: After reading a great number of posts, I have come to the conclusion that very few contributors to this board, if any, state the positive side of their chosen financial orientation. Much time is spent "proving" how good one side is by ridiculing minute facets of the other side.This is why it's refreshing to read things such as Claire's post. I've also produced some answers here and there where I display some positive steps that can be taken to create a better world for all.
: I believe I have an open mind. Am I a capitalist because I don't believe in social or common societies? I think not. Am I republican because I don't like Billy Clinton? Again, I think not.
First of all, a lot of confusion has been spread by this idea that "communism" specifies a society with a lot of government welfare. Actually, societies with a lot of government welfare are capitalist "mixed societies." In all capitalist societies, some of the functions of each society are entrusted to the government. In some societies, Sweden for instance, the government is entrusted with more of the economy in order to provide more benefits for its citizens. Sweden, however, is still a capitalist society, despite this notion of "Swedish socialism" that is floated about now and then. In other societies, Chile for instance, the government guarantees a society where the rich are allowed to profit off the labor of the workers through private enterprise. Chile is still, however, a mixed economy, for government intervention (most notably Augusto Pinochet's military takeover of Chile, a move financed by the CIA and ITT corporation in 1974, with a little help by Henry Kissinger) is still necessary to keep the ship of private enterprise afloat there.
The debate over what sort of mixed economy is best for a society is an important debate, one that deserves to take place here. However, such a debate is NOT a debate between capitalism and possible alternatives.
: The purpose of this board, by definition, is to debate the subject of capitalism vs. any other form of society. So, the first task is to to state your side (make your case), then some else will make their case. Then each side gets to rebut the other. Then its over.
Well, it doesn't have to be just "Capitalism vs. The Alternatives," and it can be "Capitalism AND The Alternatives." One of the most valid premises of the writings of Karl Marx is his idea of historical materialism. In a nutshell, historical materialism is the notion that different social systems are the product of different orientations to the material world. The great empires of antiquity, and the feudal systems of the 7th through 15th centuries C.E., for instance, were representative of large-scale and small-scale agricultural societies, respectively. Global capitalism, according to the theory of historical materialism, is representative of industrial society.
Note that, in putting forth Marx's idea of historical materialism, I am saying nothing about communism. Marx appears to have believed, IMHO, that capitalist society would produce more and more wealth as it evolved, while excluding the working people from almost all of it, to the point where the workers would take over the factories and institute communist society, worldwide. Money and governments would be abolished entirely, and wealth would be created "from each according to his abilities" and distributed "to each according to his needs." Communism, after all, comes from a root Latin word meaning "sharing."
Now, on its face, Marx's notion of industrial communism is not a bad idea. At least I can say that attacks on Marx's idealism haven't been very convincing. But various thinkers on the subject (I will cite only those who take Marx seriously) have pointed out some reasons why Marx's utopian vision may never occur. Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, in their book DIALECTIC OF ENLIGHTENMENT, argued that capitalism is ever increasingly successful in getting the workers of the world to love their own oppression by the capitalist system. Therefore, no alternatives to capitalism are possible because capitalism is loved most by those who are being ripped off under its rule. Jurgen Habermas, in part 2 of his giant THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION, argues that capitalist industrial systems are too complex, and that people working within these systems need money and power to make important social and material decisions.
: This board has turned into a mirror of the various media, using sound bytes and out of context quotations. I would like to see proponents lay out the good points (along with the bad points) of their preferred societal system.
The idea of an alternative to capitalism that I can most appreciate is the idea of the co-operative. Now in today's global capitalist society, the grid of global transportation and telecommunications has become so sophisticated that it seems extremely easy to just "plug into" global capitalism. Certainly that's the choice I've made, too, to a certain extent.
Now, the original logic used by Marx and (especially) Engels was that communism was going to be an outgrowth of the co-operative and commune movements, that communism was to be envisioned as a global co-operative of co-operatives. The young Friedrich Engels wrote a lot of stuff in the 1840s advertising the merits of communes such as New Harmony, which then existed in the southwest corner of Indiana.
What I can envision, is that co-operatives and communes may again be seen as useful forms of social organization, as capitalism makes it more and more likely that the future will have to confront eco-disasters , from El Nino to global warming to the disappearance of the stratospheric ozone layer to the coming problems with global oil production to the disappearance of the rainforests, overpopulation, famine, and plague being not far behind.
I don't, however, think that future regimes of post-capitalism will be statist, global, or even regional -- I rather suspect that what one will see in the future will be small autonomous anarchist communes that attempt to preserve tiny havens of sanity in a world that will be one constantly swirling eco-disaster. The advantage of such systems will be that they will revolve not around trade and ripoff, as capitalism does, but rather around community loyalty. Individuals will achieve, invent, and "get ahead" for the sake of their immediate friends and neighbors, who will do the same for them.
But note that I am not arguing such a system as a possibility for the global capitalist present, but rather for a possible, and increasingly likely, future.
None.
