have no interest in the common good and simply want power. The advantage with a democracy predicated on the separation of powers is that it contains the amount of damage such a person can do.

I agree wholeheartedly with this analysis... only, it seems to me that the president of the USA is becoming a too powerful person, no ? In fact it is one of the reasons why I do have great hopes for the EU: they are an assembly of rather weak states, and no central power is in the making. I hope we keep it that way.

 

[loseyourname]

I agree wholeheartedly with this analysis... only, it seems to me that the president of the USA is becoming a too powerful person, no ? In fact it is one of the reasons why I do have great hopes for the EU: they are an assembly of rather weak states, and no central power is in the making. I hope we keep it that way.

I also don't advocate the imperial presidency that we've moved toward since Nixon. All of Schumer's talk about the need to give the federal government, and especially his Senate, more and more power, is frankly scaring me. I imagine he's a great guy with the best of intentions, but it's a dangerous path. I guess that's one of the reasons I actually like Roberts as a judicial nominee - he is staunchly advocating limited government and separation of powers. (Sorry about the digression - I have no doubt that you don't have the slightest clue who Senator Schumer is, any more than I know the names of French legislators.)

You bring up a good point, though. Even a democracy is not immune to the messiah impulse. Look at what happened here. All the way back in the early 60's, the civil rights movement and social equality programs moved people to advocate consolidation of power in the federal government, enabling the creation of the imperial presidency. This was something done with the best of intentions and resulted in legitimate progress in civil rights legislation. It also resulted in a much stronger federal government that was bound to fall into the hands of someone like Bush eventually.

 

[Smurf]

And don't give me this nonsense about humans being completely blank slates with no innate power drive. The reason we have wars and violence is not capitalism. Someone, I forget who, once calculated the number of years in recorded history during which there is no record of any war taking place, and he came up with 23 years. Chimpanzees even practice primitive ethnic cleansing techniques! This behavior is not in any way unnatural. Violence is found everywhere in nature. We desire what our neighbor has not because capitalism has taught us to, but because it was evolutionarily advantageous for our distant ancestors to desire what their neighbor's had. We're designed to cooperate in small family units and nothing more. Heck, we even see this in the most corrupt of capitalists with cronyism. Heck, we even see this in the most corrupt of capitalists with cronyism. Even they are willing to share the wealth amongst those of their "in-group."

You are right of course, Humans are very much group-oriented creatures. This is why it's so easy to influence a person by exposing them to (and imposing on them) different social groups. You can influence a person to commit suicide, become a better student or eat more hot dogs for lunch merely by creating different social ties for them, and you can predict a person's behavior by the social groups they belong to.

 

[Yonoz]

If people were all "naturally good" then just ANY society would naturally evolve into something warm and cozy. Capitalism would, too. Rich people would be inclined to work for the greater good of all (note that SOME do this !) and use their capital in the same way a good communist state leader would. Shareholders of large companies would want to see only modest returns on their investments, and would require from the CEO of the company that he does a lot of good stuff for the common good, not expecting high individual gains (note that SOME do!). There is no *a priori* reason why capitalism should bring about exploitation of the worker, greed and useless consumption. After all, the people in power - who also have access to the best intellectual trainings and everything they want - would realize that by working for the greater good of society they would do the best thing they can ; if that is the natural behaviour for people, then those in power would be those most free to pursue this, so capitalism would almost naturally evolve in a kind of private communism. If people weren't looking for status and privileges then if there would be ONE category of people that would NOT be brainwashed, evilized by publicity, ..., that can take all the time to pursue intellectual activities, it would be the rich and powerful, and they would instore their natural, nice world view.

Guess what ? This doesn't happen very often. So it must be that most of the rich and powerful (who are, let us not forget, also often those who have been educated in the most ideal ways) do not behave so nicely after all. Then there's no reason to expect that the average person will. Some will. Others won't.

I whole-heartedly agree.
Civil norms, education and cultural heritage are more powerful than any form of government will ever be with regards to the functioning of society.
IMO a moderately capitalist welfare state is the best type of government for today's world.

 

[oldunion]

I agree wholeheartedly with this analysis... only, it seems to me that the president of the USA is becoming a too powerful person, no ? In fact it is one of the reasons why I do have great hopes for the EU: they are an assembly of rather weak states, and no central power is in the making. I hope we keep it that way.

I have read that Britain is launching a campaign to make citizenry more accepting to a nationalized id.


Capitalism is flawed by definition. It assumes that there are an endless supply of resources and the market will grow to infinity, allowing everyone to amass great fortunes. When a nation runs out of resources to exploit, they must go to war to secure their place in the future.

A meritocracy is based on putting people with talent above others without, which would not be a bad thing if it was in the sense of ability to function in a society of equal compensation. However, people who cannot succeed in this system because of say...intelligence, are doomed to be oppressed. Capitalism has the rich who control the means of production, and then the workers who work and are not compensated in full for their work.

But what you see happening now is that the middle class is disappearing, giving way to more upper class and more lower class. This is a pretty dangerous situation and if you were to extrapolate the results, you would find that government would become increasingly oppressive in an effort to gain more funds, but there would be none.

Its simple, i could explain it to a 5 year old. If you had ten pieces of chocolate, you could distribute them to ten workers who put in the work needed to obtain the ten pieces. OR, you could have 2 of these 8 workers who were bosses and thereby demanded 4 pieces of chocolate from the work they managed. Therefore, the 8 workers are now getting 6 pieces. Do work for ten weeks and the capitalists would have 400 pieces, the workers 600. This is just an example though, and in reality the proportions are much more absurd.

There are indications that anarchism was the unbeknownst choice of pre-civilization societies. But the things i said may have existed pre-capitalism, but they have been amplified in the current system, and given our intellectual and reasoning capacities, they shouldn't exist.

Someone has to lose in capitalism, because exploitation is essential to its function.

I find these discussions directly pertinent to talk of anarchism. Anarchism is like the way humans would act without bounds, and government is that bound. It is completely unncecessary. All you need is industry. There isn't an absence of organization or even authority, there is an absence of exploitative authority.

Here is a challenge. Explain to me how a market, graded on how much it benefits all citizens, compares between capitalism and anarchism.

 

[Smurf]

Capitalism is flawed by definition. It assumes that there are an endless supply of resources and the market will grow to infinity, allowing everyone to amass great fortunes. When a nation runs out of resources to exploit, they must go to war to secure their place in the future.

Market economics assumes that resources are scarce and that competition is necessary to determine where, what and when to use.

 

[Smurf]

I find these discussions directly pertinent to talk of anarchism. Anarchism is like the way humans would act without bounds, and government is that bound. It is completely unncecessary. All you need is industry. There isn't an absence of organization or even authority, there is an absence of exploitative authority.

I don't really see government as of creating limits, but I suppose that's true. My general view is that the government, or more specifically, the state creates a hierarchial structure that is, by it's nature, destructive. Or, more accurately, that the state creates destructive forces, usually by way of stratification in hierarchy.

Here is a challenge. Explain to me how a market, graded on how much it benefits all citizens, compares between capitalism and anarchism.

That's a pretty vague question. Can you re-state it? A few things that I don't understand are: What does market economy have to do with anarchism? and how would one grade it?

 

[oldunion]

Market economics assumes that resources are scarce and that competition is necessary to determine where, what and when to use.

In defined market economics, there is no government, just private industry. The tendency for private industry, as you said, is to compete over resources. However, there is no provision that states the next course of action after the resources are gone, so essentially capitalism would self-destruct in a simple example of say one industry making a product that uses gold; when the gold is gone, the industry would be dead in the water (assuming in this example that there is only the gold and the industry in this universe) In anarchsim, the gold would still run out someday, but in contrast this time frame would be drawn out much much longer as the goal of this production was not profit but need.

I don't really see government as of creating limits, but I suppose that's true. My general view is that the government, or more specifically, the state creates a hierarchial structure that is, by it's nature, destructive. Or, more accurately, that the state creates destructive forces, usually by way of stratification in hierarchy.

I agree. The natural tendency is to prioritize the needs of the few in power, which becomes destructive when they don't match the needs of the populous.

 

[Smurf]

In defined market economics, there is no government, just private industry.

No, Market economic theory has a very precise role for government.

 

[Yonoz]

In defined market economics, there is no government, just private industry. The tendency for private industry, as you said, is to compete over resources. However, there is no provision that states the next course of action after the resources are gone, so essentially capitalism would self-destruct in a simple example of say one industry making a product that uses gold; when the gold is gone, the industry would be dead in the water (assuming in this example that there is only the gold and the industry in this universe) In anarchsim, the gold would still run out someday, but in contrast this time frame would be drawn out much much longer as the goal of this production was not profit but need.

 

[oldunion]

Free Market
A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sells are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.

In financial markets, free market stocks are securities that are widely traded and whose prices are not affected by availability.

Call it laissez-faire if you want to be overly technical

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Its simple, i could explain it to a 5 year old. If you had ten pieces of chocolate, you could distribute them to ten workers who put in the work needed to obtain the ten pieces. OR, you could have 2 of these 8 workers who were bosses and thereby demanded 4 pieces of chocolate from the work they managed. Therefore, the 8 workers are now getting 6 pieces. Do work for ten weeks and the capitalists would have 400 pieces, the workers 600. This is just an example though, and in reality the proportions are much more absurd.

You make your explination too simple is the problem. You leave out certain facets of the scenario.
You have five people. They get together, pool their resources, and are able to produce ten pieces of chocolate. They all contribute more or less equally in resources and labour. At the end they divide the product equally each receiving two pieces of chocolate.
New scenario...
You have five people. One person, a chocolate maker, gathers together enough of his own resources in his own kitchen to produce twenty pieces of chocolate. He has invited the four others to assist him in producing the chocolate. All five work together to produce this chocolate. When the project is complete the person who provided the resources, the work area, and the know how gives each of the four others two pieces of the chocolate for having assisted him in his endevour. Perhaps he even gives one of the four an extra piece of chocolate because he came up with a particularly ingenious method of solving a problem that was encountered. Is this unfair? The "Boss" so to speak now has given nine of twenty pieces of chocolate to his "workers" and has kept eleven for himself. Isn't this a bit closer to how work and wage goes in capitalism? The one "Boss" wasn't simply given the title for no specified reason, as in your analogy, he was the "Boss" because of what extra he contributed to the project and because it was his endevour in the first place.

What I think you have a problem with is not capitalism but corpratism. I can see that capitalism can easily lead to corporatism but that isn't necessary to capitalism. There are many people who advocate capitalism but denounce corporatism.

 

[Yonoz]

Free Market
A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sells are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.

In financial markets, free market stocks are securities that are widely traded and whose prices are not affected by availability.

Call it laissez-faire if you want to be overly technical

I know what a free market economy is. Your post simply lacked common sense.

The tendency for private industry, as you said, is to compete over resources. However, there is no provision that states the next course of action after the resources are gone, so essentially capitalism would self-destruct in a simple example of say one industry making a product that uses gold; when the gold is gone, the industry would be dead in the water (assuming in this example that there is only the gold and the industry in this universe) In anarchsim, the gold would still run out someday, but in contrast this time frame would be drawn out much much longer as the goal of this production was not profit but need.

The tendency for private industry is to compete over profit, not resources. It's the exact opposite of what you describe, as when a resource becomes scarce it begins to be financially justifiable to increase the efficiency of its use and to use alternatives. You're assuming that in other sorts of markets industry would have the same incentives to be as efficient as it is in capitalism, while IMHO the opposite case is true. The soil around steel manufacturing plants in the former USSR is so polluted with metals from the wasteful production methods they used, it actually makes financial sense to mine it.
I'm not saying capitalism is much better, I just think you're miscalculating the origins of the problems you're attempting to mend. If too few people care about the environment it doesn't matter what form of government or market society has. However, IMO under capitalism the industry has other incentives to seek more efficient production and alternative resources. These should be complemented by industry regulation legislation, which is much more attainable in a democracy than any other form of government.
Perhaps you should not give up on democracy so easily, and instead focus your efforts on using democracy's mechanisms to advance the matters you care about. I understand your preference for problem solving in the lowest common denominator but IMO that is unattainable. I too would like to wake up some day in a utopia...

 

[Yonoz]

What I think you have a problem with is not capitalism but corpratism. I can see that capitalism can easily lead to corporatism but that isn't necessary to capitalism. There are many people who advocate capitalism but denounce corporatism.

Thanks for clearing that up TSA. I was wondering about that myself.

 

[oldunion]

the statutory ape: firstly i think we can both agree that example was very simple. I agree that it is acceptable for the person who financed the operation to get more than tht workers, but only so uch that he gets the same wage they did + the wage required to recoup his initial capital. He does not need to make money just because he is the boss time and time again. Once the industry is set up to make chocolate, all workers can contribute to the operation equally.

Anarchism is not utopia, not by ideaology or practice. What it is is democracy in its truest form with the impedements inherent in bureaucracy, over meticulated method, and excessive regulation.

I didnt know what corporatism was, but after having researched it just now, i can no that's not what i am referring to. yes it is a problem in this country but it was inevitable. Without more and more legislation and loss of freedom, capitalism has to yield to corporatism. The laws against monopoly don't take into account that two industries could become powerful enough to make the laws pointless, there are world markets, and arbitrary consumer prices.

Rather than maximizing profit on a resource while it is feasible to do so and doing this until it no longer is economical, industry should regulate production such that need was put above profit. Capitalism is illogical

 

[Yonoz]

I agree that it is acceptable for the person who financed the operation to get more than tht workers, but only so uch that he gets the same wage they did + the wage required to recoup his initial capital. He does not need to make money just because he is the boss time and time again. Once the industry is set up to make chocolate, all workers can contribute to the operation equally.

What incentive would he have to start producing then? Where would he get the initial capital from? If everyone earned the same wages, no one could get any workers - there's no way one single person could employ others without risking losing all their money... and no one would risk their money if they can't make any profit!

Anarchism is not utopia, not by ideaology or practice. What it is is democracy in its truest form with the impedements inherent in bureaucracy, over meticulated method, and excessive regulation.

In other words: utopia, in the sense that it is an impractical dream. Call it what you like, it's impossible to implement.

Without more and more legislation and loss of freedom, capitalism has to yield to corporatism.

Which is why regulatory legislation is the way to deal with corporatism. The only problem is deciding where the red line is - when legislation needs to be made to avoid too much power to be collected by one entity or group.

The laws against monopoly don't take into account that two industries could become powerful enough to make the laws pointless, there are world markets, and arbitrary consumer prices.

It is much more feasible to revise these laws than to discard of capitalism altogether.

Rather than maximizing profit on a resource while it is feasible to do so and doing this until it no longer is economical, industry should regulate production such that need was put above profit.

So, should we produce enough chocolate so that everyone gets a whole box weekly or research into alternative, non-fattening nutritional chocolate and have just enough for one tablet each?
This question does not have a right answer - someone has to make a decision, for good or bad. In this example it is chocolate - but what happens when you have to decide on medical services? For the price of a single MRI scanner you can build an entire hospital wing. Do you think anarchy has better mechanisms of making these choices than a capitalist democracy?

Capitalism is illogical

Human behaviour is illogical - that's why capitalism works so well. While you dream up hopeless plans to destroy greed and poverty, capitalism channels them into progress. It's not perfect, but it's quite effective. Could that Pentium chip you want to buy for $40 have been designed and produced in an anarchy?

What we should do is become more involved in our society's legislation. But that's too boring.

 

[oldunion]

What incentive would he have to start producing then? Where would he get the initial capital from? If everyone earned the same wages, no one could get any workers - there's no way one single person could employ others without risking losing all their money... and no one would risk their money if they can't make any profit!

who says it has to be one person. when argentina was in revolution, everyone was starving. an entire group of people went to the factory and started running it, they paid off the debt and split profits evenly, without bosses.

In other words: utopia, in the sense that it is an impractical dream. Call it what you like, it's impossible to implement.

why

Which is why regulatory legislation is the way to deal with corporatism. The only problem is deciding where the red line is - when legislation needs to be made to avoid too much power to be collected by one entity or group.
It is much more feasible to revise these laws than to discard of capitalism altogether.

not really, the laws don't fix anything. reformism is like putting band-aids on broken leg, and then saying "go back out and get em sport."

So, should we produce enough chocolate so that everyone gets a whole box weekly or research into alternative, non-fattening nutritional chocolate and have just enough for one tablet each?
This question does not have a right answer - someone has to make a decision, for good or bad. In this example it is chocolate - but what happens when you have to decide on medical services? For the price of a single MRI scanner you can build an entire hospital wing. Do you think anarchy has better mechanisms of making these choices than a capitalist democracy?

Yes i do. there is an abundance of wealth in the current market, which is why it is ideal to go from capitalism to anarchism/socialism/communism...because industry is already established. In anarchism there would be so much wealth still, but it would be in the peoples hands and not in the pockets of the elite who make the big decisions on what they will and will not research. There could be industry for mri machines, cancer institutes, universities, agriculture, everything that anyone wanted. And people wouldn't be frugle with money, there would be no point to horde money.

Human behaviour is illogical

Yes it is, that's why we shouldn't try to make laws and build a society around the predictability of humans, because there is no such predictability. Order out of chaos.

Could that Pentium chip you want to buy for $40 have been designed and produced in an anarchy?

yes. it wouldn't take a money grubbing company to make quality chips. Anarchism would speed up advancement so much, if focus was diverted from profit, then all there would be is advancement. Technology would improve to improve lifestyle, all of this does not depend on having a rich supporter.

What we should do is become more involved in our society's legislation. But that's too boring.

have fun wasting your time.

 

[Smurf]

In other words: utopia, in the sense that it is an impractical dream. Call it what you like, it's impossible to implement.

You realize that we've been discussing that for like 4 pages now. You're going to come up with something a lot more influencial than an empty statement.

 

[Smurf]

Yes i do. there is an abundance of wealth in the current market, which is why it is ideal to go from capitalism to anarchism/socialism/communism...because industry is already established. In anarchism there would be so much wealth still, but it would be in the peoples hands and not in the pockets of the elite who make the big decisions on what they will and will not research. There could be industry for mri machines, cancer institutes, universities, agriculture, everything that anyone wanted. And people wouldn't be frugle with money, there would be no point to horde money.

That's more of a marxist viewpoint than an anarchist. Marx said that communism would arise out of capitalism in an industrialised state. Anarchism does not make any prediction what it arises (as a dominant ideology) from or that it would come in the form of 'revolution'.

 

[vanesch]

Anarchism would speed up advancement so much, if focus was diverted from profit, then all there would be is advancement.

Explain me how that's going to happen in an anarchy. There's a lot of stuff you need to do in order to make a complicated chip, you know. So we go back to the 50ies and the transistor was just invented, and we switched to anarchy. How did the pentium get here ?

 

[Burnsys]

Explain me how that's going to happen in an anarchy. There's a lot of stuff you need to do in order to make a complicated chip, you know. So we go back to the 50ies and the transistor was just invented, and we switched to anarchy. How did the pentium get here ?

Don't know how anarchy would have developed the pentium. but for example, i have an video card ati 9500, which result to be an ati 9700 with a bios update that make it a 9500, so ati update the bios of a product so they can degrade it performance and sell it at a lower price... that is nonsense to me.. what's the point? they cost the same. i know that wouldn't happen in a no profit oriented economy, if tomorrow intel develops p4 a 4.0 ghz, there is no point the keep making p4 at 3.0.
I don't know if capitalism would improve technological advance... but i know capitalism is a barrier to technology advancement..

 

[vanesch]

I don't know if capitalism would improve technological advance... but i know capitalism is a barrier to technology advancement..

I'm not defending capitalism. I "believe" in capitalism as the default system that *gets* there by itself when we do not do anything else. So it is in a way better than doing some STUPID things. But I don't believe in the capitalist ideology that says that capitalism should be "nurtured" and that everything should be free market. Capitalism (the one you get automatically) is a self-organizing "law of nature" when certain boundary conditions are present (free initiative and property rights), and it leads to good things and to bad things. The example you cite is such a bad thing. In fact, I see most intellectual property rights (and the limitations that follow from it) as a kind of aberration that results from wanting the market to solve problems for which it is not fit. Of course the overall productivity of the entire world and the overall satisfaction of the world would be higher if there were no limits put in place by intellectual property rights (if all software were freely available etc...). The problem that one cannot solve in a "market" way is then to remunerate the creator of the software, the music, the film etc... This means to me that the market is not the right way of handling this kind of situations for instance. This is a typical example where pure capitalism does not succeed in properly remunerating someone who has created something that is for the greater good of all (like a nice song or a great software packet). So the trick is to create artificial scarcity of the good by PREVENTING you to have your copy, so that a market can be instored, because the only way capitalists know how to remunerate someone is by him lifting partly a scarce ressource. But there is no real scarcity of copies of knowledge !

I also believe that the advancement of pure, fundamental science can only be done by public initiative, or things that look like it, like a rich mecenas. Of course most applied research can be done within a capitalist vision, because it will lead,within a few years, to a return on investment.

Nevertheless, it has to be acknowledged too that practical capitalism DOES WORK WELL for many things, too, like toasters, mobile phones, cars and computers.

 

[Yonoz]

who says it has to be one person. when argentina was in revolution, everyone was starving. an entire group of people went to the factory and started running it, they paid off the debt and split profits evenly, without bosses.

That's really nice, but those people were starving. That's a very strong incentive, that doesn't exist when all is well. What happened to that factory afterwards? Did they grow? How did they select the extra workers - there must have been quite a few people wanting to work there? Or did the original workers just become the bosses?

In other words: utopia, in the sense that it is an impractical dream. Call it what you like, it's impossible to implement.

why

Because men always want more power, more wealth. With the lack of a strong central government there will be power struggles and those who emerge with more power will take control.

not really, the laws don't fix anything. reformism is like putting band-aids on broken leg, and then saying "go back out and get em sport."

I guess we've made it so far with a lot of broken legs then.

Yes i do. there is an abundance of wealth in the current market, which is why it is ideal to go from capitalism to anarchism/socialism/communism...

So because there's an abundance of wealth the system should be changed?

because industry is already established.

So you grant this industry has been established under capitalism.

In anarchism there would be so much wealth still, but it would be in the peoples hands and not in the pockets of the elite who make the big decisions on what they will and will not research.

There are stupid and smart people. People join into tribes. People obey charismatic leaders who make promises. That wealth will soon find its way into new centres of power, only there will be no central government to regulate them.

There could be industry for mri machines, cancer institutes, universities, agriculture, everything that anyone wanted.

Everything that anyone wanted? What if I want to research the use of water as an alternative fuel, and my friend wants to research ultra-healing band-aids? Would we both get the same budget? What if I want to conduct an experiment into which chocolate tastes best? Would I be getting the same funds as my friend?

And people wouldn't be frugle with money, there would be no point to horde money.

What makes you think people would be that way in anarchy? Money still buys chocolate in anarchy, doesn't it? I want lots of chocolate!

Yes it is, that's why we shouldn't try to make laws and build a society around the predictability of humans, because there is no such predictability. Order out of chaos.

No laws? We'd all be wondering around naked trying to gain power and spread our seed.
Humans are predictable to an extent. We all seek the same things - shelter, food, company...

yes. it wouldn't take a money grubbing company to make quality chips. Anarchism would speed up advancement so much, if focus was diverted from profit, then all there would be is advancement. Technology would improve to improve lifestyle, all of this does not depend on having a rich supporter.

How would such a chip be created? How would you organise so many people into researching and producing this chip, without a strong leadership, without development and production stalling due to different ideas? How do you keep the rapid rate of advance in chip performance in such a non-competitive society?

What we should do is become more involved in our society's legislation. But that's too boring.

have fun wasting your time.

I know, it's not as fun as talking about absurdities but someone has to do the dirty work so that the critics can have their Pentiums and web servers.

 

[Yonoz]

You realize that we've been discussing that for like 4 pages now. You're going to come up with something a lot more influencial than an empty statement.

Right, sorry.
My impression is that oldunion is expecting humans in an anarchy to be motivated only to make a better society for all. I don't think I need to explain why this is absurd. Even if that were the case, by some magnificent act of re-education or brainwashing, how would they organise? Try getting a team of people with no leader to work together for a week, and watch them fall into silly arguments about the least important details. Suppose they get along well and can work things out by discussing them. Even then there would be so much time spent discussing and voting, work would occupy a small share of the time - and they would be working according to some sort of compromise that everyone has agreed to - which is usually the most wasteful way of achieving something.

 

[Yonoz]

Don't know how anarchy would have developed the pentium. but for example, i have an video card ati 9500, which result to be an ati 9700 with a bios update that make it a 9500, so ati update the bios of a product so they can degrade it performance and sell it at a lower price... that is nonsense to me.. what's the point? they cost the same.

This way they can produce the 9700 and 9500 for less, and you can buy your 9500 for a lower cost.

i know that wouldn't happen in a no profit oriented economy, if tomorrow intel develops p4 a 4.0 ghz, there is no point the keep making p4 at 3.0.

In a non-profit oriented economy, there would probably be no personal computers as we know them today - they are a luxury. They do not directly contribute to society. Even if their educational and communicative values were recognised to justify development, production and distribution there would certainly be no graphic acceleration cards - those are good only for games.

I don't know if capitalism would improve technological advance... but i know capitalism is a barrier to technology advancement..

So is any other way of selecting one goal over another. Capitalist or not, society will always have to chose where to invest its resources.

 

[alexandra]

Evolution brought us here and it can take us past it as well. It will be a long slow process and that to me would indicate that reformism would work best. Revolution is the anarchist/socialist band-aid for lack of patience.

On the other hand, evolution takes a lot of time. And if the scientists (the *real* scientists - ie. not those who claim to be scientists but are in fact apologists for those in power) are correct, it is not guaranteed that we have time: the environment is being destroyed right now. As for anarchism/socialism being a 'band-aid' - how so? It is more of a blood transfusion, I'd say

 

[alexandra]

There is no *a priori* reason why capitalism should bring about exploitation of the worker, greed and useless consumption.

I disagree, vanesch. By definition, capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of workers by capitalists. That is how surplus value is extracted and how profits are made. By definition, for some to be rich others must be poor. Also, useless consumption is the mainstay of capitalism (that's why advertising, and that's why colonialism and imperialism - to secure new markets).

So it must be that most of the rich and powerful (who are, let us not forget, also often those who have been educated in the most ideal ways) do not behave so nicely after all. Then there's no reason to expect that the average person will. Some will. Others won't.

Those who care about the common good in today's society are (perhaps miraculously, given the extreme propaganda to worry only about oneself) more evolved, IMO. The rich may be 'well educated', but in what? In management and economics? In how to increase their profit margins? How many of the rich would study social science units like Sociology, Political Science, etc, do you think? After all, such disciplines are 'worthless' - they can't teach you how to make your money grow...

 

[alexandra]

You make your explination too simple is the problem. You leave out certain facets of the scenario.
You have five people. They get together, pool their resources, and are able to produce ten pieces of chocolate. They all contribute more or less equally in resources and labour. At the end they divide the product equally each receiving two pieces of chocolate.
New scenario...
You have five people. One person, a chocolate maker, gathers together enough of his own resources in his own kitchen to produce twenty pieces of chocolate. He has invited the four others to assist him in producing the chocolate. All five work together to produce this chocolate. When the project is complete the person who provided the resources, the work area, and the know how gives each of the four others two pieces of the chocolate for having assisted him in his endevour. Perhaps he even gives one of the four an extra piece of chocolate because he came up with a particularly ingenious method of solving a problem that was encountered. Is this unfair? The "Boss" so to speak now has given nine of twenty pieces of chocolate to his "workers" and has kept eleven for himself. Isn't this a bit closer to how work and wage goes in capitalism? The one "Boss" wasn't simply given the title for no specified reason, as in your analogy, he was the "Boss" because of what extra he contributed to the project and because it was his endevour in the first place.

And again, you make it too simple too. The reason the four helpers can't make their own chocolate in the first place is because the state (the bourgoies or capitalist state, to use the technical political term) has forcibly deprived the four of the means of making their own chocolate, thus facilitating the primitive accumulation of capital by the lucky owner of the means of production (the one who owns the work area and the other resources). This actually happened historically - for example, in England, with the enclosures acts:

Landlords knew that the peasants would not give up their land voluntarily, so they appealed by petition to Parliament, a difficult and costly adventure at best. The first enclosure act was passed in 1710 but was not enforced until the 1750s. In the ten years between 1750 and 1760, more than 150 acts were passed and between 1800 and 1810, Parliament passed more than 900 acts of enclosure. While enclosure ultimately contributed to an increased agricultural surplus, necessary to feed a population that would double in the 18th century, it also brought disaster to the countryside. Peasant formers were dispossessed of their land and were now forced to find work in the factories which began springing up in towns and cities. Reference: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture17a.html

Capitalism is based on theft.

 

[alexandra]

Which is why regulatory legislation is the way to deal with corporatism. The only problem is deciding where the red line is - when legislation needs to be made to avoid too much power to be collected by one entity or group. It is much more feasible to revise these laws than to discard of capitalism altogether.

One question, Yonoz: who are the actual lawmakers? Aren't they the wealthy? Why on Earth would they pass legislation limiting their own ability to increase their profits? In reality, it is easy to prove that the opposite is the case: the lawmakers are the rich and represent the rich, and the laws they pass (and all laws they are ever likely to pass) benefit them and their masters. There's no way to reform a system such as capitalism, which is inherently corrupt.

While you dream up hopeless plans to destroy greed and poverty, capitalism channels them into progress. It's not perfect, but it's quite effective. Could that Pentium chip you want to buy for $40 have been designed and produced in an anarchy?

I wonder if you've ever heard of the Linux community? You know, that worldwide internet community that works together (for no monetary reward) to create software which is distributed freely, with its source code, and which is better (eg. more stable, more secure) than Microsoft's software. I wonder why they do it? Is it perhaps because they are motivated by interest? You can get more information about Linux here: http://www.linux.org/

 

[Smurf]

I wonder if you've ever heard of the Linux community? You know, that worldwide internet community that works together (for no monetary reward) to create software which is distributed freely, with its source code, and which is better (eg. more stable, more secure) than Microsoft's software. I wonder why they do it? Is it perhaps because they are motivated by interest? You can get more information about Linux here: http://www.linux.org/

Yes, the communication revolution has allowed the most amazing examples of gift economics to spring up. Linux is competeing quite easily with Windows and is also usually regarded as being far superior to windows (just as dduardo) as well. Open Office, designed to compete directly with Microsoft office, is totally free and open source. It's also removed all the bugs that microsoft intentionally puts in it's products to force people to buy the newest versions. The wiki, blog and independant media revolutions have massively reduced the usefullness of large corporate news networks. The war blogs from Iraq are often far more vivid than anything news networks would ever put on TV, as they've established a precedent of "Video-game-izing" war and don't want real graphic stuff any more. They're also obsessed with "Live" coverage, and often completely fail to follow through with many stories, which independant media and war blogs do not.

 

[Smurf]

How many of the rich would study social science units like Sociology, Political Science, etc, do you think? After all, such disciplines are 'worthless' - they can't teach you how to make your money grow...

Political Science would actually be a fairly common I would imagine. I mean, when was the last time you saw a poor politician get any position of real importance and/or power?

 

[Smurf]

So vanesch. I still don't see how you can see such instability in Anarchy. You say that somebody could come along and start a state like structure and then conquer everybody. But to me that's like saying somebody can just come along in a Democracy and proclaim himself king. It just doesn't happen that often.

 

[vanesch]

I disagree, vanesch. By definition, capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of workers by capitalists. That is how surplus value is extracted and how profits are made.

My point was: if we are allowed to think that people want the best for society as a whole, and think first of the interest of all, and only then about their own interest (something that would make communism work very well), then we should take that stance also for the rich in a capitalist society. After all, there's no reason to assume they are "worse" than exactly those same people would be in the hierarchy of a communist society. So if they were going to be nice guys in a communist society (and let's assume for a moment that the SAME people who are rich in a capitalist society, are also those that will be high up in the hierarchical ladder of a communist society), why aren't they the same nice guys in capitalist society ? Why don't they ignore surplus value beyond what's their fair share and do not care about extra profits ?

By definition, for some to be rich others must be poor. Also, useless consumption is the mainstay of capitalism (that's why advertising, and that's why colonialism and imperialism - to secure new markets).Those who care about the common good in today's society are (perhaps miraculously, given the extreme propaganda to worry only about oneself) more evolved, IMO. The rich may be 'well educated', but in what? In management and economics? In how to increase their profit margins? How many of the rich would study social science units like Sociology, Political Science, etc, do you think?

I'd think, many of them. If you're born in a rich family, you can do whatever pleases you. You could maybe first get a degree in management and economics, but nothing stops you to spend a few extra years at university studying other stuff, the time it takes to take over the company from daddy or mommy. I'd think that more rich people than poor people have many degrees.

After all, such disciplines are 'worthless' - they can't teach you how to make your money grow...

Yes, but you're polarized against "the rich". But let us now assume that these are exactly the same, nice people that would be high up in the communist hierarchy. So 1) or they are evil and greedy all the same, and corrupt the communist system (as happened historically) or 2) they are nice people thinking of the wellbeing of society, and then they would act the same in a capitalist as in a communist system ; in the same way then they'd care about the good of society and not so much about their wealth.

 

[Smurf]

My point was: if we are allowed to think that people want the best for society as a whole, and think first of the interest of all, and only then about their own interest (something that would make communism work very well), then we should take that stance also for the rich in a capitalist society. After all, there's no reason to assume they are "worse" than exactly those same people would be in the hierarchy of a communist society. So if they were going to be nice guys in a communist society (and let's assume for a moment that the SAME people who are rich in a capitalist society, are also those that will be high up in the hierarchical ladder of a communist society), why aren't they the same nice guys in capitalist society ? Why don't they ignore surplus value beyond what's their fair share and do not care about extra profits ?

In a communist society 90% of everything is collectively owned (as opposed to privately). So the difference between a "rich" person and a "poor" person would be massively tiny by comparison to today. Communism puts equality as one of the top priorities.

 

[Smurf]

I'd think, many of them. If you're born in a rich family, you can do whatever pleases you. You could maybe first get a degree in management and economics, but nothing stops you to spend a few extra years at university studying other stuff, the time it takes to take over the company from daddy or mommy. I'd think that more rich people than poor people have many degrees.

In that scenario I'd expect the kid to get a BB and then join daddy's company to gain some experience. But let's stop hypothesizing, I'm going to see if I can find some statistics.

 

[Townsend]

In a communist society 90% of everything is collectively owned (as opposed to privately). So the difference between a "rich" person and a "poor" person would be massively tiny by comparison to today. Communism puts equality as one of the top priorities.

Just a quick question Smurf...are you saying this is a good thing?

 

[vanesch]

So vanesch. I still don't see how you can see stability in Anarchy.

Nor do I

You say that somebody could come along and start a state like structure and then conquer everybody. But to me that's like saying somebody can just come along in a Democracy and proclaim himself king. It just doesn't happen that often.

Well, if somebody comes along and proclaims himself king, after making some fun of him (at least, if he ISN'T the king ; there are some democracies who have one :-), he'd be asked, by the police, to gently get out of the way, and if not, he'd face more violent action.
The point is that in an anarchy, you don't have a police, judge, constitutional court etc... In those cases you cited where you HAVE such a structure (even if the judge is the people's assembly and the "police" is just a set of voluntary farmers with guns asked by the people's assembly to "do the thing"), I would hesitate to call it "anarchy", anarchy meaning the absence of any state structure using violence.
I don't see how a society in which certain rules are NOT imposed, eventually by the use of violence, can protect its structure, because there's no means for the occasional nutcase who wants to ruin the party, to stop him.

 

[Smurf]

Nor do I

Shut up!

 

[vanesch]

In a communist society 90% of everything is collectively owned (as opposed to privately). So the difference between a "rich" person and a "poor" person would be massively tiny by comparison to today. Communism puts equality as one of the top priorities.

Yes, but the point was not how rich people would behave in a communist society. The starting point of a communist society is to assume that people want, after all, the best for society. If we're allowed to make that hypothesis about people in a communist society, I don't see why we aren't allowed to make that hypothesis about rich people in a capitalist society.

 

[inha]

Just a quick question Smurf...are you saying this is a good thing?

Of course it's a good thing. To oppress a minority isn't comparable to oppressing a majority. Or is it...

 

[Townsend]

Of course it's a good thing. To oppress a minority isn't comparable to oppressing a majority. Or is it...

I can't figure out what you're saying...

 

[oldunion]

That's really nice, but those people were starving. That's a very strong incentive, that doesn't exist when all is well. What happened to that factory afterwards? Did they grow? How did they select the extra workers - there must have been quite a few people wanting to work there? Or did the original workers just become the bosses?

They were confronted by police after order had been re-established, some of the defiant ones were killed.

Because men always want more power, more wealth. With the lack of a strong central government there will be power struggles and those who emerge with more power will take control.

With a fully educated society, based upon non-partisan or indoctrinating education systems, and a lack of classism, there would be a very small possibility of a power elite taking form. there would be few means to do so, no one would stand for it immediately, and what would be their means for domination? If money was de-glamourized, and if the populous was trained in military, if they knew their rights as humans, if society was based on collective good, i don't see a power elite being able to take form.

And it is arguable that men want power, etc etc with social patterns. I won't get into this because it could be science or it could be societal cause.

So because there's an abundance of wealth the system should be changed? So you grant this industry has been established under capitalism.

yes. Industry has been established, its time to make it beneficial to all. This is part of marxist philosophy. Once there is industry, it can then be made public property and beneficial to the collective good.

There are stupid and smart people. People join into tribes. People obey charismatic leaders who make promises. That wealth will soon find its way into new centres of power, only there will be no central government to regulate them.

the central government is in close ties with the power elite, in fact i don't see a possibility of defining the central government or power elite, without exclusive interdependency- if not that a definite synergism exists and serves to benefit only those parties involved not its supporters, the people.

Everything that anyone wanted? What if I want to research the use of water as an alternative fuel, and my friend wants to research ultra-healing band-aids? Would we both get the same budget? What if I want to conduct an experiment into which chocolate tastes best? Would I be getting the same funds as my friend?
What makes you think people would be that way in anarchy? Money still buys chocolate in anarchy, doesn't it? I want lots of chocolate!

Let me make it clear that I am not the deity of modern anarchism, i have not read tons on anarchism either. I know more about communism, but anarchism has interested me as of late. However, i do know one thing Mao said which i will repeat because of its pertinence here. He said that a struggle will develop between the intellectual and the worker, a struggle to keep them in balance with each other. He made intellectuals work, and workers learn about being intellectuals. So i don't have all the answers on how anarchism works, but it is the little things that must exist for the society to debate, and learn from. this is progression. Problems are natural, when you start working a society around a system that does not have problems, that's when you truly get them.

But your point on wanting lots of chocolate; why not?

No laws? We'd all be wondering around naked trying to gain power and spread our seed.

suddenly without laws, you submit yourself to an utter lack of dignity. i wouldn't be doing that. but interesting you say so

Humans are predictable to an extent. We all seek the same things - shelter, food, company...

i agree, these are basic needs and predictability could be sprung off of them. but power structures present different criteria for studying behavior, and predictability could be variable.

How would such a chip be created? How would you organise so many people into researching and producing this chip, without a strong leadership, without development and production stalling due to different ideas? How do you keep the rapid rate of advance in chip performance in such a non-competitive society?

Ill point you to the post on linux, very good example. There are enough computers for everyone in the usa to have one, who knows how many could be given to everyone else in the world. This concept is a product of capitalism though.

Think of the tribal hunter. He spends more time sharpening his flint tip than would be required to just sharpening the stick. He does this because it is a more efficient way of producing a killing weapon, so he can eat.

Similarly, men would strive to make more efficient computer devices to transmit intellectual property faster, to share information more widely, to do anything more efficiently that a computer is used for. You may deduce that certain things, which go far beyond the boundaries of efficiancy would disappear. things such as ferraris, i think toyota got the job done right, and now the prius and hybrid cars will prove to be more efficient.

the wooden to mechanical pencil. these things would have happened without money as their sole motivation.

 

[Yonoz]

One question, Yonoz: who are the actual lawmakers?

Elected officials.

Aren't they the wealthy?

Not necessarily. Obviously it's harder for a poor person to gain political power than a rich one, but this is not limited to democracy - if anything, it is technically easier in democracy than other forms of government. IMO, cronyism and neputism - major causes of the inequality in class representation in governing bodies - have a much stronger foothold in other forms of government. In democracy, it's up to the legal system and the general public (the electorate) to counter this. The other major cause I see for this gap is the resemblance between the business arena to its political equivalent. It's not a coincidence that the same personality traits that contribute to a person's financial success also contribute to their chance of being elected - and this is, IMO, the main reason why the political and business worlds converge all too often. A wise electorate should seek to minimize this, as it allows concentrations of power.

Why on Earth would they pass legislation limiting their own ability to increase their profits? In reality, it is easy to prove that the opposite is the case: the lawmakers are the rich and represent the rich, and the laws they pass (and all laws they are ever likely to pass) benefit them and their masters.

If the electorate truly demanded this of their candidates, there would be a fairer class representation and even the wealthier officials would find it politicaly beneficial to pass such laws. Unfortunately, few members of the electorate are as interested in politics as they should.

There's no way to reform a system such as capitalism, which is inherently corrupt.

I disagree:
1) It is possible to reform capitalism. Proper legislation will only be passed if politicians are swayed by public opinion. To achieve this, the public needs to be more involved in politics. It is often the case that this public finds other things more interesting - the real challenge is to make the public interested. This is the problem I have no real solution for - but do not interpret this as admission of defeat - I think this problem will plague other forms of government. IMO Democracy doesn't handle this problem well, but it does handle it better than its alternatives.
2) Corruption plagues all forms of government. Again, I argue democracy has the best mechanisms to fight it, under today's circumstances.

I wonder if you've ever heard of the Linux community? You know, that worldwide internet community that works together (for no monetary reward) to create software which is distributed freely, with its source code, and which is better (eg. more stable, more secure) than Microsoft's software. I wonder why they do it? Is it perhaps because they are motivated by interest? You can get more information about Linux here: http://www.linux.org/

1) This is a unique group of individuals - they do not represent the general public. For every linux contributor, there are probably quite a few individuals who choose to spend their time in a less contributing, much more idle, fashion - such as watching television, playing video games or arguing the pros and cons of capitalism.
2) I'm quite sure you will find the overwhelming majority of Linux developers reside in capitalist countries. Perhaps it is capitalism that enabled these individuals to support themselves so easily so that they have enough worry-less spare time to contribute freely to others?

 

[Yonoz]

The rich may be 'well educated', but in what? In management and economics? In how to increase their profit margins? How many of the rich would study social science units like Sociology, Political Science, etc, do you think? After all, such disciplines are 'worthless' - they can't teach you how to make your money grow...

IMO the problem you are describing has nothing to do with capitalism - it is human behaviour. The same effects will be felt in other forms of government. The powerful will always seek, and have better ways, to become more powerful, be it financially or politically.