Coercive Capitalism vs. Voluntary Socialism

What works better?

 

Capitalists use the military to claim all the natural resources and without access to those resources, the person dies.

Under most forms of socialism that I'm aware of, there's a presumption that every person is entitled to access to resources.

The same thing that keeps people from doing most things under capitalism: lack of start-up funds.

 

A mixed economy.

Considering that no where on Earth does a free market exist, capitalism is simply impossible.

 

The free market and capitalism are not synonymous with one another.

 

Capitalism in the absence of a free market becomes corporatism, fascism, or cronyism.

 

Fascism encompasses elements beyond Capitalism. Henceforth, Capitalism may not become Fascism, but may be part of it. Cronyism exists within the confines of Capitalism. There is no economic system that is devoid of crony activity. Corporatism is a broad sociological term that expands beyond economic philosophy. Therefore, Capitalism may be corporatist, but it may not become Corporatism. Furthermore, Capitalism encompasses many historical or existent economic systems, and about ten variants. The better way to describing a capitalist economic system without the free market is that it is more authoritarian.

 

Obviously you dont even understand what capitalism is.

 

That's possible. It's also possible, you must admit, that you're the one doesn't understand what capitalism is.

Let me ask you this -- if capitalism is really voluntary, why is it that capitalism always comes to a country after we bomb the crap out of them first?

 

Well, many of those agrarian nations had their own, very small, free market and barter trade economies and we bombed them to bring in globalist corporatism and crony capitalism.

 

What is human nature? Why is against human nature? Humans are solidary, believe in mutual aid, is the norm on us. Also we are able to adapt to many things, and from children we are mentalized to believe that all that is against our nature, that we must be predators of everything, that we are egotists... That is what we've been taught, our nature is much more complex. And depends of the values of the human nature you exploit.

 

"I don't know... You don't see them (*)(*)(*)(*)ing each other over for a god(*)(*)(*)(*) percentage." -Ripley from Aliens

 

Care to name such a country.

 

We are predators. We're not herd animals. Some predators can work in small groups like wolf packs or you can see great apes living together, but there is always friction due to the basic instinct to food hoard.

I think that humans can live together in small groups, but giant urban centers have shown us that the larger the group, the bigger the problems. Small towns, agrarian lifestyles, enough food that people are willing to share...this works best.

 

There is no avenue for someone who does not participate in capitalism to access resources, unless you're lucky enough to find a piece of land no one owns that you can hunt and access clean water from. But even then, someone will eventually buy that land, and since you do not participate in capitalism, it ceases to become yours.

You can't live without access to resources.

No, because everyone has a right to access resources regardless of their economics.

Because to do it they must do it within the existing capitalist framework.

 

It's funny that Questerr offers the Kibbutzim as an example of successful communism. Webrockk's post establishes the folly of that claim, and I'll add a bit:

The failure of the Kibbutzism is exactly why the word "kibbutz" means "to butt in".

 

You are not describing libertarian socialism.

Well, anything can be made to fail if you attach arbitrary numbers to it. Look at capitalism, how it begins to fail the larger the nation gets.

Small communities is what would be formed under libertarian socialism.

 

Questerr was referring to the claim that people would never form large cooperative communities, not that those communities would specifically be communist.

 

But the socialist enterprise would still be forced to operate within a capitalist framework.

Except the whole point of voluntary socialism is that if they do not wish to participate, they can form their own capitalist communities where they won't have to operate within the socialist framework.

Equality is in important things, not in the trivial issues of capitalists.

 

And you should also be allowed to choose that freely, without being forced to choose something else!

 

How is libertarian socialism a restriction on the freedom of exchange?

 

But not of each other, at least not in the past.

 

And you could leave, freely.

Because that's how things once were, even in this country? Colonial and post-colonial America was 100% everybody makes and everybody takes. This would be no different.

No, it's only against corrupted capitalist nature.

 

If I were to prescribe to a variant of socialism, it would be libertarian market socialism. The element of libertarianism emphasizes a voluntary society concerned with the minimization of coercion, hierarchy, and government, and maximization of the rights and freedoms of the individual. A market system provides an effective medium of denominated profit, free price system, and governance based upon supply and demand, which drives progress and innovation. Lastly, the socialist element establishes social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production. The three together, in my opinion produce a potent potion tough to resist drinking.

 

So what's the holdup?

 

Only thanks to what you would call socialist activists.