> All that capitalism means is that you have the right to own property and the
> right to do what you want with what's yours (within certain guidelines.)
> What actually occurs depends on people's choices. You can choose not to
> exploit others. You can choose to have social responsibility. You can
> choose to boycott companies that do exploit people.Well, you certainly can 'choose' to do these things in a capitalist society, but how many people do ? A tiny minority. And why's that ? Because the fundamental basis of capitalism is 'self' rather than 'others' - the system does not recognise any value in _not_ exploiting others, whereas there is plenty to be gained personally when you _do_ exploit others. Of course, this system completely ignores the fact that no-one can personally benefit in the long term by exploiting others (long term ? what's that ?). For example, if you sack (sorry, downsize) half your workforce, who is going to buy your products ? If you pump chemicals into rivers used for drinking water, eventually you will find out that you, too, need clean water or else you will die.
Sure, if there really was genuine 'choice' in a capitalist system, then things would be a lot better (although the fundamental problem outlined above would still exist). But sadly, whilst publicly championing 'choice' as one of the cornerstones of a capitalist nitvana, governments and (large) companies do everything they can to restrict choice where it does not suit them, their votes or their profits. They do this mainly by restricting information, for example the sorry state of food labelling in the UK, where consumers are denied the information necessary to make their choice in a number of key areas, leaving the labelling to 'voluntary' agreements by manufacturers who have everything to gain by flouting them. Sometimes, the suppression of choice is more blatant, such as the US Government and Monsanto chemical corporation clubbing together to mix genetically-altered soya beans with natural ones so that they are difficult and costly to separate (although again, not impossible as Monsanto would have you believe).
> I support the idea of co-operatives too. But I think they should be
> voluntary. In your society, would workers be allowed to sell shares in
> their collectives if they want to provide themselves with more security and
> opportunity? What would you do with people who want to trade with people on
> their own terms? If you would not use coercion, you are advocating a free
> market capitalist economy where the people are informed and active.
As mentioned above, 'voluntary' systems are often ignored in a system where only personal gain counts. I'm certainly not in favour of coercion in the physical sense, but one of the main reasons we elect a government (whether national or local) is to make laws to promote those issues that we as a society feel are important, and restrict those freedoms that we feel should be restricted. _Within_ those laws, then fine, people should be allowed to do whatever they want, though again there should be a genuine flow of information to allow them make choices.
None.
