This seems a tricky combination.
Could you describe how it would be achieved & how it would function?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
One Problem with Capitalism?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Could you describe how it would be achieved & how it would function?
Could you describe the political & economic structure.
I ask because people typically reject as examples countries which come to mind.
That clarifies it perfectly.
(I'd take it over communism, btw.)
How is it a "tricky combination"? It's just voluntary associations based on cooperation. There would be no money, no state and it would be based on direct democracy. Housing would be free and so would education at all levels.
If you scroll down on this article, you can see some examples on how aspects of this theory are already implemented in unexpected ways in our lives: Anarchist communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for how it could come about, there's various ways. It could come about by revolutionary means, gradual development starting on the small scale and spreading from there or maybe even developing from the political process under a social democratic government. There's no set way for how it could come about. With how technology is putting people out of work because machines are more efficient, we're going to have to rethink the whole concept of work, anyway.
Last edited:
I find it a tricky combination because without a strong central government to prevent it, capitalism would rear its ugly head all over the place. Banks would issue money, people would employ each other, people would buy from each other, & we'd be back where we started....sort of. As an anarchist sympathizer (minarchist), I see so many people who either lust for power over others, or they want someone to exercise power over them. Anarchy looks politically unstable on the scale of an entire country. I don't wanna kill your dream though...just talk'n. (I know my dream of a libertarian society won't happen either.)
I'm aware of the potential issues, due to socialization under a capitalistic system. But such a concept isn't exactly opposed to human nature. The economy of anarcho-communism is a gift economy, which has been practiced by some indigenous peoples for centuries. Anarcho-communism is decentralized and relies on locality, so it can start in just a few communities or states. It's a great option for inner-city poor and rural people since we're shut out from the luxuries of capitalism as it is. It's community power above all.
I do see it on small scales. At least it can be done under a capitalist structure.
Yes, it's possible. It's a non-Marxist theory of communism, so it doesn't rely on Marx's theories of having to through phases until you reach true global communism. It's more practical. It says that we have it right here and right now if we want. There have been large anarcho-communist societies, such as the ones established by the Spanish Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War. But those didn't last long because they were in a state of war against the fascists.
Are you actively involved in establishing any such structure?
I'm not really involved in much of anything right now because I'm functionally disabled and socially isolated. I hope that will change in the future.
When ready, if you do get involved, keep us posted.
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
I do basically agree with the sentiment of the position quoted but i tend to take it one step further.
That it is unfortunate that capitalism peddles a ruthless game, one which does favour more aggressive and extroverted traits, leaving many good, profound and authentic people by the wayside with very little, who dont fit that sort of mould.
But the real tragedy is the way capitalism has re-shaped our very culture, our perspective; the way we value things and define success. The way that making this very criticism of capitalism is itself a capitalist way of analysis, defining the winners are those who attain power, wealth and luxury and the losers or casualties as those who do not.
There is some deep irony in pointing out capitalisms failings by showing what people to whom it doesnt work well miss out on in terms of capitalistic prosperity. That they arent rewarded sufficiently. Perhaps in that regard we are all casualties of perspective.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
No, capitalism won't wipe out poverty. But, it sure as hell isn't the root cause of povery either.
These debates always circle back to wealth redistribution without examining the power that the American people have over our own economy.
Capitalism isn't immoral and unethical in and of itself by any means.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
What does this have to do with anything I posted? You've confused me.
Legit capitalism has never been fully enforced.
It also makes no sense why capitalism is always associated with pollution, as if capitalism is simply a corporate/rich-centered economical philosophy. It really isn't, that comes from years of misinterpretation mutating into ignorant propaganda.
I asked people before (not sure if it was on this forum or another) what they pictured in their head when they heard the term capitalism. A lot of them said things related to huge corporation buildings, companies owning companies, and rich men in suits.
When I hear the term capitalism, I think of cities being similar to a large flea market, and outside of it would be farmlands/small businesses spread out on a country-side. This is because, what I interpret freemarket to be like, businesses would be privately owned and thus smaller, less expensive, and more jobs (since either you'd make a business yourself with your own feats, help a friend or relative with their business, etc)
Alceste
Vagabond
I apparently can't frubal you any more, but this is bang on.
So a system that relies on social stratification to exist isn't the root of poverty in our times? It at the very least is maintaining it by producing a society of "winners" and "losers", where the "winners" and their families are privileged over everyone else.
Americans have no power over the economy. Are you serious? We don't even have power over our own government!
I must admit that I find it a delicious irony that I, as a Satanist, am anti-capitalist but you, as a Christian, are defending capitalism as being somehow moral and ethical.
Last edited:
Yes. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. As to "why," I can only hold up the example of 20th Century history.