Coercive Capitalism vs. Voluntary Socialism

Sounds good. I think. Any working models?

 

Capitalism vs. socialism is so last century. There is a reason why there is no succesfull purely socialist or capitalist country, and all the best economies (either by wealth or growth rate) are invariably mixed economies with little correlation to the capitalist-socialist dichotomy. Something else is important than these two empty buzzwords, IMHO.

 

I do not see the construction of society in black and white ideology. The organization of human civilization, in my opinion, should be along a non-linear directional path emphasizing a broad social contract, feasibility, productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, innovation, and diversity/pluralism.

 

America? Okay, not so much bombs, but there were explosions and a lot of violence in the process of bringing capitalism to America.

Come to think of it, also a lot of violence in keeping capitalism in America.

 

Public roads and schools isn't the absence of capitalism.

 

Oooook, so what's the hold up?

 

No, we simply came here and brought capitalism with us.

 

People have lived under communism for most of human history, capitalism is extremely unstable and is clearly already failing.

 

What are you implying by the question? It seems you are asking why libertarian market socialism is not in practice. If that is the case, the answer should be obvious: capitalism, or to put it better, democratic capitalism is an institutionalized system that provides ample benefits beyond any other way of organizing society throughout history. Does this mean conceptions of a different society are better? No. The empirical evidence simply shows that the way our society runs has produced greater benefits than other systems.

 

There are no true "mixed economies" existing today, and even if we achieved one capitalists would use their remaining wealth and influence to destroy it before it got too far.

 

Capitalism naturally evolves into corporatism because of increasing concentration of wealth and power. We live in the era of late capitalism, and we can't go back without wide scale destruction of wealth.

 

In a system where everyone has equal access to land and resources one would see the quick depletion of those resources. Humans are greedy SOBs. You would see many probably moving in small groups for safety go from place to place stripping it of its resources and moving on because they can. Ownership of land has a strange way of conserving it, its not always the case but people are more likely to protect land that they view as theirs.

Thievery works, thats what governments and the fed do. Granted they make the laws so what they do isn't considered thievery by many.

I don't think that would turn out for the best, as discussed above.

It seems a little bit of capitalism will always exist. Ownership of property (not just land). Even among animals they have their territories and drive others out, by marking it or either beating ass.

 

Human history is rife with examples of humans beating the crap out of other humans to take their resources. The common practice through most of mans existence on this earth has been beat those with stuff you want, take many of the beaten as slaves confiscate whatever you can carry, burn the rest. Aztecs would probably be the best example of apex predators though as their human sacrifices would probably fall under your definition of "each other"

 

Is that a "voluntary" destruction of wealth?

 

The smallest cooperative "communities" on earth have a better than 50% failure rate.

 

Would seem that compared to every other economic system attempted on this earth, capitalism is thriving and stable

 

So then why do you have such a hard time resisting the allure of socialism? Just a fondness of trying new things?

 

Or is the only system that the powerful ones have tolerated, and they've destroyed any other intent of a new system before that system become too much mainstream and too difficult to stop.

 

You obvious believe everything you read. Have you ever been to Cuba? Take a trip their first before you make another post.

 

As do capitalist nations, so what the hell is your point?

 

Huh?
I think you misread me, my point is that capitalism has developed to the point that to get back the the "glory days" of Ford-style capitalism you'd have to destroy and devalue wealth to make more "room to grow".

 

Are you joking?
You think a system as new as capitalism is stable and thriving when it's already gone through so many crises in such a short time? You think that compared to two million years of stable, stateless, classless society that capitalism is stable and thriving?

 

Marriage... voluntary, two person, collective ownership cooperatives.... dissolve about 50% of the time.

 

Capitalism as a freedom of exchange exists only in text books. It does not exist in the real world where humans are tyring to gain an unfair advantage.
That is why gov't is needed to regulate unfair practices.

 

well put

and let's be real, when anarchist capitalists talk about 'freedom' they are mainly talking about the freedoms of the rich. Under a capitalist anarchist state, the rich enlsave the poor and lower middle class, step on them, exploit them.